Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Internal Revenue Service
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I begin this discussion today, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 565. I want to lay the premise of the discussion as I begin to explain why the question of ``why?'' is not answered. I would imagine that the question of ``why?'' will not be answered by the conclusion of this debate.
The premise of the resolution H. Res. 565 is on the Federal regulations 601, 600.2, and 600.3. On the face of the resolution, in the facts, there is no evidence under either of the two initial ones. And that is, first, there has been no elimination of the question of whether there is a criminal investigation or whether there should be; and the grounds for appointing a special counsel include whether or not they determine such an investigation is needed, and that the investigation or prosecution of the person or matter by the United States Attorney's Office would present a conflict of interest. Then the circumstances will be in the public interest. None of those criteria have been met.
First of all, in a May 7 letter most recently, the U.S. Department of Justice has said there is an ongoing determination of criminal investigation, an ongoing investigation into all of the allegations. From the Ways and Means, from the Oversight Committee there is an ongoing U.S. Department of Justice investigation.
Now, I believe in congressional oversight, but I also believe in rational congressional oversight, which means, why are we asking for special counsel when the Department of Justice is in the middle of an active investigation? There has been no conclusion, there has been no suggestion that there will not be a further investigation or criminal investigation, and there is no proven conflict of interest.
The Department of Justice employee that has been mentioned by the majority:
One, is not lead counsel, as evidenced in a letter dated February 3, 2014;
And two, President Obama is not the point of this investigation, as I understand it, and the individual made private free speech donations in the course of a campaign.
Are you suggesting that a public employee does not have the private personal right, First Amendment right, of freedom of speech? I would think not.
So I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 565. There are no grounds for it. The Justice Department is working and it is investigating. Again, for those of you who are unaware of the legal authority undergirding this resolution, it is based on a series of regulations promulgated by the Justice Department that has been adhered to by Republican and Democratic administrations. You may not like the results of it, but it gives the criteria for authorizing the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel ``when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.''
There is an ongoing investigation. That means that at the conclusion, or when all of the data and information is reviewed, that decision is still to be made. There is no closure now to suggest that the Department of Justice has not done what it is supposed to do.
In sum, these circumstances are that the Justice Department's prosecution will present a conflict of interest for the Department and that it would be in the public interest for a special counsel to assume responsibility.
This measure that we are debating today, however, utterly fails to meet any of that criteria.
The sponsors of H. Res. 565 make bald, unsupported conflict of interest allegations against a mid-level career attorney whose only fault was to engage in lawful, constitutionally protected political activity, of which I have spoken, and is not the lead counsel--definitively is not the lead counsel.
We have two distinct and qualified experts: Bruce Green, a former Federal prosecutor and current professor of law at Fordham Law School, and Daniel Richman, an expert in criminal procedure from Columbia, who clearly articulate no basis for experts conflict of interest. In fact, the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee issued a report earlier this week detailing that committee's yearlong investigation of the IRS efforts to screen applicants for their tax exempt status.
Among this report's principal findings are that over the course of lengthy and detailed interviews of 39 witnesses, absolutely no evidence of White House involvement was identified. Not a single one of these witnesses' interviews revealed any evidence of political motivation.
These interviewees included IRS employees who identified themselves as Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and others who had no political affiliation.
Another fact that the supporters of this measure ignore is that there already is, as I have indicated, an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department in this matter, and they are complying with the structure of the appointment process for a special counsel. There has been no determination of conflict. There has been no determination that we are ending the investigation to the lack of satisfaction of the United States Congress. We are in an ongoing investigation.
600.2 of the Code, as I mentioned, of the Federal Regulations explicitly authorizes the Attorney General to direct an initial investigation in lieu of appointing a special counsel to determine whether grounds can even exist to warrant the appointment of a special counsel. But an easy manner, other than a resolution on the floor of the House: a simple letter could have been written to the Attorney General for his consideration.
So what is this resolution about? To begin with, it is pure political theater. Rather than simply writing a letter to the Attorney General asking him to appoint a special counsel, which is the time-honored way to do this, the House leadership has resorted to using a resolution that is subject to floor debate and, of course, C-SPAN coverage, but has no real legal effect.
Even The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, which is certainly not a partisan entity as it relates to its advocacy of President Obama or its administration, which is not a bastion of liberalism, noted in an editorial published a year ago that ``calling for a special prosecutor is a form of cheap political grace that gets a quick headline at the cost of less political accountability.''
I would rather have us working together, Mr. Speaker. I would rather us get to the facts. I would rather that the professional men and women of the U.S. Department of Justice be allowed to pursue this investigation unbiased and thorough.
Rather than promoting greater transparency, the appointment of a special counsel, as the Wall Street Journal points out, would have the opposite result. The Journal explains:
With a special prosecutor, the probe would immediately move to the shadows, and the administration and the IRS would use it as an excuse to limit its cooperation with Congress. Special prosecutors aren't famous for their speed. If there were no indictments, whatever the prosecutor has discovered would stay secret. And even if specific criminal charges were filed, the facts of an indictment couldn't stray far from the four corners of the violated statute.
Beyond proving the specific case in court, a special prosecutor will not be as concerned with the larger public policy consequences and political accountability. We could be doing other things, and we could not be spending $14 million.
There has been no basis for this resolution to pass, and I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think it is important to state that one of the provisions that is not in the regulation for establishing a special counsel is that it is a ``get you'' procedure. It is not a ``got you'' procedure. It follows an orderly process of which the Department of Justice is engaged.
I would like to introduce into the Record a letter dated February 3, 2014, that indicates that the Justice Department's lawyer who has been charged with leading the investigation is not leading the investigation. He is part of a team.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just say very quickly that the entire premise of the gentleman's comments have been proven absolutely wrong. Thirty-nine witnesses never said one moment that the Presidential election of 2012 was in any way involved in this particular issue.
In addition, this is a bipartisan investigation because we have the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration appointed by a Republican and who is a Republican working with the Department of Justice.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am sure my kind friend from Virginia will yield me some additional time, but I will use what I have.
Let me try to bring us together, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, there was a collegial moment when we said, Let's clarify the law.
If there is anything the Democrats and Republicans agree with, it is that ineptness, wrongness, misdirection was obviously evident in the equal targeting of all groups--groups that had the name ``progressive,'' ``Occupy,'' and others.
As Members of Congress, none of us want the citizens of the United States to be in any way intimidated by a government that is here to help them. And I stand here saying we can come together to ensure that all of our government agencies work well.
The President made the point in May of 2013 that if in fact the IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups--and it has been noted by the witnesses in the Oversight Committee that they were targeting other groups as well--Occupy, progressive--then that is outrageous, and there is no place for it.
There is no conflict in this.
What we are now debating is a fallacy of the appointment of a special counsel and the $14 million and the 700,000 pages of unredacted documents, more than 250 people who have been responding to congressional inquiries.
I will include in the Record an April 23, 2014, letter to Congressman Sander Levin that talks about the litany of requests that the IRS has been requested to do.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I also will include in the Record a May 7, 2014, letter that emphasizes that this is a bipartisan investigation. The inspector general of the Tax Administration, appointed by George Bush, is working with the U.S. Department of Justice. It negates very visibly any suggestion of conflict of interest or that this is a biased investigation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. JACKSON LEE. In addition, I think it is very important to note that we are the Congress and the administration. But I take great issue in suggesting the lack of integrity of our employees in the Federal Government and that they would do anything to undermine an official investigation.
The letter that we received on February 23, 2014, debunks any personal relationship of this single attorney in a single office with any one political candidate from a personal perspective.
A donation, yes. But are you suggesting that that individual has no private right to enterprise their free speech?
There is no close identification with an elected official, no relationship with families and children.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this resolution that is not grounded in any substance, does not meet the standard of 600.1, 600.2, and finds no conflict. This is no investigation that is over. There is no suggestion that they are not, in essence, investigating all parties, and that there will not be a conclusion that will ultimately make a decision that is unbiased as to whether or not persons will be criminally prosecuted.
And so this resolution does not meet the standard. It is, again, taking up space on the floor. I would like to see unemployment insurance and immigration reform here. I would like to help the American people and help job legislation to make a difference here in the United States Congress.
I have other documents I will add into the Record, Mr. Speaker. These letters are experts saying there is no conflict of interest.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Oppose this present resolution and let's move on to come together and effectively work on behalf of the American people.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source