Date: 2014-05-07
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

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 Attorneys 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 Departments 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 midlevel career attorney whose only fault was to engage in lawful. constitutionally protected political activity. of which I have spoken. and is not the lead counseldefinitively 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 committees yearlong investigation of the IRS efforts to screen applicants for their tax exempt status. Among this reports 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 timehonored way to do this. the House leadership has resorted to using a resolution that is subject to floor debate and. of course. CSPAN coverage. but has no real legal effect. Even The Wall Street Journals 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 arent 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 couldnt stray far from the four cor_ ners of the violated statute. Beyond proving the specific case in court. a special prosecutor will not be as concerned with the larger public policy consequences and political accountability. We could be doing other things. and we could not be spending $14 million. There has been no basis for this resolution to pass. and I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution. With that. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 565. For those of you who are unaware of the legal authority undergirding this resolution. it is based on a series of regulations promulgated by the Justice Department. In pertinent part. section 600.1 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations authorizes the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel "when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted." under certain specified circumstances. In sum. these circumstances are that the Justice Departments prosecution would present a conflict of interest for the Department and that it would be in the public interest for a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter. This measure that we are debating today. however. utterly fails to meet any of these criteria. The sponsors of H. Res. 565 make bald. unsupported conflict of interest allegations against a midlevel career attorney whose only fault was to engage in lawfulconstitutionally protectedpolitical activity. In fact. the Ranking Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee issued a report earlier this week detailing that Committees yearlong investigation of the IRS efforts to screen applicants for their taxexempt status. Among this reports principal findings are that: over the course of lengthy and detailed interviews of 39 witnesses involved in this matter. absolutely no evidence of White House involvement was identified. and not a single one of these 39 witness interviews revealed any evidence of political motivation. These interviewees included IRS employees who identified themselves as Republicans. Democrats. Independents. and others who had no political affiliation. Another fact that the supporters of this measure ignore is that there already is an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department into this matter. Indeed. section 600.2 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations explicitly authorizes the Attorney General to direct an initial investigationin lieu of appointing a special counselto determine whether grounds even exist to warrant the appointment of a special counsel. So what is this resolution really about? To begin with. its pure political theater. Rather than simply writing a letter to the Attorney General asking him to appoint a special counsel. which is the timehonored way to do this. the House Leadership has resorted to using a resolution that is subject to floor debate and Cspan coverage. but has no real legal effect. Even the Wall Street Journals Editorial Board. which is not a bastian of liberalism. noted in an editorial published a year ago that "calling for a special prosecutor is a form of cheap political grace that gets a quick headline at the cost of less political accountability." And. rather than promoting greater transparency. the appointment of a special counsel. as the Wall Street Journal points out. would have the opposite result. The Journal explains: With a special prosecutor. the probe would immediately move to the shadows. and the Administration and the IRS would use it as an excuse to limit its cooperation with Congress. Special prosecutors arent 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 couldnt stray far from the four corners of the violated statute. Beyond proving his specific case in court. a special prosecutor will not be as concerned with the larger public policy consequences and political accountability. The Wall Street Journal concludes by pointing out the obvious: Congress can do the investigating first. and if it discovers criminal behavior it can make that known and refer the cases and evidence to Mr. Holder. who will then be accountable if he refuses to act. Unfortunately. the real scandal here is that this foolhardy witch hunt directed at the IRS has cost American taxpayers well in excess of $14 million dollars. money that we all know could have been better spent. And now we are wasting limited floor time on this charade rather than taking up the issues that the American people urgently need this Congress to act upon. These include: fixing our broken immigration system. increasing the minimum wage. strengthening our Nations economic recovery. creating more jobs. extending unemployment insurance. and helping students struggling with overwhelming educational loan debt. which now exceeds one trillion dollars. These are real issues that affect real people across America. This is where we should be focusing our resources. Accordingly. I urge my colleagues to reject this illconceived measure.