[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 7, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H3909-H3919]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 568, I call
up the resolution (H. Res. 565) calling on Attorney General Eric H.
Holder, Jr., to appoint a special counsel to investigate the targeting
of conservative nonprofit groups by the Internal Revenue Service, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
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:
H. Res. 565
Whereas in February of 2010, the Internal Revenue Service
(``IRS'') began targeting conservative nonprofit groups for
extra scrutiny in connection with applications for tax-exempt
status;
Whereas on May 14, 2013, the Treasury Inspector General for
Tax Administration (TIGTA) issued an audit report entitled,
``Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt
Applications for Review'';
Whereas the TIGTA audit report found that from 2010 until
2012 the IRS systematically subjected tax-exempt applicants
to extra scrutiny based on inappropriate criteria, including
use of the phrases ``Tea Party'', ``Patriots'', and ``9/12'';
Whereas the TIGTA audit report found that the groups
selected for extra scrutiny based on inappropriate criteria
were subjected to years-long delay without cause;
Whereas the TIGTA audit report found that the groups
selected for extra scrutiny based on inappropriate criteria
were subjected to inappropriate and burdensome information
requests, including requests for information about donors and
political beliefs;
Whereas on January 27, 2010, in his State of the Union
Address, President Barack Obama criticized the Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission decision, saying:
``With all due deference to separation of powers, last week
the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe
will open the floodgates for special interests--including
foreign corporations--to spend without limit in our
elections'';
Whereas throughout 2010, President Barack Obama and
congressional Democrats publicly criticized the Citizens
United decision and conservative-oriented tax-exempt
organizations;
Whereas the Exempt Organizations Division within the IRS's
Tax-Exempt and Government Entities Division has jurisdiction
over the processing and determination of tax-exempt
applications;
Whereas on September 15, 2010, Lois G. Lerner, Director of
the Exempt Organizations Division, initiated a project to
examine political activity of 501(c)(4) organizations,
writing to her colleagues, ``[w]e need to be cautious so it
isn't a per se political project'';
Whereas on October 19, 2010, Lois G. Lerner told an
audience at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy
that ``everybody'' is ``screaming'' at the IRS ``to fix the
problem'' posed by the Citizens United decision;
Whereas on February 1, 2011, Lois G. Lerner wrote that the
``Tea Party matter [was] very dangerous,'' explaining ``This
could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether
Citizen's [sic] United overturning the ban on corporate
spending applies to tax exempt rules'';
Whereas Lois G. Lerner ordered the Tea Party tax-exempt
applications to proceed through a ``multi-tier review''
involving her senior technical advisor and the Chief
Counsel's office of the IRS;
Whereas Carter Hull, a 48-year veteran of the Federal
Government, testified that the ``multi-tier review'' was
unprecedented in his experience;
Whereas on June 1, 2011, Holly Paz, Director of Rulings and
Agreements within the Exempt Organizations Division,
requested the tax-exempt application filed by Crossroads
Grassroots Policy Strategies for review by Lois G. Lerner's
senior technical advisor;
Whereas in June 2011, Lois G. Lerner ordered the Tea Party
cases to be renamed because she viewed the term ``Tea Party''
to be ``pejorative'';
Whereas on March 22, 2012, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman
was specifically asked about the targeting of Tea Party
groups applying for tax-exempt status during a hearing before
the House Committee on Ways and Means, to which he replied,
``I can give you assurances . . . [t]here is absolutely no
targeting.'';
Whereas on April 26, 2012, IRS Exempt Organizations
Director Lois G. Lerner informed the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform that information requests
were done in ``the ordinary course of the application
process'';
Whereas on May 4, 2012, IRS Exempt Organizations Director
Lois G. Lerner provided to the House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform specific justification for the IRS's
information requests;
Whereas prior to the November 2012 election, the IRS
provided 31 applications for tax-exempt status to the
investigative website ProPublica, all of which were from
conservative groups and nine of which had not yet been
approved by the IRS, and Federal law prohibits public
disclosure of application materials until after the
application has been approved;
Whereas the initial ``test'' cases developed by the IRS
were applications filed by conservative-oriented Tea Party
organizations;
Whereas the IRS determined, by way of informal, internal
review, that 75 percent of the affected applications for
501(c)(4) status
[[Page H3910]]
were filed by conservative-oriented organizations;
Whereas on January 24, 2013, Lois G. Lerner e-mailed
colleagues about Organizing for Action, a tax-exempt
organization formed as an offshoot of President Barack
Obama's election campaign, writing: ``Maybe I can get the DC
office job!'';
Whereas on May 8, 2013, Richard Pilger, Director of the
Election Crimes Branch of the Department of Justice's Public
Integrity Section, spoke to Lois G. Lerner about potential
prosecution for false statements about political campaign
intervention made by tax-exempt applicants;
Whereas on May 10, 2013, IRS Exempt Organizations Director
Lois G. Lerner apologized for the IRS's targeting of
conservative tax-exempt applicants during a speech at an
event organized by the American Bar Association;
Whereas the Ways and Means Committee determined that, of
the 298 applications delayed and set aside for extra scrutiny
by the IRS, 83 percent were from right-leaning organizations;
Whereas the Ways and Means Committee also determined that,
as of Lois G. Lerner's May 10, 2013 apology, only 45 percent
of the right-leaning groups set aside for extra scrutiny had
been approved, while 70 percent of left-leaning groups and
100 percent of the groups with ``progressive'' names had been
approved;
Whereas the Ways and Means Committee has also determined
that, of the groups that were inappropriately subject to
demands to divulge confidential donors, 89 percent were
right-leaning;
Whereas on May 15, 2013, Attorney General Holder testified
before the Judiciary Committee that the Department of Justice
would conduct a ``dispassionate'' investigation into the IRS
matter, and ``[t]his will not be about parties . . . this
will not be about ideological persuasions . . . anybody who
has broken the law will be held accountable'';
Whereas on May 15, 2013, President Barack Obama called the
IRS's targeting ``inexcusable'' and promised that he would
``not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but
especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the
reach that it has into all of our lives'';
Whereas the Attorney General has stated that the Department
of Justice's investigation involves components from the Civil
Rights Division and the Public Integrity Section;
Whereas the Civil Rights Division of the Department of
Justice has a history of politicization, as evident in the
report by the Department of Justice Office of Inspector
General entitled, ``A Review of the Operations of the Voting
Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division'';
Whereas Barbara Bosserman, a trial attorney in the Civil
Rights Division who in the past several years has contributed
nearly $7,000 to the Democratic National Committee and
President Barack Obama's political campaigns, is playing a
leading role in the Department of Justice's investigation;
Whereas the Public Integrity Section communicated with the
IRS about the potential prosecution of tax-exempt applicants;
Whereas on December 5, 2013, President Barack Obama
declared in a national television interview that the IRS's
targeting of conservative tax-exempt applicants was caused by
a ``bureaucratic'' ``list'' by employees in ``an office in
Cincinnati'';
Whereas on April 9, 2014, the House Committee on Ways and
Means referred Lois G. Lerner to the Department of Justice
for criminal prosecution;
Whereas the House Committee on Ways and Means found that
Lois G. Lerner used her position to improperly influence
agency action against conservative tax-exempt organizations,
denying these groups due process and equal protection rights
as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, in apparent
violation of section 242 of title 18, United States Code;
Whereas the House Committee on Ways and Means found that
Lois G. Lerner targeted Crossroads Grassroots Policy
Strategies while ignoring similar liberal-leaning tax-exempt
applicants;
Whereas the House Committee on Ways and Means found that
Lois G. Lerner impeded official investigations by knowingly
providing misleading statements to the Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration, in apparent violation of
section 1001 of title 18, United States Code;
Whereas the House Committee on Ways and Means found that
Lois G. Lerner may have disclosed confidential taxpayer
information, in apparent violation of section 6103 of the
Internal Revenue Code;
Whereas former Department of Justice officials have
testified before a subcommittee of the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform that the circumstances of the
Administration's investigation of the IRS's targeting of
conservative tax-exempt applicants warrant the appointment of
a special counsel;
Whereas Department of Justice regulations counsel attorneys
to avoid the ``appearance of a conflict of interest likely to
affect the public perception of the integrity of the
investigation or prosecution'';
Whereas since May 15, 2013, the Department of Justice and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation have refused to cooperate
with congressional oversight of the Administration's
investigation of the IRS's targeting of conservative tax-
exempt applicants;
Whereas on January 13, 2014, unnamed officials at the
Department of Justice leaked to the media that no criminal
charges would be appropriate for IRS officials who engaged in
the targeting activity, which undermined the integrity of the
Department of Justice's investigation;
Whereas on February 2, 2014, President Barack Obama stated
publicly that there was ``not even a smidgen of corruption''
in connection with the IRS targeting activity;
Whereas on April 16, 2014, electronic mail communications
between the Department of Justice and the IRS were released
showing that the Department of Justice considered prosecuting
conservative nonprofit groups for engaging in political
activity that is legal under Federal law, which damaged the
integrity of the Department and undermined its investigation;
and
Whereas the Code of Federal Regulations requires the
Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel when he or she
determines--
(1) that criminal investigation of a person or matter is
warranted,
(2) that investigation or prosecution of that person or
matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating
Division of the Department of Justice would present a
conflict of interest for the Department or other
extraordinary circumstances, and
(3) that under the circumstances, it would be in the public
interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume
responsibility for the matter: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of
Representatives that--
(1) the statements and actions of the IRS, the Department
of Justice, and the Obama Administration in connection with
this matter have served to undermine the Department of
Justice's investigation;
(2) the Administration's efforts to undermine the
investigation, and the appointment of a person who has
donated almost seven thousand dollars to President Obama and
the Democratic National Committee in a lead investigative
role, have created a conflict of interest for the Department
of Justice that warrants removal of the investigation from
the normal processes of the Department of Justice;
(3) further investigation of the matter is warranted due to
the apparent criminal activity by Lois G. Lerner, and the
ongoing disclosure of internal communications showing
potentially unlawful conduct by Executive Branch personnel;
(4) given the Department's conflict of interest, as well as
the strong public interest in ensuring that public officials
who inappropriately targeted American citizens for exercising
their right to free expression are held accountable,
appointment of a Special Counsel would be in the public
interest; and
(5) Attorney General Holder should appoint a Special
Counsel, without further delay, to investigate the IRS's
targeting of conservative nonprofit advocacy groups.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte)
and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) each will control 20
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on H. Res. 565.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
On May 10, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service admitted to
inappropriately targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny in
connection with their applications for tax-exempt status.
{time} 1730
President Obama denounced this behavior as ``outrageous'' and
``unacceptable'' and stated that the IRS ``as an independent agency
requires absolute integrity, and people have to have confidence that
they're applying the laws in a nonpartisan way.'' He pledged that the
administration would ``find out exactly what happened'' and would make
sure wrongdoers were ``held fully accountable.''
In testimony before my committee on May 15, 2013, Attorney General
Holder testified that the Department of Justice would conduct a
``dispassionate'' investigation into the IRS's admitted targeting of
conservative groups. The Attorney General promised me and the members
of the Judiciary Committee that ``this will not be about parties, this
will not be about ideological persuasions, and anyone who has broken
the law will be held accountable.''
Unfortunately, that appears to be where the administration's
commitment to pursuing this investigation ended. We have all seen the
testimony
[[Page H3911]]
from conservative groups stating that they had yet to be interviewed by
the Department of Justice investigators more than a year after the
allegations came to light. Additionally, the administration has sought
to undermine whatever investigation the DOJ was conducting at every
opportunity.
Earlier this year, unnamed Department of Justice officials leaked
information to The Wall Street Journal suggesting that the Department
does not plan to file criminal charges over the IRS's targeting of
conservative groups. When asked who leaked this information to the
media and if the Department plans to prosecute the leaker once
identified, Attorney General Holder admitted that he has not looked
into this leak.
Additionally, on Super Bowl Sunday, President Obama stated that there
was ``not even a smidgen of corruption'' in connection with the IRS
targeting.
Finally, as we all know, the Department of Justice appointed Barbara
Bosserman, an attorney in the notoriously politicized Civil Rights
Division, to head the investigation. Ms. Bosserman has donated more
than $6,000 to President Obama's campaigns in 2008 and 2012.
The relevant regulations require the Attorney General to appoint a
special counsel when he determines three circumstances exist:
First, that criminal investigation of a person or matter is
warranted;
Second, that investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by
a United States Attorney's Office or litigating division of the
Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the
Department or other extraordinary circumstances;
And third, that under the circumstances, it would be in the public
interest to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility
for the matter.
It should be noted that these regulations require the Attorney
General to exercise subjective discretion. However, there should be
little doubt to any neutral observer that the requirements for
appointing a special counsel have been satisfied.
First, as shown in the Ways and Means Committee's referral letter to
the Department of Justice, there are serious allegations that IRS
officials, including former Director of Exempt Organizations Lois
Lerner, violated Federal law by targeting conservative groups and by
releasing tax confidential tax information to the media. We also know
that troubling information continues to come to light about this
matter, including that the Department of Justice considered prosecuting
conservative nonprofit groups for engaging in political activity that
is legal under Federal law.
Second, it is clear that a conflict of interest exists between DOJ
investigators and this administration. As a legal matter, determining
whether a conflict of interest exists requires a determination of
whether external interests--one's own or those of other clients or
third persons--are likely to impact the exercise of independent
professional judgment. In addition to Ms. Bosserman's clear conflict of
interest, this administration's statements and actions have repeatedly
served to undermine the Department of Justice investigation and have
created an indisputable conflict of interest.
Third, it is equally clear that appointing an outside special counsel
to investigate this matter would be in the public interest. The
American people are very concerned that their government has targeted
individual American citizens for harassment solely on the basis of
their political beliefs.
The American people deserve to know who ordered the targeting, when
the targeting was ordered, and why. For many Americans, the IRS is the
primary way they interact with the Federal Government. To now have the
IRS acting as a politicized organization that persecutes citizens for
their political beliefs shakes the core of American democracy. Under
the circumstances, this administration cannot credibly investigate this
matter. It is time for the Attorney General to appoint an independent,
professional special counsel to get to the bottom of this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I begin this discussion today, I rise in opposition
to H. Res. 565. I want to lay the premise of the discussion as I begin
to explain why the question of ``why?'' is not answered. I would
imagine that the question of ``why?'' will not be answered by the
conclusion of this debate.
The premise of the resolution H. Res. 565 is on the Federal
regulations 601, 600.2, and 600.3. On the face of the resolution, in
the facts, there is no evidence under either of the two initial ones.
And that is, first, there has been no elimination of the question of
whether there is a criminal investigation or whether there should be;
and the grounds for appointing a special counsel include whether or not
they determine such an investigation is needed, and that the
investigation or prosecution of the person or matter by the United
States Attorney's Office would present a conflict of interest. Then the
circumstances will be in the public interest. None of those criteria
have been met.
First of all, in a May 7 letter most recently, the U.S. Department of
Justice has said there is an ongoing determination of criminal
investigation, an ongoing investigation into all of the allegations.
From the Ways and Means, from the Oversight Committee there is an
ongoing U.S. Department of Justice investigation.
Now, I believe in congressional oversight, but I also believe in
rational congressional oversight, which means, why are we asking for
special counsel when the Department of Justice is in the middle of an
active investigation? There has been no conclusion, there has been no
suggestion that there will not be a further investigation or criminal
investigation, and there is no proven conflict of interest.
The Department of Justice employee that has been mentioned by the
majority:
One, is not lead counsel, as evidenced in a letter dated February 3,
2014;
And two, President Obama is not the point of this investigation, as I
understand it, and the individual made private free speech donations in
the course of a campaign.
Are you suggesting that a public employee does not have the private
personal right, First Amendment right, of freedom of speech? I would
think not.
So I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 565. There are no grounds
for it. The Justice Department is working and it is investigating.
Again, for those of you who are unaware of the legal authority
undergirding this resolution, it is based on a series of regulations
promulgated by the Justice Department that has been adhered to by
Republican and Democratic administrations. You may not like the results
of it, but it gives the criteria for authorizing the Attorney General
to appoint a special counsel ``when he or she determines that criminal
investigation of a person or matter is warranted.''
There is an ongoing investigation. That means that at the conclusion,
or when all of the data and information is reviewed, that decision is
still to be made. There is no closure now to suggest that the
Department of Justice has not done what it is supposed to do.
In sum, these circumstances are that the Justice Department's
prosecution will present a conflict of interest for the Department and
that it would be in the public interest for a special counsel to assume
responsibility.
This measure that we are debating today, however, utterly fails to
meet any of that criteria.
The sponsors of H. Res. 565 make bald, unsupported conflict of
interest allegations against a mid-level career attorney whose only
fault was to engage in lawful, constitutionally protected political
activity, of which I have spoken, and is not the lead counsel--
definitively is not the lead counsel.
We have two distinct and qualified experts: Bruce Green, a former
Federal prosecutor and current professor of law at Fordham Law School,
and Daniel Richman, an expert in criminal procedure from Columbia, who
clearly articulate no basis for experts conflict of interest. In fact,
the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
issued a report earlier this week detailing that committee's yearlong
investigation of the IRS efforts to screen applicants for their tax
exempt status.
Among this report's principal findings are that over the course of
lengthy
[[Page H3912]]
and detailed interviews of 39 witnesses, absolutely no evidence of
White House involvement was identified. Not a single one of these
witnesses' interviews revealed any evidence of political motivation.
These interviewees included IRS employees who identified themselves
as Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and others who had no
political affiliation.
Another fact that the supporters of this measure ignore is that there
already is, as I have indicated, an ongoing investigation by the
Justice Department in this matter, and they are complying with the
structure of the appointment process for a special counsel. There has
been no determination of conflict. There has been no determination that
we are ending the investigation to the lack of satisfaction of the
United States Congress. We are in an ongoing investigation.
600.2 of the Code, as I mentioned, of the Federal Regulations
explicitly authorizes the Attorney General to direct an initial
investigation in lieu of appointing a special counsel to determine
whether grounds can even exist to warrant the appointment of a special
counsel. But an easy manner, other than a resolution on the floor of
the House: a simple letter could have been written to the Attorney
General for his consideration.
So what is this resolution about? To begin with, it is pure political
theater. Rather than simply writing a letter to the Attorney General
asking him to appoint a special counsel, which is the time-honored way
to do this, the House leadership has resorted to using a resolution
that is subject to floor debate and, of course, C-SPAN coverage, but
has no real legal effect.
Even The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, which is certainly
not a partisan entity as it relates to its advocacy of President Obama
or its administration, which is not a bastion of liberalism, noted in
an editorial published a year ago that ``calling for a special
prosecutor is a form of cheap political grace that gets a quick
headline at the cost of less political accountability.''
I would rather have us working together, Mr. Speaker. I would rather
us get to the facts. I would rather that the professional men and women
of the U.S. Department of Justice be allowed to pursue this
investigation unbiased and thorough.
Rather than promoting greater transparency, the appointment of a
special counsel, as the Wall Street Journal points out, would have the
opposite result. The Journal explains:
With a special prosecutor, the probe would immediately move
to the shadows, and the administration and the IRS would use
it as an excuse to limit its cooperation with Congress.
Special prosecutors aren't famous for their speed. If there
were no indictments, whatever the prosecutor has discovered
would stay secret. And even if specific criminal charges were
filed, the facts of an indictment couldn't stray far from the
four corners of the violated statute.
Beyond proving the specific case in court, a special prosecutor will
not be as concerned with the larger public policy consequences and
political accountability. We could be doing other things, and we could
not be spending $14 million.
There has been no basis for this resolution to pass, and I ask my
colleagues to oppose this resolution.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 565.
For those of you who are unaware of the legal authority undergirding
this resolution, it is based on a series of regulations promulgated by
the Justice Department.
In pertinent part, section 600.1 of title 28 of the Code of Federal
Regulations authorizes the Attorney General to appoint a special
counsel ``when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a
person or matter is warranted,'' under certain specified circumstances.
In sum, these circumstances are that the Justice Department's
prosecution would present a conflict of interest for the Department and
that it would be in the public interest for a special counsel to assume
responsibility for this matter.
This measure that we are debating today, however, utterly fails to
meet any of these criteria.
The sponsors of H. Res. 565 make bald, unsupported conflict of
interest allegations against a mid-level career attorney whose only
fault was to engage in lawful--constitutionally protected--political
activity.
In fact, the Ranking Member of the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee issued a report earlier this week detailing that Committee's
year-long investigation of the IRS efforts to screen applicants for
their tax-exempt status.
Among this report's principal findings are that: over the course of
lengthy and detailed interviews of 39 witnesses involved in this
matter, absolutely no evidence of White House involvement was
identified; and not a single one of these 39 witness interviews
revealed any evidence of political motivation.
These interviewees included IRS employees who identified themselves
as Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and others who had no
political affiliation.
Another fact that the supporters of this measure ignore is that there
already is an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department into this
matter.
Indeed, section 600.2 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations
explicitly authorizes the Attorney General to direct an initial
investigation--in lieu of appointing a special counsel--to determine
whether grounds even exist to warrant the appointment of a special
counsel.
So what is this resolution really about?
To begin with, it's pure political theater. Rather than simply
writing a letter to the Attorney General asking him to appoint a
special counsel, which is the time-honored way to do this, the House
Leadership has resorted to using a resolution that is subject to floor
debate and C-span coverage, but has no real legal effect.
Even the Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board, which is not a
bastian of liberalism, noted in an editorial published a year ago that
``calling for a special prosecutor is a form of cheap political grace
that gets a quick headline at the cost of less political
accountability.''
And, rather than promoting greater transparency, the appointment of a
special counsel, as the Wall Street Journal points out, would have the
opposite result. The Journal explains:
With a special prosecutor, the probe would immediately move
to the shadows, and the Administration and the IRS would use
it as an excuse to limit its cooperation with Congress.
Special prosecutors aren't famous for their speed . . . . If
there were no indictments, whatever the prosecutor has
discovered would stay secret. And even if specific criminal
charges were filed, the facts of an indictment couldn't stray
far from the four corners of the violated statute.
Beyond proving his specific case in court, a special
prosecutor will not be as concerned with the larger public
policy consequences and political accountability.
The Wall Street Journal concludes by pointing out the obvious:
Congress can do the investigating first, and if it
discovers criminal behavior it can make that known and refer
the cases and evidence to Mr. Holder, who will then be
accountable if he refuses to act.
Unfortunately, the real scandal here is that this foolhardy witch
hunt directed at the IRS has cost American taxpayers well in excess of
$14 million dollars, money that we all know could have been better
spent.
And now we are wasting limited floor time on this charade rather than
taking up the issues that the American people urgently need this
Congress to act upon.
These include: fixing our broken immigration system; increasing the
minimum wage; strengthening our Nation's economic recovery; creating
more jobs; extending unemployment insurance; and helping students
struggling with overwhelming educational loan debt, which now exceeds
one trillion dollars.
These are real issues that affect real people across America. This is
where we should be focusing our resources.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived
measure.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This is about real people. One of those is my friend and constituent
down in Houston, Texas, by the name of Catherine Engelbrecht. She is
the founder of True the Vote and King Street Patriots in Houston,
Texas, and she became intimidated and harassed by our very own
government, all because she dared to speak her mind and engage in
politics, a right that she is guaranteed under the Constitution.
{time} 1745
It all began when Catherine Engelbrecht, a businesswoman, applied for
nonprofit status in 2010 for True the Vote, which is a voter integrity
group, and King Street Patriots; and so began the tidal wave of
government inquiries and harassment.
She said it best in her testimony before Congress:
[[Page H3913]]
We applied for nonprofit status in 2010. Since then, the
IRS has run us through a gauntlet of analysts and hundreds of
questions over and over and over again. They've requested to
see each and every tweet I've ever tweeted and each and every
Facebook post I've ever posted. They've asked to know every
place I've ever spoken since our inception, who was in the
audience, and everywhere I intend to speak in the future.
This is our government--our government oppressing someone--at its
worst.
There is even more. We have learned that the IRS even asked her group
and others for their donor lists. This level of detail goes well beyond
the business of the IRS.
It didn't stop there. All of a sudden, the Federal Government's
snooping included six visits by the FBI, where they would sit in the
auditoriums when she was speaking.
Two of those visits, apparently, were by the terrorist inspection--or
investigation--division of the FBI. They had numerous and multiple
unannounced visits from OSHA, from the ATF, and even from the Texas
equivalent of the EPA.
Now, was this just a coincidence that all of these groups were
investigating True the Vote and also investigating King Street
Patriots? Or was it collusion?
We really don't know. Unfortunately, our Justice Department has lost
credibility with the American public on investigating the IRS. We need
things to be right, and things need to look right. We need to have a
special counsel.
I would like to conclude with a statement that was made during the
Abramoff investigation by Senators in 2006 about having a special
counsel:
The highly political context of the allegations and charges
may lead some to surmise that political influence may
compromise the investigation . . . because this investigation
is vital to restoring the public's faith in its government.
Any appearance of bias, special favor, or political
consideration would be a further blow to democracy. The
appointment of a special counsel would ensure that the
investigation and the prosecution will proceed without fear
or favor and provide the public with full confidence that no
one is above the law.
Signed, Barack Obama, 2006.
And that's just the way it is.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 11\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Texas has 11\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentlelady from New Mexico, Congresswoman Michelle Lujan
Grisham, a former official of the New Mexico State Government.
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Thank you to my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, Federal law clearly states that tax-exempt social
welfare groups must exclusively promote social welfare, and yet the IRS
continues to allow these groups to engage in partisan political
activity, instead of in their social welfare missions.
This has allowed social welfare nonprofits to spend over a quarter of
a billion dollars on partisan political activities while keeping their
donors secret. Congress has known about this issue for years, and it
has done absolutely nothing.
Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to solve problems on behalf of the
American people, and this resolution does absolutely nothing to solve
the underlying problem that we have identified at the IRS.
As long as Congress continues to ignore the fact that social welfare
organizations are actively engaged in political activity, social
welfare groups will continue spending hundreds of millions of dollars
on partisan political campaign activities in direct contradiction to
current Federal law and congressional intent.
So I urge my colleagues to vote against this very partisan
resolution, as it doesn't solve any underlying problems, and, instead,
pass legislation that enforces Federal law and that prohibits tax-
exempt social welfare groups from engaging in partisan political
activity.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), a member of the Judiciary
Committee and the author of this resolution.
Mr. JORDAN. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for
yielding and for all of his good work.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady from Texas said in her opening statement
that there has been no conclusion to the investigation. Yes, there has,
and Ms. Lerner knows it.
Why do you think Ms. Lerner is willing to sit down with the Justice
Department and answer their questions? She knows the fix is in. She
knows it has already been prejudged and decided.
When the Department of Justice leaks to The Wall Street Journal that
no one is going to be referred for prosecution, she knows she is just
fine. The investigation is over. They are not doing it.
When the President, who is the highest elected official in this land,
goes on national television and says there is nothing there, not even a
smidgen, Ms. Lerner knows the fix is in.
Let's review the facts with a quick timeline. On May 10 of last year,
Ms. Lerner goes in front of a bar association group here in town and,
with a planted question, tells that group and tells the whole country
that conservative groups were targeted for exercising their First
Amendment free speech rights.
She did that before the inspector general's report was made public.
It is unprecedented what she did, not only in her actions, but in her
spilling the beans before the report was issued.
On May 13, we get the report from the inspector general that says, in
fact, the targeting of conservative groups did take place at the IRS.
On May 14 of last year, the Attorney General launches a criminal
investigation and says that what took place was outrageous and
unacceptable, and the President of the United States says that what
took place was inexcusable.
In June of last year, in the Judiciary Committee, we had then-FBI
Director Mueller in front of the committee, and we asked him three
simple questions: Who is the lead agent? How many agents have you
assigned to the case? Have you talked to any of the victims?
This was a month into this. This was the biggest story in the country
at the time, and the FBI Director's response was: I don't know. I don't
know. I don't know.
There were seven written inquiries to Justice, asking: Can you tell
us some basics about the investigation? Who is, in fact, leading it? Is
it truly Barbara Bosserman, as we believe?
Everyone tells us--the witnesses we have interviewed: she is leading
the investigation.
How many agents have you assigned? There were seven different
inquiries with no responses from the Department of Justice.
On January 13 of this year, as I said earlier, the FBI leaks to The
Wall Street Journal that no one is going to be referred for
prosecution.
In February, the President says no corruption, not even a smidgen;
then we learned Barbara Bosserman, a maxed-out contributor to the
President's campaign, was leading the investigation.
Now, take that fact pattern, and apply it to the elements that the
Attorney General looks at when you are deciding if you are going to
have a special prosecutor. The chairman pointed out, in his opening
statement, three elements the Code of Federal Regulations requires for
the AG to appoint a special counsel.
It is when he determines these three things:
One, that a criminal investigation of a person or of a matter is
warranted; of course, it is warranted. The AG already said it was. This
is a big matter. This is a violation of people's First Amendment
rights, and the Ways and Means Committee has already said Ms. Bosserman
should be referred for prosecution.
The second element, that the investigation by the United States
Attorneys' Office or by the litigating division of the Department of
Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department; if we
don't have a conflict of interest here, I don't know where we do.
The President has prejudged the outcome, the FBI has leaked to The
Wall Street Journal that no one is going to be prosecuted, prejudging
the outcome, and the lead investigator is a maxed-out contributor to
the DNC and to the President's campaign.
Finally, the third element, that it would be in the public interest
to appoint an outside special counsel; frankly, I would think the
Attorney General would want this.
[[Page H3914]]
There are all kinds of Americans who think this thing is not being
done in an impartial and fair manner. I would think the Attorney
General would want to pick someone who is above reproach, that he would
want to pick someone whom everyone agrees is going to do a fair job.
Why have this cloud hanging over the investigation that the person
leading it gave $6,750 to the President's campaign? That is all this
asks.
This should be something that the administration should want to do
because it clears up, in people's minds all across this country, that
we are going to get to the truth and that we are going to have a real
investigation.
Never forget what took place here. This is so important. People's
most fundamental right--your right to speak out and the First Amendment
right to speak out against your government--was targeted.
That is why we need to get to the truth, and that is why we need a
special counsel who will do a real investigation.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I think it is important to state that one of the provisions that is
not in the regulation for establishing a special counsel is that it is
a ``get you'' procedure. It is not a ``got you'' procedure. It follows
an orderly process of which the Department of Justice is engaged.
I would like to introduce into the Record a letter dated February 3,
2014, that indicates that the Justice Department's lawyer who has been
charged with leading the investigation is not leading the
investigation. He is part of a team.
Office of the
Deputy Attorney General,
Washington, DC, February 3, 2014.
Hon. Jim Jordan,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and
Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Jordan: This responds to your letter to an
attorney in the Civil Rights Division, dated January 31,
2014, again requesting her testimony at a Subcommittee
hearing on February 6, 2014, regarding the Department of
Justice's ongoing criminal investigation into the Internal
Revenue Service's treatment of groups applying for tax exempt
status. To reiterate, consistent with longstanding Department
policy, no Department representative will be in a position to
provide testimony about this ongoing law enforcement matter.
As a preliminary matter, we disagree with your allegation
that because of the attorney's engagement in lawful political
activity, she has a conflict of interest regarding the
investigation. Your letter of January 28, 2014, selectively
quoted the Department regulation concerning the
disqualification of employees from investigations based on
personal or political relationships, and alleged that ``at
the very least, [the attorney's] participation in the
investigation runs afoul of this regulation.'' A careful
review of 28 C.F.R. 45.2, however, shows that this is not
true. That regulation provides that an employee should not
participate in an investigation if he or she has ``a personal
or political relationship'' with a person or organization
substantially involved in the conduct being investigated or
who has a specific and substantial interest in the
investigation's outcome. The regulation defines a ``political
relationship'' as ``close identification with an elected
official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for
elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign
organization, arising from service as a principal adviser
thereto or a principal official thereof,'' and defines
``personal relationship'' as a ``close and substantial
connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce
partiality'' and states that employees are presumed to have a
personal relationship with spouses, parents, children, and
siblings, and that other relationships must be judged on an
individual basis. Accordingly, consistent with this
regulation, the attorney whose integrity you have unfairly
questioned has neither a political nor personal relationship
that disqualifies her from the investigation. We also note
again that, contrary to the assertion in your letter of
January 28, 2014, this attorney was not assigned to lead the
investigation, but rather is a member of a team that includes
representatives of the Criminal Division, the Civil Rights
Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.
We agree with your view that ``[t]he American people
deserve to have complete confidence that the Administration
is conducting through and unbiased investigation.''
Accordingly, it is imperative that we avoid actions--such as
testifying before Congress about this pending criminal
investigation--that could give rise to a perception that the
criminal investigation is subject to undue influence by
elected officials. We reiterate that consistent with
longstanding policy, in order to protect the integrity or our
investigation, we are not in a position to provide you with
any non-public information about this ongoing matter. This
policy is intended to protect the effectiveness and integrity
of the criminal justice process, as well as the privacy
interests of third parties. It is neither new nor partisan,
but rather based upon longstanding views of Department
officials, both Democrat and Republican alike. While we
respect the important role of congressional oversight, we
believe that our provision of the testimony you have
requested would be inconsistent with our commitment to
principles of justice and the independence of our law
enforcement efforts.
As the Attorney General stated in his testimony before the
Senate Judiciary Committee on January 29, 2014, ``[t]he men
and women of the Justice Department have for time immemorial
put aside whatever their political leanings are and conducted
investigations in a way that relies only on facts and the
law,'' and we do not ``have any basis to believe that the
people who are engaged in this investigation are doing so in
a way other than investigations are normally done--that is,
by looking at the facts, applying the law to those facts and
reaching the appropriate conclusions.'' We request that you
allow the Department employees responsible for this
investigation to conduct it without demands for disclosures
or other interference that would be inconsistent with their
commitment to the integrity of the criminal justice process.
We appreciate your interest in this investigation and, as the
Attorney General has explained, we will be in a better
position to provide Congress with information about our
decisions in this matter when it is concluded.
Sincerely,
James M. Cole,
Deputy Attorney General.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), a member of the House
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. DEUTCH. I thank my friend, the gentlelady from Texas.
Mr. Speaker, we have learned a great deal, since the allegations
surfaced, that IRS officials discriminated against political-leaning
groups that were seeking tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status. I joined with
many of my Republican colleagues in condemning the notion that politics
in any way influenced the behavior of the IRS.
We learned that the IRS kept a list of key words that triggered extra
review, a misguided practice that we are grateful has since stopped. We
also learned that the IRS targeted more liberal-leaning groups than
conservative ones, meaning there was no conservative witch-hunt.
What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have apparently
failed to learn, however, is that the clear solution to this problem is
to get the IRS out of the business of evaluating political conduct.
I wholeheartedly agree with my colleagues that the IRS has no
business meddling in our elections, but we don't need a special counsel
to make this stop.
Applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status exploded after the
Citizens United decision because special interests found a new way to
secretly funnel money into our elections. Let me tell you how it works.
Because these groups aren't required to disclose their donors,
wealthy special interests that are bent on influencing the political
process for their benefit anonymously give to the 501(c)(4). The
501(c)(4) then funnels the money to the super-PAC; and, voila, there
are millions of secret dollars influencing our elections.
We ought to be working together in a bipartisan way to get secret
money out of our elections. I asked the Treasury Department to review
the murky regulations on the books, to revise the rules to restore
integrity to 501(c)(4) status and to ensure that taxpayers are never
again forced to subsidize blatant political behavior.
I would have hoped that my colleagues in the majority would have
joined me in that effort. Instead, Republican leaders responded by
attempting to block Treasury from fixing these broken rules and from
forcing these secret givers to tell us who they are and what they want
from this Congress.
I am afraid there is only one explanation for this latest partisan
resolution. I hope I am wrong. I hope I am wrong in that my Republican
colleagues don't actually want to protect secret money in our
elections. I hope I am wrong in that the GOP does not want to protect
the billionaires and the corporations that want to conceal themselves
from the American people and believe that they have the right to funnel
millions of dollars through 501(c)(4)'s into super-PACs in order to
corrupt our elections.
[[Page H3915]]
I ask my colleagues to prove me wrong. Prove me wrong by working in a
bipartisan way to protect the American people from helping sham special
interest groups influence elections on the taxpayers' dime. Let's bring
transparency and accountability back to our elections. Reject this sham
resolution, and prove me wrong.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis), a member of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, a year ago, when news broke that the IRS
had been targeting Americans based on their political beliefs, the
President of the United States said that it was outrageous. He said
that: we demand full accountability.
Attorney General Eric Holder said that it was outrageous and
unacceptable. Everybody agreed this was serious. Everybody agreed that
this required a serious investigation; yet, as we sit here a year
later, it is clear that we have not seen the action that we were
promised.
First of all, the Department of Justice had been discussing with the
IRS, as late as May of 2013, the possibility that some of these groups
that had been targeted could end up being prosecuted criminally. The
DOJ actually had a role with the IRS.
{time} 1800
We know that the investigation is being led by somebody who is a big
contributor to President Obama's reelection campaign.
Of course, at the Super Bowl earlier this year, the President said
the investigation was essentially over. Nothing happened, he said. No,
not even a smidgeon of impropriety. And, of course, the Department of
Justice has leaked to the media that no prosecutions will in fact
occur.
And when the President said as a senator in 2006 that the highly
political context of the allegations and charges may lead some to
surmise that political influence may compromise the investigation
because this investigation is vital to restoring the public's faith in
government, any appearance of bias, special favor, or political
consideration would be a further blow to our democracy, that basically
applies to what we have now.
The American people don't want their government targeting them and
targeting their First Amendment rights. If that is done and power is
abused, they need to be held accountable.
But when this is all said and done, I think the American people want
to have confidence that this was looked at in a fair manner. And when
you have all these political considerations swirling around, I don't
think many Americans have confidence that the Department of Justice is
doing this in a way that is not conflicted.
And, don't forget, the entire context of this whole scandal was
targeting essentially the President's political opposition in the run-
up to his reelection campaign.
So I am proud to stand here supporting this resolution. I think
voting ``yes'' on it is voting ``yes'' for transparency and
accountability in government.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 4 minutes
remaining. The gentlelady from Texas has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just say very quickly that the entire premise of the
gentleman's comments have been proven absolutely wrong. Thirty-nine
witnesses never said one moment that the Presidential election of 2012
was in any way involved in this particular issue.
In addition, this is a bipartisan investigation because we have the
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration appointed by a
Republican and who is a Republican working with the Department of
Justice.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the
distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, who has
had a detailed investigation and oversight from his committee on this
issue.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me sum up what this is really all about.
This hallowed institution must not be turned into a campaign arm of
either political party. That is what the House Republicans are exactly
doing here.
It has been a year since multiple committee investigations began into
the IRS handling of 501(c)(4) organization applications, and
Republicans are no closer to finding evidence to back up their baseless
allegations of a ``White House enemies list,'' as they said, or a
``White House culture of coverup,'' as a Republican said on day one.
So here is what has been going on.
More than 250 employees at the IRS have worked more than 100,000
hours and sent nearly 700,000 pages of documents to Ways and Means in
response to Republican requests. More than 60 interviews have been
conducted. Also, $14 million in taxpayer money has been spent by the
IRS responding to congressional investigations.
And here is what we know.
Documents show that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to treat
progressive groups as they did for conservative groups. There was never
any evidence of White House involvement. Nada.
There was never any evidence of political motivation. In fact, before
the flawed audit was published last May, the IG's head of
investigations reviewed 5,500 pages of documents and determined that
there was ``no indication that pulling these selected applications was
politically motivated.'' Instead, the head of investigations said the
cases were consolidated due to ``unclear processing directions.''
Republicans have indicated that they think this action today is
necessary because the Department of Justice did not react quickly
enough to the referral of information from Ways and Means on Lois
Lerner that was sent last month. There is a letter from the Department
of Justice saying that they have received this information and have
referred it to those in charge of the IRS investigation at Justice.
The Republicans say they want an independent investigation, but what
they really want to do is to interrupt the investigation going on and
preempt it with their own political theater.
Indeed, talking about fixation, their political fixation, I say this
not only to my colleagues but to every one of our citizens: this is the
House of Representatives, not a political circus.
I ask my colleagues to see this for what it is worth and vote ``no''
on the resolution.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, could you give us how much time is
remaining on both sides, please?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 4 minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am sure my kind friend from Virginia will yield me
some additional time, but I will use what I have.
Let me try to bring us together, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, there was a collegial moment when
we said, Let's clarify the law.
If there is anything the Democrats and Republicans agree with, it is
that ineptness, wrongness, misdirection was obviously evident in the
equal targeting of all groups--groups that had the name
``progressive,'' ``Occupy,'' and others.
As Members of Congress, none of us want the citizens of the United
States to be in any way intimidated by a government that is here to
help them. And I stand here saying we can come together to ensure that
all of our government agencies work well.
The President made the point in May of 2013 that if in fact the IRS
personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on
and were intentionally targeting conservative groups--and it has been
noted by the witnesses in the Oversight Committee that they were
targeting other groups as well--Occupy, progressive--then that is
outrageous, and there is no place for it.
There is no conflict in this.
What we are now debating is a fallacy of the appointment of a special
counsel and the $14 million and the 700,000 pages of unredacted
documents, more than 250 people who have been responding to
congressional inquiries.
I will include in the Record an April 23, 2014, letter to Congressman
Sander Levin that talks about the litany of requests that the IRS has
been requested to do.
[[Page H3916]]
Department of the Treasury,
Internal Revenue Service,
Washington, DC, April 23, 2014.
Hon. Sander Levin,
Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Levin: I am responding to your request for
documents relating to tax exempt advocacy organizations.
Since May of last year, the Internal Revenue Service has
been collecting, reviewing, and producing materials in
response to a number of Congressional requests, including
those from you and your Committee. In order to provide you
and your staff our full cooperation in addressing this
matter, more than 250 people, including attorneys, litigation
support staff, and other IRS personnel have worked more than
100,000 hours.
With this production, we have produced, including special
requests from individual committees, nearly 700,000 pages of
unredacted documents to the Senate Finance and House Ways and
Means Committees, which are authorized to receive I.R.C.
Sec. 6103 information. We also have produced, including
special requests from individual committees, over 530,000
pages, redacted as required by section 6103, to the Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the House
Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Our productions
have prioritized the custodians, subject matters, and search
terms when and as requested.
We have responded to more than fifty Congressional letters
and hundreds of informal Congressional requests.
We have facilitated more than sixty transcribed interviews
by Congressional staff of current and former IRS employees.
IRS personnel have answered questions related to the
subjects of these investigations at 18 Congressional
hearings.
The IRS document production was collected from IRS hard
copy and electronic files, including documents from 83
individual custodians.
This production consists of documents from multiple
custodians; the materials are Bates-stamped IRSR0000617700--
IRSR0000645643 and IRSR0000649674--IRSR0000650117.
Additionally, we are reproducing documents that were
previously produced with non-6103 redactions, which have been
removed in this production. These documents are Bates-stamped
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Bates End Bates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRSR0000572647......................... IRSR0000572649
IRSR0000572657......................... IRSR0000572659
IRSR0000572665......................... IRSR0000572666
IRSR0000572667......................... IRSR0000572669
IRSR0000574027......................... IRSR0000574029
IRSR0000574572......................... IRSR0000574575
IRSR0000574627......................... IRSR0000574630
IRSR0000574641......................... IRSR0000574643
IRSR0000574654......................... IRSR0000574657
IRSR0000574732......................... IRSR0000574734
IRSR0000574735......................... IRSR0000574737
IRSR0000574742......................... IRSR0000574743
IRSR0000574744......................... IRSR0000574747
IRSR0000575418......................... IRSR0000575424
IRSR0000579620......................... IRSR0000579623
IRSR0000581378......................... IRSR0000581381
IRSR0000581459......................... IRSR0000581462
IRSR0000582671......................... IRSR0000582674
IRSR0000582782......................... IRSR0000582785
IRSR0000589737......................... IRSR0000589741
IRSR0000589756......................... IRSR0000589758
IRSR0000589759......................... IRSR0000589764
IRSR0000589787......................... IRSR0000589789
IRSR0000590764......................... IRSR0000590770
IRSR0000590783......................... IRSR0000590786
IRSR0000590791......................... IRSR0000590797
IRSR0000591252......................... IRSR0000591256
IRSR0000591422......................... IRSR0000591425
IR5R0000593400......................... IRSR0000593401
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For your convenience, we are also providing this set of
documents in PDF.
If you have any questions, please contact me or have your
staff contact me.
Sincerely,
Leonard Oursler.
National Director for Legislative Affairs.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I also will include in the Record a May 7, 2014,
letter that emphasizes that this is a bipartisan investigation. The
inspector general of the Tax Administration, appointed by George Bush,
is working with the U.S. Department of Justice. It negates very visibly
any suggestion of conflict of interest or that this is a biased
investigation.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, May 7, 2014.
Hon. Dave Camp,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your letter of April 9,
2014, providing the Department of Justice (the Department)
information and documents that the Committee on Ways and
Means (the Committee) has obtained in the course of its
ongoing investigation into allegations of targeting by the
Internal Revenue Service of organizations based on their
political views.
As you may know, the Department has an ongoing criminal
investigation into the IRS's treatment of groups applying for
tax-exempt status, which is being conducted jointly with the
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). We
appreciate your concern and will carefully consider the
Committee's findings as part of our investigation into these
allegations.
We hope that this information is helpful. Please do not
hesitate to contact this office if we may provide assistance
in this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Kadzik,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. In addition, I think it is very important to note
that we are the Congress and the administration. But I take great issue
in suggesting the lack of integrity of our employees in the Federal
Government and that they would do anything to undermine an official
investigation.
The letter that we received on February 23, 2014, debunks any
personal relationship of this single attorney in a single office with
any one political candidate from a personal perspective.
A donation, yes. But are you suggesting that that individual has no
private right to enterprise their free speech?
There is no close identification with an elected official, no
relationship with families and children.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this
resolution that is not grounded in any substance, does not meet the
standard of 600.1, 600.2, and finds no conflict. This is no
investigation that is over. There is no suggestion that they are not,
in essence, investigating all parties, and that there will not be a
conclusion that will ultimately make a decision that is unbiased as to
whether or not persons will be criminally prosecuted.
And so this resolution does not meet the standard. It is, again,
taking up space on the floor. I would like to see unemployment
insurance and immigration reform here. I would like to help the
American people and help job legislation to make a difference here in
the United States Congress.
I have other documents I will add into the Record, Mr. Speaker. These
letters are experts saying there is no conflict of interest.
Columbia University Law School,
New York, NY, February 5, 2014.
Re Prosecutorial Disqualification
Hon. Donald K. Sherman,
Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Sherman: Although I lack deep familiarity with the
matter you are inquiring about, I can offer some brief
thoughts on the questions you have posed to me, specifically:
Do past political contributions by a career prosecutor to a
Presidential campaign or political party create a conflict of
interest in a multi-agency investigation regarding
allegations of political targeting by federal agency
officials?
Do past political contributions by a career prosecutor to a
Presidential campaign or political party create grounds for
disqualification arising from a personal or ``political
relationship'' under 28 C.F.R. Sec. 45.2 in a multi-agency
investigation regarding allegations of misconduct of federal
agency officials?
Is it appropriate for Department of Justice leadership to
check the political donations made by a career prosecutor
before assigning that person to join a multi-agency
investigation involving victims claiming that they were
treated unfairly because of their political beliefs?
For background: I am currently the Paul J. Kellner
Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. For the past twenty
years, my scholarship has focused on criminal procedure and
federal criminal enforcement issues. I teach courses in
Criminal Procedure, Evidence, Federal Criminal Law, and a
Sentencing seminar. Before entering academia, I served as an
assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York,
and ultimately was the Chief Appellate Attorney in that
Office. Since leaving government service in 1992, I have
served as a consultant for various federal agencies,
including the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector
General, and I have been retained as defense counsel or a
consultant in a number of criminal and civil matters.
You have posed these questions with respect to a specific
Justice Department employee who, according to publically
available FEC data, donated amounts totaling $4250 to
political campaign funds related to the Democratic Party and
Barack Obama in 2004, and $2000 to funds relating to
President Obama in 2012. Any claim that these contributions,
in of themselves, create a conflict of interest or should be
cause for disqualification for a career prosecutor
investigating allegations of political targeting in the
Executive Branch strikes me as meritless.
28 CFR 45.2 is bars an employee from participating ``in a
criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or
political relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in
the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or
prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a
specific and substantial interest that would be directly
affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.
And it goes on to define a ``political relationship'' as
[[Page H3917]]
a close identification with an elected official, a
candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public
office, a political party, or a campaign organization,
arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a
principal official thereof. . . .
Simple past campaign contributions do not come close to
meeting this standard. Indeed, were they to do so, the
conflict concerns would extend as much to employees who had
donated to the party out of office, since presumably that
party would be gain from any findings of impropriety by the
current Administration. It would similarly be highly
inappropriate for Justice Department officials, in putting an
investigative team together to inquire into the legal
political contributions that line prosecutors have made in
their private capacity. In my experience, one of the glories
of the Justice Department--worthy of celebration, not
undermining--is the non-partisan way in which line
prosecutors have done their work as Administrations come and
go. The last thing we want is to divide them into political
affinity groups.
Very truly yours,
Daniel Richman.
____
Fordham University School of Law,
New York, NY, February 4, 2014.
c/o
Donald K. Sherman,
Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Re ``The IRS Targeting Investigation''--Hearing scheduled for
February 6, 2014
To the Chairman and Members of the Committee: I understand
that your Committee is considering how conflict of interest
laws apply to federal prosecutors. Specifically, do career
federal prosecutors who previously contributed to the
presidential campaign or political party of the incumbent
President have a conflict of interest that precludes them
from investigating federal agency officials? I submit this
letter to explain why this scenario does not comprise a
conflict of interest under prevailing ethics standards and
law.
Introduction
By way of introduction, I am a former federal prosecutor
and, as a legal academic, have spent much of the past 27
years studying questions of legal, judicial, prosecutorial
and government ethics.
I served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern
District of New York from 1983 to 1987, after serving as a
judicial law clerk. I served under U.S. Attorney Rudolph W.
Giuliani throughout my time in the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Before leaving in 1987, I served as Deputy Chief Appellate
Attorney and Chief Appellate Attorney in the Criminal
Division. My responsibilities included advising other
prosecutors on legal and ethical questions.
Since 1987, I have taught full-time at Fordham Law School,
where I now direct the Stein Center for Law and Ethics. For
the past 27 years, I have taught courses relating to legal
ethics and criminal law and procedure, including a seminar on
``Ethics in Criminal Advocacy.'' As an academic, I have
written more than 25 articles on prosecutors' ethics and I
have spoken widely on this subject, including at programs of
the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Association of
Former United States Attorneys, the American Bar Association
(ABA), and other national, state and local organizations and
entities. I have also engaged in substantial professional
service involving legal ethics generally and prosecutors'
ethics particularly. Among other things, I have chaired the
ABA Criminal Justice Section and that Section's ethics
committee, chaired the New York State Bar Association's
ethics committee, and served for more than a decade on the
committee that drafts the national bar examination on
lawyers' professional responsibility (the MPRE).
While teaching law full-time, I have also engaged in
various part-time public service relating to issues of
government integrity. I served as Associate Counsel in the
Office of Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh (the Iran/Contra
prosecutor) and as a consultant to the N.Y.S. Commission on
Government Integrity (under Fordham's then-Dean, John
Feerick). In 1995, then-Mayor Giuliani appointed me to serve
on the five-member New York City Conflicts of Interest Board,
which interprets and enforces the city's conflicts of
interest law for government officials and employees. I was
subsequently reappointed and served on the Board until early
2005.
Finally, in light of the subject of this letter, I note
that I am registered to vote as an ``independent.''
Discussion
I understand that this Committee is considering the
following three questions among others) on which I hope to be
of assistance.
1. Do past political contributions by a career prosecutor
to a Presidential campaign or political party create a
conflict of interest in a multi-agency investigation
regarding allegations of political targeting by federal
agency officials?
As lawyers, federal prosecutors are governed by the
professional conduct rules of the states in which they work.
In most states, these rules are based on the ABA Model Rules
of Professional Conduct. All state codes of professional
conduct for lawyers include provisions on conflicts of
interest. In general, the rules provide that a lawyer has a
conflict of interest if there is a significant risk that the
lawyer's representation will be materially limited by the
lawyer's personal interest.
As ``ministers of justice,'' prosecutors are expected to
conduct investigations and prosecutions without regard to
partisan political considerations. Indeed, the ABA Standards
governing prosecutors' conflicts of interest provide: ``A
prosecutor should not permit his or her professional judgment
or obligations to be affected by his or her own political . .
. interests.'' One can envision situations in which
prosecutors' political interests would significantly limit
their ability to pursue justice evenhandedly, and in such
situations, prosecutors would be obligated to step aside. An
elected prosecutor's investigation of a campaign rival would
surely be one such situation.
I understand that in an investigation of possible
misconduct by public officials, the particular prosecutor's
political affiliation or level of political engagement might
seem to matter. A prosecutor who contributed financially to
the winning side might be suspected of favoring officials in
the incumbent administration or of harboring an interest in
avoiding embarrassment to the administration. A prosecutor
who contributed financially to the losing side might be
suspected of bias against the incumbents or of desiring to
embarrass them. Even a prosecutor who made no financial
contribution but who voted for one side or the other might be
suspected of bias or favoritism.
Under the prevailing legal and ethical understandings,
however, this scenario does not constitute a conflict of
interest. The relevant standards for prosecutors--e.g., the
ABA rules and standards and the National District Attorneys
Association standards--do not forbid prosecutors from
making political contributions. Nothing in the rules or
standards requires prosecutors who made contributions to
recuse themselves from cases involving public officials.
This is in contrast to rules of judicial conduct that
forbid judges from making contributions to political
organizations and candidates. Prosecutors are not held to
the same level of neutrality and nonpartisanship as
judges. As the Supreme Court has observed, ``the strict
requirements of neutrality cannot be the same for . . .
prosecutors as for judges.''
Likewise, judicial decisions do not support the premise
that prosecutors who make campaign contributions have a
conflict of interest in cases of political significance. In
criminal cases, the question of whether a prosecutor has a
conflict of interest may be raised by a criminal defendant or
by an individual who is the subject of a criminal
investigation. Additionally, in some jurisdictions,
prosecutors who perceive that they have a conflict of
interest may ask the court to appoint an independent
prosecutor. Thus, courts have had occasion to issue opinions
regarding whether a particular prosecutor must be
disqualified, or an independent prosecutor appointed, because
of an alleged conflict. Prosecutors who have prior lawyer-
client relationships, or family or business relationships,
with a defendant or potential defendant are ordinarily
understood to have a significant personal interest that may
impair their impartiality. But no court would seriously
entertain a claim that the prosecutor should be disqualified
from investigating or prosecuting officials of an executive-
branch agency because the prosecutor previously made
political donations supporting or opposing the incumbent
president or the president's party.
2. Do past political contributions by a career prosecutor
to a Presidential campaign or political party create grounds
for disqualification arising from a personal or ``political
relationship'' under 28 C.F.R. Sec. 45.2 in a multi-agency
investigation regarding allegations of misconduct of federal
agency officials?
Federal prosecutors are subject to 28 C.F.R. Sec. 45.2,
which requires prosecutors to be disqualified from cases in
which they have a personal or ``political relationship'' with
the subject of the investigation or with another person or
organization having a specific and substantial interest in
the investigation or prosecution. The provision defines a
disqualifying ``political relationship'' to mean ``a close
identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether
or not successful) for elective, public office, a political
party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a
principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof''
(emphasis added).
Section 45.2 plainly does not apply to a career prosecutor
who contributed to the incumbent president's campaign or
political party. The provision is very limited. It applies
only to a prosecutor whose close identification with an
official, candidate, party or organization arises from the
prosecutor's prior service as a principal adviser to the
official or candidate or as a principal official of the party
or organization that is the subject of the investigation or
otherwise an interested party. Few, if any, federal
prosecutors fit into that category. A campaign contributor
does not, because he or she is not ``a principal adviser'' or
a ``principal official.''
That this federal regulation has a ``narrow definition of a
disqualifying political conflict of interest'' was noted in
In re: Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr, where the court
of appeals refused to revive an ethics grievance, filed
against Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, maintaining that
the Independent Counsel had a conflict of interest in the
Whitewater investigation arising out of his political
affiliation with the Republican Party. In a concurring
opinion, Circuit
[[Page H3918]]
Judge Loken explained that ``it is not surprising that
federal law does not restrict or disqualify prosecutors on
the basis of vaguely defined political conflicts of
interest,'' and that ``even a brief look at history will
confirm [that] judicial reluctance to question a prosecutor's
background is even more important'' in an investigation of
government misconduct. That history includes the appointment
of corruption investigators and prosecutors from ``highly
partisan backgrounds and [with] strong personal political
ambitions.'' Making a campaign contribution reflects a low
level of political involvement by comparison.
3. Is it appropriate for Department of Justice leadership
to check the political donations made by a career prosecutor
before assigning that person to join a multi-agency
investigation involving victims claiming that they were
treated unfairly because of their political beliefs?
As discussed above, a career prosecutor assigned to
investigate a federal official would not have a conflict of
interest simply because the prosecutor contributed to one or
the other party or to one or the other presidential
candidate. I am unaware of any federal or state jurisdiction
in which prosecutors investigating or prosecuting government
corruption cases are limited to those who are so politically
disengaged. Because political donations are not a relevant
consideration in making assignments, it would not be
appropriate for Department of Justice leadership to check
career prosecutors' political donations before assigning them
to an investigation.
There has never been a political-affiliation litmus test
for prosecutors engaged in government corruption
investigations or other investigations of government
officials. Rather, it should be assumed that prosecutors, as
professionals, will put their political preferences to the
side, because their fundamental allegiance is to the rule of
law and to pursuing justice.
Very truly yours,
Bruce A. Green,
Louis Stein Professor of Law.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Oppose this present resolution and let's move on to
come together and effectively work on behalf of the American people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentlewoman from Texas and the
gentleman from Michigan, who said that this hallowed institution should
not be turned into a campaign arm of either political party, I totally
agree with the gentleman's assertion. I also believe that he would
agree with me that the Internal Revenue Service should not be turned
into a political arm of any administration.
The IRS--the tax collectors--have the most unenviable job. And they
are despised by most Americans coming to collect their taxes from them.
To politicize that organization, to turn it into an organization that
the American people mistrust, is an abuse.
The contention that the IRS targeted progressives is debunked by this
staff report prepared by the House of Representatives Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform dated April 7, 2014, just 1 month ago.
I will read from the conclusion of that report:
Evidence available to the committee contradicts Democrats'
claims about bipartisan targeting. Although the IRS's BOLO
list included entries for liberal-oriented groups, only Tea
Party applicants received systematic scrutiny because of
their political beliefs. Public and nonpublic analyses of IRS
data show that the IRS routinely approved liberal
applications while holding and scrutinizing conservative
applications. Even training documents produced by the IRS
indicate stark differences between liberal and conservative
applications: ``progressive'' applications are not considered
``Tea Parties.'' These facts show one unyielding truth: Tea
Party groups were targeted because of their political
beliefs, liberal groups were not.
And from the executive summary:
For months, the administration and congressional Democrats
have attempted to downplay the IRS's misconduct. First, the
administration sought to minimize the fallout by preemptively
acknowledging the misconduct in response to a planted
question at an obscure Friday morning tax-law conference.
When that strategy failed, the administration shifted to
blaming ``rogue agents'' and ``line-level'' employees for the
targeting. When those assertions proved false, congressional
Democrats baselessly attacked the character and integrity of
the inspector general. Their attempt to allege bipartisan
targeting is just another effort to distract from the fact
that the Obama IRS systematically targeted and delayed
conservative tax-exempt applicants.
The gentleman from Michigan is right: this institution should not be
used, nor the IRS, to benefit either political party. And that is why
an independent, professional special counsel should be appointed
immediately by the Attorney General. Because the three tests for that
appointment have already been met.
{time} 1815
That is the reason why we are here today. A criminal investigation of
a person or a matter is warranted. An investigation or prosecution of
that person or matter by a United States Attorneys' Office or
litigating division of the Department of Justice would prevent a
conflict of interest for the department.
All of these false assertions made over and over and over again show
there is a conflict in this investigation by this administration.
Third, under those circumstances, it would be in the public interest
to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility for the
matter.
It is time for that outside special counsel to be appointed, to take
the politics out of this, and to make sure that the American people's
interest in having an Internal Revenue Service--the tax collectors of
the country--not attempting to influence public policy, not taking
ideological points of view in the enforcement of our tax law is not to
take place.
The only way we can assure it is by having that special counsel
appointed.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert an executive summary into the Record.
Executive Summary
In the immediate aftermath of Lois Lerner's public apology
for the targeting of conservative tax-exempt applicants,
President Obama and congressional Democrats quickly denounced
the IRS misconduct. But later, some of the same voices that
initially decried the targeting changed their tune. Less than
a month after the wrongdoing was exposed, prominent Democrats
declared the ``case is solved'' and, later, the whole
incident to be a ``phony scandal.'' As recently as February
2014, the President explained away the targeting as the
result of ``bone-headed'' decisions by employees of an IRS
``local office'' without ``even a smidgeon of corruption.''
To support this false narrative, the Administration and
congressional Democrats have seized upon the notion that the
IRS's targeting was not just limited to conservative
applicants. Time and again, they have claimed that the IRS
targeted liberal- and progressive-oriented groups as well--
and that, therefore, there was no political animus to the
IRS's actions. These Democratic claims are flat-out wrong and
have no basis in any thorough examination of the facts. Yet,
the Administration's chief defenders continue to make these
assertions in a concerted effort to deflect and distract from
the truth about the IRS's targeting of tax-exempt applicants.
The Committee's investigation demonstrates that the IRS
engaged in disparate treatment of conservative-oriented tax-
exempt applicants. Documents produced to the Committee show
that initial applications transferred from Cincinnati to
Washington were filed by Tea Party groups. Other documents
and testimony show that the initial criteria used to identify
and hold Tea Party applications captured conservative
organizations. After the criteria were broadened in July 2012
to be cosmetically neutral, material provided to the
Committee indicates that the IRS still intended to target
only conservative applications.
A central plank in the Democratic argument is the claim
that liberal-leaning groups were identified on versions of
the IRS's ``Be on the Look Out'' (BOLO) lists. This claim
ignores significant differences in the placement of the
conservative and liberal entries on the BOLO lists and how
the IRS used the BOLO lists in practice. The Democratic
claims are further undercut by testimony from IRS employees
who told the Committee that liberal groups were not subject
to the same systematic scrutiny and delay as conservative
organizations.
The IRS's independent watchdog, the Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), confirms that the IRS
treated conservative applicants differently from liberal
groups. The inspector general, J. Russell George, wrote that
while TIGTA found indications that the IRS had improperly
identified Tea Party groups, it ``did not find evidence that
the criteria [Democrats] identified, labeled `Progressives,'
were used by the IRS to select potential political cases
during the 2010 to 2012 timeframe we audited.'' He concluded
that TIGTA ``found no indication in any of these other
materials that `Progressives' was a term used to refer cases
for scrutiny for political campaign intervention.''
An analysis performed by the House Committee on Ways and
Means buttresses the Committee's findings of disparate
treatment. The Ways and Means Committee's review of the
confidential tax-exempt applications proves that the IRS
systematically targeted conservative organizations. Although
a small number of progressive and liberal groups were caught
up in the application backlog, the Ways and Means Committee's
review shows that the backlog was 83 percent conservative and
only 10 percent were liberal-oriented. Moreover, the IRS
approved 70
[[Page H3919]]
percent of the liberal-leaning groups and only 45 percent of
the conservative groups. The IRS approved every group with
the word ``progressive'' in its name.
In addition, other publicly available information supports
the analysis of the Ways and Means Committee. In September
2013, USA Today published an independent analysis of a list
of about 160 applications in the IRS backlog. This analysis
showed that 80 percent of the applications in the backlog
were filed by conservative groups while less than seven
percent were filed by liberal groups. A separate assessment
from USA Today in May 2013 showed that for 27 months
beginning in February 2010, the IRS did not approve a single
tax-exempt application filed by a Tea Party group. During
that same period, the IRS approved ``perhaps dozens of
applications from similar liberal and progressive groups.''
The IRS, over many years, has undoubtedly scrutinized
organizations that embrace different political views for
varying reasons--in many cases, a just and neutral criteria
may have been fairly utilized. This includes the time period
when Tea Party organizations were systematically screened for
enhanced and inappropriate scrutiny. But the concept of
targeting, when defined as a systematic effort to select
applicants for scrutiny simply because their applications
reflected the organizations' political views, only applied to
Tea Party and similar conservative organizations. While use
of term ``targeting'' in the IRS scandal may not always
follow this definition, the reality remains that there is
simply no evidence that any liberal or progressive group
received enhanced scrutiny because its application reflected
the organization's political views.
For months, the Administration and congressional Democrats
have attempted to downplay the IRS's misconduct. First, the
Administration sought to minimize the fallout by preemptively
acknowledging the misconduct in response to a planted
question at an obscure Friday morning tax-law conference.
When that strategy failed, the Administration shifted to
blaming ``rogue agents'' and ``line-level'' employees for the
targeting. When those assertions proved false, congressional
Democrats baselessly attacked the character and integrity of
the inspector general. Their attempt to allege bipartisan
targeting is just another effort to distract from the fact
that the Obama IRS systematically targeted and delayed
conservative tax-exempt applicants.
Conclusion
Democrats in Congress and the Administration have
perpetrated a myth that the IRS targeted both conservative
and liberal tax-exempt applicants. The targeting is a ``phony
scandal,'' they say, because the IRS did not just target Tea
Party groups, but it targeted liberal and progressive groups
as well. Month after month, in public hearings and televised
interviews, Democrats have repeatedly claimed that
progressive groups were scrutinized in the same manner as
conservative groups. Because of this bipartisan targeting,
they conclude, there is not a ``smidgeon of corruption'' at
the IRS.
The problem with these assertions is that they are simply
not accurate. The Committee's investigation shows that the
IRS sought to identify and single out Tea Party applications.
The facts bear this out. The initial ``test'' applications
were filed by Tea Party groups. The initial screening
criteria identified only Tea Party applications. The revised
criteria still intended to identify Tea Party activities. The
IRS's internal review revealed that a substantial majority of
applications were conservative. In short, the IRS treated
conservative tax-exempt applications in a manner distinct
from other applications, including those filed by liberal
groups.
Evidence available to the Committee contradicts Democrats'
claims about bipartisan targeting. Although the IRS's BOLO
list included entries for liberal-oriented groups, only Tea
Party applicants received systematic scrutiny because of
their political beliefs. Public and nonpublic analyses of IRS
data show that the IRS routinely approved liberal
applications while holding and scrutinizing conservative
applications. Even training documents produced by the IRS
indicate stark differences between liberal and conservative
applications: `` `progressive' applications are not
considered ``Tea Parties.' '' These facts show one unyielding
truth: Tea Party groups were targeted because of their
political beliefs, liberal groups were not.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the resolution has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 568, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________