Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the historic Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned the doctrine of ``separate but equal'' that had been the law of the land since 1896 when the Supreme Court decided Plessy v. Ferguson.

In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared that separate public schools for black and white Americans were unconstitutional. This unanimous decision sparked the movement toward desegregation of American institutions and paved the way for the civil rights movement.

On the anniversary of this landmark decision, it is appropriate that we pay tribute to our ancestors who endured and lived through those days of crisis and challenge so that we could enjoy the right to vote, the right to equal protection of the law, and to enjoy the blessings of liberties. These efforts should not go unnoticed.

This historic case originated in Topeka, Kansas, and involved a black third-grader named Linda Brown, who had to walk one mile through a railroad switchyard to get to her black elementary school, even though a white elementary school was only seven blocks away.

Linda's father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her in the white elementary school, but the principal of the school refused. Brown went to McKinley Burnett, the head of Topeka's branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and asked for help. The NAACP got other black parents to join in to a complaint and in 1951 the NAACP requested an injunction that would forbid the segregation of Topeka's public schools.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas heard Brown's case and refused to overrule the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson which allowed separate but equal school systems for blacks and whites.

The case was taken to the Supreme Court on October 1, 1951 and set up one of the landmark cases in the history of the American justice system. It was the arguments of the NAACP in representing Brown that won the day.

On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court:

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of

children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even

though the physical facilities and other ``tangible'' factors

may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of

equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. . .

. We conclude that in the field of public education the

doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place. Separate

educational facilities are inherently unequal.

With those few words more than a century of racial discrimination and separation were dealt a great blow.

It is up to us to preserve the hard won gains of those who led the fight and won the case of Brown v. Board of Education.

Mr. Speaker, this a National Small Business Week and I rise to recognize the contributions of small businesses in my congressional district and across the country.

With more than half of Americans either owning or working for a small business, it is clear these companies are a vital part of our nation's fabric.

Every day, small firms and their employees across every sector and industry are working to grow and become stronger.

When they do, we all benefit from their innovations, their job- creating power, and their ability to make the U.S. more competitive globally.

That why I support the Democratic agenda to help small businesses and entrepreneurs startup, grow, and create jobs.

``This includes supporting tax credits to help small businesses hire new employees; immigration reform, which will provided a solution for those businesses facing a maze of problems when hiring immigrant workers: and expanding financing options for entrepreneurs, especially in low- and moderate-income communities.

We must also oppose cuts to job training programs that help meet American businesses' workforce needs. Lastly, we must include working on a long-term extension of the Highway Trust Fund, which is critical for small construction firms across the nation.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses and entrepreneurs impact our lives ever day and it is fitting that we recognize their contributions to the economy and our country during National Small Business Week.

Whether it is opening a new storefront, training workers, or sponsoring activities in our cities and towns, we have many reasons to thank small businesses.

This week we do so, and recognize these entrepreneurs not only for the contributions that they have already made, but also for their future work to strengthen our local communities.

In recognition of all that small businesses do for our communities, from providing conveniently located goods and services to sponsoring local events and organizations, I urge all Americans to take this opportunity to patronize the diverse businesses in their communities to demonstrate to them our continued appreciation and support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4438. This bill is the exact opposite of the fiscal conservatism which has been preached by the G.O.P.

H.R. 4438, the American Research and Competitiveness Act, permanently extends the research and development tax credit that expired at the end of 2013, but modifies the credit to make it simpler to calculate.

I think we can all agree that on the merits, the R&D Tax Credit is one of the most practical, useful, and well-subscribed tax credits. Not only do large multinationals and many small research facilities use it; but numerous universities, including the University of Houston, the University of Texas, Texas Southern University, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech, among others, also take advantage of this job-producing credit.

Yet, the Republicans hypocritically failed to do something which they usually love to take credit for--and that is--to PAY for the bill by including an offset.

It provides no offset for the cost, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates would reduce revenues by $156 billion over 10 years. This bill is the first in a series of individual tax ``extenders'' that I understand the Republican House leadership intends to consider. And make no mistake, this bill, and the others likely to follow, blow a hole in the deficit. Though at some point in the near future, President Obama will somehow be blamed for this.

This is a textbook example of Congress picking winners and losers.

Many of us support the R&D tax credit but there is no excuse for not offsetting the cost of the bill, noting that permanently extending the R&D credit and five other tax provisions that GOP leaders want to act on would add $310 billion to the deficit.

Two years ago my Republican colleagues managed to hijack the legislative process and increase the federal budget deficit by insisting on an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts, originally enacted in 2001 and 2003.

These tax cuts cost $1 trillion a year to extend and while many are critical to individuals and businesses, the fact remains that if we are going to have a serious discussion about tax reform and balancing the budget, Congress cannot simply ignore the other side of the ledger: revenues. In addition, Congress cannot and should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.

Again, it is ``hypocritical'' that our Republican friends won't offset the R&D credit but let emergency unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed expire because they claim that we could not find an offset that they would support.

I ask my colleagues to reject this bill and end this partisan lawmaking.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage over the brutal assaults on human dignity and freedom committed by the Boko Haram, a militant group that has no respect for the rights of women and girls.

Since 2013, more than 4,400 men, women, and children have been slaughtered by Boko Haram.

The victims include Christians, Muslims, journalists, health care providers, relief workers. And schoolchildren.

I rise today to urge our government, the United States of America, to assist the Government of Nigeria, working through the African Union, to rescue the more than 200 schoolgirls who were kidnapped from the Chibok School for Girls in Borno State on April 15, and the 11 schoolgirls kidnapped last night in the Warabe community of Borno, and reunited with their families and loved ones.

Boko Haram's reign of terror must be brought to an end.

I call upon the international community to work in concert to detect, disrupt, and dismantle Boko Haram's funding sources derived from other Islamist groups, including Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the Al Muntada Trust Fund, and the Islamic World Society.

I commend President Obama on his decision to deploy American security experts and equipment in Nigeria to help locate and rescue the abducted schoolgirls and we applaud Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan for accepting that assistance.

The leader of Boko Haram has threatened to ransom or sell the abducted schoolgirls into the human trafficking market for about twelve dollars each ($12.00 USD).

I say to him: ``Don't you dare.' ''

Boko Haram's outrageous conduct will be tolerated or overlooked for not only is it a violation of the girls' human rights, it is also contrary to United States policy which supports and promotes equal access to education and economic opportunity for women and girls.

As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

So we will not stand idly by.

But we do stand in solidarity with the good people of Nigeria and especially those beautiful and courageous schoolgirls who wanted nothing more than to get an education to make life better for themselves and their beloved country.

We will not forget or forsake you.

This is what I think we should do.

Since we know that terrorist groups cannot operate effectively without reliable and steady funding to support their criminal acts, the United States should work with the international community to detect, disrupt, and dismantle the funding networks financing Boko Haram, which published reports indicate has received as much as $70 million from other Islamist groups, including Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the Al Muntada Trust Fund, and the Islamic World Society.

Additionally, the United States should work with the Government of Nigeria to develop its own capacity to deploy specialized police and army units rapidly to prevent and combat sectarian violence in cities and around the country where there has been a history of sectarian violence.

The creation and deployment of an elite highly-trained rapid response unit was used to successful effect by the Indonesia Government in 2004 to neutralize the Laskar Jihad terrorist organization.

The United States should also take appropriate action to help the Government of Nigeria establish a Victim's Fund to provide humanitarian relief and economic assistance to the victims of attacks by Boko Haram so that they can rebuild their lives and communities.

``People are the great issue of the 20th century,'' declared, then- Senator Hubert Humphrey in 1948.

Mr. Speaker, the well-being of people remains the great issue of the 21st century.

And there is no better measure of any society than the way it treats its women and girls.

Boko Haram understands that when Nigerian girls are educated, Nigerian women can succeed; and when Nigerian women succeed, Nigeria succeeds.

And that is why it is so important that the United States help Nigeria ensure that Boko Haram fails.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H. Res. 567, which establishes a Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi.

I oppose this resolution because it is a distraction, intended by the House Republicans to divert public attention from their failure to address the problems Americans care about like creating jobs, raising the minimum wage, passing immigration reform, and extending unemployment insurance benefits to the long-term unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, instead of working with Democrats to address the priorities of the American people, Republican leaders are gearing up to exploit the tragic attacks in Benghazi with another deeply partisan review.

There have aleady been seven reviews of that terrible attack: one by the State Department Accountability Review Board, two bipartisan reviews in the Senate, and four reviews in the House--producing more than 25,000 documents and dozens of interviews with high-level officials throughout the government.

Mr. Speaker, responding to endless, repetitive and partisan congressional requests has cost the Department of Defense and other agencies thousands of man-hours and expenses running ``into the millions of dollars,'' according to Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs Elizabeth King.

Throughout these reviews, Republican Members have made numerous accusations in public that have turned out to be untrue after further investigation, undermining the credibility of their investigations and the House.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle have shown no interest in making the Select Committee on Benghazi any different from the extreme and counter-productive partisanship that has defined their previous investigations into the Fast and Furious and the IRS, and their dogged efforts to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress.

For example, in the resolution establishing the committee, Republicans stack the committee with seven Republicans to Democrats' five, and explicitly exempt the new committee from adopting written rules.

From the pointless vote to hold former IRS official, Lois Lerner, in contempt, to the latest committee on Benghazi, it is clear that Republicans will do anything to divert attention away from their do- nothing record.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. They want and deserve for us to work together to solve the real problems facing our country.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and vote against the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the original co-sponsor of the resolution recognizing May as National Foster Care Month, I rise to recognize the selfless foster families who open their hearts and their homes for children in need and to all of those individuals and organizations that work to ensure that every child has an opportunity for a brighter future.

I am honored to be a founding member of the Congressional Caucus for Foster Youth, a caucus that allows Members to gain a better understanding of the current state of foster care throughout the nation and identify potential federal policy modifications that could improve outcomes for the children in our country's foster care systems.

Mr. Speaker, currently there are over 463,000 children living in foster care. These children have been placed in homes on the account of the physical, sexual and emotional abuse they have endured with their biological caretaker.

My state of Texas currently has more than 69,000 children and young persons in foster care.

Nearly two of every three (65%) of children who are not placed in a permanent home emancipate themselves from the system often left unemployed, without a place to live and resorting to homeless shelters.

Less than 3 percent go on to college and emancipated females end up four times more likely to receive public assistance compared to the overall population of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we continue to create more programs, events and activities that will enlighten citizens of the United States on stories of children successfully placed in permanent homes, debunk myths about the process and acknowledge the thousands of children who could potentially become a part of these statistics.

Through these efforts we can increase the rate of adoption, decrease the rate of homelessness among the youths in this group and help develop future leaders and innovative thinkers of tomorrow.

I would like to take a moment to recognize the families who have opened their hearts and homes to foster children. Foster parents play a critical role in the lives of some of the most vulnerable youth in Texas and across the country.

They help hold our nation's social fabric together by ensuring that thousands of young people in this country stay on track towards successful futures. This month, we celebrate you and your efforts to change the lives of these children.

National Foster Care Month is an appropriate time time to recognize and commend all those who are helping to improve the lives of children in foster care.

But it also serves as a reminder that more must be done. These children deserve to grow up in a loving home that is safe, happy, and most importantly one they can call their own.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Let me thank the proponents of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important bill, and I believe it opens the doors of opportunity for quality and excellence in charter schools. I hope, as we move forward as to the issues dealing with charter schools that are located in minority communities and

that are created by minority members of the community, like in Texas, where in some instances there is an unfair process, H.R. 10 will bring an evenness and a quality in excellence and also opportunity for the creativity of charter schools that can lift up at-risk children. I think that is one of the key elements of, hopefully, this legislation.

I want to cite in my own district that we have, yes, KIPP and Harmony that are well-known across the country and somewhat around the world. It is my understanding that KIPP is now moving to Israel, but we also have a school like Pro-Vision, its work of which I have known for over 20 years. It lifts at-risk children up to the levels of opportunity.

My amendment is an amendment that directs the Web site publication of materials on the Web sites of charter schools regarding student recruitment, orientation materials, enrollment criteria, student discipline policies, behavior codes, and parent contract requirements.

It would also include any financial obligations, such as fees for tutoring or extracurricular. That is transparency. That is allowing, if you will, the opportunity for parents to have full information in a different setting from public schools.

My children went to public schools. I went to public schools. I believe in public schools--I strongly believe in them--but I believe this new idea, that of the partnership of charter schools with public schools, should include a format of transparency.

I should be clear that public schools have a challenge with transparency as well. As I interact with my constituents, many parents don't know the opportunities that they may have in a public school-- vanguard or the special classes that they may have or sufficient arts and music and which school has it; yet as this is going to be a federally funded program, it is important to ensure that our parents have information.

Certainly, they should have information regarding the kind of discipline atmosphere that is there. They should also know whether or not there are serious commitments to making sure that their children's holistic futures are in front of them and that they are not subjected to policies that would intervene on issues dealing with bullying or with the prevention of bullying.

This is a very good amendment to H.R. 10, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it is not often that we mention our great disappointment on the floor of the House. We usually battle it out. I know I am right on this amendment, and I am highly disappointed in the majority's representation.

I would like to submit for the Record a letter from the AFT, which is supporting the Jackson Lee amendment extremely enthusiastically, and a letter from the National Education Association, which is endorsing the Jackson Lee amendment.

It is strongly supported by the NEA, which gives me pause as to why this amendment is an amendment that is not agreed to.

American Federation of Teachers,

Washington, DC, May 8, 2014.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 1.5 million

members of the American Federation of Teachers--including

individual AFT members who teach in charter schools and who,

with me, wrote to you this week--I offer our collective views

on H.R. 10, the Success and Opportunity through Quality

Charter Schools Act, as well as our position on several

important amendments that will be considered during today's

debate on the underlying bill.

The bill combines a number of existing charter school

programs into one that would provide federal funds for new

charters; expand and replicate existing charters; acquire,

construct and renovate facilities; establish and administer

per-pupil facilities-aid programs; and, fund national

activities. H.R. 10 provides important accountability

measures for charter schools but, primarily, provides for

their expansion.

Since our former President Albert Shanker first promoted

them, the AFT has believed that publicly financed charter

schools have a role in public education. The best charters

have served as incubators of good practice and have helped

provide parents and students access to high-quality public

education. For example, in 2013, University Prep, a unionized

public charter school started by Steve Barr, founder of Green

Dot Public Schools, and me several years ago in New York

City, graduated every single child, all of whom were admitted

to college.

The reality in communities across the country is a mixed

bag--while many charter schools are well-managed and serve

the children who are accepted and decide to attend, many

others do not provide equitable access for all students, are

poorly managed, and are not transparent with their finances.

Further, there are unfortunately too many instances where

charters are used as a tool to destabilize or compete with

other public schools.

H.R. 10 includes many provisions to bring charter schools

closer to the standards of accountability, equitable access,

and transparency that traditional public schools must meet,

but there are still real gaps. Improved accountability and

transparency is owed to the students who attend charter

schools and to the taxpayers who financially support these

schools. In requiring these new standards, Congress would in

no way be limiting charter schools' potential to serve as

laboratories of innovation. It would, however, be ensuring

that those innovations are transparent, sustainable, and

scalable, and that all our public school students and their

schools are treated equitably.

The AFT is pleased the bill includes some improvements over

current law in the areas of ensuring equitable access to

charter schools for all students; in seeking to prevent

charter schools from allowing barriers to enrollment that

result in the exclusion of English language learners,

students with disabilities, and other disadvantaged students

from enrolling; and, in ensuring that charter schools are

appropriately monitored in the areas of student safety and

financial management. We also appreciate the bipartisan

acknowledgement that charter schools need better oversight by

state entities.

However, we believe that H.R. 10 can be strengthened by

approving the following amendments aimed at improving the

overall bill. To this end, we urge you to support:

Moore: This amendment would require states receiving

charter school grants to set aside 2 percent of the grant

amount for financial oversight of charters. It would also

ensure that charter schools include private and public

contributions in their audits.

A report from the Center for Popular Democracy and

Integrity in Education outlines $100 million in losses to

taxpayers in 15 of the largest charter markets since charter

schools entered these markets. This is a problem that needs

to be addressed.

H.R. 10 would provide $300 million annually in support of

charter schools. The Moore amendment would help ensure that

these funds are being properly spent and that charters are

incubators of innovation, not enablers of waste, cronyism, or

fraud. It would also help monitor the influence of private

investors by requiring the disclosure of private

contributions.

Wilson / Davis / Duckworth / Grayson / McKinley / Fudge:

This amendment would require that information about each

charter school be made available, including disaggregated

enrollment and academic performance data. This amendment will

better ensure that parents have information on how charter

schools are educating students, and will shine a light on

enrollment rates of populations that have often been excluded

from charter schools.

Additionally, the AFT urges your support for the following

additional amendments:

Jackson Lee: This amendment requires charters to publicize

their information on student recruitment, orientation

materials, enrollment criteria, student discipline policies,

behavior codes, and parent contract requirements, which

should include any financial obligations such as fees for

tutoring and extra-curricular activities.

Langevin: This amendment would provide for comprehensive

career counseling, a much needed resource in all schools.

Castor: This amendment would develop and enforce conflict

of interest guidelines for all charter schools receiving

federal assistance.

Bonamici: This amendment requires states to report on the

sharing of best practices by charter and traditional public

schools.

Sincerely,

Randi Weingarten,

President.

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude my remarks by saying that, across America, children are bullied every day, and across America, parents are baffled by the educational system.

Any time that you can reinforce this idea of transparency, I believe that it is an important step forward, and I would hope that my colleagues would be able to support this amendment. I believe it is a strong, but positive amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota for an inquiry, please, to the chairman of the committee.

What modification could occur with this amendment? It is a strong amendment that is supported by educational groups, and it just reinforces, I believe, in a more specific manner the intent of H.R. 10.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chair, I would like to offer my thanks and appreciation to Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller for all of their work in their stewardship in bringing this strongly bipartisan bill to the House Floor for consideration.

They have both worked hard on ways to improve education for our nation's youth and I have had the pleasure of working with the Chair on many issues of mutual interest for the improvement of education.

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 10. My amendment directs State Education Agencies that award Federally funded grants to charter schools under this bill to work with those schools so that they provide information on their websites regarding student recruitment, orientation materials, enrollment criteria, student discipline policies, behavior codes, and parent contract requirements, which should include any financial obligations such as fees for tutoring, and extra-circular activities.

My amendment has the support of the National Educational Association and the American Federation of Teachers. I have letters from both organizations that I would like included in the Record along with my statement.

Charter schools were new--but today they have become for many parents an important public education option. Not all public charter schools have been successful, but the work of those that have been successful have led us to this point of considering legislation to provide additional Federal funding for the creation of additional charter schools.

This amendment is a pro-education consumer amendment that would educate parents who are investigating the public charter school option for their child's education.

The Jackson Lee Amendment will make it possible for parents to learn more about how schools deal with important education issues such as academic performance, enrichment programs, anti quality of education life issues programs for children with learning disabilities like dyslexia are taught.

Many public charter schools provide this information online, and the amendment would support this good transparency practice. The Jackson Lee amendment is good for parents and for charter schools because parents would have access to information that helps them make education decisions for their children; and charter schools would speak to a larger audience regarding their education programs.

This information being provided on Charter School websites would help us better understand what public charter schools are offering to parents and students. It would also bring additional transparency regarding the drivers of higher enrollment in public charter schools and promote greater public awareness regarding polices on such as discipline, counseling, drop-outs, bullying, as well as programs that impact of education on children with learning disabilities like dyslexia on student retention.

In Houston, I have had the benefit of seeing the work of public charter schools at work: Harmony Public Schools, YesPrep Public Charter Schools, and KIPP Public Charter Schools have made tremendous advancements.

It is my hope that charter school districts and charter schools will take up the challenge of providing hard data to make the case for their approaches to education.

I offered two amendments for consideration by the House Rules Committee that would strengthen the legislative goals of H.R. 10.

I also offered a second Jackson Lee Amendment in the form of a ``Sense of the Congress'' on the promotion of, and support for anti- bullying programs in charter schools, including those that serve rural communities not supported by the Rules Committee. I regret that this amendment was not made in order for consideration of this bill because the prevention of bullying is one of the most challenging problems facing school officials.

Bullying is not a new behavior. Kids have been exposed to bullying in school for generations. Now, however, bullying has taken on

new heights and sometimes victims of bullies suffer severe and lasting consequences.

For victims of bullying, they go to school every day facing harassment, taunting, and humiliation. Studies show that 25-35 percent of teens encountered some type of bullying in their lifetime. Bullying is a form of violent behavior that happens not only in the schools but everywhere.

The National Center for Educational Studies reports show that 14 percent of 12- to 18-year-olds surveyed report being victims of direct or indirect bullying. 1 out of 4 kids is bullied. The Department of Justice reports that 1 out of every 4 kids will be abused by another youth.

I introduced H.R. 2585, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Reauthorization and the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Act of 2013. This bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by expanding the juvenile accountability block grant program with respect to programs for the prevention of bullying to include intervention programs. The bill's objective is to reduce and prevent bullying and establish best practices for all activities that are likely to help reduce bullying among young people.

This year a million children will be teased, taunted, and physically assaulted by their peers. Bullying is the most common form of violence faced by our nation's youth.

The frequency and intensity of bullying that young people face are astounding:

1 in 7 students in grades K-12 is either a bully or a victim of bullying.

90 percent of 4th to 8th grade students report being victims of bullying of some type.

56 percent of students have personally witnessed some type of bullying at school.

71 percent of students report incidents of bullying as a problem at their school.

15 percent of all students who don't show up for school report it to being out of fear of being bullied while at school.

1 out of 20 students has seen a student with a gun at school,

282,000 students are physically attacked in secondary schools each month.

Consequences of bullying:

15 percent of all school absenteeism is directly related to fears of being bullied at school.

According to bullying statistics, 1 out of every 10 students who drops out of school does so because of repeated bullying.

Suicides linked to bullying are the saddest statistic.

Statistics on gun violence:

Homicide is the 2nd leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24 years old.

Homicide is the leading cause of death for African Americans between ages 10 and 24.

Thirteen young people from ages 10-24 become victims of homicide every day.

82.8 percent of those youths were killed with a firearm.

Every 30 minutes, a child or teenager in America is injured by a gun.

Every 3 hours and 15 minutes, a child or teenager loses their life to a firearm.

In 2010, 82 children under 5 years of age lost their lives due to guns.

One of four high school males reportedly carry a weapon to school, with 8.6 percent of reportedly carry a gun.

87 percent of youth said shootings are motivated by a desire to ``get back at those who have hurt them, and 86 percent said, ``other kids picking on them, making fun of them or bullying them'' causes teenagers to turn to lethal violence in the schools.

In 2011, over 707,000 young people, aged 10 to 24 years, had to be rushed to the emergency room as a result of physical assault injuries.

Victims of bullying often suffer in silence and parents are the last ones to know that their child is being bullied or may be a bully. What once was thought to be a childhood ritual has been proven by school psychologists, law enforcement officials, parents, and students to be much more serious.

Anti-bullying programs can help children understand the seriousness of bullying; and assist parents in learning the signs of bullying as well as learning how to speak to their children about the issue of bullying.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment to make information available on publicly funded charter school websites so that parents are afforded the opportunity to make the best education decisions for their children.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, this week, women Members of the United States House of Representatives went to the Nigerian Embassy to plead and to insist on the fight to bring our girls home and, as well, to establish a victims' fund and to find and bring the thug Sekau, the leader of the Boko Haram terrorist group, to justice.

Today, I am going to read a few names of those girls that are missing for those mothers who are longing for their return:

Rebecca Luka, Laraba John, Saratu Markus, Mary Usman, Debora Yahonna, Naomi Zakaria, Hanatu Musa, Hauwa Tella, Juliana Yakubu, Suzana Yakubu, Saraya Paul, Jummai Paul, Mary Sule, Jummai John, Yanke Shittima, Muli Waligam, Fatima Tabji, and Eli Joseph.

I will put all of them in the Record.

In honor of Mother's Day, I mourn with those mothers, I pray for mothers across America, and I pray for the Nigerian mothers whose children are still missing.

May I ask prayers for all who are longing now for their children to return, and may I offer my blessings to my late mother, Ivalita Jackson.

Mr. Speaker, among other challenges in this world and in this Congress, Nigeria faces a killing machine. In the last 48 hours, again, Boko Haram struck and killed 300 people. This killing has been going on for a minimum of 5 to 10 years.

Yesterday, five Members--five women of the United States Congress held this sign to indicate that we, as mothers, grandmothers, aunts, and those who care about children, all of our colleagues stand united to find the kidnapped girls and to stop the killing in Nigeria.

We stand united to find the vile and evil Abubakar Shekau, the head of the Boko Haram killing contingent. We saw him most recently grabbing attention by standing in front of a tank, holding a gun, and citing the most ludicrous and insulting prospect that one could hear. He held up $12 and indicated that he would sell the kidnapped girls.

Mr. Speaker, that is not all that he is doing. He has been killing and pillaging. He has caused parents to have to, in essence, go after him with sticks and stones.

Yesterday, we spoke not only with the leadership at the Nigerian Embassy, a relationship that the United States prides in terms of the contribution Nigeria has made, but it is no doubt that, in this instance, we want Nigeria to do more and more and more.

We asked, by speaking to the leadership in Nigeria by phone, that President Goodluck Jonathan stand up and indicate Nigeria's commitment to finding these girls and, in essence, bringing this horror terrorist to justice.

At the World Economic Forum, his opening remarks did just that. He spoke about the help that was coming from the United States, the leadership of President Obama and Secretary Kerry, and the other nations that are coming together to be able to find these girls.

Outside of Syria and Afghanistan, in terms of mass killings over the recent years, this stands, clearly, in the eye of the storm.

We ask to have created a victims' fund. We want to be able to ensure that these parents who are, literally, broken and the children that may be found--or the wounded ones--have the opportunity to be made whole.

We believe that it is important to create an elite police or military force, one that is focused to utilize the resources of intelligence and the law enforcement resources that are being sent to Nigeria by the United States. That deployed elite military and/or police force-- special ops, if you would--would have the sole purpose of getting those kidnapped girls.

The reason why this is so very important is because Nigeria has porous borders. There is speculation that these girls may be in Cameroon, may be in Chad, may be in Niger, Benin, all places that will make it even more difficult to find these innocent children who simply came to school to be able to take an exam, so that they could do better in life.

How dare we allow this brutal killer to last much longer without being brought to justice?

So that elite force would bring this vile and evil person, who has no intent to do anything more than to continue to ramp up his publicity and the world's attention to his violence, bring him now to justice, move quickly utilizing the resources and focusing.

It is also important that all of the world's institutions declare Boko Haram--the ridiculous group that says: we don't want any western education, and all girls should be married--declared a terrorist organization.

It must be done swiftly, so that all the world's focus will be on this dastardly, devastating, vile leader of this organization and the organization.

We can collaborate with the African Union and the U.N. peacekeepers. Then we want to provide armed protection for all of the schools as they finish out or continue their educational training.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to you these are like the boys and girls that are in the schools of America right now. These are primary education children. These are secondary.

I ask my colleagues to join in the outrage of this ridiculous and horrible situation. I ask that we are finding our girls and capturing this terrorist leader.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all understand and believe that our children are our most precious resource.

Over the last couple of weeks, hearts and minds of many around the world have been captured by a heinous thug by the name of Abubakar Shekau, the leader of the Boko Haram, who has been a vile, disgraceful, violent, and uncaring terrorist thug.

Yet we do not know where these girls are.

As women of the United States Congress, yesterday, myself, Barbara Lee, Marcia Fudge, Karen Bass, and Janice Hahn went to the Nigerian Embassy to stand and reject the $12 that Shekau wants to sell these girls for.

We ask that we have a concerted effort on this. We should also establish a victims' fund.

In the meeting, as we spoke to those from Nigeria, we asked President Jonathan to stand up to say they will find these girls and they will bring this terrorist to justice. We ask that today because no one knows where these girls might be.

I close by calling two names: Aisha Ezekial and Nguba Buba. I will be calling these girls' names throughout this week to remind us they must be found now.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman, the ranking member on the Rules Committee, and my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, for the hard work that the Rules Committee engages in.

I think the first comment that I would like to make is what we have been making, Ms. Slaughter, throughout this process, is our deep and abiding sympathy for the Americans who lost their lives in the name and in the duty to this country. I don't think there is a divide on that issue.

I would take a different perspective from a cold case. This is a hot and ongoing case that has been investigated and has evidenced individuals whom I would believe that, in any other instance, my friends on the side of the aisle would hold to the integrity of their representation.

One hundred years of military experience testified on the question of Benghazi, I believe, in the Committee on Armed Services. We have heard over and over from those in the State Department. We have had conclusions on the question of coverup, and we have seen nothing pointed to the administration to do so.

I think the issue today is a question of fairness. That is what Democrats have always stood for. I have watched my leaders through the endless investigations, starting from Waco and the impeachment process, and I can almost say--maybe I should even say that I come from a district where the Honorable Barbara Jordan served. She was on the Watergate Committee and the impeachment process as a member of the Judiciary Committee. I remember her posture on that committee and holding up the Constitution. As a Texan, as a Democrat, we admired that. That is the premise upon which I believe we should be looking at this process.

As I read this resolution, I am troubled, Mr. Speaker, because if we are going to do fairness and if we are going to reach a level of ethical respect, then there is a concern. We need an amendment, because this follows the rules of the House, which means that the chairman is solely given and ceded the authority--that means he or she could--of subpoena power. That does not rise to the level of fairness.

Now, someone refuted our leadership's request for a bipartisan, even- numbered committee and cited that the only committee that is even- numbered is the Committee on Ethics, and they are right, Mr. Speaker. We want this to be an ethical, fair, responsibly, constitutionally grounded committee investigation report, because the committee is unending. It will end only 30 days after the completion of its work; therefore, it can go on and on and on. The question is will the American people see fairness.

Mr. Speaker, what we want them to see, if we truly honor those dead Americans that died in the line of battle and duty, then we need the kind of face to the American people that balances the subpoena power so that we all--meaning Republicans and Democrats who are on that committee, if that committee is finalized--can responsibly question witnesses, and that the issue will not be the committee in its process, but it will be the fairness, it will be the Constitution, it will be the dignity and honor we give to those who have fallen.

I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, we can waive the point of order, amend this on the floor of the House to give a balance to this committee, to add the balance that our leadership has asked for, the fairness that our leadership is asking for, give the subpoena powers in a balanced manner, pay tribute to those who have honored this Nation by being willing to stand in the line, in the eye of fire.

I conclude simply by indicating we are the people of this Nation. Respond to our concerns. And I ask my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to come and join in an aspect of our bipartisan work that is working for children, and I thank the Education Committee and Mr. Polis for their leadership in focusing on the idea that our children need the best education.

I also know the hearts of the Education Committee members and Mr. Polis in recognizing that public schools are a valuable asset, having been educated throughout my primary and secondary education in public schools. We want to have the opportunity to match excellence with excellence and to ensure that the oversight allows for excellence.

So H.R. 10, the Success and Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Act, brings all of this together: respecting teachers, holding children to a higher standard, and giving them the necessary tools.

I am glad that I had an amendment that will be in the manager's amendment that deals with requiring the Secretary to report issues regarding the age, race, and gender at charter schools, and also, the attrition and college acceptance. It has that same requirement for the teachers, as far as teacher attrition. That is important. That is already in the manager's amendment.

I also think more transparency and information to the parents on the Web sites concerning orientation materials, enrollment curriculum, student discipline, and behavior codes adds to this legislation. In that, we can ensure that there will be policies to prevent any bullying or even to have bullying intervention so that our children can have a better quality of life.

This is a holistic approach to educating our children. I believe the underlying bill speaks volumes that our children are our most precious resource. I hope that, as we continue, we will be able to work on other items, such as unemployment insurance and comprehensive immigration reform, because these are ways that we show America that we are working for them.

When we put forward legislation that focuses on the education of our children and the choices that our children can make, balanced alongside of ensuring the lifting of the boats of public education, we are in the right direction.

I am delighted to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak during the House's consideration of the Rule for H.R. 10, the ``Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act.''

The Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act would revise the Charter School Program and the Public Charter Schools of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

The rule before the House will pave the way for the consideration of a legislative proposal that consolidates two existing federal charter school programs into one:

The Charter School Program, which supports grants for charter school developers to open new charter schools. The program also provides funds to disseminate best practices and provide state facilities aid to charter schools.

The Charter School Credit Enhancement Program assists charter schools in accessing better credit terms to acquire and renovate facilities to operate a charter school.

The rule will allow the consideration of the bill that will create a new federal charter schools program to promote high-quality charter schools at the state and local level; and allows states to use federal funds to start new charter schools as well as expand and replicate existing high-quality charter schools.

The bill adds a new component--a Charter Management Organization grant program to support the opening of additional charter schools nationwide.

H.R. 10 establishes a new Charter School Program that would consist of three parts:

Grants to support high-quality charter schools will be awarded to a State Educational Agency, the State Charter School Board, the Governor, or a Charter School Support Organization.

Facilities Aid will be awarded to continue credit enhancement activities and support state facilities aid for charter schools.

National Activities will allow the secretary of education to operate a grant competition for charter schools in states that did not win or compete for a state grant and a competition for high quality CMOs.

The legislation adds five new definitions: a ``charter management organization, a charter support organization'', a ``high-quality charter school''; the ``expansion of a high-quality charter school''; and a ``replicable, high-quality charter school model.''

H.R. 10 authorizes $300,000,000 for fiscal years 2015 through 2020. The bill permits state-determined weighted lotteries and allows students to continue in the school program of their choice by clarifying students in affiliated charter schools can attend the next immediate grade in that network's school.

Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 10

I have long supported the need for better data on the experiences of children that Congress could use when deliberating on legislative measures intended to benefit our youngest citizens.

The Education and Workforce Committee included language in the amendment in the form of a substitute for the bill that reflected an amendment I had intended to offer as a separate amendment. The language reflects the intent of my amendment by adding rates of student attrition as a measure to be considered by charter school authorizers in monitoring the successes of schools.

Attrition data would help us better understand the impact of charter schools on student retention. It would also bring additional transparency regarding the drivers of attrition issues such as discipline, counseling, drop-outs, bullying, as well as the impact of learning disabilities like dyslexia on student retention.

Although the data reporting is not mandatory, it is my hope that charter school districts and charter schools will take up the challenge of providing hard data to make the case for their approaches to education.

I offered two amendments for consideration by the House Rules Committee that would strengthen the legislative goals of H.R. 10.

The amendments were simple and were an important addition to this strong bipartisan effort from the Education and Workforce Committee to bring clarity and improve transparency of charter schools in communities around the Nation.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1

The Jackson Lee amendment made in order by the Rules Committee for debate of this bill directs State Education Agencies that award Federally funded grants to charter schools to work with those schools so that they provide information on their websites regarding student recruitment, orientation materials, enrollment criteria, student discipline policies, behavior codes, and parent contract requirements, which should include any financial obligations such as fees for tutoring, and extra-curricular activities.

This Amendment will make it possible for parents to learn more about how schools deal with important education issues such as academic performance, enrichment programs, and quality of education life issues like reasonable accommodations for students with learning disabilities like dyslexia or physical disabilities.

Many charter schools already provide this information, and the amendment would support this good transparency practice. This Jackson Lee amendment is good for parents and for charter schools because parents would have access to information that helps them make education decisions for their children; and charter schools would speak to a larger audience regarding their education programs.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 2

The second Jackson Lee amendment was a ``Sense of the Congress'' on the promotion of, and support for anti-bullying programs in charter schools, including those serving rural communities.

I regret that this amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee because the prevention of bullying is one of the most challenging problems focusing school officials.

I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make this amendment in order for consideration under this bill.

I introduced H.R. 2585, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Reauthorization and the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Act of 2013 because of the unresolved national epidemic of school bullying. This anti-bullying bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by expanding the juvenile accountability block grant program with respect to programs for the prevention of bullying to include intervention programs. The bill's objective is to reduce and prevent bullying and establish best practices for all activities that are likely to help reduce bullying among young people.

This year a million children will be teased, taunted, and physically assaulted by their peers. Bullying is the most common form of violence faced by our Nation's youth.

The frequency and intensity of bullying that young people face are astounding: 1 in 7 students in grades K-12 is either a bully or a victim of bullying; 90% of 4th to 8th grade students report being victims of bullying of some type, 56% of students have personally witnessed some type of bullying at school; 71% of students report incidents of bullying as a problem at their school; 15% of all students who don't show up for school report it to being out of fear of being bullied while at school; 1 out of 20 students has seen a student with a gun at school; 282,000 students are physically attacked in secondary schools each month.

Consequences of bullying: 15% of all school absenteeism is directly related to fears of being bullied at school; According to bullying statistics, 1 out of every 10 students who drops out of school does so because of repeated bullying; Suicides linked to bullying are the saddest statistic.

Statistics on Gun Violence: Homicide is the 2nd leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24 years old; Homicide is the leading cause of death for African Americans between ages 10 and 24; Thirteen young people from ages 10-24 become victims of homicide every day; 82.8% of those youths were killed with a firearm; Every 30 minutes, a child or teenager in America is injured by a gun; Every 3 hours and 15 minutes, a child or teenager loses their life to a firearm; In 2010, 82 children under 5 years of age lost their lives due to guns; One of four high school males reportedly carry a weapon to school, with 8.6% of reportedly carry a gun; 87% of youth said shootings are motivated by a desire to ``get back at those who have hurt them,'' and 86% said, ``other kids picking on them, making fun of them or bullying them'' causes teenagers to turn to lethal violence in the schools; In 2011, over 707,000 young people, aged 10 to 24 years, had to be rushed to the emergency room as a result of physical assault injuries.

I strongly believe that where our children are concerned, Congress is in a unique position to advocate on their behalf in an effective and forceful way. Letting children know by our actions that members of Congress consider the lives of children and their experience to be of the utmost importance would help them in countless ways.

We cannot gamble with our children's future, and ultimately the future of our nation. I am committed to finding ways to make sure that education is as valued as national defense--because education is crucial to our nation's global success in all areas.

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

Amendment Offered by Ms. Foxx

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak during House consideration of H.R. 10, the ``Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act.''

Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 10

I have long supported the need for better data on the experiences of children that Congress could use when deliberating on legislative measures intended to benefit our youngest citizens.

Charter Schools are a new addition to education options available to parents and their children. It is important that Congress ensures that the benefit of a good free pre-K-12 education is available to all parents and children of this nation.

The Education and the Workforce Committee included language in the amendment in the form of a substitute for the bill that reflected an amendment I intended to offer. The language in the bill that adds rates of student attrition as a measure to be considered by charter school authorizers in monitoring the successes of schools is appreciated and will help gain additional insight into children's education.

Attrition data would help us better understand the impact of charter schools on student retention. It would also bring additional transparency regarding the drivers of attrition issues such as discipline, counseling, drop-outs, bullying, as well as the impact of learning disabilities like dyslexia on student retention.

Although the data reporting is not mandatory, it is my hope that charter school districts and charter schools will take up the challenge of providing hard data to make the case for their approaches to education.

I offered two amendments for consideration by the House Rules Committee that would strengthen the legislative goals of H.R. 10.

The amendments were simple and were an important addition to this strong bipartisan effort from the Education and Workforce Committee to bring clarity and improve transparency of charter schools in communities around the nation.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1

The Jackson Lee amendment made in order by the Rules Committee for debate of this bill directs State Education Agencies that award federally funded grants to charter schools under this bill to work with those schools so that they provide information on their websites regarding student recruitment, orientation materials, enrollment criteria, student discipline policies, behavior codes, and parent contract requirements, which should include any financial obligations such as fees for tutoring, and extra-circular activities.

This amendment will make it possible for parents to learn more about how schools deal with important education issues such as academic performance, enrichment programs, and quality of education life issues programs for children with learning disabilities like dyslexia are taught.

Many charter schools already provide this information, and the amendment would support this good transparency practice. This Jackson Lee amendment is good for parents and for charter schools because parents would have access to information that helps them make education decisions for their children; and charter schools would speak to a larger audience regarding their education programs.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 2

The second Jackson Lee amendment was a ``Sense of the Congress'' on the promotion of, and support for anti-bullying programs in charter schools, including those serving rural communities. I regret that this amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee because the prevention of bullying is one of the most challenging problems facing school officials.

Bullying is not a new behavior. Kids have been exposed to bullying in school for generations. Now, however, bullying has taken on new heights and sometimes victims of bullies suffer severe and lasting consequences.

For victims of bullying, they go to school every day facing harassment, taunting, and

humiliation. Studies show that 25-35% of teens encountered some type of bullying in their lifetime. Bullying is a form of violent behavior that happens not only in the schools but everywhere.

The National Center for Educational Studies reports show that 14 percent of 12- to 18-year-olds surveyed report being victims of direct or indirect bullying. 1 out of 4 kids is bullied. The Department of Justice reports that 1 out of every 4 kids will be abused by another youth.

I introduced H.R. 2585, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Reauthorization and the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Act of 2013. This bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by expanding the juvenile accountability block grant program with respect to programs for the prevention of bullying to include intervention programs. The bill's objective is to reduce and prevent bullying and establish best practices for all activities that are likely to help reduce bullying among young people.

This year a million children will be teased, taunted, and physically assaulted by their peers. Bullying the most common form of violence faced by our nation's youth.

The frequency and intensity of bullying that young people face are astounding: 1 in 7 Students in Grades K-12 is either a bully or a victim of bullying; 90% of 4th to 8th Grade Students report being victims of bullying of some type; 56% of students have personally witnessed some type of bullying at school; 71% of students report incidents of bullying as a problem at their school; 15% of all students who don't show up for school report it to being out of fear of being bullied while at school; 1 out of 20 students has seen a student with a gun at school; 282,000 students are physically attacked in secondary schools each month.

Consequences of bullying: 15% of all school absenteeism is directly related to fears of being bullied at school; according to bullying statistics, 1 out of every 10 students who drops out of school does so because of repeated bullying; suicides linked to bullying are the saddest statistic.

Statistics on Gun Violence: homicide is the 2nd leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24 years old; homicide is the leading cause of death for African Americans between ages 10 and 24; thirteen young people from ages 10-24 become victims of homicide every day; 82.8% of those youths were killed with a firearm; every 30 minutes, a child or teenager in America is injured by a gun; every 3 hours and 15 minutes, a child or teenager loses their life to a firearm; in 2010, 82 children under 5 years of age lost their lives due to guns; one of four high school males reportedly carry a weapon to school, with 8.6% of reportedly carry a gun; 87% of youth said shootings are motivated by a desire to ``get back at those who have hurt them, and 86% said, ``other kids picking on them, making fun of them or bullying them'' causes teenagers to turn to lethal violence in the schools; in 2011, over 707,000 young people, aged 10 to 24 years, had to be rushed to the emergency room as a result of physical assault injuries.

Victims of bullying often suffer in silence and parents are the last ones to know that their child is being bullied or may be a bully. What once was thought to be a childhood ritual has been proven by school psychologists, law enforcement officials, parents, and students to be much more serious.

Anti-bullying programs can help children understand the seriousness of bullying; and assist parents in learning the signs of bullying as well as learning how to speak to their children about the issue of bullying.

H.R. 10 will consolidate two existing federal charter school programs into one:

The Charter School Program, which supports grants for charter school developers to open new charter schools. The program also provides funds to disseminate best practices and provide state facilities aid to charter schools.

The Charter School Credit Enhancement Program assists charter schools in accessing better credit terms to acquire and renovate facilities to operate a charter school.

The rule will allow the consideration of the bill that will create a new federal charter schools program to promote high-quality charter schools at the state and local level; and allows states to use federal funds to start new charter schools as well as expand and replicate existing high-quality charter schools.

The bill adds a new component--a Charter Management Organization grant program to support the opening of additional charter schools nationwide.

H.R. 10 establishes a new Charter School Program that would consist of three parts:

Grants to support high-quality charter schools will be awarded to a State Educational Agency, the State Charter School Board, the Governor, or a Charter School Support Organization.

Facilities Aid will be awarded to continue credit enhancement activities and support state facilities aid for charter schools.

National Activities will allow the secretary of education to operate a grant competition for charter schools in states that did not win or compete for a state grant and a competition for high quality CMOs.

The legislation adds five new definitions: a ``charter management organization, a charter support organization'', a ``high-quality charter school''; the ``expansion of a high-quality charter school''; and a ``replicable, high-quality charter school model.''

H.R. 10 authorizes $300,000,000 for fiscal years 2015 through 2020. The bill permits state-determined weighted lotteries and allows students to continue in the school program of their choice by clarifying students in affiliated charter schools can attend the next immediate grade in that network's school.

I strongly believe that where our children are concerned, Congress is in a unique position to advocate on their behalf in an effective and forceful way. Letting children know by our actions that members of Congress consider the lives of children and their experience to be of the utmost importance would help them in countless ways.

We cannot gamble with our children's future, and ultimately the future of our nation. I am committed to finding ways to make sure that education is as valued as national defense--because education is crucial to our nation's global success in all areas.

I thank the distinguished Congressman from New Jersey, Congressman Lance, for having this very special Special Order this evening and my friends, Congressmen Brian Higgins, Chuck Fleischmann, and John Carney, for sponsoring this evening's Special Order to recognize the 50th anniversary of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

One would wonder what seven physicians were doing some 50 years ago. And I am glad that they came together to recognize the vibrance and the vitality of their specialty and the importance of gathering together. They had their first real meeting with 51 physicians in November of 1964. And I am glad that they organized because, as we watch the progression of research and care in the treatment of cancer, we owe a great deal to them. Let me tell you why: because when they founded this organization in 1964, cancer was perceived as largely untreatable. In fact, even today, we still have the remnants of that fear when you get that diagnosis.

Many people call it the big C. There is trepidation and fear. And I would say to you that when those physicians organized in 1964, they understood the awesome and ominous task that they had. Only a handful of hard-to-tolerate and mostly ineffective therapies were even available. And they organized to provide for physicians with proper professional educational background material and the opportunity to come together to facilitate their own improved management of patients with neoplastic diseases, supporting collaborations in medical and research organizations, and initiating and coordinating and cooperating on projects of investigation.

So I am glad to celebrate them today because, in the cancer hospitals across America--and I have the privilege of having in my community MD Anderson. And among the work that MD Anderson does, it collaborates with our local clinics and other hospitals because everyone knows that everyone cannot get into a specific cancer hospital, but they may be in a general hospital in which there is a cancer unit. Those oncologists collaborate with the oncologists in the major cancer centers of America.

And I simply want to thank my colleagues here because MD Anderson has benefited from your understanding of the need for cancer research dollars.

The NIH is an entity that we should fully fund, and I am on record to have that funding. $32 billion is what will put that entity in a position to do its work.

I was interested to listen to the gentleman who spoke of both his mother and his father. And I believe when Members come to the floor and speak of their personal and human experiences, it draws us closer to our constituents and to our colleagues who have walked some of the similar territories.

So as I have listened to his story, mine is different, for I heard that diagnosis--cancer, breast cancer. And I didn't hear it quickly, because when I suspected that my physician was calling to say that, all of a sudden, my phone didn't work, and it was quite difficult to reach me. I was on an airplane. I was in a meeting.

And even in this era of new research, to hear that is a startling and overwhelming experience. But the good news is that oncologists have grown in their research, working with the NIH over these 50 years, and they have been able to give families and children not 100 percent, maybe not even 90 percent, but they have been able to cut the mortality rate of pediatric cancer. All of us know how heart-wrenching that is, how difficult it is to see a child suffer with cancer.

There was a story in my local newspaper. I talked with one of my neighbors a distance away from my community who, sadly, lost their 3- year-old. The community gave that 3-year-old a princess parade some months ago; and, sadly, she lost her life. It is heart-wrenching to see a family member suffer without relief.

But yet, through the oncologists and their research and the work that we are doing here in the United States Congress to support that research, we have been able to impact pediatric cancer. We have been able to work to impact breast cancer. And I have continued to work to highlight the idea that cancer, in all of its forms, can ultimately be cured.

I would like to cite the physicians at MD Anderson. I visited with one today who talked about the new attitude that they have and wanting to get woven into care a large sector of preventative care because they realize that we are living longer. And by living longer, that is a plus, but they are recognizing that more elderly are now susceptible to cancer in their older years and, therefore, we need research, preventative care to be able to get in front of that so that the cost of saving their life can be the amount needed to do so, but that we can put a stop to them losing their life because we have engaged in preventative care.

So I have offered amendments on something called the triple-negative breast cancer. It is one of the most deadly aspects of breast cancer. It impacts minority women, African American and Hispanics, white women and Asians, all women.

I remember being in a breast cancer walk, and a young woman came up to me who, I guess, had been reading everything about it. She hugged me and said, ``I am here to walk for my mother. I saw what you are doing for triple-negative''--a Hispanic young woman. ``She did not make it, but thank you.''

That is how families are. They are so grateful for any recognition of the pain that they went through, that even if they lost their loved one, they are so happy that maybe you are doing something to help others. So I am glad that we are here tonight to be able to acknowledge oncologists who are the very ones who would come and bring forward these new ideas.

Might I just briefly say these few points: one, with respect to triple-negative breast cancer, between 10 and 17 percent of female breast cancer patients have triple-negative. It is three times more likely to cause death than the most common form of breast cancer. Seventy percent of women with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer do not live more than 5 years after being diagnosed. There is no targeted treatment available. The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.''

But the good news is that in my conversations with MD Anderson, among the many finite research areas that they are doing, they have included triple-negative breast cancer. I know that those oncologists are going to give us a new day.

So Congressman Lance, I thank you for honoring now 50 years of oncologists working to ensure that there is a cure. And I want to acknowledge Dr. DePinho, who is the new CEO of MD Anderson, his wife and the amazing research that she is doing, and all of the oncologists there.

But as I close, I would like to recognize a dear friend, MD Anderson oncologist Dr. John Mendelsohn, who served as the CEO for any number of years. Many of my colleagues here in the United States Congress know him well. I call John a friend. He will be honored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology for its 50th anniversary through the organization's Oncology Luminary series. He is an oncologist, as we know. He served as president of MD Anderson through an incredibly productive period of nearly 15 years. The institution doubled in size during his tenure and aimed at higher excellence. He has an international reputation. And he and his collaborators in California produced monoclonal antibody 225, which inhibits human cancer cell proliferation by blocking the signal and pathways that are activated by the receptors for epidermal growth factor.

There are many whom we can cite tonight, but I simply want to celebrate that there is a specialty called oncology that could cause more of us to answer that phone call when we are called and to receive that diagnosis in a way that we know there is hope and that family members will know there is hope and other family members who are now facing a diagnosis of cancer of their loved one will have hope.

Oncologists have given us that hope as they continue to research, and I stand ready with my colleagues to provide the right kind of research and

funding for them to continue to look to save lives.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues Congressmen Leonard Lance, Brian Higgins, Chuck Fleishmann, and John Carney for sponsoring this evening's special order to recognize the 50th anniversary of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

On April 9, 1964, the American Society of Clinical Oncology held its first organizational meeting when 7 physicians who are known as the founders of the organization.

Fifty-one physicians attended the first meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago in November of 1964.

The ASOC supports oncologists by: providing physicians with proper professional educational background material and the opportunity to facilitate their own improved management of patients with neoplastic diseases; supporting collaborations with other medical and research organizations, national and otherwise, with a view of enhancing professional education in the area of diagnosis and treatment of patients with neoplastic diseases; and initiating, coordinating and cooperating in projects of investigation of human neoplastic disease.

At the time ASCO was established in 1964, cancer was largely untreatable. Only a handful of hard-to-tolerate and mostly ineffective therapies were available.

I want to thank and recognize the Oncologists who serve the residents of the City of Houston for their work and dedication in providing treatment and care to cancer patients.

Congresswoman Jackson Lee's work on Women's Health and Safety

I introduced H.R. 80, the Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Research and Education Act.

The bill requires the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to expand, intensify, and coordinate programs for the conduct and support of research on triple-negative breast cancer (breast cancers whose cells are negative for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors, and the HER2 protein on their sources).

Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to develop and disseminate to the public information regarding triple-negative breast cancer, including information on: (1) the incidence and prevalence of such breast cancer among women, (2) the elevated risk for minority women, and (3) the availability of a range of treatment options.

Requires the Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), to develop and disseminate information on triple-negative breast cancer to health care providers.

Last year, I offered an amendment that was added to the House of Representatives' Department of Defense Authorization bill that directs the Department of Defense Office of Health to collaborate with the National Institutes of Health to provide resources to identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for TNBC.

Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC)

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a term used to describe breast cancers whose cells do not have estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors, and do not have an excess of the ``HER2'' protein on their cell membrane of tumor cells.

Between 10-17% of female breast cancer patients have the triple negative subtype.

Three times more likely to cause death than the most common form of breast cancer, 70% of women with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not live more than five years after being diagnosed.

There is no targeted treatment available for TNBC. The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.''

Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) cells are usually of a higher grade and size; Onset at a younger age; More aggressive; and more likely to metastasize

TNBC is in fact a heterogeneous group of cancers with varying differences in prognosis and survival rate between various subtypes. This has led to a lot of confusion amongst both physicians and patients.

Apart from surgery, cytotoxic chemotherapy is the only available treatment; targeted molecular treatments while being investigated are not accepted treatment.

Populations Affected by TNBC

TNBC disproportionately impacts younger women, African American women, Hispanic/Latina women, and women with a ``BRCA1'' genetic mutation, which is prevalent in Jewish women.

TNBC usually affects women under 50 years of age.

More than 30% of all breast cancer diagnoses in African American women are of the triple negative variety. Black women are far more susceptible to this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women.

Women with TNBC are more likely to have distance metastases in the brain and lung and more common subtypes of breast cancer.

Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted treatment.

Houston is home to MD Anderson

I would like recognize MD Anderson Oncologist Dr. John Mendelsohn who will be honored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology for its 50th anniversary through the organization's ``Oncology Luminaries'' series.

Dr. Mendelsohn is an Oncologist at MD Anderson, which is located in the city of Houston Texas.

Dr. Mendelsohn served as president of MD Anderson through an incredibly productive period of nearly 15 years. The institution more than doubled in size during his tenure, while aiming for even higher excellence in patient care and research.

Dr. Mendelsohn brought to MD Anderson an international reputation for his research on how the binding of growth factors to receptors on the surface of cells regulates cell functions.

He and his collaborators in California produced monoclonal antibody 225, which inhibits human cancer cell proliferation by blocking the signaling pathways that are activated by the receptors for epidermal growth factor.

His subsequent research in the laboratory and the clinic pioneered the universally adopted concept of anti-receptor therapy that targets key cell signaling pathways as a new form of cancer treatment.

I join my colleagues in honoring and recognizing the important contribution to advances in cancer treatment made possible by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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.