role in their investigation, potentially compromising any semblance of independence and justice. independent, non partisan needed role cutor is in their to ensure a fair investigation this americans can trust. mr. speaker, the american people deserve to know the full context are taken.e actions as 2010, leaders were urging the irs to take action against conservative groups. why was the decision ade to take action against them? the american people, miss deserve employers answers. they deserve accountability. know that this no never happen again matter what your political persuasion. deserve can people

better. because of miss learner's because of her unwillingness to fully testify nd because she has refused to legally cooperate with this investigation, i urge my in the house to hold miss learner in contempt. yield back. >> gentleman leads back. gentleman from maryland is recognized. to the distinguish gentleman from massachusetts mr. minutes.ee >> gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for they minutes. >> thank you mr. speaker and i from the gentleman maryland. >> in response to the recent allegations i do want to point did look ur committee at the question of political motivation and selecting tax applications. we ask the did look inspector g before the ways and means committee and i quote, did any evidence of

motivation. n response, they testified, we did not, sir. r. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the contempt resolution. what began as a bipartisan targetingion into the of american citizens by the surface has ew deteriorated into the very short careless us and overreaching that our committee tkpaeut in to invest the first place. they commenced this nvestigation in may 2013 by stating the following during his opening statement. is used toment power target americans for exercising rights there is nothing more important than take t seriously and get to the ottom of it and eradicate the

behavi behavior. it does not only extend to cases where a powerful federal epartment has deprived itizens, rather we must be equally vigilant who have aserd her rights under the fifth amendment. no person should be compelled to against him or herself without due process of law. a system where innocent until proven guilty lies at the of our protections, miss learner's innocence, 36 words, enough of vis it's rights. in the face of supreme court vast body of a

legal expert opinion holding that mr. learner did not wave fifth amendment privilege by this sing her innocence, is a contempt proceeding without the members of our own committee the opportunity for testimony. as held by the smith court in 1949 in versus united states, testimony infurred.be lightly reasonable ndulge presumption against finding a testimonial wave. has chosen contempt against miss learner after an offer from her attorney so his client could provide the testimony that sides of this aisle have been asking. legally flawed contempt bring us no closer

the partisan ct manner in which this $14 million investigation so far has been conducted to the date. has refused to release the full transcripts and he has also recently released two staff reports on these events that are were not provided. ask my colleges to oppose this resolution. back. man yields >> gentleman from california is recognized. >> i'd like to correct the record. it is now 40 transcribed interviews a received and we 12,000 e-mails from lois learner. that 14 million probably went up the irs turned over some of the documents they owed this subpoena for r

half a year. now recognize the distinguished gentleman from two minutes. > thank you, mr. chairman and mr. speaker. t's probably nothing more sacred to americans, nothing important to protect than the democrat electoral process has made this by the far the greatest country in the everyone an to participate. hold lois today to been r in contempt it's stated she didn't have her rights recognized. take the e right to fifth. she's done that under the constitution.

we brought her in twice, may 2013, march 2014. -- you can see the tapes, declaring her innocence, she was pointed out she was at the heart of the matter. in fact her when she tried to employees under the bus they said she threw them convoy of mack trucks. every road leads to lois learner. held the congress of the united states in contempt. held them in contempt. lois learner has held the people and and the process they cherish and the agency, the irs who all have to account to as a manipulate a national

election. targeted directed attempt and every road leads to lois learner. opportunity ce the to come before congress and to tell the whole truth and nothing she has failednd to do that and i urge that we contempt.learner in that's our responsibility and it done.e yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from california reserves and the gentleman from maryland recognizes. due respect to the the itan who spoke, even found that lois learner did not a year out it until afterwards. yield three minutes to the distinguished to mr. conway. virginia is from

recognized for three minutes. >> thank you mr. speaker and i dear friend of the reform committee. if they had witnessed the proceedings on the oversight and reform community with they t to lois learner would have reaffirmed their ommitment to the fifth amendment because rights were on.pled efore cutting off entirely the our commit if of i. but then we trampled on the fifth amendment. the core has said the self ncrimination clause must be accorded liberal instruction in avor of the right it was

intended to secure. trussed. it's the same. the equivalent of the presumption of innocence. and theyaid if all men all meant all women and men are need it. wouldn't lois learner is not to be defended. citizen who has an right in the constitution of the united states. case comes from the 1950s. a u.s. citizen was asked questions. learner had alois statement claiming her innocence that she was not a spy. not -- miss hoeing once in a while answered yes or no to put to her.

she was found to be in contempt. the chairman of the community on it and said, got'cha. two kwraoersz later the court wise.0 they ruled that miss hoeing had fifth amendment somehow that didn't sreurb it's her invocation of fifth amendment right and it was upheld. op the about trampling rights of the citizens. a a very crass reason for political reason we heard the leader ish majority assert something that's not true which is not that only con serve targeted by were the irs that's not true and we have testimony it's not true. occupy, acorn, progressive were all part of the so-called list. tense. an incompetent

to the level of scandal that somehow it goes all way to the white house? absolutely untrue. have to the enter house of now voting on and declaring aoupb citizen hat a u.s. chris r constitutional rights, i yield back. is recogni. 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 started getting 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 wm 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, this was an important investigation. we should do it. we should do it energetically and we should do it together. instead, information was constantly withheld from the minority. our own ranking member was cut off with really quite a bold gesture by the chairman at a

certain point, and it created an impression that it was going to be a one-sided affair rather than a balanced cooperative approach. that'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. issa: 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 in contempt 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 california 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 >> house members would later vote in favor of a resolution contemptois lerner in of congress. every republican and six democrats voted for the bill. members also approved a resolution calling on eric a special counsel to investigate conservative nonprofit groups. here is debate on the bill. 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 himo 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 biionaires 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 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 >> the house went on to vote for the resolution finding lois lerner guilty of contempt of congress. tomorrow we expect work to be completed on a bill that makes a research and development tax credit permanent. also work on a resolution that would create a new select committee to investigate the 2012 benghazi attacks. all the house live here on c-span when members return at 10:00 a.m. eastern and at noon for legislative work.

>> coming up tomorrow, house onerage on a resolution creating a select committee to investigate the 2012 benghazi attacks and the and ministration's response. that is live here on c-span at noon eastern. >> everyone is coming to the new york world's fair. they are coming from the four corners of the earth and from five corners idaho. athensme down from maine, and from athens, greece, and from tokyo, kokomo, and rome. from hamburg, from aurora, illinois. troop 295 from the bronx, and the traveling teachers from kansas, ms. abbott and mrs.

todd. in the wilson's got here at last. fair.is the symbol of the they find a machine that playfully demonstrates the law of averages. by chance, or they meet and join up to sightsee. >> this weekend on american history tv, to the fair follows a variety people less experience the 1964 new york world's fair, sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3.

>> speaking before the joint economic committee is federal reserve chair janet yellen discussing the declining market and geopolitical tensions as potential threats to economic growth. she emphasized the feds commitment to keeping the overnight interest rate near zero. this hearing is an hour and 45 minutes. >> good morning. we will begin. congratulations. we welcome you to your first appearance before the zoning committee. we look forward to many more good june will mark the anniversary of the end of the great recession. this is that weakness or near the bottom. anniversary of the end of the great recession.

this is that weakness or the -- near the bottom. --s has graded a growth cap created a growth cap. if this recovery had been nearly average, the u.s. economy would be $1.4 trillion larger. american workers would have 5.7 million more private sector jobs available. they would of four, have more money each month. , the one exception to this is wall street. the s&p 500 total return index has more than doubled. last week the bureau of economic analysis statistic released conflicting data about the strength of this recovery. on the one hand, real gdp growth is basically flat in the first quarter.

moreover, the employment population rate is lower than when the recession ended up. it means they are proportionately less adults working today than when the recovery began. it is heading in the wrong direction. on the other hand, for the fifth time since the recession ended the monthly growth of nonfarm payroll jobs, it exceeded the average of job growth during past recoveries. the unemployment rate declining to 6.3% from its october 2009 the cut 10%. incorrectly judging the strength of the labor market is very important. the federal market committee has tied the scale of assets and interest rates to its assessment of the labor market. members have attributed much of the slack in the labor market to

cyclical factors. they believe they can strengthen the economic output. however, the substantial portion of the weakness in the labor market is due to structural factors such as an aging population and a skills mismatch, maintaining the policy could instead create economic factors. there needs to be different poly such as strengthening job-training programs and modernizing programs to encourage work. i'm encouraged that they began to taper large-scale purchases in december. it appears on track. however, i'm concerned that it will likely maintain its zero interest rate policy long after qe ends.

i am equally concerned that the discretionary nature of the changes of their guidance is undermining the fed's credibility in weakening the confidence market participants and increasing uncertainty. i believe the fed reserve help stabilize financial markets after the panic in fall of 2008. there are extraordinarily low interest rates. they have done a lot to stimulate wall street. i noted earlier that it is a roaring while for the average , it iss and individuals only a mere 4.2%. yelling, you pretty sister had confidence. that the knowledge, tools, and political fortitude. ratesmalizing interest and the size of the balance sheets, before an inflationary

, it has hadld occur a satisfactory record. they have been acting in a timely manner. the task is difficult. today i'm hopeful you can enlighten the committee on several points. what is your assessment of the strength of the labor market? to much to believe is due cyclical factors? how much is due to cyclical ones? how much weight are they being given. accommodating policy create price inflation that may not be fully captured by the cpi? by stock rises reflect the strength of the economy impartial due to monetary policy? created moree

uncertainty and undermine credibility, when will they return to a rules-based approach of monetary policy to help the performances of the u.s. economy? fourthly, is the fed reserve tank in center cisco said correct that higher federal -- san francisco correct? is there a better way for the spending side of the fiscal balances. are they willing to make their balance sheet more transparent? will they provide a consolidated list of holdings that has values in the average purchase price? as was the current market value push to mike with that, that is a lot of questions and you don't have to answer all of them by the way. [laughter] i look forward to your

testimony. the record will be kept open for one week so members could submit additional records for the record. i yield to the vice chairman of the committee. .> thank you very much thank you for holding this timely hearing. i will only add 15 questions to is list. no, i won't. we have seen the impact that monetary policy can have on economic growth at a time when congress has been gridlocked and very important things. the fed has had to step in several times.

we will be able to move ahead as the fed continues to wind down quantitative easing. agree that thed recovery has not been as fast as we like. after a long, hard winter, it is good news that the employment numbers are picking up. unemploymentwest rate in 5.5 years is a positive sign. it means something as you move into a summer season that we believe will bring more construction jobs and add more tourism jobs. economy has added jobs for 50 consecutive months as you can see from that chart. it has regained more private sector jobs than were lost during the recession. in april alone, almost 300,000 jobs were added. as we discussed, the unemployment rate is down to 4.8%.

, wouldn't say we are roaring we are moving in a bash at a fast clip and major expansions were now -- we are moving at a fast clip and have major expansions now. the national unemployment rate and 6.3% has dropped almost 4 percentage points. .nflation is low it is well under two percent. there's no sign of a rise in inflation. the first quarter was lower than anticipated. helped in about the economic recovery. i think congress did some good news. i think we should do more to the chairman has outlined some of them. the fed will lower interest rates near zero at the end of 2000 and eight and said recently

he will keep rates low for a time.erable period of low interest rates have helped stimulate the economy by keeping borrowing costs affordable for businesses and consumers. they were reducing their purchases under quantitative easing. last month announced they would further reduce their purchases to 45 million each month. it has been always understood these efforts would be scaled back as economy strengthened. economic activity has picked up recently.

the short term unemployment rate has fallen to close to its previous session level. this is high on her list of priorities. despite some good news recently about job growth, there are still 3.5 million americans out of work for longer than six months. i look forward to hearing your thoughts on the dual mandate. look forward to hearing your thoughts on increased transparency at the fed and then of course i would again mention as i had several times at this committee when your predecessor was here, i think there has been

congressr issues with in terms of bouncing back and forth and careening from crisis to crisis. andoesn't help the economy help bring stability with a budget in place with the work that we have done since the tragic shutdown. we can now work on these issues that can build on the stability that we see in the economy. i list immigration reform as very important is my state. we have trouble getting engineers. our spouses of doctors at the mayo clinic. i focus on that exports and the job training. on comprehensive tax reform. an issue was brought up recently to me. that is the issue of the tax incentives and the depreciation for manufacturing equipment.

i'll be asking about that as all. thank you for appearing before us. >> thank you. janet yellen is chair of the board of governors with the fed reserve. she also serves as chair of the open market committee. disposition, she served as vice chair of the board of governors. she is a professor emeritus at the university of berkeley where she was a professor of business and economics. she has been a faculty member for over 30 years. she also served as an economist for the federal reserve board of shernors and on the fact -- graduated summa cum laude from brown university with a degree in economics and a peach in economics from yale university. welcome. ph.d. in economics

from young university. welcome. >> thank you very much. i appreciate this opportunity to discuss the current economic situation and outlook along with monetary policy for turning to some issues regarding financial stability. real domestic gross product went up to an average annual rate of and a quarter percent over the second half of last year. a faster pace than in the first half and during the preceding two years. although real gdp growth is currently estimated to a pause in the first quarter of this year, i see that it is mostly reflecting transitory factors,

including the effects of the unusually cold and snowy winter weather. with the harsh winter behind us, many recent indicators suggested a rebound in spending and production is already underway. putting the overall economy on track for solid growth in the current quarter. one cautionary note is that readings on the housing activity is a sector that has been recovering since 2011. main disappointed so far and we will be watching. conditions for the market continue to improve. the unemployment rate is 6.3% in april, one and a quarter percentage points below where it was a year ago. moreover, gains in unemployment averaged nearly 200,000 jobs per month over the past year. recovery,economic

employment has increased by about 8.5 million jobs. the unemployment rate is declined by about three and three quarters percentage points since it spake. -- its peak. conditions have improved appreciatively, but still far from satisfactory. even with recent declines, the unemployment rate continues to be elevated. moreover, the share of the labor force that has been unemployed for more than six months and a number of individuals who work part-time, but would prefer a full-time job are at historically high levels. most compensation has been rising slowly. another signal that a substantial amount of slack remains in the labor market. inflation has been quite low

even as the economy continues to expand. some of the factors contributing to the softness of inflation over the past year such as the declines in non-oil prices, will probably be transitory. importantly, longer front inflation expectations have remained stable. that said, the market committee recognizes that inflation persistently below 2%, the rate the committee judges to be most consistent with its dual mandate, could pose this to economic performance. we are monitoring developments closely. looking ahead, i expect the economic timothy tt will extract economic -- economic activity -- and later in will begin to move

up toward 2%. a faster rate of economic growth this year should be supported by reduced restraint from changes in fiscal policy. gains in household in home prices and equity values affirming economic growth and further improvements in household and business confidence as economy continues to strengthen. u.s. financial conditions remain supportive of economic activity in unemployment. , considerable uncertainty surrounds this baseline and economic outlook. , one risk is that adverse developments abroad such as heightened geopolitical tensions for an intent -- and densification of financial economiesmerging

could undermine confidence in the global economic recovery. another risk domestic in origin is that the recent flattening out in the housing activity could prove more protracted than currently expected rather than resuming its earlier pace of recovery. both of these elements of uncertainty woke their post observation. theing to monetary policy, fed reserve remains committed to policies designed to restore the label market -- labor market inflation to levels consistent with those the committee judges to be consistent with its dual mandate. as always, our policy will continue to be guided by the evolving economic and financial situation. we will adjust the stance of policy appropriately to take into account changes in the economic outlook.

in light of the considerable degree of slack that remains in the labor market and the continuation of the inflation below the committee's two percent object to, a high degree of monetary accommodation remains warranted. with the federal fund rate and the traditional policy tool near zero since late 2008, we have relied on conventional tools to provide support for the economy. asset purchases and forward guidance. because this list of tools are familiar, we have been attempted in recent years to communicate to the public about how we intend to employ our policy tools in response to the changing economic circumstances. our current program of asset purchases began in september 2012 when the recovery weekend

and progress in the labor market has slowed. we said that our intention was to continue the program until we saw substantial improvements in the out look of the labor market. the progress in the labor market warranted a modest reduction in the pace of asset purchases. at the first three meetings this year, our assessment was that there was sufficient underlying strength in the rotter economy to support ongoing improvement in the labor market conditions. further measured reductions in asset purchases were appropriate. i should stress that even as the committee reduces the pace of its purchases of long-term securities, it is still adding to the holdings. those