[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7497-7508]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 568, I call 
up the resolution (H. Res. 565) calling on Attorney General Eric H. 
Holder, Jr., to appoint a special counsel to investigate the targeting 
of conservative nonprofit groups by the Internal Revenue Service, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 568, the 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 565

       Whereas in February of 2010, the Internal Revenue Service 
     (``IRS'') began targeting conservative nonprofit groups for 
     extra scrutiny in connection with applications for tax-exempt 
     status;
       Whereas on May 14, 2013, the Treasury Inspector General for 
     Tax Administration (TIGTA) issued an audit report entitled, 
     ``Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt 
     Applications for Review'';
       Whereas the TIGTA audit report found that from 2010 until 
     2012 the IRS systematically subjected tax-exempt applicants 
     to extra scrutiny based on inappropriate criteria, including 
     use of the phrases ``Tea Party'', ``Patriots'', and ``9/12'';
       Whereas the TIGTA audit report found that the groups 
     selected for extra scrutiny based on inappropriate criteria 
     were subjected to years-long delay without cause;
       Whereas the TIGTA audit report found that the groups 
     selected for extra scrutiny based on inappropriate criteria 
     were subjected to inappropriate and burdensome information 
     requests, including requests for information about donors and 
     political beliefs;
       Whereas on January 27, 2010, in his State of the Union 
     Address, President Barack Obama criticized the Citizens 
     United v. Federal Election Commission decision, saying: 
     ``With all due deference to separation of powers, last week 
     the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe 
     will open the floodgates for special interests--including 
     foreign corporations--to spend without limit in our 
     elections'';
       Whereas throughout 2010, President Barack Obama and 
     congressional Democrats publicly criticized the Citizens 
     United decision and conservative-oriented tax-exempt 
     organizations;
       Whereas the Exempt Organizations Division within the IRS's 
     Tax-Exempt and Government Entities Division has jurisdiction

[[Page 7498]]

     over the processing and determination of tax-exempt 
     applications;
       Whereas on September 15, 2010, Lois G. Lerner, Director of 
     the Exempt Organizations Division, initiated a project to 
     examine political activity of 501(c)(4) organizations, 
     writing to her colleagues, ``[w]e need to be cautious so it 
     isn't a per se political project'';
       Whereas on October 19, 2010, Lois G. Lerner told an 
     audience at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy 
     that ``everybody'' is ``screaming'' at the IRS ``to fix the 
     problem'' posed by the Citizens United decision;
       Whereas on February 1, 2011, Lois G. Lerner wrote that the 
     ``Tea Party matter [was] very dangerous,'' explaining ``This 
     could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether 
     Citizen's [sic] United overturning the ban on corporate 
     spending applies to tax exempt rules'';
       Whereas Lois G. Lerner ordered the Tea Party tax-exempt 
     applications to proceed through a ``multi-tier review'' 
     involving her senior technical advisor and the Chief 
     Counsel's office of the IRS;
       Whereas Carter Hull, a 48-year veteran of the Federal 
     Government, testified that the ``multi-tier review'' was 
     unprecedented in his experience;
       Whereas on June 1, 2011, Holly Paz, Director of Rulings and 
     Agreements within the Exempt Organizations Division, 
     requested the tax-exempt application filed by Crossroads 
     Grassroots Policy Strategies for review by Lois G. Lerner's 
     senior technical advisor;
       Whereas in June 2011, Lois G. Lerner ordered the Tea Party 
     cases to be renamed because she viewed the term ``Tea Party'' 
     to be ``pejorative'';
       Whereas on March 22, 2012, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman 
     was specifically asked about the targeting of Tea Party 
     groups applying for tax-exempt status during a hearing before 
     the House Committee on Ways and Means, to which he replied, 
     ``I can give you assurances . . . [t]here is absolutely no 
     targeting.'';
       Whereas on April 26, 2012, IRS Exempt Organizations 
     Director Lois G. Lerner informed the House Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform that information requests 
     were done in ``the ordinary course of the application 
     process'';
       Whereas on May 4, 2012, IRS Exempt Organizations Director 
     Lois G. Lerner provided to the House Committee on Oversight 
     and Government Reform specific justification for the IRS's 
     information requests;
       Whereas prior to the November 2012 election, the IRS 
     provided 31 applications for tax-exempt status to the 
     investigative website ProPublica, all of which were from 
     conservative groups and nine of which had not yet been 
     approved by the IRS, and Federal law prohibits public 
     disclosure of application materials until after the 
     application has been approved;
       Whereas the initial ``test'' cases developed by the IRS 
     were applications filed by conservative-oriented Tea Party 
     organizations;
       Whereas the IRS determined, by way of informal, internal 
     review, that 75 percent of the affected applications for 
     501(c)(4) status were filed by conservative-oriented 
     organizations;
       Whereas on January 24, 2013, Lois G. Lerner e-mailed 
     colleagues about Organizing for Action, a tax-exempt 
     organization formed as an offshoot of President Barack 
     Obama's election campaign, writing: ``Maybe I can get the DC 
     office job!'';
       Whereas on May 8, 2013, Richard Pilger, Director of the 
     Election Crimes Branch of the Department of Justice's Public 
     Integrity Section, spoke to Lois G. Lerner about potential 
     prosecution for false statements about political campaign 
     intervention made by tax-exempt applicants;
       Whereas on May 10, 2013, IRS Exempt Organizations Director 
     Lois G. Lerner apologized for the IRS's targeting of 
     conservative tax-exempt applicants during a speech at an 
     event organized by the American Bar Association;
       Whereas the Ways and Means Committee determined that, of 
     the 298 applications delayed and set aside for extra scrutiny 
     by the IRS, 83 percent were from right-leaning organizations;
       Whereas the Ways and Means Committee also determined that, 
     as of Lois G. Lerner's May 10, 2013 apology, only 45 percent 
     of the right-leaning groups set aside for extra scrutiny had 
     been approved, while 70 percent of left-leaning groups and 
     100 percent of the groups with ``progressive'' names had been 
     approved;
       Whereas the Ways and Means Committee has also determined 
     that, of the groups that were inappropriately subject to 
     demands to divulge confidential donors, 89 percent were 
     right-leaning;
       Whereas on May 15, 2013, Attorney General Holder testified 
     before the Judiciary Committee that the Department of Justice 
     would conduct a ``dispassionate'' investigation into the IRS 
     matter, and ``[t]his will not be about parties . . . this 
     will not be about ideological persuasions . . . anybody who 
     has broken the law will be held accountable'';
       Whereas on May 15, 2013, President Barack Obama called the 
     IRS's targeting ``inexcusable'' and promised that he would 
     ``not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but 
     especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the 
     reach that it has into all of our lives'';
       Whereas the Attorney General has stated that the Department 
     of Justice's investigation involves components from the Civil 
     Rights Division and the Public Integrity Section;
       Whereas the Civil Rights Division of the Department of 
     Justice has a history of politicization, as evident in the 
     report by the Department of Justice Office of Inspector 
     General entitled, ``A Review of the Operations of the Voting 
     Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division'';
       Whereas Barbara Bosserman, a trial attorney in the Civil 
     Rights Division who in the past several years has contributed 
     nearly $7,000 to the Democratic National Committee and 
     President Barack Obama's political campaigns, is playing a 
     leading role in the Department of Justice's investigation;
       Whereas the Public Integrity Section communicated with the 
     IRS about the potential prosecution of tax-exempt applicants;
       Whereas on December 5, 2013, President Barack Obama 
     declared in a national television interview that the IRS's 
     targeting of conservative tax-exempt applicants was caused by 
     a ``bureaucratic'' ``list'' by employees in ``an office in 
     Cincinnati'';
       Whereas on April 9, 2014, the House Committee on Ways and 
     Means referred Lois G. Lerner to the Department of Justice 
     for criminal prosecution;
       Whereas the House Committee on Ways and Means found that 
     Lois G. Lerner used her position to improperly influence 
     agency action against conservative tax-exempt organizations, 
     denying these groups due process and equal protection rights 
     as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, in apparent 
     violation of section 242 of title 18, United States Code;
       Whereas the House Committee on Ways and Means found that 
     Lois G. Lerner targeted Crossroads Grassroots Policy 
     Strategies while ignoring similar liberal-leaning tax-exempt 
     applicants;
       Whereas the House Committee on Ways and Means found that 
     Lois G. Lerner impeded official investigations by knowingly 
     providing misleading statements to the Treasury Inspector 
     General for Tax Administration, in apparent violation of 
     section 1001 of title 18, United States Code;
       Whereas the House Committee on Ways and Means found that 
     Lois G. Lerner may have disclosed confidential taxpayer 
     information, in apparent violation of section 6103 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code;
       Whereas former Department of Justice officials have 
     testified before a subcommittee of the House Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform that the circumstances of the 
     Administration's investigation of the IRS's targeting of 
     conservative tax-exempt applicants warrant the appointment of 
     a special counsel;
       Whereas Department of Justice regulations counsel attorneys 
     to avoid the ``appearance of a conflict of interest likely to 
     affect the public perception of the integrity of the 
     investigation or prosecution'';
       Whereas since May 15, 2013, the Department of Justice and 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation have refused to cooperate 
     with congressional oversight of the Administration's 
     investigation of the IRS's targeting of conservative tax-
     exempt applicants;
       Whereas on January 13, 2014, unnamed officials at the 
     Department of Justice leaked to the media that no criminal 
     charges would be appropriate for IRS officials who engaged in 
     the targeting activity, which undermined the integrity of the 
     Department of Justice's investigation;
       Whereas on February 2, 2014, President Barack Obama stated 
     publicly that there was ``not even a smidgen of corruption'' 
     in connection with the IRS targeting activity;
       Whereas on April 16, 2014, electronic mail communications 
     between the Department of Justice and the IRS were released 
     showing that the Department of Justice considered prosecuting 
     conservative nonprofit groups for engaging in political 
     activity that is legal under Federal law, which damaged the 
     integrity of the Department and undermined its investigation; 
     and
       Whereas the Code of Federal Regulations requires the 
     Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel when he or she 
     determines--
       (1) that criminal investigation of a person or matter is 
     warranted,
       (2) that investigation or prosecution of that person or 
     matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating 
     Division of the Department of Justice would present a 
     conflict of interest for the Department or other 
     extraordinary circumstances, and
       (3) that under the circumstances, it would be in the public 
     interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume 
     responsibility for the matter: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that--
       (1) the statements and actions of the IRS, the Department 
     of Justice, and the Obama Administration in connection with 
     this matter have served to undermine the Department of 
     Justice's investigation;
       (2) the Administration's efforts to undermine the 
     investigation, and the appointment of a person who has 
     donated almost seven

[[Page 7499]]

     thousand dollars to President Obama and the Democratic 
     National Committee in a lead investigative role, have created 
     a conflict of interest for the Department of Justice that 
     warrants removal of the investigation from the normal 
     processes of the Department of Justice;
       (3) further investigation of the matter is warranted due to 
     the apparent criminal activity by Lois G. Lerner, and the 
     ongoing disclosure of internal communications showing 
     potentially unlawful conduct by Executive Branch personnel;
       (4) given the Department's conflict of interest, as well as 
     the strong public interest in ensuring that public officials 
     who inappropriately targeted American citizens for exercising 
     their right to free expression are held accountable, 
     appointment of a Special Counsel would be in the public 
     interest; and
       (5) Attorney General Holder should appoint a Special 
     Counsel, without further delay, to investigate the IRS's 
     targeting of conservative nonprofit advocacy groups.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) 
and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) each will control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on H. Res. 565.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  On May 10, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service admitted to 
inappropriately targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny in 
connection with their applications for tax-exempt status.

                              {time}  1730

  President Obama denounced this behavior as ``outrageous'' and 
``unacceptable'' and stated that the IRS ``as an independent agency 
requires absolute integrity, and people have to have confidence that 
they're applying the laws in a nonpartisan way.'' He pledged that the 
administration would ``find out exactly what happened'' and would make 
sure wrongdoers were ``held fully accountable.''
  In testimony before my committee on May 15, 2013, Attorney General 
Holder testified that the Department of Justice would conduct a 
``dispassionate'' investigation into the IRS's admitted targeting of 
conservative groups. The Attorney General promised me and the members 
of the Judiciary Committee that ``this will not be about parties, this 
will not be about ideological persuasions, and anyone who has broken 
the law will be held accountable.''
  Unfortunately, that appears to be where the administration's 
commitment to pursuing this investigation ended. We have all seen the 
testimony from conservative groups stating that they had yet to be 
interviewed by the Department of Justice investigators more than a year 
after the allegations came to light. Additionally, the administration 
has sought to undermine whatever investigation the DOJ was conducting 
at every opportunity.
  Earlier this year, unnamed Department of Justice officials leaked 
information to The Wall Street Journal suggesting that the Department 
does not plan to file criminal charges over the IRS's targeting of 
conservative groups. When asked who leaked this information to the 
media and if the Department plans to prosecute the leaker once 
identified, Attorney General Holder admitted that he has not looked 
into this leak.
  Additionally, on Super Bowl Sunday, President Obama stated that there 
was ``not even a smidgen of corruption'' in connection with the IRS 
targeting.
  Finally, as we all know, the Department of Justice appointed Barbara 
Bosserman, an attorney in the notoriously politicized Civil Rights 
Division, to head the investigation. Ms. Bosserman has donated more 
than $6,000 to President Obama's campaigns in 2008 and 2012.
  The relevant regulations require the Attorney General to appoint a 
special counsel when he determines three circumstances exist:
  First, that criminal investigation of a person or matter is 
warranted;
  Second, that investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by 
a United States Attorney's Office or litigating division of the 
Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the 
Department or other extraordinary circumstances;
  And third, that under the circumstances, it would be in the public 
interest to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility 
for the matter.
  It should be noted that these regulations require the Attorney 
General to exercise subjective discretion. However, there should be 
little doubt to any neutral observer that the requirements for 
appointing a special counsel have been satisfied.
  First, as shown in the Ways and Means Committee's referral letter to 
the Department of Justice, there are serious allegations that IRS 
officials, including former Director of Exempt Organizations Lois 
Lerner, violated Federal law by targeting conservative groups and by 
releasing tax confidential tax information to the media. We also know 
that troubling information continues to come to light about this 
matter, including that the Department of Justice considered prosecuting 
conservative nonprofit groups for engaging in political activity that 
is legal under Federal law.
  Second, it is clear that a conflict of interest exists between DOJ 
investigators and this administration. As a legal matter, determining 
whether a conflict of interest exists requires a determination of 
whether external interests--one's own or those of other clients or 
third persons--are likely to impact the exercise of independent 
professional judgment. In addition to Ms. Bosserman's clear conflict of 
interest, this administration's statements and actions have repeatedly 
served to undermine the Department of Justice investigation and have 
created an indisputable conflict of interest.
  Third, it is equally clear that appointing an outside special counsel 
to investigate this matter would be in the public interest. The 
American people are very concerned that their government has targeted 
individual American citizens for harassment solely on the basis of 
their political beliefs.
  The American people deserve to know who ordered the targeting, when 
the targeting was ordered, and why. For many Americans, the IRS is the 
primary way they interact with the Federal Government. To now have the 
IRS acting as a politicized organization that persecutes citizens for 
their political beliefs shakes the core of American democracy. Under 
the circumstances, this administration cannot credibly investigate this 
matter. It is time for the Attorney General to appoint an independent, 
professional special counsel to get to the bottom of this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I begin this discussion today, I rise in opposition 
to H. Res. 565. I want to lay the premise of the discussion as I begin 
to explain why the question of ``why?'' is not answered. I would 
imagine that the question of ``why?'' will not be answered by the 
conclusion of this debate.
  The premise of the resolution H. Res. 565 is on the Federal 
regulations 601, 600.2, and 600.3. On the face of the resolution, in 
the facts, there is no evidence under either of the two initial ones. 
And that is, first, there has been no elimination of the question of 
whether there is a criminal investigation or whether there should be; 
and the grounds for appointing a special counsel include whether or not 
they determine such an investigation is needed, and that the 
investigation or prosecution of the person or matter by the United 
States Attorney's Office would present a conflict of interest. Then the 
circumstances will be in the public interest. None of those criteria 
have been met.
  First of all, in a May 7 letter most recently, the U.S. Department of 
Justice

[[Page 7500]]

has said there is an ongoing determination of criminal investigation, 
an ongoing investigation into all of the allegations. From the Ways and 
Means, from the Oversight Committee there is an ongoing U.S. Department 
of Justice investigation.
  Now, I believe in congressional oversight, but I also believe in 
rational congressional oversight, which means, why are we asking for 
special counsel when the Department of Justice is in the middle of an 
active investigation? There has been no conclusion, there has been no 
suggestion that there will not be a further investigation or criminal 
investigation, and there is no proven conflict of interest.
  The Department of Justice employee that has been mentioned by the 
majority:
  One, is not lead counsel, as evidenced in a letter dated February 3, 
2014;
  And two, President Obama is not the point of this investigation, as I 
understand it, and the individual made private free speech donations in 
the course of a campaign.
  Are you suggesting that a public employee does not have the private 
personal right, First Amendment right, of freedom of speech? I would 
think not.
  So I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 565. There are no grounds 
for it. The Justice Department is working and it is investigating. 
Again, for those of you who are unaware of the legal authority 
undergirding this resolution, it is based on a series of regulations 
promulgated by the Justice Department that has been adhered to by 
Republican and Democratic administrations. You may not like the results 
of it, but it gives the criteria for authorizing the Attorney General 
to appoint a special counsel ``when he or she determines that criminal 
investigation of a person or matter is warranted.''
  There is an ongoing investigation. That means that at the conclusion, 
or when all of the data and information is reviewed, that decision is 
still to be made. There is no closure now to suggest that the 
Department of Justice has not done what it is supposed to do.
  In sum, these circumstances are that the Justice Department's 
prosecution will present a conflict of interest for the Department and 
that it would be in the public interest for a special counsel to assume 
responsibility.
  This measure that we are debating today, however, utterly fails to 
meet any of that criteria.
  The sponsors of H. Res. 565 make bald, unsupported conflict of 
interest allegations against a mid-level career attorney whose only 
fault was to engage in lawful, constitutionally protected political 
activity, of which I have spoken, and is not the lead counsel--
definitively is not the lead counsel.
  We have two distinct and qualified experts: Bruce Green, a former 
Federal prosecutor and current professor of law at Fordham Law School, 
and Daniel Richman, an expert in criminal procedure from Columbia, who 
clearly articulate no basis for experts conflict of interest. In fact, 
the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
issued a report earlier this week detailing that committee's yearlong 
investigation of the IRS efforts to screen applicants for their tax 
exempt status.
  Among this report's principal findings are that over the course of 
lengthy and detailed interviews of 39 witnesses, absolutely no evidence 
of White House involvement was identified. Not a single one of these 
witnesses' interviews revealed any evidence of political motivation.
  These interviewees included IRS employees who identified themselves 
as Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and others who had no 
political affiliation.
  Another fact that the supporters of this measure ignore is that there 
already is, as I have indicated, an ongoing investigation by the 
Justice Department in this matter, and they are complying with the 
structure of the appointment process for a special counsel. There has 
been no determination of conflict. There has been no determination that 
we are ending the investigation to the lack of satisfaction of the 
United States Congress. We are in an ongoing investigation.
  600.2 of the Code, as I mentioned, of the Federal Regulations 
explicitly authorizes the Attorney General to direct an initial 
investigation in lieu of appointing a special counsel to determine 
whether grounds can even exist to warrant the appointment of a special 
counsel. But an easy manner, other than a resolution on the floor of 
the House: a simple letter could have been written to the Attorney 
General for his consideration.
  So what is this resolution about? To begin with, it is pure political 
theater. Rather than simply writing a letter to the Attorney General 
asking him to appoint a special counsel, which is the time-honored way 
to do this, the House leadership has resorted to using a resolution 
that is subject to floor debate and, of course, C-SPAN coverage, but 
has no real legal effect.
  Even The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, which is certainly 
not a partisan entity as it relates to its advocacy of President Obama 
or its administration, which is not a bastion of liberalism, noted in 
an editorial published a year ago that ``calling for a special 
prosecutor is a form of cheap political grace that gets a quick 
headline at the cost of less political accountability.''
  I would rather have us working together, Mr. Speaker. I would rather 
us get to the facts. I would rather that the professional men and women 
of the U.S. Department of Justice be allowed to pursue this 
investigation unbiased and thorough.
  Rather than promoting greater transparency, the appointment of a 
special counsel, as the Wall Street Journal points out, would have the 
opposite result. The Journal explains:

       With a special prosecutor, the probe would immediately move 
     to the shadows, and the administration and the IRS would use 
     it as an excuse to limit its cooperation with Congress. 
     Special prosecutors aren't famous for their speed. If there 
     were no indictments, whatever the prosecutor has discovered 
     would stay secret. And even if specific criminal charges were 
     filed, the facts of an indictment couldn't stray far from the 
     four corners of the violated statute.

  Beyond proving the specific case in court, a special prosecutor will 
not be as concerned with the larger public policy consequences and 
political accountability. We could be doing other things, and we could 
not be spending $14 million.
  There has been no basis for this resolution to pass, and I ask my 
colleagues to oppose this resolution.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 565.
  For those of you who are unaware of the legal authority undergirding 
this resolution, it is based on a series of regulations promulgated by 
the Justice Department.
  In pertinent part, section 600.1 of title 28 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations authorizes the Attorney General to appoint a special 
counsel ``when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a 
person or matter is warranted,'' under certain specified circumstances.
  In sum, these circumstances are that the Justice Department's 
prosecution would present a conflict of interest for the Department and 
that it would be in the public interest for a special counsel to assume 
responsibility for this matter.
  This measure that we are debating today, however, utterly fails to 
meet any of these criteria.
  The sponsors of H. Res. 565 make bald, unsupported conflict of 
interest allegations against a mid-level career attorney whose only 
fault was to engage in lawful--constitutionally protected--political 
activity.
  In fact, the Ranking Member of the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee issued a report earlier this week detailing that Committee's 
year-long investigation of the IRS efforts to screen applicants for 
their tax-exempt status.
  Among this report's principal findings are that: over the course of 
lengthy and detailed interviews of 39 witnesses involved in this 
matter, absolutely no evidence of White House involvement was 
identified; and not a single one of these 39 witness interviews 
revealed any evidence of political motivation.
  These interviewees included IRS employees who identified themselves 
as Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and others who had no 
political affiliation.

[[Page 7501]]

  Another fact that the supporters of this measure ignore is that there 
already is an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department into this 
matter.
  Indeed, section 600.2 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
explicitly authorizes the Attorney General to direct an initial 
investigation--in lieu of appointing a special counsel--to determine 
whether grounds even exist to warrant the appointment of a special 
counsel.
  So what is this resolution really about?
  To begin with, it's pure political theater. Rather than simply 
writing a letter to the Attorney General asking him to appoint a 
special counsel, which is the time-honored way to do this, the House 
Leadership has resorted to using a resolution that is subject to floor 
debate and C-span coverage, but has no real legal effect.
  Even the Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board, which is not a 
bastion of liberalism, noted in an editorial published a year ago that 
``calling for a special prosecutor is a form of cheap political grace 
that gets a quick headline at the cost of less political 
accountability.''
  And, rather than promoting greater transparency, the appointment of a 
special counsel, as the Wall Street Journal points out, would have the 
opposite result. The Journal explains:

       With a special prosecutor, the probe would immediately move 
     to the shadows, and the Administration and the IRS would use 
     it as an excuse to limit its cooperation with Congress. 
     Special prosecutors aren't famous for their speed . . . . If 
     there were no indictments, whatever the prosecutor has 
     discovered would stay secret. And even if specific criminal 
     charges were filed, the facts of an indictment couldn't stray 
     far from the four corners of the violated statute.
       Beyond proving his specific case in court, a special 
     prosecutor will not be as concerned with the larger public 
     policy consequences and political accountability.

  The Wall Street Journal concludes by pointing out the obvious:

       Congress can do the investigating first, and if it 
     discovers criminal behavior it can make that known and refer 
     the cases and evidence to Mr. Holder, who will then be 
     accountable if he refuses to act.

  Unfortunately, the real scandal here is that this foolhardy witch 
hunt directed at the IRS has cost American taxpayers well in excess of 
14 million dollars, money that we all know could have been better 
spent.
  And now we are wasting limited floor time on this charade rather than 
taking up the issues that the American people urgently need this 
Congress to act upon.
  These include: fixing our broken immigration system; increasing the 
minimum wage; strengthening our Nation's economic recovery; creating 
more jobs; extending unemployment insurance; and helping students 
struggling with overwhelming educational loan debt, which now exceeds 
one trillion dollars.
  These are real issues that affect real people across America. This is 
where we should be focusing our resources.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived 
measure.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This is about real people. One of those is my friend and constituent 
down in Houston, Texas, by the name of Catherine Engelbrecht. She is 
the founder of True the Vote and King Street Patriots in Houston, 
Texas, and she became intimidated and harassed by our very own 
government, all because she dared to speak her mind and engage in 
politics, a right that she is guaranteed under the Constitution.

                              {time}  1745

  It all began when Catherine Engelbrecht, a businesswoman, applied for 
nonprofit status in 2010 for True the Vote, which is a voter integrity 
group, and King Street Patriots; and so began the tidal wave of 
government inquiries and harassment.
  She said it best in her testimony before Congress:

       We applied for nonprofit status in 2010. Since then, the 
     IRS has run us through a gauntlet of analysts and hundreds of 
     questions over and over and over again. They've requested to 
     see each and every tweet I've ever tweeted and each and every 
     Facebook post I've ever posted. They've asked to know every 
     place I've ever spoken since our inception, who was in the 
     audience, and everywhere I intend to speak in the future.

  This is our government--our government oppressing someone--at its 
worst.
  There is even more. We have learned that the IRS even asked her group 
and others for their donor lists. This level of detail goes well beyond 
the business of the IRS.
  It didn't stop there. All of a sudden, the Federal Government's 
snooping included six visits by the FBI, where they would sit in the 
auditoriums when she was speaking.
  Two of those visits, apparently, were by the terrorist inspection--or 
investigation--division of the FBI. They had numerous and multiple 
unannounced visits from OSHA, from the ATF, and even from the Texas 
equivalent of the EPA.
  Now, was this just a coincidence that all of these groups were 
investigating True the Vote and also investigating King Street 
Patriots? Or was it collusion?
  We really don't know. Unfortunately, our Justice Department has lost 
credibility with the American public on investigating the IRS. We need 
things to be right, and things need to look right. We need to have a 
special counsel.
  I would like to conclude with a statement that was made during the 
Abramoff investigation by Senators in 2006 about having a special 
counsel:

       The highly political context of the allegations and charges 
     may lead some to surmise that political influence may 
     compromise the investigation . . . because this investigation 
     is vital to restoring the public's faith in its government. 
     Any appearance of bias, special favor, or political 
     consideration would be a further blow to democracy. The 
     appointment of a special counsel would ensure that the 
     investigation and the prosecution will proceed without fear 
     or favor and provide the public with full confidence that no 
     one is above the law.
       Signed, Barack Obama, 2006.

  And that's just the way it is.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 11\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Texas has 11\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlelady from New Mexico, Congresswoman Michelle Lujan 
Grisham, a former official of the New Mexico State Government.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Thank you to my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, Federal law clearly states that tax-exempt social 
welfare groups must exclusively promote social welfare, and yet the IRS 
continues to allow these groups to engage in partisan political 
activity, instead of in their social welfare missions.
  This has allowed social welfare nonprofits to spend over a quarter of 
a billion dollars on partisan political activities while keeping their 
donors secret. Congress has known about this issue for years, and it 
has done absolutely nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to solve problems on behalf of the 
American people, and this resolution does absolutely nothing to solve 
the underlying problem that we have identified at the IRS.
  As long as Congress continues to ignore the fact that social welfare 
organizations are actively engaged in political activity, social 
welfare groups will continue spending hundreds of millions of dollars 
on partisan political campaign activities in direct contradiction to 
current Federal law and congressional intent.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote against this very partisan 
resolution, as it doesn't solve any underlying problems, and, instead, 
pass legislation that enforces Federal law and that prohibits tax-
exempt social welfare groups from engaging in partisan political 
activity.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee and the author of this resolution.
  Mr. JORDAN. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 
yielding and for all of his good work.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady from Texas said in her opening statement 
that there has been no conclusion to the investigation. Yes, there has, 
and Ms. Lerner knows it.
  Why do you think Ms. Lerner is willing to sit down with the Justice 
Department and answer their questions? She knows the fix is in. She 
knows it has already been prejudged and decided.

[[Page 7502]]

  When the Department of Justice leaks to The Wall Street Journal that 
no one is going to be referred for prosecution, she knows she is just 
fine. The investigation is over. They are not doing it.
  When the President, who is the highest elected official in this land, 
goes on national television and says there is nothing there, not even a 
smidgen, Ms. Lerner knows the fix is in.
  Let's review the facts with a quick timeline. On May 10 of last year, 
Ms. Lerner goes in front of a bar association group here in town and, 
with a planted question, tells that group and tells the whole country 
that conservative groups were targeted for exercising their First 
Amendment free speech rights.
  She did that before the inspector general's report was made public. 
It is unprecedented what she did, not only in her actions, but in her 
spilling the beans before the report was issued.
  On May 13, we get the report from the inspector general that says, in 
fact, the targeting of conservative groups did take place at the IRS.
  On May 14 of last year, the Attorney General launches a criminal 
investigation and says that what took place was outrageous and 
unacceptable, and the President of the United States says that what 
took place was inexcusable.
  In June of last year, in the Judiciary Committee, we had then-FBI 
Director Mueller in front of the committee, and we asked him three 
simple questions: Who is the lead agent? How many agents have you 
assigned to the case? Have you talked to any of the victims?
  This was a month into this. This was the biggest story in the country 
at the time, and the FBI Director's response was: I don't know. I don't 
know. I don't know.
  There were seven written inquiries to Justice, asking: Can you tell 
us some basics about the investigation? Who is, in fact, leading it? Is 
it truly Barbara Bosserman, as we believe?
  Everyone tells us--the witnesses we have interviewed: she is leading 
the investigation.
  How many agents have you assigned? There were seven different 
inquiries with no responses from the Department of Justice.
  On January 13 of this year, as I said earlier, the FBI leaks to The 
Wall Street Journal that no one is going to be referred for 
prosecution.
  In February, the President says no corruption, not even a smidgen; 
then we learned Barbara Bosserman, a maxed-out contributor to the 
President's campaign, was leading the investigation.
  Now, take that fact pattern, and apply it to the elements that the 
Attorney General looks at when you are deciding if you are going to 
have a special prosecutor. The chairman pointed out, in his opening 
statement, three elements the Code of Federal Regulations requires for 
the AG to appoint a special counsel.
  It is when he determines these three things:
  One, that a criminal investigation of a person or of a matter is 
warranted; of course, it is warranted. The AG already said it was. This 
is a big matter. This is a violation of people's First Amendment 
rights, and the Ways and Means Committee has already said Ms. Bosserman 
should be referred for prosecution.
  The second element, that the investigation by the United States 
Attorneys' Office or by the litigating division of the Department of 
Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department; if we 
don't have a conflict of interest here, I don't know where we do.
  The President has prejudged the outcome, the FBI has leaked to The 
Wall Street Journal that no one is going to be prosecuted, prejudging 
the outcome, and the lead investigator is a maxed-out contributor to 
the DNC and to the President's campaign.
  Finally, the third element, that it would be in the public interest 
to appoint an outside special counsel; frankly, I would think the 
Attorney General would want this.
  There are all kinds of Americans who think this thing is not being 
done in an impartial and fair manner. I would think the Attorney 
General would want to pick someone who is above reproach, that he would 
want to pick someone whom everyone agrees is going to do a fair job.
  Why have this cloud hanging over the investigation that the person 
leading it gave $6,750 to the President's campaign? That is all this 
asks.
  This should be something that the administration should want to do 
because it clears up, in people's minds all across this country, that 
we are going to get to the truth and that we are going to have a real 
investigation.
  Never forget what took place here. This is so important. People's 
most fundamental right--your right to speak out and the First Amendment 
right to speak out against your government--was targeted.
  That is why we need to get to the truth, and that is why we need a 
special counsel who will do a real investigation.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think it is important to state that one of the provisions that is 
not in the regulation for establishing a special counsel is that it is 
a ``get you'' procedure. It is not a ``got you'' procedure. It follows 
an orderly process of which the Department of Justice is engaged.
  I would like to introduce into the Record a letter dated February 3, 
2014, that indicates that the Justice Department's lawyer who has been 
charged with leading the investigation is not leading the 
investigation. He is part of a team.

                                                     Office of the


                                      Deputy Attorney General,

                                 Washington, DC, February 3, 2014.
     Hon. Jim Jordan,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and 
         Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government 
         Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Jordan: This responds to your letter to an 
     attorney in the Civil Rights Division, dated January 31, 
     2014, again requesting her testimony at a Subcommittee 
     hearing on February 6, 2014, regarding the Department of 
     Justice's ongoing criminal investigation into the Internal 
     Revenue Service's treatment of groups applying for tax exempt 
     status. To reiterate, consistent with longstanding Department 
     policy, no Department representative will be in a position to 
     provide testimony about this ongoing law enforcement matter.
       As a preliminary matter, we disagree with your allegation 
     that because of the attorney's engagement in lawful political 
     activity, she has a conflict of interest regarding the 
     investigation. Your letter of January 28, 2014, selectively 
     quoted the Department regulation concerning the 
     disqualification of employees from investigations based on 
     personal or political relationships, and alleged that ``at 
     the very least, [the attorney's] participation in the 
     investigation runs afoul of this regulation.'' A careful 
     review of 28 C.F.R. 45.2, however, shows that this is not 
     true. That regulation provides that an employee should not 
     participate in an investigation if he or she has ``a personal 
     or political relationship'' with a person or organization 
     substantially involved in the conduct being investigated or 
     who has a specific and substantial interest in the 
     investigation's outcome. The regulation defines a ``political 
     relationship'' as ``close identification with an elected 
     official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for 
     elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign 
     organization, arising from service as a principal adviser 
     thereto or a principal official thereof,'' and defines 
     ``personal relationship'' as a ``close and substantial 
     connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce 
     partiality'' and states that employees are presumed to have a 
     personal relationship with spouses, parents, children, and 
     siblings, and that other relationships must be judged on an 
     individual basis. Accordingly, consistent with this 
     regulation, the attorney whose integrity you have unfairly 
     questioned has neither a political nor personal relationship 
     that disqualifies her from the investigation. We also note 
     again that, contrary to the assertion in your letter of 
     January 28, 2014, this attorney was not assigned to lead the 
     investigation, but rather is a member of a team that includes 
     representatives of the Criminal Division, the Civil Rights 
     Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the 
     Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.
       We agree with your view that ``[t]he American people 
     deserve to have complete confidence that the Administration 
     is conducting through and unbiased investigation.'' 
     Accordingly, it is imperative that we avoid actions--such as 
     testifying before Congress about this pending criminal 
     investigation--that could give rise to a perception that the 
     criminal investigation is subject to undue influence by 
     elected officials. We reiterate that consistent with 
     longstanding policy, in order to protect the integrity or our

[[Page 7503]]

     investigation, we are not in a position to provide you with 
     any non-public information about this ongoing matter. This 
     policy is intended to protect the effectiveness and integrity 
     of the criminal justice process, as well as the privacy 
     interests of third parties. It is neither new nor partisan, 
     but rather based upon longstanding views of Department 
     officials, both Democrat and Republican alike. While we 
     respect the important role of congressional oversight, we 
     believe that our provision of the testimony you have 
     requested would be inconsistent with our commitment to 
     principles of justice and the independence of our law 
     enforcement efforts.
       As the Attorney General stated in his testimony before the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee on January 29, 2014, ``[t]he men 
     and women of the Justice Department have for time immemorial 
     put aside whatever their political leanings are and conducted 
     investigations in a way that relies only on facts and the 
     law,'' and we do not ``have any basis to believe that the 
     people who are engaged in this investigation are doing so in 
     a way other than investigations are normally done--that is, 
     by looking at the facts, applying the law to those facts and 
     reaching the appropriate conclusions.'' We request that you 
     allow the Department employees responsible for this 
     investigation to conduct it without demands for disclosures 
     or other interference that would be inconsistent with their 
     commitment to the integrity of the criminal justice process. 
     We appreciate your interest in this investigation and, as the 
     Attorney General has explained, we will be in a better 
     position to provide Congress with information about our 
     decisions in this matter when it is concluded.
           Sincerely,
                                                    James M. Cole,
                                          Deputy Attorney General.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), a member of the House 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. DEUTCH. I thank my friend, the gentlelady from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, we have learned a great deal, since the allegations 
surfaced, that IRS officials discriminated against political-leaning 
groups that were seeking tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status. I joined with 
many of my Republican colleagues in condemning the notion that politics 
in any way influenced the behavior of the IRS.
  We learned that the IRS kept a list of key words that triggered extra 
review, a misguided practice that we are grateful has since stopped. We 
also learned that the IRS targeted more liberal-leaning groups than 
conservative ones, meaning there was no conservative witch-hunt.
  What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have apparently 
failed to learn, however, is that the clear solution to this problem is 
to get the IRS out of the business of evaluating political conduct.
  I wholeheartedly agree with my colleagues that the IRS has no 
business meddling in our elections, but we don't need a special counsel 
to make this stop.
  Applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status exploded after the 
Citizens United decision because special interests found a new way to 
secretly funnel money into our elections. Let me tell you how it works.
  Because these groups aren't required to disclose their donors, 
wealthy special interests that are bent on influencing the political 
process for their benefit anonymously give to the 501(c)(4). The 
501(c)(4) then funnels the money to the super-PAC; and, voila, there 
are millions of secret dollars influencing our elections.
  We ought to be working together in a bipartisan way to get secret 
money out of our elections. I asked the Treasury Department to review 
the murky regulations on the books, to revise the rules to restore 
integrity to 501(c)(4) status and to ensure that taxpayers are never 
again forced to subsidize blatant political behavior.
  I would have hoped that my colleagues in the majority would have 
joined me in that effort. Instead, Republican leaders responded by 
attempting to block Treasury from fixing these broken rules and from 
forcing these secret givers to tell us who they are and what they want 
from this Congress.
  I am afraid there is only one explanation for this latest partisan 
resolution. I hope I am wrong. I hope I am wrong in that my Republican 
colleagues don't actually want to protect secret money in our 
elections. I hope I am wrong in that the GOP does not want to protect 
the billionaires and the corporations that want to conceal themselves 
from the American people and believe that they have the right to funnel 
millions of dollars through 501(c)(4)'s into super-PACs in order to 
corrupt our elections.
  I ask my colleagues to prove me wrong. Prove me wrong by working in a 
bipartisan way to protect the American people from helping sham special 
interest groups influence elections on the taxpayers' dime. Let's bring 
transparency and accountability back to our elections. Reject this sham 
resolution, and prove me wrong.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis), a member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, a year ago, when news broke that the IRS 
had been targeting Americans based on their political beliefs, the 
President of the United States said that it was outrageous. He said 
that: we demand full accountability.
  Attorney General Eric Holder said that it was outrageous and 
unacceptable. Everybody agreed this was serious. Everybody agreed that 
this required a serious investigation; yet, as we sit here a year 
later, it is clear that we have not seen the action that we were 
promised.
  First of all, the Department of Justice had been discussing with the 
IRS, as late as May of 2013, the possibility that some of these groups 
that had been targeted could end up being prosecuted criminally. The 
DOJ actually had a role with the IRS.

                              {time}  1800

  We know that the investigation is being led by somebody who is a big 
contributor to President Obama's reelection campaign.
  Of course, at the Super Bowl earlier this year, the President said 
the investigation was essentially over. Nothing happened, he said. No, 
not even a smidgeon of impropriety. And, of course, the Department of 
Justice has leaked to the media that no prosecutions will in fact 
occur.
  And when the President said as a senator in 2006 that the highly 
political context of the allegations and charges may lead some to 
surmise that political influence may compromise the investigation 
because this investigation is vital to restoring the public's faith in 
government, any appearance of bias, special favor, or political 
consideration would be a further blow to our democracy, that basically 
applies to what we have now.
  The American people don't want their government targeting them and 
targeting their First Amendment rights. If that is done and power is 
abused, they need to be held accountable.
  But when this is all said and done, I think the American people want 
to have confidence that this was looked at in a fair manner. And when 
you have all these political considerations swirling around, I don't 
think many Americans have confidence that the Department of Justice is 
doing this in a way that is not conflicted.
  And, don't forget, the entire context of this whole scandal was 
targeting essentially the President's political opposition in the run-
up to his reelection campaign.
  So I am proud to stand here supporting this resolution. I think 
voting ``yes'' on it is voting ``yes'' for transparency and 
accountability in government.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 4 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Texas has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just say very quickly that the entire premise of the 
gentleman's comments have been proven absolutely wrong. Thirty-nine 
witnesses never said one moment that the Presidential election of 2012 
was in any way involved in this particular issue.
  In addition, this is a bipartisan investigation because we have the 
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration appointed by a 
Republican and who is a Republican working with the Department of 
Justice.

[[Page 7504]]

  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the 
distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, who has 
had a detailed investigation and oversight from his committee on this 
issue.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me sum up what this is really all about.
  This hallowed institution must not be turned into a campaign arm of 
either political party. That is what the House Republicans are exactly 
doing here.
  It has been a year since multiple committee investigations began into 
the IRS handling of 501(c)(4) organization applications, and 
Republicans are no closer to finding evidence to back up their baseless 
allegations of a ``White House enemies list,'' as they said, or a 
``White House culture of coverup,'' as a Republican said on day one.
  So here is what has been going on.
  More than 250 employees at the IRS have worked more than 100,000 
hours and sent nearly 700,000 pages of documents to Ways and Means in 
response to Republican requests. More than 60 interviews have been 
conducted. Also, $14 million in taxpayer money has been spent by the 
IRS responding to congressional investigations.
  And here is what we know.
  Documents show that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to treat 
progressive groups as they did for conservative groups. There was never 
any evidence of White House involvement. Nada.
  There was never any evidence of political motivation. In fact, before 
the flawed audit was published last May, the IG's head of 
investigations reviewed 5,500 pages of documents and determined that 
there was ``no indication that pulling these selected applications was 
politically motivated.'' Instead, the head of investigations said the 
cases were consolidated due to ``unclear processing directions.''
  Republicans have indicated that they think this action today is 
necessary because the Department of Justice did not react quickly 
enough to the referral of information from Ways and Means on Lois 
Lerner that was sent last month. There is a letter from the Department 
of Justice saying that they have received this information and have 
referred it to those in charge of the IRS investigation at Justice.
  The Republicans say they want an independent investigation, but what 
they really want to do is to interrupt the investigation going on and 
preempt it with their own political theater.
  Indeed, talking about fixation, their political fixation, I say this 
not only to my colleagues but to every one of our citizens: this is the 
House of Representatives, not a political circus.
  I ask my colleagues to see this for what it is worth and vote ``no'' 
on the resolution.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, could you give us how much time is 
remaining on both sides, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 4 minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am sure my kind friend from Virginia will yield me 
some additional time, but I will use what I have.
  Let me try to bring us together, Mr. Speaker.
  Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, there was a collegial moment when 
we said, Let's clarify the law.
  If there is anything the Democrats and Republicans agree with, it is 
that ineptness, wrongness, misdirection was obviously evident in the 
equal targeting of all groups--groups that had the name 
``progressive,'' ``Occupy,'' and others.
  As Members of Congress, none of us want the citizens of the United 
States to be in any way intimidated by a government that is here to 
help them. And I stand here saying we can come together to ensure that 
all of our government agencies work well.
  The President made the point in May of 2013 that if in fact the IRS 
personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on 
and were intentionally targeting conservative groups--and it has been 
noted by the witnesses in the Oversight Committee that they were 
targeting other groups as well--Occupy, progressive--then that is 
outrageous, and there is no place for it.
  There is no conflict in this.
  What we are now debating is a fallacy of the appointment of a special 
counsel and the $14 million and the 700,000 pages of unredacted 
documents, more than 250 people who have been responding to 
congressional inquiries.
  I will include in the Record an April 23, 2014, letter to Congressman 
Sander Levin that talks about the litany of requests that the IRS has 
been requested to do.

                                       Department of the Treasury,


                                     Internal Revenue Service,

                                   Washington, DC, April 23, 2014.
     Hon. Sander Levin,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Levin: I am responding to your request for 
     documents relating to tax exempt advocacy organizations.
       Since May of last year, the Internal Revenue Service has 
     been collecting, reviewing, and producing materials in 
     response to a number of Congressional requests, including 
     those from you and your Committee. In order to provide you 
     and your staff our full cooperation in addressing this 
     matter, more than 250 people, including attorneys, litigation 
     support staff, and other IRS personnel have worked more than 
     100,000 hours.
       With this production, we have produced, including special 
     requests from individual committees, nearly 700,000 pages of 
     unredacted documents to the Senate Finance and House Ways and 
     Means Committees, which are authorized to receive I.R.C. 
     Sec. 6103 information. We also have produced, including 
     special requests from individual committees, over 530,000 
     pages, redacted as required by section 6103, to the Senate 
     Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the House 
     Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Our productions 
     have prioritized the custodians, subject matters, and search 
     terms when and as requested.
       We have responded to more than fifty Congressional letters 
     and hundreds of informal Congressional requests.
       We have facilitated more than sixty transcribed interviews 
     by Congressional staff of current and former IRS employees.
       IRS personnel have answered questions related to the 
     subjects of these investigations at 18 Congressional 
     hearings.
       The IRS document production was collected from IRS hard 
     copy and electronic files, including documents from 83 
     individual custodians.
       This production consists of documents from multiple 
     custodians; the materials are Bates-stamped IRSR0000617700--
     IRSR0000645643 and IRSR0000649674--IRSR0000650117.
       Additionally, we are reproducing documents that were 
     previously produced with non-6103 redactions, which have been 
     removed in this production. These documents are Bates-stamped 
     as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Begin Bates                           End Bates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRSR0000572647.........................  IRSR0000572649
IRSR0000572657.........................  IRSR0000572659
IRSR0000572665.........................  IRSR0000572666
IRSR0000572667.........................  IRSR0000572669
IRSR0000574027.........................  IRSR0000574029
IRSR0000574572.........................  IRSR0000574575
IRSR0000574627.........................  IRSR0000574630
IRSR0000574641.........................  IRSR0000574643
IRSR0000574654.........................  IRSR0000574657
IRSR0000574732.........................  IRSR0000574734
IRSR0000574735.........................  IRSR0000574737
IRSR0000574742.........................  IRSR0000574743
IRSR0000574744.........................  IRSR0000574747
IRSR0000575418.........................  IRSR0000575424
IRSR0000579620.........................  IRSR0000579623
IRSR0000581378.........................  IRSR0000581381
IRSR0000581459.........................  IRSR0000581462
IRSR0000582671.........................  IRSR0000582674
IRSR0000582782.........................  IRSR0000582785
IRSR0000589737.........................  IRSR0000589741
IRSR0000589756.........................  IRSR0000589758
IRSR0000589759.........................  IRSR0000589764
IRSR0000589787.........................  IRSR0000589789
IRSR0000590764.........................  IRSR0000590770
IRSR0000590783.........................  IRSR0000590786
IRSR0000590791.........................  IRSR0000590797
IRSR0000591252.........................  IRSR0000591256
IRSR0000591422.........................  IRSR0000591425
IR5R0000593400.........................  IRSR0000593401
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       For your convenience, we are also providing this set of 
     documents in PDF.
       If you have any questions, please contact me or have your 
     staff contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Leonard Oursler.

                        National Director for Legislative Affairs.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I also will include in the Record a May 7, 2014, 
letter that emphasizes that this is a bipartisan investigation. The 
inspector general of the Tax Administration, appointed by George Bush, 
is working with the U.S. Department of Justice. It negates very visibly 
any suggestion of conflict of interest or that this is a biased 
investigation.

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                      Washington, DC, May 7, 2014.
     Hon. Dave Camp,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your letter of April 9, 
     2014, providing the Department of Justice (the Department) 
     information and documents that the Committee on

[[Page 7505]]

     Ways and Means (the Committee) has obtained in the course of 
     its ongoing investigation into allegations of targeting by 
     the Internal Revenue Service of organizations based on their 
     political views.
       As you may know, the Department has an ongoing criminal 
     investigation into the IRS's treatment of groups applying for 
     tax-exempt status, which is being conducted jointly with the 
     Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). We 
     appreciate your concern and will carefully consider the 
     Committee's findings as part of our investigation into these 
     allegations.
       We hope that this information is helpful. Please do not 
     hesitate to contact this office if we may provide assistance 
     in this or any other matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Peter J. Kadzik,
                      Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. In addition, I think it is very important to note 
that we are the Congress and the administration. But I take great issue 
in suggesting the lack of integrity of our employees in the Federal 
Government and that they would do anything to undermine an official 
investigation.
  The letter that we received on February 23, 2014, debunks any 
personal relationship of this single attorney in a single office with 
any one political candidate from a personal perspective.
  A donation, yes. But are you suggesting that that individual has no 
private right to enterprise their free speech?
  There is no close identification with an elected official, no 
relationship with families and children.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this 
resolution that is not grounded in any substance, does not meet the 
standard of 600.1, 600.2, and finds no conflict. This is no 
investigation that is over. There is no suggestion that they are not, 
in essence, investigating all parties, and that there will not be a 
conclusion that will ultimately make a decision that is unbiased as to 
whether or not persons will be criminally prosecuted.
  And so this resolution does not meet the standard. It is, again, 
taking up space on the floor. I would like to see unemployment 
insurance and immigration reform here. I would like to help the 
American people and help job legislation to make a difference here in 
the United States Congress.
  I have other documents I will add into the Record, Mr. Speaker. These 
letters are experts saying there is no conflict of interest.

                               Columbia University Law School,

                                   New York, NY, February 5, 2014.
     Re Prosecutorial Disqualification

     Hon. Donald K. Sherman,
     Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Sherman: Although I lack deep familiarity with the 
     matter you are inquiring about, I can offer some brief 
     thoughts on the questions you have posed to me, specifically:
       Do past political contributions by a career prosecutor to a 
     Presidential campaign or political party create a conflict of 
     interest in a multi-agency investigation regarding 
     allegations of political targeting by federal agency 
     officials?
       Do past political contributions by a career prosecutor to a 
     Presidential campaign or political party create grounds for 
     disqualification arising from a personal or ``political 
     relationship'' under 28 C.F.R. Sec. 45.2 in a multi-agency 
     investigation regarding allegations of misconduct of federal 
     agency officials?
       Is it appropriate for Department of Justice leadership to 
     check the political donations made by a career prosecutor 
     before assigning that person to join a multi-agency 
     investigation involving victims claiming that they were 
     treated unfairly because of their political beliefs?
       For background: I am currently the Paul J. Kellner 
     Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. For the past twenty 
     years, my scholarship has focused on criminal procedure and 
     federal criminal enforcement issues. I teach courses in 
     Criminal Procedure, Evidence, Federal Criminal Law, and a 
     Sentencing seminar. Before entering academia, I served as an 
     assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, 
     and ultimately was the Chief Appellate Attorney in that 
     Office. Since leaving government service in 1992, I have 
     served as a consultant for various federal agencies, 
     including the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector 
     General, and I have been retained as defense counsel or a 
     consultant in a number of criminal and civil matters.
       You have posed these questions with respect to a specific 
     Justice Department employee who, according to publically 
     available FEC data, donated amounts totaling $4250 to 
     political campaign funds related to the Democratic Party and 
     Barack Obama in 2004, and $2000 to funds relating to 
     President Obama in 2012. Any claim that these contributions, 
     in of themselves, create a conflict of interest or should be 
     cause for disqualification for a career prosecutor 
     investigating allegations of political targeting in the 
     Executive Branch strikes me as meritless.
       28 CFR 45.2 is bars an employee from participating ``in a 
     criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or 
     political relationship with:
       (1) Any person or organization substantially involved in 
     the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or 
     prosecution; or
       (2) Any person or organization which he knows has a 
     specific and substantial interest that would be directly 
     affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.
       And it goes on to define a ``political relationship'' as

     a close identification with an elected official, a candidate 
     (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a 
     political party, or a campaign organization, arising from 
     service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal 
     official thereof. . . .

       Simple past campaign contributions do not come close to 
     meeting this standard. Indeed, were they to do so, the 
     conflict concerns would extend as much to employees who had 
     donated to the party out of office, since presumably that 
     party would be gain from any findings of impropriety by the 
     current Administration. It would similarly be highly 
     inappropriate for Justice Department officials, in putting an 
     investigative team together to inquire into the legal 
     political contributions that line prosecutors have made in 
     their private capacity. In my experience, one of the glories 
     of the Justice Department--worthy of celebration, not 
     undermining--is the non-partisan way in which line 
     prosecutors have done their work as Administrations come and 
     go. The last thing we want is to divide them into political 
     affinity groups.
           Very truly yours,
     Daniel Richman.
                                  ____

                                 Fordham University School of Law,
                                   New York, NY, February 4, 2014.
     c/o
     Donald K. Sherman,
     Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
     Re ``The IRS Targeting Investigation''--Hearing scheduled for 
         February 6, 2014

       To the Chairman and Members of the Committee: I understand 
     that your Committee is considering how conflict of interest 
     laws apply to federal prosecutors. Specifically, do career 
     federal prosecutors who previously contributed to the 
     presidential campaign or political party of the incumbent 
     President have a conflict of interest that precludes them 
     from investigating federal agency officials? I submit this 
     letter to explain why this scenario does not comprise a 
     conflict of interest under prevailing ethics standards and 
     law.


                              Introduction

       By way of introduction, I am a former federal prosecutor 
     and, as a legal academic, have spent much of the past 27 
     years studying questions of legal, judicial, prosecutorial 
     and government ethics.
       I served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern 
     District of New York from 1983 to 1987, after serving as a 
     judicial law clerk. I served under U.S. Attorney Rudolph W. 
     Giuliani throughout my time in the U.S. Attorney's Office. 
     Before leaving in 1987, I served as Deputy Chief Appellate 
     Attorney and Chief Appellate Attorney in the Criminal 
     Division. My responsibilities included advising other 
     prosecutors on legal and ethical questions.
       Since 1987, I have taught full-time at Fordham Law School, 
     where I now direct the Stein Center for Law and Ethics. For 
     the past 27 years, I have taught courses relating to legal 
     ethics and criminal law and procedure, including a seminar on 
     ``Ethics in Criminal Advocacy.'' As an academic, I have 
     written more than 25 articles on prosecutors' ethics and I 
     have spoken widely on this subject, including at programs of 
     the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Association of 
     Former United States Attorneys, the American Bar Association 
     (ABA), and other national, state and local organizations and 
     entities. I have also engaged in substantial professional 
     service involving legal ethics generally and prosecutors' 
     ethics particularly. Among other things, I have chaired the 
     ABA Criminal Justice Section and that Section's ethics 
     committee, chaired the New York State Bar Association's 
     ethics committee, and served for more than a decade on the 
     committee that drafts the national bar examination on 
     lawyers' professional responsibility (the MPRE).
       While teaching law full-time, I have also engaged in 
     various part-time public service relating to issues of 
     government integrity. I served as Associate Counsel in the 
     Office of Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh (the Iran/Contra 
     prosecutor) and as a consultant to the N.Y.S. Commission on 
     Government Integrity (under Fordham's then-Dean, John 
     Feerick). In 1995, then-Mayor Giuliani appointed me to serve 
     on the five-member New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, 
     which interprets and enforces the city's conflicts of

[[Page 7506]]

     interest law for government officials and employees. I was 
     subsequently reappointed and served on the Board until early 
     2005.
       Finally, in light of the subject of this letter, I note 
     that I am registered to vote as an ``independent.''


                               Discussion

       I understand that this Committee is considering the 
     following three questions among others) on which I hope to be 
     of assistance.
       1. Do past political contributions by a career prosecutor 
     to a Presidential campaign or political party create a 
     conflict of interest in a multi-agency investigation 
     regarding allegations of political targeting by federal 
     agency officials?
       As lawyers, federal prosecutors are governed by the 
     professional conduct rules of the states in which they work. 
     In most states, these rules are based on the ABA Model Rules 
     of Professional Conduct. All state codes of professional 
     conduct for lawyers include provisions on conflicts of 
     interest. In general, the rules provide that a lawyer has a 
     conflict of interest if there is a significant risk that the 
     lawyer's representation will be materially limited by the 
     lawyer's personal interest.
       As ``ministers of justice,'' prosecutors are expected to 
     conduct investigations and prosecutions without regard to 
     partisan political considerations. Indeed, the ABA Standards 
     governing prosecutors' conflicts of interest provide: ``A 
     prosecutor should not permit his or her professional judgment 
     or obligations to be affected by his or her own political . . 
     . interests.'' One can envision situations in which 
     prosecutors' political interests would significantly limit 
     their ability to pursue justice evenhandedly, and in such 
     situations, prosecutors would be obligated to step aside. An 
     elected prosecutor's investigation of a campaign rival would 
     surely be one such situation.
       I understand that in an investigation of possible 
     misconduct by public officials, the particular prosecutor's 
     political affiliation or level of political engagement might 
     seem to matter. A prosecutor who contributed financially to 
     the winning side might be suspected of favoring officials in 
     the incumbent administration or of harboring an interest in 
     avoiding embarrassment to the administration. A prosecutor 
     who contributed financially to the losing side might be 
     suspected of bias against the incumbents or of desiring to 
     embarrass them. Even a prosecutor who made no financial 
     contribution but who voted for one side or the other might be 
     suspected of bias or favoritism.
       Under the prevailing legal and ethical understandings, 
     however, this scenario does not constitute a conflict of 
     interest. The relevant standards for prosecutors--e.g., the 
     ABA rules and standards and the National District Attorneys 
     Association standards--do not forbid prosecutors from making 
     political contributions. Nothing in the rules or standards 
     requires prosecutors who made contributions to recuse 
     themselves from cases involving public officials. This is in 
     contrast to rules of judicial conduct that forbid judges from 
     making contributions to political organizations and 
     candidates. Prosecutors are not held to the same level of 
     neutrality and nonpartisanship as judges. As the Supreme 
     Court has observed, ``the strict requirements of neutrality 
     cannot be the same for . . . prosecutors as for judges.''
       Likewise, judicial decisions do not support the premise 
     that prosecutors who make campaign contributions have a 
     conflict of interest in cases of political significance. In 
     criminal cases, the question of whether a prosecutor has a 
     conflict of interest may be raised by a criminal defendant or 
     by an individual who is the subject of a criminal 
     investigation. Additionally, in some jurisdictions, 
     prosecutors who perceive that they have a conflict of 
     interest may ask the court to appoint an independent 
     prosecutor. Thus, courts have had occasion to issue opinions 
     regarding whether a particular prosecutor must be 
     disqualified, or an independent prosecutor appointed, because 
     of an alleged conflict. Prosecutors who have prior lawyer-
     client relationships, or family or business relationships, 
     with a defendant or potential defendant are ordinarily 
     understood to have a significant personal interest that may 
     impair their impartiality. But no court would seriously 
     entertain a claim that the prosecutor should be disqualified 
     from investigating or prosecuting officials of an executive-
     branch agency because the prosecutor previously made 
     political donations supporting or opposing the incumbent 
     president or the president's party.
       2. Do past political contributions by a career prosecutor 
     to a Presidential campaign or political party create grounds 
     for disqualification arising from a personal or ``political 
     relationship'' under 28 C.F.R. Sec. 45.2 in a multi-agency 
     investigation regarding allegations of misconduct of federal 
     agency officials?
       Federal prosecutors are subject to 28 C.F.R. Sec. 45.2, 
     which requires prosecutors to be disqualified from cases in 
     which they have a personal or ``political relationship'' with 
     the subject of the investigation or with another person or 
     organization having a specific and substantial interest in 
     the investigation or prosecution. The provision defines a 
     disqualifying ``political relationship'' to mean ``a close 
     identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether 
     or not successful) for elective, public office, a political 
     party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a 
     principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof'' 
     (emphasis added).
       Section 45.2 plainly does not apply to a career prosecutor 
     who contributed to the incumbent president's campaign or 
     political party. The provision is very limited. It applies 
     only to a prosecutor whose close identification with an 
     official, candidate, party or organization arises from the 
     prosecutor's prior service as a principal adviser to the 
     official or candidate or as a principal official of the party 
     or organization that is the subject of the investigation or 
     otherwise an interested party. Few, if any, federal 
     prosecutors fit into that category. A campaign contributor 
     does not, because he or she is not ``a principal adviser'' or 
     a ``principal official.''
       That this federal regulation has a ``narrow definition of a 
     disqualifying political conflict of interest'' was noted in 
     In re: Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr, where the court 
     of appeals refused to revive an ethics grievance, filed 
     against Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, maintaining that 
     the Independent Counsel had a conflict of interest in the 
     Whitewater investigation arising out of his political 
     affiliation with the Republican Party. In a concurring 
     opinion, Circuit Judge Loken explained that ``it is not 
     surprising that federal law does not restrict or disqualify 
     prosecutors on the basis of vaguely defined political 
     conflicts of interest,'' and that ``even a brief look at 
     history will confirm [that] judicial reluctance to question a 
     prosecutor's background is even more important'' in an 
     investigation of government misconduct. That history includes 
     the appointment of corruption investigators and prosecutors 
     from ``highly partisan backgrounds and [with] strong personal 
     political ambitions.'' Making a campaign contribution 
     reflects a low level of political involvement by comparison.
       3. Is it appropriate for Department of Justice leadership 
     to check the political donations made by a career prosecutor 
     before assigning that person to join a multi-agency 
     investigation involving victims claiming that they were 
     treated unfairly because of their political beliefs?
       As discussed above, a career prosecutor assigned to 
     investigate a federal official would not have a conflict of 
     interest simply because the prosecutor contributed to one or 
     the other party or to one or the other presidential 
     candidate. I am unaware of any federal or state jurisdiction 
     in which prosecutors investigating or prosecuting government 
     corruption cases are limited to those who are so politically 
     disengaged. Because political donations are not a relevant 
     consideration in making assignments, it would not be 
     appropriate for Department of Justice leadership to check 
     career prosecutors' political donations before assigning them 
     to an investigation.
       There has never been a political-affiliation litmus test 
     for prosecutors engaged in government corruption 
     investigations or other investigations of government 
     officials. Rather, it should be assumed that prosecutors, as 
     professionals, will put their political preferences to the 
     side, because their fundamental allegiance is to the rule of 
     law and to pursuing justice.
           Very truly yours,
                                                   Bruce A. Green,
                                     Louis Stein Professor of Law.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Oppose this present resolution and let's move on to 
come together and effectively work on behalf of the American people.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentlewoman from Texas and the 
gentleman from Michigan, who said that this hallowed institution should 
not be turned into a campaign arm of either political party, I totally 
agree with the gentleman's assertion. I also believe that he would 
agree with me that the Internal Revenue Service should not be turned 
into a political arm of any administration.
  The IRS--the tax collectors--have the most unenviable job. And they 
are despised by most Americans coming to collect their taxes from them. 
To politicize that organization, to turn it into an organization that 
the American people mistrust, is an abuse.
  The contention that the IRS targeted progressives is debunked by this 
staff report prepared by the House of Representatives Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform dated April 7, 2014, just 1 month ago.
  I will read from the conclusion of that report:

       Evidence available to the committee contradicts Democrats' 
     claims about bipartisan targeting. Although the IRS's BOLO 
     list included entries for liberal-oriented groups, only Tea 
     Party applicants received systematic scrutiny because of 
     their political beliefs. Public and nonpublic analyses of IRS 
     data show that the IRS routinely approved

[[Page 7507]]

     liberal applications while holding and scrutinizing 
     conservative applications. Even training documents produced 
     by the IRS indicate stark differences between liberal and 
     conservative applications: ``progressive'' applications are 
     not considered ``Tea Parties.'' These facts show one 
     unyielding truth: Tea Party groups were targeted because of 
     their political beliefs, liberal groups were not.

  And from the executive summary:

       For months, the administration and congressional Democrats 
     have attempted to downplay the IRS's misconduct. First, the 
     administration sought to minimize the fallout by preemptively 
     acknowledging the misconduct in response to a planted 
     question at an obscure Friday morning tax-law conference. 
     When that strategy failed, the administration shifted to 
     blaming ``rogue agents'' and ``line-level'' employees for the 
     targeting. When those assertions proved false, congressional 
     Democrats baselessly attacked the character and integrity of 
     the inspector general. Their attempt to allege bipartisan 
     targeting is just another effort to distract from the fact 
     that the Obama IRS systematically targeted and delayed 
     conservative tax-exempt applicants.

  The gentleman from Michigan is right: this institution should not be 
used, nor the IRS, to benefit either political party. And that is why 
an independent, professional special counsel should be appointed 
immediately by the Attorney General. Because the three tests for that 
appointment have already been met.

                              {time}  1815

  That is the reason why we are here today. A criminal investigation of 
a person or a matter is warranted. An investigation or prosecution of 
that person or matter by a United States Attorneys' Office or 
litigating division of the Department of Justice would prevent a 
conflict of interest for the department.
  All of these false assertions made over and over and over again show 
there is a conflict in this investigation by this administration.
  Third, under those circumstances, it would be in the public interest 
to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility for the 
matter.
  It is time for that outside special counsel to be appointed, to take 
the politics out of this, and to make sure that the American people's 
interest in having an Internal Revenue Service--the tax collectors of 
the country--not attempting to influence public policy, not taking 
ideological points of view in the enforcement of our tax law is not to 
take place.
  The only way we can assure it is by having that special counsel 
appointed.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert an executive summary into the Record.

                           Executive Summary

       In the immediate aftermath of Lois Lerner's public apology 
     for the targeting of conservative tax-exempt applicants, 
     President Obama and congressional Democrats quickly denounced 
     the IRS misconduct. But later, some of the same voices that 
     initially decried the targeting changed their tune. Less than 
     a month after the wrongdoing was exposed, prominent Democrats 
     declared the ``case is solved'' and, later, the whole 
     incident to be a ``phony scandal.'' As recently as February 
     2014, the President explained away the targeting as the 
     result of ``bone-headed'' decisions by employees of an IRS 
     ``local office'' without ``even a smidgeon of corruption.''
       To support this false narrative, the Administration and 
     congressional Democrats have seized upon the notion that the 
     IRS's targeting was not just limited to conservative 
     applicants. Time and again, they have claimed that the IRS 
     targeted liberal- and progressive-oriented groups as well--
     and that, therefore, there was no political animus to the 
     IRS's actions. These Democratic claims are flat-out wrong and 
     have no basis in any thorough examination of the facts. Yet, 
     the Administration's chief defenders continue to make these 
     assertions in a concerted effort to deflect and distract from 
     the truth about the IRS's targeting of tax-exempt applicants.
       The Committee's investigation demonstrates that the IRS 
     engaged in disparate treatment of conservative-oriented tax-
     exempt applicants. Documents produced to the Committee show 
     that initial applications transferred from Cincinnati to 
     Washington were filed by Tea Party groups. Other documents 
     and testimony show that the initial criteria used to identify 
     and hold Tea Party applications captured conservative 
     organizations. After the criteria were broadened in July 2012 
     to be cosmetically neutral, material provided to the 
     Committee indicates that the IRS still intended to target 
     only conservative applications.
       A central plank in the Democratic argument is the claim 
     that liberal-leaning groups were identified on versions of 
     the IRS's ``Be on the Look Out'' (BOLO) lists. This claim 
     ignores significant differences in the placement of the 
     conservative and liberal entries on the BOLO lists and how 
     the IRS used the BOLO lists in practice. The Democratic 
     claims are further undercut by testimony from IRS employees 
     who told the Committee that liberal groups were not subject 
     to the same systematic scrutiny and delay as conservative 
     organizations.
       The IRS's independent watchdog, the Treasury Inspector 
     General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), confirms that the IRS 
     treated conservative applicants differently from liberal 
     groups. The inspector general, J. Russell George, wrote that 
     while TIGTA found indications that the IRS had improperly 
     identified Tea Party groups, it ``did not find evidence that 
     the criteria [Democrats] identified, labeled `Progressives,' 
     were used by the IRS to select potential political cases 
     during the 2010 to 2012 timeframe we audited.'' He concluded 
     that TIGTA ``found no indication in any of these other 
     materials that `Progressives' was a term used to refer cases 
     for scrutiny for political campaign intervention.''
       An analysis performed by the House Committee on Ways and 
     Means buttresses the Committee's findings of disparate 
     treatment. The Ways and Means Committee's review of the 
     confidential tax-exempt applications proves that the IRS 
     systematically targeted conservative organizations. Although 
     a small number of progressive and liberal groups were caught 
     up in the application backlog, the Ways and Means Committee's 
     review shows that the backlog was 83 percent conservative and 
     only 10 percent were liberal-oriented. Moreover, the IRS 
     approved 70 percent of the liberal-leaning groups and only 45 
     percent of the conservative groups. The IRS approved every 
     group with the word ``progressive'' in its name.
       In addition, other publicly available information supports 
     the analysis of the Ways and Means Committee. In September 
     2013, USA Today published an independent analysis of a list 
     of about 160 applications in the IRS backlog. This analysis 
     showed that 80 percent of the applications in the backlog 
     were filed by conservative groups while less than seven 
     percent were filed by liberal groups. A separate assessment 
     from USA Today in May 2013 showed that for 27 months 
     beginning in February 2010, the IRS did not approve a single 
     tax-exempt application filed by a Tea Party group. During 
     that same period, the IRS approved ``perhaps dozens of 
     applications from similar liberal and progressive groups.''
       The IRS, over many years, has undoubtedly scrutinized 
     organizations that embrace different political views for 
     varying reasons--in many cases, a just and neutral criteria 
     may have been fairly utilized. This includes the time period 
     when Tea Party organizations were systematically screened for 
     enhanced and inappropriate scrutiny. But the concept of 
     targeting, when defined as a systematic effort to select 
     applicants for scrutiny simply because their applications 
     reflected the organizations' political views, only applied to 
     Tea Party and similar conservative organizations. While use 
     of term ``targeting'' in the IRS scandal may not always 
     follow this definition, the reality remains that there is 
     simply no evidence that any liberal or progressive group 
     received enhanced scrutiny because its application reflected 
     the organization's political views.
       For months, the Administration and congressional Democrats 
     have attempted to downplay the IRS's misconduct. First, the 
     Administration sought to minimize the fallout by preemptively 
     acknowledging the misconduct in response to a planted 
     question at an obscure Friday morning tax-law conference. 
     When that strategy failed, the Administration shifted to 
     blaming ``rogue agents'' and ``line-level'' employees for the 
     targeting. When those assertions proved false, congressional 
     Democrats baselessly attacked the character and integrity of 
     the inspector general. Their attempt to allege bipartisan 
     targeting is just another effort to distract from the fact 
     that the Obama IRS systematically targeted and delayed 
     conservative tax-exempt applicants.


                               Conclusion

       Democrats in Congress and the Administration have 
     perpetrated a myth that the IRS targeted both conservative 
     and liberal tax-exempt applicants. The targeting is a ``phony 
     scandal,'' they say, because the IRS did not just target Tea 
     Party groups, but it targeted liberal and progressive groups 
     as well. Month after month, in public hearings and televised 
     interviews, Democrats have repeatedly claimed that 
     progressive groups were scrutinized in the same manner as 
     conservative groups. Because of this bipartisan targeting, 
     they conclude, there is not a ``smidgeon of corruption'' at 
     the IRS.
       The problem with these assertions is that they are simply 
     not accurate. The Committee's investigation shows that the 
     IRS sought to identify and single out Tea Party applications. 
     The facts bear this out. The initial ``test'' applications 
     were filed by Tea Party groups. The initial screening 
     criteria identified only Tea Party applications. The

[[Page 7508]]

     revised criteria still intended to identify Tea Party 
     activities. The IRS's internal review revealed that a 
     substantial majority of applications were conservative. In 
     short, the IRS treated conservative tax-exempt applications 
     in a manner distinct from other applications, including those 
     filed by liberal groups.
       Evidence available to the Committee contradicts Democrats' 
     claims about bipartisan targeting. Although the IRS's BOLO 
     list included entries for liberal-oriented groups, only Tea 
     Party applicants received systematic scrutiny because of 
     their political beliefs. Public and nonpublic analyses of IRS 
     data show that the IRS routinely approved liberal 
     applications while holding and scrutinizing conservative 
     applications. Even training documents produced by the IRS 
     indicate stark differences between liberal and conservative 
     applications: ```progressive' applications are not considered 
     ``Tea Parties.''' These facts show one unyielding truth: Tea 
     Party groups were targeted because of their political 
     beliefs, liberal groups were not.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the resolution has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 568, the previous question is ordered on 
the resolution.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________