consent to vote on the nominations when the senate reconvenes from its recess later this month. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. our father, be with us not only in great moments of experience but also during mundane and common tasks of life. through the power of your

spirit, may our senators run without weariness and run without fainting. give them the wisdom to be patient with others, prompt to appreciate the virtues of their colleagues. rule in the hearts of our -- keeping them from sin and sustaining their loved ones lord, surround our senators with the shield of your favor, accomplishing in their lives, more than they can ask or imagine. we pray in your sovereign name. amen. the presiding officer:

please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., april 11, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable carl m. levin, a senator from the state of michigan, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time now be considered expired and on monday, april 28 at 5:30 p.m. the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on calendar number

574. further following disposition of the nomination the senate proceed to vote on cloture on executive calendar number 613 and if cloture is invoked all postcloture time be yielded and the senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination. that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate and no further motion be in order to the nominations. if any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and partisan -- the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent on monday april 28 following disposition of the executive calendar numbered 613 the senate proceed to calendar number 648, that there be two minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or designees prior to each vote and that upon the use or yielding back of that time the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the nominations, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and

that no further motions be in order to the nomination, any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, with your permission i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 585. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all in favor say aye. opposed, nay. the ayes have it. the motion is carried. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, cheryl h. lippman of tennessee to be united states district judge. mr. reid: mr. president, i have the cloture motion that i would ask be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to tpwroeu a close the debate on the nomination of cheryl h.

lippman of tennessee to be united states judge for the western district of tennessee, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask reading of the names be waived, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: might have to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the question. the motion is agreed to. before the motion is agreed to all in favor say aye. opposed, nay. the motion is agreed to. the ayes have it. mr. reid: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 586. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed nay. the ayes have it. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: stanley allen bastian of washington to be united states district judge. mr. reid: mr. president, i have a cloture motion i ask to be reported. the presiding officer: the

clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of stanley allen bastian of washington to be united states district judge for the eastern district of washington signed by 18 senators as follows. reid of nevada, leahy, tester, boxer, schumer, durbin, casey, coons, rockefeller, levin, cantwell, nelson, whitehouse, murphy, murray, udall of new mexico and king. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. without objection. mr. reid: might have to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in faye say aye. all -- all in favor say aye. opposed nay. the motion carries. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 587.

the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed nay. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to and the the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: manish s. s. shah of illinois to be united states district judge. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of manish s. s. shahf illinois to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed nay. the motion carries. agreed to. mr. reid: i move to proceed to

calendar number 588. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed nay. the ayes have it. and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: daniel d. crabtree of kansas to be united states district judge. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion. i ask that it be reported, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of daniel d. crabtree of kansas to be united states district judge for the district of kansas signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye.

opposed nay. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 589. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed nay. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. mr. reid: sorry, mr. president. the clerk: sin theean ann bashant of california to be united states district judge. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of cynthia ann bashant of california to be united states district judge of the southern district of california. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to

legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed nay. ayes have it. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 590. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed nay. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: jon david levy of maine to be united states district judge. mr. reid: there is a cloture motion i ask to be reported, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of jon david levy of maine to be united states district judge for the district of maine signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask consent the reading of the names not be necessary. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i send a -- i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to

legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed nay. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each during that time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider all nominations placed on the secretary's desk in the foreign service and that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, and no further motions be in order to any of the nominations and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 423. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 423 designating april 2014 as

financial literacy month. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that not withstanding the upcoming recess or adjournment of the senate the president pro tempore of the senate, the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees and boards, conferences, interparliamentary conferences authorized by law by concurrent action of it would houses or order of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent during the adjournment or recess of the senate on friday, april 11 through monday, april 28 senators levin, rockefeller, reed of rhode island and gillibrand be authorized to sign joint resolutions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent not withstanding the senate's recess committees be

authorized to report executive matters on friday april 25 from 10:00 a.m. to noon. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. monday, april 28. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. on that date following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks the senate proceed to morning business until 5:30 with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. with the senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each during that time, that during the conclusion of morning business the senate proceed to executive session to consider the nominations as provided under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there will be up to four roll call votes. the votes will be in connection with friedland, and the weil

nominations. if there is no further business if there is no further business the president's nominee to head the labor department's wage and hour division. the senate now goes on a two-week recess. when the senate reconvenes on monday april 28, senators will vote on those nominations. >> c-span to provide live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy event. ever weekend booktv now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like this one -- like this in facebook or those

on twitter. >> tonight the iowa republican party's lincoln dinner. the keynote speakers house budget committee chairman paul ryan. the dinner starts at 8 p.m. eastern. before congressman ryan we will hear from several other speakers including iowa governor terry branstad. that's live from cedar rapids, iowa, starting at eight eastern on c-span. we will therefore more potential 2016 presidential candidates tomorrow morning on c-span. citizens united and americans for prosperity holding what they're calling the freedom summit in manchester, new hampshire. speakers include rand paul, texas hundred 10 is -- ted cruz, former arkansas governor mike huckabee and also don't draw. that starts at 10 a.m. eastern tomorrow morning live at c-span. >> i think what we need is

something akin to the grace commission during the reagan administration or the bracket commission, base realignment and closure and commission during i think the clinton administration. an outside group with integrity, former members of congress, no current elected politicians to come into a complete audit of government from top to bottom. every agency of government has a piece of legislation or a charter that created it. it has a purpose. if it's not the filling that purpose are not doing it within reasonable budget, it should be cut or eliminate. let's take it start. this came in with the highest motivation. do you know, and i didn't until i researched it, there are now three had stores. there's early head start, enhanced head start and regular head start. why do we have the other two? because the person was a working. why did we have the third one? the second one wasn't working. >> columnist cal thomas on fixing a broken washington saturday night at 10 nation in sunday night at nine. following that the heritage

foundation book party as he signs his book and chats with guests. guests. also this weekend booktv this years national black writers' conference saturday at noon eastern with panels on race, power and politics, literature and shifting identities in africa. sunday at 2 p.m., strengthening communities. plus a panel on publishing. booktv every weekend on c-span2. >> the house oversight committee yesterday voted to a former irs official lois lerner in contempt. she headed the irs office that's been accused of targeting conservative political groups for extra scrutiny. she's been called before the oversight committee twice. oath times she asserted her fifth amendment rights to remain silent. but republicans say because ms. lerner made a brief statement before pleading the fifth, she gave up her constitutional right to remain silent. the content resolution was approved in a partyline vote.

>> [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. the committee meets today to consider reporting a resolution of the house of representatives finding, lois lerner and former director exempt organization internal revenue service in contempt of congress. today, the committee has convened a business meeting to consider a resolution recommending contempt of congress for former irs executive lois lerner.

this is not an action i take lightly. for almost a year since lois lerner leaked information from the inspector general's report, the committee has been trying to get to the bottom of irs targeting. we need ms. lerner's testimony to complete our oversight work to bring the truth the american people. why did you do certain things, and who else was involved? it is important to review how we arrived at this resolution today. ms. lerner appeared before this committee last may, and made an entirely voluntary opening statement in which she professed her innocence. she said she did nothing wrong, broke no laws on the and did not violate any irs rules.

after her under oath wide-ranging claims of innocence, ms. lerner answered some additional questions, then refused -- i'm sorry. ms. lerner asserted her fifth amendment rights and then answered some additional questions after asserting the fifth. we know from her attorney that she sat down for a lengthy, no strings attached interview with eric holder's justice department. she was not granted immunity. think about that for a second. ms. lerner who once held the position of great power and responsibility at the irs is willing to talk to the justice department, the executive branch, but she remains unwilling to answer questions from elected representatives of the american people. at one point ms. lerner's

attorney told us she would testify, but then rescinded that offer after seeing some of the evidence gathered by the committee. that's not the way these things work. the american taxpayer certainly don't get to plead the fifth and this gave all accountability when the irs audits them. yesterday, the ways and means committee voted to release information allowing chairman camp to send a letter referring her to the justice department for probable criminal acts. i now ask unanimous consent that those documents be placed in the record. without objection, so ordered. like chairman camp, i am concerned that ms. lerner violated the law. if she or her lawyer explained, she or her lawyer explain what

she wanted to submit and why she need immunity to tell the full truth, i certainly would consider it. but i'm not going to support immunity so ms. lurie can continue to mislead this committee is she really did nothing wrong, and wants to tell the full truth, she doesn't need immunity. absent -- sorry, absent a change of position by ms. lerner, this committee has already determined that she waved her fifth amendment claim. it would be a responsible for the committee not to vigorously pursue her testimony that includes holding her accountable if she fails to meet her legal obligation. throughout last summer the irs released self-selected and self beneficial documents purporting to show the irs also targeted liberal groups. the irs prioritized those

documents over the material, including lois lerner's e-mails, which were the subject to subpoena, and to this day have not all been turned over. on monday, the committee released a 141 page staff report that thoroughly debunks the myth that the irs targeted liberal groups. the evidence shows that only tea party and conservative groups were targeted because of their political beliefs. regrettably, the misinformation campaign continues here at the new irs commissioner testified before the committee just two weeks ago. commissioner tried to engage in some revisionist history, flatly denying that the irs inspector general had ever called the irs wrongdoing targeting. the commission was simply wrong. in fact, the "washington post" fact checker found the commissioners claim was a significant factual error.

this is not a good start for a man selected by the president to restore trust in the irs. the american people rightfully don't trust the irs to tell them what really happened. that responsibility falls to us. we cannot tell the american people that we've done all we could do to get to the truth of this investigation if we offer a path to a critical witness like ms. lerner. we are here today for one fundamental reason, to get to the full truth about irs targeting. we cannot abandon our responsibility to recognize the ranking member for his stateme statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i believe with all my heart that you take this meeting very series like, and as you said,

you do not take it lightly. there is no one on this side of the aisle, and i'm sure on the other side, who takes it lightly either. before it began i want to note that i would like to recognize at the appropriate time for a motion after members speaking on a resolution. today, i do not direct my comments to my fellow committee members. instead, my statement is directed to the generations of americans yet unborn to learn about this vote in their history books, long after i'm dead. i speak to those who are really -- reading the transcript of today's proceedings, 50 to 100 or so now, trying to understand why congress in the year 2014 tried to strip away an american

citizen's rights under the fifth amendment of the constitution of the united states of america. i want to know that members of this body believe that this vote was rejected -- rejecting a constitutional principles we were sworn to uphold. and i want them to know that i objected. let me make clear that i am not defending the actions of lois lerner. but rather, the protections guaranteed by the constitution to every american. and perhaps i'm a little sensitive about rights, having been the son of two former sharecroppers with only a second grade education who did not have certain rights throughout their lives. so let me also make clear that i wanted to hear ms. lerner's testimony. i want to know why she did not

discover for more than one year that inappropriate criteria were being used in cincinnati. i also wanted to know why she did not tell the congress sooner about these actions. however, i cannot cast a vote that would place me on the same page of history books as senator joseph mccarthy or the house un-american activities committee, and i do not draw that comparison lightly. today, this committee is trying to do something that even joe mccarthy could not do in the 1950s, something virtually unprecedented. 60 years ago, joe mccarthy tried and failed to update a criminal conviction of an american citizen after she professed her innocence for this committee and asserted her right not to testify under the fifth amendment. i want to read briefly from the

hearing transcript. in 1954, senator mccarthy, accused a woman named diana of being a communist. she worked at the western house company in a small town in new york making $1.71 per hour. in a similar today's hearing, simply striking. like ms. lerner, ms. hogan professed her innocence and said this and i quote. i have never engaged in espionage or sabotage. i am not so engaged. i will not so engaged in the future. i am not a spy or saboteur. in the quote. like chairman issa, senator mccarthy argued that she waved her fifth amendment rights state in the medical, when the witness said she never engaged in espionage, then she waved the fifth amendment, not nearly as to that question but to the entire field of espionage. and like chairman issa is doing

today, senator mccarthy held the witness in contempt and sought criminal prosecution. but the federal court rejected senator mccarthy's legal theory. the court held i quote the defendant did not waver privilege of the fifth amendment and that she was entitled to a judgment or acquittal on all accounts. at today's votes we're really about winning the significant constitutional questions. we would've held at least one hearing of experts on all sides of the debate. because we do not take this lightly, and i know you do not either, mr. chairman. i make this request more than nine months ago last june, but the committee has never held a single hearing with a single expert on these issues. as of today a total of 31 independent experts have now come forward to identify fatal

flaws in these proceedings. they concluded chairman did not follow constitutional due process protections. ..

our most fundamental rights under the first amendment. freedom to speak in a political faction was domestically attacked. a number of the context here. october 19, 2010 to duke university talked about the citizens united case and she says this. the supreme court overturning a 100 year precedent. they want the irs to fix the problem. other democratic senators, senator lemmon, senator durbin and frankly the president of united remembers in january 25 caught up the state of the union address. so everybody is screaming to fix before the election i can't do

anything right now. she couldn't do anything in 2010, but she could put in place the limited number of e-mails we've got from lois lerner. he said this to her colleagues in fall 2010. we will do the c-cor project next. we need to be cautious, which means what? she tried to hide that fact. guess what? she got caught. we called her in front of this committee and the only thing she said -- the only thing she said and the only testimony we have from lowest lerner is that test monday ratepayer. the american people know it's all. they said yesterday everyone knows it all.

the only remedy we have get to the truth is to test everything tool at our disposal to try to get lois lerner to testify answer the questions. that's the only remedy we have and remember this, the only route to the truth as to the house of representatives. that is what madison was talking about. as we know there's. the investigation at the justice department is a complete joke. the fbi at january 13 this year, the fbi leaks to "the wall street journal," no one is preferred from prosecution. the president on super bowl sunday said there's no corruption, not even a smidgen. barbara boxer gave $6750 to the president's campaign and democratic national committee and the campaign and just this week on tuesday in the judiciary committee, i asked eric holder, have you looked into the leak

that the fbi gave to "the wall street journal"? have you investigated that? his response, no i haven't. they haven't even checked out the leak. so the only path to the truth, the only path to the truth is through this committee, the ways and means committee, the house of representatives. so we've got to pass this resolution. the only chance we have to give the american people an opportunity to get the truth about a fundamental right of a systematically attacked. i want to close at the statement from her colleagues. leading me to mexico in in this committee room when we had mr. costin, head of the here. horstman mudge said this in a priest in the price for making the statement and i talked to him on the floor yesterday. i don't know how is going to vote. i don't know. i don't know how it is going to go. but this statement is right on target. i went in the data again and looked at the statement last night.

here's a congressman lynch said two weeks ago. the irs come a very powerful agency with a lot of information on a lot of individuals has been targeting u.s. it is an indicted serious doubts. sure is. and i think that justifies the scope of the inquiry and the urgency that we get to the bottom of this. that is not just good for republicans. that's not just good for democrats. that is good for our democracy. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> recognition for five minutes. >> i will take the liberty of going in order of seniority when i see hands. the gentlelady from new york. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i wholeheartedly support the role that congress has been given to oversee the federal agencies. i completely agree that this committee should lead the way in ensuring that our government is

properly managed and working diligently on behalf of the american people. but unfortunately, this is not what this investigation has been about. because if this committee was truly interested in examining allegations of an influence from outside the irs, there would be an offer of immunity on the table right now for lois lerner. an offer of immunity so that we could her what, if any thing she was instructed to do by others. but there is no offer of immunity on the table, which happens in most serious investigation. just as there is no intent to seriously pursue a legitimate line of inquiry, ms. lerner has invoked her constitutional right to remain silent under the fifth amendment and that is it, in the end. the fifth amendment states quite clearly that no person shall be

compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against yourself. republicans in this committee have claimed that ms. lerner has committed federal crimes. they say there is a criminal crease to be made and they wish to compel her to be a witness against himself. the constitution says no matter how powerful you believe yourself to be, in our country, you just cannot do that. guilty or innocent, ms. lerner has the cost additional right to remain silent on this issue. under our founding documents, we believe she is not in doubt with the privilege by this committee, but rather it is a right under our democracy. just like the first amendment right of free speech and the second amendment right to bear arms, the fifth amendment and its right to remain silent is

the bedrock principle of our tea. they cannot be suspended at this congress. i would like to emphasize that our side of the aisle is just as determined to get to the truth on this matter is you are. or trying to rip up the constitution and run roughshod over the bill of rights is not a path to truth. it is merely political theater. and i would like to remind all of those in attendance that just last month treasury ig for for tax administration testified that its own audit found no evidence to support the accusation that there was political collusion. the ig found no evidence that its employees were politically motivated. the ig found no reason to believe there is any influence from individuals that are the irs in creating the criteria or causing the delays.

and it was the ig's report that began this whole thing. this committee has first to the issue relentlessly. it is now collected more than 400,000 pages of documents from the irs and conducted 38 transcribed interviews. at the issue of whether or not lois lerner with her fifth amendment rights by asserting her innocent is not for us to decide. it's a matter for the courts to weigh. and on this matter, i would like to point you to the analysis of morton rosenberg, and in his arabic great distinction for 35 years as the american public law specialist at the nonpartisan congressional research service. and i would like unanimous assent to place his analysis in the record. >> without objection, all

extraneous material replaced in the record. >> in these proceedings the requisite due process protections have not been met. i would like to note that stan grant who served as house counsel from 1976 to 1983 fully subscribes to mr. rosenbergs legal analysis and conclusions. what would actually be far more important for this committee to report on is that the irs is doing to correct the problems that the agency and congressional oversight have a genocide. the ig's audit investigation contained nine recommendations that that would improve irs management and guidance for reviewing and tracking. at a hearing last month, the irs confirmed that the irs has implemented every single one of these changes. that would be a good thing for the american people to know more about them to really fulfill its mandate. i think this committee -- >> is generally defined as

expired. >> -- instead of pursuing the destruction of one single woman, clinging to her cut given constitutional rights. >> i now recognize the gentleman from tennessee. >> mr. chairman, thank you. the law professor at georgetown university known as the various liberal pro-defendant in the last has said this about ms. lerner. he says she's run a grave risk of the right to testify the details of thing she's already generally talked about. in that situation many voluntarily open up the subject they want to inquire into limits on the sampras getting, that would be a way for him alan dershowitz, and other very liberal legal analyst and very pro-defendant usually said this. he says, ms. lerner opening-day legal pandora's box could you

can't and they make statements about his subject and then plead the fifth in response to question about the very same subject. once you open the door to an area of inquiry you wait your fifth amendment right. the waitress of cremation right on the subject manner. the legal expert at the heritage foundation, a conservative group said we now know that lerner already provided detailed information to the justice department before her appearance at the house committee. under the rules of the federal courts in district of columbia she waived her right to seek the fifth amendment. some of you know i was a criminal court judge in tennis beat for seven and a half years trying felony criminal cases future trusses slowly almost become a thing of the past. but in the 80s we were trying cases right and left. i tried 78 jury trials my first year as a judge. i can tell you that when ms. lerner made her statement and then asserted her fifth

amendment right after that, i was stunned. now i admit i have forgotten a lot of law in the 26 years since i was a judge. but i also can tell you and i'm sure is a judge and made a lot of mistakes. but i don't believe i was ever refers in a single case and i had a reputation as being a pro defense judge and i leaned over backwards trying to give defendant every right that i possibly could. but you can't come in and make a statement like ms. lerner did they have violated no laws, broken no rules and specifically saying that i violated -- is that it violated no rules or regulations of the irs, do that and then command them plead the fifth because if that was possible, every person -- every defendant in any proceeding in this country we do that. they would come in and testify

them plead the fifth said they couldn't be questioned so that they could be cross examined city could be held accountable. to allow this makes a mockery of our system. it makes a joke out of it. but that's another close from the leading medical experts and i will just close by saying i appreciate what you've done, mr. chairman i personally think you're on the right track here to talk to many legal experts have written many articles about the situation. i've read and heard from many lawyers that know a lot more about this than i do and most of them, the great majority of them say that she is waived her right to plead the fifth in this situation. i agree with you and will support you as you proceed through this market today. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman.

as a gentlelady from the district of columbia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what we are seeing the last couple of days as a court date in passing of lerner. lois lerner is not a sympathetic figure. ways and means committee had a dream which the peep yours called yesterday a hearing unprecedented for manner to the attorney general to be for simply referred. today, we are having yet another hearing, another contempt hearing on lois lerner. the tragic irony is we could have heard from lois lerner and she was willing to testify before this committee. of course, she has faced a committee where she was accused before we have never received a single document of false and misleading information. she was told that it carried

potential criminal liability. the most powerful man in the house, speaker boehner said at that point, my question is who's going to jail over this scandal? is to powerful politicians. as the committee's work was just getting underway when people have taken the fed during prior decades, they've often been labor leaders or entertainers, inherently sympathetic figures. when you work for the irs come you're not a sympathetic figure. but lois lerner was selling to testify before this committee.

the chairman called her back last month. he gave her one week's notice. her attorney was going to be out of town and he asked for a one-week extension. i don't have a court in the world that would've denied that extension because you want to hear from the witness. her attorney was denied that extension, even as ms. lerner was negotiating to come before this committee and waived her fifth amendment right. but the chairman went on national television and essentially blew up those negotiations by amount being inaccurately, without the permission of her attorney or

ms. lerner that she would testify on march 5th, though he had given the attorney no extension of the time he had asked. of course that amount that came as a surprise to ms. lerner and her attorney and it's hardly likely that any attorney who didn't want to be accused of malpractice would have come forward and allow to testify under those circumstances. in fact, what he said was the last confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the foreign. it is completely partisan. it would be very hard to rebut that in light of the circumstances when we could have heard from this witness. mr. chairman, i believe the american people have lost confidence in fairness and impartiality of our work here.

the public deserves to hear from ms. lerner if you had acted anymore but possible fashion, if you had allowed the wit this every opportunity to negotiate, to come before s. and tell us what these hearings have been about from the beginning, discontent matter would have been unnecessary. but the point seems to have been to have a showplace contempt, a show contempt hearing to find her in contempt and to make political hay out of what is truly a far more serious matter. i thank you, mr. chairman neil back good >> would not go to the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. members of the committee.

the other side of the i/o would have you believe that this is some thing republicans are doing and we didn't give ms. lerner a chance. the fact sauter pull up a little chart that irs began targeting conservative groups with conservative sounding name for a march to april 2010. ms. lerner was an charge of that particular agency and responsibility. even chairman issa in 2010 on 30 the irs. it wasn't republicans who really helped launch some of the inspect your general investigation in february, and we heard in previous comment, democratic senators in

february 2012 wrote irs. and the investigation actually started, and i penciled it in there, a month later the inspector general began a review of this matter. in fact, we now find that even mr. cummings to third said -- had made certain contacts, contacted irs in august 2012. again, the question before us is content again lois lerner. she was given the opportunity to come before s. and she came before us the first time in may. that's less than a year ago. and she refused to cooperate in testify. we gave her another opportunity just weeks ago to come back into testify. in the meantime, we interviewed over 30 witnesses.

almost everyone of them, and i'll put this in the record, almost every one of them pointed to lois lerner. she started this whole thing out. >> with the gentleman yield? >> i will not yield. >> the gentleman's time -- the gentleman's time is his. i'll have regular order. >> gentleman may continue. >> in fact, what she did is worthy of probably an academy award. she went before the inspector general report was released in may. it was released may 14. on may 10, she did a broadway production that was worthy of an academy award, saying again that the line people in cincinnati are responsible for misconduct. these are the facts. in fact, when she said that, one

of the irs folks heard it. sidney thomas had to, and a repeat of this before, cincinnati wasn't publicly thrown under the bus, but instead was hit by a convoy of mack trucks. that's what they said according to what she tried to produce and divert attention from this. we have given this individual every opportunity to give us the truth. everything points at her and she has refused to cooperate. finally, what is this all about quiet this is about one of the most fundamental abuses i abettors need in my lifetime of trying to skew an election. she tried to skew the election and probably was fairly successful in khaki and also

hogtied conservative groups in this country. she said in the beginning that the proposed -- they were in fact a problem. that was her words, not my words. right up to the election on election day, we have an e-mail. one of the ones we did get a hold of it she opined that it was important for democrats to retain control of the senate. this was a political mouth to skew the 2012 elections if the other side -- imagine if the other side, this is about liberal groups. this had taken place the howling would never end. this is a simple procedure. she acted in contempt and she

must be held in contempt and we must move forward. >> i thank the gentleman who seeks recognition. mr. lynch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate the opportunity to speak on the motion. i do want to go back though. this determination that ms. lerner waive her constitutional rights -- let me go back in first feature my friend from ohio's remarks. it is accurate and i stand by that. it's a very serious matter when a powerful department or agency of government brings that powered down on the head of innocent citizens trying to exercise their constitutional right. and i think is right for us to be concerned about a dangerous jewish and mike that whether it is the irs coming down on

political groups whose rights are vested in the first amendment and the right to free speech or the right to petition their government freely. or whether those rights and the fifth amendment. and give the individual and the right to stand behind the fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination. i think we have similar situations here. today's proceeding is a contempt proceeding against that one individual. it is not the manner we have agreed upon that this was a dangerous situation because of the irs conduct. we are talking about a contempt proceeding against a single individual americans leaning them whether they exercise their rights and had those rights protected. maybe when i get done. >> if i could get everything set, i'd be happy to yield. it is more my heart to hear the gentleman from the eloquently

site legal precedent about the question of whether or not ms. lerner is an american do us and waved the system in it right to be protected from self-incrimination. however, it would've been much much more valuable testimony if we had had the testimony before we decided she was guilty. we have her devoted that she is in contempt. we have her devoted that she waived her right in the first time we had testimony for the gentleman from tennessee in a couple members is after we decided she was guilty and she had waived her right to choose a subject of contempt. that's backward. that's backward. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cited the 38 interviews can be. however, when we try to make

this interviews publicly chairman refused. he cherry picked sentences out of one or two or three interviews and make those public to the press. that's a political move. this is a political decision. this is not a legal determination by the committee. we should have had a hearing here. we should have brought the best legal experts in america unconstitutional law and asked them point blank, based upon your assessment of lerner's 35 words coming does she waived her constitutional right? i don't think so. the vast body of legal testimony is that it must be a meaningful and purposeful waiver of her fifth amendment right and that we don't assume that lately because it is so important. we didn't have that debate. we didn't have that hearing. we've been in a whole different direction. we do not have the opportunity to have those transcripts made

public. we never had this phone for debate, some of which is gone now after we found her guilty. so you know, she has to have been found to clearly put us in a position where she was not going to testify and that is not the case. as we averted her from the gentlelady from the district of columbia, which is widely known on this committee that her attorney asked for a week delay. anybody who is part of straw in their previous life knows that it's not an unreasonable request for returning to prepare because he was out of town. this contempt if it goes down and passes commend this will be laughed out of court. the chairman has so bundled the salt eating that it will just be

a significant cost to the taxpayer and we will not be able to go to the bottom of this through this channel. it is unfortunate because there is a danger here when a powerful government committee for department works against the interest of the american people. >> the gentleman status expired. the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. >> to yield my time to the congresswoman from california. >> the gentle ladies recognized as >> i thank the chairman and i thank the gentleman from ohio for yielding to his time. you know, it is uniquely consequential to judge another american. a woman in a position of public trust should be in contempt of congress, to have behaved contemptibly. yes, lois lerner does have a right to remain silent, a constitutionally protected

right. the lois lerner did not remain silent. they restrict your contribution that she did nothing wrong, that she violated no laws. she spoke falsehoods to this committee when she said she did nothing wrong. she spoke to the justice department. i believe she did waive her fifth amendment right. you now, mr. chairman, it is often said the power to tax is the power to destroy. that is why the american people must be protected from the abuse of that power. the congress must intervene on behalf of the american people. lois lerner's old e-mails document her rock, partisan

agenda against conservative speech that a farmer direct their, a job requiring the highest level of integrity, a duty owed to the american people to be fair and unbiased would conduct herself in this manner is something worthy of this committees can iteration in this context. mr. chairman, we all have here as in the american people have in the past looked at gangsters and thugs brought down by the irs because they didn't pay their taxes as the kinds of people we wanted to look up to the irs, using its power to destroy the bad guys, to be the intimidator. in this case, it is the irs, which is the intimidator, to

protect her has become the intimidator and it is our duty in this committee to protect the agency that no longer protects them. mr. chairman, this committee is an appropriate exercising authority and power and duty to protect the american taxpayer, to stand between man and the abuse of power by federal agents seized. it is the duty of hours. we must conduct their work with the highest level of integrity and that is why i appreciate the careful to liberations of this committee as to the very consequential subject. to have conducted oneself on behalf of the internal revenue service with such dishonor and

disrespect to the very people who have entrusted you, i am repulsed by that. and i find her work today to be combat did in a manner which the american people deserve. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman from ohio yields back. we now go to the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a very sad day for this committee, for the congress and for the rights of all american citizens to call this proceeding and the words just uttered

orwellian only begins to touch the surface of the process characterized this proceeding of the last year. we can stipulate that lois lerner is not an heroic figure and all of us would like to know more about what she did and what she said and why she did it. that is not the issue before us today. the issue before us today is even with non-her work figures, especially with non-heroic figures to the bill of rights encompass the right of every citizen, even in irs employee to avoid self entrapment. mr. jordan, our friend from ohio

in his state of virginia. he's absolutely right. james madison but a lot in the power of congress. that's where it belongs. the house of representatives can really trump even the courts. with respect to interpretation of constitutional issues and legislation. but that same james madison had to be persuaded and was persuaded at the very first act in the first congress to adopt a bill of rights. that could've been 100 enumerated right. they enumerated 10. the fifth one was the right against self-incrimination for a reason. because what i care to rise colonial times and the characterized frankly perjure 17th century jurisprudence was a star chamber proceeding. it was somebody's choice could be used against them and against their will.

are you going to now it just on the miranda right recitation for every which is who comes before this committee? by the way, anything you say can will be used against you. so say nothing? are we going to throw out a flawed? unfortunately, we are about today brings us back to the mccarthy era is not as the name, but if you look at case law, that's where you have a go. congress trampled on right, citizens right, on her citizens in the quaint case is dispositive. it goes with precisely the fact that someone purposes their remarks from the protestation of the innocent and invokes fifth amendment right is addressed many times that court cases including the supreme court of the united state and it explicitly says that does not

waive your right. for the majority of this committee to assert otherwise is conveniently to ignore case law. in tough times, and test cases, i plead with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. are we not about protecting citizens right even when they're not particularly appealing characters? it is precisely when it difficult. it's precise the when it's politically convenient and unpopular that this body must rise to the occasion and protect the cons to two cheval rights of everybody. because only jeopardize the rights of a citizen like lois lerner, we put in jeopardy the right of every american. i have seen so often people hold that the constitution saying i am first to come to show less.

part is what you preach. look at that fifth amendment and understand what it means and cast the right vote today, which is against the star chamber proceeding. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. members are advised that we will not recess for the boat which is currently going on before us. if they need to go, come back. the call numbers in the order which they need to be recognized. with akamai puts the to the gentleman from north carolina. the gentleman will state his point of order. >> will close out the commerce nation. the mac no, that's what use it. we look forward to your return. the gentleman from north carolina. >> mr. chairman, thank you. there's a serious matter before the committee today that both sides of the aisle go through

hundreds or thousands of pages of documents. one thing is clear. tranter orchestrated an effort to orchestrate conservative groups because of their political views. the other thing that is clear is here in congress there are liberal members of the house and the senate that wanted to use the irs to target conservative groups because they didn't like a court case, including some on this committee. my democrat colleagues reference miranda right. one thing is clear from all the documents about lois lerner that she's got to understand her miranda rights. if we have accountability, if we have the rule of law in this

country and if those one-person agencies actually look at the evidence that we have before us. so what we are doing today should have been to go. but because it was the concerted effort of this committee and a majority party on this committee to make sure we have all the evidence and we not acted in haste. the cut 11 months of investigation on this. this thing started almost four years ago. so the actions we are taking today are justified based off of the evidence we have today. my democrat colleagues certainly appreciated the targeted most learners doing for them within the irs, but it was their party targeted by a republican president 40 years ago. and how things have changed in 40 years that those folks targeted are trying to use the

very same bureaucracy to target those they oppose in political speech and debate. i'd like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from ohio. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to go back to our colleague, your lunch in the statement i read earlier that he made two weeks ago when our committee hearing. remember the context of that statement. the context was mr. costin in had told the committee that we might not get all of those foreigners e-mails for two years. mr. lynch said that it's not appropriate. we need that information. and then he quoted i will quote him again commend a very powerful agents with a lot of information of individuals has been targeted to send. that's serious stuff and that justifies the scopes of the committee's inquiry and urgency to get those e-mails.

so here's the key question. if lois lerner won't talk to us and the irs will give us their e-mails, how in the heck are we going to get to the truth? satisfy the resolution is so important. we have that analysis. or for a practical standpoint committee only way we'll get to the truth about the targeting of the most fundamental right to speak as if we can use every tool at our disposal to compel lois lerner to sit on the witness stand and answer questions of the american people can get the truth. that is why mr. lynch was spot on two weeks ago when he said this is of such paramount importance. we've got to get that information because it about the first amendment. >> mr. chairman, i yield that. [inaudible] >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. there's been a lot of testimony here by members. i would advise it on any

referral statements made by members are in fact part of what is likely to be part of the record. so what members are stating what did or didn't happen, i would admonish them to ensure that they also provide for the record such documents as may be appropriate to further their point. at this point, we now recognize the gentlelady from california, ms. speier. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is not a proud day for this committee. i often times wonder if we weren't on a 24 hour news cycle whether we would conduct our business differently. chairman lankford and i is ranking member of the subcommittee yesterday held a very important hearing about social security and disability and waste, abuse and fraud. but here, this is a spectacle

orchestrated to obscure facts that are partisan and more put political points on the scoreboard. the hallmarks of a politically motivated and biased investigation have been evident throughout this process. the majority amount to a conclusion the investigation before they held one hearing or conduct that a single interview. in fact, the chairman of the committee went on fox and announced there was a conspiracy on the president of the united states, the white house had been involved in this fiasco. facts that haven't fit into the predetermined narrative of the majority have been completely ignored. there have been 31 legal experts that have spoken out on whether or not ms. lerner waived her

right. the chairman and others have called them are lawyers, but we have not hired them and they come from across the political spectrum and across the country. those take for instance the presser patrice poker who said launching a content prosecution against ms. lerner accuse supplier for us for long-standing traditions. andrea dennis at the georgia law school said a content prosecution would be legally and factually unsupported. here are the facts. in the last 60 years would've been required required for a group to qualify as a five o. one c. force that has mutated from being exclusively for social service for social welfare purpose to what today's incomprehensibly interpreted as any group that is primarily dedicated to social welfare

causes. the result has been a flood of groups operating contrary to the spirit of the law for speaking and being granted tax exempt status. second, groups akin to file is a 501(c)(3) or four aren't required to go through the certification process that has been derided by the majority. groups can file as a before without certification. nothing requires these groups to face the suppose it got light of the irs certification process. they can avoid the process altogether and sell certified. third, what has become clear as an underresourced irs took an approach that an ill-advised shortcut to try to get through thousands of 501(c)(3) applications. the irs took an appropriate thing to look for shortcuts conservative and liberal groups that potentially didn't qualify for tax exemption because they

were primarily involved in social welfare purposes. what is also become clear from this exhaustive investigation is today is not about lois lerner or the alleged inappropriate tack he asked she may have employed. today is about protect the integrity and credibility of this committee. the truth is lois lerner is a mid-level bureaucrat who may have made some poor decisions. whether she sounded contempt or not, her name has been dragged through the mud and her bank account has drained to pay lawyers fees. from the outset the chairman has been seemingly committed that not only lois lerner but the white house and president obama have orchestrated a vast conspiracy to punish conservative 501(c)(4)s. after mass of dollars have been spent on a taxpayer funded witch hunt, this is where we've ended up. there is no connection to the white house.

we are trying to hold in contempt of mid-level bureaucrat and the actions of this committee won't hold up to traditional scrutiny. if this vast conspiracy had really not fantasy, lois lerner would've been offered immunity on day one. the other way to of the the case is too to smaller players to get the larger ones. this could have turned out very differently. lois lerner was going to testify and wanted one additional week because her lawyer was going to be out of town. we didn't give it to her. shame on us. i yield back. >> i think the gentlelady annoyed at myself for just a minute to respond to a couple things that have been said. first of all, this hearing is i think a proper hearing because we have an individual who has had every opportunity to cooperate for nearly a year ago when she was first brought before this committee.

she first professed her innocent and then took the fifth. we brought her back several weeks ago and we offered an opportunity. the chairman sat and questioned her again. repeatedly she exercised contempt to the committee process, exercising her fifth amendment right which has the right to do. i might remind everyone that this is not something again initiated by our side of the aisle. in fact, i cited and showed where the actor general but started a month after his seven democrats senators have exercise their concern and wanted investigation what was going on with irs and some of these groups. so inspector general act could

to process for a number of attempts to close this down by the ranking member all over. we didn't need to go any further. and yet, we have failed even to this hearing on the state to receive simple document requests. the gentlelady agenda cost of taxpayer funds. we had recently a new irs commissioner who said he gave us 400,000 pages of documents. he could give us at that hearing a billion pages. but if they're not what we requested and he spends taxpayer time, expenses and resources and blanketing the committee with information we didn't request, we've requested pacific e-mails from lois lerner, which we still haven't got, but she seen what

we've pieced together. what you've seen here is also talking to witnesses, all who point towards lois lerner. lois lerner is documented, went before the american bar association just before the effect or general's report was released and almost a hollywood reduction. i said earlier worthy of an academy award, she tried to cast the blame on folks around the water cooler, low-level irs employees in cincinnati and again they felt they were not only thrown under the bus, they were thrown under a mack truck convoy. so it's very clear that the person held in contempt here, and we've been most patient. we are going on a year because it will be a year in may we have requested the cooperation of this individual. and she can't select which i'm

her nose in the congress on the american people and hold us in contempt and not he held in contempt. so we have a responsibility as the committee to move forward. she has been given the opportunity. but those comments, i am pleased to yield to mr. langford for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just hope we are doing today. can an individual make a statement, appeared to waive their right to the fifth amendment and fan going to plead the fifth anyway. what does that mean to say about goings be based on self-incrimination? made 10 of 2013, lois lerner had a question planted at the aba conference so that she would be asked about some completely irrelevant to that day and she

could leak out that day about this brokered in cincinnati and what was happening. 12 days later she was in front of this committee. she made the statement, good morning. members of the committee, my name is lois lerner. i've been a government employee for 34 years. i initially practiced by the department of justice. she was a staff attorney in the criminal department of justice and later the federal election commission. in fact commissioners and the general counsel's office and she goes on to make this loss event. the course of the statement she said i've not been anything wrong. at a broken any laws. if not violated any irs rules or regulations. i have not provided false information to this or other congressional committees. some people will assume it done something wrong. i've done now. i responded to questions about the irs processing for tax exemption. while these statements made in

fact. but i'm going to revoke the fifth amendment privilege so i don't have to answer questions related to the statements they made. here's our big concern. we are right to fifth amendment when you make statements about yourself and the blue she was not aware. she packed the flaw for years. she'd been general counsel of the federal election commission. she practiced on the commoditization of the department of justice. this is not someone aware of the law. this is someone who's very aware. we are asking a simple thing. answer questions. the entire investigation points back to one person beginning to answer questions. why is this such a big deal? somehow subdued because of the questions asking others. i brought with me at copy of the letter sent by her office to one of the oklahoma tea party groups. in this letter she outlines at the beginning of it from their

office that the penalty of perjury everything has to be correct and reminds the people who fill us up with everything you give me will be made public. so make sure what you give me your kiss the public does i will release everything you put in this document. this person who stands up and says they don't have to answer questions. i don't have to make anything publicly to make assertions have done nothing wrong. ask individuals in oklahoma that simply apply for this application, give me a transcript of many speeches by any candidate. how about this. directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies. if so, provide written communications, any form of any other communication. the person says they do not have to say anything required of them the contents of private conversations within the legislature they might've come into into contact with.

they also ask him to please say whether you want numbers for the general public. if yes, describe in detail advocacy training, provide copies concerning training. who selects the material on your website? name them. i had a set criteria for that? describe in detail your copies of anything related to your training. provide copies of corporate minutes from its inception to present and provide copies of your website in areas that only members can access. this is private information that they're requiring of private citizens. they require to come through our office were going to make public every conversation you had with any religious nature be better communicated with two detailed the nature of the communication. get the person says i can require someone else to do those things come up you can't require me to speak even after i'd made a statement that i've done nothing wrong.

it violated no rules. i've told this committee the truth every time. i can make those statements, but i don't have to dedicate a. you do. have to back it up. you cannot step in the committee come a week or fifth amendment right if they want to answer questions at the same time requiring organizations for years

the chairman cut off his microphone and closed down the hearing and it was one of the worst examples of partisanship of this committee has ever seen. the chairman did something similar and her attorneys offered to have her testify with a simple extension to see the obligations. rather than accept the offer the chairman decided to go on national television and declared and accurately that she would testify without the extension. that an accurate statement ended up stumbling the officer as mrs. lois lerner council of state in the capability of the committee. as i listed m listened to my ren colleagues argue in favor of the resolution, i am left to wonder if they realize how we got here.

the chairman failed to obtain an offer to obtain mrs. lerner's testimony. he kept democratic members out of negotiations with her attorneys and when the ranking member attempted to help the chairman and the information he said he wants the chairman silenced the ranking member and prevented him from speaking. i can only assume that despite his claims, the chairman and doesn't actually want to hear from her and that is a shame as the public deserves the truth, not a political sideshow. i yield back. >> pleased to yield to the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you mr. chairman. and as we go into this particular debate, i think that it's good for all of us to remember that this is a debate on a motion on perhaps

amendments to offer and as we start to look at this as a question of lois lerner being held in contempt as one that both sides of the aisle should take very seriously but it really gets down to restoring the trust for the american people. what we have found over and over again is starting last may, someone who came before this very committee and said that she had done nothing wrong. since that time almost a year now, we have found e-mails and discovered e-mails over and over again that would indicate that that particular statement was not true. her own attorney speaking to "the wall street journal" talked about the reason why she didn't want to come here and testify is because she would be vilified.

when you start to look at this con is that india is the reason where we have found her to have talked to the department of justice, talked to reporters, talked to other people in her own reason for coming here is because she does not want to be vilified, indeed that is unfortunate. but being vilified is not a constitutionally protected and. certainly invoking the fifth if she had said nothing would have been proper. but to come in and suggested that she has done nothing wrong, mr. chairman, and then go further with that to say that the reason she is not coming forth to testify before this oversight committee is troubling because the american people deserve the truth.

those organizations who were targeted, some for well over three years without a decision need to have the truth come out. we still have some of these tea party groups today still waiting on decisions. that is unfortunate when you have had one of the most powerful agencies in the country that is not willing to make a decision when i statute they are required to make a decision within 270 days anyway. and yet somehow a deadline for the irs is not one that they have to adhere to and yet when you have a taxpayer that they are enforcing the somehow have a double standard that must be met and yet the irs continues to not

meet their deadlines. i want to close that this didn't need to take place today if the irs commissioner and those that are in charge of lois lerner's e-mails had been more forthcoming. the average american person does not understand why we could not have all of lois lerner's e-mails delivered to us in over a year time. and i don't think that would be a very simple request. >> i will yield the balance of my time. >> i think the gentleman is closing in from this contempt proceeding of the facts that in february of 2011 she sent an e-mail to her staff advising

them that the case is evolving that he party applicants were very dangerous. this is in 2011 she was there in orchestrating this. we know that much. they worked the test cases in washington and testify to that the senior advisers told them to achieve the counsel's office would need to review that he party application, something that he had never seen done in his 40 years of the irs. these are the effects that have had several opportunities to come before this committee to tell us the whole truth and nothing but the truth and she failed to do that and should be held in contempt and i'm pleased to yield to the gentle lady from illinois. >> i share your frustration that she chose not to testify. all members of the committee have. she has valuable information and

important questions that she must answer about the mismanagement of the irs. i personally would like to understand why she failed to inform congress about the end about putting this code appropriate targeting sooner. i would also like to ask of the mismanagement that created the atmosphere which the targeting could continue for so long. despite the hyper partisan attention the issue has received, i think there are important lessons to be learned to make sure this type of targeting never happens again. we are sworn to uphold the constitution and i take this very seriously. i first took this when i joined the army in my early 20s in for the past 25 years of my life have upheld it. when i swore in as a member of congress ms. lerner had a constitutional right to plead the fifth and involve anything that calls into question a citizen's constitutional rights should be held to the highest degree of scrutiny.

but this was provided with numerous opinions of those that are legal experts from both conservative and liberal political philosophies and they conclude that she did not leave her fifth amendment rights. the committee shouldn't be in the business of stripping away the rights of an american when there is so little to debate and is zero evidence. since the days of senator mccarthy and the committee on the american committees by constituents do not want congress to go back to the mccarthy era. i cannot support his efforts to drag us back into the one of the areas of the institution. i would ask again and recognize she did indeed invoke her fifth amendment rights and i yield back. >> with the gentle lady yield? we have such a great member of

the committee i would appreciate and make a great point. essentially, we are faced with competing views as to whether or not somebody is taking the fifth and continues to answer questions or speaking to a material fact not considered by any of the 31 witnesses that i have seen paper on whether or not those witnesses into the experts consider speaking to the justice department thoroughly. as several members of the democratic side has said in the statement she was going to testify to testify for reasons other than self incrimination. these are all issues that will if we refer to the motion he

heard by a federal judge. and a the point of today's markp is do we send to a federal judge for his or her consideration with the u.s. attorney involved. to all of the members in the opinion since there is a debate, to consult is issued to the chair, his opinion that she waved. other experts on the other side. i like you am not an attorney. it's based on advice of the console that i am supposed to use which is the house consult that there is reason to move contempt through the house and ultimately have the question decided by a lifetime appointment federal judge i won't get to pick and you won't get to pick and i don't think the answer should be yes. hopefully the gentle lady will

consider before the final vote are we in fact asking the question should a federal judge decided this based on them and you are free to say the question is should an independent arbitrator decide what i've been told by house consult when in fact a way that should entitle us to ask questions as to the things she testified to. things like that document that you saw her say was true and correct. >> i would yield to the ranking member. i ask that the experts coming to give their opinions because this is a very weighty issue and we do have people on both sides that would have been beneficial but we were denied that. thank you very much. >> we now go to the gentleman

from utah. >> i would like to yield to the gentleman from south carolina. >> i think the gentleman from utah. you have the right to remain silent, no suggestion of guilt may be inferred from your invocation of that right to remain silent, however, if you do testify or take the stand, you will be treated like any other witness and subject to cross-examination. the reason that that phrase is running through my mind is because i heard it for 16 years it's being repeated in courtrooms all across the country today is not for powerful people to work for government, just for everyday folks for everyday witnesses were descendents of a crime not charged with violation of constitutional rights, maybe just larceny but they are being told you have the right to remain silent, however, if you testify or take the stand, you will be treated like every other witness. i counted 17 separate factual

assertions, not those three little sentences that my colleaguecolleagues liked his st 17 separate factual assertions. that is a lot of talk and for somebody that wants to remain silent. that is a lot of talking. if you honestly believe that you can make 17 separate factual assertions and still invoke the rights to remain silent and please tell me what the waiver is. please tell me what constitutes the waiver is 17 separate factual things does not. she testified i have done nothing wrong. i've broken no rules or regulations. that is her testimony. what i am saying is we should have the right to cross-examine her on the testimony because i would like to ask her when you said we need a plan who is we and what plan are you referring

to? when she said we need to be careful that isn't perceived as political, who is we and what are you concerned about the perception of politics for? what are you fearful of ms. lerner? she said i think we need to do a product that could project. again, what project are you referring to? that is a legitimate question and every brother and sister on the bar on the other side of the aisle would ask that question on cross examination if given the opportunity. can you imagine a pattern where somebody takes the stand and says i didn't rob the bank. i'm not going to tow you why it blew up in my car but i'm just going to tell you i didn't rob the bank. that's not the way that our

system works. you have to answer the other side's questions. i think these questions are fair. the tea party is dangerous. dangerous to who asked who thinks they are dangerous? you? the irs, dangerous in what way? we need a vehicle to get back to court. who? why do you want to get back to court? could it be because you don't like citizens united? is that possibly the explanation? mr. chairman, she said cincinnati shouldn't have these cases but then she turned around and said cincinnati was to blame. that is an inconsistent statement. every lawyer on that side of the aisle would ask her to explain that inconsistency. everyone. so why can't we? if this isn't a waiver, can someone explain to me on the

other side what fact pattern constitutes the waiver? if you can make 17 separate factual assertions and authenticate a document and say i have done nothing wrong which is about as broad as any testimony can possibly get. i have done nothing wrong. i have broken no rules or regulations. honestly with testimony can be broader than that? to the cross examination should be equally broad coming and it would be in the courtroom. how often do you use your personal e-mail? that is a fair question. the committee just referred us to the department of justice. how many times did you use your personal e-mail? when you are amused about applying for a job with an organization connected, were you kidding or are you serious? we knew you were contemplating retirement. were you seriously going to work tax i know my time is up i'm

just going to see thi say this n conclusion. the same constitution that allows her the right if she wants to sit there and say nothing but allows these groups the right to petition the government for the redress. >> the time is expired. who's he is recognition? stanek mr. chairman, i would like to join the ranking members of checking to this resolution, not because we don't want to hear from lois lerner, we do come and i join in saying we would like to have a cross examination myself. but i object to this because it is trampling on individual rights, something that we are sworn to the polls and protect in this country. the chairman referred to carthyism and several members here today have done that. you know, a lot of people in the

united states were not born when joe mccarthy was running around half cocked as he did trumping up the charges against individuals that they were communists and applauding to conspire against the united states government, holding up the lists and claiming to have their names in his hand, piecing together random bits of information jerry picked from this source or data source. that's what he did. and mr. chairman, that was a national embarrassment. it was a national embarrassment. you know, there are a lot of reasons people want to come to this nation from all over the world because principally because we are the bright shining beacon of liberty in this country coming and we can't just make that a phrase for what service. we have to make it real. we have to have civil rights in

this country. this was the dream of our founders. that's why they cooked up a bill of rights and right smack in the middle of that is the fifth amendment. and sometimes i agree we don't like it when they assert the fifth amendment because a lot of times the people that make that assertion are not modeled boy of the village. we get that. but it is a right that we cherish here in the united states because it prevents things like what mr. connolly was referring to as the star chamber where people would be dragged in and tortured, forced to testify against themselves and then incarcerated because of that. we didn't like that when it happened, and we don't like it now. now, i want to say this is a bill of rights that was brought up by our founding fathers, that it is a right since then brave

men and women in this nation have fought, bled and died for and it's not something to likely be tossed away just because we are mad at an irs employee. so i join i joined in the rankig member's objection today, and i also want to meet the challenge when he said can you imagine a situation? we don't have to imagine a situation where somebody invokes the fifth amendment after making a free statement. that happened during the mccarthy era in the united states versus hoag. there are striking similarities end during the hearing on august 6, 1954, senator mccarthy repeatedly questioned a lady from new york near buffalo named diana hoag, despite the fact that she had asserted her fifth

amendment rights. she was a winder at westinghouse and she made a dollar 71 in our and she professed her innocence just the way that lois lerner did and then declined to answer subsequent questions. in response to questioning from senator mccarthy for example come she stated i've never n. gage and espionage or sabotage. i am not so engaged in the future. i am not a spy or a saboteur. like the chairman here, senator mccarthy concluded that his witness waved her fifth amendment rights without citing any independent legal opinion or experts. and explained to her that she had waived her fifth amendment rights and then she was brought up for criminal prosecution. that's prosecution was thrown out in court and that is in the precedent. so i say there is precedence for this and there's also a procedurathere is also aprocedus

not demanded that she answer the questions despite her assertion of the fifth amendment, so this is not a conviction that could be held up in court no matter how much anybody wanted to. i know the chairman is not a lawyer and i do not fault him for an imperfect understanding of the law that you don't need to be a lawyer in the country to understand fairness -- connect the time is expired. we now go to the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you for continuing this process. it's a process that is worth continuing. it's a process that sadly has been hampered all along the way and today we hear a series of talking points that i think move away from what the real issue is and that's the fact that we deserve to have on the committee to carry out the

responsibilities that have been given to us under the oath of office that were not given. there are lawyers in the room on both sides and in courtrooms on both sides and there's disagreements on what the law says and what the constitution means all the time. but on this committee is our sponsor committee to carry out the authority of the oversight of every agency, every program, every department in government to make sure the people are being served well. talking points only go so far. reality is the concern here and when we had a person who as my colleague from south carolina said so adequately gave an offense and ben wasn't willing to be cross examined, we have a problem. this government is unique. and i hope that we would not

forget the purpose of the people's house that this committee works for. alexander hamilton said when questioned about the government she said of the people govern. we are the peoples are presented to us and people are asking questions on why as normal law abiding citizens that have normal political beliefs were being targeted. they deserve those answers. we are the people's representatives. thomas jefferson said when people fear their government, there is tierney and when the government fears the people, there is liberty. how in the world can we reverse that defined the government does fear the people an when we havea non- elected bureaucrat who targeted by the record targeted individual citizens for their beliefs and get away with it?

how can we carry out the advice of thomas jefferson, and finally mr. chairman, john adams said liberty lost once is liberty lost forever. we wo one that risk of a bureaut can strike fear to make a fear in the hearts and minds and actions of people so they won't even use their liberty without worry, that their names will be taken down the have a problem and that problem is the loss of liberty. so i applaud you for continuing this process with all sorts of pitfalls on the way and hurdles in the way and all sorts of talking points as to what the truth is. and we people in the house would remembehouse wouldremember thate people, we represent the people. they deserve an answer, and the bureaucracy ought to respond to them and not the other way around. and i yield back.

>> who seeks recognition? mr. davis? >> thank you very much mr. chairman. >> i apologize. >> okay. mr. davis is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. like many of us can't serve on two committees, and i serve on the committee of the ways and means. yesterday of course we have a criminal referral to the justice department by the ways and means committee, which i voted against. and i voted against it because i felt that there was nothing more than a stunt to promote the house republicans political narrative. the justice department has already conducted a criminal investigation of days lois lerner and the internal revenue service conduct identified in the may cut 2013 inspector

general's command the department already has access to sensitive taxpayer information at least yesterday by the ways and means. if this referral is my republican colleagues claim to draw the department of justice intention to certain documents, the chairman could have done it privately, but he did not. he made it public skeptical the day before the committee vote on contempt. the ranking member explained that the last time the ways and means to an unprecedented step of making tex sensitive tax return. it was back in 1970 for in the office of president nixon's tax returns. so in the course of the two days, the ways and means committee harkens back to the

days of nixon when it released sensitive information, and our committee will take the mccarthy era as many people have for the indicated contempt. it is my feeling that these partisan public ste spectacles n the house and it gives people more cause to wonder if the house is really looking for the information that all of us talk about war are we playing politics with each other and the american public? i think the justice department is fully capable of doing its job, of doing it work in the information that is needed, and i think that we ought to let them do it and i yield back mr. chairman.

.. >> without objection so ordered. sully attachments in e-mails from e-mails from gosar with phrases like i really think we need to do a c-4 project next year and we need to have a plan. we need to be cautious so it is in per se a political project. we know that ms. lerner sent official e-mails to our unofficial e-mail acco