Floor Statements

Offered By Mr. Goodlatte

Amendment No. 13: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, the diversity within our Nation's postsecondary education system is the envy of the world. Colleges and universities across the United States of America are preparing individuals to become doctors, teachers, scientists, counselors, entrepreneurs, artists, musicians, and hundreds of other occupations. While each student chooses a specific field of study, there is no doubt that postsecondary education has many benefits outside of training in a specified field. Institutions are cultivating individuals who are civically engaged and who are going into public service, the military, ministry, non-profit work, or are staying at home to care for family. We cannot measure the benefits associated with these types of life-long lessons, and

yet that is what the Administration's proposed Postsecondary Institutions Ratings System will attempt to do.

On December 17, 2013 the Department of Education solicited in the Federal Register a Request for Information on the Postsecondary Institution Ratings System (PIRS), suggesting that the Federal Government knows better than students and their families what makes a college or university valuable and appropriate for each individual. A rating system, administered by the Federal Government and potentially tied to Federal student aid, will drive postsecondary institutions to standardization, thereby decreasing choice, diversity, and innovation.

I rise today in opposition to this proposal and instead stand in support of students and their families--they know best what will meet their educational needs. The House Resolution I offered today with my friend, Congressman Capuano, strongly supports the quality and value of diversity in our higher education system and strongly disagrees with the Administration's proposal to rate our Nation's colleges and universities.

It is true that all taxpayer dollars, including those spent on Federal student aid, should be spent efficiently; however, it is also important that we trust students' free choices and allow for postsecondary institutions to be evaluated, not only by their accreditation and Federal eligibility for federal aid, but also by the free market choices of the students they are competing for.

Our Nation's colleges and universities are as diverse as our students. Historically black colleges, women's colleges, faith-based colleges, research universities, career training schools, work colleges, land grant universities, institutes for the arts, and other specialized institutions all offer a world of opportunity and innovation in postsecondary education. We must protect this American tradition and reject any proposal that will intentionally, or unintentionally, destroy it.

Mr. Speaker, I, along with House Judiciary Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan and former Representative Melvin Watt of North Carolina would like to thank Stephanie Y. Moore for twelve years of service to the House of Representatives. Nine of those years were spent as a dedicated counsel to the Judiciary Committee under four Chairmen, including myself and Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, John Conyers, Jr. and Lamar Smith of Texas. She also served three years as General Counsel to Representative George Miller of California and the House Education and Labor Committee.

A native of Birmingham, Alabama, Stephanie graduated with high honors from Oberlin College and went on to distinguish herself at Harvard Law School where she became only the second Black woman in the school's history to earn an invitation to become an editor of the venerable Harvard Law Review. After graduation, she clerked for the late Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr. on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and practiced law with the Center for Constitutional Rights. Immediately prior to joining the Judiciary Committee as Chief Counsel to Ranking Member Watt, Stephanie worked in the Administration of President Bill Clinton as General Counsel to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and Special Counsel at the U.S. Department of Education. She also served on the faculties of the District of Columbia School of Law and the Howard University Law School.

Stephanie joined the Judiciary Committee during the August 2001 recess and sat as counsel on her first hearing on the morning of September 11. In the aftermath of the terrible terrorist attacks on that day, Stephanie served as the principal Democratic staff negotiator on measures to ensure the privacy and civil liberties of the American public in a post 9/11 world.

Throughout her tenure, Stephanie consistently identified and focused on the fundamental policies implicated by legislative proposals. During her career with the Judiciary Committee, she exhibited a wide range of interests and considerable versatility in handling subjects as complex and diverse as administrative law, tax policy, privacy and civil liberties, antitrust, online commerce and piracy, trade and intellectual property. Stephanie's tenacity, passion and no-nonsense approach won her both admirers and critics. Her intellect and determination were instrumental in committee efforts to ensure that robust standards were established to fairly compensate the victims of the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in 2010 and again the following year as she sought to balance the interests of multiple stakeholders during the drafting of and debates on the Stop Online Piracy Act. Stephanie's ability to manage and contribute to a range of significant public policy initiatives was evident in the key role she played as the lead Democratic staffer on the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 and during passage of landmark, bipartisan legislation that included the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 and the Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act of 2012.

Mr. Speaker, we applaud Stephanie's tireless, principled and loyal public service to the U.S. House of Representatives and the American people and wish her every success in her future endeavors.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I join him in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, the purpose of this amendment ostensibly is to make it easier to import seeds for the purpose of research with regard to growing or cultivating industrial hemp, and for that reason the amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate. Current law imposes no impediment to legitimate research on industrial hemp being carried out in accordance with section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014.

Under current law, institutions of higher education and State Departments of Agriculture may import the seeds needed to conduct research authorized by section 7606 of the Agricultural Act.

Parliamentary Inquiries

I do not. I don't have enough time, I don't believe, to finish my remarks.

Such institutions of higher education or State departments of agriculture simply need to first become registered with the DEA as an importer or as a researcher and, second, obtain an import permit authorizing the shipment of seeds.

The process is not burdensome. Within the last 10 days, the DEA registered two State departments of agriculture in Colorado and Kentucky to import industrial hemp seeds and issued an import permit to the Kentucky department of agriculture.

I do not yield, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment would require the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to choose between ignoring existing law or barring all imports of seeds. Removing DEA from the registration and permit process without changing existing law would eliminate the only lawful means of importing Cannabis seeds for industrial hemp cultivation pursuant to section 7606.

To protect our Nation from the importation of potentially dangerous materials, our customs laws have always required the importer to demonstrate before the materials enter this country that the materials may lawfully be imported. In carrying out this function, the CBP consults with the appropriate government agencies, including the Department of Justice and the DEA. By cutting the DOJ and DEA out of this process, the amendment creates uncertainty and could potentially be construed to require CBP to allow any shipment by anyone to enter the U.S. as long as the shipper claims the goods are industrial hemp seeds. Since there is no way to tell just from looking at a bag of seeds whether they will actually yield Cannabis plants that fall within the TAT limits of section 7606, CPB, DOJ, and DEA consultation is important.

Requiring CBP to accept bare representations from anyone claiming to be a legitimate importer exposes the possibility of others importing any item under the guise of industrial hemp. The existing permit and registration process provides some protection against that risk. For that reason, I would join in opposing the amendment.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, I have reservations about this that are very significant. I would oppose this amendment very strongly in its current form.

All private prison contracts provide for a guaranteed population. Without this, the contractors would operate at a significant risk which could only be addressed by significantly raising their annual operating cost, and also such language would adversely impact competition. Would contractors be willing to propose a 1,000 bed facility without

guaranteed minimums for private prison services? Lack of competition would likely result in higher costs.

But here is the thing. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has both prisons operated by the government and prisons that they privately contract for. So there is never an instance where they are going to house somebody just for the purpose of meeting the obligations here. If the prison population declines and they have a contractual obligation to house them in the private prison, they will reduce the population in the government-operated facility.

The Bureau of Prisons certainly wants to retain the ability to strategically prepare and issue solicitations which allow for guaranteed population minimums.

Also, with regard to children, there are so few children in the Federal prison population because we don't want to put them in a Federal-operated prison with adults, we usually contract out for the incarceration of juveniles. To pass this amendment would make that increasingly more difficult.

First of all, let me say that it would not achieve the purpose of having a competitive bid process for the operation of prisons. Because if you would accept that premise you would have the Federal Government offering contracts; then if they are not utilizing those contracts the taxpayers are going to suffer the loss as a result of that.

As long as the Federal Government, which operates a very large prison system, has both publicly-run facilities and privately contracts you are not going to have the problem that the gentleman's amendment is concerned about addressing, and that is somehow people being incarcerated simply for the purpose of meeting the contractual obligations.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. That is why, last year, we launched an overcriminalization of Federal law task force. We are looking at prison overpopulation and who is getting sentenced and what kind of alternative sentencing should be looked at and what kind of attention should be given to prisoners when they are in prison, so that we reduce the recidivism rate, which also can reduce the prison population.

As to one of the things I think we should do, there are a number of States that are seeing declining populations in their prisons, and they are not getting high recidivism rates. We should be looking at those States and finding out what they are doing.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, no one denies the constitutional power of the President to grant clemency. The question here is whether this power is being used by the President of the United States as a way around the enforcement of the law as passed by the Congress when you invite mass representations of defense attorneys that thousands of their clients are entitled to have clemency granted to them. That is not a proper use of this power, and the Congress should not fund that office for that purpose.

I think the gentleman's amendment is well-advised, and I strongly support it, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Holding amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is where I came in a little while ago. The gentlewoman was correct, that I was speaking earlier about this amendment and not hers. However, I oppose both these amendments. The principle is the same.

With regard to this amendment, I would say to the gentleman that the gentleman's amendment in the farm bill is new law, and it is being implemented, but it does not exclude the role of the DEA.

Your amendment here today would strip funds from the ability of the DEA to be involved, and the involvement is as described in your amendment with regard to the confiscation, seizure, and otherwise impeding the importation, transfer, and movement in interstate or interstate commerce of seeds intended for the purpose of growing or cultivating industrial hemp.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Okay. What is your amendment then?

I yield to the gentleman.

Okay. Well, seeds or hemp, you have to still have the involvement of the DEA because seeds and hemp can be used to grow marijuana, as well as to grow hemp.

So if you don't have the ability to determine, just by looking at it, whether or not it is something that is going to be used for research purposes for hemp or whether it is going to be used to grow illegal marijuana to be sold to whoever, you need to have the DEA involved in that process.

If you take the DEA out of the process, which your amendment in the farm bill did not do and which I would strongly oppose having occur now, you are going to have a situation where this law will be honored in name only and will not be used for the purpose for which I presume you intended it, which is to do research with regard to the growing of hemp.

That is not what you are going to have here because you cannot determine, for example, the THC limits of cannabis plants simply by looking at them. You have got to have this examined, you have got to have it licensed, and that is a proper thing to do since the law requires it to be done.

The DEA needs to fulfill the role that the law requires them to do for that very purpose. As a result, I must strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I share the gentleman from Florida's interest and support for shield laws as well, but I don't believe this has been carefully vetted. There are implications here about exactly who has the right to make the determination about whether or not funds could or could not be used. The way the language reads suggests that maybe the reporter would have that right, rather than a court.

To me, this is not the best way to go about doing this. We will continue to work on shield law legislation in the House Judiciary Committee, which has passed out forms of shield law in the past, and we will continue to work on it.

I must oppose this amendment in these circumstances. I don't think this is the right place to legislate something as complicated as this issue.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) for raising this important issue.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act was written long before the Internet was in common use. It is out of date. It needs to be modernized. It needs to have some of the requirements that not only the gentleman has noted, but also some of the courts of appeals have noted.

However, the particular way this amendment works on the particular section of the Stored Communications Act, which is a part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, has implications beyond what I think the gentleman intends would have a significant impact on not only Federal, but also State and local law enforcement ability to carry out their job.

If the gentleman would agree to work with me, as have the two individuals that you referred to have introduced bills and many others in this Congress who know that this needs to be modified--I have had conversations with Senator Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, and we have agreed that this is a priority for both of us to significantly reform this law and address some of the very concerns that the gentleman raises. If he would agree to withdraw the amendment, I would look forward to working with him and others to accomplish that goal in what I think would be a better setting. We have already held two hearings on this issue, and we will be continuing to work on this in an expeditious manner in the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chair, I rise today to express my support for the fiscal year 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill and to thank Chairman Wolf for his steadfast service as chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

On behalf of the members of House Judiciary, I would like to express my gratitude for the cooperative spirit in which Chairman Wolf and the CJS Subcommittee has worked with us to ensure that many of the Judiciary Committee's concerns were addressed.

Funding for immigration courts, intellectual property rights, enforcement, and crime victims are just a few of the critical priorities addressed by the bill. I am pleased to say that the bill includes an increase in funding for the administrative review and appeals account. This increase will support much-needed additional immigration judge teams. I commend the committee for their efforts to allocate this funding, which is crucial to reducing the backlog of unadjudicated removal and asylum cases.

I also want to express my appreciation for language included to ensure that the Executive Office for Immigration Review will not use taxpayer funds to pay for attorneys for aliens in removal proceedings, except to the extent required by Federal court order.

This bill also increases funding available for crime victims by raising the cap on the crime victims fund, a mandatory account supported by criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds, and special assessments, as opposed to appropriated funding.

Furthermore, I applaud Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah for the extraordinary efforts shown throughout title II of this bill to prioritize the elimination of human trafficking, using all of the law enforcement components and tools of the Department of Justice.

This bill also maintains many important restrictions on the use of funds, such as a prohibition on the transfer or release of Guantanamo detainees into the U.S., the continuation of various provisions related to firearms, and limitations on the use of funds by the Legal Services Corporation.

The bill also provides $3.46 billion for the Patent and Trademark Office, an amount equal to the fees that are expected to be collected by the PTO in the coming fiscal year.

While I am disappointed that the bill includes no funds for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program, a program that was zeroed out as of fiscal year 2014, the House Judiciary Committee intends to examine this program further, including to potentially reauthorize this program.

In conclusion, I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah to work with the Judiciary Committee on this very important bill. I urge its support.

I also want to take a moment to personally thank Chairman Wolf for his service to this body and to the Commonwealth of Virginia. He has been a leading advocate for justice, human rights, and religious freedom, and his efforts have left an indelible mark on the Nation as well the world.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Sinema

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of language Representative Doug Lamborn offered when the Committee on Armed Services marked-up the National Defense Authorization Act.

Like most Americans, I remain concerned about Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism, its horrendous human rights record, its efforts to destabilize its neighbors, its pursuit of intercontinental ballistic missiles, and its threats against our ally, Israel, as well as the fates of American citizens detained by Iran. I remain extremely alarmed by Iran's pursuit of uranium enrichment and plutonium separation efforts. In spite of Iran's statements to the contrary, I am concerned that these materials are in fact part of a nuclear weapons program. The pursuit of nuclear materials under the proclamation of peaceful energy initiatives raises some serious concerns when coming from a country with a terrible human rights record and ties to terrorist groups. It is both a necessity and a priority that the United States ensure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.

On November 24, 2013, Iran accepted the terms of an international proposal to temporarily halt further expansion of its nuclear program, in return for relief from economic sanctions. While this proposal would in theory limit Iran's nuclear enrichment program, it does nothing to prevent Iran from pursuing a warhead or nuclear delivery system for a nuclear weapon or curtailing other issues that are threats to U.S. security and the security of our allies. That is why I am supportive of Representative Lamborn's amendment. This amendment makes it crystal clear, that it is the intent of the United States Congress that the U.S. should only agree to a comprehensive agreement on Iran's nuclear program if Iran ceases uranium enrichment, ceases all of their nuclear, chemical, biological, chemical weapon programs, ballistic missile program, and ballistic launch site technology and Iran has ceased providing support for international terrorist.

The United States government must use every tool possible to deter threats from Iran. Economic sanctions remain an important and necessary tool to deterring aggressive actions. Should the United States provide any relief from these Congressional mandated sanctions, it is imperative that Iran halt all activities that are threatening to our national interests. Mr. Lamborn's amendment is an important and appropriate addition to the National Defense Authorization Act, and I look forward to seeing it included in law.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 590, I call up the bill (H.R. 3361) to reform the authorities of the Federal Government to require the production of certain business records, conduct electronic surveillance, use pen registers and trap and trace devices, and use other forms of information gathering for foreign intelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal purposes, and for other purposes, as amended, 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.R. 3361.

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

From the founding of the American Republic, this country has been engaged in a profound debate about the limits of government. In the Federalist Papers, the Founders argued passionately for a Federal Government that would protect the American people from foreign threats.

At the same time, the Founders struggled to create a structure to contain and control that government in order to protect the God-given rights of the American people. They carefully crafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights to accomplish these two different, yet complementary, goals.

In essence, this debate has illuminated the exceptionality of the United States. The ceaseless effort to restrain the reach of government is in our DNA as Americans. And for 225 years, we have refused to accept the idea that in order to have national security, we must sacrifice our personal freedoms.

Some, however, think these goals are in conflict with one another following last year's unauthorized disclosure of the National Security Agency's data collection programs operated under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.

Today, the House will consider legislation that once again proves that American liberty and security are not mutually exclusive. We can protect both Americans' civil liberties and our national security without compromising either one.

For nearly a year, the House Judiciary Committee has studied this issue in detail. We have held multiple hearings, consulted the Obama administration, and worked across party lines to produce bipartisan legislation to ensure these programs protect our national security and our individual freedoms.

This bill, the USA FREEDOM Act, was unanimously approved by both the House Judiciary Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The USA FREEDOM Act makes clear that the government cannot indiscriminately acquire Americans' call detail records and creates a new, narrowly tailored process for the collection of these records.

Specifically, the USA FREEDOM Act ends bulk collection by keeping Americans' phone records in the hands of providers and requiring the government to get the permission of the court to request information from providers, using a specific selection term in their request to the court. That limits the scope of information collected. For example, the government would have to

identify a specific person or account as part of any request for information or tangible things.

Furthermore, the USA FREEDOM Act bans bulk collection not just for the controversial telephone metadata program, but for all of section 215 authorities, as well as NSL letters and pen register, trap and trace devices. These limitations will protect Americans' records of all types, including medical records, email records, telephone records, and firearms purchase records, among many others.

At the same time, the USA FREEDOM Act ensures that the Federal Government will continue to have the tools it needs to identify and intercept terrorist attacks. The bill preserves the traditional operational use of these important authorities by the FBI and other intelligence agencies. It provides needed emergency authority to national security officials if there is an immediate national security threat, but still requires the government to obtain Court approval of an application within 7 days.

The USA FREEDOM Act increases the transparency of our intelligence- gathering programs by creating an amicus curiae in the FISA Court. This amicus will be chosen from a panel of legal experts to help ensure the court adequately considers privacy concerns and the constitutional rights of Americans when reviewing the government's request for records.

It also requires the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to conduct a declassification review of each decision, order, or opinion of the court that includes a significant construction or interpretation of the law and mandates that the government report the number of orders issued, modified, or denied by the court annually.

Last year's national security leaks have also had a commercial and financial impact on American technology companies that have provided these records. They have experienced backlash from both American and foreign consumers and have had their competitive standing in the global marketplace damaged. In January of this year, the Justice Department entered into a settlement with several companies to permit new ways to report data concerning requests for customer information under FISA. The USA FREEDOM Act builds on upon this settlement, allowing tech companies to publicly report national security requests from the government to inform their American and foreign customers.

From beginning to end, this is a carefully crafted, bipartisan bill.

I would like to thank the sponsor of this legislation, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, full committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Intellectual Property Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler, and Crime Subcommittee Ranking Member Bobby Scott for working together with me on this important bipartisan legislation. I also want to thank the staff of these Members for the many hours, weeks, and months of hard work they put into this effort.

Furthermore, I would like to thank my staff--Caroline Lynch, the chief counsel of the Crime Subcommittee, and Sam Ramer--for their long hours and steadfast dedication to this legislation. And I might add that Sam Ramer is going to be missed by the committee as he moves on to take a new responsibility in the private sector, but he wanted to be sure that he could be present today for the completion of the passage of this legislation through the House. I thank Sam and Caroline for their long and dedicated hours put into making sure that this was a finely crafted piece of legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I neglected to add another key member of the committee, Congressman Randy Forbes of Virginia, a member of the Judiciary Committee who has also been a key bipartisan member of this negotiation.

At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee and the chief sponsor of this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply to point out two things. First of all, as the gentleman from Wisconsin has noted, this legislation is an effort to bring together widely disparate points of view about how to both maximize our national security and our civil liberties. And there are those outside groups that were just referenced who would like to see more than the language that they were able to obtain in this bill. But I think it is very important for everyone to know that while those groups--some groups--have withdrawn their support for the bill, they do not oppose the bill, and that is a very important distinction for Members to understand.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the gentleman from New Jersey.

A number of the things the gentleman has stated are simply not accurate. First of all, the selectors all have to be approved by court order.

Secondly, it is important for everyone to understand that the information gathered is targeted to foreign nationals, not to American citizens.

Thirdly, the increased transparency that is created by this legislation, both in the FISA Court itself and with the fact that the data is now going to be required to be retained by the companies that own the data and not held by the government, provides extra assurance that, if some kind of massive data collection grab were attempted by the government, it would be exposed, as Mr. Nadler pointed out earlier.

Finally, the special selectors language that was carefully worked out in a bipartisan manner carefully limits the ability of people to gather data. It has to be based upon discrete requests, and discretion has a meaning in the law.

It has to be limited to identifiable persons or things, and it has to be done in such a way that the court approves it.

I would be happy to yield.

I yield myself 30 seconds and yield to the gentleman.

This is not a search under the Fourth Amendment, and probable cause has never applied. It has never applied. The gentleman is attempting to change the law if he thinks that.

I yield further to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to gathering information about foreign nationals who are deemed to pose a national security threat to the United States, the Fourth Amendment does not apply, and a court must still order the particular selectors that are used.

The gentleman's characterization is inaccurate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I have only one speaker remaining, and I am prepared to close our portion of the remarks if the gentleman is prepared to close.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Eighty-six years ago, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, in his dissent in Olmstead v. United States: ``The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure, and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone--the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.''

After the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001, the country was determined not to allow such an attack to occur again. The changes we made then to our intelligence laws helped keep us safe from implacable enemies. Today, we renew our commitment to our Nation's security and to the safety of the American people.

We also make this pledge: that the United States of America will remain a nation whose government answers to the will of the people. This country must be what it always has been: a beacon of freedom to the world; a place where the principles of the Founders, including the commitment to individual liberties, will continue to live, protected and nourished for future generations.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3530) to provide justice for the victims of trafficking, as amended.

Madam 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.R. 3530, currently under consideration.

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

We are here on the floor today to talk about minor sex trafficking or, to put it more accurately, the rape of children, by adults, for profit. More importantly, though, we are here today for the victims-- the survivors--of this terrible crime.

These include Ms. ``T'' Ortiz Walker Pettigrew, who testified so bravely before the Crime Subcommittee about her experiences under the control of a violent pimp after being failed by the foster care system; and Ms. Elizabeth Corey, who recently graduated from Virginia Commonwealth University, despite having been sexually being prostituted by her family starting as young as 8 years old; and the dozens of other victims of this heinous crime who have been identified in just Virginia alone in recent years, as well as the many other victims and survivors that exist in all of our States.

The sale of children for sex sounds like something that could only happen in faraway places, but sadly, it is happening right here in the United States every single day. According to the FBI, sex trafficking is the fastest-growing business of organized crime and the third largest criminal enterprise in the world.

Criminal organizations, including some of the most violent criminal street gangs like MS-13, have realized that selling children is oftentimes more profitable than selling drugs. This is because drugs can only be sold once, but minor children can be--and are--prostituted multiple times a day.

Sadly, the demand for commercial sex with children appears to be growing. Traditionally called johns, those who purchase sex with minors are the ones driving this illicit market. There is no single profile of a buyer of commercial sex with a minor.

Some may engage with sex with minors unknowingly, but many either seek out young children or decide to turn a blind eye to it.

One young victim, Tami, tried to escape her pimp by telling every man who purchased her that she was only 15 and needed to be taken to the police, but none of them did. It is time to send a clear message that this must stop.

The bill under consideration today, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, is an important first step to make sure that the traffickers and purchasers who stole Tami's childhood are brought to justice.

This legislation provides additional resources to law enforcement and service providers through a victim-centered grant program; helps to facilitate investigations by providing that minor sex trafficking and other similar crimes are predicate offenses for State wiretap applications; addresses the demand side of this crime by clarifying that it is a Federal crime to solicit or patronize child prostitutes or adult victims forced into prostitution; reauthorizes the funding stream for child advocacy centers, which are often the first line of service providers for the victims of this and other crimes; and strengthens the existing Federal criminal laws against trafficking through a number of clarifying amendments.

H.R. 3530 was introduced by Judiciary Committee member and former judge Ted Poe, who is a passionate voice for these young victims and others in need. I strongly commend him for his leadership on this issue.

I also commend Mr. Franks for his amendment to this bill, which helps to strengthen the rights of victims in the criminal justice process, including the victims of sex trafficking.

The bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote and enjoys over 100 bipartisan cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to stand with me today to say our children are not for sale and to support this important bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), the chief sponsor of this legislation and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino), a member of the Judiciary Committee

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), who has been a real leader in combating sex trafficking and has legislation of her own which we will consider later this afternoon.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana, Congresswoman Walorski.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers, except for myself. We are prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, this is a great bipartisan bill dealing with a serious tragedy in this country.

I urge my colleagues to join together and support this very, very strongly, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3610) to stop exploitation through trafficking, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3610, currently under consideration.

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

There is no more vulnerable segment of this country's population than its children. For far too long, jurisdictions across the country have failed to adequately protect and support minor victims of commercial sex trafficking by treating them as the criminals. This must stop.

Unfortunately, according to FBI statistics, the commercial sex trade is the fastest-growing activity of organized criminal groups. The number of children facing sexual exploitation, rape,

emotional trauma, and in many cases criminal prosecution grows every day.

Despite the fact that Congress has long recognized that minor participants in commercial sex acts are victims, the majority of States maintain statutes criminalizing minor prostitution, directly conflicting, in many instances, with other State laws regarding statutory rape and child abuse.

Acknowledging this conflict, the Texas Supreme Court held in 2010, that ``because a 13-year-old child cannot consent to sex as a matter of law, the child cannot be prosecuted as a prostitute.'' Further illustrating this inconsistency, one Dallas police officer observed that ``if a 45-year-old man had sex with a 14-year-old girl and no money changed hands, she was likely to get counseling and he was likely to get jail time for statutory rape. If the same man left $80 on the table after having sex with her, she would probably be locked up for prostitution and he would go home with a fine as a john.''

The bill before us today, H.R. 3610, the Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act of 2014, is designed to encourage the States to treat victims as victims.

Recognizing the need for protection and support for the growing number of child victims of commercial sex trafficking, an increasing number of States have taken steps to establish so-called ``safe harbor'' provisions that either decriminalize minor prostitution or divert minor victims to the services and support needed for recovery.

H.R. 3610 attempts to continue that trend by encouraging States, through preferential treatment in the grant-making process, to enact safe harbor legislation, ensuring that these victims are treated as victims, not criminals, and are directed to support services, not detention facilities. The bill also codifies a National Human Trafficking Hotline, ensures young victims are eligible for enrollment in the Job Corps, requires the Attorney General to report on sex offender convictions, and clarifies the authority of the U.S. Marshals Service to provide assistance in sex trafficking cases.

The Judiciary Committee's Crime Subcommittee recently held a hearing titled ``Innocence for Sale: Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking'' in which we examined the effects of criminalizing minors under these circumstances. A victim of minor commercial sex trafficking, Ms. ``T'' Ortiz Walker Pettigrew, testified regarding her repeated traumatization at the hands of her trafficker and the criminal justice system:

Isolated, tired, and helpless at the age of 15, the

concrete box that represented my cell in the largest of the

juvenile facilities in Las Vegas, Nevada, seemed no less

invasive than the horror of the streets. It wasn't all too

different than the mental confinement I endured from my pimp.

The re-victimization of minors engaged in commercial sex trafficking by criminal justice systems must stop. Nelson Mandela once observed that:

There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than

the way it treats its children.

This legislation demonstrates that we choose to protect and support our children.

I would like to recognize the efforts of my colleagues, Mr. Paulsen and Ms. Moore, for the introduction of the original legislation, as well as the many Members who have signed on as bipartisan cosponsors. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge Chairman Kline from the Education and the Workforce Committee for his support regarding the Job Corps provision of this bill.

This bill is an important tool in the fight against the growing scourge of minor sex trafficking.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 13, 2014.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding with respect to H.R. 3610, the Stop

Exploitation Through Trafficking Act of 2013. Thank you for

consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce

with regard to H.R. 3610 on those matters within the

committees jurisdiction.

In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of

H.R. 3610, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will

forgo further consideration of this bill. However, I do so

only with the understanding this procedural route will not be

construed to prejudice my committee's jurisdictional interest

and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar

legislation and will not be considered as precedent for

consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my

committee in the future.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the

Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in

a conference with the Senate. I also request you include our

exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee Report on

H.R. 3610 and in the Congressional Record during

consideration of this bill on the House floor. Thank you for

your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

John Kline,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to

the gentleman from Minnesota, Congressman Paulsen, the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader, and to thank him for his leadership on this series of bills that deals with this serious issue.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

It is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks).

Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, now it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Madam Speaker, I have only one speaker remaining, myself, if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

I join the gentleman from Virginia in urging my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I want to congratulate Congressman Paulsen and Congresswoman Moore for their great work on this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4225) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty for knowingly selling advertising that offers certain commercial sex acts, as amended.

Madam 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.R. 4225, currently under consideration.

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

Unfortunately, while the growth of the Internet and smartphones has proved to be of great value in many aspects of our lives, it has also been used by criminals to facilitate the commercial exploitation of children and other victims by providing an easy way for pimps or traffickers to market minor sex trafficking victims to potential purchasers who seek to do them harm.

With the click of a button, individuals can now use Web sites to advertise, schedule, and purchase sexual encounters with minors, just like they would use these services to rent a car or order a pizza.

The SAVE Act, introduced by Congresswoman Wagner from Missouri, makes a technical correction to an existing Federal sex trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C., section 1591, to make clear that the law extends to traffickers who knowingly sell sex with minors and victims of force, fraud, or coercion through advertising, as well as to people or entities that knowingly benefit from the sale or distribution of such advertising.

While much of the growth in this terrible crime is on the Internet, this bill is technology-neutral and applies to all advertising of children for sex, regardless of the medium.

It is important to note that the bill clarifies the liability for the people or traffickers who place these ads, as well as the people and entities that knowingly profit from them.

It is also important to note that these advertisements, as with all ads and other speech promoting illegal activity, are not protected speech under the First Amendment.

Furthermore, in order to bring a case against a trafficker under this legislation, the government must prove that the defendant knew they were advertising and knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the ad involved a minor or someone involved through force, fraud, or coercion.

However, this legislation raises the bar even higher for defendants who, while not directly placing the ads, do knowingly benefit from the placement of advertising. Specifically, the bill requires the government to show that these defendants knew the advertisement involved a minor or a coerced adult. Reckless disregard is not sufficient.

H.R. 4225 clarifies that people who advertise sex trafficking can face criminal liability. Under current law, there is the additional possibility of civil liability for defendants who violate the primary sex trafficking statute codified at section 1591.

However, under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, online publishers of third-party advertisements are generally immune from civil liability for such advertisements. H.R. 4225 does nothing to disrupt or modify the immunity already provided by section 230.

While this legislation will help put more child traffickers in jail where they belong, this is not a precedent-setting bill. Congress has regulated advertisements, including online advertisements, many times.

There are hundreds of references to advertising or advertisements in the Federal code, including in criminal provisions. Congress has even explicitly criminalized advertising on the Internet.

Just last year, in a bill cosponsored by 127 bipartisan Members of Congress, Congress amended the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to ``advertise for sale'' certain fraudulent military medals.

During consideration of that bill, which passed the House by a vote of 390-3 and was signed into law, no Member raised a concern about the propriety of criminal advertising. Surely, saving young children from these horrors is no less deserving than fraudulent medals.

This legislation simply clarifies and modernizes Federal criminal law to keep pace with the evolving trend of exploiting the Internet for criminal gains. The bill has support from more than 90 bipartisan cosponsors and was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 24-3.

I want to commend our colleague, Congresswoman Wagner, for bringing forth this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Madam Speaker, I just have one speaker remaining, if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) to close the debate for our side of the aisle.

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

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.

I would like to begin by thanking Mr. Chabot for introducing this legislation and by thanking Mr. Conyers and Mr. Cohen for their support as well.

Madam Speaker, the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act strengthens the ability of U.S. museums and educational institutions to borrow foreign government-owned artwork and cultural artifacts for temporary exhibition or display.

The United States has long recognized the importance of encouraging the cultural exchange of ideas through exhibitions of artwork and other artifacts loaned from other countries.

These exchanges expose Americans to other cultures and foster understanding between people of different nationalities, languages, religions, and races. Unfortunately, the future success of cultural exchanges is severely threatened by a disconnect between the Immunity from Seizure Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Loans of artwork and cultural objects depend upon foreign lenders having confidence that the items they loan will be returned and that the loan will not open them up to lawsuits in U.S. courts.

For 40 years, the Immunity from Seizure Act provided foreign government lenders with this confidence. However, rulings in several recent Federal cases have undermined the protection provided by the Immunity from Seizure Act.

In these decisions, the Federal courts have held that the Immunity from Seizure Act does not preempt the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The effect has been to open foreign governments up to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts simply because they loaned artwork or cultural objects to an American museum or educational institution.

This has significantly impeded the ability of U.S. institutions to borrow foreign government-owned items. It has also resulted in cultural exchanges being curtailed as foreign government lenders have become hesitant to permit their cultural property to travel to the United States.

This bill addresses this situation. It provides that, if the State Department grants immunity to a loan of artwork or cultural objects from--under the Immunity from Seizure Act, then the loan cannot subject a foreign government to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

This is very narrow legislation. It only applies to one of the many grounds for jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Moreover, it requires the State Department to grant the artwork immunity under the Immunity from Seizure Act before its provisions apply, and in order to preserve the claims of victims of the Nazi government and its allies during World War II, the bill has an exception for claims brought by these victims.

If we want to encourage foreign governments to continue to lend artwork and other artifacts to American museums and educational institutions, we must enact this legislation.

Without the protections this bill provides, foreign governments will avoid the risk of lending their cultural items to American institutions, and the American public will lose the opportunity to view and appreciate these cultural objects from abroad.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during the second vote series on April 29, 2014. Had I been present, I would have voted Yes on both H.R. 4414, the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014, and H.R. 627, the National Park Service 110th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Republican Study Committee's budget proposal.

Not only does the RSC budget balance in four years, reduce spending, and repeal Obamacare, the RSC budget proposal also recommends the House enact H.R. 352, the Tax Code Termination Act. This legislation, which I introduced at the beginning of the 113th Congress, would force Congress to debate comprehensive tax reform by sunsetting our current tax code in December 2017 and forcing Congress to enact a new tax system by July of that same year. This bipartisan legislation has the support of over 100 Members of Congress who support a variety of tax proposals. I am pleased that the authors of the RSC budget have a desire to see these proposals debated and our complicated tax code addressed by setting a date certain for scrapping our tax code. I look forward to voting in support of the Republican Study Committee's budget and working with my fellow members of the Republican Study Committee to see that happen.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill (S. 2195) to deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity against the United States and poses a threat to United States national security interests, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.