vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the vote to recommit is 40 ayes and 59 nays. the motion to recommit has -- did not have sufficient funds -- is not agreed to. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, i call up my amendment number

2254. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from vermont, mr. sanders, proposes amendment numbered 2254. mr. sanders: i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, this is a noncontroversial amendment which, according to the c.b.o., has zero cost. it is supported by the national wildlife federation, the american forest foundation, the biomass thermal energy council and the trust for public land. this amendment would simply allow under the community wood energy program a new category of small grants to be created which would provide seed capital for biomass -- the presiding officer: order in the senate, please. the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: a new category of small grants be created which would provide seed capital for

biomass cooperatives through grants of up to $50,000. these cooperatives would have the opportunity to work with local wood pallet or wood chip manufacturers to supply bulk purchases that provide consumers with modest discounts. this amendment can help our nation move forward to more locally produced renewable biomass heating, once again according to the c.b.o. it has zero cost. i would ask for the support of my colleagues. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i support the amendment from the senator from vermont and yield back time. it's my understanding we can proceed to a voice vote. the presiding officer: is there further debate on the amendment? if not, all in favor say aye. opposed. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is adopted.

ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i would ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i would ask unanimous consent that the adoption of the vitter amendment 2663 as modified be vitiated and further the vitter amendment as modified be subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold. i would turn now to senator vitter. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i appreciate that unanimous consent, and ski for it. of course i won't expect this amendment to pass, but i know some members expected a vote, and i certainly wanted to

provide them that vote with a 60-vote threshold. but i do urge support of this bipartisan amendment. it does two things. first of all, it clears up a situation in the context of the film industry where there are certain unintended regulation of extras and actors bringing their pets on the set. that all of a sudden is being captured by regulation which is intended for zoo animals and circus animals and things like that. there is no opposition to this part of the amendment at all. secondly, because of the modification which adds provisions supported by myself and senators blumenthal and kirk and others, that would make it illegal under federal law to attend an animal fight. it's already outlawed to help organize an animal fight under federal law. it's also illegal to attend one under state law in 49 states.

making federal law similar to that state law will help federal authorities work with local government in sting operations, and that's what they normally do, and i ask support of this amendment. a senator: mr. president, mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i have been in contact with senator mcconnell. we have made good progress here. the goal tonight is to get down to ten votes. so once we're at ten votes, we're going to stop for the night. we should be able to do that within the next hour or hour and a half, give or take a few minutes. so i think the goal is reachable. we'll come in tomorrow. we have some important votes tomorrow. don't forget, we have flood insurance. i hope that we can move up the vote on cloture on flood insurance tomorrow. if not, we're going to have to vote on it friday. but we have done that in the past. we should be able to do that. people have schedules on friday. so the goal is ten votes left by the time we leave here this evening.

the presiding officer: is there further debate on the vitter amendment? is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. ms. stabenow: mr. president, if i might, i'm not sure if we have any opposition. i just rise in strong support of this amendment. we know that there are members that wanted the opportunity to vote, record a no vote, but i hope that overwhelmingly since we already passed this by voice vote a bit ago that we will have an overwhelming vote affirmatively for this amendment. i would urge a yes vote. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 88,es nays are 11. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the

adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. -- excuse me. the amendment is agreed to. mr. chambliss: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: mr. president dish the presiding officer: let's have order in the senate. the senate will come to order. mr. chambliss: i would like to call up chambliss amendment 2348, please. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator georgia, mr. chambliss, proposes amendment numbered 2438. mr. chambliss: mr. president, this amendment will require those that receive crop insurance protection from the federal government to now file a conservation compliance -- follow conservation compliance laws. it was enacted as part of the 1985 farm bill and has contributed almost singlehandedly to almost three decades of progress in limiting erosion, cleaning up waterways and protecting wetlands.

and for those of us who love and fish -- who love to fish and hunt, that has been of critical importance. no other program has done more for protecting our farmland and topsoil and conservation compliance. in 1996, congress exempted crop insurance from the conservation requirement. back then the reason for doing so was to increase participation in the crop insurance program and that's exactly what we've seen. we've seen premium subsidies increase by 500%. the farm bill we are debating now will incentivize farmers to move from title 1 programs to crop insurance, and as a result soil and wetland conservation will not be a policy priority and it shouldn't be. this shift will likely adversely impact soil conservation without this amendment. if crop insurance -- the presiding officer: time has expired. mr. chambliss: farmers also need to make sure that the program doesn't incentivize farmers to eliminate the gains we've made in the last 25 years. i urge adoption of the

amendment. the presiding officer: who yields in the meantime. mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i tries speak in opposition to my friend and colleague's amendment, the battle cry for conservation compliance requirements to be attached to crop insurance seems strangely to assume that conservation compliance is somehow eliminated in commodity programs in this new bill. this is not true. conservation compliance is attached to the new farm revenue program in title 1 of the bill. conservation compliance is also attached to the marketing loan program. to duplicate the same requirements in crop insurance is wasteful of government resources, taxpayer dollars, will cause a lot more paperwork. when your farmers find out that you're wasting taxpayer dollars and are in charge of a duplicative effort and making them fill out more paperwork, you will have to hide in your

office four weeks. don't hide in your office for four weeks. vote "no." nor senator amensenatora senato! the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a request for the yeas and nays? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or change their vote?

if not, on this amendment the yeas are 52. the nays are 47. the amendment is agreed to.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i call up amendment 2437. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from south dakota, mr. thune, proposes an amendment numbered 2437. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

mr. president, in -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. thune: mr. president, in the years 1994 to 2003, the united states congress appropriated over $36 billion in ad hoc or emergency assistance for farmers and ranchers across this country above and beyond the normal farm program payments. let me say that again. $36 billion in the ten-year period between 1994 and 2003, above and beyond normal farm program payments. since the emergence of the crop insurance program we have seen those disaster ad hoc emergency bills go away. the crop insurance program is the centerpiece of this farm policy. that's what the entire -- this entire farm bill is built around, what farmers and producers said they wanted. there is going to be an amendment offered by senator durbin that would limit availability of that to people who have adjusted gross incomes under $750,000.

the amendment i'm offering is not about those who are making more than $750,000. it is about those who make less whose premiums would go up as a result of that change. we need a good, strong crop insurance program for the farmers in this country. that's what this farm bill is built upon. we shouldn't take any chances with it. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, this is a good farm bill. it eliminates direct payments and a lot of subsidies, but there's one aspect of federal subsidy in this bill that goes untouched. it is the federal subsidy from our treasury to pay for the crop insurance premiums. 62%, the g.a.o. tells us, of crop insurance premiums are paid for by taxpayers, which means that those who are using crop insurance are really relying on the treasury. so senator coburn and i, a political odd couple, i will admit, said for at least those

making over $750,000 a year, we're going to trim the federal subsidy by 15%. how many farmers would be affected by this? nationwide? 1,500 farmers out of 1.5 million. the thune amendment says you cannot reduce this subsidy even though it saves us $1 billion. you can't reduce this subsidy, in his language, if it adds any administrative expenses. so if it costs $1 to figure out who the 1,500 farmers are no way we're going to save $1 billion. vote against the thune amendment and vote for durbin-coburn. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to be able to respond to the senator from illinois' comments. the presiding officer: is there objection? no time is remaining.

is there objection? is there objection? objection is heard. the question is on the amendment. mr. thune: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would support the yeas and nays and strongly urge a "yes" vote on the thune amendment. mr. roberts: mr. president, i support the yeas and nays and stand with the chairwoman and senator thune. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote the ayes are 44, the nays are 55. the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. the senate will be in order. mr. coburn: i call up amendment 2439. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, for mr. durbin and himself proposes amendment numbered 2439. the presiding officer: who yields time? the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: mr. president, may we have order.

the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the well. mr. coburn: this is an amendment both senator durbin and i have offered. it's not nearly as severe as what the g.a.o. recommendation was for this program. the very wealthiest of farmers in terms of income in this country are the people most likely to buy less crop insurance, not more, and yet we sub enterprise them at the same -- subsidize them at the same rate as lower income. if you want to save a billion dollars, tackle the debt, here's a way that will allow to us save a billion dollars and not put anybody at risk. highly capitalized farmers don't insure at the same rate as lower capitalized farmers and the very thought that we -- we should -- this will be the only program if this amendment doesn't pass that doesn't have a payment limitation on it in terms of adjusted gross income. so there should be no question

that we should do this just in terms of fairness of all the sacrifices we're going to ask everybody else in this country to make in the coming years, this ought to be a part of this farm program. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. who yields time? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: on behalf of senator stabenow and every farm organization and every commodity group in america i rise in opposition to this amendment. it will impact every single producer in the program, not those that exceed this arbitrary limit or rich producers, quote. the rest will pay higher premiums when they are out of the program because that's what happens with an insurance pool. i have no doubt just as sure as i'm standing here and the senator from oklahoma is siting there and contemplating there,

i have no doubt under this amendment we will soon return to the days of low crop insurance participation, multibillion dollars add hok disaster programs like the 1990's, $36 billion over ten years, $11 billion in one year. now, these are a disaster to plan, to legislate, to implement. if you are for those ad hoc disaster programs you better hide for at least six weeks in your office. we just passed two, we are hiding for two and four, now you'll have to hide in your office for six weeks. don't hide in your office for six weeks. vote no. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:skwr

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the

chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote the ayes are 66. the nays are 33. the amendment is agreed to. mr. reid: move to table that. mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection. the majority leader. mr. reid: we've made a lot of progress on this legislation. we're down to 10 or 11 amendments. we're going to come in tomorrow and finish this bill. we're going to try to get permission -- i understand we can -- to have the cloture vote tomorrow. we have to figure out where we're going on flood insurance. it's obvious with all the problems we're having with flood insurance, we're not going to finish that tomorrow or the next day. we have to work toward completing that as quickly as we can. the program expires at the end of the month and the end of the month is coming very quickly. we have no more votes tonight. wethis will be the last recorded vote.

we'll come in tomorrow and work through these. we'll have the staff work with the requests people have for time on the floor, other things that need to be done. we don't know exactly what time we're coming in tomorrow or what time the votes will start; as soon as we can. there will be votes all through the lunch hour. everybody should understand that. we hope to be able to finish by 3:00 tomorrow afternoon. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia is recognized. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i call up the chambliss amendment number 2340 please. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from georgia, mr. chambliss, for himself and mr. isakson proposes amendment number 2340.

mr. chambliss: mr. president, the amendment i'm offering here has a very focused and modest refo object skwreuf, specific -- objective to accelerate by 60 daysate on which usda may increase the import quota if in the agency's judgment such action is needed to adequately supply the nation's demand for sugar. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. chambliss: the current farm bill prohibits the usda from adjusting the minimum sugar imports until april 1 of the crop year unless there is an emergency shortage of sugar caused by war, hurricane, flood or other natural disaster or other similar event is determined by the secretary. experience with the april 1 date has been very unsatisfactory to independent domestic sugar refiners and their refined sugar customers who have annually experienced shortfalls in the supply of sugar and endured the

elevated prices that ensue from inadd kwa seive timely supply. the april 1 date leaves precious little time in the balance of the sugar crop year for usda's complex bureaucratic process and i would ask support for this amendment. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i would ask that we take this as a voice vote. we have an agreement to proceed to do that. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate on the amendment, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. chambliss: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i would ask my amendment number 2432 be called up. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from georgia, mr. chambliss, proposes

an amendment numbered 2432. mr. chambliss: mr. president, this amendment simply strikes $20 million annually in mandatory funds from the farmers' market promotion program. the program will still retain its authorization for annual appropriations at $20 million per year. i understand the important role that farmers' markets play in connecting consumers with the farmers that grow their food. however, this is a grant program that should be funded with discretionary appropriations. we can't give every program in the farm bill mandatory money at a time of fiscal crisis. the number of farmers' markets in the u.s. has grown exponentially over the last five year. the agriculture marketing service reports in the mid 2011 there were 7,175 farmers' markets in the united states. this was a 17% increase over 2010. this amendment will save the

government $200 million over the next ten years while still allowing the program to retain its integrity, and i ask for consideration and for an affirmative vote. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would strongly oppose this amendment. this relates to a very important growth in agriculture regarding farmers' markets. we now have farmers' markets all across the country in every community. it's a chance for local growers to be able to come together, for families to be able to receive healthy food and have access to iic f eve at a farmers market, we have $40 million in economic activity. just in michigan alone for $10. so i would strongly urge a "no" vote on this amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on amendment number

2432. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed nay. the noes appear to have it. the noes do have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you. first i want to say thank you to all of our colleagues for their wonderful work today and apologize. i think when i was speaking a moment ago, i was not exactly clear, i think, after numerous hours on the floor now. but it is true that if a family spends $10 at a farmers market, it generates economic activity in michigan of $40 million, if every family in michigan spent $10. i don't know if that's any

clearer, but i apologize. i think in my -- at the end of the day, i think i wasn't clear. but i do want to, before going to a unanimous consent request, thank the leader, thank both our leaders for their patience and diligence for supporting our efforts. we've had a long day. people have worked very hard. we're near the end. we're going to have a farm bill. we're going to have major reform, $23 billion in deficit reduction. we're doing it altogether through a process. we propose amendments and vote on amendments in the senate is operating in regular order, and we appreciate everybody's hard work in hanging in there with us if we get this done that we're on the path to do tomorrow. i ask unanimous consent that the bennet crapo amendment 2202 be agreed to. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. stabenow: thank you.

i believe also that we are waiting on another possibility of an agreement on amendments that may come tomorrow. i think at this point -- at this point, mr. president, i would yield the floor. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: if i could ask unanimous consent just to introduce a bill, not anything related to the farm bill. is that appropriate? and to speak for five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you. mr. president, several of us have been working for some time now on a bill that is -- first let me say thank you to the senator from michigan and the senator from kansas for conducting another very long session today on agriculture and

did really an extraordinary job helping us move through this important job. and i thank them very much and i know we're going to take that up tomorrow. but i wanted to bring the body's attention to a bill called the protecting adoption and promoting responsible fatherhood act of 2012. ient dued this bill on behalf of myself and senator inhofe, who i have worked so closely together on many issues involving adoption and the protection of children that are outside of family care both here in the united states and abroad. i want to thank senator inhofe, the senior senator from oklahoma, for being an original cosponsor of this legislation. i also want to thank congresswoman laura richardson for introducing a companion piece of this legislation in the

house today. mr. president, we just celebrated father's day this past weekend, and i know that my father and my husband and men all over the country celebrated with their children and their families, and we honor the extraordinary fathers in the world. parenthood is the ultimate gift. it's also an incredible responsibility. and we all have benefited, or many of us have benefited from really wonderful fathers who care and support families and support children through their young years, their adult years, and even into their older years. but, mr. president, when fathers are absent, when they abandon their responsibility to their children, they can make the mothers of these children and their children more vulnerable. sometimes a woman will make a decision to place a child for

adoption if they are unmarried, unwilling, unable, just at a vulnerable time in their life to not be able to raise a child. adoption can be a very positive option. there are some members of our congress who have adopted children and have adopted grandchildren. so we know the blessings of adoption. this bill will help to facilitate and clear up some legal quagmires that occur in many states, to clear the way for women of any age, to make a decision for adoption. there are many of us across party lines that have supported more domestic infant adoptions, more domestic adoptions for children of all ages, and particularly adoption of special-needs children. this bill really affects infant adoptions. it sets up a voluntary registry

that tracks what 38 states have already done. any person, any male who has the intention of supporting and raising a child can register on this registry, and their will and wishes will be taken into consideration. but in the situation that often happens when this man is not interested in being the kind of responsible father that he should be, then this registry helps to expedite without a lot of legal quagmire but with protection to both the father and the mother, to expedite adoption. it has gone through a vetting process with any number of outside organizations. i want to thank the american bar association. i want to particularly thank the association of adoption attorneys who helped to draft this important piece of legislation. and i just wanted to come to the

floor to introduce it, mr. president. we will of course bring it up when the leadership allows us that opportunity. it may have to go through a committee process. we may be able to clear it with the support of both republicans and democrats, as is shown by the support of senator inhofe and myself. hopefully we can get it done in a short period of time and provide really a clear path to promote adoption in the united states. and i thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i would first ask unanimous consent that following my comments, which won't be more than about ten minutes, that senator brown of ohio follow me for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: mr. president, two weeks ago i stood in this chamber and was joined by my colleague, senator mccain, in calling for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the recent series of leaks of

classified information that are so damaging to our national security. despite the bipartisan support for a special counsel, the attorney general chose instead to appoint two united states attorneys who will act under his supervision and conduct separate investigations of just two of these leaks. i believe the american people, our intelligence community and our allies deserve a better response from the attorney general and from this administration. these leaks have violated the public trust and potentially damaged vital liaison relationships we can ill afford to lose in our fight against ongoing threats from terrorism and hostile nations. as understand it, one prosecutor will investigate the leak on the aqap bomb plot. the other, the leak on stuxnet. that's a real problem. this means that other leaks, including the kill list story,

will not be investigated. yesterday "the washington post" published a story that attributed information about a parent joint u.s.-israeli cyberefforts to a former high-ranking u.s. intelligence official. it would sure be helpful if a special counsel had jurisdiction to look at all of these cases and not just two isolated cases. the timing, substance and sourcing of these stories have also raised questions about whether they came from the white house and whether or not there is a pattern of leaks. it's hard to imagine how two u.s. attorneys who work for this administration would be able to investigate this aspect of the cases without being perceived as biased by those who are unhappy with what they ultimately find. we need a special counsel who will be trusted no matter what he finds. i'm not questioning in any way the qualification of these two

u.s. attorneys to do their jobs for which they were confirmed by this senate. i know questions have been raised about the prior political activities of the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia and whether he might be too deferential to the white house. i have no specific reason to question the capabilities or integrity of either of these men. i'm sure that they are good prosecutors and good men. but the very serious nature of these leaks demands an investigation that is conducted in a manner totally above reproach and without any possible inference of bias. unfortunately, because these u.s. attorneys must answer to the attorney general, they cannot conduct independent investigations. with each key decision they make, whether to subpoena a journalist, what investigative techniques should be used, what charges can be brought, they will be subject to the attorney

general and his direction. mr. president, that is hardly being independent. last week the attorney general testified before the senate judiciary committee that appointing a u.s. attorney was the same thing that was done in the valerie plame case. and i would submit that that was an entirely different scenario, because in that case mr. fitzgerald, who was the special counsel appointed, insisted on getting written confirmation that he would be truly independent from the then-acting attorney general, and he got that confirmation in writing from the then-acting attorney general, mr. comer. significantly the plame case involved a single leak of classified information and was deemed serious enough to warrant an independent investigation. the former president also ordered his staff to come forward with any information they had about the source of the

leak. in this case, there have been a series of incredibly damaging leaks in article citing, and i quote senior administration officials, close quote and white house -- quote -- aids -- close quote. and also specific quotations coming out of the situation room which is located in the white house. we have seen no clear instructions from this administration for officials to come forward. this situation seems to create a greater appearance of a conflict of interest for the attorney general than was presented in the plame investigation and calls out for the appointment of a special counsel. the attorney general also testified that he could always appoint these u.s. attorneys as special counsel if they needed to investigate acts outside of their jurisdictions. others have made the argument that we have to wait to see if

these u.s. attorneys do their jobs well before appointing a special counsel. well, mr. president, neither argument makes sense to me. why in the world should we wait? all of these leaks should be investigated together, not separately, and they should be investigated now. the leaks are relatively recent and the trail is still somewhat fresh, but if we have to wait to see how these men measure up or if the trail takes us to a district outside of their specific jurisdiction, we run the risk of losing evidence or memories fading. those aren't risks that anyone should be willing to take. this is not and must not become political. it's about finding these criminals who have jeopardized our national security and ensuring that they are brought to justice in an independent, objective, apolitical investigation. i again call on the attorney general to do what now should

have been done two weeks ago. this series of leaks should not be treated as business as usual. as congress considers legislative solutions to put a stop to these leaks, the administration needs to step up its response. appointing a special counsel who can independently and comprehensively investigate all of these leaks and find who is responsible for any and all of them is the best way to restore the public trust in our government and our government officials. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. for many ohio children, schools have let out for the year, summer vacation is just beginning. during the school year in my state, a state of about 11 million people, 840,000 ohio children receive some nutrition

assistance through free or reduced price school or lunch breakfasts during the school year. it's a statistic that tells the story of families struggling to get by. in many, many of these children's cases, their parents have jobs but simply are not making enough money. it's the statistics that tell the stories of how children are often helpless victims in a challenging economy. many of these children come from the 18% of ohio families, 18%, about one out of six ohio families that are food insecure, meaning that they are unsure where their next meal may actually come from. when the school year comes to a close, many of these children go hungry. where can these 840,000 students go, where do they turn for a nutritious meal when their school cafeterias are closed for the summer? the answer is the summer food service program run through the united states department of

education, administered in my state by the ohio department of education. for ohio parents and guardians and school administrators, the summer food service program is available for them to find healthy meals for children during the summer. but too many ohio families don't know about this critical program. that's why it's so important to raise awareness to increase access to the program for all ohio children, regardless of where they live. summer breaks should mean a break from good -- shouldn't mean a break from good nutrition. at the beginning of this talk, i mentioned that 840,000 ohio children benefit from free and reduced school breakfast and lunch programs, 840,000. but unfortunately, last year, in the summer, only 66,000 ohio children utilized the summer food service program. only 66,000 when there are 800,000 eligible. i would add, mr. president, that

ohio, at least last year, i believe, was slightly above the national average, so in state after state after state after state, only 10% of students eligible for the summer feeding program, 10% of those who were benefiting from breakfast -- free and reduced price breakfasts and lunches in the schools, less than 10% of those children benefit in the summer. so in ohio, only 66,000 ohio children utilize this program. hundreds of thousands, obviously , need and receive nutrition assistance during the school year. ensuring our children have access to healthy food during the summer is so important, especially as more families slip into poverty. the summer food program is a vital program that helps stem the crippling cycle of food and security by providing school-aged children breakfast or lunch or snack during the summer. at some sites, children can

receive these meals while participating in educational activities or organized games. we know, mr. president -- and the presiding officer was superintendent of one of the great school districts in this country. we know how particularly low-income students during the summer months slide back in their educational attainment, that at the beginning of the school year, teachers have to sort of reteach what was taught, perhaps in april and may. we also know that in families with a little higher income, they often have activities in the summer, the children do, exposure to books and magazines, vacations, exposure to cultural events that give -- that help those children continue to advance in the summer. many of those students that aren't getting proper nutrition in the summer also aren't getting the educational challenges they need. that's why at these sites, children while they are receiving meals, participate in educational activities or organized games. the good news is there are more sites this year for ohio families to turn to, more than

1,700 across 77 counties. nonetheless, mr. president, 11 counties out of the 88 in ohio still lack feeding sites. it's not too late for program sites to be established. the official deadline was may 31. interested sponsors and volunteers can still work with the ohio department of education to establish new centers for children to get meals. understand the difficulty here, mr. president. somebody needs to step forward -- a teacher, an administrator, someone in the school district, someone in a church, someone in a rec center of some type has to step forward every may or june and set up one of these programs and then take it down again in august and september. so it's unlike the school district which has this built into its process. at existing sites, at schools and summer camps, churches and community centers, pools and recreation centers, volunteers spend their time ensuring our children have the food they need to succeed. the federal government will reimburse local groups small

amounts of money for the breakfast, snack or lunch for these children, but volunteers need to come forward. two years ago, i closed the -- i called the first of its kind hunger summit at a food bank in columbus with leading antihunger advocates from across ohio. this past year, usda under secretary kevin cannon came to ohio to hold the ohio summit. we continue to reach out to organizations like the americorps vista summer association, which through volunteers like americorps can help set up these programs and provide meals to the children in need. this summer will be an important few months to learn how far we have come and how far we have to go in serving our state's children. outreach public awareness are critical components to ensure that the end of the school year doesn't mean the end of children getting the nutrition they need for the summer. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. ms. stabenow: i would ask to suspend the quorum call. before going into unanimous consents, i would just say one more time how appreciative i am of everybody's hard work and patience with us today. we have made tremendous progress on a very, very important bill that helped 16 million people in this country have a job and keeps the safest, most affordable food system in the world going. so thanks to everyone, thanks to me ranking member who has been a terrific partner with me. mr. president, at this point i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten

minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today -- s. res. 500, s. res. 501 and s. res. 502. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambleses be agreed to, the motions be reconsidered, laid on the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the resolutions be printed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, the senate adjourn until 10:30 a.m. on thursday, june 21. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning business be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, that the

majority leader be recognized, that the following -- that following the remarks of the two leaders, the time until 11:00 a.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. further, that at 11:00 a.m., the senate resume consideration of s. 3240, the farm bill, and the votes on the remaining amendments to the bill. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: there will be several roll call votes beginning at approximately 11:00 a.m. tomorrow in order to complete action on the farm bill. if there is no other business to come before the senate, i would ask that the senate adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:30 tomorrow.

court invited new briefs and arguments and citizens united has attracted more attention in the academy the ticket line

outside the supreme court. the line that formed three days before oral arguments. some have described the controversy has unprecedented, and they may be right if they mean the number of press conferences, prayer circles, protests, countered protests going on outside of the court while the oral argument was under way inside. >> though our deliberations are private that hasn't persuaded the media from publishing a steady stream of rumors and accounts my favorite among the pieces wisely observed at the supreme court. those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know. >> watched the rest

today voted to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress. house republicans want the justice department to turn over documents related to the fast and furious gun operation. the vote was along party lines. the house is scheduled to vote on the measure next week. the congressmen of california chairs the oversight committee. >> the committee on oversight government reform will come to order. the committee meets today to consider reporting a resolution to the house of representatives finding the attorney general eric holder, jr. in contempt of congress. on the night of december 14th, 2010 in a canyon when stuff rio

arizonan, u.s. border patrol agent were engaged in a shootout with armed mexican bandits preying on illegal immigrants. one of the agents was 40-year-old brian terrie, a three-year veteran who served as a u.s. marine and had gone through boot camp in camp pendleton. during the fight a bullet pierced agent terry's mayorga and he died in the canyon. two weapons were found at the scene they were later traced an operation conducted by the department of justice called fast and furious. this committee along with senator chuck grassley launched an investigation into whistle-blowers allegations regarding fast and furious. we became involved only after

senator grassley was told he wouldn't receive answers from the justice department because in fact he didn't have subpoena power and was in the chairman. in the course of our investigation, the committee has uncovered serious wrongdoing by the justice department. that wrongdoing led to 2,000 weapons crossing the mexican border but crossed lives on both sides of the border including brian terrie. a year-and-a-half later, the family is still searching for answers. the operation contributed to the death of countless mexican citizens. it has soured our relationship with our neighbor to the south. it's created an ongoing safety problem here in the united states in which even the attorney general has admitted more lives would be lost. the department of justice has fought the committee's

investigation every step of the way starting with an unequivocal denial that they used the restless tactics we know were used in fast and furious. it proves to be false and ultimately the justice department withdrew it. they withdrew it in december having given it to us in february. today's contempt is and no small part because the material between the time a false statement was given in writing and later affirmed in sworn testimony by the justice department representative an officer of the court, a lawyer and now the dean of a law school was ultimately falls. the intervening period remains one of the areas under investigation. it's clear the congress relies on its ability to get truthful

testimony when investigating wrongdoing in and around the executive branch. in spite of the lack of transparency, the committee has managed to piece together much of what happened, and we believe we can help participate making sure it never happens again but our work is not complete and we need the part of justice to cooperate thus far the cooperation hasn't been forthcoming. over and over again the department has sought to protect its political appointees. it's used the investigation by the department's inspector general which is intending a very long time as a reason not to cooperate. we are on the second inspector general there's been no interim report and although they said it would be forthcoming within a month we and the american people need answers sooner, not later. the attorney general has in fact

said he has gone to extraordinary measures to participate and to help. we received today approximately 7600 documents. a great many of those documents are in fact responsive to other observations before he was attorney general, and those documents pale in comparison to the 80,000 documents or more that the inspector general has received. our purpose has never been told the attorney general in contempt. our purpose has always been to get the information the kevin needs to complete its work that it is not only entitled to but obligated to do. he offered the department an accommodation to address its concerns about information related to ongoing prosecution's if the justice department had delivered the documents they freely admitted they could deliver, we wouldn't be here

today. as late as last night in discussions with the attorney general, our offer, his offer was only to give us a briefing and such documents that supported the briefing and then only if we ended the investigation. contempt today isn't about whether we in the investigation were not. it is about a narrow subset of the documents the committee must all turn of the received. the subpoenas are eight months old. we have not received a credible reason for them not being supplied, and in fact no constitution assertion has occurred. rather, it is the duty of the executive pranced and its agency to represent itself honestly before congress and to make available such transparency as necessary for us to fund and offer a nice now and in the

future the request of this and future presidents. only today, only a few minutes before the gaveling of this markup did we receive from the deputy attorney general a letter dated today not spoken of last night that says -- and i would ask unanimous consent the letter would be placed in the record. without objection, so ordered. in the first paragraph, it says i right now to inform you that the president has asserted executive privilege over relevant post february 4, 2011 documents. a goes on for several pages.

as we speak, the committee is evaluating this. we verified that no communication from a president has arrived before the house. additionally, at least in the preliminary evaluation, we discover that the president, well after february 4th has said that in fact he has not discussed this issue was not aware of it. the attorney general has repeatedly given us testimony showing that he did not speak to the president about this. i now read for the record from page 25 when congress comes calling which is from the constitution project and i apologize if this seems preliminary this communication arrived only within the minutes of the starting of the markup to

the executive privilege from the president's communications privilege of coming in by quote the communications in question must relate to the quintessential non-delegated residential power the requires direct presidential decision making. the privilege is limited to the core constitutional power was of the president, such as the power to appoint and we moved the commander in chief power, the sole authority to receive ambassadors and public ministers and the pardoning power. i claim not to be a constitutional scholar but the house is working to find out what assertions they arrive and we will take notice of them. having said that, more than eight months after a subpoena and after the question of executive privilege could have and should have been asserted

this untimely assertion by the justice department falls short of any reason to delay today's proceedings. we have made many attempts to accommodate the justice department. originally some 22 areas were on the subpoena. many of which were never complied with. we narrowed the three master areas in a letter on may 18th unprecedented letters from the speaker of the house and asking for cooperation and narrowing the scope of the subpoena. since that time we have further narrowed to one area for purpose of contempt and we have been denied. the attorney general has refused to cooperate offering to provide subpoena documents only if the committee agrees in advance to

close the investigation. no investigator would ever agree to that and as you could understand, the other information those responsible for brian terrie's murder and death of individuals both north and south of the border cannot be concluded simply based on a briefing about the post february 4. the attorney general says that his offer is extraordinary. the meeting extraordinary about his offer is that he is asking the committee to close an investigation before the committee even gets to see the documents he is pretending to offer. i can't accept that deal and no other german lead -- chairman would. the committee would be considering today a very narrow contempt. but members on both sides have repeatedly said that we owe it

to the family to get to the truth. it is my intention to continue post contempt to do our job while meeting our other obligations to pursue waste, fraud and abuse in our government and with that i recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want you to go back for one moment and document what you heard from june 20 if to the one that you and i just got from the deputy attorney general. i wanted to -- since talking about the privilege i do believe that we need to study this and make sure that we understand exactly what the president is asserting that i just want to quote from a on the last page,

page four of the legal basis for the assertion of exit of privilege as set forth for the president's attorney general and complete production to the congress of these internal executive branch document generated in the course of the culbert process concerning the departments congressional oversight and related media inquiries would have a significant damage in consequence. as i explained from the meeting yesterday it would such a ticket of print to the liberation in the future and significantly impair the executive branch ability to respond independently to the congressional oversight. such compelled disclosure would be inconsistent with the separation of powers established in the constitution to create an imbalance in the relationship between these two branches of

government. now to my statement, first and foremost i believe the congress does coming and we will agree on this has the response of the body to conduct a vigorous oversight of the executive branch. that is our job. the constitution requires this from congress and the american people expect it from the members that serve on this committee and i take this seriously but also requires something else. it requires us to recognize the legitimate interest of the executive branch and to avoid unnecessary conflict by seeking reasonable accommodations when possible. in my opinion the committee has failed in this fundamental

responsibility. last night the attorney general came to us in good faith and offered to provide additional internal to lubber to documents. he pledged to provide a substantive briefings on the department's actions. he agreed to a request by senator grassley to describe the categories of documents produced and of those being withheld. he made clear that he was willing to provide substantive responses to the additional questions and even offered to provide documents for outside the scope of the committee's subpoena and he made it clear he'd already asked for. all he requested in return is that you as the chairman of this committee give him a good faith commitment that we would move towards resolving this contempt

fight. didn't ask for it in the investigation in this discontent fight. and i double checked with my staff because i was in the meeting and i didn't kill him and what he said was very clear. it was a fair and reasonable offer especially in the light of the partisan and highly inflammatory personal attacks made against him throughout this investigation. for the past year, you've been holding the attorney general to an impossible standard. you accuse them of a cover-up and, quote, protecting documents created by law. let me say that again. accuse them of a cover-up for protecting documents that he was prohibited by law from

producing. he obstructed the committee's work by complying the federal statute passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president of the united states. and earlier this month he went on national television and called the attorney general, the nation's highest ranking chief law enforcement officer a lawyer today that the same time he refused the request to hold a public hearing with the former head of atf, the agency responsible for conducting these operations. this refusal came after he told the committee investigators that he never informed senior officials at the justice the part about gun walking during operation fast and furious because he was not aware himself

he flatly rejected the attorney general's offer and refused to even commit to working towards a mutually agreeable resolution. instead he rushed through a press conference to announce the failure. it seems clear that you have no interest in resolving this issue and that the committee plans to go forth with contempt before we walked into the meetg with the attorney general. it pains me to say this but this is what i believed. this is disappointing since the department has already turned over more than a thousand pages of documents that answer your question. you want to know why the department sent a letter to senator grassley denying allegations of gun walking, the documents show that when they were drafting this letter, the department's legislative affairs office rely on the categorical and in phatic denials from the leaders of atf.

these are the same atf officials will now refuse to call for public hearing. this morning we were informed that the administration is now asserting executive privilege over a narrow subset and it is indeed narrow. the documents that remain at issue. as we understand the assertion does not cover everything in this category such as whistle-blower documents and the administration has indicated that it remains, and i emphasize, remains willing to try to come to a mutual resolution despite its legal assertion. as a member of congress like we did exertions of privilege very seriously and i believe they should be used only sparingly. in this case it seems to the administration was forced into position by the committee's

assistant on pressing forward with content despite the attorney general's good faith offer. mr. chairman, it did not have to be this way. it really didn't. we could have postponed today's vote except the attorney general's offer and obtain additional information. instead of not honoring the constitution's in charge, to seek accommodation when possible to position this committee has been diminished and we should concern us all. with that i yield that. >> i trust the gentleman did not mean to demean my intention but for the record, the press conference occurred after the meeting was equally usable and intended to announce the we had a deal if it was appropriate, and i had prepared a written statement saying that we would

be staying with today's market had we been offered anything pursuant to our letter so i trust the gentleman would realize that it could have gone another way and we had no idea. >> i believe you when you say that and i trust the situation. i simply was giving my opinion of the way that was set up. >> i thank the gentleman. >> i will hold the record open until the end of the day for members the would like to submit formal written statements. the report will be considered as red under regular order and members will be recognized to speak to offer amendments under the five minute rule. i now call up the content report regarding the attorney general eric colder to report has been distributed to all members without objection the report will be considered as read and open for amendment at any time. does anyone wish to speak on the report with that i would

recognize the gentleman from indiana mr. burden for five minutes. >> well, first of all let me just say after having been the chairman of this committee for six years i want to complement our chairman on being so patient. if anybody looks at the record and sees how long darrell issa has dealt with this issue and how he has handled i think they would say that he has been more than patient, so i think that needs to be in the record. the second thing i would like to say is that there is no question in anybody's mind that's been involved in this investigation. the attorney general has been stonewalling this committee. the chairman has contacted him and his associates numerous times without result, and when the chairmen met with him in the last 24 hours and discussed this, there was no information forthcoming that would have been able to set aside this contempt

hearing today. the second thing i would like to say is the president's assertion of executive privilege creates even more questions. one of the big issues that we've been dealing with is who knew about fast and furious? when did they know about it and how high up did it go? and the attorney general has asserted on the numerous occasions that he didn't know about this. now the president of the united states claimed executive privilege as. that brings into question whether or not eric holder or knew about it and how much does the president know about this? why would the president claim executive privilege unless there was something very, very important that he felt should not be made known to this committee, and possibly to the public. so my question is -- and i'm not going to take all my time -- who knew about this, how high did it go, did it go to the attorney general for the president of the united states and when did they

know it and this committee needs to find out especially since we had not only weapons going across the board, but a border patrol agent murdered with those weapons and i yield back the balance of my time. >> does anyone else seek recognition? the gentle lady from new york is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. treen. i am astounded that today we are of sitting near weighing whether to hold the attention of the united states the highest ranking law enforcement officer in our country in contempt of congress. the house of representatives has never in our long history held an attorney general in contempt and i'm horrified that you are going forward with this charge

when the president of the united states and the administration have invoked executive privilege as for the documents sought by the german and the attorney general is being attacked for protecting documents that he is prohibited by law from producing i speak strongly in opposition to this action and in opposition to this report. i would like to point out that the committee on oversight and government reform is supposed to root out problems and find ways to reform how the government works. it shouldn't be a political witch hunt against the attorney general of the country and our president in an election year.

what we should be doing is looking at ways we can stop the problems from happening again. so my basic question, mr. chairman, is where is the reform. our committee is supposed to be working on the government reform, and any legitimate investigations must be rooted in finding solutions to problems not just character assassination and overruling precedents and attacking the chief law enforcement officer in our land so again i would ask where are the reforms. during this investigation, we've learned a great deal about what went wrong in the phoenix field division that the atf and the arizona united states attorney's office. we heard directly from atf agents who witnessed the

misguided tactics of gun walking to occur which started in the prior administrations and they ask for our help in implementing the reform coming forward with solutions to the problems they were seeing every day along the southwest border. the problems they were worried about were not people work and subpoenas contempt charges. where are the reforms and the actions we could take in response to the problems they've put before us true that the investigation atf what mrs. consistently told the committee that they need reinforcement to the weak federal law that prohibits gun trafficking. peter and atf special agent in phoenix called existing gun

walls two -- toothless. when do we put forth some teeth in tell-all to help of our enforcement officers combat crime? efforts to simply discuss reform have not been welcomed by this committee. when i attempted to question the agents about defect with the current law to combat cone trafficking, mr. chairman, you cut me off and specifically instructed the agency not to answer my question. so, i tried to act on reforms with many members of the committee including the ranking member cummings. we tried to help law enforcement officers fight gun trafficking along the southwest border and we didn't get any support from the other side of the aisle. and mr. fisa has rebuffed the

request by a ranking member cummings of the department of justice and to clear the need for legislation to fight illegal gun trafficking along the southwest border including the request for a hearing on the topic, just a hearing. and the chairman also demanded that the department of justice produce a wiretap applications that would order field. >> the time is expired i would ask an animus consent the gentlelady have an additional 30 seconds. >> i must say to you mr. chairman, i am offended personally by you calling the attorney general a lawyer and it is extremely disrespectful and attacking to our public servant and you've called me a lawyer. you apologized leader and i accepted. but where have we degenerated to

in calling names, not having hearings on meaningful reform, not acting on reform but merely degenerating to attacking people and moving forward with paperwork that is unwarranted, unfair and violates fall to the united states of america. >> i thank the gentle lady. the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman for upholding the responsibility of this investigative arm of the house of representatives to hold the highest ranking prosecutorial official in the united states and fund united states government responsible for what turned in to the horrible death of one of our

agents in a plan that went dramatically sour. i chaired the criminal justice drug policy subcommittee, worked on plan columbia with mexican officials warned them of what was coming in march, 2009. at a hearing mr. waxman was the chairman of the time this report says the congressman reached out his hand at the new administration by passionately pledging his full support of the new administration allocates large resources to assist the mexican government to contain drug violence with a zero tolerance towards drugs and he explicitly encourage the administration to put in place a plan to slow top the slaughterhouse south of the border and help mexico regain control over some of its country.

also christmas the previous democrat-controlled congress for not conducting a single hearing. i did dozens of them. the gentlelady is wrong this is the first attorney general to face this situation. henry waxman scheduled attempt proceedings against some of the bush officials including the attorney general charged with failure to produce to commence in connection with the committee's investigation of the release of classified documents. this is not about the release of classified documents. this very serious business, this is the highest judicial prosecutorial position in the united states involved in creating a situation in which an agent of the united states was

murdered with weapons supplied by the department of justice and a scheme that went on believably sour else i said. the first 11 months the administration denied participation in this committee, the investigative arm of the house of representatives. for eight months, the chairman -- we have had a subpoena and they denied providing us the information. in the last hour last night they offered a deal to provide some information and try to close down the case. this is absolutely absurd. then this morning the white house in an attempt to thwart the committee's lawful the

investigation tries to throw out executive privilege, a complete fiasco. we've been on this committee a long time. there's reasons to exert executive privilege and stop the investigation of the committee into the department of justice bringing about one of the worst discursions of the history of the department of justice is indeed a disk justice to the congress, the american people and this investigative arm of the house of representatives. this is a sad day for the united states of america. when the president would engage himself of the last minute and try to exert executive privilege, then the attorney general who again our job is to find out what went wrong.

there is no reason in the world or under the law or under the proceedings of congress are not constitution the way this government is that this committee is not entitled to this information and this investigation to again maintain the integrity of this important office. maybe i'm idealistic. i didn't think this could go on in the the part of justice in the united states of america in this day and age it's a very sad day. >> does anyone else seek recognition crux the gentle lady from the district of columbia is recognized for five minutes. >> actually, i have a question about the process. >> that was undertaken within the last 24 hours in light of a statement you made we are down as understand to internal delude

of documents which may be the basis for the executive privilege, and the committee is no longer demanding documents that are under seal or involved in ongoing investigations. down to the internal deliver a tough correspondence within the department. mr. chairman, clearly -- de mcclurg de gentlelady stevan questioned? >> the gentlelady could be recognized for five minutes. >> to narrow your question. >> can i go on for five minutes. >> you are but a device for five minutes to beat >> thank you. during this process, they're has been an attempted resolution that concerned about what caused

the agent as a bipartisan concern. in your opening remarks you left the impression that the attorney general came with certain offerings of documents and demanded not to be held in contempt. the ranking member says in his statement that the attorney general asked, and i'm quoting now from of the ranking member said we move towards resolving this contempt. if i read that as a call for continued discussions and negotiations behind the content

matter. mr. chairman, considering that no cabinet official has ever been held by the courts to be in contempt of congress that if this matter gets to the floor of the house, it would then be referred to a democratic u.s. attorney just as to take the opposite case when this committee referred similar matters to ultimately a republican u.s. attorney no action was taken if we are interested in resolution understanding that is the likely final result it does seem to me coming and i would ask you to reconsider what appears to be an offer by the attorney general

not a demand, and i believe some clarification is necessary, but an offer that is if he presented the documents, which he believes he did not have to let you in turn to engage in continuing the discussions and negotiations is that for the case it seems to me mr. chairman would be a reasonable thing to do at this point especially in light of the executive privilege to recycle the gentlelady yield? >> as i said in the opening, we don't have an assertion under the executive privilege of the house. it has to have specificity over what documents and normally as you know the privileged wall goes with that. to date the house has not received that from the office of president, so although i read

the portion of the letter and the entire letter is in the record, i did so only so that we would take note that it may come and we certainly may recess at some point to evaluate. >> we are holding tight naturally. we stopped the clock because i want to make sure you have your full-time if you would allow me to continue when it comes to the question of postponing today, had the attorney general yesterday turned over the documents he said he would turn over in return for essentially the ending of this investigation had he turned over those documents, we wouldn't be here today. we would be evaluating those documents. until we evaluate documents that we can bring a close either to contend for the entire investigation we can't assume that and as you know, we are hopefully the ranking member would explain there was no law,

no actual documentation showing what the intended to present so i did go into that meeting yesterday with full intent that we would like we postpone based on something being produced. nothing was produced. i'm still waiting and i said in a news conference yesterday that i would wait all night and we did have people here all night in hopes that the documents would alive and there we would then postponed. the gentlelady main research. >> mr. chairman, assuming no exit of privilege had been involved and that we had only the offer to give the documents if the chairman of consider after receiving the documents continued discussions and negotiations with and that has been a way to resolve? ..