Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 608) condemning the senseless rampage and mass shooting that took place in Isla Vista, California, on Friday, May 23, 2014, as amended.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As many of us know, on May 23, 2014, a mass shooting took place in Isla Vista, California, a community adjacent to the University of California, Santa Barbara campus. The people of the United States will continue to mourn the loss of six innocent victims and students of the University of California, Santa Barbara. Each of these students excelled in school and were looking forward to bright futures. We will continue to remember the victims: George Chen, 19; Katherine Breann Cooper, 22; Cheng ``James'' Yuan Hong, 20; Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez, 20; Weihan ``David'' Wang, 20; and Veronika Weiss, 19. Americans everywhere continue to extend their support and sympathy to the victims, their families, and loved ones, and we wish each of the 13 people injured in the shooting a full and speedy recovery. I would also like to commend the law enforcement officers and other first responders for their courage, bravery, and dedication to service. Their efforts helped to prevent further fatalities and injuries, and we remain extremely grateful to each of them. I urge support of this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. 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 material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps), my colleague and the author of the bill.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and subject to close, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, government should protect our liberties, not violate them. Individuals and businesses alike must be able to trust their government to work for them--not spy on them. The NSA's bulk collection of Americans' phone records threatens our constitutional liberties. We have the opportunity to pass legislation that both limits the reach of the NSA and provides the transparency to lawmakers and the American people necessary to prevent abusive practices from happening again. We have the opportunity to begin to restore the trust of the American people. The original and Committee-passed versions of the USA FREEDOM Act struck a careful balance between our liberty and our security, providing the reforms necessary to restore trust. I was proud to be an original co-sponsor of this bill, and commend Representative Jim Sensenbrenner and Chairman Bob Goodlatte for their work to protect our civil liberties. Unfortunately, the floor-version of the USA FREEDOM Act falls short of our goal. This legislation would still allow for the mass collection of information. The Committee-passed legislation required court orders to be based on ``specific-selection terms''--which was defined as a ``person, entity or account.'' The floor version broadens the scope of ``specific-selection term'' by defining it as a ``discrete term.'' This ambiguous legal phrase does not have defined limitations, and could capture millions of individuals' information. The existing data collection programs that were revealed to the American people within the last year are unacceptable, and we must not only legislate stronger safeguards for intelligence gathering but must vigorously conduct oversight to prevent constitutional intrusions by big government. Of the few transparency requirements left in the bill, significant construction of law made by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) would be reviewed for declassification to the American people. However, the floor version of the bill transfers the authority to conduct declassification to the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper. Last year, Director Clapper lied under oath to Congress when asked about the existence of programs that collect data on millions of Americans. I cannot in good conscious support legislation that would place the responsibility of transparency with a government official who has already violated the trust of the American people. For these reasons, I will not support the floor version of the USA FREEDOM Act. I hope that my colleagues and I will be able to come together to enact reforms the American people deserve.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, as the House's Select Committee on Benghazi stands up and takes ownership of an investigation that has been conducted jointly by standing committees since the fall of 2012, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has, with your support, one final bit of business scheduled for May 29: subpoenaed testimony from Secretary of State John Kerry about his Department's failure to produce critical documents subject to a lawful subpoena. On April 17, 2014, the State Department sent a letter informing the Committee that it was producing previously unreleased e-mails subject to prior requests and subpoenas. In this letter the State Department acknowledged that these documents were responsive to a September 20, 2012, request and an August 1, 2013, subpoena. These subpoenaed documents had been willfully withheld from the Committee and were only turned over after a federal judge ruled against the administration's efforts to block a Freedom of Information Act request from the organization Judicial Watch. One e-mail in this production showed that White House official Ben Rhodes coordinated talking points for then Ambassador Susan Rice, encouraging an emphasis that the attack was ``rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.'' This exposed false White House claims that inaccurate statements made by then Ambassador Susan Rice on national television were solely the product of bad information from the intelligence community even though the intelligence community talkers made no reference to an Internet video. Undaunted, earlier this month, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney argued at a White House press briefing that the Internet video reference in the Ben Rhodes' e-mail was the result of a, ``connection between the protests in Cairo and what happened in Benghazi, that's drawn directly from talking points produced by the intelligence community, as testified to by the deputy director of the CIA on multiple occasions.'' New evidence obtained by the Oversight Committee, however, contradicts this explanation. An e-mail sent at 9:11 pm eastern time on September 11, 2012, (3:11 am September 12 in Libya) to the Diplomatic Security Command Center under the subject line ``Update on response actions--Libya'' recounts items discussed in a Secure Video Teleconference attended by senior Administration officials. Among the items noted in this e-mail, one states: ``White House is reaching out to U-Tube to advise ramifications of the posting of the Pastor Jon Video.'' Among descriptions of actions from different agencies, the e- mail says nothing else about what the White House was doing that night. This information is troubling for a number of reasons. First, it contradicts White Press Secretary Jay Carney's claim this month that White House assertions about an Internet video were ``drawn directly from talking points produced by the intelligence community.'' The intelligence community talking points that were used, in part, to brief Ambassador Rice were not even requested until September 14--three days after the attack and the White House's decision to embrace its storyline. Second, former Libya Deputy of Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks--who spoke to Ambassador Christopher Stevens on the phone during the attack--indicated that it was immediately clear to him that the assault on the Benghazi diplomatic compound was a terrorist attack and not a protest of a YouTube video gone awry. Retired Brigadier General Robert Lovell, who had served as Deputy Director for Intelligence and Knowledge Development at U.S. Africa Command the night of the attack also testified that the assault on the Benghazi compound was clearly identifiable as a terrorist attack and not a protest gone awry. Former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morrell publicly testified that incorrect conclusions by his agency that there had been a protest were made as a result of analysis that took place after, not during, the attack. In fact, reports and evidence collected during the attack and embraced by some Administration officials specifically pointed to Al Qaeda linked militia Ansar al-Shaira. A State Department draft memo for Secretary Clinton from September 12 about a condolence letter to the mother of slain American Sean Smith actually references both the White House assertion of a YouTube video and the involvement of Ansar al-Sharia. Third and finally, the e-mail shows the White House had hurried to settle on a false narrative--one at odds with the conclusions reached by those on the ground--before Americans were even out of harm's way or the intelligence community had made an impartial examination of available evidence. According to the e-mail, the White House--at 3:11 am Libya time--had resolved to call YouTube owner Google about an Internet video being responsible for violence more than two hours before Americans Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed by militants at 5:15 am. Unfortunately Secretary Kerry and the State Department continue to try to keep this information from the public, only turning this document over to Congress last month. While the information I have cited from this e-mail is clearly unclassified, the State Department has attempted to obstruct its disclosure by not providing Congress with an unclassified copy of this document that redacted only classified portions outlining what the Department of Defense and the Secretary of State were doing in response to the attack in Benghazi that night. This tactic prevents the release of the e-mail itself. In advance of Secretary Kerry's testimony, I intend to request that the State Department declassify this e-mail in its entirety. I will also request that a small sample of other documents be declassified and the removal of redactions from other material occur so that the Oversight Committee can have a more meaningful discussion with Secretary Kerry about information that has been inappropriately withheld from Congress. In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your support for this hearing and view it as an appropriate conclusion to the transition the House of Representatives has decided to make to a Select Committee. By discussing these issues with Secretary Kerry in a public forum on May 29 at the Oversight Committee, the Select Committee will benefit from an examination of tactics this Administration has employed to obstruct the investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Oversight is a constitutional responsibility of Congress, but we can only do our job when the executive branch, one way or another, meets its legal responsibilities.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Chair, this amendment is a modified version of language that was incorporated in the House-passed NDAA authorization bill last year, and that was adopted again by the House earlier this year as a standalone bill, H.R. 1232, the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act. The amendment reforms--Government-wide--the process by which federal information technology is acquired and deployed. It takes a streamlined and precise approach to solving a huge problem in Federal IT--the broken system by which the government procures and deploys critical IT infrastructure. President Barack Obama, on Nov. 14, 2013, stated ``One of the things [the federal government] does not do well is information technology procurement This is kind of a systematic problem that we have across the board.'' I agree. I commend the Administrations' recent steps to strengthen IT management by strengthening the eGov office and focusing on duplications via what is called PortfolioStat reviews. In its annual reports to Congress, GAO has identified duplicative IT investments as a significant problem. Our oversight hearings confirmed that despite spending more than $600 billion over the past decade, too often Federal IT investments run over budget, become behind schedule, or never deliver on the promised solution or functionality. Indeed, industry experts have estimated that as much as 25 percent of the annual $80 billion spent on IT is attributable to mismanaged or duplicative IT investments. In terms of potential cost savings, some in the industry have estimated that more than one trillion dollars could be saved over the next ten years if the government adopted the ``proven'' IT best practices currently in use by the private sector. We need to enhance the best value to the taxpayer by aligning the cumbersome federal acquisition process to major trends in the IT industry. FITARA accomplishes this by-- 1. Creating a clear line of responsibility, authority, and accountability over IT investment and management decisions by empowering agency CIOs; 2. Accelerating the consolidation and optimization of the Federal Government's proliferating data centers; 3. Increasing the accuracy and transparency of IT investment scorecards by requiring 80 percent of Government-wide IT spending be covered by a public website called the IT Dashboard; and 4. Ensuring procurement decisions give due consideration to all technologies--including open source--and that contracts are awarded based on long-term best value proposition. This is a significant and timely reform that will enhance both defense and non-defense procurement. I urge all members to support this amendment.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to whether the minority is prepared to close?

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion and seek recognition in opposition.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I regret that we have to be here today. If it is within my power, if at any time Lois Lerner comes forward to answer our questions, I am 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. 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 committee, on the top of the dais, that a lawyer represented by a distinguished lawyer would play fast and loose with the Fifth Amendment assertion. It is a pretty straightforward process to assert your rights. In fact, her attorney may have planned all along to have a controversy. I will 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 continue to investigate, and only today, nearly a year after a subpoena was issued, the Treasury, the IRS, actually gave us another 12,000 emails. Like 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 is for a different court to decide. The only question now is did she in fact give testimony, then assert the Fifth Amendment, 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 that 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 is 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 if-thens, then they would vote for this, well, I believe that the gentleman from Vermont said it very well when he said: We shouldn't be doing this. We shouldn't be finding her guilty. This should be before a judge. He may not have understood what he was saying, because what he was saying is exactly what we are doing. We are putting the question of 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. 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. We will still have the same problem, which is Lois Lerner was at the center of an operation that systematically abused Americans for their political beliefs, asked them inappropriate questions, delayed and denied their approvals. 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 under penalty of perjury the IRS was asking them inappropriate questions which they intended to make public. The IRS is an organization that we do not have confidence in now as Americans. We need to reestablish that, and part of it is understanding how and why a high-ranking person at the IRS so blatantly abused conservative groups in America that were adverse to the President, no doubt. But that should not be the basis under which you get scrutinized, audited, or abused, and yet it clearly was. Mr. Speaker, it is essential we vote ``yes'' on contempt. Let the court decide, but more importantly, let the American people have confidence that we will protect their rights from the IRS. With that, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who, by the way, is, in fact, a constitutional scholar in his own right.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, nobody answered the debunking that we put out, this document, nobody. 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 is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), who has championed so many of these issues in our investigations.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to correct the record. Earlier, a minority Member stated that, with 35 words said by Lois Lerner, our count is 305. Hopefully, their inaccuracy of their experts will be considered the same. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have worked long and hard with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. She is a good person, but her facts simply are 100 percent wrong. Every single one of her assertions were simply not true. You can go to pages 11, 12, and 13 of this 400-plus page report, and you can see 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 us, one time, we wouldn't like what she said if she said something. When I went on national television, I did so because of written communication that indicated that 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 another week to prepare, which we were willing to give her; but 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 that 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 is pretty clear. Her contempt for our 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. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, 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 trying Lois Lerner. We are determining that she should be tried. The question should be before a Federal judge. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), a member of the committee.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. In the meantime, after invoking, she gave a no-strings-attached interview to the Justice Department. This was said to the press entirely voluntarily before a large gathering. Her position with respect to complying with a duly issued subpoena has become clear. She won't. Her testimony is a missing piece of an investigation into IRS targeting. We have now conducted 40 transcribed interviews and reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents. Mr. Speaker, the facts lead to Lois Lerner. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, if they hadn't made their applications, perhaps they wouldn't have been asked the inappropriate, abusive questions like, What books do you read? Who are your donors? as has happened. With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the leader of the House.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, on May 22, 2013, the committee started a hearing to investigate allegations that the IRS had, in fact, used a flawed process in reviewing applications for tax-exempt status. To wit, I subpoenaed Lois Lerner to testify at that hearing because she was head of IRS' Exempt Organization's Division, the office that executed and, we believe, targeted conservative groups. The two divisions of the IRS most involved with the targeting were the EO Determinations unit in Cincinnati and the EO Technical unit in Washington, D.C., headed by Lois Lerner. Before the hearing, Ms. Lerner's lawyer notified the committee that she would invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege and decline to answer any questions from our committee members. Instead of doing so, Ms. Lerner read a voluntary statement--self-selected statement that included a series of specifics declarations of her innocence. She said: I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee. She then refused to answer our questions. She invoked her Fifth Amendment right. She wouldn't even answer questions about declarations she made during her opening statement. Mr. Speaker, that is not how the Fifth Amendment is meant to be used. The Fifth Amendment is protection. It is a shield. Lois Lerner used it as a sword to cut and then defend herself from any response. A witness cannot come before the committee to make a voluntary statement--self-serving statement and then refuse to answer questions. You don't get to use the public hearing to tell the press and the public your side of the story and then invoke the Fifth. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, after invoking the Fifth, when asked about previous testimony she had made and documents, she answered and authenticated those and then, again, went back to asserting her Fifth Amendment rights. It is disappointing that things have come to this point. Lois Lerner had almost a year to reconsider her decision not to answer questions to Congress. Point of Order

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a member of the committee.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record for the resolution made in order under the rule.

Mr. ISSA. I would be happy to anytime the Chair tells me my time has expired.