Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers, except for myself. We are prepared to close.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3610) to stop exploitation through trafficking, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from Michigan, who said that this hallowed institution should not be turned into a campaign arm of either political party, I totally agree with the gentleman's assertion. I also believe that he would agree with me that the Internal Revenue Service should not be turned into a political arm of any administration. The IRS--the tax collectors--have the most unenviable job. And they are despised by most Americans coming to collect their taxes from them. To politicize that organization, to turn it into an organization that the American people mistrust, is an abuse. The contention that the IRS targeted progressives is debunked by this staff report prepared by the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform dated April 7, 2014, just 1 month ago. I will read from the conclusion of that report: Evidence available to the committee contradicts Democrats' claims about bipartisan targeting. Although the IRS's BOLO list included entries for liberal-oriented groups, only Tea Party applicants received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs. Public and nonpublic analyses of IRS data show that the IRS routinely approved liberal applications while holding and scrutinizing conservative applications. Even training documents produced by the IRS indicate stark differences between liberal and conservative applications: ``progressive'' applications are not considered ``Tea Parties.'' These facts show one unyielding truth: Tea Party groups were targeted because of their political beliefs, liberal groups were not. And from the executive summary: For months, the administration and congressional Democrats have attempted to downplay the IRS's misconduct. First, the administration sought to minimize the fallout by preemptively acknowledging the misconduct in response to a planted question at an obscure Friday morning tax-law conference. When that strategy failed, the administration shifted to blaming ``rogue agents'' and ``line-level'' employees for the targeting. When those assertions proved false, congressional Democrats baselessly attacked the character and integrity of the inspector general. Their attempt to allege bipartisan targeting is just another effort to distract from the fact that the Obama IRS systematically targeted and delayed conservative tax-exempt applicants. The gentleman from Michigan is right: this institution should not be used, nor the IRS, to benefit either political party. And that is why an independent, professional special counsel should be appointed immediately by the Attorney General. Because the three tests for that appointment have already been met. That is the reason why we are here today. A criminal investigation of a person or a matter is warranted. An investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorneys' Office or litigating division of the Department of Justice would prevent a conflict of interest for the department. All of these false assertions made over and over and over again show there is a conflict in this investigation by this administration. Third, under those circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility for the matter. It is time for that outside special counsel to be appointed, to take the politics out of this, and to make sure that the American people's interest in having an Internal Revenue Service--the tax collectors of the country--not attempting to influence public policy, not taking ideological points of view in the enforcement of our tax law is not to take place. The only way we can assure it is by having that special counsel appointed. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I will insert an executive summary into the Record. Executive Summary In the immediate aftermath of Lois Lerner's public apology for the targeting of conservative tax-exempt applicants, President Obama and congressional Democrats quickly denounced the IRS misconduct. But later, some of the same voices that initially decried the targeting changed their tune. Less than a month after the wrongdoing was exposed, prominent Democrats declared the ``case is solved'' and, later, the whole incident to be a ``phony scandal.'' As recently as February 2014, the President explained away the targeting as the result of ``bone-headed'' decisions by employees of an IRS ``local office'' without ``even a smidgeon of corruption.'' To support this false narrative, the Administration and congressional Democrats have seized upon the notion that the IRS's targeting was not just limited to conservative applicants. Time and again, they have claimed that the IRS targeted liberal- and progressive-oriented groups as well-- and that, therefore, there was no political animus to the IRS's actions. These Democratic claims are flat-out wrong and have no basis in any thorough examination of the facts. Yet, the Administration's chief defenders continue to make these assertions in a concerted effort to deflect and distract from the truth about the IRS's targeting of tax-exempt applicants. The Committee's investigation demonstrates that the IRS engaged in disparate treatment of conservative-oriented tax- exempt applicants. Documents produced to the Committee show that initial applications transferred from Cincinnati to Washington were filed by Tea Party groups. Other documents and testimony show that the initial criteria used to identify and hold Tea Party applications captured conservative organizations. After the criteria were broadened in July 2012 to be cosmetically neutral, material provided to the Committee indicates that the IRS still intended to target only conservative applications. A central plank in the Democratic argument is the claim that liberal-leaning groups were identified on versions of the IRS's ``Be on the Look Out'' (BOLO) lists. This claim ignores significant differences in the placement of the conservative and liberal entries on the BOLO lists and how the IRS used the BOLO lists in practice. The Democratic claims are further undercut by testimony from IRS employees who told the Committee that liberal groups were not subject to the same systematic scrutiny and delay as conservative organizations. The IRS's independent watchdog, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), confirms that the IRS treated conservative applicants differently from liberal groups. The inspector general, J. Russell George, wrote that while TIGTA found indications that the IRS had improperly identified Tea Party groups, it ``did not find evidence that the criteria [Democrats] identified, labeled `Progressives,' were used by the IRS to select potential political cases during the 2010 to 2012 timeframe we audited.'' He concluded that TIGTA ``found no indication in any of these other materials that `Progressives' was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention.'' An analysis performed by the House Committee on Ways and Means buttresses the Committee's findings of disparate treatment. The Ways and Means Committee's review of the confidential tax-exempt applications proves that the IRS systematically targeted conservative organizations. Although a small number of progressive and liberal groups were caught up in the application backlog, the Ways and Means Committee's review shows that the backlog was 83 percent conservative and only 10 percent were liberal-oriented. Moreover, the IRS approved 70 percent of the liberal-leaning groups and only 45 percent of the conservative groups. The IRS approved every group with the word ``progressive'' in its name. In addition, other publicly available information supports the analysis of the Ways and Means Committee. In September 2013, USA Today published an independent analysis of a list of about 160 applications in the IRS backlog. This analysis showed that 80 percent of the applications in the backlog were filed by conservative groups while less than seven percent were filed by liberal groups. A separate assessment from USA Today in May 2013 showed that for 27 months beginning in February 2010, the IRS did not approve a single tax-exempt application filed by a Tea Party group. During that same period, the IRS approved ``perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups.'' The IRS, over many years, has undoubtedly scrutinized organizations that embrace different political views for varying reasons--in many cases, a just and neutral criteria may have been fairly utilized. This includes the time period when Tea Party organizations were systematically screened for enhanced and inappropriate scrutiny. But the concept of targeting, when defined as a systematic effort to select applicants for scrutiny simply because their applications reflected the organizations' political views, only applied to Tea Party and similar conservative organizations. While use of term ``targeting'' in the IRS scandal may not always follow this definition, the reality remains that there is simply no evidence that any liberal or progressive group received enhanced scrutiny because its application reflected the organization's political views. For months, the Administration and congressional Democrats have attempted to downplay the IRS's misconduct. First, the Administration sought to minimize the fallout by preemptively acknowledging the misconduct in response to a planted question at an obscure Friday morning tax-law conference. When that strategy failed, the Administration shifted to blaming ``rogue agents'' and ``line-level'' employees for the targeting. When those assertions proved false, congressional Democrats baselessly attacked the character and integrity of the inspector general. Their attempt to allege bipartisan targeting is just another effort to distract from the fact that the Obama IRS systematically targeted and delayed conservative tax-exempt applicants. Conclusion Democrats in Congress and the Administration have perpetrated a myth that the IRS targeted both conservative and liberal tax-exempt applicants. The targeting is a ``phony scandal,'' they say, because the IRS did not just target Tea Party groups, but it targeted liberal and progressive groups as well. Month after month, in public hearings and televised interviews, Democrats have repeatedly claimed that progressive groups were scrutinized in the same manner as conservative groups. Because of this bipartisan targeting, they conclude, there is not a ``smidgeon of corruption'' at the IRS. The problem with these assertions is that they are simply not accurate. The Committee's investigation shows that the IRS sought to identify and single out Tea Party applications. The facts bear this out. The initial ``test'' applications were filed by Tea Party groups. The initial screening criteria identified only Tea Party applications. The revised criteria still intended to identify Tea Party activities. The IRS's internal review revealed that a substantial majority of applications were conservative. In short, the IRS treated conservative tax-exempt applications in a manner distinct from other applications, including those filed by liberal groups. Evidence available to the Committee contradicts Democrats' claims about bipartisan targeting. Although the IRS's BOLO list included entries for liberal-oriented groups, only Tea Party applicants received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs. Public and nonpublic analyses of IRS data show that the IRS routinely approved liberal applications while holding and scrutinizing conservative applications. Even training documents produced by the IRS indicate stark differences between liberal and conservative applications: `` `progressive' applications are not considered ``Tea Parties.' '' These facts show one unyielding truth: Tea Party groups were targeted because of their political beliefs, liberal groups were not.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 568, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 565) calling on Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., to appoint a special counsel to investigate the targeting of conservative nonprofit groups by the Internal Revenue Service, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the author of this resolution.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H. Res. 565.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. On May 10, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service admitted to inappropriately targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny in connection with their applications for tax-exempt status. President Obama denounced this behavior as ``outrageous'' and ``unacceptable'' and stated that the IRS ``as an independent agency requires absolute integrity, and people have to have confidence that they're applying the laws in a nonpartisan way.'' He pledged that the administration would ``find out exactly what happened'' and would make sure wrongdoers were ``held fully accountable.'' In testimony before my committee on May 15, 2013, Attorney General Holder testified that the Department of Justice would conduct a ``dispassionate'' investigation into the IRS's admitted targeting of conservative groups. The Attorney General promised me and the members of the Judiciary Committee that ``this will not be about parties, this will not be about ideological persuasions, and anyone who has broken the law will be held accountable.'' Unfortunately, that appears to be where the administration's commitment to pursuing this investigation ended. We have all seen the testimony from conservative groups stating that they had yet to be interviewed by the Department of Justice investigators more than a year after the allegations came to light. Additionally, the administration has sought to undermine whatever investigation the DOJ was conducting at every opportunity. Earlier this year, unnamed Department of Justice officials leaked information to The Wall Street Journal suggesting that the Department does not plan to file criminal charges over the IRS's targeting of conservative groups. When asked who leaked this information to the media and if the Department plans to prosecute the leaker once identified, Attorney General Holder admitted that he has not looked into this leak. Additionally, on Super Bowl Sunday, President Obama stated that there was ``not even a smidgen of corruption'' in connection with the IRS targeting. Finally, as we all know, the Department of Justice appointed Barbara Bosserman, an attorney in the notoriously politicized Civil Rights Division, to head the investigation. Ms. Bosserman has donated more than $6,000 to President Obama's campaigns in 2008 and 2012. The relevant regulations require the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel when he determines three circumstances exist: First, that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted; Second, that investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; And third, that under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility for the matter. It should be noted that these regulations require the Attorney General to exercise subjective discretion. However, there should be little doubt to any neutral observer that the requirements for appointing a special counsel have been satisfied. First, as shown in the Ways and Means Committee's referral letter to the Department of Justice, there are serious allegations that IRS officials, including former Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner, violated Federal law by targeting conservative groups and by releasing tax confidential tax information to the media. We also know that troubling information continues to come to light about this matter, including that the Department of Justice considered prosecuting conservative nonprofit groups for engaging in political activity that is legal under Federal law. Second, it is clear that a conflict of interest exists between DOJ investigators and this administration. As a legal matter, determining whether a conflict of interest exists requires a determination of whether external interests--one's own or those of other clients or third persons--are likely to impact the exercise of independent professional judgment. In addition to Ms. Bosserman's clear conflict of interest, this administration's statements and actions have repeatedly served to undermine the Department of Justice investigation and have created an indisputable conflict of interest. Third, it is equally clear that appointing an outside special counsel to investigate this matter would be in the public interest. The American people are very concerned that their government has targeted individual American citizens for harassment solely on the basis of their political beliefs. The American people deserve to know who ordered the targeting, when the targeting was ordered, and why. For many Americans, the IRS is the primary way they interact with the Federal Government. To now have the IRS acting as a politicized organization that persecutes citizens for their political beliefs shakes the core of American democracy. Under the circumstances, this administration cannot credibly investigate this matter. It is time for the Attorney General to appoint an independent, professional special counsel to get to the bottom of this. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would like to begin by thanking Mr. Chabot for introducing this legislation and by thanking Mr. Conyers and Mr. Cohen for their support as well. Madam Speaker, the Foreign Cultural Exchange Jurisdictional Immunity Clarification Act strengthens the ability of U.S. museums and educational institutions to borrow foreign government-owned artwork and cultural artifacts for temporary exhibition or display. The United States has long recognized the importance of encouraging the cultural exchange of ideas through exhibitions of artwork and other artifacts loaned from other countries. These exchanges expose Americans to other cultures and foster understanding between people of different nationalities, languages, religions, and races. Unfortunately, the future success of cultural exchanges is severely threatened by a disconnect between the Immunity from Seizure Act and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Loans of artwork and cultural objects depend upon foreign lenders having confidence that the items they loan will be returned and that the loan will not open them up to lawsuits in U.S. courts. For 40 years, the Immunity from Seizure Act provided foreign government lenders with this confidence. However, rulings in several recent Federal cases have undermined the protection provided by the Immunity from Seizure Act. In these decisions, the Federal courts have held that the Immunity from Seizure Act does not preempt the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The effect has been to open foreign governments up to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts simply because they loaned artwork or cultural objects to an American museum or educational institution. This has significantly impeded the ability of U.S. institutions to borrow foreign government-owned items. It has also resulted in cultural exchanges being curtailed as foreign government lenders have become hesitant to permit their cultural property to travel to the United States. This bill addresses this situation. It provides that, if the State Department grants immunity to a loan of artwork or cultural objects from--under the Immunity from Seizure Act, then the loan cannot subject a foreign government to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. This is very narrow legislation. It only applies to one of the many grounds for jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Moreover, it requires the State Department to grant the artwork immunity under the Immunity from Seizure Act before its provisions apply, and in order to preserve the claims of victims of the Nazi government and its allies during World War II, the bill has an exception for claims brought by these victims. If we want to encourage foreign governments to continue to lend artwork and other artifacts to American museums and educational institutions, we must enact this legislation. Without the protections this bill provides, foreign governments will avoid the risk of lending their cultural items to American institutions, and the American public will lose the opportunity to view and appreciate these cultural objects from abroad. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during the second vote series on April 29, 2014. Had I been present, I would have voted Yes on both H.R. 4414, the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014, and H.R. 627, the National Park Service 110th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill (S. 2195) to deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity against the United States and poses a threat to United States national security interests, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Republican Study Committee's budget proposal. Not only does the RSC budget balance in four years, reduce spending, and repeal Obamacare, the RSC budget proposal also recommends the House enact H.R. 352, the Tax Code Termination Act. This legislation, which I introduced at the beginning of the 113th Congress, would force Congress to debate comprehensive tax reform by sunsetting our current tax code in December 2017 and forcing Congress to enact a new tax system by July of that same year. This bipartisan legislation has the support of over 100 Members of Congress who support a variety of tax proposals. I am pleased that the authors of the RSC budget have a desire to see these proposals debated and our complicated tax code addressed by setting a date certain for scrapping our tax code. I look forward to voting in support of the Republican Study Committee's budget and working with my fellow members of the Republican Study Committee to see that happen.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 1989, Debbie Smith was kidnapped from her Williamsburg, Virginia, home while her husband, a police officer, was sleeping upstairs. Her assailant dragged her into the woods behind her home and raped her. Despite being threatened with further harm, she bravely came forward, reported the assault, and consented to a forensic exam with hopes that her attacker would be quickly identified and apprehended. Unfortunately, this did not happen. In the years following the sexual assault, Debbie Smith, stricken with thoughts of suicide, struggled with the paralyzing fear that her unknown attacker would return to inflict harm on her and her family. The traumatic effect remained with Debbie and her family for over 6 years until an offender was identified and convicted using DNA analysis. I am pleased to sponsor H.R. 4323, the Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2014, to ensure victims of rape, sexual assault, and other violent crimes do not have to endure similar experiences to Debbie Smith in the future. I would like to acknowledge the bipartisan support received from the numerous cosponsors of this important legislation, including lead cosponsor Congresswoman Bass of California and original cosponsors Ranking Member Conyers, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner, and Ranking Member Scott. I also would like to recognize the efforts of my colleague from New York, Carolyn Maloney, in cosponsoring this bill reauthorizing the program she helped create in 2004. Finally, the gentleman from Texas, Judge Ted Poe, has also been a strong leader in this area for many years, and we are all very appreciative of his efforts. With the goal of eliminating the backlog of untested DNA samples, the Debbie Smith program awards grants to State and local governments to fund the collection of samples from offenders and crime scenes, including rape kits, increased laboratory capacity, and the analysis of DNA samples in a timely and appropriate manner. Additionally, grants are authorized to provide training, technical assistance, and education to law enforcement officials, court officers, corrections personnel, and forensic science and medical professionals. The effectiveness of DNA evidence in criminal investigations and prosecutions is unquestioned. As of January 2014, the use of the FBI's National DNA Index has provided important assistance in more than 224,000 investigations. In my home State of Virginia, the database contains more than 366,000 offender profiles and has aided in nearly 8,500 criminal investigations. Due to a number of factors, including the expansion in recent years of the number of States requiring arrestees to submit DNA samples, the demand for the testing of these samples continues to outpace the capacity of State and local government laboratories. In 2011, laboratories processed 10 percent more DNA cases than in 2009. However, backlogs persisted as demand grew by 16 percent during the same period, illustrating the need for the continued support of this vital program. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, reauthorizing the Debbie Smith program, to continue the reduction of DNA backlogs nationwide. I thank Debbie Smith for her contribution to this effort and for her courage in standing up for millions of others. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4323) to reauthorize programs authorized under the Debbie Smith Act of 2004, and for other purposes.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4323, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I recognize the many people who have worked very hard to bring us to the reauthorization today of this important legislation. I particularly want to thank Congresswoman Maloney for her leadership from the original legislation to today. Congresswoman Karen Bass of California unfortunately could not be with us for this debate this evening, but she has played a role as the lead cosponsor of this legislation. I thank the ranking member of the full committee and the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Scott, for their hard work on this as well. I certainly thank the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for his contribution, as well at the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) for his work in this area on this and other legislation affecting crimes against women. Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation that will help avoid many, many future victims. I really thank Debbie Smith and Natasha Alexenko for being with us when we talked about this issue this afternoon. I want to thank them for their courage in speaking out about it. They are not only helping to have a better understanding on the part of the public of the nature of this problem, but they are actually helping to fight crime. This Congress will be helping to fight crime when we get these perpetrators of these horrific events much, much more quickly than these multiyear delays that we have heard about tonight. We need to get them quickly. We need to prosecute the guilty. We need to exonerate the innocent and put the guilty ones in prison, where they cannot perpetrate more of these crimes. Some of them are out on the streets for additional years perpetrating multitudinous crimes. This is a serious problem. It will save the taxpayers money by reducing the amount of crime that is perpetrated in our society. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to welcome Dr. Bryan Smith, a constituent of the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia and a friend who has offered the opening prayer today. I hope the doctor's prayer offers this body guidance and wisdom for the tasks before us. Dr. Smith serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Roanoke, one of the largest congregations in Roanoke Valley. During his time at First Baptist, I have known Dr. Smith to be a man who believes in putting faith in action, working tirelessly to help others grow spiritually. Dr. Smith and his wife, Mary, have served in ministry together for more than 25 years. They have two children. He is a graduate of Mobile College, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I want to thank Dr. Smith for serving as guest chaplain in the House of Representatives today.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), the chairman of the House Administration Committee.