[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 7, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H3482-H3909]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1615
RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE FIND LOIS G. LERNER IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, I call up the report (H. Rept. 113-415) to accompany
the resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Lois
G. Lerner, Former Director, Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue
Service, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena
duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The Clerk read the title of the report.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Amodei). Pursuant to House Resolution
568, the report is considered read.
The text of the report is as follows:
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, having
considered this Report, report favorably thereon and
recommend that the Report be approved.
The form of the resolution that the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform would recommend to the House of
Representatives for citing Lois G. Lerner, former Director,
Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, for contempt
of Congress pursuant to this report is as follows:
Resolved, That because Lois G. Lerner, former Director,
Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, offered a
voluntary statement in testimony before the Committee, was
found by the Committee to have waived her Fifth Amendment
Privilege, was informed of the Committee's decision of
waiver, and continued to refuse to testify before the
Committee, Ms. Lerner shall be found to be in contempt of
Congress for failure to comply with a congressional subpoena.
Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192 and 194,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the
[[Page H3483]]
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, detailing the
refusal of Ms. Lerner to testify before the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform as directed by subpoena, to
the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to
the end that Ms. Lerner be proceeded against in the manner
and form provided by law.
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise
take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Lois G. Lerner has refused to comply with a congressional
subpoena for testimony before the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform relating to her role in the Internal
Revenue Service's treatment of certain applicants for tax-
exempt status. Her testimony is vital to the Committee's
investigation into this matter.
Ms. Lerner offered a voluntary statement in her appearance
before the Committee. The Committee subsequently determined
that she waived her Fifth Amendment privilege in making this
statement, and it informed Ms. Lerner of its decision. Still,
Ms. Lerner continued to refuse to testify before the
Committee.
Accordingly, the Chairman of the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee recommends that the House find Ms. Lerner in
contempt for her failure to comply with the subpoena issued
to her.
II. AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE
An important corollary to the powers expressly granted to
Congress by the Constitution is the responsibility to perform
rigorous oversight of the Executive Branch. The U.S. Supreme
Court has recognized this Congressional power and
responsibility on numerous occasions. For example, in McGrain
v. Daugherty, the Court held:
[T]he power of inquiry--with process to enforce it--is an
essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative
function. . . . A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or
effectively in the absence of information respecting the
conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or
change, and where the legislative body does not itself
possess the requisite information--which not infrequently is
true--recourse must be had to others who do possess it.'' \1\
Further, in Watkins v. United States, Chief Justice Earl
Warren wrote for the majority: ``The power of Congress to
conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative
process. That power is broad.'' \2\
Further, both the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946
(P.L. 79-601), which directed House and Senate Committees to
``exercise continuous watchfulness'' over Executive Branch
programs under their jurisdiction, and the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510), which authorized
committees to ``review and study, on a continuing basis, the
application, administration, and execution'' of laws, codify
the powers of Congress.
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is a
standing committee of the House of Representatives, duly
established pursuant to the rules of the House of
Representatives, which are adopted pursuant to the Rulemaking
Clause of the U.S. Constitution.\3\ House Rule X grants to
the Committee broad jurisdiction over federal ``[g]overnment
management'' and reform, including the ``[o]verall economy,
efficiency, and management of government operations and
activities,'' the ``[f]ederal civil service,'' and
``[r]eorganizations in the executive branch of the
Government.'' \4\ House Rule X further grants the Committee
particularly broad oversight jurisdiction, including
authority to ``conduct investigations of any matter without
regard to clause 1, 2, 3, or this clause [of House Rule X]
conferring jurisdiction over the matter to another standing
committee.'' \5\ The rules direct the Committee to make
available ``the findings and recommendations of the committee
. . . to any other standing committee having jurisdiction
over the matter involved.'' \6\
House Rule XI specifically authorizes the Committee to
``require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and
testimony of such witnesses and the production of books,
records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as
it considers necessary.'' \7\ The rule further provides that
the ``power to authorize and issue subpoenas'' may be
delegated to the Committee chairman.\8\ The subpoena
discussed in this report was issued pursuant to this
authority.
The Committee has undertaken its investigation into the
IRS's inappropriate treatment of conservative tax-exempt
organizations pursuant to the authority delegated to it under
the House Rules, including as described above.
The oversight and legislative purposes of the investigation
at issue here, described more fully immediately below,
include (1) to evaluate decisions made by the Internal
Revenue Service regarding the inappropriate treatment of
conservative applicants for tax-exempt status; and (2) to
assess, based on the findings of the investigation, whether
the conduct uncovered may warrant additions or modifications
to federal law, including, but not limited to, a possible
restructuring of the Internal Revenue Service and the IRS
Oversight Board.
III. BACKGROUND ON THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION
In February 2012, the Committee received reports that the
Internal Revenue Service inappropriately scrutinized certain
applicants for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status. Since that time,
the Committee has reviewed nearly 500,000 pages of documents
obtained from (i) the Department of the Treasury, including
particular component entities, the IRS, the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), and the IRS
Oversight Board, (ii) former and current IRS employees, and
(iii) other sources. In addition, the Committee has conducted
33 transcribed interviews of current and former IRS
officials, ranging from front-line employees in the IRS's
Cincinnati office to the former Commissioner of the IRS.
Documents and testimony reveal that the IRS targeted
conservative-aligned applicants for tax-exempt status by
scrutinizing them in a manner distinct--and more intrusive--
than other applicants. Critical questions remain regarding
the extent of this targeting, and how and why the IRS acted--
and persisted in acting--in this manner.
A. IRS Targeting of Tea Party Tax-Exempt Applications
In late February 2010, a screener in the IRS's Cincinnati
office identified a 501(c)(4) application connected with the
Tea Party. Due to ``media attention'' surrounding the Tea
Party, the application was elevated to the Exempt
Organizations Technical Unit in Washington, D.C.\9\ When
officials in the Cincinnati office discovered several similar
applications in March 2010, the Washington, D.C. office asked
for two ``test'' applications, and ordered the Cincinnati
employees to ``hold'' the remainder of the applications.\10\
A manager in the Cincinnati office asked his screeners to
develop criteria for identifying other Tea Party applications
so that the applications would not ``go into the general
inventory.'' \11\ By early April 2010, Cincinnati screeners
began to identify and hold any applications meeting certain
criteria. Applications that met the criteria were removed
from the general inventory and assigned to a special group.
In late spring 2010, an individual recognized as an expert
in 501(c)(4) applications in the Washington office was
assigned to work on the test applications. The expert issued
letters to the test applicants asking for additional
information or clarification about information provided in
their applications.\12\ Meanwhile, through the summer and
into fall 2010, applications from other conservative-aligned
groups idled. As the Cincinnati office awaited guidance from
Washington regarding those applications, a backlog developed.
By fall 2010, the backlog of applications that had stalled in
the Cincinnati office had grown to 60.
On February 1, 2011, Lois G. Lerner, who served as Director
of Exempt Organizations (EO) at IRS from 2006 to 2013,\13\
wrote an e-mail to Michael Seto, the manager of the Technical
Office within the Exempt Organizations business division. The
EO Technical Office was staffed by approximately 40 IRS
lawyers who offered advice to IRS agents across the country.
Ms. Lerner wrote, ``Tea Party Matter very dangerous'' and
ordered the Office of Chief Counsel to get involved.\14\ Ms.
Lerner advocated for pulling the cases out of the Cincinnati
office entirely. She advised Seto that ``Cincy should
probably NOT have these cases.'' \15\ Seto testified to the
Committee that Ms. Lerner ordered a ``multi-tier'' review for
the test applications, a process that involved her senior
technical advisor and the Office of Chief Counsel.\16\
On July 5, 2011, Ms. Lerner became aware that the backlog
of Tea Party applications pending in Cincinnati had swelled
to ``over 100.'' \17\ Ms. Lerner also learned of the specific
criteria that were used to screen the cases that were caught
in the backlog.\18\ She believed that the term ``Tea
Party''--which was a term that triggered additional scrutiny
under the criteria developed by IRS personnel--was
``pejorative.'' \19\ Ms. Lerner ordered her staff to adjust
the criteria.\20\ She also directed the Technical Unit to
conduct a ``triage'' of the backlogged applications and to
develop a guide sheet to assist agents in Cincinnati with
processing the cases.\21\
In November 2011, the draft guide sheet for processing the
backlogged applications was complete.\22\ By this point,
there were 160-170 pending applications in the backlog.\23\
After the Cincinnati office received the guide sheet from
Washington, officials there began to process the applications
in January 2012. IRS employees drafted questions for the
applicant organizations designed to solicit information
mandated by the guide sheet. The questions asked for
information about the applicant organizations' donors, among
other things.\24\
By early 2012, questions about the IRS's treatment of these
backlogged applications had attracted public attention. Staff
from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform met
with Ms. Lerner in February 2012 regarding the IRS's process
for evaluating tax-exempt applications.\25\ Committee staff
then met with TIGTA representatives on March 8, 2012.\26\
Shortly thereafter, TIGTA began an audit of the IRS's process
for evaluating tax-exempt applications.
In late February 2012, after Ms. Lerner briefed Committee
staff, Steven Miller, then the IRS Deputy Commissioner,
requested a meeting with her to discuss these applications.
She informed him of the backlog of applications and that the
IRS had asked applicant organizations about donor
information.\27\ Miller relayed this information to IRS
Commissioner Douglas Schulman.\28\ On March 23, 2012, Miller
convened a meeting of his senior staff to discuss these
applications. Miller launched an internal review of potential
inappropriate treatment of Tea Party
[[Page H3484]]
501(c)(4) applications ``to find out why the cases were there
and what was going on.'' \29\
The internal IRS review took place in April 2012. Miller
realized there was a problem and that the application backlog
needed to be addressed.\30\ IRS officials designed a new
system to process the backlog, and Miller received weekly
updates on the progress of the backlog throughout the summer
2012.\31\
In May 2013, in advance of the release of TIGTA's audit
report on the IRS's process for evaluating applications for
tax-exempt status, the IRS sought to acknowledge publicly
that certain tax-exempt applications had been inappropriately
targeted.\32\ On May 10, 2013, at an event sponsored by the
American Bar Association, Ms. Lerner responded to a question
she had planted with a member of the audience prior to the
event. A veteran tax lawyer asked, ``Lois, a few months ago
there were some concerns about the IRS's review of 501(c)(4)
organizations, of applications from tea party organizations.
I was just wondering if you could provide an update.'' \33\
In response, Ms. Lerner stated:
So our line people in Cincinnati who handled the
applications did what we call centralization of these cases.
They centralized work on these in one particular group. . . .
However, in these cases, the way they did the centralization
was not so fine. Instead of referring to the cases as
advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list.
They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected
cases simply because the applications had those names in the
title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect,
insensitive, and inappropriate--that's not how we go about
selecting cases for further review. We don't select for
review because they have a particular name.\34\
Ms. Lerner's statement during the ABA panel, entitled
``News from the IRS and Treasury,'' was the first public
acknowledgement that the IRS had inappropriately scrutinized
the applications of conservative-aligned groups. Within days,
the President and the Attorney General expressed serious
concerns about the IRS's actions. The Attorney General
announced a Justice Department investigation.\35\
B. Lois Lerner's Testimony Is Critical to the Committee's Investigation
Lois Lerner's testimony is critical to the Committee's
investigation. Without her testimony, the full extent of the
IRS's targeting of Tea Party applications cannot be known,
and the Committee will be unable to fully complete its work.
Ms. Lerner was, during the relevant time period, the
Director of the Exempt Organizations business division of the
IRS, where the targeting of these applications occurred. The
Exempt Organizations business division contains the two IRS
units that were responsible for executing the targeting
program: the Exempt Organizations Determinations Unit in
Cincinnati, and the Exempt Organizations Technical Unit in
Washington, D.C.
Ms. Lerner has not provided the Committee with any
testimony since the release of the TIGTA audit in May 2013.
Although the Committee staff has conducted transcribed
interviews of dozens of IRS officials in Cincinnati and
Washington, D.C., the Committee will never be able to
understand the IRS's actions fully without her testimony. She
has unique, first-hand knowledge of how, and why, the IRS
scrutinized applications for tax-exempt status from certain
conservative-aligned groups.
The IRS sent letters to 501(c)(4) application
organizations, signed by Ms. Lerner, that included questions
about the organizations' donors. These letters went to
applicant organizations that had met certain criteria. As
noted, Ms. Lerner later described the selection of these
applicant organizations as ``wrong, [] absolutely incorrect,
insensitive, and inappropriate.'' \36\
Documents and testimony from other witnesses show Ms.
Lerner's testimony is critical to the Committee's
investigation. She was at the epicenter of the targeting
program. As the Director of the Exempt Organizations business
division, she interacted with a wide array of IRS personnel,
from low-level managers all the way up to the Deputy
Commissioner. Only Ms. Lerner can resolve conflicting
testimony about why the IRS delayed 501(c)(4) applications,
and why the agency asked the applicant organizations
inappropriate and invasive questions. Only she can answer
important outstanding questions that are key to the
Committee's investigation.
IV. LOIS LERNER'S REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THE COMMITTEE'S SUBPOENA FOR
TESTIMONY AT THE MAY 22, 2013 HEARING
On May 14, 2013, Chairman Issa sent a letter to Ms. Lerner
inviting her to testify at a hearing on May 22, 2013, about
the IRS's handling of certain applications for tax-exempt
status.\37\ The letter requested that she ``please contact
the Committee by May 17, 2013,'' to confirm her
attendance.\38\ Ms. Lerner, through her attorney, confirmed
that she would appear at the hearing.\39\ Her attorney
subsequently indicated that she would not answer questions
during the hearing, and that she would invoke her Fifth
Amendment rights.\40\
Because Ms. Lerner would not testify voluntarily at the May
22, 2013 hearing and because her testimony was critical to
the Committee's investigation, Chairman Issa authorized a
subpoena to compel the testimony. The subpoena was issued on
May 20, 2013, and served on her the same day. Ms. Lerner's
attorney accepted service on her behalf.\41\
A. Correspondence Leading Up to the Hearing
On May 20, 2013, Ms. Lerner's attorney sent a letter to
Chairman Issa stating that she would be invoking her Fifth
Amendment right not to answer any questions at the hearing.
The letter stated, in relevant part:
You have requested that our client, Lois Lerner, appear at
a public hearing on May 22, 2013, to testify regarding the
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's
(``TIGTA'') report on the Internal Revenue Service's
(``IRS'') processing of applications for tax-exempt status.
As you know, the Department of Justice has launched a
criminal investigation into the matters addressed in the
TIGTA report, and your letter to Ms. Lerner dated May 14,
2013, alleges that she `provided false or misleading
information on four separate occasions last year in response
to' the Committee's questions about the IRS's processing of
applications for tax-exempt status. Accordingly, we are
writing to inform you that, upon our advice, Ms. Lerner will
exercise her constitutional right not to answer any questions
related to the matters addressed in the TIGTA report or to
the written and oral exchanges that she had with the
Committee in 2012 regarding the IRS's processing of
applications for tax-exempt status.
She has not committed any crimes or made any
misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no
choice but to take this course. As the Supreme Court has
``emphasized,'' one of the Fifth Amendment's ``basic
functions . . . is to protect innocent [individuals].'' Ohio
v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21 (2001) (quoting Grunewald v.
United States, 353 U.S. 391, 421 (1957)).
Because Ms. Lerner is invoking her constitutional
privilege, we respectfully request that you excuse her from
appearing at the hearing. . . . Because Ms. Lerner will
exercise her right not to answer questions related to the
matters discussed in the TIGTA report or to her prior
exchanges with the Committee, requiring her to appear at the
hearing merely to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege would
have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.\42\
The following day, after issuing the subpoena to compel Ms.
Lerner to appear before the Committee, Chairman Issa
responded to her attorney. Chairman Issa stated, in relevant
part:
I write to advise you that the subpoena you accepted on Ms.
Lerner's behalf remains in effect. The subpoena compels Ms.
Lerner to appear before the Committee on May 22, 2013, at
9:30 a.m.
According to your May 20, 2013, letter, `requiring [Ms.
Lerner] to appear at the hearing merely to assert her Fifth
Amendment privilege would have no purpose other than to
embarrass or burden her.' That is not correct. As Director,
Exempt Organizations, Tax Exempt and Government Entities
Division, of the Internal Revenue Service, Ms. Lerner is
uniquely qualified to answer questions about the issues
raised in the aforementioned TIGTA report. The Committee
invited her to appear with the expectation that her testimony
will advance the Committee's investigation, which seeks
information about the IRS's questionable practices in
processing and approving applications for 501(c)(4) tax
exempt status. The Committee requires Ms. Lerner's appearance
because of, among other reasons, the possibility that she
will waive or choose not to assert the privilege as to at
least certain questions of interest to the Committee; the
possibility that the Committee will immunize her testimony
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 6005; and the possibility that the
Committee will agree to hear her testimony in executive
session.\43\
B. Lois Lerner's Opening Statement
Chairman Issa's letter to Ms. Lerner's attorney on May 22,
2013 raised the possibility that she would waive or choose
not to assert her privilege as to at least certain questions
of interest to the Committee.\44\ In fact, that is exactly
what happened. At the hearing, Ms. Lerner made a voluntary
opening statement, of which she had provided the Committee no
advance notice, notwithstanding Committee rules requiring
that she do so.\45\ She stated, after swearing an oath to
tell ``the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth'':
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My
name is Lois Lerner, and I'm the Director of Exempt
Organizations at the Internal Revenue Service.
I have been a government employee for over 34 years. I
initially practiced law at the Department of Justice and
later at the Federal Election Commission. In 2001, I became--
I moved to the IRS to work in the Exempt Organizations
office, and in 2006, I was promoted to be the Director of
that office.
Exempt Organizations oversees about 1.6 million tax-exempt
organizations and processes over 60,000 applications for tax
exemption every year. As Director I'm responsible for about
900 employees nationwide, and administer a budget of almost
$100 million. My professional career has been devoted to
fulfilling responsibilities of the agencies for which I have
worked, and I am very proud of the work that I have done in
government.
On May 14th, the Treasury inspector general released a
report finding that the Exempt Organizations field office in
Cincinnati, Ohio, used inappropriate criteria to identify for
further review applications for organizations that planned to
engage in political activity which may mean that they did not
[[Page H3485]]
qualify for tax exemption. On that same day, the Department
of Justice launched an investigation into the matters
described in the inspector general's report. In addition,
members of this committee have accused me of providing false
information when I responded to questions about the IRS
processing of applications for tax exemption.
I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws.
I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have
not provided false information to this or any other
congressional committee.
And while I would very much like to answer the Committee's
questions today, I've been advised by my counsel to assert my
constitutional right not to testify or answer questions
related to the subject matter of this hearing. After very
careful consideration, I have decided to follow my counsel's
advice and not testify or answer any of the questions today.
Because I'm asserting my right not to testify, I know that
some people will assume that I've done something wrong. I
have not. One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment
is to protect innocent individuals, and that is the
protection I'm invoking today. Thank you.\46\
After Ms. Lerner made this voluntary, self-selected opening
statement--which included a proclamation that she had done
nothing wrong and broken no laws, Chairman Issa explained
that he believed she had waived her right to assert a Fifth
Amendment privilege and asked her to reconsider her position
on testifying.\47\ In response, she stated:
I will not answer any questions or testify about the
subject matter of this Committee's meeting.\48\
Upon Ms. Lerner's refusal to answer any questions,
Congressman Trey Gowdy made a statement from the dais. He
said:
Mr. Issa, Mr. Cummings just said we should run this like a
courtroom, and I agree with him. She just testified. She just
waived her Fifth Amendment right to privilege. You don't get
to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to
cross examination. That's not the way it works. She waived
her right of Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening
statement. She ought to stay in here and answer our
questions.\49\
Shortly after Congressman Gowdy's statement, Chairman Issa
excused Ms. Lerner from the panel and reserved the option to
recall her as a witness at a later date. Specifically,
Chairman Issa stated that she was excused ``subject to recall
after we seek specific counsel on the questions of whether or
not the constitutional right of the Fifth Amendment has been
properly waived.'' \50\
Rather than adjourning the hearing on May 22, 2013, the
Chairman recessed it, in order to reconvene at a later date
after a thorough analysis of Ms. Lerner's actions. He did so
to avoid ``mak[ing] a quick or uninformed decision''
regarding what had transpired.\51\
C. The Committee Resolved That Lois Lerner Waived Her Fifth Amendment
Privilege
On June 28, 2013, Chairman Issa convened a Committee
business meeting to allow the Committee to determine whether
Ms. Lerner had in fact waived her Fifth Amendment privilege.
After reviewing during the intervening five weeks legal
analysis provided by the Office of General Counsel, arguments
presented by Ms. Lerner's counsel, and other relevant legal
precedent, Chairman Issa concluded that Ms. Lerner waived her
constitutional privilege when she made a voluntary opening
statement that involved several specific denials of various
allegations.\52\ Chairman Issa stated:
Having now considered the facts and arguments, I believe
Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment privileges. She did so
when she chose to make a voluntary opening statement. Ms.
Lerner's opening statement referenced the Treasury IG report,
and the Department of Justice investigation . . . and the
assertions that she had previously provided false information
to the committee. She made four specific denials. Those
denials are at the core of the committee's investigation in
this matter. She stated that she had not done anything wrong,
not broken any laws, not violated any IRS rules or
regulations, and not provided false information to this or
any other congressional committee regarding areas about which
committee members would have liked to ask her questions.
Indeed, committee members are still interested in hearing
from her. Her statement covers almost the entire range of
questions we wanted to ask when the hearing began on May
22.\53\
After a lengthy debate, the Committee approved a
resolution, by a 22-17 vote, which stated as follows:
[T]he Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
determines that the voluntary statement offered by Ms. Lerner
constituted a waiver of her Fifth Amendment privilege against
self-incrimination as to all questions within the subject
matter of the Committee hearing that began on May 22, 2013,
including questions relating to (i) Ms. Lerner's knowledge of
any targeting by the Internal Revenue Service of particular
groups seeking tax exempt status, and (ii) questions relating
to any facts or information that would support or refute her
assertions that, in that regard, ``she has not done anything
wrong,'' ``not broken any laws,'' ``not violated any IRS
rules or regulations,'' and/or ``not provided false
information to this or any other congressional committee.''
\54\
D. Lois Lerner Continued To Defy the Committee's Subpoena
Following the Committee's resolution that Ms. Lerner waived
her Fifth Amendment privilege, Chairman Issa recalled her to
testify before the Committee. On February 25, 2014, Chairman
Issa sent a letter to Ms. Lerner's attorney advising him that
the May 22, 2013 hearing would reconvene on March 5,
2014.\55\ The letter also advised that the subpoena that
compelled her to appear on May 22, 2013 remained in
effect.\56\ The letter stated, in relevant part:
Ms. Lerner's testimony remains critical to the Committee's
investigation . . . . Because Ms. Lerner's testimony will
advance the Committee's investigation, the Committee is
recalling her to a continuation of the May 22, 2013, hearing,
on March 5, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. in room 2154 of the Rayburn
House Office Building in Washington, D.C.
The subpoena you accepted on Ms. Lerner's behalf remains in
effect. In light of this fact, and because the Committee
explicitly rejected her Fifth Amendment privilege claim, I
expect her to provide answers when the hearing reconvenes on
March 5.\57\
The next day, Ms. Lerner's attorney responded to Chairman
Issa. In a letter, he wrote:
I write in response to your letter of yesterday. I was
surprised to receive it. I met with the majority staff of the
Committee on January 24, 2014, at their request. At the
meeting, I advised them that Ms. Lerner would continue to
assert her Constitutional rights not to testify if she were
recalled. . . . We understand that the Committee voted that
she had waived her rights. . . . We therefore request that
the Committee not require Ms. Lerner to attend a hearing
solely for the purpose of once again invoking her rights.\58\
Because of the possibility that she would choose to answer
some or all of the Committee's questions, Chairman Issa
required Ms. Lerner to appear in person on March 5, 2014.
When the May 22, 2013, hearing, entitled ``The IRS: Targeting
Americans for Their Political Beliefs,'' was reconvened,
Chairman Issa noted that the Committee might recommend that
the House hold Ms. Lerner in contempt if she continued to
refuse to answer questions, based on the fact that the
Committee had resolved that she had waived her Fifth
Amendment privilege. He stated:
At a business meeting on June 28, 2013, the Committee
approved a resolution rejecting Ms. Lerner's claim of Fifth
Amendment privilege based on her waiver at the May 22, 2013,
hearing.
After that vote, having made the determination that Ms.
Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights, the Committee
recalled her to appear today to answer questions pursuant to
rules. The Committee voted and found that Ms. Lerner waived
her Fifth Amendment rights by making a statement on May 22,
2013, and additionally, by affirming documents after making a
statement of Fifth Amendment rights.
If Ms. Lerner continues to refuse to answer questions from
our Members while she's under subpoena, the Committee may
proceed to consider whether she should be held in
contempt.\59\
Despite the fact that Ms. Lerner was compelled by a duly
issued subpoena and Chairman Issa had warned her of the
possibility of contempt proceedings, and despite the
Committee's resolution that she waived her Fifth Amendment
privilege, Ms. Lerner continued to assert her Fifth Amendment
privilege, and refused to answer any questions posed by
Members of the Committee.
Specifically, Ms. Lerner asserted her Fifth Amendment
privilege on eight separate occasions at the hearing. In
response to questions from Chairman Issa, she stated:
Q. On October 10--on October--in October 2010, you told a
Duke University group, and I quote, `The Supreme Court dealt
a huge blow overturning a 100-year-old precedent that
basically corporations couldn't give directly to political
campaigns. And everyone is up in arms because they don't like
it. The Federal Election Commission can't do anything about
it. They want the IRS to fix the problem.' Ms. Lerner, what
exactly `wanted to fix the problem caused by Citizens
United,' what exactly does that mean?
A. My counsel has advised me that I have not----
Q. Would you please turn the mic on?
A. Sorry. I don't know how. My counsel has advised me that
I have not waived my constitutional rights under the Fifth
Amendment, and on his advice, I will decline to answer any
question on the subject matter of this hearing.
Q. So, you are not going to tell us who wanted to fix the
problem caused by Citizens United?
A. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my
Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.
Q. Ms. Lerner, in February 2011, you emailed your
colleagues in the IRS the following: `Tea Party matter, very
dangerous. This could be the vehicle to go to court on the
issue of whether Citizens United overturning the ban on
corporate spending applies to tax-exempt rules. Counsel and
Judy Kindell need to be on this one, please. Cincy should
probably NOT,' all in caps, `have these cases.' What did you
mean by `Cincy should not have these cases'?
A. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my
Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer the question.
[[Page H3486]]
Q. Ms. Lerner, why would you say Tea Party cases were very
dangerous?
A. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my
Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.
Q. Ms. Lerner, in September 2010, you emailed your
subordinates about initiating a, parenthesis, (c)(4) project
and wrote, `We need to be cautious so that it isn't a per se
political project.' Why were you worried about this being
perceived as a political project?
A. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my
Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.
Q. Ms. Lerner, Mike Seto, manager of EO Technical in
Washington, testified that you ordered Tea Party cases to
undergo a multi-tier review. He testified, and I quote, `She
sent me email saying that when these cases need to go
through'--I say again--`she sent me email saying that when
these cases need to go through multi-tier review and they
will eventually have to go to Ms. Kindell and the Chief
Counsel's Office.' Why did you order Tea Party cases to
undergo a multi-tier review?
A. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my
Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.
Q. Ms. Lerner, in June 2011, you requested that Holly Paz
obtain a copy of the tax-exempt application filed by
Crossroads GPS so that your senior technical advisor, Judy
Kindell, could review it and summarize the issues for you.
Ms. Lerner, why did you want to personally order that they
pull Crossroads GPS, Karl Rove's organization's
application?
A. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my
Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.
Q. Ms. Lerner, in June 2012, you were part of an email
exchange that appeared to be about writing new regulations on
political speech for 501(c)(4) groups, and in parenthesis,
your quote, ``off plan'' in 2013. Ms. Lerner, what does ``off
plan'' mean?
A. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my
Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.
Q. Ms. Lerner, in February of 2014, President Obama stated
that there was not a smidgeon of corruption in the IRS
targeting. Ms. Lerner, do you believe that there is not a
smidgeon of corruption in the IRS targeting of conservatives?
A. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my
Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.
Q. Ms. Lerner, on Saturday, our committee's general counsel
sent an email to your attorney saying, ``I understand that
Ms. Lerner is willing to testify and she is requesting a 1
week delay. In talking--in talking to the chairman''--excuse
me--``in talking to the chairman, wanted to make sure that
was right.'' Your lawyer, in response to that question, gave
a one word email response, ``yes.'' Are you still seeking a 1
week delay in order to testify?
A. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my
Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that
question.\60\
The hearing was subsequently adjourned and Ms. Lerner was
excused from the hearing room.
E. Legal Precedent Strongly Supports the Committee's Position To
Proceed With Holding Lois Lerner in Contempt
After Ms. Lerner's appearance before the Committee on March
5, 2014, her lawyer convened a press conference at which he
apparently revealed that she had sat for an interview with
Department of Justice prosecutors and TIGTA staff within the
past six months.\61\ According to reports, Ms. Lerner's
lawyer described that interview as not under oath \62\ and
unconditional, i.e., provided under no grant of immunity.\63\
Revelation of this interview calls into question the basis of
Ms. Lerner's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege in
the first place, her waiver of any such privilege
notwithstanding.
Despite that fact, and the balance of the record, Ranking
Member Elijah E. Cummings questioned the Committee's ability
to proceed with a contempt citation for Ms. Lerner. On March
12, 2014, he sent a letter to Speaker Boehner arguing that
the House of Representatives is barred ``from successfully
pursuing contempt proceedings against former IRS official
Lois Lerner.'' \64\ The Ranking Member's position was based
on an allegedly ``independent legal analysis'' provided by
his lawyer, Stanley M. Brand, and his ``Legislative
Consultant,'' Morton Rosenberg.\65\
Brand and Rosenberg claimed that the prospect of judicial
contempt proceedings against Ms. Lerner has been compromised
because, according to them, ``at no stage in this proceeding
did the witness receive the requisite clear rejections of her
constitutional objections and direct demands for answers nor
was it made unequivocally certain that her failure to respond
would result in criminal contempt prosecution.'' \66\ The
Ranking Member subsequently issued a press release that
described ``opinions from 25 legal experts across the country
and the political spectrum'' \67\ regarding the Committee's
interactions with Ms. Lerner. The opinions released by
Ranking Member Cummings largely relied on the same case law
and analysis that Rosenberg and Brand provided, and are
contrary to the opinion of the House Office of General
Counsel.\68\ The Ranking Member and his lawyers and
consultants are wrong on the facts and the law.
1. Ms. Lerner knew that the Committee had rejected her
privilege objection and that, consequently, she risked
contempt should she persist in refusing to answer the
Committee's questions
At the March 5, 2014 proceeding, Chairman Issa specifically
made Ms. Lerner and her counsel aware of developments that
had occurred since the Committee first convened the hearing
(on May 22, 2013): ``These [developments] are important for
the record and for Ms. Lerner to know and understand.'' \69\
Chairman Issa emphasized one particular development: ``At a
business meeting on June 28, 2013, the committee approved a
resolution rejecting Ms. Lerner's claim of Fifth Amendment
privilege based on her waiver.'' \70\ This, of course, was
not news to Ms. Lerner or her counsel. The Committee had
expressly notified her counsel of the Committee's rejection
of her Fifth Amendment claim, both orally and in writing. For
example, in a letter to Ms. Lerner's counsel on February 25,
2014, the Chairman wrote: ``[B]ecause the Committee
explicitly rejected [Lerner's] Fifth Amendment privilege
claim, I expect her to provide answers when the hearing
reconvenes on March 5.'' \71\ Moreover, the press widely
reported the fact that the Committee had formally rejected
Ms. Lerner's Fifth Amendment claim.\72\
Accordingly, it is facially unreasonable for Ranking Member
Cummings and his lawyers and consultants to subsequently
claim that ``at no stage in this proceeding did the witness
receive the requisite clear rejections of her constitutional
objections.'' \73\
The Committee's rejection of Ms. Lerner's privilege
objection was not the only point that Chairman Issa
emphasized before and during the March 5, 2014 proceeding. At
the hearing, after several additional references to the
Committee's determination that she had waived her privilege
objection, the Chairman expressly warned her that she
remained under subpoena,\74\ and thus that, if she should
persist in refusing to answer the Committee's questions, she
risked contempt: ``If Ms. Lerner continues to refuse to
answer questions from our Members while she is under a
subpoena, the Committee may proceed to consider whether she
should be held in contempt.'' \75\
Ranking Member Cummings and his lawyers and consultants
state, repeatedly, that the Committee did not provide
``certainty for the witness and her counsel that a contempt
prosecution was inevitable.'' \76\ But, that is a certainty
that no Member of the Committee can provide. From the
Committee's perspective (and Ms. Lerner's), there is no
guarantee that the Department of Justice will prosecute Ms.
Lerner for her contumacious conduct, and there is no
guarantee that the full House of Representatives will vote to
hold her in contempt. In fact, there is no guarantee that the
Committee will make such a recommendation. The collective
votes of Members voting their consciences determine both a
Committee recommendation and a full House vote on a contempt
resolution. And, the Department of Justice, of course, is an
agency of the Executive Branch of the federal government. All
the Chairman can do is what he did: make abundantly clear to
Ms. Lerner and her counsel that of which she already was
aware, i.e., that if she chose not to answer the Committee's
questions after the Committee's ruling that she had waived
her privilege objection (exactly the choice that she
ultimately made), she would risk contempt.
2. The Law does not require magic words
The Ranking Member and his lawyers and consultants also
misunderstand the law. Contrary to their insistence, the
courts do not require the invocation by the Committee of
certain magic words. Rather, and sensibly, the courts have
required only that congressional committees provide witnesses
with a ``fair appraisal of the committee's ruling on an
objection,'' thereby leaving the witness with a choice:
comply with the relevant committee's demand for testimony, or
risk contempt.\77\
The Ranking Member and his lawyers and consultants refer
specifically to Quinn v. United States in support of their
arguments. In that case, however, the Supreme Court held only
that, because ``[a]t no time did the committee [at issue
there] specifically overrule [the witness's] objection based
on the Fifth Amendment,'' the witness ``was left to guess
whether or not the committee had accepted his objection.''
\78\ Here, of course, the Committee expressly rejected Ms.
Lerner's objection, and specifically notified Ms. Lerner and
her counsel of the same. She was left to guess at nothing.
The Ranking Member and his lawyers' and consultants'
reliance on Quinn is odd for at least two additional reasons.
First, in that case, the Supreme Court expressly noted that
the congressional committee's failure to rule on the
witness's objection mattered because it left the witness
without ``a clear-cut choice . . . between answering the
question and risking prosecution for contempt.'' \79\ In
other words, the Supreme Court expressly rejected the Ranking
Member's view that the Chairman should do the impossible by
pronouncing on whether prosecution is ``inevitable.'' \80\
The Supreme Court required that the Committee do no more than
what it did: advise Ms. Lerner that her objection had been
overruled and thus that she risked contempt.
Second, Quinn expressly rejects the Ranking Member's
insistence on the talismanic incantation by the Committee of
certain magic words. The Supreme Court wrote that ``the
committee is not required to resort to
[[Page H3487]]
any fixed verbal formula to indicate its disposition of the
objection. So long as the witness is not forced to guess the
committee's ruling, he has no cause to complain.'' \81\
The other cases that the Ranking Member and his lawyers and
consultants cite state the same law, and thus serve to
confirm the propriety of the Committee's actions. In Emspak
v. United States, the Supreme Court--just as in Quinn, and
unlike here--noted that the congressional committee had
failed to ``overrule petitioner's objection based on the
Fifth Amendment'' and thus failed to provide the witness a
fair opportunity to choose between answering the relevant
question and ``risking prosecution for contempt.'' \82\ And
in Bart v. United States, the Supreme Court pointedly
distinguished the circumstances there from those here. The
Court wrote: ``Because of the consistent failure to advise
the witness of the committee's position as to his objections,
petitioner was left to speculate about the risk of possible
prosecution for contempt; he was not given a clear choice
between standing on his objection and compliance with a
committee ruling.'' \83\
V. CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, and others, Rosenberg's opinion that
``the requisite legal foundation for a criminal contempt of
Congress prosecution [against Ms. Lerner] . . . ha[ s] not
been met and that such a proceeding against [her] under 2
U.S.C. [Sec. ] 19[2], if attempted, will be dismissed'' is
wrong.\84\ There is no constitutional impediment to (i) the
Committee approving a resolution recommending that the full
House hold Ms. Lerner in contempt of Congress; (ii) the full
House approving a resolution holding Ms. Lerner in contempt
of Congress; (iii) if such resolutions are approved, the
Speaker certifying the matter to the United States Attorney
for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 194;
and (iv) a grand jury indicting, and the United States
Attorney prosecuting, Ms. Lerner under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192.
At this point, it is clear Ms. Lerner will not comply with
the Committee's subpoena for testimony. On May 20, 2013,
Chairman Issa issued the subpoena to compel Ms. Lerner's
testimony. On May 22, 2013, Ms. Lerner gave an opening
statement and then refused to answer any of the Committee's
questions and asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege. On June
28, 2013, the Committee voted that Ms. Lerner waived her
Fifth Amendment privilege. Chairman Issa subsequently
recalled her to answer the Committee's questions. When the
May 22, 2013 hearing reconvened nine months later, on March
5, 2014, she again refused to answer any of the Committee's
questions and invoked the Fifth Amendment.
In short, Ms. Lerner has refused to provide testimony in
response to the Committee's duly issued subpoena.
VI. RULES REQUIREMENTS
Explanation of Amendments
No amendments were offered.
Committee Consideration
On April 10, 2014, the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform met in open session with a quorum present
to consider a report of contempt against Lois G. Lerner,
former Director, Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue
Service, for failure to comply with a Congressional subpoena.
The Committee approved the Report by a roll call vote of 21-
12 and ordered the Report reported favorably to the House.
Roll Call Votes
The following recorded votes were taken during
consideration of the contempt Report:
The Report was favorably reported to the House, a quorum
being present, by a vote of 23 Yeas to 17 Nays.
Voting Yea: Issa, Mica, Turner, McHenry, Jordan, Chaffetz,
Walberg, Lankford, Amash, Gosar, Meehan, DesJarlais, Gowdy,
Farenthold, Hastings, Lummis, Massie, Collins, Meadows,
Bentivolio, DeSantis.
Voting Nay: Cummings, Maloney, Clay, Lynch, Cooper,
Connolly, Speier, Cartwright, Duckworth, Welch, Horsford,
Lujan Grisham.
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the
legislative branch where the bill relates to the terms and
conditions of employment or access to public services and
accommodations. The Report recommends that the House of
Representatives find Lois G. Lerner, former Director, Exempt
Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, in contempt of
Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. As such,
the Report does not relate to employment or access to public
services and accommodations.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of
this Report.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that
pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Report will assist the House of
Representatives in considering whether to cite Lois G. Lerner
for contempt for failing to comply with a valid congressional
subpoena.
Duplication of Federal Programs
No provision of the Report establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
The Report does not direct the completion of any specific
rule makings within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.
Constitutional Authority Statement
The Committee finds the authority for this Report in
article 1, section 1 of the Constitution.
Federal Advisory Committee Act
The Committee finds that the Report does not establish or
authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within
the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).
Earmark Identification
The Report does not include any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
in clause 9 of rule XXI.
Unfunded Mandate Statement, Committee Estimate, Budget Authority and
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
The Committee finds that clauses 3(c)(2), 3(c)(3), and
3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, and section 423 of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section
101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) are
inapplicable to this Report. Therefore, the Committee did not
request or receive a cost estimate from the Congressional
Budget Office and makes no findings as to the budgetary
impacts of this Report or costs incurred to carry out the
report.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported
This Report makes no changes in any existing federal
statute.
ENDNOTES
1. McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927).
2. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 1887 (1957).
3. U.S. CONST., art I. Sec. 5, clause 2.
4. House Rule X, clause (1)(n).
5. House Rule X, clause (4)(c)(2).
6. Id.
7. House Rule XI, clause (2)(m)(1)(B).
8. House Rule XI, clause 2(m)(3)(A)(1).
9. E-mail from Cindy Thomas, Manager, Exempt Organizations
Determinations, IRS, to Holly Paz, Manager, Exempt
Organizations Technical Unit, IRS (Feb. 25, 2010) [IRSR
428451].
10. Transcribed Interview of Elizabeth Hofacre, Revenue
Agent, Exempt Orgs. Determinations Unit, IRS (May 31, 2013).
11. Transcribed Interview of John Shafer, Group Manager,
Exempt Orgs. Determinations Unit, IRS (June 6, 2013).
12. IRS, Timeline for the 3 exemption applications that
were referred to EOT from EOD. [IRSR 58346-49]
13. See The IRS: Targeting Americans for Their Political
Beliefs: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't
Reform, 113th Cong. 22 (May 22, 2013) (H. Rpt. 113-33)
(statement of Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt Orgs., IRS)
(emphasis added).
14. E-mail from Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt Orgs., IRS to
Michael Seto, Manager, Exempt Orgs. Technical Unit, IRS (Feb.
1, 2011) [IRSR 161810].
15. Id.
16. Transcribed Interview of Michael Seto, Manager, Exempt
Orgs. Technical Unit, IRS (July 11, 2013) [hereinafter Seto
Interview].
17. Transcribed Interview of Justin Lowe, Technical Advisor
to the Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Gov't Entities Division,
IRS (July 23, 2013).
18. Id.
19. Transcribed Interview of Holly Paz, Director, Exempt
Orgs., Rulings and Agreements, IRS (May 21, 2013).
20. Id.
21. Seto Interview, supra note 6.
22. E-mail from Michael Seto, Manager, Exempt Orgs.
Technical Unit, IRS, to Cindy Thomas, Manager, Exempt Orgs.
Determinations Unit, IRS (Nov. 6, 2011) [IRSR 69902].
23. Transcribed Interview of Stephen Daejin Seok, Group
Manager, Exempt Orgs. Determinations Unit, IRS (June 19,
2013).
24. Id.
25. Briefing by Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt Orgs., IRS,
to H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform Staff (Feb. 24,
2012).
26. Treasury Inspector Gen. for Tax Admin., What is the
timeline for TIGTA's involvement with this tax-exempt issue?
(provided to the Committee May 2013).
27. Transcribed Interview of Steven Miller, Deputy
Commissioner, IRS (Nov. 13, 2013) [hereinafter Miller
Interview].
28. Id.
29. Id.
30. Id.
31. Id.
32. E-mail from Nicole Flax, Chief of Staff to the Deputy
Commissioner, IRS, to Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt Orgs.,
IRS (Apr. 23, 2013) [IRSR 189013]; Miller Interview, supra
note 16; Transcribed Interview of Sharon Light, Senior
Technical Advisor to the Director, Exempt Orgs., IRS (Sept.
5, 2013); E-
[[Page H3488]]
mail from Nicole Flax, Chief of Staff to the Deputy
Commissioner, IRS, to Adewale Adeyemo, Dept. of the Treasury
(Apr. 22, 2013) [IRSR 466707].
33. Eric Lach, IRS Official's Admission Baffled Audience at
Tax Panel, Talking Points Memo, May 14, 2013.
34. Rick Hasen, Transcript of Lois Lerner's Remarks at Tax
Meeting Sparking IRS Controversy, Election Law Blog (May 11,
2013, 7:37 a.m.), http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50160.
35. Holder launches probe into IRS targeting of Tea Party
groups, FoxNews.com, May 14, 2013.
36. Rick Hasen, Transcript of Lois Lerner's Remarks at Tax
Meeting Sparking IRS Controversy, Election Law Blog (May 11,
2013, 7:37 AM), http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50160.
37. Letter from Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Gov't Reform, to Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt
Orgs., IRS (May 14, 2013) (letter inviting Lerner to testify
at May 22, 2013 hearing).
38. Id.
39. E-mail from William W. Taylor, III, Zuckerman Spaeder
LLP, to H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform Majority Staff
(May 17, 2013).
40. Letter from William W. Taylor, III, Zuckerman Spaeder
LLP, to Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight
& Gov't Reform (May 20, 2013).
41. E-mail from William W. Taylor, III, Zuckerman Spaeder
LLP, to H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform Majority Staff
(May 20, 2013).
42. Letter from William W. Taylor, III, Zuckerman Spaeder
LLP, to Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight
& Gov't Reform (May 20, 2013).
43. Letter from Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Gov't Reform to William W. Taylor, III, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP (May 21, 2013) (emphasis added).
44. Id.
45. Rule 9(f), Rules of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't
Reform, 113th Cong., available at http://oversight.house.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2013/12/OGR-Committee-Rules-113th-
Congress.pdf (last visited April 7, 2014).
46. The IRS: Targeting Americans for Their Political
Beliefs: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't
Reform, 113th Cong. 22 (May 22, 2013) (H. Rpt. 113-33)
(statement of Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt Orgs., IRS)
(emphasis added).
47. Id.
48. Id.
49. Id. (emphasis added).
50. Id. at 24.
51. Business Meeting of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't
Reform, 113th Cong. 4 (June 28, 2013).
52. Id.
53. Id.
54. Resolution of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform
(June 28, 2013), available at http://oversight.house.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2013/06/Resolution-of-the-Committee-on-
Oversight-and-Government-Reform-6-28-131.pdf.
55. Letter from Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Gov't Reform to William W. Taylor, III, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP (Feb. 25, 2014).
56. Id.
57. Id.
58. Letter from William W. Taylor, III, Zuckerman Spaeder
LLP, to Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight
& Gov't Reform (Feb. 26, 2014).
59. The IRS: Targeting Americans for Their Political
Beliefs: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't
Reform, 113th Cong. (Mar. 5, 2014).
60. Id.
61. John D. McKinnon, Former IRS Official Lerner Gave
Interview to DOJ, Wall St. J., Mar. 6, 2014, http://
blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/03/06/former-irs-official-lerner-
gave-interview-to-doj/.
62. Patrick Howley, Oversight lawmaker: Holding Lois Lerner
in Contempt Is `Where We're Moving,' Daily Caller, Mar. 6,
2014, http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/06/oversight-lawmaker-
holding-lois-lerner-in-contempt-the-right-thing-to-do/.
63. McKinnon, supra note 61.
64. Letter from Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member, H.
Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform, to Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives (Mar. 12, 2014), at
1[hereinafter Boehner Letter], attaching Memorandum from
Morton Rosenberg, Legislative Consultant, to Hon. Elijah E.
Cummings, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't
Reform (Mar. 12, 2014) [hereinafter Rosenberg Memo].
65. Boehner Letter at 1, Attachment at 1; Statement of
Stanley M. Brand, The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell,
MSNBC, Mar. 12, 2014, available at http://www.msnbc.com/the-
last-word/watch/the-fatal-error-of-issas-irs-blowup-
193652803735 (last visited Mar. 14, 2014).
66. Rosenberg Memo at 3.
67. Press Release, Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member,
H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Mar. 26, 2014),
available at http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/press-
releases/twenty-five-independent-legal-experts-now-agree-
that-issa-botched-contempt/ (last visited Mar. 27, 2014).
68. Memorandum, Lois Lerner and the Rosenberg Memorandum,
Office of General Counsel, United States House of
Representatives (Mar. 25, 2014), available at http://
oversight.house.gov/release/house-counsel-oversight-
committee-can-hold-lerner-contempt/ (last visited Apr. 4,
2014).
69. The IRS: Targeting Americans for Their Political
Beliefs: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't
Reform, 113th Cong. (Mar. 5, 2014), Tr. at 3.
70. Id. at 4 (emphasis added).
71. Letter from Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Gov't Reform, to William W. Taylor, III, Esq.,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP (Feb. 25, 2014), at 2 (emphasis added).
72. See, e.g., House panel finds IRS official waived Fifth
Amendment right, can be forced to testify in targeting probe,
FoxNews.com, June 28, 2013, available at http://
www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/28/republican-led-house-
panel-challenges-irs-worker-who-took-fifth-amendment/ (last
visited Mar. 14, 2014).
73. Boehner Letter, at 1; Rosenberg Memo at 3.
74. The subpoena to Lerner ``commanded'' her ``to be and
appear'' before the Committee and ``to testify.'' Subpoena,
Issued by Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight
& Gov't Reform, to Lois G. Lerner (May 17, 2013) (emphasis in
original).
75. The IRS: Targeting Americans for Their Political
Beliefs: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't
Reform, 113th Cong. (Mar. 5, 2014), Tr. at 5.
76. Id.; Rosenberg Memo at 3-4 (Committee did not make
``unequivocally certain'' that Lerner's ``failure to respond
would result in [a] criminal contempt prosecution''); id. at
2 (Chairman did not pronounce that ``refusal to respond would
result'' in a criminal contempt prosecution'') (emphasis
added).
77. Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 170 (1955).
78. Id. at 166.
79. Id. (emphasis added).
80. Boehner Letter, Attachment at 4.
81. 349 U.S. at 170 (emphasis added).
82. 349 U.S. at 190, 202 (1955).
83. 349 U.S. at 219, 223 (1955); id. at 222 (stating issue
presented as: ``whether petitioner was apprised of the
committee's disposition of his objections'').
84. Rosenberg Memo at 4.
[[Page H3489]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.001
[[Page H3490]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.002
[[Page H3491]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.003
[[Page H3492]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.004
[[Page H3493]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.005
[[Page H3494]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.006
[[Page H3495]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.007
[[Page H3496]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.008
[[Page H3497]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.009
[[Page H3498]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.010
[[Page H3499]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.011
[[Page H3500]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.012
[[Page H3501]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.013
[[Page H3502]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.014
[[Page H3503]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.015
[[Page H3504]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.016
[[Page H3505]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.017
[[Page H3506]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.018
[[Page H3507]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.019
[[Page H3508]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.020
[[Page H3509]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.021
[[Page H3510]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.022
[[Page H3511]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.023
[[Page H3512]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.024
[[Page H3513]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.025
[[Page H3514]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.026
[[Page H3515]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.027
[[Page H3516]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.028
[[Page H3517]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.029
[[Page H3518]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.030
[[Page H3519]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.031
[[Page H3520]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.032
[[Page H3521]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.033
[[Page H3522]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.034
[[Page H3523]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.035
[[Page H3524]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.036
[[Page H3525]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.037
[[Page H3526]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.038
[[Page H3527]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.039
[[Page H3528]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.040
[[Page H3529]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.041
[[Page H3530]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.042
[[Page H3531]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.043
[[Page H3532]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.044
[[Page H3533]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.045
[[Page H3534]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.046
[[Page H3535]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.047
[[Page H3536]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.048
[[Page H3537]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.049
[[Page H3538]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.050
[[Page H3539]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.051
[[Page H3540]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.052
[[Page H3541]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.053
[[Page H3542]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.054
[[Page H3543]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.055
[[Page H3544]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.056
[[Page H3545]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.057
[[Page H3546]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.058
[[Page H3547]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.059
[[Page H3548]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.060
[[Page H3549]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.061
[[Page H3550]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.062
[[Page H3551]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.063
[[Page H3552]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.064
[[Page H3553]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.065
[[Page H3554]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.066
[[Page H3555]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.067
[[Page H3556]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.068
[[Page H3557]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.069
[[Page H3558]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.070
[[Page H3559]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.071
[[Page H3560]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.072
[[Page H3561]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.073
[[Page H3562]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.074
[[Page H3563]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.075
[[Page H3564]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.076
[[Page H3565]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.077
[[Page H3566]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.078
[[Page H3567]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.079
[[Page H3568]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.080
[[Page H3569]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.081
[[Page H3570]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.082
[[Page H3571]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.083
[[Page H3572]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.084
[[Page H3573]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.085
[[Page H3574]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.086
[[Page H3575]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.087
[[Page H3576]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.088
[[Page H3577]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.089
[[Page H3578]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.090
[[Page H3579]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.091
[[Page H3580]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.092
[[Page H3581]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.093
[[Page H3582]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.094
[[Page H3583]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.095
[[Page H3584]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.096
[[Page H3585]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.097
[[Page H3586]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.098
[[Page H3587]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.099
[[Page H3588]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.100
[[Page H3589]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.101
[[Page H3590]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.102
[[Page H3591]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.103
[[Page H3592]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.104
[[Page H3593]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.105
[[Page H3594]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.106
[[Page H3595]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.107
[[Page H3596]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.108
[[Page H3597]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.109
[[Page H3598]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.110
[[Page H3599]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.111
[[Page H3600]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.112
[[Page H3601]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.113
[[Page H3602]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.114
[[Page H3603]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.115
[[Page H3604]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.116
[[Page H3605]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.117
[[Page H3606]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.118
[[Page H3607]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.119
[[Page H3608]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.120
[[Page H3609]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.121
[[Page H3610]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.122
[[Page H3611]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.123
[[Page H3612]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.124
[[Page H3613]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.125
[[Page H3614]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.126
[[Page H3615]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.127
[[Page H3616]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.128
[[Page H3617]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.129
[[Page H3618]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.130
[[Page H3619]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.131
[[Page H3620]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.132
[[Page H3621]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.133
[[Page H3622]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.134
[[Page H3623]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.135
[[Page H3624]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.136
[[Page H3625]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.137
[[Page H3626]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.138
[[Page H3627]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.139
[[Page H3628]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.140
[[Page H3629]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.141
[[Page H3630]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.142
[[Page H3631]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.143
[[Page H3632]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.144
[[Page H3633]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.145
[[Page H3634]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.146
[[Page H3635]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.147
[[Page H3636]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.148
[[Page H3637]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.149
[[Page H3638]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.150
[[Page H3639]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.151
[[Page H3640]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.152
[[Page H3641]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.153
[[Page H3642]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.154
[[Page H3643]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.155
[[Page H3644]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.156
[[Page H3645]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.157
[[Page H3646]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.158
[[Page H3647]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.159
[[Page H3648]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.160
[[Page H3649]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.161
[[Page H3650]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.162
[[Page H3651]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.163
[[Page H3652]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.164
[[Page H3653]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.165
[[Page H3654]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.166
[[Page H3655]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.167
[[Page H3656]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.168
[[Page H3657]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.169
[[Page H3658]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.170
[[Page H3659]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.171
[[Page H3660]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.172
[[Page H3661]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.173
[[Page H3662]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.174
[[Page H3663]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.175
[[Page H3664]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.176
[[Page H3665]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.177
[[Page H3666]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.178
[[Page H3667]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.179
[[Page H3668]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.180
[[Page H3669]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.181
[[Page H3670]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.182
[[Page H3671]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.183
[[Page H3672]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.184
[[Page H3673]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.185
[[Page H3674]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.186
[[Page H3675]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.187
[[Page H3676]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.188
[[Page H3677]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.189
[[Page H3678]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.190
[[Page H3679]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.191
[[Page H3680]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.192
[[Page H3681]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.193
[[Page H3682]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.194
[[Page H3683]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.195
[[Page H3684]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.196
[[Page H3685]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.197
[[Page H3686]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.198
[[Page H3687]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.199
[[Page H3688]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.200
[[Page H3689]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.201
[[Page H3690]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.202
[[Page H3691]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.203
[[Page H3692]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.204
[[Page H3693]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.205
[[Page H3694]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.206
[[Page H3695]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.207
[[Page H3696]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.208
[[Page H3697]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.209
[[Page H3698]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.210
[[Page H3699]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.211
[[Page H3700]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.212
[[Page H3701]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.213
[[Page H3702]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.214
[[Page H3703]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.215
[[Page H3704]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.216
[[Page H3705]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.217
[[Page H3706]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.218
[[Page H3707]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.219
[[Page H3708]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.220
[[Page H3709]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.221
[[Page H3710]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.222
[[Page H3711]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.223
[[Page H3712]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.224
[[Page H3713]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.225
[[Page H3714]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.226
[[Page H3715]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.227
[[Page H3716]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.228
[[Page H3717]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.229
[[Page H3718]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.230
[[Page H3719]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.231
[[Page H3720]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.232
[[Page H3721]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.233
[[Page H3722]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.234
[[Page H3723]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.235
[[Page H3724]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.236
[[Page H3725]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.237
[[Page H3726]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.238
[[Page H3727]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.239
[[Page H3728]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.240
[[Page H3729]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.241
[[Page H3730]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.242
[[Page H3731]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.243
[[Page H3732]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.244
[[Page H3733]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.245
[[Page H3734]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.246
[[Page H3735]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.247
[[Page H3736]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.248
[[Page H3737]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.249
[[Page H3738]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.250
[[Page H3739]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.251
[[Page H3740]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.252
[[Page H3741]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.253
[[Page H3742]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.254
[[Page H3743]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.255
[[Page H3744]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.256
[[Page H3745]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.257
[[Page H3746]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.258
[[Page H3747]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.259
[[Page H3748]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.260
[[Page H3749]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.261
[[Page H3750]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.262
[[Page H3751]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.263
[[Page H3752]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.264
[[Page H3753]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.265
[[Page H3754]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.266
[[Page H3755]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.267
[[Page H3756]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.268
[[Page H3757]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.269
[[Page H3758]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.270
[[Page H3759]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.271
[[Page H3760]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.272
[[Page H3761]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.273
[[Page H3762]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.274
[[Page H3763]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.275
[[Page H3764]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.276
[[Page H3765]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.277
[[Page H3766]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.278
[[Page H3767]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.279
[[Page H3768]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.280
[[Page H3769]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.281
[[Page H3770]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.282
[[Page H3771]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.283
[[Page H3772]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.284
[[Page H3773]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.285
[[Page H3774]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.286
[[Page H3775]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.287
[[Page H3776]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.288
[[Page H3777]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.289
[[Page H3778]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.290
[[Page H3779]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.291
[[Page H3780]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.292
[[Page H3781]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.293
[[Page H3782]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.294
[[Page H3783]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.295
[[Page H3784]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.296
[[Page H3785]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.297
[[Page H3786]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.298
[[Page H3787]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.299
[[Page H3788]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.300
[[Page H3789]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.301
[[Page H3790]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.302
[[Page H3791]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.303
[[Page H3792]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.304
[[Page H3793]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.305
[[Page H3794]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.306
[[Page H3795]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.307
[[Page H3796]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.308
[[Page H3797]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.309
[[Page H3798]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.310
[[Page H3799]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.311
[[Page H3800]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.312
[[Page H3801]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.313
[[Page H3802]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.314
[[Page H3803]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.315
[[Page H3804]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.316
[[Page H3805]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.317
[[Page H3806]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.318
[[Page H3807]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.319
[[Page H3808]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.320
[[Page H3809]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.321
[[Page H3810]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.322
[[Page H3811]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.323
[[Page H3812]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.324
[[Page H3813]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.325
[[Page H3814]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.326
[[Page H3815]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.327
[[Page H3816]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.328
[[Page H3817]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.329
[[Page H3818]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.330
[[Page H3819]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.331
[[Page H3820]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.332
[[Page H3821]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.333
[[Page H3822]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.334
[[Page H3823]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.335
[[Page H3824]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.336
[[Page H3825]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.337
[[Page H3826]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.338
[[Page H3827]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.339
[[Page H3828]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.340
[[Page H3829]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.341
[[Page H3830]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.342
[[Page H3831]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.343
[[Page H3832]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.344
[[Page H3833]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.345
[[Page H3834]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.346
[[Page H3835]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.347
[[Page H3836]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.348
[[Page H3837]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.349
[[Page H3838]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.350
[[Page H3839]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.351
[[Page H3840]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.352
[[Page H3841]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.353
[[Page H3842]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.354
[[Page H3843]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.355
[[Page H3844]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.356
[[Page H3845]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.357
[[Page H3846]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.358
[[Page H3847]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.359
[[Page H3848]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.360
[[Page H3849]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.361
[[Page H3850]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.362
[[Page H3851]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.363
[[Page H3852]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.364
[[Page H3853]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.365
[[Page H3854]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.366
[[Page H3855]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.367
[[Page H3856]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.368
[[Page H3857]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.369
[[Page H3858]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.370
[[Page H3859]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.371
[[Page H3860]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.372
[[Page H3861]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.373
[[Page H3862]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.374
[[Page H3863]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.375
[[Page H3864]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.376
[[Page H3865]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.377
[[Page H3866]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.378
[[Page H3867]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.379
[[Page H3868]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.380
[[Page H3869]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.381
[[Page H3870]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.382
[[Page H3871]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.383
[[Page H3872]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.384
[[Page H3873]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.385
[[Page H3874]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.386
[[Page H3875]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.387
[[Page H3876]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.388
[[Page H3877]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.389
[[Page H3878]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.390
[[Page H3879]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.391
[[Page H3880]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.392
[[Page H3881]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.393
[[Page H3882]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.394
[[Page H3883]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.395
[[Page H3884]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.396
[[Page H3885]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.397
[[Page H3886]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.398
[[Page H3887]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.399
[[Page H3888]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.400
[[Page H3889]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.401
[[Page H3890]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.402
[[Page H3891]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.403
[[Page H3892]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.404
[[Page H3893]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.405
[[Page H3894]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.406
[[Page H3895]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.407
[[Page H3896]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.408
[[Page H3897]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.409
[[Page H3898]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.410
[[Page H3899]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.411
[[Page H3900]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.412
[[Page H3901]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH070514.413
[[Page H3902]]
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 574) recommending
that the House of Representatives find Lois G. Lerner, Former Director,
Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, in contempt of Congress
for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 568, the
resolution is considered read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
House Resolution 574
Resolved, That because Lois G. Lerner, former Director,
Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, offered a
voluntary statement in testimony before the Committee, was
found by the Committee to have waived her Fifth Amendment
Privilege, was informed of the Committee's decision of
waiver, and continued to refuse to testify before the
Committee, Ms. Lerner shall be found to be in contempt of
Congress for failure to comply with a congressional subpoena.
Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 and 194, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
detailing the refusal of Ms. Lerner to testify before the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as directed by
subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia, to the end that Ms. Lerner be proceeded against in
the manner and form provided by law.
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise
take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 50
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or
their designees.
After debate on the resolution, it shall be in order to consider a
motion to refer if offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings), or his designee, which shall be debatable for 10 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 25 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material into the Record for the resolution made
in order under the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, on May 22, 2013, the committee started a hearing to
investigate allegations that the IRS had, in fact, used a flawed
process in reviewing applications for tax-exempt status.
To wit, I subpoenaed Lois Lerner to testify at that hearing because
she was head of IRS' Exempt Organization's Division, the office that
executed and, we believe, targeted conservative groups. The two
divisions of the IRS most involved with the targeting were the EO
Determinations unit in Cincinnati and the EO Technical unit in
Washington, D.C., headed by Lois Lerner.
Before the hearing, Ms. Lerner's lawyer notified the committee that
she would invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege and decline to answer
any questions from our committee members. Instead of doing so, Ms.
Lerner read a voluntary statement--self-selected statement that
included a series of specifics declarations of her innocence.
She said:
I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws.
I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have
not provided false information to this or any other
committee.
She then refused to answer our questions. She invoked her Fifth
Amendment right. She wouldn't even answer questions about declarations
she made during her opening statement.
Mr. Speaker, that is not how the Fifth Amendment is meant to be used.
The Fifth Amendment is protection. It is a shield. Lois Lerner used it
as a sword to cut and then defend herself from any response.
A witness cannot come before the committee to make a voluntary
statement--self-serving statement and then refuse to answer questions.
You don't get to use the public hearing to tell the press and the
public your side of the story and then invoke the Fifth.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, after invoking the Fifth, when asked about
previous testimony she had made and documents, she answered and
authenticated those and then, again, went back to asserting her Fifth
Amendment rights.
It is disappointing that things have come to this point. Lois Lerner
had almost a year to reconsider her decision not to answer questions to
Congress.
Point of Order
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. LYNCH. The gentleman was recognized for 2 minutes. It is way past
2 minutes. I was just wondering if we were keeping track of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentleman from California like to
yield himself additional time?
Mr. ISSA. I would be happy to anytime the Chair tells me my time has
expired.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
In the meantime, after invoking, she gave a no-strings-attached
interview to the Justice Department. This was said to the press
entirely voluntarily before a large gathering. Her position with
respect to complying with a duly issued subpoena has become clear. She
won't. Her testimony is a missing piece of an investigation into IRS
targeting.
We have now conducted 40 transcribed interviews and reviewed hundreds
of thousands of documents.
Mr. Speaker, the facts lead to Lois Lerner.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just shy of 1 year ago, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration reported the IRS had used inappropriate criteria to
review applicants for tax-exempt status.
The very same day, Chairman Issa went on national TV, before he
received a single document or interviewed a single witness, and said
the following: ``This was the targeting of the President's political
enemies effectively, and lies about it during the election year.''
Republicans have spent the past year trying to prove these
allegations. The IRS has spent more than $14 million responding to
Congress and has produced more than a half a million pages of
documents. We have interviewed 39 witnesses, 40 witnesses, IRS
witnesses, Treasury Department employees; and after all of that, we
have not found any evidence of White House involvement or political
motivation.
Yesterday, I issued a report with key portions from the nearly 40
interviews conducted by the committee to date; and these were
witnesses, Mr. Speaker, called by the majority. These interviews
showed, definitively, that there was no evidence of any White House
direction or political bias; instead they describe in detail how the
inappropriate terms were first developed and how there was inadequate
guidance on how to process the application.
Now, let me be clear that I am not defending Ms. Lerner. I wanted to
hear what she had to say. I have questions about why she was unaware of
the inappropriate criteria for more than a year after they were
created. I want to know why she did not mention the inappropriate
criteria in her letters to Congress, but I could not vote to violate an
individual's Fifth Amendment rights, just because I want to hear what
she has to say.
A much greater principle is at stake here today, the sanctity of the
Fifth Amendment rights for all citizens of the United States of
America; and I will not walk a path that has been tread by Senator
McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee.
In this case, a vote for contempt not only would endanger the rights
of American citizens, but it would be a pointless and costly exercise.
When Senator McCarthy pursued a similar case, the judge dismissed it.
The Supreme Court has said that a witness does not waive her rights by
professing her innocence.
[[Page H3903]]
In addition, more than 30 independent experts have now come forward
to conclude that Chairman Issa botched the contempt procedure by not
giving Ms. Lerner the proper warnings at the March 5 hearing, when he
rushed to cut off my microphone and adjourn the hearing before any
Democrat had the chance to utter a syllable.
For instance, Stan Brand, who served as the House Counsel from 1976
to 1983, concluded that Chairman Issa's actions were ``fatal to any
subsequent prosecution.''
The experts who came forward are from all across the country and all
across the political spectrum. J. Richard Broughton, a member of the
Republican National Lawyers Association and a law professor, concluded
that Ms. Lerner ``would likely have a defense to any ensuing criminal
prosecution for contempt pursuant to the existing Supreme Court
precedent.''
I didn't say that. The Republican National Lawyers Association member
said that.
Rather than squandering our valuable resources, pursuing a contempt
vote that more than 30 independent experts have concluded will fail in
court, we should release the nearly 40 transcripts, in their entirety,
that have not yet been made public and allow all Americans to read the
unvarnished facts for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Jordan).
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Look, here is what we know: Lois Lerner was at the center of this
scandal right from the get-go.
We know that she waived her Fifth Amendment rights on two separate
occasions. She came in front of the committee, as the chairman pointed
out, and made multiple factual statements. When you do that, when you
make all kinds of assertions, you then don't get a chance to say: oh,
now, I invoke my Fifth Amendment privileges.
She waived it a second time when she agreed to be interviewed by the
Department of Justice. Think about that. She is willing to sit down
with the people who can put her in jail, but she is not willing to
answer our questions.
When you waive it in one proceeding, you can't exercise it somewhere
else, according to the case law here in the District of Columbia.
Here is what we also know: John Koskinen, the new IRS Commissioner,
says it may take as many as 2 years for him to get us all Lois Lerner's
emails.
Most importantly, we know Lois Lerner and the Internal Revenue
Service systematically targeted American citizens, systematically
targeted groups for exercising their First Amendment rights.
Think about that for a second, Mr. Chairman. Think about your First
Amendment rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of
association, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech--and speech, in
particular--that is political. To speak out against your government,
your most fundamental right, that is what they targeted.
So to get to the truth, we need to use every tool we can to compel
Ms. Lerner, the lady at the center of the scandal, to come forward and
answer our questions so the American people can understand why their
First Amendment rights were targeted because we know--we know the
criminal investigation at the Department of Justice is a sham. They
have already leaked to The Wall Street Journal. No one is going to be
prosecuted.
They already had the head of the Executive Branch, the President of
the United States, go on national television and say no corruption, not
even a smidgeon; and the person leading the investigation is a maxed-
out contributor to the President's campaign.
We know that is not going to work
{time} 1630
The only route to the truth is through the House of Representatives
and compelling Ms. Lerner to answer our questions. That is why this
resolution is so important. That is why I am supporting it. That is why
I hope my colleagues on the other side will support it as well. It is
about this most fundamental right, and Ms. Lerner is at the center of
the storm. We want her simply--simply--to answer the questions.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, as Professor
Green of Fordham University has said, it is explicit that a person does
not waive a Fifth Amendment right by answering questions outside of a
formal setting or by making statements that were not under oath, when
he referred to the issue of her making statements to the Justice
Department.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from
California (Ms. Speier), a member of our committee.
Ms. SPEIER. I thank the ranking member for his leadership and for the
opportunity to say a few words here on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I am not here to defend Lois Lerner today, but I am here
to defend the Constitution and every American's right to assert the
Fifth Amendment so as not to incriminate themselves, and every single
Member of this body should be as committed to doing the same thing. I
am also here to defend the integrity of the committee and the rules of
that committee.
Lois Lerner pled the Fifth Amendment before our committee, and she
has professed her innocence, pure and simple. Thirty independent legal
experts have said that the proceedings were constitutionally deficient
to bring a contempt proceeding. They were constitutionally deficient
because the chair did not overrule Ms. Lerner's Fifth Amendment
assertion and order her to answer the questions. And as long as that
deficiency is there, there is no reason to move forward with that
effort today.
But let's move on to the bigger picture: Every single 501(c)(4) that
was in the queue before the IRS could have self-certified; they didn't
even need to be in that queue. So whether or not there was a list of
progressive organizations and conservative organizations that they were
using to somehow get to the thousands of applications that they had,
they could have moved aside and self-certified.
There have been 39 witnesses before this committee. There have been
530 pages of documents. There is no smoking gun. But the other side is
locked and loaded. They are just shooting blanks.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, if they hadn't made their applications,
perhaps they wouldn't have been asked the inappropriate, abusive
questions like, What books do you read? Who are your donors? as has
happened.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the leader of the House.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from California, Chairman Issa, for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution to
hold Ms. Lois Lerner in contempt. The substance of this resolution
should not be taken lightly. The contempt of the U.S. House of
Representatives is a serious matter and one that must be taken only
when duly warranted. There is no doubt in my mind the conditions have
been met for today's action.
Mr. Speaker, there are few government abuses more serious than using
the IRS to punish American citizens for their political beliefs. The
very idea of the IRS being used to intimidate and silence critics of a
certain political philosophy is egregious. It is so egregious that it
has practically been a cliche of government corruption in works of
fiction for decades, ever since President Nixon's administration.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, in this instance, under Ms. Lerner's
watch, this corruption became all too real. Conservatives were
routinely targeted and silenced by the IRS leading up to the 2012
election, unjustly and with malice. Those targeted were deprived of
their civil right to an unbiased administration of the law. These
citizens, these moms and dads simply trying to play within the rules
and make their voices heard, were left waiting without answers until
Election Day had come and gone.
Liberal groups were not targeted, as my colleagues across the aisle
like to claim. Only conservative groups were deliberately singled out
because of their political beliefs, and they were subjected to delays,
inappropriate questions, and unjust denials.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are owed a government that they can
[[Page H3904]]
trust, not a government that they fear. The only way to rebuild this
trust is to investigate exactly how these abuses occurred and to ensure
that they never happen again. Whether you are a conservative or a
liberal, a Republican or a Democrat or hold any other political or
philosophical position, your rights must be protected from this
administration and all those that come after it.
For nearly a full year, Lois Lerner has refused to testify before
this House about the singling out and targeting of conservative
organizations. She spoke up and gave a detailed assertion of her
innocence and then refused to answer questions. She later spoke with
DOJ attorneys for hours but still refused to answer a lawful subpoena
and testify to the American public. As a public servant, she decided to
forgo cooperation, to forgo truth and transparency.
In 2013, Ms. Lerner joked in one uncovered email that perhaps she
could get a job with Organizing for America, President Obama's
political arm. This is no surprise. Our committees have found that Ms.
Lerner used her position to unfairly deny conservative groups equal
protection under the law. Ms. Lerner impeded official investigations.
She risked exposing, and actually may have exposed, confidential
taxpayer information in the process. Day after day, action after
action, Ms. Lerner exposed herself as a servant to her political
philosophy, rather than a servant to the American people.
This, Mr. Speaker, is why the House has taken the extraordinary
action of referring Ms. Lerner to the Department of Justice for
criminal prosecution and is why we will request a special counsel to
investigate this case.
Not only has the President asserted that there is ``not even a
smidgeon of corruption'' at the IRS, but leaks from the Department of
Justice have indicated that no one will be prosecuted. That is not
surprising, as a top donor to the President's campaign is playing a key
role in their investigation, potentially compromising any semblance of
independence and justice. An independent, nonpartisan special
prosecutor is needed to ensure a fair investigation that all Americans
can trust.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to know the full context of
why these actions were taken. As early as 2010, leading Democratic
leaders were urging the IRS to take action against conservative groups.
How and why was the decision made to take action against them?
The American people, Ms. Lerner's employers, deserve answers. They
deserve accountability. They deserve to know that this will never
happen again, no matter what your political persuasion. The American
people deserve better.
Because of Ms. Lerner's actions, because of her unwillingness to
fully testify, and because she has refused to legally cooperate with
this investigation, I urge my colleagues in the House to hold Ms.
Lerner in contempt.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in response to those recent allegations, I do want to
point out that our committee did look at the question of political
motivation in selecting tax exemption applications. We asked the
inspector general, Russell George, on May 17, 2013, in a hearing before
the Ways and Means Committee: ``Did you find any evidence of political
motivation in the selection of tax-exempt applications?'' The inspector
general who investigated this case testified in response: ``We did not,
sir.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this contempt resolution.
What began as a necessary and compelling bipartisan investigation into
the targeting of American citizens by the Internal Revenue Service has
now deteriorated into the very sort of dangerous and careless
government overreaching that our committee was set out to investigate
in the first place.
The gentleman from California commenced this investigation in May of
2013 by stating the following during his opening statement: ``When
government power is used to target Americans for exercising their
constitutional rights, there is nothing we, as Representatives, should
find more important than to take it seriously, get to the bottom of it,
and eradicate the behavior.''
I would remind the chairman that our solemn duty as lawmakers, to
safeguard the constitutional rights of every American, does not only
extend to cases where a powerful Federal department has deprived
citizens of freedoms vested in the First Amendment, rather we must be
equally vigilant when the power of government is brought down on
Americans who have asserted their rights under the Fifth Amendment. And
it is guaranteed that no person shall be compelled to be a witness
against him- or herself nor be deprived life, liberty, and property
without due process of law. In our system where ``innocent until proven
guilty'' lies at the bedrock of our constitutional protections, Ms.
Lerner's brief assertions of innocence, her 36 words, should not be
enough to vitiate her Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.
Regrettably, this contempt resolution utterly fails to reflect the
seriousness with which we should approach the constitutional issue at
stake here. In the face of Supreme Court precedent and a vast body of
legal expert opinion holding that Ms. Lerner did not, in fact, waive
her Fifth Amendment privilege by professing her innocence, Chairman
Issa has moved forward with contempt proceedings without even affording
the members of our own committee the opportunity to receive public
testimony from legal experts on this important constitutional question.
As held by the Supreme Court in 1949 in Smith v. United States:
Testimonial waiver is not to be lightly inferred . . . and
the courts accordingly indulge every reasonable presumption
against finding a testimonial waiver.
Chairman Issa has also chosen to pursue contempt against Ms. Lerner
after refusing an offer from her attorney for a brief 1-week delay so
that his client could finally provide the testimony that Members on
both sides of this aisle have been asking for.
These legally flawed contempt proceedings bring us no closer to
receiving Ms. Lerner's testimony and have only served to divert our
time, focus, and resources away from our rightful inquiry into the
troubling events at the IRS. They are also reflective of the partisan
manner in which this $14 million investigation--so far--has been
conducted to date.
Chairman Issa has refused to release the full transcripts of the now
39 transcribed interviews conducted by committee staff with relevant
IRS and Treasury officials. He has also recently released two staff
reports on these events that were not even provided to the Democratic
members prior to their release.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this
resolution.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record. It is now
40 transcribed interviews, and we have received 12,000 emails from Lois
Lerner today. So that $14 million probably went up a little bit because
today the IRS finally turned over some of the documents they owed this
committee under subpoena for over half a year.
I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, there is probably nothing more sacred to Americans,
nothing more important to protect, than the democratic electoral
process which has made this, by far, the greatest country in the world,
giving everyone an opportunity to participate.
{time} 1645
We are here today to hold Lois Lerner in contempt. It has been stated
she didn't have her rights recognized. She has the right to take the
Fifth. She has done that under the Constitution. We brought her in
twice, May 22, 2013, and March 2014. She began--and you can see the
tapes--declaring her innocence. Even before that, when it was pointed
out that she was at the heart of this matter--in fact, everyone, her
employees, when she tried to throw them under the bus, they said she
threw them under a convoy of Mack trucks.
Every road leads to Lois Lerner. Lois Lerner held the Congress of the
United States in contempt and is holding it in contempt. Lois Lerner
held the electoral process that is so sacred to the country in
contempt. Lois Lerner has held the American people and the process that
they cherish and the chief financial agency, the IRS--whom we all
[[Page H3905]]
have to account to--as a tool to manipulate a national election. This
was a targeted, directed, and focused attempt, and every road leads to
Lois Lerner.
She has had twice the opportunity to come before Congress and to tell
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and she has failed to do
that. I urge that we hold Lois Lerner in contempt. That is our
responsibility, and it must be done.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman who
just spoke, even the IG found that Lois Lerner did not learn about
these inappropriate terms until about a year afterwards, the IG that
was appointed by a Republican President.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Connolly), a distinguished member of our committee.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the distinguished
ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I
think, Mr. Speaker, if the Founders were here today and if they had
witnessed the proceedings on the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee with respect to Ms. Lois Lerner, they would have unanimously
reaffirmed their commitment to the Fifth Amendment because rights were
trampled on, frankly, starting with the First Amendment rights of the
ranking member himself, who was cut off and not allowed to speak even
after the chairman availed himself of the opportunity for an opening
statement and no fewer than seven questions before cutting off entirely
the ranking member of our committee.
But then we proceeded to trample on the Fifth Amendment while we were
at it, and case law is what governs here. The court has said the self-
incrimination clause, the Fifth Amendment, must be accorded liberal
construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure since the
respect normally accorded the privilege is buttressed by the
presumption of innocence accorded to the defendant in a criminal trial.
In other words, it is the same. It is the equivalent of the presumption
of innocence.
Madison said that if all men--and he meant all men and women, I am
sure--were angels, we wouldn't need the Fifth Amendment. Lois Lerner is
not to be defended here. She is not a heroic character. But she is a
citizen who has an enumerated right in the Constitution of the United
States. The relevant case, besides Quinn v. the United States, comes
from the 1950s. A U.S. citizen, Diantha Hoag, was taken before the
permanent subcommittee, and she was asked questions. She, also, like
Lois Lerner, had a prefatory statement declaiming her innocence that
she was not a spy, she had not engaged in subversion, and then she
proceeded to invoke her Fifth Amendment, just like Lois Lerner.
In fact, the difference is Ms. Hoag actually once in a while answered
``yes'' or ``no'' to some questions put to her. She was found to be in
contempt. The chairman of the committee jumped on it, just like our
chairman did, and said, aha, gotcha. Two years later, the court found
otherwise. The court unanimously ruled that Ms. Hoag had not waived her
Fifth Amendment right. She was entitled to a statement of innocence,
and that didn't somehow vitiate her invocation of her Fifth Amendment
right, and her Fifth Amendment right was upheld.
This is about trampling on the constitutional rights of U.S.
citizens--and for a very crass reason, for a partisan, political
reason. We heard the distinguished majority leader, my colleague and
friend from Virginia, assert something that is absolutely not true,
which is that only conservative groups were targeted by the IRS. That
is not true, and we have testimony it is not true. Words like
``Occupy,'' ``ACORN,'' and ``progressive'' were all part of the so-
called BOLO list. They, too, were looked at.
This was an incompetent, ham-handed effort by one regional office in
Cincinnati by the IRS. Was it right? Absolutely not. But does it rise
to the level of a scandal, or the false assertion by the chairman of
our committee on television, as the ranking member cited, that somehow
it goes all the way to the White House picking on political enemies?
Flat out untrue, not a scintilla of evidence that that is true. And to
have the entire House of Representatives now voting on the contempt
citation and declaring unilaterally that a U.S. citizen has waived her
constitutional rights does no credit to this House and is a low moment
that evokes the spirit of Joe McCarthy from a long ago era. Shame on us
for what we are about to do.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, nobody answered the debunking that we put out,
this document, nobody. This document makes it clear it was all about
targeting and abusing conservative groups, and the gentleman from
Virginia knows that very well.
With that, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), who has championed so many of these issues in
our investigations.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, about 3 years ago, all of our offices
starting getting phone calls from constituents saying they are being
asked very unusual questions by the IRS. They were applying for non-
profit status. They were patriot groups, they were Tea Party groups,
and they were constitutional groups. Whatever their name might be, they
were getting these questions coming back in. Questions like: Tell us,
as the IRS, every conversation you have had with a legislator and the
contents of those conversations. Tell us, and give us copies of the
documents that are only given to members of your organization. If there
is a private part of your Web site that is only set aside for members,
show us all of those pages. And by the way, all of those questions were
prefaced with a statement from the IRS as, whatever documents you give
us will also be made public to everyone.
So the statement was: Tell us what you privately talked about with
legislators, and tell us what only your members get because we are
going to publish it.
So, of course, we started to get questions about that. The inspector
general starts an investigation on that, and on May the 10th of last
year, 2013, Lois Lerner stands up in a conference, plants a question in
the audience to talk about something completely irrelevant to the
conference so she can leak out that this investigation is about to be
burst out. Four days later, the inspector general launches this
investigation and says that conservative groups have been unfairly
targeted--298 groups have their applications held, isolated. They were
asked for all these things, and when they turned documents in, they
were stored. The initial accusation was that this was a crazy group
from Cincinnati that did this.
So our committee happened to bring in these folks from Cincinnati.
They all said they wanted to be able to advance these applications, and
they were told, no, hold them. We asked the names of the people in
Washington who told them to hold them. We brought those folks in. They
said they wanted to also move them, and they were told by the counsel's
office to hold them.
As we continued to work through point after point, through person
after person, all of them come back to Lois Lerner's office, Lois
Lerner, who had come in before us May 22, 2013, made a long statement
professing her innocence, saying she had done nothing wrong, had broken
no law, and then said: I won't answer questions.
What is at stake here is a constitutional principle: can a person
stand before a court or before the Congress and make a long statement
saying ``I have done nothing wrong'' and then choose to not answer
questions? This is a precedent before every Congress from here on out
and in front of every court. Can this be done?
We would say no. It is not just a statement about accepting that she
is guilty, though all the evidence leads back to her and her office. It
is that if you have the right to remain silent, do you actually remain
silent during that time period?
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that we are
talking about the constitutional rights of a United States citizen, and
we do not have the right to remain silent, as Members of Congress, if
those rights are being trampled on.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the
distinguished leader.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if this is a precedent, it is a bad
precedent. It is a dangerous precedent. It is a precedent that we ought
not to make. ``Read the
[[Page H3906]]
Constitution,'' I heard over and over and over again. I have read
probably the opinions of 25 lawyers whom I respect from many great
institutions in this country, none of whom, as I am sure the ranking
member has pointed out, none of whom believe that the precedent
supports this action.
Mr. Speaker, what a waste of the people's time for Congress to spend
this week on politics and not policy. We are about to vote on a
resolution that is really a partisan, political message. Everyone here
agrees--everyone--that the IRS should never target anyone based on
anything other than what they owe in taxes, not their political beliefs
or any other traits other than their liability and their opportunities
to pay their fair share to the United States of America.
In fact, during an exhaustive investigation into the IRS, Chairman
Issa's committee interviewed 39 witnesses, analyzed more than 530,000
pages, and could not find the conspiracy they were looking for--that
they always look for, that they always allege. Fourteen million dollars
of taxpayer money has already been spent on this investigation, and all
that was found was that which we already knew: that the division led by
Ms. Lerner suffered from fundamental administrative and managerial
shortcomings that bore no connection to politics or to partisanship.
Independent legal experts have concluded that Chairman Issa's efforts
to hold Ms. Lerner in contempt of Congress is constitutionally
deficient. But this resolution before us today is, of course, not meant
to generate policy. It is meant to generate headlines. Republicans,
once again, are showing that they are more interested in partisan,
election-year gimmicks than working in a bipartisan way to tackle our
country's most pressing challenges. We ought to turn to the important
matters of creating jobs, raising the minimum wage, and restoring
emergency unemployment for those who are struggling to find work--
issues the American people overwhelmingly support and want their
Congress to address.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to give this partisan resolution
the vote it deserves and defeat it so that we can turn to the people's
business.
In closing, let me say this, Mr. Speaker. There are 435 of us in this
body.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, do not think about party on
this vote. Think about precedent. Think about this institution. Think
about the Constitution of the United States of America. And if you
haven't read, read some of the legal opinions that say you have to
establish a predicate before you can tell an American that they will be
held criminally liable if they don't respond to your questions.
That is what this issue is about. It is not about party, it is not
about any of us, but about the constitutional protections that every
American deserves and ought to be given.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 8\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 14\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1700
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to correct the record. Earlier,
a minority Member stated that, with 35 words said by Lois Lerner, our
count is 305. Hopefully, their inaccuracy of their experts will be
considered the same.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. The
people's House has thoroughly documented Lois Lerner's trespasses,
including her history of targeting conservative groups, as well as the
rules and laws she has broken. In fact, there is a 443-page committee
report supporting these allegations.
We know that Ms. Lerner refuses to comply with a duly-issued subpoena
from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and without
Ms. Lerner's full cooperation, the American public will not have the
answer it needs from its government.
My friends across the aisle have continuously cried foul over this
legitimate investigation; but where is their evidence to put this issue
to rest?
Let me say that I do not enjoy holding any Federal official in
contempt or pursuing criminal charges because doing so means that we
have a government run amuck and a U.S. Attorney General who does not
uphold the rule of law. Such a predicament is a lose-lose situation for
all Americans and our Constitution.
As uncomfortable as it may be, it is our job to proceed in the name
of government accountability. I support this resolution, and it is way
past time for contempt for Lois Lerner.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that the American people hold the
Congress of the United States in such lowest esteem. We are providing
them with some additional basis to have that opinion, and this here is
what it is.
Number one, this was an important investigation. We should do it. We
should do it energetically, and we should do it together. Instead,
information was constantly withheld from the minority.
Our own ranking member was cut off with really quite a bold gesture
by the chairman at a certain point; and it created an impression that
it was going to be a one-sided affair, rather than a balanced,
cooperative approach. That is essential to having any credibility.
The second thing is: What do we do about Lois Lerner who took the
Fifth? We have a debate about whether the manner in which she did that
caused her to waive that Fifth Amendment privilege. That is a fair and
square question.
Your side thinks she waived it and, therefore, should be held in
contempt. Our side--and I think we have the weight of legal opinion--
said she didn't waive it; but you know what, that is a legal question,
and there is a document called the Constitution that separates the
powers.
Whether this person crossed the line or didn't is a legal
determination to be made by judges, not by a vote of Congress. Since
when did Congress get to vote on judicial issues?
If we want this to be resolved in a way that has any credibility, it
should be decided by the courts. Send this to the courts. Let the
judges decide whether this was a waiver or it wasn't; but the idea that
a Congress--this time run by Republicans, next time run by Democrats--
can have a vote to make a legal determination about the rights of a
citizen is in complete conflict with the separation of powers in our
Constitution.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont in advance
for his ``yes'' vote on this because the only way to send this to the
court to be decided is to vote ``yes.'' In fact, we are not trying Lois
Lerner. We are determining that she should be tried. The question
should be before a Federal judge.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs.
Lummis), a member of the committee.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I contend that, in the interest of
protecting the constitutional rights of the hardworking taxpayers of
this country from the behavior of the IRS, from Lois Lerner--herself a
lawyer--who understands that you can waive your right to remain silent
as to matters to which you chose to testify, and that she did that. She
said: I have done nothing wrong, I have broken no laws.
Subsequently, we find out that she blamed the IRS employees in
Cincinnati for wrongdoing that was going on here in Washington, D.C.,
that she was targeting conservative groups and only conservative
groups, thereby violating their First Amendment constitutional rights.
The Oversight Committee needs to find the truth, and to that end, we
need answers from Lois Lerner. The committee has sought these answers
for more than a year. Lerner's refusal to truthfully answer these
questions posed by the committee cannot be tolerated. I urge a ``yes''
vote and, following that, swift action by the Justice Department to
ensure that Lois Lerner
[[Page H3907]]
provides answers on exactly what the IRS was up to.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a member of the committee.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I think all of us agree
that one of the responsibilities of our committee is to investigate and
try to make sure that the laws are carried out the way we intended and
to try and make sure that the money is being spent the way we intended
for it to be spent.
It seems to me that we have spent $14 million, up to this point,
investigating this one issue; and while I think the investigations are
designed to tell us something we don't know, we have not learned
anything new. We have not learned of any kind of conspiracy. We have
not learned of any kind of underhandedness.
The only thing that we know is that we have said to a United States
citizen that you cannot invoke the Fifth and say: I have a right not to
answer questions if I think it is going to damage me.
I would much rather see us spend the $14 million creating jobs,
providing educational opportunities for those who need it, doing
something that will change the direction and the flavor of the
economics of our country, rather than wasting $14 million more on
continuous investigations. I vote ``no.''
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. The American people still have not
received answers that they deserve, I believe, from Lois Lerner. Just
sitting here on the floor and listening for the last few minutes, it
just really amazes me about what is being said.
It is said that, if the chairman had done this or if we had done
something else, if we had not done this, and maybe she would have had
more time, and maybe we would have found out the truth. Well, maybe if
I turn my head sideways and squinted real hard, maybe she would have
talked then.
But she did talk. She said a lot of things, including making 17
different factual assertions, and then decided: oops, don't want to
talk anymore.
Here is the problem: no one has said or even implied that you can't
assert your Fifth Amendment right. That has never been said on this
floor. It has never been asserted by any member of the Republican
Party.
What has been asserted is you can't come in and you can't say: I have
done nothing wrong, no problem, I am clean; and, oh, by the way, quit
asking because I am not going to answer any of your questions.
When you do that, then you are taking advantage of a system that you
are not supposed to be taking advantage of. She could have walked in,
from minute one, and said: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I am not
going to answer a question. I am asserting my Fifth Amendment right.
She did not do that, and what we have now is not a waste of time. I
believe there are a lot of things. The Republican majority is working
on economic development, but I think one of the things we have to
reassert in this country is trust, and right now, our American people
do not trust us, and they do not believe that the government is in
their favor.
Instances like this, when they are being asked inappropriate
questions, when they are trying to fulfill their rights and freedom of
speech, this is why we are here. You can't keep doing it.
Ms. Lerner needs to be held in contempt because all I have found on
the floor of this House today is arguments that keep coming, that
remind me of the song from Pink Floyd. I am just comfortably numb at
this point because the arguments don't matter.
We never said she couldn't use her Fifth Amendment right. She just
chose to say: I didn't do anything wrong.
That is not the way this process works, Ms. Lerner. It is time to
testify.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I would say to the gentleman that is leaving the floor
now who just spoke: the arguments do matter. This is still the United
States of America. We still have constitutional rights, which we
declare we will uphold every 2 years.
I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, if the point of a contempt resolution is to
find out what Lois Lerner knows, what the committee wants to know,
whether there was a deliberate targeting of citizens for political
reasons.
The fact is that the committee passed up the opportunity to learn
this information. It asked her attorney: Would you tell us what she
would tell us?
It is called a proffer. Indeed, her attorney sent a letter to the
chairman offering to provide a proffer. That is the information we want
to know. This proffer would detail what Ms. Lerner would testify.
Instead of accepting that proffer, the chairman went on national
television and claimed that this written offer never happened. The
chairman, therefore, never obtained the proffer that the attorney was
willing to offer, the information which is the only reason we should be
on this floor at all.
When the ranking member tried to ask about it at a hearing in March,
the chairman famously cut off his microphone and closed down the
hearing in one of the worst examples of partisanship the committee has
ever seen.
The chairman did something similar when Ms. Lerner's attorney offered
to have her testify with a simple one-week extension, Mr. Speaker,
since the attorney had obligations out of town.
Rather than accept this offer to get the committee the information
that is at the bottom of this contempt matter today, the chairman went
on national television and declared, inaccurately, that she would
testify without the extension. Of course, that meant nothing could
happen. There was no trust left.
Clearly, what the committee wanted was a Fifth Amendment show
hearing, in violation of Ms. Lerner's rights. They wanted a contempt
citation vote. That is the political contempt citation vote scheduled
today. It will never hold up in the courts of the United States of
America.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have worked long and hard with the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia. She is a good person, but her facts simply are 100 percent
wrong. Every single one of her assertions were simply not true. You can
go to pages 11, 12, and 13 of this 400-plus page report, and you can
see none of those statements are true.
We would have accepted a proffer from the attorney. We were not given
one; although I will say he did tell us, one time, we wouldn't like
what she said if she said something. When I went on national
television, I did so because of written communication that indicated
that she would appear and testify.
Additionally, the gentlelady did make one point that was very good.
It was very good. The attorney told us that she needed another week to
prepare, which we were willing to give her; but when we learned it was
actually inconvenient for the attorney to necessarily prep her, we
said, if he would come in with his client and agree that she was going
to testify, we would recess and give her the additional week.
When they came in that day, no such offer was on the table from her
attorney, but, in fact, he said she had decided that she simply didn't
want to speak to us--not that she was afraid of incrimination--because
you can't be afraid of incrimination and not afraid, back and forth.
That is pretty clear.
Her contempt for our committee was, in fact, contempt for the body of
Congress, while she was happy to speak at length, apparently, with the
Department of Justice, perhaps with that $6,000 or $7,000 contributor
to President Obama that is so involved in that investigation.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Bentivolio).
{time} 1715
Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this resolution
recommending that the House of Representatives find Lois Lerner in
contempt of Congress.
Our Pledge of Allegiance ends with the words, ``with liberty and
justice for all.'' Lois Lerner's actions have made it nearly impossible
for us to follow those ideals for the victims of the IRS
[[Page H3908]]
targeting scandal. She has placed obstacle after obstacle in front of
our pursuit for the truth, worrying that her ideology and the actions
of a corrupt Federal agency will be exposed.
I ask my colleagues to join our effort in promoting transparency in
our government. As Members of Congress, it is our job to protect
rights, not take them away.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Farenthold), a member of the committee.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I am here today because I do believe
Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right to testify, and by so
doing and not answering our questions, she was in contempt of Congress.
The other side makes a big deal about this being political and
preserving constitutional rights, but the way the system is supposed to
work: we will find Ms. Lerner in contempt; the Justice Department will
then go to court; there will be a full hearing in the court. And this
may very well make it to the United States Supreme Court.
Her rights will be protected, but we have also got to protect the
rights of the people. We are the people's House. It is our job to get
to the bottom of the scandals that are troubling the American people so
that we can regain the trust of the American people.
You know, it is healthy to be skeptical of your government, but when
you don't believe a word that comes out of the mouth of the
administration, there is a real problem.
We have got to reclaim our power here. We are struggling. I don't
think the Justice Department is going to pursue this. I think the same
thing will happen to Ms. Lerner that happened with Mr. Holder--the
Justice Department is going to decline to move forward with it--but we
have got to do our job.
I also want to point out that we have got to deal with these people
who are in contempt of Congress. For that reason, I have H.R. 4447 that
is pending before this House that would withhold the pay of anyone in
contempt of Congress. We have got to use the power of the purse and
everything we have got to reclaim the power of the purse and the power
that the Constitution gave this body to get to the truth and be the
representatives of the people.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who, by the way, is, in fact, a constitutional
scholar in his own right.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the comments by the
minority whip instructing us to check the Constitution. That really
struck me, because I believe I recall him standing up and applauding in
this Chamber when the President said: If Congress doesn't do its job, I
will basically do it for them. So someone that would do that doesn't
need to be giving lectures on the Constitution.
We have powers under the Constitution that we have got to protect.
When someone stands up and exerts their innocence repeatedly and then
attempts to take the Fifth Amendment right, it is not there. This is
the next step. It will preserve the sanctity and the power of this
body, whether it is Democrats or Republicans in charge or anyone who
attempts to skirt justice and provide truth.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I close, I want to remind all of my colleagues, several references
have been made to the oath that we take every 2 years in this Chamber.
Every 2 years we stand in this Chamber and we say:
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the
Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
It is the first words we say.
It is interesting that at the beginning of that swearing in is that
we will defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Yesterday we had a very interesting argument in rules when one of the
members of the Rules Committee questioned whether when one becomes a
public employee, whether they then lose their rights as an American
citizen. It is clear that those rights do stand, no matter whether you
are a public servant or whether you are a janitor at some coffee shop.
We are in a situation today where we need to be very clear what is
happening. Not since McCarthy has this been tried, that is the
stripping away of an American citizen's constitutional right not to
incriminate themselves and then holding them in contempt criminally.
McCarthy. We are better than that. We are so much better.
The idea that somebody can come in after their lawyer has sent a
letter in saying they are going to take the Fifth, then the lawyer
comes in, sits behind them while they take the Fifth, then the person
says they are taking the Fifth, and then suddenly when they say, ``I
declare my innocence,'' we say, ``Gotcha.''
The Supreme Court has said this is not a gotcha moment. It is not
about that. The Supreme Court has said these rights, no matter how much
we may not like the person who we are talking about, no matter how much
we may think they are hiding, they have rights. That is what this is
all about.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make sure that they vote against
this, because this is about generations yet unborn, how they will view
us during our watch.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I regret that we have to be here today. If it is within my power, if
at any time Lois Lerner comes forward to answer our questions, I am
fully prepared to hear what she has to say, and at that point I would
certainly ask that the criminal prosecution be dropped. It may not be
within my power after today.
For more than a year, our committee has sought to get her testimony.
For nearly a year we have sought to get her to testify honestly. It was
shocking to us on the committee, on the top of the dais, that a lawyer
represented by a distinguished lawyer would play fast and loose with
the Fifth Amendment assertion. It is a pretty straightforward process
to assert your rights. In fact, her attorney may have planned all along
to have a controversy. I will never know.
What I do know is we asserted that she had waived because we were
advised by House counsel, an independent organization, that she had. We
continue to investigate, and only today, nearly a year after a subpoena
was issued, the Treasury, the IRS, actually gave us another 12,000
emails. Like earlier emails, they indicate a deeply political
individual, partisan in her views, who apparently was at the center of
deciding that when the President, in this well, objected to Citizens
United, that it meant they wanted us to fix it, and she was prepared to
do it. That is for a different court to decide.
The only question now is did she in fact give testimony, then assert
the Fifth Amendment, then give some more testimony, and can we have
that kind of activity.
We have dismissed other people who came before our committee,
asserted their Fifth Amendment rights. After enough questions to know
that they were going to continue to assert, we dismissed them. We have
a strong record of respecting the First, the Fourth, the Fifth, the
Sixth Amendment and so on. That is what this Congress does, and we do
it every day, and our committee does it.
Rather than listen to debate here which was filled with factual
inaccuracies, refuted in documentation that is available to the
American people, rather than believe that the minority's assertion
should carry the day because the gentleman from Georgia said if about
eight different if-thens, then they would vote for this, well, I
believe that the gentleman from Vermont said it very well when he said:
We shouldn't be doing this. We shouldn't be finding her guilty. This
should be before a judge. He may not have understood what he was
saying, because what he was saying is exactly what we are doing. We are
putting the question of did she properly waive or not and should she be
back before us or be held in contempt and punished for not giving it.
This won't be my decision. This will be a lifetime-appointment,
nonpartisan Federal judge. The only thing we are doing today is sending
it for that consideration. If the court rules that in fact her conduct
was not a waiver, then
[[Page H3909]]
we will have a modern update to understand the set of events here.
We will still have the same problem, which is Lois Lerner was at the
center of an operation that systematically abused Americans for their
political beliefs, asked them inappropriate questions, delayed and
denied their approvals.
The minority asserted, well, they could have self-selected. Maybe
they could have, maybe they should have, but it wouldn't change the
fact that under penalty of perjury the IRS was asking them
inappropriate questions which they intended to make public.
The IRS is an organization that we do not have confidence in now as
Americans. We need to reestablish that, and part of it is understanding
how and why a high-ranking person at the IRS so blatantly abused
conservative groups in America that were adverse to the President, no
doubt. But that should not be the basis under which you get
scrutinized, audited, or abused, and yet it clearly was.
Mr. Speaker, it is essential we vote ``yes'' on contempt. Let the
court decide, but more importantly, let the American people have
confidence that we will protect their rights from the IRS.
With that, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, in March of 2012, then-IRS Commissioner
Douglas Shulman assured Congress: ``there is no targeting of
conservative groups.'' Yet, I continued to hear stories from
constituents telling me a different story. On April 23, 2012, I joined
with 62 of my House colleagues in writing the IRS Commissioner
inquiring further about the possible targeting. We were assured that
the rules were being applied fairly and that there was no targeting or
delay of processing applications from conservative groups.
In April of 2013, top IRS official Lois Lerner revealed in a public
forum that the agency had been discriminating against more than 75
groups with conservative sounding names like ``Tea Party'' or
``Patriot'' in the run-up to the 2012 election the very time we were
inquiring. Ms. Lerner actually went so far as to plant a question in
the audience about the issue. Ms. Lerner's admission came just days
before the release of an internal Treasury Inspector General audit that
documented that the IRS had been misleading Congress.
When asked by Members of the House about the targeting, Miss Lerner
has refused to answer our questions on multiple occasions, prompting
the House to find her in contempt of Congress. The rights of hundreds
and perhaps thousands of ordinary Americans have been violated, and I
am most concerned about making sure that justice is pursued in
protecting their rights.
Further allegations of abuse have been made by other conservative
groups. The IRS admitted that someone violated the law and leaked
confidential taxpayer information on a Republican Senatorial candidate.
Disclosing confidential taxpayer information is one of the worst things
an IRS employee can do--it's a felony, punishable with a $5,000 fine
and up to five years in prison. The Treasury Inspector General noted
eight instances of unauthorized access to records, with at least one
willful violation, yet Attorney General Eric Holder has failed to
prosecute. Why?
Earlier this year I led an effort with the support of over fifty of
my House colleagues demanding that Attorney General Eric Holder appoint
an independent special prosecutor to investigate these IRS abuses.
Instead, A.G. Holder has appointed a partisan Democrat to lead the
Justice Department's internal investigation who has donated thousands
of dollars to the President's campaign and other Democrat campaigns.
This is completely unacceptable.
It's long past time that we have a real and thorough investigation
conducted by an objective investigator. Thousands of American citizens
deserve to see justice pursued rather than have these abuses swept,
under the rug.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the resolution has
expired.
Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of House
Resolution 574 is postponed.
____________________