[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7070-7497]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1615
RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE FIND LOIS G. LERNER IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, I call up the report (H. Rept. 113-415) to accompany 
the resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Lois 
G. Lerner, Former Director, Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue 
Service, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena 
duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  The Clerk read the title of the report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Amodei). Pursuant to House Resolution 
568, the report is considered read.
  The text of the report is as follows:

       The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, having 
     considered this Report, report favorably thereon and 
     recommend that the Report be approved.
       The form of the resolution that the Committee on Oversight 
     and Government Reform would recommend to the House of 
     Representatives for citing Lois G. Lerner, former Director, 
     Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, for contempt 
     of Congress pursuant to this report is as follows:
       Resolved, That because Lois G. Lerner, former Director, 
     Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, offered a 
     voluntary statement in testimony before the Committee, was 
     found by the Committee to have waived her Fifth Amendment 
     Privilege, was informed of the Committee's decision of 
     waiver, and continued to refuse to testify before the 
     Committee, Ms. Lerner shall be found to be in contempt of 
     Congress for failure to comply with a congressional subpoena.
       Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192 and 194, 
     the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the 
     report of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
     detailing the refusal of Ms. Lerner to testify before the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as directed by 
     subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the District of 
     Columbia, to the end that Ms. Lerner be proceeded against in 
     the manner and form provided by law.
       Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise 
     take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.

                          I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       Lois G. Lerner has refused to comply with a congressional 
     subpoena for testimony before the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform relating to her role in the Internal 
     Revenue Service's treatment of certain applicants for tax-
     exempt status. Her testimony is vital to the Committee's 
     investigation into this matter.
       Ms. Lerner offered a voluntary statement in her appearance 
     before the Committee. The Committee subsequently determined 
     that she waived her Fifth Amendment privilege in making this 
     statement, and it informed Ms. Lerner of its decision. Still, 
     Ms. Lerner continued to refuse to testify before the 
     Committee.
       Accordingly, the Chairman of the Oversight and Government 
     Reform Committee recommends that the House find Ms. Lerner in 
     contempt for her failure to comply with the subpoena issued 
     to her.

                       II. AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE

       An important corollary to the powers expressly granted to 
     Congress by the Constitution is the responsibility to perform 
     rigorous oversight of the Executive Branch. The U.S. Supreme 
     Court has recognized this Congressional power and 
     responsibility on numerous occasions. For example, in McGrain 
     v. Daugherty, the Court held:

       [T]he power of inquiry--with process to enforce it--is an 
     essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative 
     function. . . . A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or 
     effectively in the absence of information respecting the 
     conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or 
     change, and where the legislative body does not itself 
     possess the requisite information--which not infrequently is 
     true--recourse must be had to others who do possess it.''\1\

     Further, in Watkins v. United States, Chief Justice Earl 
     Warren wrote for the majority: ``The power of Congress to 
     conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative 
     process. That power is broad.''\2\
       Further, both the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 
     (P.L. 79-601), which directed House and Senate Committees to 
     ``exercise continuous watchfulness'' over Executive Branch 
     programs under their jurisdiction, and the Legislative 
     Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510), which authorized 
     committees to ``review and study, on a continuing basis, the 
     application, administration, and execution'' of laws, codify 
     the powers of Congress.
       The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is a 
     standing committee of the House of Representatives, duly 
     established pursuant to the rules of the House of 
     Representatives, which are adopted pursuant to the Rulemaking 
     Clause of the U.S. Constitution.\3\ House Rule X grants to 
     the Committee broad jurisdiction over federal ``[g]overnment 
     management'' and reform, including the ``[o]verall economy, 
     efficiency, and management of government operations and 
     activities,'' the ``[f]ederal civil service,'' and 
     ``[r]eorganizations in the executive branch of the 
     Government.''\4\ House Rule X further grants the Committee 
     particularly broad oversight jurisdiction, including 
     authority to ``conduct investigations of any matter without 
     regard to clause 1, 2, 3, or this clause [of House Rule X] 
     conferring jurisdiction over the matter to another standing 
     committee.''\5\ The rules direct the Committee to make 
     available ``the findings and recommendations of the committee 
     . . . to any other standing committee having jurisdiction 
     over the matter involved.''\6\
       House Rule XI specifically authorizes the Committee to 
     ``require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
     testimony of such witnesses and the production of books, 
     records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as 
     it considers necessary.''\7\ The rule further provides that 
     the ``power to authorize and issue subpoenas'' may be 
     delegated to the Committee chairman.\8\ The subpoena 
     discussed in this report was issued pursuant to this 
     authority.
       The Committee has undertaken its investigation into the 
     IRS's inappropriate treatment of conservative tax-exempt 
     organizations pursuant to the authority delegated to it under 
     the House Rules, including as described above.
       The oversight and legislative purposes of the investigation 
     at issue here, described more fully immediately below, 
     include (1) to evaluate decisions made by the Internal 
     Revenue Service regarding the inappropriate treatment of 
     conservative applicants for tax-exempt status; and (2) to 
     assess, based on the findings of the investigation, whether 
     the conduct uncovered may warrant additions or modifications 
     to federal law, including, but not limited to, a possible 
     restructuring of the Internal Revenue Service and the IRS 
     Oversight Board.

            III. BACKGROUND ON THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION

       In February 2012, the Committee received reports that the 
     Internal Revenue Service inappropriately scrutinized certain 
     applicants for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status. Since that time, 
     the Committee has reviewed nearly 500,000 pages of documents 
     obtained from (i) the Department of the Treasury, including 
     particular component entities, the IRS, the Treasury 
     Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), and the IRS 
     Oversight Board, (ii) former and current IRS employees, and 
     (iii) other sources. In addition, the Committee has conducted 
     33 transcribed interviews of current and former IRS 
     officials, ranging from front-line employees in the IRS's 
     Cincinnati office to the former Commissioner of the IRS.
       Documents and testimony reveal that the IRS targeted 
     conservative-aligned applicants for tax-exempt status by 
     scrutinizing them in a manner distinct--and more intrusive--
     than other applicants. Critical questions remain regarding 
     the extent of this targeting, and how and why the IRS acted--
     and persisted in acting--in this manner.

         A. IRS Targeting of Tea Party Tax-Exempt Applications

       In late February 2010, a screener in the IRS's Cincinnati 
     office identified a 501(c)(4) application connected with the 
     Tea Party. Due to ``media attention'' surrounding the Tea 
     Party, the application was elevated to the Exempt 
     Organizations Technical Unit in Washington, D.C.\9\ When 
     officials in the Cincinnati office discovered several similar 
     applications in March 2010, the Washington, D.C. office asked 
     for two ``test'' applications, and ordered the Cincinnati 
     employees to ``hold'' the remainder of the applications.\10\ 
     A

[[Page 7071]]

     manager in the Cincinnati office asked his screeners to 
     develop criteria for identifying other Tea Party applications 
     so that the applications would not ``go into the general 
     inventory.''\11\ By early April 2010, Cincinnati screeners 
     began to identify and hold any applications meeting certain 
     criteria. Applications that met the criteria were removed 
     from the general inventory and assigned to a special group.
       In late spring 2010, an individual recognized as an expert 
     in 501(c)(4) applications in the Washington office was 
     assigned to work on the test applications. The expert issued 
     letters to the test applicants asking for additional 
     information or clarification about information provided in 
     their applications.\12\ Meanwhile, through the summer and 
     into fall 2010, applications from other conservative-aligned 
     groups idled. As the Cincinnati office awaited guidance from 
     Washington regarding those applications, a backlog developed. 
     By fall 2010, the backlog of applications that had stalled in 
     the Cincinnati office had grown to 60.
       On February 1, 2011, Lois G. Lerner, who served as Director 
     of Exempt Organizations (EO) at IRS from 2006 to 2013,\13\ 
     wrote an e-mail to Michael Seto, the manager of the Technical 
     Office within the Exempt Organizations business division. The 
     EO Technical Office was staffed by approximately 40 IRS 
     lawyers who offered advice to IRS agents across the country. 
     Ms. Lerner wrote, ``Tea Party Matter very dangerous'' and 
     ordered the Office of Chief Counsel to get involved.\14\ Ms. 
     Lerner advocated for pulling the cases out of the Cincinnati 
     office entirely. She advised Seto that ``Cincy should 
     probably NOT have these cases.''\15\ Seto testified to the 
     Committee that Ms. Lerner ordered a ``multi-tier'' review for 
     the test applications, a process that involved her senior 
     technical advisor and the Office of Chief Counsel.\16\
       On July 5, 2011, Ms. Lerner became aware that the backlog 
     of Tea Party applications pending in Cincinnati had swelled 
     to ``over 100.''\17\ Ms. Lerner also learned of the specific 
     criteria that were used to screen the cases that were caught 
     in the backlog.\18\ She believed that the term ``Tea 
     Party''--which was a term that triggered additional scrutiny 
     under the criteria developed by IRS personnel--was 
     ``pejorative.''\19\ Ms. Lerner ordered her staff to adjust 
     the criteria.\20\ She also directed the Technical Unit to 
     conduct a ``triage'' of the backlogged applications and to 
     develop a guide sheet to assist agents in Cincinnati with 
     processing the cases.\21\
       In November 2011, the draft guide sheet for processing the 
     backlogged applications was complete.\22\ By this point, 
     there were 160-170 pending applications in the backlog.\23\ 
     After the Cincinnati office received the guide sheet from 
     Washington, officials there began to process the applications 
     in January 2012. IRS employees drafted questions for the 
     applicant organizations designed to solicit information 
     mandated by the guide sheet. The questions asked for 
     information about the applicant organizations' donors, among 
     other things.\24\
       By early 2012, questions about the IRS's treatment of these 
     backlogged applications had attracted public attention. Staff 
     from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform met 
     with Ms. Lerner in February 2012 regarding the IRS's process 
     for evaluating tax-exempt applications.\25\ Committee staff 
     then met with TIGTA representatives on March 8, 2012.\26\ 
     Shortly thereafter, TIGTA began an audit of the IRS's process 
     for evaluating tax-exempt applications.
       In late February 2012, after Ms. Lerner briefed Committee 
     staff, Steven Miller, then the IRS Deputy Commissioner, 
     requested a meeting with her to discuss these applications. 
     She informed him of the backlog of applications and that the 
     IRS had asked applicant organizations about donor 
     information.\27\ Miller relayed this information to IRS 
     Commissioner Douglas Schulman.\28\ On March 23, 2012, Miller 
     convened a meeting of his senior staff to discuss these 
     applications. Miller launched an internal review of potential 
     inappropriate treatment of Tea Party 501(c)(4) applications 
     ``to find out why the cases were there and what was going 
     on.''\29\
       The internal IRS review took place in April 2012. Miller 
     realized there was a problem and that the application backlog 
     needed to be addressed.\30\ IRS officials designed a new 
     system to process the backlog, and Miller received weekly 
     updates on the progress of the backlog throughout the summer 
     2012.\31\
       In May 2013, in advance of the release of TIGTA's audit 
     report on the IRS's process for evaluating applications for 
     tax-exempt status, the IRS sought to acknowledge publicly 
     that certain tax-exempt applications had been inappropriately 
     targeted.\32\ On May 10, 2013, at an event sponsored by the 
     American Bar Association, Ms. Lerner responded to a question 
     she had planted with a member of the audience prior to the 
     event. A veteran tax lawyer asked, ``Lois, a few months ago 
     there were some concerns about the IRS's review of 501(c)(4) 
     organizations, of applications from tea party organizations. 
     I was just wondering if you could provide an update.''\33\ In 
     response, Ms. Lerner stated:

       So our line people in Cincinnati who handled the 
     applications did what we call centralization of these cases. 
     They centralized work on these in one particular group. . . . 
     However, in these cases, the way they did the centralization 
     was not so fine. Instead of referring to the cases as 
     advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list. 
     They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected 
     cases simply because the applications had those names in the 
     title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, 
     insensitive, and inappropriate--that's not how we go about 
     selecting cases for further review. We don't select for 
     review because they have a particular name.\34\

       Ms. Lerner's statement during the ABA panel, entitled 
     ``News from the IRS and Treasury,'' was the first public 
     acknowledgement that the IRS had inappropriately scrutinized 
     the applications of conservative-aligned groups. Within days, 
     the President and the Attorney General expressed serious 
     concerns about the IRS's actions. The Attorney General 
     announced a Justice Department investigation.\35\

B. Lois Lerner's Testimony Is Critical to the Committee's Investigation

       Lois Lerner's testimony is critical to the Committee's 
     investigation. Without her testimony, the full extent of the 
     IRS's targeting of Tea Party applications cannot be known, 
     and the Committee will be unable to fully complete its work.
       Ms. Lerner was, during the relevant time period, the 
     Director of the Exempt Organizations business division of the 
     IRS, where the targeting of these applications occurred. The 
     Exempt Organizations business division contains the two IRS 
     units that were responsible for executing the targeting 
     program: the Exempt Organizations Determinations Unit in 
     Cincinnati, and the Exempt Organizations Technical Unit in 
     Washington, D.C.
       Ms. Lerner has not provided the Committee with any 
     testimony since the release of the TIGTA audit in May 2013. 
     Although the Committee staff has conducted transcribed 
     interviews of dozens of IRS officials in Cincinnati and 
     Washington, D.C., the Committee will never be able to 
     understand the IRS's actions fully without her testimony. She 
     has unique, first-hand knowledge of how, and why, the IRS 
     scrutinized applications for tax-exempt status from certain 
     conservative-aligned groups.
       The IRS sent letters to 501(c)(4) application 
     organizations, signed by Ms. Lerner, that included questions 
     about the organizations' donors. These letters went to 
     applicant organizations that had met certain criteria. As 
     noted, Ms. Lerner later described the selection of these 
     applicant organizations as ``wrong, [] absolutely incorrect, 
     insensitive, and inappropriate.''\36\
       Documents and testimony from other witnesses show Ms. 
     Lerner's testimony is critical to the Committee's 
     investigation. She was at the epicenter of the targeting 
     program. As the Director of the Exempt Organizations business 
     division, she interacted with a wide array of IRS personnel, 
     from low-level managers all the way up to the Deputy 
     Commissioner. Only Ms. Lerner can resolve conflicting 
     testimony about why the IRS delayed 501(c)(4) applications, 
     and why the agency asked the applicant organizations 
     inappropriate and invasive questions. Only she can answer 
     important outstanding questions that are key to the 
     Committee's investigation.

 IV. LOIS LERNER'S REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THE COMMITTEE'S SUBPOENA FOR 
                 TESTIMONY AT THE MAY 22, 2013 HEARING

       On May 14, 2013, Chairman Issa sent a letter to Ms. Lerner 
     inviting her to testify at a hearing on May 22, 2013, about 
     the IRS's handling of certain applications for tax-exempt 
     status.\37\ The letter requested that she ``please contact 
     the Committee by May 17, 2013,'' to confirm her 
     attendance.\38\ Ms. Lerner, through her attorney, confirmed 
     that she would appear at the hearing.\39\ Her attorney 
     subsequently indicated that she would not answer questions 
     during the hearing, and that she would invoke her Fifth 
     Amendment rights.\40\
       Because Ms. Lerner would not testify voluntarily at the May 
     22, 2013 hearing and because her testimony was critical to 
     the Committee's investigation, Chairman Issa authorized a 
     subpoena to compel the testimony. The subpoena was issued on 
     May 20, 2013, and served on her the same day. Ms. Lerner's 
     attorney accepted service on her behalf.\41\

              A. Correspondence Leading Up to the Hearing

       On May 20, 2013, Ms. Lerner's attorney sent a letter to 
     Chairman Issa stating that she would be invoking her Fifth 
     Amendment right not to answer any questions at the hearing. 
     The letter stated, in relevant part:

       You have requested that our client, Lois Lerner, appear at 
     a public hearing on May 22, 2013, to testify regarding the 
     Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's 
     (``TIGTA'') report on the Internal Revenue Service's 
     (``IRS'') processing of applications for tax-exempt status. 
     As you know, the Department of Justice has launched a 
     criminal investigation into the matters addressed in the 
     TIGTA report, and your letter to Ms. Lerner dated May 14, 
     2013, alleges that she `provided false or misleading 
     information on four separate occasions last year in response 
     to' the Committee's questions about the IRS's processing of 
     applications for tax-exempt status. Accordingly, we are 
     writing to

[[Page 7072]]

     inform you that, upon our advice, Ms. Lerner will exercise 
     her constitutional right not to answer any questions related 
     to the matters addressed in the TIGTA report or to the 
     written and oral exchanges that she had with the Committee in 
     2012 regarding the IRS's processing of applications for tax-
     exempt status.
       She has not committed any crimes or made any 
     misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no 
     choice but to take this course. As the Supreme Court has 
     ``emphasized,'' one of the Fifth Amendment's ``basic 
     functions . . . is to protect innocent [individuals].'' Ohio 
     v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21 (2001) (quoting Grunewald v. 
     United States, 353 U.S. 391, 421 (1957)).
       Because Ms. Lerner is invoking her constitutional 
     privilege, we respectfully request that you excuse her from 
     appearing at the hearing. . . . Because Ms. Lerner will 
     exercise her right not to answer questions related to the 
     matters discussed in the TIGTA report or to her prior 
     exchanges with the Committee, requiring her to appear at the 
     hearing merely to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege would 
     have no purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.\42\

       The following day, after issuing the subpoena to compel Ms. 
     Lerner to appear before the Committee, Chairman Issa 
     responded to her attorney. Chairman Issa stated, in relevant 
     part:

       I write to advise you that the subpoena you accepted on Ms. 
     Lerner's behalf remains in effect. The subpoena compels Ms. 
     Lerner to appear before the Committee on May 22, 2013, at 
     9:30 a.m.
       According to your May 20, 2013, letter, `requiring [Ms. 
     Lerner] to appear at the hearing merely to assert her Fifth 
     Amendment privilege would have no purpose other than to 
     embarrass or burden her.' That is not correct. As Director, 
     Exempt Organizations, Tax Exempt and Government Entities 
     Division, of the Internal Revenue Service, Ms. Lerner is 
     uniquely qualified to answer questions about the issues 
     raised in the aforementioned TIGTA report. The Committee 
     invited her to appear with the expectation that her testimony 
     will advance the Committee's investigation, which seeks 
     information about the IRS's questionable practices in 
     processing and approving applications for 501(c)(4) tax 
     exempt status. The Committee requires Ms. Lerner's appearance 
     because of, among other reasons, the possibility that she 
     will waive or choose not to assert the privilege as to at 
     least certain questions of interest to the Committee; the 
     possibility that the Committee will immunize her testimony 
     pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 6005; and the possibility that the 
     Committee will agree to hear her testimony in executive 
     session.\43\

                   B. Lois Lerner's Opening Statement

       Chairman Issa's letter to Ms. Lerner's attorney on May 22, 
     2013 raised the possibility that she would waive or choose 
     not to assert her privilege as to at least certain questions 
     of interest to the Committee.\44\ In fact, that is exactly 
     what happened. At the hearing, Ms. Lerner made a voluntary 
     opening statement, of which she had provided the Committee no 
     advance notice, notwithstanding Committee rules requiring 
     that she do so.\45\ She stated, after swearing an oath to 
     tell ``the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
     truth'':

       Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My 
     name is Lois Lerner, and I'm the Director of Exempt 
     Organizations at the Internal Revenue Service.
       I have been a government employee for over 34 years. I 
     initially practiced law at the Department of Justice and 
     later at the Federal Election Commission. In 2001, I became--
     I moved to the IRS to work in the Exempt Organizations 
     office, and in 2006, I was promoted to be the Director of 
     that office.
       Exempt Organizations oversees about 1.6 million tax-exempt 
     organizations and processes over 60,000 applications for tax 
     exemption every year. As Director I'm responsible for about 
     900 employees nationwide, and administer a budget of almost 
     $100 million. My professional career has been devoted to 
     fulfilling responsibilities of the agencies for which I have 
     worked, and I am very proud of the work that I have done in 
     government.
       On May 14th, the Treasury inspector general released a 
     report finding that the Exempt Organizations field office in 
     Cincinnati, Ohio, used inappropriate criteria to identify for 
     further review applications for organizations that planned to 
     engage in political activity which may mean that they did not 
     qualify for tax exemption. On that same day, the Department 
     of Justice launched an investigation into the matters 
     described in the inspector general's report. In addition, 
     members of this committee have accused me of providing false 
     information when I responded to questions about the IRS 
     processing of applications for tax exemption.
       I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. 
     I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have 
     not provided false information to this or any other 
     congressional committee.
       And while I would very much like to answer the Committee's 
     questions today, I've been advised by my counsel to assert my 
     constitutional right not to testify or answer questions 
     related to the subject matter of this hearing. After very 
     careful consideration, I have decided to follow my counsel's 
     advice and not testify or answer any of the questions today.
       Because I'm asserting my right not to testify, I know that 
     some people will assume that I've done something wrong. I 
     have not. One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment 
     is to protect innocent individuals, and that is the 
     protection I'm invoking today. Thank you.\46\

       After Ms. Lerner made this voluntary, self-selected opening 
     statement--which included a proclamation that she had done 
     nothing wrong and broken no laws, Chairman Issa explained 
     that he believed she had waived her right to assert a Fifth 
     Amendment privilege and asked her to reconsider her position 
     on testifying.\47\ In response, she stated:

       I will not answer any questions or testify about the 
     subject matter of this Committee's meeting.\48\

       Upon Ms. Lerner's refusal to answer any questions, 
     Congressman Trey Gowdy made a statement from the dais. He 
     said:

       Mr. Issa, Mr. Cummings just said we should run this like a 
     courtroom, and I agree with him. She just testified. She just 
     waived her Fifth Amendment right to privilege. You don't get 
     to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to 
     cross examination. That's not the way it works. She waived 
     her right of Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening 
     statement. She ought to stay in here and answer our 
     questions.\49\

       Shortly after Congressman Gowdy's statement, Chairman Issa 
     excused Ms. Lerner from the panel and reserved the option to 
     recall her as a witness at a later date. Specifically, 
     Chairman Issa stated that she was excused ``subject to recall 
     after we seek specific counsel on the questions of whether or 
     not the constitutional right of the Fifth Amendment has been 
     properly waived.''\50\
       Rather than adjourning the hearing on May 22, 2013, the 
     Chairman recessed it, in order to reconvene at a later date 
     after a thorough analysis of Ms. Lerner's actions. He did so 
     to avoid ``mak[ing] a quick or uninformed decision'' 
     regarding what had transpired.\51\

 C. The Committee Resolved That Lois Lerner Waived Her Fifth Amendment 
                               Privilege

       On June 28, 2013, Chairman Issa convened a Committee 
     business meeting to allow the Committee to determine whether 
     Ms. Lerner had in fact waived her Fifth Amendment privilege. 
     After reviewing during the intervening five weeks legal 
     analysis provided by the Office of General Counsel, arguments 
     presented by Ms. Lerner's counsel, and other relevant legal 
     precedent, Chairman Issa concluded that Ms. Lerner waived her 
     constitutional privilege when she made a voluntary opening 
     statement that involved several specific denials of various 
     allegations.\52\ Chairman Issa stated:

       Having now considered the facts and arguments, I believe 
     Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment privileges. She did so 
     when she chose to make a voluntary opening statement. Ms. 
     Lerner's opening statement referenced the Treasury IG report, 
     and the Department of Justice investigation . . . and the 
     assertions that she had previously provided false information 
     to the committee. She made four specific denials. Those 
     denials are at the core of the committee's investigation in 
     this matter. She stated that she had not done anything wrong, 
     not broken any laws, not violated any IRS rules or 
     regulations, and not provided false information to this or 
     any other congressional committee regarding areas about which 
     committee members would have liked to ask her questions. 
     Indeed, committee members are still interested in hearing 
     from her. Her statement covers almost the entire range of 
     questions we wanted to ask when the hearing began on May 
     22.\53\

       After a lengthy debate, the Committee approved a 
     resolution, by a 22-17 vote, which stated as follows:

       [T]he Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
     determines that the voluntary statement offered by Ms. Lerner 
     constituted a waiver of her Fifth Amendment privilege against 
     self-incrimination as to all questions within the subject 
     matter of the Committee hearing that began on May 22, 2013, 
     including questions relating to (i) Ms. Lerner's knowledge of 
     any targeting by the Internal Revenue Service of particular 
     groups seeking tax exempt status, and (ii) questions relating 
     to any facts or information that would support or refute her 
     assertions that, in that regard, ``she has not done anything 
     wrong,'' ``not broken any laws,'' ``not violated any IRS 
     rules or regulations,'' and/or ``not provided false 
     information to this or any other congressional 
     committee.''\54\

       D. Lois Lerner Continued To Defy the Committee's Subpoena

       Following the Committee's resolution that Ms. Lerner waived 
     her Fifth Amendment privilege, Chairman Issa recalled her to 
     testify before the Committee. On February 25, 2014, Chairman 
     Issa sent a letter to Ms. Lerner's attorney advising him that 
     the May 22, 2013 hearing would reconvene on March 5, 
     2014.\55\ The letter also advised that the subpoena that 
     compelled her to appear on May 22, 2013 remained in 
     effect.\56\ The letter stated, in relevant part:

       Ms. Lerner's testimony remains critical to the Committee's 
     investigation . . . . Because

[[Page 7073]]

     Ms. Lerner's testimony will advance the Committee's 
     investigation, the Committee is recalling her to a 
     continuation of the May 22, 2013, hearing, on March 5, 2014, 
     at 9:30 a.m. in room 2154 of the Rayburn House Office 
     Building in Washington, D.C.
       The subpoena you accepted on Ms. Lerner's behalf remains in 
     effect. In light of this fact, and because the Committee 
     explicitly rejected her Fifth Amendment privilege claim, I 
     expect her to provide answers when the hearing reconvenes on 
     March 5.\57\

       The next day, Ms. Lerner's attorney responded to Chairman 
     Issa. In a letter, he wrote:

       I write in response to your letter of yesterday. I was 
     surprised to receive it. I met with the majority staff of the 
     Committee on January 24, 2014, at their request. At the 
     meeting, I advised them that Ms. Lerner would continue to 
     assert her Constitutional rights not to testify if she were 
     recalled. . . . We understand that the Committee voted that 
     she had waived her rights. . . . We therefore request that 
     the Committee not require Ms. Lerner to attend a hearing 
     solely for the purpose of once again invoking her rights.\58\

       Because of the possibility that she would choose to answer 
     some or all of the Committee's questions, Chairman Issa 
     required Ms. Lerner to appear in person on March 5, 2014. 
     When the May 22, 2013, hearing, entitled ``The IRS: Targeting 
     Americans for Their Political Beliefs,'' was reconvened, 
     Chairman Issa noted that the Committee might recommend that 
     the House hold Ms. Lerner in contempt if she continued to 
     refuse to answer questions, based on the fact that the 
     Committee had resolved that she had waived her Fifth 
     Amendment privilege. He stated:

       At a business meeting on June 28, 2013, the Committee 
     approved a resolution rejecting Ms. Lerner's claim of Fifth 
     Amendment privilege based on her waiver at the May 22, 2013, 
     hearing.
       After that vote, having made the determination that Ms. 
     Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights, the Committee 
     recalled her to appear today to answer questions pursuant to 
     rules. The Committee voted and found that Ms. Lerner waived 
     her Fifth Amendment rights by making a statement on May 22, 
     2013, and additionally, by affirming documents after making a 
     statement of Fifth Amendment rights.
       If Ms. Lerner continues to refuse to answer questions from 
     our Members while she's under subpoena, the Committee may 
     proceed to consider whether she should be held in 
     contempt.\59\

       Despite the fact that Ms. Lerner was compelled by a duly 
     issued subpoena and Chairman Issa had warned her of the 
     possibility of contempt proceedings, and despite the 
     Committee's resolution that she waived her Fifth Amendment 
     privilege, Ms. Lerner continued to assert her Fifth Amendment 
     privilege, and refused to answer any questions posed by 
     Members of the Committee.
       Specifically, Ms. Lerner asserted her Fifth Amendment 
     privilege on eight separate occasions at the hearing. In 
     response to questions from Chairman Issa, she stated:

       Q. On October 10--on October--in October 2010, you told a 
     Duke University group, and I quote, `The Supreme Court dealt 
     a huge blow overturning a 100-year-old precedent that 
     basically corporations couldn't give directly to political 
     campaigns. And everyone is up in arms because they don't like 
     it. The Federal Election Commission can't do anything about 
     it. They want the IRS to fix the problem.' Ms. Lerner, what 
     exactly `wanted to fix the problem caused by Citizens 
     United,' what exactly does that mean?
       A. My counsel has advised me that I have not----
       Q. Would you please turn the mic on?
       A. Sorry. I don't know how. My counsel has advised me that 
     I have not waived my constitutional rights under the Fifth 
     Amendment, and on his advice, I will decline to answer any 
     question on the subject matter of this hearing.
       Q. So, you are not going to tell us who wanted to fix the 
     problem caused by Citizens United?
       A. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my 
     Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.
       Q. Ms. Lerner, in February 2011, you emailed your 
     colleagues in the IRS the following: `Tea Party matter, very 
     dangerous. This could be the vehicle to go to court on the 
     issue of whether Citizens United overturning the ban on 
     corporate spending applies to tax-exempt rules. Counsel and 
     Judy Kindell need to be on this one, please. Cincy should 
     probably NOT,' all in caps, `have these cases.' What did you 
     mean by `Cincy should not have these cases'?
       A. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my 
     Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer the question.
       Q. Ms. Lerner, why would you say Tea Party cases were very 
     dangerous?
       A. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my 
     Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.
       Q. Ms. Lerner, in September 2010, you emailed your 
     subordinates about initiating a, parenthesis, (c)(4) project 
     and wrote, `We need to be cautious so that it isn't a per se 
     political project.' Why were you worried about this being 
     perceived as a political project?
       A. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my 
     Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.
       Q. Ms. Lerner, Mike Seto, manager of EO Technical in 
     Washington, testified that you ordered Tea Party cases to 
     undergo a multi-tier review. He testified, and I quote, `She 
     sent me email saying that when these cases need to go 
     through'--I say again--`she sent me email saying that when 
     these cases need to go through multi-tier review and they 
     will eventually have to go to Ms. Kindell and the Chief 
     Counsel's Office.' Why did you order Tea Party cases to 
     undergo a multi-tier review?
       A. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my 
     Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.
       Q. Ms. Lerner, in June 2011, you requested that Holly Paz 
     obtain a copy of the tax-exempt application filed by 
     Crossroads GPS so that your senior technical advisor, Judy 
     Kindell, could review it and summarize the issues for you. 
     Ms. Lerner, why did you want to personally order that they 
     pull Crossroads GPS, Karl Rove's organization's application?
       A.  On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my 
     Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.
       Q.  Ms. Lerner, in June 2012, you were part of an email 
     exchange that appeared to be about writing new regulations on 
     political speech for 501(c)(4) groups, and in parenthesis, 
     your quote, ``off plan'' in 2013. Ms. Lerner, what does ``off 
     plan'' mean?
       A.  On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my 
     Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.
       Q. Ms. Lerner, in February of 2014, President Obama stated 
     that there was not a smidgeon of corruption in the IRS 
     targeting. Ms. Lerner, do you believe that there is not a 
     smidgeon of corruption in the IRS targeting of conservatives?
       A.  On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my 
     Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that question.
       Q. Ms. Lerner, on Saturday, our committee's general counsel 
     sent an email to your attorney saying, ``I understand that 
     Ms. Lerner is willing to testify and she is requesting a 1 
     week delay. In talking--in talking to the chairman''--excuse 
     me--``in talking to the chairman, wanted to make sure that 
     was right.'' Your lawyer, in response to that question, gave 
     a one word email response, ``yes.'' Are you still seeking a 1 
     week delay in order to testify?
       A.  On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully exercise my 
     Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer that 
     question.\60\

       The hearing was subsequently adjourned and Ms. Lerner was 
     excused from the hearing room.

   E. Legal Precedent Strongly Supports the Committee's Position To 
              Proceed With Holding Lois Lerner in Contempt

       After Ms. Lerner's appearance before the Committee on March 
     5, 2014, her lawyer convened a press conference at which he 
     apparently revealed that she had sat for an interview with 
     Department of Justice prosecutors and TIGTA staff within the 
     past six months.\61\ According to reports, Ms. Lerner's 
     lawyer described that interview as not under oath\62\ and 
     unconditional, i.e., provided under no grant of immunity.\63\ 
     Revelation of this interview calls into question the basis of 
     Ms. Lerner's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege in 
     the first place, her waiver of any such privilege 
     notwithstanding.
       Despite that fact, and the balance of the record, Ranking 
     Member Elijah E. Cummings questioned the Committee's ability 
     to proceed with a contempt citation for Ms. Lerner. On March 
     12, 2014, he sent a letter to Speaker Boehner arguing that 
     the House of Representatives is barred ``from successfully 
     pursuing contempt proceedings against former IRS official 
     Lois Lerner.''\64\ The Ranking Member's position was based on 
     an allegedly ``independent legal analysis'' provided by his 
     lawyer, Stanley M. Brand, and his ``Legislative Consultant,'' 
     Morton Rosenberg.\65\
       Brand and Rosenberg claimed that the prospect of judicial 
     contempt proceedings against Ms. Lerner has been compromised 
     because, according to them, ``at no stage in this proceeding 
     did the witness receive the requisite clear rejections of her 
     constitutional objections and direct demands for answers nor 
     was it made unequivocally certain that her failure to respond 
     would result in criminal contempt prosecution.''\66\ The 
     Ranking Member subsequently issued a press release that 
     described ``opinions from 25 legal experts across the country 
     and the political spectrum''\67\ regarding the Committee's 
     interactions with Ms. Lerner. The opinions released by 
     Ranking Member Cummings largely relied on the same case law 
     and analysis that Rosenberg and Brand provided, and are 
     contrary to the opinion of the House Office of General 
     Counsel.\68\ The Ranking Member and his lawyers and 
     consultants are wrong on the facts and the law.
     1. Ms. Lerner knew that the Committee had rejected her 
         privilege objection and that, consequently, she risked 
         contempt should she persist in refusing to answer the 
         Committee's questions
       At the March 5, 2014 proceeding, Chairman Issa specifically 
     made Ms. Lerner and her

[[Page 7074]]

     counsel aware of developments that had occurred since the 
     Committee first convened the hearing (on May 22, 2013): 
     ``These [developments] are important for the record and for 
     Ms. Lerner to know and understand.''\69\
       Chairman Issa emphasized one particular development: ``At a 
     business meeting on June 28, 2013, the committee approved a 
     resolution rejecting Ms. Lerner's claim of Fifth Amendment 
     privilege based on her waiver.''\70\ This, of course, was not 
     news to Ms. Lerner or her counsel. The Committee had 
     expressly notified her counsel of the Committee's rejection 
     of her Fifth Amendment claim, both orally and in writing. For 
     example, in a letter to Ms. Lerner's counsel on February 25, 
     2014, the Chairman wrote: ``[B]ecause the Committee 
     explicitly rejected [Lerner's] Fifth Amendment privilege 
     claim, I expect her to provide answers when the hearing 
     reconvenes on March 5.''\71\ Moreover, the press widely 
     reported the fact that the Committee had formally rejected 
     Ms. Lerner's Fifth Amendment claim.\72\
       Accordingly, it is facially unreasonable for Ranking Member 
     Cummings and his lawyers and consultants to subsequently 
     claim that ``at no stage in this proceeding did the witness 
     receive the requisite clear rejections of her constitutional 
     objections.''\73\
       The Committee's rejection of Ms. Lerner's privilege 
     objection was not the only point that Chairman Issa 
     emphasized before and during the March 5, 2014 proceeding. At 
     the hearing, after several additional references to the 
     Committee's determination that she had waived her privilege 
     objection, the Chairman expressly warned her that she 
     remained under subpoena,\74\ and thus that, if she should 
     persist in refusing to answer the Committee's questions, she 
     risked contempt: ``If Ms. Lerner continues to refuse to 
     answer questions from our Members while she is under a 
     subpoena, the Committee may proceed to consider whether she 
     should be held in contempt.''\75\
       Ranking Member Cummings and his lawyers and consultants 
     state, repeatedly, that the Committee did not provide 
     ``certainty for the witness and her counsel that a contempt 
     prosecution was inevitable.''\76\ But, that is a certainty 
     that no Member of the Committee can provide. From the 
     Committee's perspective (and Ms. Lerner's), there is no 
     guarantee that the Department of Justice will prosecute Ms. 
     Lerner for her contumacious conduct, and there is no 
     guarantee that the full House of Representatives will vote to 
     hold her in contempt. In fact, there is no guarantee that the 
     Committee will make such a recommendation. The collective 
     votes of Members voting their consciences determine both a 
     Committee recommendation and a full House vote on a contempt 
     resolution. And, the Department of Justice, of course, is an 
     agency of the Executive Branch of the federal government. All 
     the Chairman can do is what he did: make abundantly clear to 
     Ms. Lerner and her counsel that of which she already was 
     aware, i.e., that if she chose not to answer the Committee's 
     questions after the Committee's ruling that she had waived 
     her privilege objection (exactly the choice that she 
     ultimately made), she would risk contempt.
     2. The Law does not require magic words
       The Ranking Member and his lawyers and consultants also 
     misunderstand the law. Contrary to their insistence, the 
     courts do not require the invocation by the Committee of 
     certain magic words. Rather, and sensibly, the courts have 
     required only that congressional committees provide witnesses 
     with a ``fair appraisal of the committee's ruling on an 
     objection,'' thereby leaving the witness with a choice: 
     comply with the relevant committee's demand for testimony, or 
     risk contempt.\77\
       The Ranking Member and his lawyers and consultants refer 
     specifically to Quinn v. United States in support of their 
     arguments. In that case, however, the Supreme Court held only 
     that, because ``[a]t no time did the committee [at issue 
     there] specifically overrule [the witness's] objection based 
     on the Fifth Amendment,'' the witness ``was left to guess 
     whether or not the committee had accepted his 
     objection.''\78\ Here, of course, the Committee expressly 
     rejected Ms. Lerner's objection, and specifically notified 
     Ms. Lerner and her counsel of the same. She was left to guess 
     at nothing.
       The Ranking Member and his lawyers' and consultants' 
     reliance on Quinn is odd for at least two additional reasons. 
     First, in that case, the Supreme Court expressly noted that 
     the congressional committee's failure to rule on the 
     witness's objection mattered because it left the witness 
     without ``a clear-cut choice . . . between answering the 
     question and risking prosecution for contempt.''\79\ In other 
     words, the Supreme Court expressly rejected the Ranking 
     Member's view that the Chairman should do the impossible by 
     pronouncing on whether prosecution is ``inevitable.''\80\ The 
     Supreme Court required that the Committee do no more than 
     what it did: advise Ms. Lerner that her objection had been 
     overruled and thus that she risked contempt.
       Second, Quinn expressly rejects the Ranking Member's 
     insistence on the talismanic incantation by the Committee of 
     certain magic words. The Supreme Court wrote that ``the 
     committee is not required to resort to any fixed verbal 
     formula to indicate its disposition of the objection. So long 
     as the witness is not forced to guess the committee's ruling, 
     he has no cause to complain.''\81\
       The other cases that the Ranking Member and his lawyers and 
     consultants cite state the same law, and thus serve to 
     confirm the propriety of the Committee's actions. In Emspak 
     v. United States, the Supreme Court--just as in Quinn, and 
     unlike here--noted that the congressional committee had 
     failed to ``overrule petitioner's objection based on the 
     Fifth Amendment'' and thus failed to provide the witness a 
     fair opportunity to choose between answering the relevant 
     question and ``risking prosecution for contempt.''\82\ And in 
     Bart v. United States, the Supreme Court pointedly 
     distinguished the circumstances there from those here. The 
     Court wrote: ``Because of the consistent failure to advise 
     the witness of the committee's position as to his objections, 
     petitioner was left to speculate about the risk of possible 
     prosecution for contempt; he was not given a clear choice 
     between standing on his objection and compliance with a 
     committee ruling.''\83\

                             V. CONCLUSION

       For all these reasons, and others, Rosenberg's opinion that 
     ``the requisite legal foundation for a criminal contempt of 
     Congress prosecution [against Ms. Lerner] . . . ha[ s] not 
     been met and that such a proceeding against [her] under 2 
     U.S.C. [Sec. ] 19[2], if attempted, will be dismissed'' is 
     wrong.\84\ There is no constitutional impediment to (i) the 
     Committee approving a resolution recommending that the full 
     House hold Ms. Lerner in contempt of Congress; (ii) the full 
     House approving a resolution holding Ms. Lerner in contempt 
     of Congress; (iii) if such resolutions are approved, the 
     Speaker certifying the matter to the United States Attorney 
     for the District of Columbia, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 194; 
     and (iv) a grand jury indicting, and the United States 
     Attorney prosecuting, Ms. Lerner under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192.
       At this point, it is clear Ms. Lerner will not comply with 
     the Committee's subpoena for testimony. On May 20, 2013, 
     Chairman Issa issued the subpoena to compel Ms. Lerner's 
     testimony. On May 22, 2013, Ms. Lerner gave an opening 
     statement and then refused to answer any of the Committee's 
     questions and asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege. On June 
     28, 2013, the Committee voted that Ms. Lerner waived her 
     Fifth Amendment privilege. Chairman Issa subsequently 
     recalled her to answer the Committee's questions. When the 
     May 22, 2013 hearing reconvened nine months later, on March 
     5, 2014, she again refused to answer any of the Committee's 
     questions and invoked the Fifth Amendment.
       In short, Ms. Lerner has refused to provide testimony in 
     response to the Committee's duly issued subpoena.

                         VI. RULES REQUIREMENTS

                       Explanation of Amendments

       No amendments were offered.

                        Committee Consideration

       On April 10, 2014, the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform met in open session with a quorum present 
     to consider a report of contempt against Lois G. Lerner, 
     former Director, Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue 
     Service, for failure to comply with a Congressional subpoena. 
     The Committee approved the Report by a roll call vote of 21-
     12 and ordered the Report reported favorably to the House.

                            Roll Call Votes

       The following recorded votes were taken during 
     consideration of the contempt Report:
       The Report was favorably reported to the House, a quorum 
     being present, by a vote of 23 Yeas to 17 Nays.
       Voting Yea: Issa, Mica, Turner, McHenry, Jordan, Chaffetz, 
     Walberg, Lankford, Amash, Gosar, Meehan, DesJarlais, Gowdy, 
     Farenthold, Hastings, Lummis, Massie, Collins, Meadows, 
     Bentivolio, DeSantis.
       Voting Nay: Cummings, Maloney, Clay, Lynch, Cooper, 
     Connolly, Speier, Cartwright, Duckworth, Welch, Horsford, 
     Lujan Grisham.

              Application of Law to the Legislative Branch

       Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
     description of the application of this bill to the 
     legislative branch where the bill relates to the terms and 
     conditions of employment or access to public services and 
     accommodations. The Report recommends that the House of 
     Representatives find Lois G. Lerner, former Director, Exempt 
     Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, in contempt of 
     Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. As such, 
     the Report does not relate to employment or access to public 
     services and accommodations.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

       In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
     (2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and 
     recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of 
     this Report.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

       In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives, the Committee states that 
     pursuant to

[[Page 7075]]

     clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, the Report will assist the House of 
     Representatives in considering whether to cite Lois G. Lerner 
     for contempt for failing to comply with a valid congressional 
     subpoena.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

       No provision of the Report establishes or reauthorizes a 
     program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
     another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
     report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
     pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
     related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
     Federal Domestic Assistance.

                  Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

       The Report does not direct the completion of any specific 
     rule makings within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

       The Committee finds the authority for this Report in 
     article 1, section 1 of the Constitution.

                     Federal Advisory Committee Act

       The Committee finds that the Report does not establish or 
     authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within 
     the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).

                         Earmark Identification

       The Report does not include any congressional earmarks, 
     limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
     in clause 9 of rule XXI.

 Unfunded Mandate Statement, Committee Estimate, Budget Authority and 
               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

       The Committee finds that clauses 3(c)(2), 3(c)(3), and 
     3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, and section 423 of the Congressional 
     Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 
     101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) are 
     inapplicable to this Report. Therefore, the Committee did not 
     request or receive a cost estimate from the Congressional 
     Budget Office and makes no findings as to the budgetary 
     impacts of this Report or costs incurred to carry out the 
     report.


          Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported

       This Report makes no changes in any existing federal 
     statute.


                                ENDNOTES

       1. McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927).
       2. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 1887 (1957).
       3. U.S. CONST., art I. Sec. 5, clause 2.
       4. House Rule X, clause (1)(n).
       5. House Rule X, clause (4)(c)(2).
       6. Id.
       7. House Rule XI, clause (2)(m)(1)(B).
       8. House Rule XI, clause 2(m)(3)(A)(1).
       9. E-mail from Cindy Thomas, Manager, Exempt Organizations 
     Determinations, IRS, to Holly Paz, Manager, Exempt 
     Organizations Technical Unit, IRS (Feb. 25, 2010) [IRSR 
     428451].
       10. Transcribed Interview of Elizabeth Hofacre, Revenue 
     Agent, Exempt Orgs. Determinations Unit, IRS (May 31, 2013).
       11. Transcribed Interview of John Shafer, Group Manager, 
     Exempt Orgs. Determinations Unit, IRS (June 6, 2013).
       12. IRS, Timeline for the 3 exemption applications that 
     were referred to EOT from EOD. [IRSR 58346-49]
       13. See The IRS: Targeting Americans for Their Political 
     Beliefs: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't 
     Reform, 113th Cong. 22 (May 22, 2013) (H. Rpt. 113-33) 
     (statement of Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt Orgs., IRS) 
     (emphasis added).
       14. E-mail from Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt Orgs., IRS to 
     Michael Seto, Manager, Exempt Orgs. Technical Unit, IRS (Feb. 
     1, 2011) [IRSR 161810].
       15. Id.
       16. Transcribed Interview of Michael Seto, Manager, Exempt 
     Orgs. Technical Unit, IRS (July 11, 2013) [hereinafter Seto 
     Interview].
       17. Transcribed Interview of Justin Lowe, Technical Advisor 
     to the Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Gov't Entities Division, 
     IRS (July 23, 2013).
       18. Id.
       19. Transcribed Interview of Holly Paz, Director, Exempt 
     Orgs., Rulings and Agreements, IRS (May 21, 2013).
       20. Id.
       21. Seto Interview, supra note 6.
       22. E-mail from Michael Seto, Manager, Exempt Orgs. 
     Technical Unit, IRS, to Cindy Thomas, Manager, Exempt Orgs. 
     Determinations Unit, IRS (Nov. 6, 2011) [IRSR 69902].
       23. Transcribed Interview of Stephen Daejin Seok, Group 
     Manager, Exempt Orgs. Determinations Unit, IRS (June 19, 
     2013).
       24. Id.
       25. Briefing by Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt Orgs., IRS, 
     to H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform Staff (Feb. 24, 
     2012).
       26. Treasury Inspector Gen. for Tax Admin., What is the 
     timeline for TIGTA's involvement with this tax-exempt issue? 
     (provided to the Committee May 2013).
       27. Transcribed Interview of Steven Miller, Deputy 
     Commissioner, IRS (Nov. 13, 2013) [hereinafter Miller 
     Interview].
       28. Id.
       29. Id.
       30. Id.
       31. Id.
       32. E-mail from Nicole Flax, Chief of Staff to the Deputy 
     Commissioner, IRS, to Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt Orgs., 
     IRS (Apr. 23, 2013) [IRSR 189013]; Miller Interview, supra 
     note 16; Transcribed Interview of Sharon Light, Senior 
     Technical Advisor to the Director, Exempt Orgs., IRS (Sept. 
     5, 2013); E- mail from Nicole Flax, Chief of Staff to the 
     Deputy Commissioner, IRS, to Adewale Adeyemo, Dept. of the 
     Treasury (Apr. 22, 2013) [IRSR 466707].
       33. Eric Lach, IRS Official's Admission Baffled Audience at 
     Tax Panel, Talking Points Memo, May 14, 2013.
       34. Rick Hasen, Transcript of Lois Lerner's Remarks at Tax 
     Meeting Sparking IRS Controversy, Election Law Blog (May 11, 
     2013, 7:37 a.m.), http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50160.
       35. Holder launches probe into IRS targeting of Tea Party 
     groups, FoxNews.com, May 14, 2013.
       36. Rick Hasen, Transcript of Lois Lerner's Remarks at Tax 
     Meeting Sparking IRS Controversy, Election Law Blog (May 11, 
     2013, 7:37 AM), http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50160.
       37. Letter from Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on 
     Oversight & Gov't Reform, to Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt 
     Orgs., IRS (May 14, 2013) (letter inviting Lerner to testify 
     at May 22, 2013 hearing).
       38. Id.
       39. E-mail from William W. Taylor, III, Zuckerman Spaeder 
     LLP, to H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform Majority Staff 
     (May 17, 2013).
       40. Letter from William W. Taylor, III, Zuckerman Spaeder 
     LLP, to Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight 
     & Gov't Reform (May 20, 2013).
       41. E-mail from William W. Taylor, III, Zuckerman Spaeder 
     LLP, to H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform Majority Staff 
     (May 20, 2013).
       42. Letter from William W. Taylor, III, Zuckerman Spaeder 
     LLP, to Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight 
     & Gov't Reform (May 20, 2013).
       43. Letter from Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on 
     Oversight & Gov't Reform to William W. Taylor, III, Zuckerman 
     Spaeder LLP (May 21, 2013) (emphasis added).
       44. Id.
       45. Rule 9(f), Rules of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't 
     Reform, 113th Cong., available at http://oversight.house.gov/
wp-content/uploads/2013/12/OGR-Committee-Rules-113th-
Congress.pdf (last visited April 7, 2014).
       46. The IRS: Targeting Americans for Their Political 
     Beliefs: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't 
     Reform, 113th Cong. 22 (May 22, 2013) (H. Rpt. 113-33) 
     (statement of Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt Orgs., IRS) 
     (emphasis added).
       47. Id.
       48. Id.
       49. Id. (emphasis added).
       50. Id. at 24.
       51. Business Meeting of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't 
     Reform, 113th Cong. 4 (June 28, 2013).
       52. Id.
       53. Id.
       54. Resolution of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform 
     (June 28, 2013), available at http://oversight.house.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2013/06/Resolution-of-the-Committee-on-
Oversight-and-Government-Reform-6-28-131.pdf.
       55. Letter from Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on 
     Oversight & Gov't Reform to William W. Taylor, III, Zuckerman 
     Spaeder LLP (Feb. 25, 2014).
       56. Id.
       57. Id.
       58. Letter from William W. Taylor, III, Zuckerman Spaeder 
     LLP, to Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight 
     & Gov't Reform (Feb. 26, 2014).
       59. The IRS: Targeting Americans for Their Political 
     Beliefs: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't 
     Reform, 113th Cong. (Mar. 5, 2014).
       60. Id.
       61. John D. McKinnon, Former IRS Official Lerner Gave 
     Interview to DOJ, Wall St. J., Mar. 6, 2014, http://
blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/03/06/former-irs-official-lerner-
gave-interview-to-doj/.
       62. Patrick Howley, Oversight lawmaker: Holding Lois Lerner 
     in Contempt Is `Where We're Moving,' Daily Caller, Mar. 6, 
     2014, http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/06/oversight-lawmaker-
holding-lois-lerner-in-contempt-the-right-thing-to-do/.
       63. McKinnon, supra note 61.
       64. Letter from Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member, H. 
     Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform, to Hon. John Boehner, 
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives (Mar. 12, 2014), at 
     1[hereinafter Boehner Letter], attaching Memorandum from 
     Morton Rosenberg, Legislative Consultant, to Hon. Elijah E. 
     Cummings, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't 
     Reform (Mar. 12, 2014) [hereinafter Rosenberg Memo].
       65. Boehner Letter at 1, Attachment at 1; Statement of 
     Stanley M. Brand,  The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, 
     MSNBC, Mar. 12, 2014, available at http://www.msnbc.com/the-
last-word/watch/the-fatal-error-of-issas-irs-blowup-
 193652803735 (last visited Mar. 14, 2014).
       66. Rosenberg Memo at 3.

[[Page 7076]]


       67. Press Release, Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member, 
     H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform (Mar. 26, 2014), 
     available at http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/press-
releases/twenty-five-independent-legal-experts-now-agree-
that-issa-botched-contempt/ (last visited Mar. 27, 2014).
       68. Memorandum, Lois Lerner and the Rosenberg Memorandum, 
     Office of General Counsel, United States House of 
     Representatives (Mar. 25, 2014), available at http://
oversight.house.gov/release/house-counsel-oversight-
committee-can-hold-lerner-contempt/ (last visited Apr. 4, 
     2014).
       69. The IRS: Targeting Americans for Their Political 
     Beliefs: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't 
     Reform, 113th Cong. (Mar. 5, 2014), Tr. at 3.
       70. Id. at 4 (emphasis added).
       71. Letter from Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on 
     Oversight & Gov't Reform, to William W. Taylor, III, Esq., 
     Zuckerman Spaeder LLP (Feb. 25, 2014), at 2 (emphasis added).
       72. See, e.g., House panel finds IRS official waived Fifth 
     Amendment right, can be forced to testify in targeting probe, 
     FoxNews.com, June 28, 2013, available at http://
www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/28/republican-led-house-
panel-challenges-irs-worker-who-took-fifth-amendment/ (last 
     visited Mar. 14, 2014).
       73. Boehner Letter, at 1; Rosenberg Memo at 3.
       74. The subpoena to Lerner ``commanded'' her ``to be and 
     appear'' before the Committee and ``to testify.'' Subpoena, 
     Issued by Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight 
     & Gov't Reform, to Lois G. Lerner (May 17, 2013) (emphasis in 
     original).
       75. The IRS: Targeting Americans for Their Political 
     Beliefs: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov't 
     Reform, 113th Cong. (Mar. 5, 2014), Tr. at 5.
       76. Id.; Rosenberg Memo at 3-4 (Committee did not make 
     ``unequivocally certain'' that Lerner's ``failure to respond 
     would result in [a] criminal contempt prosecution''); id. at 
     2 (Chairman did not pronounce that ``refusal to respond would 
     result'' in a criminal contempt prosecution'') (emphasis 
     added).
       77. Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 170 (1955).
       78. Id. at 166.
       79. Id. (emphasis added).
       80. Boehner Letter, Attachment at 4.
       81. 349 U.S. at 170 (emphasis added).
       82. 349 U.S. at 190, 202 (1955).
       83. 349 U.S. at 219, 223 (1955); id. at 222 (stating issue 
     presented as: ``whether petitioner was apprised of the 
     committee's disposition of his objections'').
       84. Rosenberg Memo at 4. 

[[Page 7077]]

     
     


[[Page 7078]]



[[Page 7079]]



[[Page 7080]]



[[Page 7081]]



[[Page 7082]]



[[Page 7083]]



[[Page 7084]]



[[Page 7085]]



[[Page 7086]]



[[Page 7087]]



[[Page 7088]]



[[Page 7089]]



[[Page 7090]]



[[Page 7091]]



[[Page 7092]]



[[Page 7093]]



[[Page 7094]]



[[Page 7095]]



[[Page 7096]]



[[Page 7097]]



[[Page 7098]]



[[Page 7099]]



[[Page 7100]]



[[Page 7101]]



[[Page 7102]]



[[Page 7103]]



[[Page 7104]]



[[Page 7105]]



[[Page 7106]]



[[Page 7107]]



[[Page 7108]]



[[Page 7109]]



[[Page 7110]]



[[Page 7111]]



[[Page 7112]]



[[Page 7113]]



[[Page 7114]]



[[Page 7115]]



[[Page 7116]]



[[Page 7117]]



[[Page 7118]]



[[Page 7119]]



[[Page 7120]]



[[Page 7121]]



[[Page 7122]]



[[Page 7123]]



[[Page 7124]]



[[Page 7125]]



[[Page 7126]]



[[Page 7127]]



[[Page 7128]]



[[Page 7129]]



[[Page 7130]]



[[Page 7131]]



[[Page 7132]]



[[Page 7133]]



[[Page 7134]]



[[Page 7135]]



[[Page 7136]]



[[Page 7137]]



[[Page 7138]]



[[Page 7139]]



[[Page 7140]]



[[Page 7141]]



[[Page 7142]]



[[Page 7143]]



[[Page 7144]]



[[Page 7145]]



[[Page 7146]]



[[Page 7147]]



[[Page 7148]]



[[Page 7149]]



[[Page 7150]]



[[Page 7151]]



[[Page 7152]]



[[Page 7153]]



[[Page 7154]]



[[Page 7155]]



[[Page 7156]]



[[Page 7157]]



[[Page 7158]]



[[Page 7159]]



[[Page 7160]]



[[Page 7161]]



[[Page 7162]]



[[Page 7163]]



[[Page 7164]]



[[Page 7165]]



[[Page 7166]]



[[Page 7167]]



[[Page 7168]]



[[Page 7169]]



[[Page 7170]]



[[Page 7171]]



[[Page 7172]]



[[Page 7173]]



[[Page 7174]]



[[Page 7175]]



[[Page 7176]]



[[Page 7177]]



[[Page 7178]]



[[Page 7179]]



[[Page 7180]]



[[Page 7181]]



[[Page 7182]]



[[Page 7183]]



[[Page 7184]]



[[Page 7185]]



[[Page 7186]]



[[Page 7187]]



[[Page 7188]]



[[Page 7189]]



[[Page 7190]]



[[Page 7191]]



[[Page 7192]]



[[Page 7193]]



[[Page 7194]]



[[Page 7195]]



[[Page 7196]]



[[Page 7197]]



[[Page 7198]]



[[Page 7199]]



[[Page 7200]]



[[Page 7201]]



[[Page 7202]]



[[Page 7203]]



[[Page 7204]]



[[Page 7205]]



[[Page 7206]]



[[Page 7207]]



[[Page 7208]]



[[Page 7209]]



[[Page 7210]]



[[Page 7211]]



[[Page 7212]]



[[Page 7213]]



[[Page 7214]]



[[Page 7215]]



[[Page 7216]]



[[Page 7217]]



[[Page 7218]]



[[Page 7219]]



[[Page 7220]]



[[Page 7221]]



[[Page 7222]]



[[Page 7223]]



[[Page 7224]]



[[Page 7225]]



[[Page 7226]]



[[Page 7227]]



[[Page 7228]]



[[Page 7229]]



[[Page 7230]]



[[Page 7231]]



[[Page 7232]]



[[Page 7233]]



[[Page 7234]]



[[Page 7235]]



[[Page 7236]]



[[Page 7237]]



[[Page 7238]]



[[Page 7239]]



[[Page 7240]]



[[Page 7241]]



[[Page 7242]]



[[Page 7243]]



[[Page 7244]]



[[Page 7245]]



[[Page 7246]]



[[Page 7247]]



[[Page 7248]]



[[Page 7249]]



[[Page 7250]]



[[Page 7251]]



[[Page 7252]]



[[Page 7253]]



[[Page 7254]]



[[Page 7255]]



[[Page 7256]]



[[Page 7257]]



[[Page 7258]]



[[Page 7259]]



[[Page 7260]]



[[Page 7261]]



[[Page 7262]]



[[Page 7263]]



[[Page 7264]]



[[Page 7265]]



[[Page 7266]]



[[Page 7267]]



[[Page 7268]]



[[Page 7269]]



[[Page 7270]]



[[Page 7271]]



[[Page 7272]]



[[Page 7273]]



[[Page 7274]]



[[Page 7275]]



[[Page 7276]]



[[Page 7277]]



[[Page 7278]]



[[Page 7279]]



[[Page 7280]]



[[Page 7281]]



[[Page 7282]]



[[Page 7283]]



[[Page 7284]]



[[Page 7285]]



[[Page 7286]]



[[Page 7287]]



[[Page 7288]]



[[Page 7289]]



[[Page 7290]]



[[Page 7291]]



[[Page 7292]]



[[Page 7293]]



[[Page 7294]]



[[Page 7295]]



[[Page 7296]]



[[Page 7297]]



[[Page 7298]]



[[Page 7299]]



[[Page 7300]]



[[Page 7301]]



[[Page 7302]]



[[Page 7303]]



[[Page 7304]]



[[Page 7305]]



[[Page 7306]]



[[Page 7307]]



[[Page 7308]]



[[Page 7309]]



[[Page 7310]]



[[Page 7311]]



[[Page 7312]]



[[Page 7313]]



[[Page 7314]]



[[Page 7315]]



[[Page 7316]]



[[Page 7317]]



[[Page 7318]]



[[Page 7319]]



[[Page 7320]]



[[Page 7321]]



[[Page 7322]]



[[Page 7323]]



[[Page 7324]]



[[Page 7325]]



[[Page 7326]]



[[Page 7327]]



[[Page 7328]]



[[Page 7329]]



[[Page 7330]]



[[Page 7331]]



[[Page 7332]]



[[Page 7333]]



[[Page 7334]]



[[Page 7335]]



[[Page 7336]]



[[Page 7337]]



[[Page 7338]]



[[Page 7339]]



[[Page 7340]]



[[Page 7341]]



[[Page 7342]]



[[Page 7343]]



[[Page 7344]]



[[Page 7345]]



[[Page 7346]]



[[Page 7347]]



[[Page 7348]]



[[Page 7349]]



[[Page 7350]]



[[Page 7351]]



[[Page 7352]]



[[Page 7353]]



[[Page 7354]]



[[Page 7355]]



[[Page 7356]]



[[Page 7357]]



[[Page 7358]]



[[Page 7359]]



[[Page 7360]]



[[Page 7361]]



[[Page 7362]]



[[Page 7363]]



[[Page 7364]]



[[Page 7365]]



[[Page 7366]]



[[Page 7367]]



[[Page 7368]]



[[Page 7369]]



[[Page 7370]]



[[Page 7371]]



[[Page 7372]]



[[Page 7373]]



[[Page 7374]]



[[Page 7375]]



[[Page 7376]]



[[Page 7377]]



[[Page 7378]]



[[Page 7379]]



[[Page 7380]]



[[Page 7381]]



[[Page 7382]]



[[Page 7383]]



[[Page 7384]]



[[Page 7385]]



[[Page 7386]]



[[Page 7387]]



[[Page 7388]]



[[Page 7389]]



[[Page 7390]]



[[Page 7391]]



[[Page 7392]]



[[Page 7393]]



[[Page 7394]]



[[Page 7395]]



[[Page 7396]]



[[Page 7397]]



[[Page 7398]]



[[Page 7399]]



[[Page 7400]]



[[Page 7401]]



[[Page 7402]]



[[Page 7403]]



[[Page 7404]]



[[Page 7405]]



[[Page 7406]]



[[Page 7407]]



[[Page 7408]]



[[Page 7409]]



[[Page 7410]]



[[Page 7411]]



[[Page 7412]]



[[Page 7413]]



[[Page 7414]]



[[Page 7415]]



[[Page 7416]]



[[Page 7417]]



[[Page 7418]]



[[Page 7419]]



[[Page 7420]]



[[Page 7421]]



[[Page 7422]]



[[Page 7423]]



[[Page 7424]]



[[Page 7425]]



[[Page 7426]]



[[Page 7427]]



[[Page 7428]]



[[Page 7429]]



[[Page 7430]]



[[Page 7431]]



[[Page 7432]]



[[Page 7433]]



[[Page 7434]]



[[Page 7435]]



[[Page 7436]]



[[Page 7437]]



[[Page 7438]]



[[Page 7439]]



[[Page 7440]]



[[Page 7441]]



[[Page 7442]]



[[Page 7443]]



[[Page 7444]]



[[Page 7445]]



[[Page 7446]]



[[Page 7447]]



[[Page 7448]]



[[Page 7449]]



[[Page 7450]]



[[Page 7451]]



[[Page 7452]]



[[Page 7453]]



[[Page 7454]]



[[Page 7455]]



[[Page 7456]]



[[Page 7457]]



[[Page 7458]]



[[Page 7459]]



[[Page 7460]]



[[Page 7461]]



[[Page 7462]]



[[Page 7463]]



[[Page 7464]]



[[Page 7465]]



[[Page 7466]]



[[Page 7467]]



[[Page 7468]]



[[Page 7469]]



[[Page 7470]]



[[Page 7471]]



[[Page 7472]]



[[Page 7473]]



[[Page 7474]]



[[Page 7475]]



[[Page 7476]]



[[Page 7477]]



[[Page 7478]]



[[Page 7479]]



[[Page 7480]]



[[Page 7481]]



[[Page 7482]]



[[Page 7483]]



[[Page 7484]]



[[Page 7485]]



[[Page 7486]]



[[Page 7487]]



[[Page 7488]]



[[Page 7489]]



[[Page 7490]]


  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 574) recommending 
that the House of Representatives find Lois G. Lerner, Former Director, 
Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, in contempt of Congress 
for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 568, the 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                          House Resolution 574

       Resolved, That because Lois G. Lerner, former Director, 
     Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, offered a 
     voluntary statement in testimony before the Committee, was 
     found by the Committee to have waived her Fifth Amendment 
     Privilege, was informed of the Committee's decision of 
     waiver, and continued to refuse to testify before the 
     Committee, Ms. Lerner shall be found to be in contempt of 
     Congress for failure to comply with a congressional subpoena.
       Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 and 194, the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the 
     report of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
     detailing the refusal of Ms. Lerner to testify before the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as directed by 
     subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the District of 
     Columbia, to the end that Ms. Lerner be proceeded against in 
     the manner and form provided by law.
       Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise 
     take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 50 
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or 
their designees.
  After debate on the resolution, it shall be in order to consider a 
motion to refer if offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cummings), or his designee, which shall be debatable for 10 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings) each will control 25 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material into the Record for the resolution made 
in order under the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, on May 22, 2013, the committee started a hearing to 
investigate allegations that the IRS had, in fact, used a flawed 
process in reviewing applications for tax-exempt status.
  To wit, I subpoenaed Lois Lerner to testify at that hearing because 
she was head of IRS' Exempt Organization's Division, the office that 
executed and, we believe, targeted conservative groups. The two 
divisions of the IRS most involved with the targeting were the EO 
Determinations unit in Cincinnati and the EO Technical unit in 
Washington, D.C., headed by Lois Lerner.
  Before the hearing, Ms. Lerner's lawyer notified the committee that 
she would invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege and decline to answer 
any questions from our committee members. Instead of doing so, Ms. 
Lerner read a voluntary statement--self-selected statement that 
included a series of specifics declarations of her innocence.
  She said:

       I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. 
     I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have 
     not provided false information to this or any other 
     committee.

  She then refused to answer our questions. She invoked her Fifth 
Amendment right. She wouldn't even answer questions about declarations 
she made during her opening statement.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not how the Fifth Amendment is meant to be used. 
The Fifth Amendment is protection. It is a shield. Lois Lerner used it 
as a sword to cut and then defend herself from any response.
  A witness cannot come before the committee to make a voluntary 
statement--self-serving statement and then refuse to answer questions. 
You don't get to use the public hearing to tell the press and the 
public your side of the story and then invoke the Fifth.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, after invoking the Fifth, when asked about 
previous testimony she had made and documents, she answered and 
authenticated those and then, again, went back to asserting her Fifth 
Amendment rights.
  It is disappointing that things have come to this point. Lois Lerner 
had almost a year to reconsider her decision not to answer questions to 
Congress.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. LYNCH. The gentleman was recognized for 2 minutes. It is way past 
2 minutes. I was just wondering if we were keeping track of time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would the gentleman from California like to 
yield himself additional time?
  Mr. ISSA. I would be happy to anytime the Chair tells me my time has 
expired.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  In the meantime, after invoking, she gave a no-strings-attached 
interview to the Justice Department. This was said to the press 
entirely voluntarily before a large gathering. Her position with 
respect to complying with a duly issued subpoena has become clear. She 
won't. Her testimony is a missing piece of an investigation into IRS 
targeting.
  We have now conducted 40 transcribed interviews and reviewed hundreds 
of thousands of documents.
  Mr. Speaker, the facts lead to Lois Lerner.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just shy of 1 year ago, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 
Administration reported the IRS had used inappropriate criteria to 
review applicants for tax-exempt status.
  The very same day, Chairman Issa went on national TV, before he 
received a single document or interviewed a single witness, and said 
the following: ``This was the targeting of the President's political 
enemies effectively, and lies about it during the election year.''
  Republicans have spent the past year trying to prove these 
allegations. The IRS has spent more than $14 million responding to 
Congress and has produced more than a half a million pages of 
documents. We have interviewed 39 witnesses, 40 witnesses, IRS 
witnesses, Treasury Department employees; and after all of that, we 
have not found any evidence of White House involvement or political 
motivation.
  Yesterday, I issued a report with key portions from the nearly 40 
interviews conducted by the committee to date; and these were 
witnesses, Mr. Speaker, called by the majority. These interviews 
showed, definitively, that there was no evidence of any White House 
direction or political bias; instead they describe in detail how the 
inappropriate terms were first developed and how there was inadequate 
guidance on how to process the application.
  Now, let me be clear that I am not defending Ms. Lerner. I wanted to 
hear what she had to say. I have questions about why she was unaware of 
the inappropriate criteria for more than a year after they were 
created. I want to know why she did not mention the inappropriate 
criteria in her letters to Congress, but I could not vote to violate an 
individual's Fifth Amendment rights, just because I want to hear what 
she has to say.
  A much greater principle is at stake here today, the sanctity of the 
Fifth Amendment rights for all citizens of the United States of 
America; and I will not walk a path that has been tread by Senator 
McCarthy and the

[[Page 7491]]

House Un-American Activities Committee.
  In this case, a vote for contempt not only would endanger the rights 
of American citizens, but it would be a pointless and costly exercise.
  When Senator McCarthy pursued a similar case, the judge dismissed it. 
The Supreme Court has said that a witness does not waive her rights by 
professing her innocence.
  In addition, more than 30 independent experts have now come forward 
to conclude that Chairman Issa botched the contempt procedure by not 
giving Ms. Lerner the proper warnings at the March 5 hearing, when he 
rushed to cut off my microphone and adjourn the hearing before any 
Democrat had the chance to utter a syllable.
  For instance, Stan Brand, who served as the House Counsel from 1976 
to 1983, concluded that Chairman Issa's actions were ``fatal to any 
subsequent prosecution.''
  The experts who came forward are from all across the country and all 
across the political spectrum. J. Richard Broughton, a member of the 
Republican National Lawyers Association and a law professor, concluded 
that Ms. Lerner ``would likely have a defense to any ensuing criminal 
prosecution for contempt pursuant to the existing Supreme Court 
precedent.''
  I didn't say that. The Republican National Lawyers Association member 
said that.
  Rather than squandering our valuable resources, pursuing a contempt 
vote that more than 30 independent experts have concluded will fail in 
court, we should release the nearly 40 transcripts, in their entirety, 
that have not yet been made public and allow all Americans to read the 
unvarnished facts for themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Look, here is what we know: Lois Lerner was at the center of this 
scandal right from the get-go.
  We know that she waived her Fifth Amendment rights on two separate 
occasions. She came in front of the committee, as the chairman pointed 
out, and made multiple factual statements. When you do that, when you 
make all kinds of assertions, you then don't get a chance to say: oh, 
now, I invoke my Fifth Amendment privileges.
  She waived it a second time when she agreed to be interviewed by the 
Department of Justice. Think about that. She is willing to sit down 
with the people who can put her in jail, but she is not willing to 
answer our questions.
  When you waive it in one proceeding, you can't exercise it somewhere 
else, according to the case law here in the District of Columbia.
  Here is what we also know: John Koskinen, the new IRS Commissioner, 
says it may take as many as 2 years for him to get us all Lois Lerner's 
emails.
  Most importantly, we know Lois Lerner and the Internal Revenue 
Service systematically targeted American citizens, systematically 
targeted groups for exercising their First Amendment rights.
  Think about that for a second, Mr. Chairman. Think about your First 
Amendment rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of 
association, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech--and speech, in 
particular--that is political. To speak out against your government, 
your most fundamental right, that is what they targeted.
  So to get to the truth, we need to use every tool we can to compel 
Ms. Lerner, the lady at the center of the scandal, to come forward and 
answer our questions so the American people can understand why their 
First Amendment rights were targeted because we know--we know the 
criminal investigation at the Department of Justice is a sham. They 
have already leaked to The Wall Street Journal. No one is going to be 
prosecuted.
  They already had the head of the Executive Branch, the President of 
the United States, go on national television and say no corruption, not 
even a smidgeon; and the person leading the investigation is a maxed-
out contributor to the President's campaign.
  We know that is not going to work.

                              {time}  1630

  The only route to the truth is through the House of Representatives 
and compelling Ms. Lerner to answer our questions. That is why this 
resolution is so important. That is why I am supporting it. That is why 
I hope my colleagues on the other side will support it as well. It is 
about this most fundamental right, and Ms. Lerner is at the center of 
the storm. We want her simply--simply--to answer the questions.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, as Professor 
Green of Fordham University has said, it is explicit that a person does 
not waive a Fifth Amendment right by answering questions outside of a 
formal setting or by making statements that were not under oath, when 
he referred to the issue of her making statements to the Justice 
Department.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Speier), a member of our committee.
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the ranking member for his leadership and for the 
opportunity to say a few words here on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not here to defend Lois Lerner today, but I am here 
to defend the Constitution and every American's right to assert the 
Fifth Amendment so as not to incriminate themselves, and every single 
Member of this body should be as committed to doing the same thing. I 
am also here to defend the integrity of the committee and the rules of 
that committee.
  Lois Lerner pled the Fifth Amendment before our committee, and she 
has professed her innocence, pure and simple. Thirty independent legal 
experts have said that the proceedings were constitutionally deficient 
to bring a contempt proceeding. They were constitutionally deficient 
because the chair did not overrule Ms. Lerner's Fifth Amendment 
assertion and order her to answer the questions. And as long as that 
deficiency is there, there is no reason to move forward with that 
effort today.
  But let's move on to the bigger picture: Every single 501(c)(4) that 
was in the queue before the IRS could have self-certified; they didn't 
even need to be in that queue. So whether or not there was a list of 
progressive organizations and conservative organizations that they were 
using to somehow get to the thousands of applications that they had, 
they could have moved aside and self-certified.
  There have been 39 witnesses before this committee. There have been 
530 pages of documents. There is no smoking gun. But the other side is 
locked and loaded. They are just shooting blanks.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, if they hadn't made their applications, 
perhaps they wouldn't have been asked the inappropriate, abusive 
questions like, What books do you read? Who are your donors? as has 
happened.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the leader of the House.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from California, Chairman Issa, for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution to 
hold Ms. Lois Lerner in contempt. The substance of this resolution 
should not be taken lightly. The contempt of the U.S. House of 
Representatives is a serious matter and one that must be taken only 
when duly warranted. There is no doubt in my mind the conditions have 
been met for today's action.
  Mr. Speaker, there are few government abuses more serious than using 
the IRS to punish American citizens for their political beliefs. The 
very idea of the IRS being used to intimidate and silence critics of a 
certain political philosophy is egregious. It is so egregious that it 
has practically been a cliche of government corruption in works of 
fiction for decades, ever since President Nixon's administration.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, in this instance, under Ms. Lerner's 
watch, this corruption became all too real. Conservatives were 
routinely targeted and silenced by the IRS leading

[[Page 7492]]

up to the 2012 election, unjustly and with malice. Those targeted were 
deprived of their civil right to an unbiased administration of the law. 
These citizens, these moms and dads simply trying to play within the 
rules and make their voices heard, were left waiting without answers 
until Election Day had come and gone.
  Liberal groups were not targeted, as my colleagues across the aisle 
like to claim. Only conservative groups were deliberately singled out 
because of their political beliefs, and they were subjected to delays, 
inappropriate questions, and unjust denials.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are owed a government that they can 
trust, not a government that they fear. The only way to rebuild this 
trust is to investigate exactly how these abuses occurred and to ensure 
that they never happen again. Whether you are a conservative or a 
liberal, a Republican or a Democrat or hold any other political or 
philosophical position, your rights must be protected from this 
administration and all those that come after it.
  For nearly a full year, Lois Lerner has refused to testify before 
this House about the singling out and targeting of conservative 
organizations. She spoke up and gave a detailed assertion of her 
innocence and then refused to answer questions. She later spoke with 
DOJ attorneys for hours but still refused to answer a lawful subpoena 
and testify to the American public. As a public servant, she decided to 
forgo cooperation, to forgo truth and transparency.
  In 2013, Ms. Lerner joked in one uncovered email that perhaps she 
could get a job with Organizing for America, President Obama's 
political arm. This is no surprise. Our committees have found that Ms. 
Lerner used her position to unfairly deny conservative groups equal 
protection under the law. Ms. Lerner impeded official investigations. 
She risked exposing, and actually may have exposed, confidential 
taxpayer information in the process. Day after day, action after 
action, Ms. Lerner exposed herself as a servant to her political 
philosophy, rather than a servant to the American people.
  This, Mr. Speaker, is why the House has taken the extraordinary 
action of referring Ms. Lerner to the Department of Justice for 
criminal prosecution and is why we will request a special counsel to 
investigate this case.
  Not only has the President asserted that there is ``not even a 
smidgeon of corruption'' at the IRS, but leaks from the Department of 
Justice have indicated that no one will be prosecuted. That is not 
surprising, as a top donor to the President's campaign is playing a key 
role in their investigation, potentially compromising any semblance of 
independence and justice. An independent, nonpartisan special 
prosecutor is needed to ensure a fair investigation that all Americans 
can trust.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to know the full context of 
why these actions were taken. As early as 2010, leading Democratic 
leaders were urging the IRS to take action against conservative groups. 
How and why was the decision made to take action against them?
  The American people, Ms. Lerner's employers, deserve answers. They 
deserve accountability. They deserve to know that this will never 
happen again, no matter what your political persuasion. The American 
people deserve better.
  Because of Ms. Lerner's actions, because of her unwillingness to 
fully testify, and because she has refused to legally cooperate with 
this investigation, I urge my colleagues in the House to hold Ms. 
Lerner in contempt.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in response to those recent allegations, I do want to 
point out that our committee did look at the question of political 
motivation in selecting tax exemption applications. We asked the 
inspector general, Russell George, on May 17, 2013, in a hearing before 
the Ways and Means Committee: ``Did you find any evidence of political 
motivation in the selection of tax-exempt applications?'' The inspector 
general who investigated this case testified in response: ``We did not, 
sir.''
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this contempt resolution. 
What began as a necessary and compelling bipartisan investigation into 
the targeting of American citizens by the Internal Revenue Service has 
now deteriorated into the very sort of dangerous and careless 
government overreaching that our committee was set out to investigate 
in the first place.
  The gentleman from California commenced this investigation in May of 
2013 by stating the following during his opening statement: ``When 
government power is used to target Americans for exercising their 
constitutional rights, there is nothing we, as Representatives, should 
find more important than to take it seriously, get to the bottom of it, 
and eradicate the behavior.''
  I would remind the chairman that our solemn duty as lawmakers, to 
safeguard the constitutional rights of every American, does not only 
extend to cases where a powerful Federal department has deprived 
citizens of freedoms vested in the First Amendment, rather we must be 
equally vigilant when the power of government is brought down on 
Americans who have asserted their rights under the Fifth Amendment. And 
it is guaranteed that no person shall be compelled to be a witness 
against him- or herself nor be deprived life, liberty, and property 
without due process of law. In our system where ``innocent until proven 
guilty'' lies at the bedrock of our constitutional protections, Ms. 
Lerner's brief assertions of innocence, her 36 words, should not be 
enough to vitiate her Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.
  Regrettably, this contempt resolution utterly fails to reflect the 
seriousness with which we should approach the constitutional issue at 
stake here. In the face of Supreme Court precedent and a vast body of 
legal expert opinion holding that Ms. Lerner did not, in fact, waive 
her Fifth Amendment privilege by professing her innocence, Chairman 
Issa has moved forward with contempt proceedings without even affording 
the members of our own committee the opportunity to receive public 
testimony from legal experts on this important constitutional question.
  As held by the Supreme Court in 1949 in Smith v. United States:

       Testimonial waiver is not to be lightly inferred . . . and 
     the courts accordingly indulge every reasonable presumption 
     against finding a testimonial waiver.

  Chairman Issa has also chosen to pursue contempt against Ms. Lerner 
after refusing an offer from her attorney for a brief 1-week delay so 
that his client could finally provide the testimony that Members on 
both sides of this aisle have been asking for.
  These legally flawed contempt proceedings bring us no closer to 
receiving Ms. Lerner's testimony and have only served to divert our 
time, focus, and resources away from our rightful inquiry into the 
troubling events at the IRS. They are also reflective of the partisan 
manner in which this $14 million investigation--so far--has been 
conducted to date.
  Chairman Issa has refused to release the full transcripts of the now 
39 transcribed interviews conducted by committee staff with relevant 
IRS and Treasury officials. He has also recently released two staff 
reports on these events that were not even provided to the Democratic 
members prior to their release.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
resolution.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record. It is now 
40 transcribed interviews, and we have received 12,000 emails from Lois 
Lerner today. So that $14 million probably went up a little bit because 
today the IRS finally turned over some of the documents they owed this 
committee under subpoena for over half a year.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, there is probably nothing more sacred to Americans, 
nothing more important to protect, than the democratic electoral 
process which has made this, by far, the greatest country

[[Page 7493]]

in the world, giving everyone an opportunity to participate.

                              {time}  1645

  We are here today to hold Lois Lerner in contempt. It has been stated 
she didn't have her rights recognized. She has the right to take the 
Fifth. She has done that under the Constitution. We brought her in 
twice, May 22, 2013, and March 2014. She began--and you can see the 
tapes--declaring her innocence. Even before that, when it was pointed 
out that she was at the heart of this matter--in fact, everyone, her 
employees, when she tried to throw them under the bus, they said she 
threw them under a convoy of Mack trucks.
  Every road leads to Lois Lerner. Lois Lerner held the Congress of the 
United States in contempt and is holding it in contempt. Lois Lerner 
held the electoral process that is so sacred to the country in 
contempt. Lois Lerner has held the American people and the process that 
they cherish and the chief financial agency, the IRS--whom we all have 
to account to--as a tool to manipulate a national election. This was a 
targeted, directed, and focused attempt, and every road leads to Lois 
Lerner.
  She has had twice the opportunity to come before Congress and to tell 
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and she has failed to do 
that. I urge that we hold Lois Lerner in contempt. That is our 
responsibility, and it must be done.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman who 
just spoke, even the IG found that Lois Lerner did not learn about 
these inappropriate terms until about a year afterwards, the IG that 
was appointed by a Republican President.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Connolly), a distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the distinguished 
ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I 
think, Mr. Speaker, if the Founders were here today and if they had 
witnessed the proceedings on the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee with respect to Ms. Lois Lerner, they would have unanimously 
reaffirmed their commitment to the Fifth Amendment because rights were 
trampled on, frankly, starting with the First Amendment rights of the 
ranking member himself, who was cut off and not allowed to speak even 
after the chairman availed himself of the opportunity for an opening 
statement and no fewer than seven questions before cutting off entirely 
the ranking member of our committee.
  But then we proceeded to trample on the Fifth Amendment while we were 
at it, and case law is what governs here. The court has said the self-
incrimination clause, the Fifth Amendment, must be accorded liberal 
construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure since the 
respect normally accorded the privilege is buttressed by the 
presumption of innocence accorded to the defendant in a criminal trial. 
In other words, it is the same. It is the equivalent of the presumption 
of innocence.
  Madison said that if all men--and he meant all men and women, I am 
sure--were angels, we wouldn't need the Fifth Amendment. Lois Lerner is 
not to be defended here. She is not a heroic character. But she is a 
citizen who has an enumerated right in the Constitution of the United 
States. The relevant case, besides Quinn v. the United States, comes 
from the 1950s. A U.S. citizen, Diantha Hoag, was taken before the 
permanent subcommittee, and she was asked questions. She, also, like 
Lois Lerner, had a prefatory statement declaiming her innocence that 
she was not a spy, she had not engaged in subversion, and then she 
proceeded to invoke her Fifth Amendment, just like Lois Lerner.
  In fact, the difference is Ms. Hoag actually once in a while answered 
``yes'' or ``no'' to some questions put to her. She was found to be in 
contempt. The chairman of the committee jumped on it, just like our 
chairman did, and said, aha, gotcha. Two years later, the court found 
otherwise. The court unanimously ruled that Ms. Hoag had not waived her 
Fifth Amendment right. She was entitled to a statement of innocence, 
and that didn't somehow vitiate her invocation of her Fifth Amendment 
right, and her Fifth Amendment right was upheld.
  This is about trampling on the constitutional rights of U.S. 
citizens--and for a very crass reason, for a partisan, political 
reason. We heard the distinguished majority leader, my colleague and 
friend from Virginia, assert something that is absolutely not true, 
which is that only conservative groups were targeted by the IRS. That 
is not true, and we have testimony it is not true. Words like 
``Occupy,'' ``ACORN,'' and ``progressive'' were all part of the so-
called BOLO list. They, too, were looked at.
  This was an incompetent, ham-handed effort by one regional office in 
Cincinnati by the IRS. Was it right? Absolutely not. But does it rise 
to the level of a scandal, or the false assertion by the chairman of 
our committee on television, as the ranking member cited, that somehow 
it goes all the way to the White House picking on political enemies? 
Flat out untrue, not a scintilla of evidence that that is true. And to 
have the entire House of Representatives now voting on the contempt 
citation and declaring unilaterally that a U.S. citizen has waived her 
constitutional rights does no credit to this House and is a low moment 
that evokes the spirit of Joe McCarthy from a long ago era. Shame on us 
for what we are about to do.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, nobody answered the debunking that we put out, 
this document, nobody. This document makes it clear it was all about 
targeting and abusing conservative groups, and the gentleman from 
Virginia knows that very well.
  With that, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), who has championed so many of these issues in 
our investigations.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, about 3 years ago, all of our offices 
started getting phone calls from constituents saying they are being 
asked very unusual questions by the IRS. They were applying for non-
profit status. They were patriot groups, they were Tea Party groups, 
and they were constitutional groups. Whatever their name might be, they 
were getting these questions coming back in. Questions like: Tell us, 
as the IRS, every conversation you have had with a legislator and the 
contents of those conversations. Tell us, and give us copies of the 
documents that are only given to members of your organization. If there 
is a private part of your Web site that is only set aside for members, 
show us all of those pages. And by the way, all of those questions were 
prefaced with a statement from the IRS as, whatever documents you give 
us will also be made public to everyone.
  So the statement was: Tell us what you privately talked about with 
legislators, and tell us what only your members get because we are 
going to publish it.
  So, of course, we started to get questions about that. The inspector 
general starts an investigation on that, and on May the 10th of last 
year, 2013, Lois Lerner stands up in a conference, plants a question in 
the audience to talk about something completely irrelevant to the 
conference so she can leak out that this investigation is about to be 
burst out. Four days later, the inspector general launches this 
investigation and says that conservative groups have been unfairly 
targeted--298 groups have their applications held, isolated. They were 
asked for all these things, and when they turned documents in, they 
were stored. The initial accusation was that this was a crazy group 
from Cincinnati that did this.
  So our committee happened to bring in these folks from Cincinnati. 
They all said they wanted to be able to advance these applications, and 
they were told, no, hold them. We asked the names of the people in 
Washington who told them to hold them. We brought those folks in. They 
said they wanted to also move them, and they were told by the counsel's 
office to hold them.
  As we continued to work through point after point, through person 
after

[[Page 7494]]

person, all of them come back to Lois Lerner's office, Lois Lerner, who 
had come in before us May 22, 2013, made a long statement professing 
her innocence, saying she had done nothing wrong, had broken no law, 
and then said: I won't answer questions.
  What is at stake here is a constitutional principle: can a person 
stand before a court or before the Congress and make a long statement 
saying ``I have done nothing wrong'' and then choose to not answer 
questions? This is a precedent before every Congress from here on out 
and in front of every court. Can this be done?
  We would say no. It is not just a statement about accepting that she 
is guilty, though all the evidence leads back to her and her office. It 
is that if you have the right to remain silent, do you actually remain 
silent during that time period?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that we are 
talking about the constitutional rights of a United States citizen, and 
we do not have the right to remain silent, as Members of Congress, if 
those rights are being trampled on.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the 
distinguished leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if this is a precedent, it is a bad 
precedent. It is a dangerous precedent. It is a precedent that we ought 
not to make. ``Read the Constitution,'' I heard over and over and over 
again. I have read probably the opinions of 25 lawyers whom I respect 
from many great institutions in this country, none of whom, as I am 
sure the ranking member has pointed out, none of whom believe that the 
precedent supports this action.
  Mr. Speaker, what a waste of the people's time for Congress to spend 
this week on politics and not policy. We are about to vote on a 
resolution that is really a partisan, political message. Everyone here 
agrees--everyone--that the IRS should never target anyone based on 
anything other than what they owe in taxes, not their political beliefs 
or any other traits other than their liability and their opportunities 
to pay their fair share to the United States of America.
  In fact, during an exhaustive investigation into the IRS, Chairman 
Issa's committee interviewed 39 witnesses, analyzed more than 530,000 
pages, and could not find the conspiracy they were looking for--that 
they always look for, that they always allege. Fourteen million dollars 
of taxpayer money has already been spent on this investigation, and all 
that was found was that which we already knew: that the division led by 
Ms. Lerner suffered from fundamental administrative and managerial 
shortcomings that bore no connection to politics or to partisanship.
  Independent legal experts have concluded that Chairman Issa's efforts 
to hold Ms. Lerner in contempt of Congress is constitutionally 
deficient. But this resolution before us today is, of course, not meant 
to generate policy. It is meant to generate headlines. Republicans, 
once again, are showing that they are more interested in partisan, 
election-year gimmicks than working in a bipartisan way to tackle our 
country's most pressing challenges. We ought to turn to the important 
matters of creating jobs, raising the minimum wage, and restoring 
emergency unemployment for those who are struggling to find work--
issues the American people overwhelmingly support and want their 
Congress to address.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to give this partisan resolution 
the vote it deserves and defeat it so that we can turn to the people's 
business.
  In closing, let me say this, Mr. Speaker. There are 435 of us in this 
body.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, do not think about party on 
this vote. Think about precedent. Think about this institution. Think 
about the Constitution of the United States of America. And if you 
haven't read, read some of the legal opinions that say you have to 
establish a predicate before you can tell an American that they will be 
held criminally liable if they don't respond to your questions.
  That is what this issue is about. It is not about party, it is not 
about any of us, but about the constitutional protections that every 
American deserves and ought to be given.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 8\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 14\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to correct the record. Earlier, 
a minority Member stated that, with 35 words said by Lois Lerner, our 
count is 305. Hopefully, their inaccuracy of their experts will be 
considered the same.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. The 
people's House has thoroughly documented Lois Lerner's trespasses, 
including her history of targeting conservative groups, as well as the 
rules and laws she has broken. In fact, there is a 443-page committee 
report supporting these allegations.
  We know that Ms. Lerner refuses to comply with a duly-issued subpoena 
from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and without 
Ms. Lerner's full cooperation, the American public will not have the 
answer it needs from its government.
  My friends across the aisle have continuously cried foul over this 
legitimate investigation; but where is their evidence to put this issue 
to rest?
  Let me say that I do not enjoy holding any Federal official in 
contempt or pursuing criminal charges because doing so means that we 
have a government run amuck and a U.S. Attorney General who does not 
uphold the rule of law. Such a predicament is a lose-lose situation for 
all Americans and our Constitution.
  As uncomfortable as it may be, it is our job to proceed in the name 
of government accountability. I support this resolution, and it is way 
past time for contempt for Lois Lerner.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that the American people hold the 
Congress of the United States in such lowest esteem. We are providing 
them with some additional basis to have that opinion, and this here is 
what it is.
  Number one, this was an important investigation. We should do it. We 
should do it energetically, and we should do it together. Instead, 
information was constantly withheld from the minority.
  Our own ranking member was cut off with really quite a bold gesture 
by the chairman at a certain point; and it created an impression that 
it was going to be a one-sided affair, rather than a balanced, 
cooperative approach. That is essential to having any credibility.
  The second thing is: What do we do about Lois Lerner who took the 
Fifth? We have a debate about whether the manner in which she did that 
caused her to waive that Fifth Amendment privilege. That is a fair and 
square question.
  Your side thinks she waived it and, therefore, should be held in 
contempt. Our side--and I think we have the weight of legal opinion--
said she didn't waive it; but you know what, that is a legal question, 
and there is a document called the Constitution that separates the 
powers.
  Whether this person crossed the line or didn't is a legal 
determination to be made by judges, not by a vote of Congress. Since 
when did Congress get to vote on judicial issues?
  If we want this to be resolved in a way that has any credibility, it 
should be decided by the courts. Send this to the courts. Let the 
judges decide whether this was a waiver or it wasn't; but the idea that 
a Congress--this time run by Republicans, next time run by Democrats--
can have a vote to make a

[[Page 7495]]

legal determination about the rights of a citizen is in complete 
conflict with the separation of powers in our Constitution.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont in advance 
for his ``yes'' vote on this because the only way to send this to the 
court to be decided is to vote ``yes.'' In fact, we are not trying Lois 
Lerner. We are determining that she should be tried. The question 
should be before a Federal judge.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. 
Lummis), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I contend that, in the interest of 
protecting the constitutional rights of the hardworking taxpayers of 
this country from the behavior of the IRS, from Lois Lerner--herself a 
lawyer--who understands that you can waive your right to remain silent 
as to matters to which you chose to testify, and that she did that. She 
said: I have done nothing wrong, I have broken no laws.
  Subsequently, we find out that she blamed the IRS employees in 
Cincinnati for wrongdoing that was going on here in Washington, D.C., 
that she was targeting conservative groups and only conservative 
groups, thereby violating their First Amendment constitutional rights.
  The Oversight Committee needs to find the truth, and to that end, we 
need answers from Lois Lerner. The committee has sought these answers 
for more than a year. Lerner's refusal to truthfully answer these 
questions posed by the committee cannot be tolerated. I urge a ``yes'' 
vote and, following that, swift action by the Justice Department to 
ensure that Lois Lerner provides answers on exactly what the IRS was up 
to.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a member of the committee.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I think all of us agree 
that one of the responsibilities of our committee is to investigate and 
try to make sure that the laws are carried out the way we intended and 
to try and make sure that the money is being spent the way we intended 
for it to be spent.
  It seems to me that we have spent $14 million, up to this point, 
investigating this one issue; and while I think the investigations are 
designed to tell us something we don't know, we have not learned 
anything new. We have not learned of any kind of conspiracy. We have 
not learned of any kind of underhandedness.
  The only thing that we know is that we have said to a United States 
citizen that you cannot invoke the Fifth and say: I have a right not to 
answer questions if I think it is going to damage me.
  I would much rather see us spend the $14 million creating jobs, 
providing educational opportunities for those who need it, doing 
something that will change the direction and the flavor of the 
economics of our country, rather than wasting $14 million more on 
continuous investigations. I vote ``no.''
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. The American people still have not 
received answers that they deserve, I believe, from Lois Lerner. Just 
sitting here on the floor and listening for the last few minutes, it 
just really amazes me about what is being said.
  It is said that, if the chairman had done this or if we had done 
something else, if we had not done this, and maybe she would have had 
more time, and maybe we would have found out the truth. Well, maybe if 
I turn my head sideways and squinted real hard, maybe she would have 
talked then.
  But she did talk. She said a lot of things, including making 17 
different factual assertions, and then decided: oops, don't want to 
talk anymore.
  Here is the problem: no one has said or even implied that you can't 
assert your Fifth Amendment right. That has never been said on this 
floor. It has never been asserted by any member of the Republican 
Party.
  What has been asserted is you can't come in and you can't say: I have 
done nothing wrong, no problem, I am clean; and, oh, by the way, quit 
asking because I am not going to answer any of your questions.
  When you do that, then you are taking advantage of a system that you 
are not supposed to be taking advantage of. She could have walked in, 
from minute one, and said: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I am not 
going to answer a question. I am asserting my Fifth Amendment right.
  She did not do that, and what we have now is not a waste of time. I 
believe there are a lot of things. The Republican majority is working 
on economic development, but I think one of the things we have to 
reassert in this country is trust, and right now, our American people 
do not trust us, and they do not believe that the government is in 
their favor.
  Instances like this, when they are being asked inappropriate 
questions, when they are trying to fulfill their rights and freedom of 
speech, this is why we are here. You can't keep doing it.
  Ms. Lerner needs to be held in contempt because all I have found on 
the floor of this House today is arguments that keep coming, that 
remind me of the song from Pink Floyd. I am just comfortably numb at 
this point because the arguments don't matter.
  We never said she couldn't use her Fifth Amendment right. She just 
chose to say: I didn't do anything wrong.
  That is not the way this process works, Ms. Lerner. It is time to 
testify.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I would say to the gentleman that is leaving the floor 
now who just spoke: the arguments do matter. This is still the United 
States of America. We still have constitutional rights, which we 
declare we will uphold every 2 years.
  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, if the point of a contempt resolution is to 
find out what Lois Lerner knows, what the committee wants to know, 
whether there was a deliberate targeting of citizens for political 
reasons.
  The fact is that the committee passed up the opportunity to learn 
this information. It asked her attorney: Would you tell us what she 
would tell us?
  It is called a proffer. Indeed, her attorney sent a letter to the 
chairman offering to provide a proffer. That is the information we want 
to know. This proffer would detail what Ms. Lerner would testify.
  Instead of accepting that proffer, the chairman went on national 
television and claimed that this written offer never happened. The 
chairman, therefore, never obtained the proffer that the attorney was 
willing to offer, the information which is the only reason we should be 
on this floor at all.
  When the ranking member tried to ask about it at a hearing in March, 
the chairman famously cut off his microphone and closed down the 
hearing in one of the worst examples of partisanship the committee has 
ever seen.
  The chairman did something similar when Ms. Lerner's attorney offered 
to have her testify with a simple one-week extension, Mr. Speaker, 
since the attorney had obligations out of town.
  Rather than accept this offer to get the committee the information 
that is at the bottom of this contempt matter today, the chairman went 
on national television and declared, inaccurately, that she would 
testify without the extension. Of course, that meant nothing could 
happen. There was no trust left.
  Clearly, what the committee wanted was a Fifth Amendment show 
hearing, in violation of Ms. Lerner's rights. They wanted a contempt 
citation vote. That is the political contempt citation vote scheduled 
today. It will never hold up in the courts of the United States of 
America.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have worked long and hard with the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia. She is a good person, but her facts simply are 100 percent 
wrong. Every single one of her assertions were simply not true. You can 
go to pages

[[Page 7496]]

11, 12, and 13 of this 400-plus page report, and you can see none of 
those statements are true.
  We would have accepted a proffer from the attorney. We were not given 
one; although I will say he did tell us, one time, we wouldn't like 
what she said if she said something. When I went on national 
television, I did so because of written communication that indicated 
that she would appear and testify.
  Additionally, the gentlelady did make one point that was very good. 
It was very good. The attorney told us that she needed another week to 
prepare, which we were willing to give her; but when we learned it was 
actually inconvenient for the attorney to necessarily prep her, we 
said, if he would come in with his client and agree that she was going 
to testify, we would recess and give her the additional week.
  When they came in that day, no such offer was on the table from her 
attorney, but, in fact, he said she had decided that she simply didn't 
want to speak to us--not that she was afraid of incrimination--because 
you can't be afraid of incrimination and not afraid, back and forth. 
That is pretty clear.
  Her contempt for our committee was, in fact, contempt for the body of 
Congress, while she was happy to speak at length, apparently, with the 
Department of Justice, perhaps with that $6,000 or $7,000 contributor 
to President Obama that is so involved in that investigation.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bentivolio).

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this resolution 
recommending that the House of Representatives find Lois Lerner in 
contempt of Congress.
  Our Pledge of Allegiance ends with the words, ``with liberty and 
justice for all.'' Lois Lerner's actions have made it nearly impossible 
for us to follow those ideals for the victims of the IRS targeting 
scandal. She has placed obstacle after obstacle in front of our pursuit 
for the truth, worrying that her ideology and the actions of a corrupt 
Federal agency will be exposed.
  I ask my colleagues to join our effort in promoting transparency in 
our government. As Members of Congress, it is our job to protect 
rights, not take them away.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Farenthold), a member of the committee.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I am here today because I do believe 
Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right to testify, and by so 
doing and not answering our questions, she was in contempt of Congress.
  The other side makes a big deal about this being political and 
preserving constitutional rights, but the way the system is supposed to 
work: we will find Ms. Lerner in contempt; the Justice Department will 
then go to court; there will be a full hearing in the court. And this 
may very well make it to the United States Supreme Court.
  Her rights will be protected, but we have also got to protect the 
rights of the people. We are the people's House. It is our job to get 
to the bottom of the scandals that are troubling the American people so 
that we can regain the trust of the American people.
  You know, it is healthy to be skeptical of your government, but when 
you don't believe a word that comes out of the mouth of the 
administration, there is a real problem.
  We have got to reclaim our power here. We are struggling. I don't 
think the Justice Department is going to pursue this. I think the same 
thing will happen to Ms. Lerner that happened with Mr. Holder--the 
Justice Department is going to decline to move forward with it--but we 
have got to do our job.
  I also want to point out that we have got to deal with these people 
who are in contempt of Congress. For that reason, I have H.R. 4447 that 
is pending before this House that would withhold the pay of anyone in 
contempt of Congress. We have got to use the power of the purse and 
everything we have got to reclaim the power of the purse and the power 
that the Constitution gave this body to get to the truth and be the 
representatives of the people.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who, by the way, is, in fact, a constitutional 
scholar in his own right.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the comments by the 
minority whip instructing us to check the Constitution. That really 
struck me, because I believe I recall him standing up and applauding in 
this Chamber when the President said: If Congress doesn't do its job, I 
will basically do it for them. So someone that would do that doesn't 
need to be giving lectures on the Constitution.
  We have powers under the Constitution that we have got to protect. 
When someone stands up and exerts their innocence repeatedly and then 
attempts to take the Fifth Amendment right, it is not there. This is 
the next step. It will preserve the sanctity and the power of this 
body, whether it is Democrats or Republicans in charge or anyone who 
attempts to skirt justice and provide truth.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As I close, I want to remind all of my colleagues, several references 
have been made to the oath that we take every 2 years in this Chamber. 
Every 2 years we stand in this Chamber and we say:

       I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the 
     Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

  It is the first words we say.
  It is interesting that at the beginning of that swearing in is that 
we will defend the Constitution of the United States of America. 
Yesterday we had a very interesting argument in rules when one of the 
members of the Rules Committee questioned whether when one becomes a 
public employee, whether they then lose their rights as an American 
citizen. It is clear that those rights do stand, no matter whether you 
are a public servant or whether you are a janitor at some coffee shop.
  We are in a situation today where we need to be very clear what is 
happening. Not since McCarthy has this been tried, that is the 
stripping away of an American citizen's constitutional right not to 
incriminate themselves and then holding them in contempt criminally. 
McCarthy. We are better than that. We are so much better.
  The idea that somebody can come in after their lawyer has sent a 
letter in saying they are going to take the Fifth, then the lawyer 
comes in, sits behind them while they take the Fifth, then the person 
says they are taking the Fifth, and then suddenly when they say, ``I 
declare my innocence,'' we say, ``Gotcha.''
  The Supreme Court has said this is not a gotcha moment. It is not 
about that. The Supreme Court has said these rights, no matter how much 
we may not like the person who we are talking about, no matter how much 
we may think they are hiding, they have rights. That is what this is 
all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make sure that they vote against 
this, because this is about generations yet unborn, how they will view 
us during our watch.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I regret that we have to be here today. If it is within my power, if 
at any time Lois Lerner comes forward to answer our questions, I am 
fully prepared to hear what she has to say, and at that point I would 
certainly ask that the criminal prosecution be dropped. It may not be 
within my power after today.
  For more than a year, our committee has sought to get her testimony. 
For nearly a year we have sought to get her to testify honestly. It was 
shocking to us on the committee, on the top of the dais, that a lawyer 
represented by a distinguished lawyer would play fast and loose with 
the Fifth Amendment assertion. It is a pretty straightforward process 
to assert your rights. In fact, her attorney may have planned

[[Page 7497]]

all along to have a controversy. I will never know.
  What I do know is we asserted that she had waived because we were 
advised by House counsel, an independent organization, that she had. We 
continue to investigate, and only today, nearly a year after a subpoena 
was issued, the Treasury, the IRS, actually gave us another 12,000 
emails. Like earlier emails, they indicate a deeply political 
individual, partisan in her views, who apparently was at the center of 
deciding that when the President, in this well, objected to Citizens 
United, that it meant they wanted us to fix it, and she was prepared to 
do it. That is for a different court to decide.
  The only question now is did she in fact give testimony, then assert 
the Fifth Amendment, then give some more testimony, and can we have 
that kind of activity.
  We have dismissed other people who came before our committee, 
asserted their Fifth Amendment rights. After enough questions to know 
that they were going to continue to assert, we dismissed them. We have 
a strong record of respecting the First, the Fourth, the Fifth, the 
Sixth Amendment and so on. That is what this Congress does, and we do 
it every day, and our committee does it.
  Rather than listen to debate here which was filled with factual 
inaccuracies, refuted in documentation that is available to the 
American people, rather than believe that the minority's assertion 
should carry the day because the gentleman from Georgia said if about 
eight different if-thens, then they would vote for this, well, I 
believe that the gentleman from Vermont said it very well when he said: 
We shouldn't be doing this. We shouldn't be finding her guilty. This 
should be before a judge. He may not have understood what he was 
saying, because what he was saying is exactly what we are doing. We are 
putting the question of did she properly waive or not and should she be 
back before us or be held in contempt and punished for not giving it.
  This won't be my decision. This will be a lifetime-appointment, 
nonpartisan Federal judge. The only thing we are doing today is sending 
it for that consideration. If the court rules that in fact her conduct 
was not a waiver, then we will have a modern update to understand the 
set of events here.
  We will still have the same problem, which is Lois Lerner was at the 
center of an operation that systematically abused Americans for their 
political beliefs, asked them inappropriate questions, delayed and 
denied their approvals.
  The minority asserted, well, they could have self-selected. Maybe 
they could have, maybe they should have, but it wouldn't change the 
fact that under penalty of perjury the IRS was asking them 
inappropriate questions which they intended to make public.
  The IRS is an organization that we do not have confidence in now as 
Americans. We need to reestablish that, and part of it is understanding 
how and why a high-ranking person at the IRS so blatantly abused 
conservative groups in America that were adverse to the President, no 
doubt. But that should not be the basis under which you get 
scrutinized, audited, or abused, and yet it clearly was.
  Mr. Speaker, it is essential we vote ``yes'' on contempt. Let the 
court decide, but more importantly, let the American people have 
confidence that we will protect their rights from the IRS.
  With that, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, in March of 2012, then-IRS Commissioner 
Douglas Shulman assured Congress: ``there is no targeting of 
conservative groups.'' Yet, I continued to hear stories from 
constituents telling me a different story. On April 23, 2012, I joined 
with 62 of my House colleagues in writing the IRS Commissioner 
inquiring further about the possible targeting. We were assured that 
the rules were being applied fairly and that there was no targeting or 
delay of processing applications from conservative groups.
  In April of 2013, top IRS official Lois Lerner revealed in a public 
forum that the agency had been discriminating against more than 75 
groups with conservative sounding names like ``Tea Party'' or 
``Patriot'' in the run-up to the 2012 election the very time we were 
inquiring. Ms. Lerner actually went so far as to plant a question in 
the audience about the issue. Ms. Lerner's admission came just days 
before the release of an internal Treasury Inspector General audit that 
documented that the IRS had been misleading Congress.
  When asked by Members of the House about the targeting, Miss Lerner 
has refused to answer our questions on multiple occasions, prompting 
the House to find her in contempt of Congress. The rights of hundreds 
and perhaps thousands of ordinary Americans have been violated, and I 
am most concerned about making sure that justice is pursued in 
protecting their rights.
  Further allegations of abuse have been made by other conservative 
groups. The IRS admitted that someone violated the law and leaked 
confidential taxpayer information on a Republican Senatorial candidate. 
Disclosing confidential taxpayer information is one of the worst things 
an IRS employee can do--it's a felony, punishable with a $5,000 fine 
and up to five years in prison. The Treasury Inspector General noted 
eight instances of unauthorized access to records, with at least one 
willful violation, yet Attorney General Eric Holder has failed to 
prosecute. Why?
  Earlier this year I led an effort with the support of over fifty of 
my House colleagues demanding that Attorney General Eric Holder appoint 
an independent special prosecutor to investigate these IRS abuses. 
Instead, A.G. Holder has appointed a partisan Democrat to lead the 
Justice Department's internal investigation who has donated thousands 
of dollars to the President's campaign and other Democrat campaigns. 
This is completely unacceptable.
  It's long past time that we have a real and thorough investigation 
conducted by an objective investigator. Thousands of American citizens 
deserve to see justice pursued rather than have these abuses swept, 
under the rug.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the resolution has 
expired.
  Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of House 
Resolution 574 is postponed.

                          ____________________