the gentleman, as the professor said, it's explicit that a person does not waive a fifth amendment right by answering questions outside a formal setting or by making statements that were not under oath, when he referred to the issue of her making statements to the justice department. with that, i yield to the distinguished gentlelady, a member of our committee, ms. speer for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady is recognized. ms. speier: i thank the gentleman for his leadership and to say a few minutes here on the floor. i'm not here to defend lois lerner today but i am here to defend the constitution and every american's right to assert the fifth amendment so as not to incriminate themselves. and every single member of this body should be as committed to doing the same thing. i'm also here to defend the integrity of the committee and the rules of that committee. lois lerner pled the fifth amendment before our committee.

and she also professed her innocence. pure and simple. 30 independent legal experts have said the proceedings were constitutionally deficient to bring a contempt proceeding. they were constitutionally deficient because the chair did not overrule ms. lerner's fifth amendment assertion and order her to answer the question. and as long as that deficiency is there, there is no reason to move forward with this effort today. but let's move on to the bigger picture. every single 501-c-4 that was in the queue before the i.r.s. could have self-certified. they didn't even need to be in that queue. so whether or not there was a list of progressive organizations and conservative

organizations that they were through omehow get the thousands of applications they had, they could have moved aside and self-certified. there have been 39 witnesses before this committee, there have been 530 pages of documents. there is no smoking gun. but the other side is locked and loaded, they're just shooting blanks. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. does the gentleman from maryland reserve? the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: if they hasn't made their applications perhaps they wouldn't have been asked the abusive questions like what books do you read, who are your donors, inappropriate questions that happened. with that i yield one minute to the distinguished member from virginia, the leader of the house, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman, chairman

from california. mr. speaker, i rise today in support -- in strong support of this resolution to hold ms. had lois lerner in contempt -- ms. lois lerner in contempt. the substance of this resolution should not be taken lightly. the contempt of the u.s. house of representatives is a serious matter and one that must be taken only when duly warranted. there's no doubt in my mind the conditions have been met for today's actions. mr. speaker, there are few government abuses more serious than using the i.r.s. to punish american citizens for their political beliefs. the very idea of the i.r.s. being used to intimidate and silence critics of a certain political philosophy is egregious. it is so egregious that it is practically -- that it has practically been a cliche of

government corruption in works of fiction for decades since president nixon's administration. yet, mr. speaker, unfortunately in this instance, under ms. lerner's watch, this corruption became all too real. conservatives were routinely targeted and silenced by the i.r.s., leading up to the 2012 election, unjustly and with malice. those targeted were deprived of their civil rights to an unbiased administration of law. these citizens, these moms and dads simply trying to play within the rules and make their voices heard were left waiting without answers until election day had come and gone. liberal groups were not targeted, as my colleagues across the aisle like to claim. only conservative groups were

deliberately singled out because of their political beliefs and they were subjected to delays, inappropriate questions and unjust denials. mr. speaker, the american people are owed a government that they can trust, not a government that they fear. the only way to rebuild this trust is to investigate exactly how these abuses occurred and to ensure that they never happen again. whether you're a cservative or a liberal, a republican or a democrat, or hold any other political or philosophical position, your rights must be protected from this administration and all those that come after it. for nearly a full year lois lerner has refused to testify before this house about the singling out and targeting of conservative organizations.

she spoke up and gave a detailed assertion of her innocence and then refused to answer questions. she later spoke with d.o.j. attorneys for hours but still refused to answer a lawful subpoena and testify to the american public. as a public servant, she decided to forego cooperation, to forego truth and transparency. in 2013, ms. lerner joked in one uncovered email that perhaps she could get a job with organizing for america, president obama's political arm. this is no surprise. our committees have found ms. lerner used her position to unfairly deny conservative groups equal protection under the law. ms. lerner impeded official investigations. she risked exposing and may

actually have exposed confidential taxpayer information in the process. day after day, action after action ms. lerner exposed herself as a servant to her political philosophy rather than a servant to the american people. this, mr. speaker, is why the house has taken the extraordinary action of referring ms. lerner to the department of justice for criminal prosecution. and why we will request a special council to investigate this case. not only has the president asserted that tere is, quote, not even a smidgen of corruption at the i.r.s., but leaks from the department of justice have indicated that no one will be prosecuted. that's not surprising, as a top donor to the president's campaign is playing a key role

in their investigation. potentially compromising any semblance of independence and justice. an independent, nonpartisan, special prosecutor is needed to ensure a fair investigation that all americans can trust. mr. speaker, the american people deserve to know the full context of why these actions were taken. as early as 2010, leading democratic leaders were urging the i.r.s. to take action against conservative groups. the decision made to take action against them? the american people, ms. lerner's employers, deserve answers. they deserve accountability. they deserve to know that this will never happen again, no matter what your political persuasion.

the american people deserve better. because of ms. lerner's actions, because of her unwillingness to fully testify, and because she has refused to legally cooperate with this investigation, i urge my colleagues in the house to hold ms. lerner in contempt. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> i yield to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding. in response to those recent allegations, i do want to point out that our committee did look at the question of political motivation in selecting tax exemption applications. we asked the inspector general, russell george, on may 17, 2013, in a hearing before the ways and means committee, and i quote, this was the question,

did you find any evidence of political motivation in the selection of tax exempt applications? he -- he responded, the inspector general who investigated this case testified, and this is a quote, we did not, sir. period. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this contempt resolution. what began as a necessary and compelling bipartisan investigation into the targeting of american citizens by the internal revenue service has now deteriorated into a -- into the very sort of dangerous and careless government overreaching that our committee was set out to investigate in the first place. the gentleman from california commenced this investigation in may of 2013 by stating the following during his opening statement. this is a quote. when government power is used to target americans for exercising their constitutional rights, there is nothing we as representatives should find more important than to take it seriously, get to the bottom of it and eradicate the behavior, closed quote.

i would remind the chairman that our solemn duty as lawmakers to safeguard the constitutional rights of every american does not only extend to cases where a powerful federal department has deprived citizens of freedom vested in the first amendment, rather, we must be equally vigilant when the power of government is brought down on americans who have asserted their rights under the fifth amendment and its guarantee that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against him or herself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. and in a system where innocent until proven guilty lies at the bedrock of our constitutional protections, ms. lerner's brief assertions of innocence, 36 , rds, should not be enough to e -- ax her fifth amendment rights. regrettably this contempt resolution utterly fails to reflect the seriousness with which we should approach this constitutional issue at stake. in the face of supreme court

precedent and a vast body of legal expert opinion, holding that ms. lerner did not in fact waive her fifth amendment privilege by professing her assistance, chairman issa has moved forward with a contempt proceedings without even affording the members of our own committee the opportunity to receive public testimony from legal experts on this important constitutional question. as held by the supreme court in 1949 in smith vs. united states , testimonyal waiver is not to be lightly inferred and the courts accordingly indulge every reasonable presumption against finding a testimonial waiver. chairman issa has also chosen to pursue contempt against ms. lerner after refusing an offer from her attorney for a brief one-week delay so that his client could finally provide the testimony that members on both sides of the aisle have been asking for. these legally flawed contempt proceedings bring us no closer to receiving ms. lerner's

testimony and have only served to divert our time, focus and resources away from our rightful inquiry into the troubling events of the i.r.s., they also reflect the bipartisan -- excuse me, the partisan manner in -- -- the partisan manner in which this as been conducted to date. he has released two staff reports on these events that were not even provided to the democratic members prior to their release. in closing, i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i'd like to correct the record. it's now 40 transcribed interviews and we received 1,000 emails from lois lerner today. so that 14 million probably went up a little bit because today the i.r.s. finally turned over some of the documents they

owed this committee under subpoena for over half a year. i now recognize the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. mica, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. mica: thank you, mr. chairman, mr. speaker. it's probably nothing more sacred to americans, nothing than portant to protect the democratic electoral process which has made this by far the greatest country in the world, getting everyone an pportunity to participate. we're here today to hold lois lerner in contempt. it's been stated she didn't have her rights recognized. she has the right to take the fifth. she's done that.

under the constitution. may ught her in twice, 22, 2013, march, 2014. she began -- and you can see the tapes -- declaring her innocence. even before that, when it was pointed out that she was at the heart of this matter, in fact everyone and her employees, when she tried to throw them under the bus, they said she threw them under a convoy of mack trucks. every road leads to lois lerner. lois lerner held the congress of the united states in contempt and is holding it in contempt. lois lerner held the electoral process that is so sacred to his country in contempt. lois lerner has held the american people and the process they cherish and the chief financial agency, the i.r.s.,

who we all have to account to, as a tool to manipulate a national election. this was a targeted, directed focus attempt and every road leads to lois lerner. she's had twice the opportunity to come before congress and to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and she has failed to do that and i urge that we hold lois lerner in contempt. that's our responsibility. and it must be done. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: with all due respect to the gentleman who ust spoke, even the i.g. found that lois lerner did not learn about the inappropriate terms until a year afterwards. the i.g. that was appointed by the republican president with. that, i yield three minutes to the distinguished member from virginia a member of our

committee, mr. conway. the speaker pro tempore: the -- mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: i thank my friend. i think if the founders were here today and had witnessed the proceed thonings government and oversight reform committee with respect to ms. lois lerner, they would have unanimously reaffirmed their commitment to this -- to the fifth amendment because rights were trampled on, frankly starting with the first amendment rights of the ranking member who was cut off and not allowed to speak even after the chairman allowed himself abopen -- an opening statement and no fewer than seven questions before cutting off entirely the ranking member. then we proceeded to trample on the fifth amendment. and case law is what governs here. the court has said the

self-incrimination clause must be interpreted in favor of the right it was intended to secure. since the respect normally accorded to prive sledge normally buttressed by the defendant in a trial, in other words it's the same. it's the equivalent of the presumption of innocence. madison said if all men, and he meant all men and women, i'm sure, were angels we wouldn't knead need the fifth amendment. lois lerner is not to be defended here. she's not a heroic character. but she is a citizen who has an enumerated right in the constitution of the united states. the relevant case, besides quinn vs. the united states, in the 1950's a u.s. citizen, diantha ho fwmbings ue was taken tpwhever permanent subcommittee, she also had a prepared statement declaiming her innocence, that she was not a spy, not engaged in subversion and then she proceeded to invoke her fifth

amendment. ms. hogue answered some questions yes or no that were put to her. she was found in contempt. the chairman of the committee jumped on it and said, aha, i got you. the court found otherwise. the court unanimously ruled that ms. hogue had not waived her fifth amendment right, she was entitled to a statement of innocence and that didn't somehow vitiate her invocation of the fifth amendment right and her fifth amendment right was upheld. this is a about trampling on the constitutional rights of u.s. citizens. and for a very crass reason. for partisan, political reason. we heard the distinguished majority leader, my colleague and friend from virginia, assert something that's absolutely not true, which is that only conservative grouped were targeted by the i.r.s. that's not true and we have testimony that's not true. words like occupy. acorn. progressive. were all part of the so called bolo list. they too were looked at.

this was an incompetent, ham handed effort by one regional office in cincinnati by the i.r.s. was it right? absolutely not. but does it rise to the level of a scandal or the false assertion by the chairman of our committee on television as the ranking member cited that somehow it goes all the way to the white house picking on political enemies? flat out untrue. not a scintilla of evidence that that's true. and to have the entire house of representatives now voting on the contempt citation and declaring unilaterally that a u.s. citizen has waived her constitutional rights does no credit to the this house and salo moment that evokes the spirit of joe mccarthy from a long-ago era. shame on us for what we're about to do i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: nobody answered the

debunking we put out this document this document makes it clear it was all about targeting and abusing conservative groups and the gentleman from virginia knows that very well. with that, it's my honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma who has champion sod many of these issues in our investigation, mr. lankford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lankford: thank you, mr. speaker. about three years ago, all of our offices startedetting phone calls from constituents. they were being -- said they were being asked unusualle -- unusual questions by the i.r.s. they were applying for nonprofit status. they were patriot groups, tea party groups, they were getting questions coming back new york questions like, tell us as the i.r.s. every conversation you've had with a legislator in the -- and the contents of those conversations. tell us and give us cop dwhroifs documents that are only given to members of your organization. if there's a private part of

your website that's only set aside for members, show us all of those pages and by the way, all of those questions were prefaced with the statement from the i.r.s., whatever documents you give us will also be made public to everyone. so the statement was, tell us what you privately talked about with legislators, tell us what only your members get because we're going to publish it. so of course we start to get questions about that. the inspector general starts an investigation on that. on may 10 of last year, 2013, lois lerner stands up in a conference, plants a question in the audience to talk about something completely irrelevant to the conference so she can leak out that this investigation is about to be burst out and four days later, the inspector general launches out this investigation and says, conservative groups have een unfairly targeted. 298 groups had their applications held, isolated.

they were asked for all these things when they turneding to be yumets in, they were store the initial accusation is, this was a crazy group from cincinnati that did this so our committee happened to bring in these folks from cincinnati. they all said they wanted to be able to advance these applications and they were told no. we asked the names of the people in washington that told them to hold them. we brought those folks in. they said they wanted to move them. they were told by the counsel's office to hold them. as we continue to work through point after point, through person after person, all come back to lois lerner's office. lois lencher who had come in before us on may 22 of 2013, made a long statement professing her innocence, saying she'd done nothing wrong, has broken no law, and then said i won't answer questions. what's at stake here is a constitutional principle, can a person sit for a court or before congress and make a long statement, i've done nothing wrong and then choose to not answer questions? this is a precedent before every congress from here on out and in front of every court.

can this be zphone and we would say no. it's not just a statement about accepting that she's guilty. though all the evidence leads back to her and her office. it's, if you have the right to remain silent, do you actually remain silent during that time period? with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. mr. cummings: i would say to the gentleman, we are talking about the constitutional rights of a united states sint and we do not have the right -- united states citizen and we do not have the right to remain silent if those rights are being trampled on. i yield three minutes to the distinguished leader from hoyer from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. if this is a precedent, it is a

bad precedent. it is a dangerous precedent. it is a precedent that we ought not to make. read the constitution, i heard, over and over and over again. i've read probably the opinions of 25 lawyers whom i respect from many great institutions in this country. none of whom, as i'm sure the ranking member has pointed out, none of whom believe that the precedent supports this action. mr. speaker, what a waste of the people's time. for congress to spend this week on politics and not policy. we are about to vote on a resolution that is really a partisan political message. everyone here agrees. everyone. that the i.r.s. should never target anyone based on anything

other than what they owe in taxes. not their political beliefs or any other traits. other than their liability and their opportunities to pay the fair share to the united states of america. and in fact, during the exhaustive investigation into the i.r.s., chairman issa's committee, interviewed 39 witnesses, analyzed more than 530,000 pames and could not find the -- pages and could not find the conspiracy they were looking for. that they always look for. that they always allege. $14 million of taxpayer money has already been spent on this investigation. and all that was found was that which we already knew. that the division led by ms. lerner suffered from

fundamental administrative and managerial shortcomings that bore no connection to poll tirks or to -- to politics or to partisanship. independent legal experts concluded that chairman issa's efforts to hold ms. lerner in contempt of congress is constitutionally deficient. this resolution before us today is of course not meant to generate policy. it's nonet generate headlines. -- it's meant to generate headlines. republicans once again are showing that they are more interested in partisan election year gimmicks than working in a bipartisan way to tackle our country's most pressing challenges. we ought to turn to the important matters of creating jobs, raising the minimum wage, restoring emergency unemployment for those who are struggling to find work. issues the american people

overwhelmingly support and want their congress to address. i urge my colleagues to give this partisan resolution the vote it deserves. and to feed -- and defeat it so we can turn to the people's business. in closing, let me say this, mr. speaker. there are 435 of us in this body. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized, the gentleman from maryland is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i urge all my colleagues, do not think about party on this vote. think about precedent. think about this institution. think about the constitution of the united states of america. and if you haven't read, read some of the legal opinions.

that say you have to establish a predicate before you can tell an american that they will be held criminally liable if they tobet respond to your questions. -- if they don't respond to your questions. that's what this issue is about. not about party. not about any of us. but about the constitutional protection this is a every american deserves and ought to be given and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. mr. couple spgs: may i inquire how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has eight and a quarter minutes remaining, the gentleman from california has eight minutes remaining. mr. issa: i want to correct the record, earlier a minority member stated that with 35 words said by lois lerner, our count is 305. hopefully the inaccuracy of their experts will be considered the same. with that, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona,

mr. gosar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gosar: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this resolution. the people's house has thor hi documented lois lerner's trespasses, including her history of targeting conservative groups as well as the laws she has broke . there's a 443-page committee reporting supporting these allegations. we know ms. lerner refuses to comply with a duly issued subpoena from the house oversight and government reform committee and without ms. lerner's full cooperation the american public will not have the answers it needs from its government. my friends across the aisle have continuously cried foul over this legitimate investigation. but where is there evidence -- where is their evidence to put this to rest? i do not enjoy hold anything federal official in contempt or pursuing criminal charges because doing so mean we was a government run amok and a u.s. attorney general who does not uphold the rule of law and such a predicament is a lose-lose

situation for all americans and our constitution. as uncomfortable as it may be, it is our job to proceed in the name of government accountability. i support this resolution and it is way pastime for contempt for lois lerner. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield two minutes to mr. welch. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, there's a reason that the american people hold the congress of the united states in such low esteem. we're providing them with some additional basis to have that opinion. and here's what it is. number one,his was an important investigation. we should do it. we should do it energetically and we should do it together. instead, information was constantly withheld from the minority. our own ranking member was cut

off with really quite a bold gesture by the chairman at a certain point, and it created an impression that it was going to be a one-sided affair rather than a balanced cooperative approach. that's essential to having any credibility. the second thing is, what do we do about mrs. lowey: who took the fifth -- will lois lerner who took the fifth? and the manner which she did that took her to waive that. your side think she waived it and therefore should be held in contempt. our side, and we have the side of legal opinion, said she didn't waive it. you know, that's a legal question and there is a document called the constitution that separates the powers. whether this person crossed the line or didn't

the idea that a congress, this time run by republicans, next time by democrats, can have a right to make a determination about the rights of a citizen is in complete conflict with the separation of powers in our constitution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i thank the gentleman from vermont in advance for his yes vote on this because the only way to send this to the court to be decided is to vote yes. in fact, we are not try lois lerner. we are determining that she should be tried. the question should be before a federal judge.

with that, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from wyoming a member of the committee, mrs. lummis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. speaker. i contend that in the interest of protections the -- protecting the constitutional rights of this country from the behavior of the i.r.s., from lois lerner, herself a lawyer, who understands that you can waive your right to remain silent as to matters to which you chose to testify. and that she did that. she said, i've done nothing wrong, i have broken no laws, subsequently, we find out that she blamed the rimplet s. employees in cincinnati for wrongdoing that was going on here in washington, d.c. that she was targeting conservative groups and only conservative groups, thereby violating their first amendment constitutional rights. the oversight committee needs

to find the truth and to that end, we need answers from lois lerner. the committee has sought these answers for more than a year. lerner's refusal to truthly answer these questions posed by the committee cannot be tolerated. i urge a yes vote. following that swift action by the justice department to ensure that lois lerner provides answers on exactly what she i.r.s. was up to. mr. chairman, i thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. on the time remain, the gentleman from california has 11 -- has 12 minutes left. the gentleman from maryland has 6 1/4 minutes left. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield two minutes to mr. davis of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davis: i agree that one of the responsibilities of our committees is to investigate,

to try and make sure that the laws are carried out the way we intended and to try and make sure that the money is being spent the way we intended for it to be spent. that we spent $14 million up to this point investigating this one issue, and while i think the investigations are designed to tell us something we don't know , we have not learned anything new. we have not learned of any kind of conspiracy. we have not learned of any kind of underhandedness. the only thing that we know is that we have said to a united states citizen that you cannot invoke the fifth and say that i have a right not to answer questions if i think it's going o damage me.

i'd rather see us spend the there are 14 million creating jobs, providing educational opportunities for those that need it, doing something that will change the direction and the flavor of the economics of our country rather than wasting $14 million more on continuous investigations. i vote no and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. is: at this time it's my distinked honor to yield two minutes to -- distinct honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. >> you know, it is amazing. the american people still have not received answers that they deserve, i believe, from lois lerner. i think sitting here on the floor and listening to the last few minutes, it just really amazes me about what's being

said. it said if the chairman had done this and if we had not done this then maybe we would have had more time and maybe we'll find out the truth. mr. collins: she did talk. she said a lot of things, including making 17 different factual assertions and then decided, oops, don't want to take anymore. here's the problem. no one has said or even implied that you can't assert your fifth amendment right. that's never been said on this floor. it's never been asserted by any member of the republican party. what has been asserted is you can't come in and you can't say, i've done nothing wrong, i'm clean, and oh, by the way, quit asking because i'm not going to answer any of your questions. when do you that, then you're taking advantage of a system that you are not supposed to be taking advantage of. you could have -- she could have said, mr. chairman, with all due respect, i am not going

to answer your question. i am asserting my fifth amendment right. she did not do that and what we have now is not a waste of time. i believe there's a lot of things. the republican majority is working on economic development. one thing we have to reassert in this country is trust, and right now the american people do not trust us and they do not breeb the government is in their favor. and incidents like this when they are being asked inappropriate questions, when they are trying to fulfill their right and freedom of speech, this is why you're here. you can't keep doing it. ms. lerner needs to be held in contempt. i have heard arguments that reminds me the song from pink floyd, i am comfortably numb, because at this point the facts don't matter. she chose to say, i didn't do anything wrong. that's not the way this process works, ms. lerner. it's time to testify. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the remaining time for the gentleman from california is 10 minutes. the gentleman from maryland has 4 3/4 minutes.

mr. cummings: i'd say to the gentleman who is leaving the floor, the arguments do matter this is still the united states of america. there are still constitutional rights which we declare -- mr. collins: if the gentleman will yield? mr. cummings: no. i'm about to yield to ms. norton, it's her time. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: if the point is of the contempt resolution is to find out what ms. lerner knows, what the committee wants to know, deliberately here, of course, is whether there was deliberate targeting of citizens for political reasons. the fact is that the committee passed up the opportunity to learn this information. it asked her attorney, would you tell us what she will tell

us? t's called a prover. indeed, her attorney sent a letter to the chairman offering to provide a prover. that's the information -- a proffer. that's the information we want to know. this proffer would detail what ms. lerner would testify. instead of accepting that proffer, the chairman went on national television and claimed that this written offer never happened. the chairman, therefore, never obtained the proffer that the attorney was willing to offer. the information which is the only reason we should be on this floor at all and when the ranking member tried to ask about it at a hearing in march, the chairman famously cut off his microphone and closed down the hearing in one of the worst examples of partisanship the

committee has ever seen. the chairman did something similar when mrs. lerner's attorney offered to have her one-week h a simple extension, mr. speaker. since the attorney had obligations out of town. rather than accepting this offer to get the committee the information that is at the ttom of this contempt matter today, the chairman went on national television and declared inaccurately that she would testify without the extension. of course, that meant nothing could happen. there was no trust left. clearly what the committee wanted was a fifth amendment show hearing in violation of ms. lerner's rights. hey wanted a contempt citation vote. that's an example of a political contempt citation vote. it will never hold up in the

courts of the united states of america. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i work long and hard with the gentlelady from the district of columbia, and she's a good person but her facts are simply 100% wrong. in every single one of her assertions -- and every single one of her assertions was simply not true. you can go to every page and see that none of those statements are true. we would have accepted a proffer from the attorney. we were not given one. although i will say he did tell one time we wouldn't like what she would say if she said something. i went on national television to say she would appear and testify. additionally, the gentlelady did make one point that was very good. it was very good. the attorney told us that she

needed a week to prepare, which we were pg willing to give her. when we learned it was actually inconvenient for the attorney to necessarily prep her, we said if he would come in with his client and agree she was going to testify we would recess and give her the additional week. when they came in that day, no such offer was on the table from her attorney but in fact he said she had decided that she simply didn't want to speak to us. not that she was afraid of incrimination because you can't be afraid of incrimination and not afraid back and forth. that's pretty clear. her contempt for her committee was in fact contempt for the body of congress while she was happy to speak at length apparently with the department of justice, perhaps with that $6,000 or $7,000 contributor to president obama that is so involved in that investigation. and with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. bentivolio.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. bentivolio: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i stand in support of this resolution recommending that the house of representatives find lois lerner inontempt of congress. our pledge of allegiance ends with the words, for liberty and justice for all. lois lerner's actions have made it nearly impossible for us to follow those ideals for the victims of the i.r.s. targeting scandal. she has placed obstacle after obstacle in front of our pursuit for the truth, worrying that her ideology and actions of a corrupt federal agency will be exposed. i ask my colleagues to join our effort in promoting transparency in our government. as members of congress, it is our job to protect rights, not take them away. and with that i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. is is with that, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, member of the committee, mr. farenthold. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. farenthold: i'm here today because i believe lois lern waived her fifth amendment rights to testify and by so ing in not answering our questions. the other side makes a big deal about this. but the way the system is supposed to work, we will find mrs. lerner in contempt. there will be a full hearing in the court and this may well make it to the united states supreme court. her rights will be protected. but we have also got to protect the rights of the people. we are the people's house. it'sure job to get to the bottom of the scandals that are troubling the american people so we can regain the trust to the american people. you know, it's healthy to be

skeptical of your government but if you don't believe a word that comes out of the mouth of the administration, there is a real problem. i don't think the justice department is going to pursue this. the same thing that is going to ppen to ms. lerner and we've got to do our job. we've got to deal with these people that are in contempt of congress. for that reason, i have h.r. 4447 that is pending before this house that would withhold the pay of anyone in contempt of congress. we have to use the power of the purse and everything we've got to reclaim the power of the purse and the power that the constitution gave this body to get to the truth and be the representatives of the people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is ecognized.

the gentleman from clifornia has 5 1/2. the gentleman from maryland has 2 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from california is recognized. is is i yield a minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, who is, in fact, a constitution -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: i was struck by the comments by the minority whip instructing us to check the constitution. that really struck me, because i believe i recall him standing up and applauding in this chamber when the president said if congress doesn't do its job, i'll basically do it for them. so someone that would do that doesn't need to be giving lectures on the constitution. we have powers under the constitution we got to protect.

and when someone stands up and exerts their innocence repeatedly and then attempts to take the fifth amendment right, it's not there. this is the next step. it will preserve the sanctity and the power of this body whether it's democrats or republicans in charge for anyone who attempts to skirt justice and provide truth. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves? is is i reserve subject to the close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, as i close, i want to remind all of my colleagues several references have been made to the oath that we take every two years in this chamber. and every two years we extend in

this chamber and say i will swear and support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. the first words we say. but it's interesting that in the beginning of that swearing-in is that we will defend the constitution of the united states of america. and yesterday, we had a very interesting argument in rules when one of the members of the rules committee questioned whether when one becomes a public employee, whether they then lose their rights as an american citizen. and it is clear that those rights do stand no matter whether you are a public servant or whether you are a janitor at some coffee shop.

and we are in a situation today where we need to be very clear what's happening. not since mccarthy has this been tried, that is the stripping away of an american citizen's constitutional right not to incriminate themselves and then holding him in contempt criminally. mccarthy. we are better than that. we are so much better. and the idea that somebody can come in after their lawyer has sent a letter in saying they are going to take the fifth, then the lawyer comes in and sits behind them while they take the fifth, then that person said they are taking the fifth, and then suddenly when they say i clare my innocence, we say

gotcha. the supreme court has said this is not a gotcha moment. it is not about that. the supreme court has said these rights, no matter how much we may not like the person who we are talking about, no matter how much we may think they are hiding, they have rights. and this is what this is all about. with that, i yield back and i urge my colleagues to make sure that they vote against this, because this is about generations yet unborn, how they will view us during our watch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. is is mr. speaker, i regret that we have to be here today. and if it is within my power, if at any time lois lerner comes forward to answer our questions, i'm fully prepared to hear what she has to say. and at that point, i would

certainly ask that the criminal prosecution be dropped. it may not be within my power after today, but for more than a year, our committee has sought to get her testimony. for nearly a year we have sought to get her to testify honestly. it was shocking to us on the ommittee that a lawyer represented by a distinguished lawyer would play fast and loose with the fifth amendment assertion. it's a pretty straight-forward process to assert your rights and in fact, her attorney may have planned all along to have a controversy. i'll never know. what i do know is we asserted that she had waived because we were advised by house counsel, an independent organization, that she had. we continued to investigate and only today, nearly a year after a subpoena was issued, the treasury, the i.r.s. gave us

like 12,000 emails and earlier emails, they indicate a deeply political individual, partisan in her views, who apparently was at the center of deciding that when the president in this well objected to citizens united, that it meant they wanted us to fix it and she was prepared to do it. that's for a different court to decide. the only question now is did she, in fact, give testimony and then assert the fifth amendment and then give some more testimony and can we have that kind of activity? we have dismissed other people who came before our committee, asserted their fifth amendment rights after enough questions to know they were going to continue to assert, we dismissed them. we have a strong record of respecting the first, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth amendment and so on. that's what this congress does

and we do it every day and our committee does it. rather than listen to debate here which was filled with factual inaccuracies, refuted in documentation that is available to the american people, rather than believe that the minority's assertion should carry the day because the gentleman from georgia said, if about eight different ifs, thans, they would vote for this. the gentleman from vermont said, we shouldn't be doing this or finding her guilty, this should be before a judge. he may not have understood because what we are doing is putting the question did she properly waive or not and should she be back before us or be held in contempt and punished for not giving it? this won't be my decision, this will be a lifetime appointment nonpartisan federal judge. the only thing we are doing today is sending it for that

consideration. and if the court rules that, in fact, her conduct was not a waiver, then we will have a modern update to understand the set of events here. but we'll still have the same problem, which is lois lerner was at the center of an operation that abused americans for their political beliefs. asked them inappropriate questions, delayed and denied their aprovals. the minority asserted well they could have self-selected. maybe they could have, maybe they should have, but it wouldn't change the fact that der penalty of perjury the i.r.s. was asking inappropriate questions. the i.r.s. is an organization we don't have confidence in. we need to re-establish that and part of that is understanding how and why a high-ranking

person at the i.r.s. so blatantly abused conservative groups in america that were adverse to the president, no doubt, but that shouldn't be the basis under which you get scrutinized, audited or abused and yet it clearly was. it is essential we vote yes on contempt and let the court decide but more importantly let the american people have confidence that we will protect their rights from the i.r.s. with that, i urge support and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate on the resolution has expired. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 119 further consideration of house resolution 574 is postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 568, i call up h.res. 565, calling on attorney general eric holder junior 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 speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: house resolution 565, resolution calling on attorney

general eric holder to appoint a to investigate the targeting of conservative nonprofit groups by the internal revenue service. mr. goodlatte: i ask that all members may have five legislative days to include extraneous materials on h.res. 565. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 568, the resolution is considered read. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte and the gentlewoman from texas, jackson lee, each will would control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: 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. president obama denounced this behavior as outrageous and unacceptable and stated the i.r.s. is an independent agency and requires absolute integrity and people have to have confidence that they are applying the law in a nonpartisan way. he pledged that the administration would, quote, find out exactly what happened, end quote, and would make sure wrongdorse 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 i.r.s.'s admitted farthering of conservative groups. the attorney general promised me and members of the judiciary committee that this will not be about parties or ideological persuasions and anyone broken the law will be held

accountable, end accountable. that appears 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 d.o.j. 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 i.r.s.'s targeting of conservative groups. when asked who leaked this information to the media and if the department plans to prosecute the leaker once eyed fide attorney general holder admitted he has not looked into this leak.

the president obama said there is not a smidgen of corruption inside the i.r.s. investigation. they appointed barbara bosserman in the civil rights division to head the investigation. she 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, three, that under the circumstances it would be in the public interest to appoint

an oud special counsel to assume responsibility for the matter. it should be noted that these regulations require the attorney general to exercise subjected discretion. however, there should be little doubt to any nufrle 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 i.r.s. officials, including former director of exempt organizations head, lois lerner, violated federal law by targeting conservative groups and by releasing confidential ax information to the media. continuing information comes to light, including the prosecution of conservative groups for engaging in political activity that is legal under federal law. second, it is clear that a

conflict of interest exists between d.o.j. investigators and this administration. as a legal matter, determining whether a conflict of interest exists requires the 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 i.r.s. is the primary way they interact with the federal government. to now have the i.r.s. acting as a politicized organization that percent cutes citizens for their -- persecutes citizens for their political beliefs, shakes the core of american democracy. under the circumstances, this administration cannot creditably investigate this matter. it is -- crediblely investigate this matter. it is time that they appoint a special counsel to get to the bottom of this. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker, and i ask to speak for as much time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, as i begin this discussion to , i rise in opposition h.res. 565. and i want to lay the premise

of the discussion as i begin to explain why the question of why is not answered. and 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, are on the federal 600.2 and 6001, 600.3. on the face of the resolution and the facts, there are no evidence under either of the two initial ones, and that is, first, there's 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 uch investigation is needed,

that the investigation or prosecution by the united states attorney's office would present a conflict of interest and the circumstances would be in the public's interest. none of those criteria have been met. first of all, on a may 7 letter most recently, the u.s. department of justice has said there is an ongoing determination of criminal investigation -- 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 versight, but i also believe in rational congressional oversight which is, why are we asking for a special counsel when the department of justice is in the middle of an active investigation? there have been no conclusion. there's been no suggestion

there will not be a further investigation, criminal investigation. and there's no proven conflict of interest. the department of justice's employee that's been mentioned by the majority, one, is not lead counsel, as evidenced in a letter dated february 3, 2014. three, 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 ground for it.

the justice department is working and it is investigating. again, for those of you who are unaware of the legal authority on this resolution, it's based on a series of regulations promulgated by the justice departmentes that been adhered to by republican and democratic administrations. 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 personal or matter is warranted. there is an ongoing investigation, and that means that at the conclusion, 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's supposed to do. in some, these circumstances are that the justice department's prosecution will present a conflict of interest for the department, that it would be in the public interest for the special counsel to assume responsibility. this measure that we're

debating today, however, utterly fails to meet any of that criteria. sponsors of h.res. 565 make unsupported conflict of interest allegations against a mid-level career attorney whose only fault was to engage in constitutionally activity and which is not the lead counsel, definitively is not the lead counsel. we have two distinct and qualified experts who screen -- professor law at fordham university, another expert from columbia who clearly articulate -- sis in experts conflicts of interest. in fact, the ranking member of the oversight and government reform committee issued a report earlier this week dealing the committee's year-long i.r.s. investigation.

among his findings is over the course of lengthy and detailed interviews, 39 witnesses, absolutely no evidence of white house involvement was identified. ot a single one of these witnesses' -- employees who identify themselves as republican, democrat, independent, no affiliation. another fact is that there is already is, as i indicated, an jog going investigation with regard to this matter. and they are complying with the structure of the appointment process for a special counsel. there's been no determination of conflict. there have been no determination that we are ending the investigation to the lack of satisfaction of the united states congress. we're in an ongoing investigation. 600.2 of the code of the federal regulation 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. an easy manner, other than the 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's pure political theater. rather than simply writing a letter to the attorney general asking him to appoint a special counsel, which is a 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 his administration, it is not the bashing of liberalism, noting in an editorial a year ago said calling for a special counsel is a form of cheap political gays that gets a quick

headline. i'd rather have us working together, mr. speaker. i'd rather us get to the facts. i'd rather that the professional men and women at the u.s. department of justice be allowed to pursue this investigation unbiased and thorough. rather than promoting greater transparency, the appointment of a spesh counsel, as "the wall street journal" point out, would have the opposite result. the journal explains that the prosecutor would move to the shadows. and the administrator of the i.r.s. would use it to limit its cooperation with congress. special prosecutors aren't famous for its speed. whatever the prosecutor has discovered will stay secret. and even if criminal charges were filed, the facts of the indictment could stray. beyond proving the specific case in a court, a special prosecutor will not be concerned with the law of public policy consequences and public accountability. we could be doing other things and we cannot be spending $14

million. there's been no basis for this resolution to pass, and i ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution. with that i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, this is about real people, and one of those is my friend and constituent down in houston, texas, as a name of kathryn, founder of truth of vote and king street patriots in houston, texas, and once she became intimidated and harassed by our very own government, all because she dared to speak her mind and engage in politics, a right she is guaranteed under the constitution. it all began when kathryn, a business woman, applied for a nprofit status in 2010 for

true the vote and king street patriots and so began the tidal wave of government inquiries and harassment. she said it best in testimony before congress, quote, we applied for nonprofit status in 2010. since then the i.r.s. has run us through a gaunt let of analysis and -- gauntlet of analysis and hundreds of questions over and over and over again. they requested to see and each and every tweet i ever tweeted and every facebook post i ever posted and every place i have ever spoken, who was in the audience and everywhere i intend to speak in the future. this is our government, our government oppressing someone at its worse. and there's even more. we have learned that the i.r.s. even asked her group and others for their donor list. this level of detail goes well

beyond the business of the i.r.s., but it didn't stop there. all of a sudden, the federal government's snooping included six visits by the f.b.i. where they would sit in the auditorium when she was speaking, two of those visits were by the terrorist investigation division of the f.b.i. they had numerous and multiple unannounced visits from osha, a.t.f. and the texas equivalent of the e.p.a. was this a similarity that they were investigating the group or was it collusion? we really don't know. unfortunately our justice department has lost credibility with the american public on investigating the i.r.s. we need to have things be right and things need to look right and we need to have a special counsel. and i would like to conclude with a statement that was made

abrahamoff investigation in 2006. the highly political context of the 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 democracy. 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. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from virginia has 11 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentlelady from texas has 11 1/2

minutes remaining. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: my pleasure to ive a minute and a half to the entlelady from new mexico. ms. lujan grisham: tax exempt social welfare groups must exclusively promote social welfare and the i.r.s. continues to allow these groups to engage in partisan, political activity instead of their social welfare mission. this has allowed 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 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 i.r.s. 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 indirect contradiction to current federal law and congressional intent. i urge my colleagues to vote against this very partisan resolution. it doesn't solve any underlying problems and instead passes legislation that enforces federal law and prohibits social welfare groups from engaging in partisan political activity. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from texas reserves? the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, a member of the judiciary committee and author of this

resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from recognized for five minutes. mr. jordan: i thank the chair for all his good work and being recognized. the gentlelady from texas said in her opening statement, there's been no conclusion to the investigation. yes, there has. and this lerner knows it. why do you think she is willing to sit down with the justice department and answer their questions? she knows the fix is in and has been pre-judged and decided. when the department of justice leaks to the "wall street journal" no one is going to be referred for prosecution, she knows she is just fine. the investigation is over. they are not doing it. the highest elected official in this land goes on national television and says there's nothing there, not even a smidgeon, mislerner knows the fix is in. quick time line, she goes in front of a bar association group in town and with the planted question tells that group and the whole country that

conservative groups were targeted for exercising their first amendment free speech rights and she did that unprecedented. she did it before the inspector general's report was made public. unprecedented what she did. not only in actions but in spilling the beans before the report was issued. may 13, we get the report from the inspector general said targeting of conservative groups were targeted. may 14, last year, the attorney general launches a criminal investigation and says this, what took place was outrageous and unacceptable and the president of the united states says what took place is inexcuseable. june of last year in the judiciary committee we had director mueller and we asked him three simple questions, who is the agent and have you talked to the victims. and the f.b.i. director's response was, i don't know, i don't know, i don't know. seven written inquiries saying

can you tell us who is leading who nd everyone tells us the witnessesr how many agents have you assigned? seven different inquiries, no response from the department of justice. january 13 of this year, f.b.i. leaks to the wall street jourm no one is going to be prosecuted. d we learn that barbara, a max-out contributor of the president's campaign is leading the investigation. take that fact pattern and apply to the elements that the attorney general looks at if you are going to have a special prosecutor. three elements, the code of federal regulations the a.g. appoints a special counsel when he determines three things, that a criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted. of course it is warranted. this is a big matter. this is a violation of people's first amendment rights.

and the ways and means committee has said she should be referred for prosecution. second, that investigation by 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 pre-judged the outcome and the "wall street journal" has leaked to the public that no prosecutions and the chief investigator is a chief donor. it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside public counsel. i would think that the treasury would want this. there are all kinds of americans that this thing isn't being done on a fair and impartial manner. i would think that the attorney general would pick someone that everyone agrees would do a fair job. why have this cloud over the

investigation that the person leading the investigation gave $6,750 to the president's campaign. this is something the administration should want to do because it clears up in peoples' minds that we will get to the truth and have a real investigation. never forget what took place here. this is so important, people's fundamental rights, your right to speak out against your government was targeted, that's why we need to get to the truth and that's why we need a special counsel who will do a real investigation. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: it is important to state that one of the provisions that is not in the regulations establishing a special counsel, it is not a get -you procedure. it follows an orderly process which the department of justice is engaged in. and i would like to introduce into the record a letter dated

february 23, 2014, that indicates that the justice department lawyer that has been charged with leading the investigation is not leading the investigation. they are part of the team. that letter is february 3, 2014. i would ask unanimous consent to place it into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: gives me a privilege to introduce a member of the house judiciary committee, mr. deutch, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. deutch: thank you, mr. speaker and i thank my friend, the gentlelady from texas. mr. speaker, we have learned a great deal since allegations rfaced that the i.r.s. officials discriminated against conservative-leaning groups. i joined with my republican colleagues in condemning the notion that politics influenced the behavior of the i.r.s.

we learned, however, that the i.r.s. kept a list of keywords that triggered extra review, misguided practice that we are grateful had since stopped. we learned that the i.r.s. targeted more liberal-leaning groups than conservative ones . but 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 i.r.s. out of the business of evaluating political conduct. i agree, i wholeheartedly agree with my colleagues that the i.r.s. has no business meddling in our elections but we don't need a special counsel to make this stop. applications for 501 c-4 status, tax-exempt status exploded after the citizens united decision because special interests, special interests found a new way to secretly funnel way into our elections.

let me tell you how it works. because these groups aren't required to disclose their donors bent on influencing the political process for their benefit, anonymously give to the 501 c-4 and then funnels the money to the super pac and 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 regulations, revise the rules and restore integrity and to ensure taxpayers are never again forced to subsidize blatantly political behavior. i would have hoped that my colleagues in the majority would have joined me in that effort. instead republican leaders attempted to block treasury from fixing these broken rules and forcing the secret givers to tell us who they are and what they want from this congress.

i'm afraid there is only one explanation for this latest partisan solution. i hope i'm wrong. i hope republicans don't want to protect secret money and that they don't want to protect the billionaires who want to conceal themselves from the american people but believe they have the right to funnel millions of into through 501 c-4's super pac. 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. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from texas reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the

entleman from florida, mr. desantis, a member of the judiciary committee. eesdees a year ago when -- dedeep a year ago, the president of the united states said it was outrageous and said we demand full accountability. attorney general holder said it was quote outrageous and unacceptable. everybody agreed this was serious. everybody agreed that this required a serious investigation. as we sit here a year later, it's clear that we have not seen the action that we were promised. first of all, the department of justice had been discussing with the i.r.s. as late as may of 2013, the possibility that some of these groups that were targeted could be prosecuted criminally. so the d.o.j. actually had a role with the i.r.s.

we know that the investigation is being led by somebody who is a big contributor to president obama's re-election campaign. of course, the president of the super bowl earlier said this year that the investigation was over, he said nothing happened, not even a smidgeon of impropriety. and 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, when he said that, that are quote basic apply applies to what we have now. the american people don't want

the government targeting their first amendment rights. if it's done, they need to be held accountable. when this is all said and done, 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's not conflicted. and don't forget, the entire context of this whole scandal was targeting essentially the president's political opposition in the runup to his re-election campaign. i'm proud to stand here supporting this resolution. i think voting yes on it is voting yes for transparency and accountability in government. nd i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time remaining, this gentlelady

from texas has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: let me say very quickly that the entire premise of the gentleman's comments have been proven absolutely wrong. 39 witnesses never said one moment that the presidential election of that time, of 2012, was in way involved in this particular -- was any way involved in this particular issue. we have the inspector jep for tax administration, appoint bid a republican, is a republican, working with the department of justice. you i'd -- now i'd like to yield five minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee who has had a detailed investigation and oversight from his committee on this issue, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for ive minutes. mr. levin: let me sum up what this is all about. this hallowed institution must

not be turned into a campaign arm of either political party. that's what the house republicans are exactly doing here. it's been a year since multiple committee investigations began nto the i.r.s. 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's what's been going ofpblet more than 250 employees at the i.r.s. have worked more -- been 00 hours going on. more than 250 employees at the

i.r.s. have worked more than hours and sent documents to the department. interviews have been conducted, more than $14 million in taxpayer money has been spent by the i.r.s. responding to congressional investigations. and here's what we know. documents show that the i.r.s. 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. audit was fore the published last may, the i.g.'s head of investigation reviewed

5,500 pages of documents and determined that there was no, i quote, no indication that pulling the selected applications was politically motivated, end of quotes. instead, the head of investigation said the cases were consolidated due to, and i quote, unclear processing directions. so now 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 and 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 i.r.s. investigation. -- investigation at justice. so 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 on 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's worth and vote no on the resolution. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from texas reserves. the gentleman from virginia is ecognized. mr. goodlatte: i have only one speaker remaining, myself, and i believe we have the right to close, so we would be prepared. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is

recognized. ms. jackson lee: could you give us how much time is remaining on both sides, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas has 2 1/2 minutes, the gentleman from virginia has four minutes. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: thank you. i'm sure my kind friend would yield me some additional time but i'll use what i have. thank you very much. let me try to bring us together, mr. speaker, yesterday in the rules committee, there was a collegiate moment when we said, let's clarify the law. if there's anything that democrats and republicans agree ineptness, that wrongness, misdirection was obviously evidenced in the equal targeting of all groups, group this is a had the name progressive and occupy and others. none of us as members of congress want the citizens of

the united states to be in any way intimidated by a government that's 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, if in fact the i.r.s. personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups and it's been noted by the witnesses in the overesight -- oversight committee that they were targeting over groups as well, then that's outrageous and there's no place for it. there's no conflict in this. what we are now debating is the fallacy of the appointment of a special counsel and the $14 million and the 700,000 pages unredakotaed documents, more than 250 people that have been respond -- unredacted documents, more than too people that have been responding, and i ask to include the letter to

congressman levin that talks about the litany of requests that the i.r.s. has been requested to do. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: i also want to again add into this row -- add into the record a may 7, 2014, letter that emphasize this is a this is a bipartisan investigation, with the inspector general of the treasury tax administration appointed by george bush 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. 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. that they would do anything to undermine an official investigation and the letter that we received on february 3,

2014, debunks any personal relationship of this single attorney in a single office with anyone political candidate from a personal perspective. a do nation, yes. but are you suggesting that that individual has no private right to exercise their free speech? no close identification with an elected official new york 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 60.-- 600.1, 600.2, there is no investigation that is over, there's 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, immigration reform, i would like to help the american people and pass job legislation to make a difference here in the united states congress. i have one other document i'd like to add into the record, mr. chairman. mr. speaker. f i could. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, it will be ordered. the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. speaker. these letters are experts saying there's no conflict of interest osm pose this present resolution and let's move on to come together and effectively work on behalf of the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: in response to the gentlelady and the gentleman who said that this

hallowed institution should not be turned into a campaign arm of either political party, i agree with the gentleman's assertion and i believe he would agree with me that the internal revenue service should not be turned into a political arm of any administration. the i.r.s., the tax collectors, have the most unenvee i can't believe job. hey're de-- unenveeable job, -- unenvyable job. to turn that organization into an organization the people mistrust is an abuse and the contention that the i.r.s. 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 one month ago. i will read from the conclusion of this that report. evidence -- of that report. evidence available contradicts

democrat's claims of bipartisan targeting. though the bolo list included liberal groups only tea party applicants received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs. public and nonpublic analysis of i.r.s. data show that the i.r.s. routinely approved liberal applications while holding and scrutinizing conservative applications. even training documents indicate stark differences between liberal and conservative applications. quote, 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 down play the i.l.: -- i.r.s. misconduct. first the administration sought minimize the fallout by

preemptively acknowledging the misconduct in a planted question in an obscure tax conference. when that failed, the administration shifted to blaming rogue agents and lying employees for the targeting. when those assertions proved false, congressional democrats baselessly attacked the character of the inspector general. their -- this is another effort to distract if the fact that the obama i.r.s. systematically targeted and delayed tax applicants. the gentleman is right this institution should not be ewed, nor should the i.r.s. be used, to benefit either political party. and that is why an independent rofessional -- an independent, professional, special counsel should be appointed because the three tests for that appointment have been met. that is the reason why we are

here today. a criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted, an investigation of that person or matter by the united states attorney's office or litigating division of the department of justice would prevent a conflict of interest an all these false aserlingses made over and over again show there's a conflict in this investigation by this administration and third that 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 laws is not to take place and the only way we can assure it is by having that special counsel appointed. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution and yield back

the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate on the resolution has expired. the previous question is ordered on the resolution. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. jackson lee: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas has requested the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on he question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 1-crmb c, rule 119 further consideration of house resolution 574 will now

resume. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 574, house resolution recommending that the house of representatives find lois lerner in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena dual issued by the committee of oversight and government reform. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. cummings: i have a motion at the desk the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: moves mr. cummings moves to send the resolution with instructions that the committee carry out the following. one, conduct a bipartisan public hearing with testimony from legal and constitutional experts when lois lerner professed her

rights and whether the chairman complied with the procedures required by the contusion to hold ms. lerner in contempt. in relationship to her profession of innocence, consider and release publicly the full transcript of the following 39 interviews conducted by the committee staff by employees of the internal revenue service to discuss the actions that occurred within the exempt organizations division that ms. lerner -- mr. cummings: i ask unanimous consent that we dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? seeing none, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 568, the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, and the gentleman from california, mr. issa, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland.

mr. cummings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of the motion to refer this matter back to committee. 60 years ago, the supreme court of the united states announced that the waiver of fifth amendment rights as quote, not lightly to be inferd. but what is exactly happened when the committee held a party-line vote finding that lois lerner waived her fifth amendment privilege without holding even one hearing with one legal expert. experts who have reviewed the record before the committee, conclude that ms. lerner did not waive her fifth amendment rights by declaring her innocence. and now more than 30 independent legal experts have also come forward to conclude that the chairman, chairman issa, botched the contempt procedure when he abruptly ended our committee hearing and cut off my

microphone before any democratic members had a chance to utter a single word. in other words, these experts say a judge will likely throw this case out of court. t me be clear that i'm not defending lois lerner. her mismanagement at the i.r.s., but as a member of congresses, i have sworn, like my colleagues, to protect every citizen's rights under the constitution of the united states of america. and i do not take that obligation lightly. i believe that it is irresponsible to move forward today without ever having held a single hearing, to hear from a single legal expert on this constitutional question. i asked for this hearing more than nine months ago but my request was rejected. so this motion would require the oversight committee to do what it should have done a long time

ago. this motion also would direct the committee to release publicly the full transcripts from all the interviews of the i.r.s. and treasury employees that our committee staff conducted during the investigation. these 39 transcripts shows there is no evidence of any white house involvement or any political motivation in the i.r.s.'s review of these tax-exempt applicants. and i remind the speaker that these 39 witnesses are witnesses that were called by the majority. they are the ones who sat down with a bipartisan group of employees from the majority and the minority, and went through the questioning. instead, these interviews show exactly how the employees first developed the inappropriate criteria. they tell the story. they tell the story.

they show how lois lerner failed to discover these criteria for more than a year and when she learned of them, she immediately ordered them to be stopped being used. last year, chairman issa promised on national television that at some point he would release all of the transcripts and needs to be done sooner than later. but the chairman has blocked my efforts to do so, even with his own redactions. you may hear him say that he does not want to release transcripts now, because they would provide a road map to our questions to future witnesses. i can understand that. i have made the same argument myself on many occasions. with all due respect, he crossed that bridge a long, long, long time ago. he has released selected excerpts from these transcripts and has allowed reporters to come into his committee offices

to review some transcripts in their entirety. it is time to put out the whole story so the american people can read the facts for themselves. instead of just picking pieces leaked to further a political narrative. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i would like to yield one minute to the distinguished the gentleman from rom ohio, mr. order and -- jordan -- mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion and seek time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. issa: i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: in response to the ranking member, it's not 39 interviews, it's 40.

we did another one yesterday and that's going to lead to another one because we learned information yesterday. and the minority staff has released parts of those depositions. we'll release them all when we hear from lois. here's what we did learn yesterday in the 40th, richard, from the department of justice said this in the fall of 2010 at loisepartment, i contacted that justice and the i.r.s. were working together back in 2010, all the more reason we need to hear from lois lerner and the only way to get to the truth is through the house of representatives using every tool we have to compel ms. lerner to come talk to us because we know the fix is in with the justice department's investigation. the fix is in. we all know that. so the only route to the truth

on something as fundamental as your free speech rights to exercise free speech in a political fashion is through the house of representatives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: can i inquire whether the minority is prepared to close? how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has 35 seconds. the gentleman from california has four minutes. mr. issa: i'm prepared to close. mr. cummings: prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: there is nothing to hide. we need to release the transcripts and just as significantly, we need to hear from the experts. this is a very, very serious issue. and i think that members of congress deserve to have the

expertise presented before them so they can make a judgment. a lot of our members are lay persons. and i think it is only prompt under these circumstances that they be given this opportunity and i would ask the members to vote in favor of my motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i yield myself such time as i will consume and i willwill close in the calmest possible way that i can. i more than 3 1/2 years, have tried to get cooperation from the minority, for more than three years i tried to get cooperation from the minority and i haven't got it. i get it on things that don't lead to the president or a cabinet officer or to an administrative branch. this leads to an administrative branch under the secretary of the treasury. when the minority says that if

you would just refer this back and just have an opinion, quite frankly, they produced these opinions and they sought out 30 eople to rubber stamp the same answer. i didn't say anything about that during the debate. that's their right. the ranking member said if we will release those 39 documents, if he wants to destroy this investigation, he could release them. if he wants to show a road map, he could release them. these are not documents that are exclusive, they are documents that either could release. and the questions and answers from witnesses not be in their entirety be released to create a road map, that's practice of good counsel and the ranking member said he would have done the same thing in some cases. we only learned a matter of days ago that people working in the

office of the president had withheld until a court ordered them to release the documents showing that they invented out of thin air a false narrative as to what happened in benghazi and why, asserting a video that, in fact, was not supported by the facts. and for a long time since september 11, 2012, we have been misled. in an ongoing investigation one that would have led you to believe that lerner would have testified if she had a week more. she never intended to testify. this has all been a game of catch-me-hive if-you-can. our evidence as the ranking member said does not lead to the oval office. at this point it lead to lois lerner, at this point she attempted to assert the

president's position using her c-4's o stop these 501 from free speech. the indication she says one thing to the justice department and a different thing to congress. so as we consider the simple issue of did she waive her rights or not and as the gentleman from vermont suggested, should be before a judge, that's before us today. and the idea we would release in their entirety those thousands of pages in order to give a road map to those yet to be deposed is wrong and inappropriate and the gentleman knows it or he would have released them himself which he has every right to do so but would be irresponsible. i ask people to vote for contempt. a question already decided by our committee. a question that will be voted by the ranking member, no matter how many experts are listened

to. have the vote, send it to a judge and have a judge decide. meantime, let's continue with the investigation as to the i.r.s.'s targeting of conservative groups, something that has been documented to have been inappropriate if you were conservative and not so much if you are moderate or liberal. we have an individual who is at the center of it it all. i never alleged that it goes to the president. i have said that the tea party would clearly and fairly be described as enemies or adverse to the president's policies and i think that's pretty comfortable to understand and they were targeted whose politics are with the president and were trying to overturn the supreme court decision insight sense united in support of the president's position using her power, and with that, i yield back and urge support. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate on the motion to refer has expired. pursuant to