>> 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 account which is a violation of irs rules.

we also know that she a a broken federal law by disclosing sensitive tax return information. we know she was heavily involved in the orchestration and disclosure of the information to the public about inappropriate tactics used by the irs. she wanted to avoid litigation that dean disclosure form because as she put it if it goes to litigation all details are public. i guess he needed. it seemed as though ms. lerner wish to stay away from litigation to avoid having all details of the issues from the incoming public. these facts lead to one assume that this could be the same motive she used when withholding information from congress. we also know she relied on this committee on numerous accounts. we asked her whether the criteria for evaluating tax-exempt applications had changed at any point. ms. lerner responded the criteria have not change but it had. in 2012 she told this committee that the information the irs was requesting in letters to conservative tax-exempt applicants was not out of the

ordinary but on may 13, 2013 that also was refuted. in fact the 48-year-old veteran of the irs said he never once had seen such applications go to the chief counsel's office. we also know former higher as acting commissioner steve miller told us that irs's was under and i quote tremendoutremendou s pressure from senator carl lynn to implement new implementations unquote so considering all of us why would the committee sees its efforts to get to the truth and why should a? constitutional rights are infringed upon by the government and it's our job to get the american people answers. without ms. lerner's full cooperation and without immunity needed this committee or the american public will have the answers it needs from its government. the ways & means committee has voted to ask the department of justice to take ms. lerner to court for orchestrating the targeting of these political groups disclosing taxpayer information which is a felony and obstructing these ongoing investigations. after going over the steps and

the fact that would like to ask my colleagues across the aisle to tell me how it is that you can legitimately argue or that we can conclude this investigation. is it because the president says so? is it because ranking member cummings has said so? how about attorney general eric holder? because there is evidence that it solves ms. lerner from its wrongdoings. so why hasn't the minority share the documents with the majority so we may move onto other oversight matters? if this truly is a waste of time prove it to to us when we it to us when we can move on. until that i recommend my friends across the aisle but crying foul. when not if we get to the bottom of this i hope there will be no one of the other side of the guys who will be determined with the shark to the pursuit of justice. like to close that i find no pleasure in holding attorney general eric holder and content. i do not enjoy holding any federal official in contempt of pursuing criminal charges. doing so means we have a government-run amuck and such a

situation is a lose lose situation for all citizens regardless of political beliefs. as uncomfortuncomfort able as it may be it's our job to proceed. actions have consequences. i'm simply a firm believer in the rule of law and responsibility of congress and specifically this oversight committee to ensure that the federal government operates in a manner that the public sees fit. our government in this case the irs and the justice department are in a sad state of affairs. this should be a turning point to restore justice and accountability both in the person in the government institutions. institutions granted authority by the people to serve and protect people not abuse them. i support the chairman in his pursuit of justice and accountable government and will support the resolution holding ms. lerner in contempt and with that i yield back. >> i think the gentlemen. we have been advised that the next round may be together two votes. therefore i will continue the hearing as long as possible, recess in order for people to

make both votes and then return immediately following the second vote if they called two votes. without -- with that gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> chairman this is wrong on so many levels here today that we are debating the actual credibility of this committee and somehow we tried -- turned in unsympathetic figure into a focal point of whether or not constitutional rights have been violated and everybody that i imagine on this committee wanted to hear her testimony to get to the bottom of the facts of this matter we now look at the very best we are going to get delayed in litigation may be prevented from getting that information at all. that is an injustice done to this committee and to the american people who count on this committee to run those investigations in an impartial professional manner. like my colleague i suspect if the chairman is not aware that he can't be held responsible for knowing how these legal matters

are set up at the time to have consulted house counsel was not after-the-fact when the house counsel was put in the position of defending who is going to be their client down the road. the time to consult was when it looked like the things were going to become an issue and that's the case we would have known that numerous impartial experts now tell us that ms. lerner did not wait for fifth amendment rights but beyond that regardless of that legal issue it's clear that after chairman issa failed to file the minimal procedural safeguards required by the supreme court were now in the situation. the experts are clear. at no point was the witness directed to answer and accordingly no prosecution will live. that's a sad situation but worse than that is the process. earlier on there was opportunity to get a proffer of what she would have said had she granted immunity. i know the chairman raise the issue of immunity sometime last may and after he did that i got

a ranking member said wait a minute, let's take a prophet in c. granting immunity would make sense before we deprive this committee of all of its responsibilities here and all of its evidence on that. and then that was watched. we missed the opportunity to move forward on that basis and now we are in it delay in the problem that we have. and this committee is once again put into the public light of not being a committee that affected the way should be professionally and responsibly on that basis and all the mentions of mccarthyism out of thin air were not to give members of this committee unfortunately that has become a public perception. that's unfortunate. we are on this committee because we believe were can be done we get to the bottom of the fact regardless of who is in the white house. it's our job is congress to make sure that every agency in every departmendepartmen t carries out the law and spends the money appropriated in a manner in which attempted by congress. we should be protecting congress

of people's house making sure those things are done but let me just tell you what the public perception is out there as an example of some of the publications. i quote without putting a finer point on the promise on the premise seems to echo the late senator joe mccarthy's assurance in the state department without a shred of evidence by the accuser. if there is a white house link let's see it before insisting it's there and that's the "chicago tribune." there has been a lot of materias that aren't even on the record and a failure or a refusal by te majority or the chairman to release the transcripts that would give the public an idea of what's going on. another quote mr. isis investigations resemble joseph mccarthy's 1950s redbaiting. mr. issa has copied him in three ways. first he is using legislative committee to pursue his personal mission to stop people from

destroying democracy and second accused people without having conclusive facts. third only letting his views be poised in the committee. another quote through a campaign of innuendo and half-truths he issa has -- since that time he has had a witchhunt against irisin plays the likes of which have not been seen since and are joe mccarthy ran for senate on american activities committee in the 1950s. he is selectively release portions of the transcripts of an alleged scandal and cover-up without releasing the -- another quote in one interview that chief congressional investigator introduces cherry-picked evidence overstating his case and violated the sacred american principle presumed innocence. do you hear history's echo? and democratic ages way to infamy with 205 names as the "national journal"'s editorial and another and i quote as the new congress succeeded too often

in our political history it has turned into the latter but he now has the witness and in the investigative power as we have so many times seen it can be grossly abused. i have more mr. chairman. >> if you had more time i'm sure you would use it. we would now go to the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. meehan. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman i've consistently listen to the representations of my colleagues on the other side of mccarthy. i want to be clear that mccarthy was active in a manner in which he was challenging the beliefs of other people. here we are not challenging the beliefs of other people. we are challenging the actions, the alleged actions of lois lerner in which she used the forces of hurt governmental agency to impact the civil

rights and beliefs of american citizens and that is the distinction. the issue here is really quite simple apart from all the politics. we are making a fundamental legal analysis. the question isn't whether she is being denied her right to the fifth amendment. the question is whether she waived that right and i submit the answer is unambiguous. this is not an unsophisticated woman. this is a woman who has testified she herself is an attorney from the department of justice who came before this committee was very learned counsel. and she chose to make in an open statement which among other things she proclaimed she had done nothing wrong, she had broken no laws, not violated any irs rules or regulations not provided false testimony or information before any other

commercial entity and she waived her fifth amendment privilege by providing voluntary opening statements in which he testified to matters before this committee. it is that simple and that is the question we are asking. she submitted to a lengthy interview at the department of justice without immunity but will not testify before this committee because as my colleague mr. meadows pointed out her attorney asserts she is fearful with being vilified. that is not a standard which allows one to refuse to come before this committee. third there's there is a line of questions being raised by counsel, they learned friends on the other side, the quaint case stand somehow for the principle that she has been denied a right before this committee. this simple principle is clear.

it relates to whether a witness has been clearly apprised that this committee was demanding answers notwithstanding the witnesses objections and whether she has to determine and make a choice about what the committee is requesting of her. that is the a trilogy that followed it. but in this case there is absolutely no ambiguity. lerner was not forced to guess what the committee's ruling was. she was left to guess at nothing her own attorney acknowledged that she understood that the committee voted that she hadn't waived her rights. the quaint case is entirely unrelated to this issue. therefore the simple conclusions can be drawn. there is no constitutional impediment to this committees approving a resolution which

recommends the full household mrs. lerner and contempt. i will conclude by stating a simple fact that for us. mrs. lerner refused to comply with a congressional subcommittee. second, her testimony is vital to this committee's investigation into this very legitimate matter. third she offered a voluntary statement and appearances before this committee. fourth, this committee determined that she waived her fifth amendment privilege. fifth mrs. lerner in line with the quinn cases was clearly informed of that decision and still miss lerner continues to refuse to testify before this committee. i submit to my colleague's on both sides of the aisle all the constitutional impediments have been removed. it's a clear and simple question before us. this committee should recommend to the house that miss lerner be

held in contempt for failure to comply with the subpoenas issued to her. i recommend that my colleagues on both sides of the committee can vote accordingly. >> i think the gentleman. we now go to the gentlelady from new mexico. >> thank you mr. chairman and i'm going to yield my time to the ranking member. >> i want to thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. chairman i would like to put into the record two letters. over the last week i received two letters from the chairman making allegations against me that were absent -- unsubstantiated. the first sent last friday alleging i was insisting on immunity for miss lerner when in fact i was attempting to retain a proffer. and the second sent yesterday alleging i was somehow conspiring with the irs target to vote when in fact the

documents show clearly we were questioning public information to place into the record. >> without objection both the letters to u.n. from you will be placed in the record. >> i yield to the gentleman. >> thank you. >> the gentlelady yield to the gentleman from nevada? >> mr. chairman, i do. thank you. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i oppose this resolution by chairman asa and you know what? i have tried to listen every day we have had a hearing on this. to my colleagues on the other side. i've listened to the witnesses who came forward to offer testimony with an empathetic ear because they feel that they were

affected by the targeting of the irs. but my colleagues on the other side, i think you may have misplaced the blame here. the only reason we haven't been able to get the truth from lois lerner is because of one person and that is our chairman. the chairman has refused for more than nine months to hold any hearings with any legal experts to discuss these issues, demonstrating that he simply does not want to hear from anyone who disagrees with his position. the chairman has refused to hear from any democratic numbers of this committee and even cut off the mic of the ranking member and abruptly ended the hearing. the chairman refused to let miss lerner's tourney. >> as a proffer for her. the chairman failed to grant seven additional days to her attorney which he requested to prepare his client.

instead the chairman scuttlebutt offered for miss lerner and now we are dealing with a situation where she invoked her fifth amendment. like many of you i want to hear from lois lerner. i want to get the facts. but because of the manner in which the investigation has been handled by our chairman we can't get those facts. so if my colleagues want to hold someone in contempt, maybe they should look to the person holding the gavel since it is his poor handling of this investigation that has resulted in why we can't get the truth that the people deserve. this resolution does nothing to get the truth or those who feel that they were targeted or the public who deserves an oversight committee to act in a fair and impartial and professional manner. unfortunately this has not been

the case since day one of this investigation and i regret it because the american people deserve better. the committee has interviewed 39 witnesses, reviewed more than 450,000 pages of documents and the irs has spent at least $14 million so far and there is absolutely zero evidence to support the chairman's accusations that miss lerner orchestrated and the irs targeting and some of the questions that my colleagues and i would like her to answer can't be answered because of the manner in which the chairman graham this investigation. i don't like the fact that miss lerner invoked her fifth amendment rights. but we as a committee must respect the constitutional rights of all citizens including those of his lerner. and so i would hope that my

colleagues would understand that there are those of us who want to get to the truth. we just expect the leadership of this committee, the chairman, to allow us to do that in a fair and impartial and professional manner and that didn't happen in this case. >> we now go to the joan from tennessee mr. desjarlais and before you begin their eight minutes and 55 seconds left on the vote. i will intend to do one more if there is anyone on the minority side before we recess. we will come back immediately following the second vote. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. folks, this investigation is about much more than punishing those who have done wrong at the irs and frankly it's much more about additional scrutiny that those conservative groups received from the government agency. this investigation is about

preserving our democracy, the integrity of our democratic election system and the first amendment of the united states constitution. imagine just for a moment that i resident and administration in this nation that utilizes the systematic power through an agency or department to suppress its political opposition, imagine such actions altered in election. such an occurrence should he extremely unsettling no matter what party is in power. the problem is that without miss lerner's testimony this committee and this investigation cannot uncover the whole truth which to this point closer resembles these aforementioned acts. the focal point of this investigation is to prohibit even the appearance of the irs political suppression ever occurring again. just for a moment i would like to reread the oversight

committee mission mission statement the chairman issa does at the beginning of every hearing because i believe it's vitally important and how we as its members conduct their business. we exist to secure two fundamental principles first americans have the right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent and second americans deserve an efficient effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight and government reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibilities to hold government accountabaccountab le to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. without lois lerner's testimony this committee and its investigation are at a standstill. the american people are unable to ascertain the right to know what they have gotten from their government and many questions still remain. ms. lerner claim she has done no wrong. she further claims if she

testifies she would not incriminate herself. there is an ongoing debate as to whether ms. lerner waved her fifth amendment rights when she first appeared before the committee. i believe much like my colleague from tennessee mr. duncan who reiterated this point earlier this morning and the danger of the president's miss lerner's action said if every defendant claimed innocence and proceeded to plead the fifth investigations in the testimony would never be a will to proceed. every defendant would follow such action in our judicial process would come to a standstill. i hope that this committee and every single member will do everything in its power to seek the truth. ms. lerner's testimony is essential to this end and i believe this committee has given miss lerner and her counsel ample opportunity to come forward and avoid contempt charges. yet she still refuses to do so. the committee's hands are forced and we have no choice but to

hold ms. lerner in contempt said that this investigation can give the american people what they want, the truth and for the sake of this republic i hope we get them just that. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. since we have no further individuals asking for recognition at this time but i understand there will be some returning, you have not taken your own time. do you wish to be heard at this time? >> i wish to be awarded my time and choose to yield it to another member. >> then we will recess until approximately five minutes after the second vote, not after it ends, after it begins. we stand in recess. [inaudible conversations]

>> the committee will come to order. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from vermont. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from vermont. is it a different state? does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i don't but i will take it. >> the gentleman is recognized. if you want to move the previous question you are welcome. with the gentleman like to reserve? >> i will yield. >> the gentleman yield to the ranking member. >> i appreciate the effort mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. you know we have heard a lot of discussion today about ms. lerner and i was listening

to -- who i have a tremendous amount of respect for and as he talked about the whole idea of someone coming in and making a statement and then asserting his right to the fifth amendment. you know i don't think the founding fathers were about the business of a -- situation. rights are very special things. they are as the chairman said and i have a respect for him, saying that the situation should not be taken lightly. and i think that you know every time i sit in hearings like this i have to try to make sure that

i get asked the politics and try to figure out number one what is right. i also think about how we will be viewed. there has been a lot of discussion about all the wrong that ms. lerner did, the alleged wrong and i want to be clear. i really would love to hear her testimony. i would love to hear it even some of the answers to things that my good friend mr. gotti presented. they are legitimate questions. they are questions that will allow this committee to work most effectively and efficiently

and i think we all deserve to hear those answers. but there comes a point in time when certain things trump other things. in this instance the idea that there are rights that one can assert not to incriminate herself, i think we have to deal with that first. as i said in my opening statement, -- been miss lerner. it's about generations yet unborn and somebody i think it was mr. connolly who asked the question and although people laughed it was a serious question.

when people come before this committee in the future will we have to read them their rights? will we have to say to them, give them more like a miranda warning type rights statement? will we have to tell them that any syllable may very well be used against them? and i think we really have to be very careful in the precedent we are setting. there will be disagreements with regard to the law. after practicing over 20 years i have a lot of disagreements with lawyers. i remember in law school in court one person would look at the same facts and have one opinion and another person would look at them and have another but no matter how you look at the facts the thing that must prevail are the rights of the

american people. that is what this is all about. the rights. and so as mr. duncan spoke i thought about some of the criminals that i have come across. some rough, rough people but they still had rights because they were still americans. that is a wonderful thing about this country. i will close with this. and remind all of this that this is our watch. we are on the earth today and i take it so important of the past on a democracy to our children and our children's children that is strong and justice and as the one that existed the day we were born and with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the drama from south carolina mr. gowdy. >> thank you mr. chairman. when mr. cummings talks about rights mr. chairman i will listen. i will listen because he was a very good attorney and i will listen because i'm familiar with his personal narrative and while

he was talking i scribbled down down -- you have a right to remain silent and you also have a right in the document that the right to remain silent at this in. you have a right to cross-examine witnesses mr. chairman and it's important for us to spend just a minute on why our framers thought it was so important that we be able to confront and cross-examine witnesses because it is the single best way to elicit the truth. yes you have a right to remain silent. you also have a right to a jury trial but it's waived every day across this country. when you plead guilty that is a waiver of your right to attorney trial. you have a right to counsel in felony cases. people wave at all the time and make the mistake of representing themselves. so we are not talking about rights, let's talk about all the rights including the right to confront witnesses and crossing salmon witnesses mr. chairman

and it's important that we understand why we were given those rights. ms. lerner is an attorney. she is not like the folks at mr. cummings represented are the folks that i have prosecuted. she is an attorney and she had an attorney sitting behind her. some of my colleagues on the other side this morning mr. chairman and you heard them, they said we need to another hearing where we can bring in experts. let me take out all the drama for what that hearing would be like. they would pick one that said she did. i hate to do a spoiler but that's the way that hearing would go. we would find three that situate than you would find one that said she didn't so we would be right back where we are now which is us having to make the decision orin mr. chairman and we can go to the language of the supreme court which is the ultimate expert. i would argue that is well

established that a witness in a single proceeding may not testify voluntarily about a subject and then they vote the privilege against self-incrimination with questions about the details. this report continued. in such a case the privilege is waived for the matters to which the witness testifies and the scope of the waiver is determined by the scope of the relevant cross-examination. what that says mr. chairman is you do have a right to remain silent. but when you talk not some talismanic reciting the words which you say should have done some roads liturgy that you have to repeat to a lawyer who knows her fifth amendment right as well as you do but when you waive by testifying subject yourself herself to cross-examination and that is true for every client that mr. cummings had. it's true for every sexual assault victim that i had to

call as a witness. they couldn't get their version of what happened and then not stand for cross-examination. that's not the way the system is set up and it's not set up that way because the purpose is to elicit the truth. so mr. chairman i'm going to simply ask this. this is what she said when she came before our committee. 17 separate factual assertions. if this is not testimony, can someone on the other side of the aisle please tell me what is? does it have to be 20 factual assertions? 25? what constitutes testimony to you? if what she said and the pervasiveness of her testimony, 17 separate factual circumstances that is not testimony can tell me what is. if that is not waiver then tell me what is. mr. chairman there has been a

lot of conversations about rights and most of the conversations have been about lerner's rights but that document gives you the right to free speech and the right to petition your government for redress and while ms. lerner may have waived her right our hollow citizens did not. the only way we are going to find out what happened is if she answers our questions, not just says i did nothing wrong but answer the questions that all of you agree are legitimate questions. if this isn't waiver tell me what is and if that wasn't testimony then please explain to me what would constitute it in your mind to? >> the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much mr. chairman.

i just want to remind the viewers of this committee and the members of this committee of a few occurrences that occurred in and around this issue that we are covering today. chairman issa would not and did not accept a one-week extension request from ms. lerner. also chairman issa chose to go on national television and began to misrepresent facts about what occurred in the irs. one thing that i do agree on is that 298 applications were not handled properly, overly scrutinized. but yet 96 of those applications were considered applications that were of tea party ilk or to the right or what have you.

but yet chairman issa chose to hold a hearing that only wanted to look at or consider those applications that were either mishandled or overanalyzed or delayed beyond reason. he only wanted to have hearings about one out of three applications, 96 applications out of 298. with that in mind ladies and gentlemen american citizen learner had much reason to be concerned that coming to this hearing, this committee of the united states congress was not a hearing that was going to be fair or a hearing that was interested in the truth that a hearing that was interested in playing out politics both on national television and in this formal committee.

lois lerner is an american who is being treated in a way that no american should ever be treated by any authority much less the united states congress. and i just wanted to state for the record i am proud to be a united states congressman elected by the people of my district and to do the business of moving this country forward but i believe that this committee on this day is going in the wrong direction and this is a sad day for the united states congress and it's a sad day for the united states of america when american citizens rights are being trampled. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. we now go to the gentleman from washington mr. hastings but before you begin upon completion of those who feel they must speak on this we are going to encourage a previous question

that informs unanimous consent so do not feel that you have a need to speak more less you have something you believe you want to say that everyone will get that opportunity. >> thank you mr. chairman very much. let me broaden this argument in this debate a little bit. our country was founded on the basic principle that citizens would not be persecuted by the government for their beliefs and political affiliations. that is why when concerns were raised in early 2012 irs issues were targeting applying for tax exempt status, several committees in the house of representatives including this committee asked the question that investigated those allegations. unfortunately when lois lerner testified before this committee in may 2013 and again last month she refused to answer questions that would give us the members of congress the necessary information to evaluate the degree of wrongdoing at the irs did mr. chairman congress has a clear constitutional duty to

conduct robust oversight of executive branch in the irs is part of that branch. congress exercises oversight authority dating back to as early as 1792 when the committee was established to establish the defeat of the battle of wabash. throughout each generation robust congressional oversight by administration officials and even presidents. congress asking tough questions and conducting oversight and allowing americans to hold their government and officials accountable. i'm disappointed this administration appears so willing to jeopardize the public's trust in their government they have not been more forthcoming with information related to this investigation and others. mr. chairman as chairman of the committee on natural resources i have overseen numerous oversight investigations into this administration than i can tell you first-hand that it has failed to live up to its promise

of being a most open and transparent administration in history. in the course of our our committee's oversight he administration has slow walks numerous requests for turning over any requested documents and when documents are divided their offering -- what has been released to the public under the freedom of information act or they are heavily redacted. this lack of cooperation undermines congress's constitutional vacation to conduct oversight as a coequal branch of government. this administration seems to be saying trust us, there's nothing to see here. but his president reagan said in another context we should trust but verify and that is what we are trying to do with our oversight. through our oversight responsibilities the natural resources committee has found troubling examples of these administrations politics rather than the law. this includes how conflicts of interest are handled for political pointy.

how the lack of sound science is used in endangered species listings and the mismanagement of the process to rewrite coal regulation. mr. chairman understand issuing a subpoena is never a preferred option and it's unfortunate that i have had to do so in my committee on several occasions so i fully understand the vote today to hold lois lerner in contempt is not one to be taken lightly. mr. chairman of must be taken given her ongoing refusal to cooperate with this committee's investigation and congress's constitutional petition to ensure that the laws are being faithfullfaithfull y executed. i go back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. anyone else seek recognition? >> mr. chairman?

does the gentleman seek recognition? you are recognized for five minutes. >> i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman i have a unanimous consent request. >> reserving the right. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. mr. chairman i have her request that i hope every member of this committee can support and i will take a moment to describe it. can we please have a staff bring in the documents that i want to discuss? mr. chairman clearly we do not support this resolution based on the assessments from more than 30 independent experts we believe the federal court will dismiss this case as legally deficient. we do however support

transparency and we do want the american people to have the whole truth and nothing but the truth. these are the full transcripts from all of the interviews are committee has conducted during this investigation. we have and these are witness called by the majority. we have interviewed employees from cincinnati, irs employees from washington and even treasury department employees. last year on june 9 i sent a letter requesting that you quote release publicly the transference of all interviews conducted by committee staff. this must be stated on national television i quote these transcripts will be made public. it has now been more than nine months and it's time to make these transcripts public. in the past you have said making transcripts public would give witnesses a roadmap to our investigation but you have already crossed that bridge many

times. newly selected votes from these transcripts and reports press releases now most and letters on more than a dozen occasions. you also let reporters come into the committee offices to read full copies of select transcripts that you chose to make available. the full transcripts in their entirety and the inappropriate inappropriate -- and they also show how lois lerner failed to discover them for more than a year. it certainly shows mismanagement at the irs but they show no white house involvement in the political motivation contrary to the claims of the republicans. it's time to put our whole story out there so that the public can see everything, not just cherry-picked pieces. so i ask unanimous consent that

the committee release publicly all copies of all these interview transcripts no later than may 1 and i'm going to emphasize this along with any specific reductions that chairman eyes that concludes our appropriate. mr. chairman before he yields back today it's a very important day and i know other members may want to comment. >> the gentleman would yield. i cannot support releasing the documents in their entirety at this time for two reasons. first of all the gentleman has the absolute right to select documents and to use it in reports and other appropriate material and i encouraged you to do so but as i have said previously it is ill-advised and i would ask you to restrain and other members to restrain themselves from releasing these documents in their entirety

because it does provide a roadmap as to questions and answers. however it is my intention to release redacted versions of all interviews once we have completed all the interviews and two after the discovery process has been delivered to us. i might particularly note that just a few days ago the commissioner told us it might take two years to get us documents but it should take dramatically less time to give us for example all of lois lerner's e-mails. once we have substantially received those sorts of documents which i expect, i hope to be in a matter of weeks i'm certainly willing to work with the ranking member to put together appropriately redacted entire transcripts. i have no objections. i want these records to be public but i think you would agree that someone who's done a lot of transcribed interviews that if everyone is able to see what we are asking everybody

else it often has a very adverse effect so i would hope that you would take in good faith that i am making a commitment here that releasing in its entirety i welcome you going through and finding selected in any case you want to make either in the proceeding here today or in others but that you refrain from putting these in their entirety until we have concluded our interviews which i hope to be soon and of course discovery of such information as a simple request we have for lois lerner and a you bet. >> i want to thank john for yielding. mr. chairman understand everything you say and as a matter of fact i have often talked about the release of documents and harming prosecutions and other proceeding so that is why i made part of my unanimous were sent sent -- consent request that they hearing be allowed to reject

whatever you want want to redacted the reason why and make the request and i made the request is because they think the public needs to have this information is sounds like you agree that the public needs to have the information. and i think the members need to have it beyond us that is. so i just want to, i guess we could go on and on and but can we have some kind of timeline for that? >> i thank the gentleman. i certainly, once we have concluded our transcribed interviews and there are a few more to go and we ever see the key documents that i am prepared to work with you on this release. i would say that if you're unanimous consent with you that all members of congress had in tamera access to all these documents i certainly could support that at this time so

every member of congress would have full access to see all of these documents including an in tamera review including bringing key staff in to help explain it. >> mr. chairman? ave object and continue the objection. >> we go to the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. documents and testimony received by the committee show ms. lerner appears to have had a biased conservative and tea party groups. we have a slide, slide one perhaps. according to one witness interviewed by mrs. lerner ordered virus to read -- renamed rename the tea party cases to something else because she thought the term tea party was just too pejorative. think about that. what is pejorative about the term tea party? nothing other than mrs. lerner's personal negative opinion about the tea party movement. slide to please.

mrs. lerner called the tea party cases very dangerous. what is so dangerous about tax-exempt applications? what is so dangerous about tea party groups? nothing other than they do not correspond to mrs. garner's beliefs. slide three please. another emil shows ms. lerner hoped the fec would say that they from anonymous donors giving two republican senate candidates. why would the fec need to save the day from lawful donors giving two candidates for office? i support the resolution to hold ms. lerner in contempt of congress for her refusal to testify before this committee very as an institution and as the elected representatives of the american people we must hold her to account and continue to insist that she provide all information about the irs targeting. the committee's extensive investigation shows that

ms. lerner was a central figure in the irs targeting. as we have heard ms. lerner directed the tea party applications to be put through a multitiered review and delay. ms. lerner specifically asked by name or the tax-exempt application filed by crossroads gps to pound that conservative 501(c)(4) applicant and the ways & means committee released extensive documentation showing how ms. lerner subjected conservative groups to extraordinary scrutiny. beyond the specs we must tear from his lerner to understand why she engaged her actions. slide for please. another e-mail shows ms. lerner view tea party ribs is fundamentally different from other nonprofit saying that they are itching for constitutional challenge and not part of your fathers exempt organization. mr. chairman lois lerner's apparent bias likely played a

large role in the irs systematics routing delay of conservative leaning tax-exempt applicants through the committee needs her testimony to understand fully how and more partly why the iris targeted conservative groups. a vote know is to abandon what i thought were liberal values in order to protect the progressive bias. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. >> would the gentleman yield to mr. santos police? >> just essay prosecutor and the time i was prosecuting a case when they do and they take up there and take that stand i know i'm going to get my crack at cross-examination. never in my life have i seen a defendant need to take the stand makes 17 factual assertions claiming their innocence and sit down without us being able to ask questions. this is different than a

criminal context but to me the criminal context is the most serious. that would be the one that would have the most protections but i think what lois lerner was doing was trying to have it both ways. when you take the fifth it's not going to be used against her in the criminal case but there is a reputational costs in society associated with that. if your neighborhood you took the fifth amendment most people are going to say gee why wouldn't you just testify and what you did? what are you trying to hide? she has a six-figure salary. at the time she thought she may have had job security. she wanted to come in here address the harm that would come to her in terms of her professional reputation and personal reputation by proclaiming her innocence making 17 different factual assertions and then taking the fifth amendment so she could not be held accountable on her actions in this position thereby protecting her six-figure salary and her partners --

position with the government. you can't have it both ways. she clearly waved her fifth amendment right and this idea that somehow she is a victim, she's a very sophisticated party who is directing a lot of questionable activity. to me the victims are the people who were targeted for simply trying to exercise their god-given constitutional protected rights to engage in political speech and to petition the government for the redress of the events is an ideal that. >> i thank the gentleman. >> the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes, mr. cooper. >> thank you mr. chairman ted i would like to yield five minutes to my friend mr. lynch. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would like to speak in support of cranky mentor -- ranking member cummings request. some of his colleagues on the other side of the aisle followed by cherry picked exurbs to

support their partisan agenda. on june 2, 2013 chairman issa released selected excerpts of these transcribed interviews with irs employees on cnn in the state of the union. the host david and i "him -- quote chairman issa wahid put the whole thing out? our problem really is here and you know your critics say republicans and you in particular cherry-pick information that goes to your forgone conclusions so it worries us to kind of put this stuff out. can you not put the whole body of transcripts out? during that interview chairman issa promise and this is also a quote these transcripts are often made public" back. despite the chairman's promise and the subsequent nine months

he has not released the transcripts. instead time and time again he has continued to take portions of the transcript and selected documents out of context and leaked them to support his partisan narrative. it at least a dozen times in the past or the chairman has released cherry-picked portions of these transcripts. that is on top of the ranking member and democratic members from who you are speaking. that includes shutting off the microphones of any other point of view that varies with its own. it is time to live up to the promises that we have made to deliver the facts, all of the facts in american people. stein for transparency and for releasing all of the transcripts. this is an extraordinary step for our committee to take but we need to take it. releasing these transcripts will increase transparency and integrity of our investigation the onerous activity and the iris. after a wonderful year after we began investigating is time the american republic receives the honest truth.

i yields to the chairman mr. cooper. >> i yield my time mating time. >> thank you mr. cooper and i want to add my voice to those in support of the motion of the ranking member to release the transcripts. i also want to add the chairman of this committee has repeatedly given hand-picked reporters an opportunity to read entire transcripts. for example last june "usa today" reported chairman issa allowed its reporters to review the full transcript of virus official holly paths. the "associated press" also reported they had quote review transcripts from three interviews with past and to agents. finally the chairman has relied extensively on the interview transcripts and the various staff reports that he has published since this investigation has begun. in fact the report cited in the consent resolution quotes from

select transcripts of irs personnel. the chairman has already crossed this bridge and would simply and plainly submit that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. if you're going to release part of them you want to release all of them and if you're going to release all of them to some people you can release all of them to all people and i yield back to mr. cooper. >> with the gentleman from tennessee yield? >> yes mr. chairman. >> i'm not sure the gentleman from pennsylvania heard me when i reiterated and express that we would certainly welcome all members of congress in reading these documents and the minority has every right to select documents and use it in producing their positions and we encourage exactly that. hopefully you would understand the goose and the gander in this case mr. cooper and mr. cartwright is of course going and use these documents but to provide a roadmap at a time in which the iras has

refused to give us the documents as simple as ms. lerner's e-mails. ..

the ways and means committee is ifs for referring this matter to the department of justice. w. burris second that eric holder who is also and content of the spotted for failing to comply with this committee subpoenas on fast and furious is going to prosecute that. we do need to move forward to fill our constitutional duty to get to the bottom of this. the american people deserve to know, and i'm going to support that. >> mr. chairman, just throw quickly and know we are about to get through. for the record want to explain my objecting to the motion by the ranking member. i have no problem, and i think the chairman stated my position, that we can release these documents. i say having been on this committee longer than anybody else, each side does use this information. i remember very well when

mr. coming some, we interviewed one of two witnesses. mr. cummings went on national television and said we need to close down. each side does use that. we have additional witnesses that we want to get the rest of the inflammation. we have about a half a dozen major people who. we have not cut any mills from the. we want to do this and a proper way. let me say, this chairman opens every meeting and said something every time consistently, that we have a responsibility in this committee as the chief investigative body of congress, there is no other committee like this. there is no other issue i have seen in my 20 some years that is so riven into the american people. all of us, whether a member of congress, los citizen out there, lowest paid individual have to deal with the irs. this has shaken the core of

fairness and understanding. then it deals with trying to manipulate election. the evidence we have so far is very clear. we just wanted to hear from some of those. she is being held accountable by this committee. we have that important responsibility. they're out there working today. as a test of find out what's going on at these agencies. and that there election that they hold in the highest level, that is the whole basis and foundation of this government, not skews, not know it -- manipulated. we have an important responsibility. the logic. so after it.

when you attack the man cannot the argument and all these other diversions. and now you have a job to do, but we have a job to do for the american people. >> with the john and from texas further yield? >> i want to be brega as i don't expect this to go much longer. one thing i want to make sure is in the record, if refusal to testify being held in contempt it be resolved by an agreement to testify and, if ms. lerner wants to up proper my and boxes open every day for lawyers proper. if ms. lerner, as we understand, has testified before the justice department without immunity and given information, if the ranking member would like to join me in requesting the again that the justice department provide that to us, it might, in fact, negate the need to have her come before us. them and ask the very same

question. but until questions which we believe are directly on point to testimony she gave well represented by counsel and particularly the testimony after she invoked is not being provided, we believe -- i believe, and i believe the committee will vote that we have little choice. i want to make sure everyone understands from my opening statement all we want is the truth. she has statements she could give us. she has made half of a statement available. with like to know the other half of the story. i ask all members to consider that that still be a goal of this committee, and i think the gentleman for yielding. >> i speak as support of the ranking members request because after ten months of cherry pick "and base like accusations it is time for the chairman to make good on his promise to publicly release the full transcript and

its investigations. for the past year chairman ices central accusations have been that the irs engaged in political collusion directed by or on behalf of the white house. in fact, before the committee received a single document or interviewed one witness the chairman went on national television and stated, this was the targeting of the president's political enemy. that claim has been to bunt soundly and repeatedly by the facts. mr. chairman carl releasing these transcripts will not harm their criminal investigation of ms. lerner because ms. lerner has already met with federal prosecutors. on march 5th her attorney told reporters that within the last six months she sat for a long, unconditional q&a with prosecutors and members of the inspector general staff.

if anything, the release of this committee interview transcript could actually a department of justice in its investigation by providing the agency with more complete and detailed pictures of the underlying conduct at the irs, and that is ultimately what my colleagues on the other side said they want. if you want the facts, why not release the transcript? mr. chairman, if there is nothing to hide why not release the transcripts? not just the individual members but to the public. this is about transparency. there is something in those transcripts that you believe this not support your position, if so, let the public see it. that is what they expect. not one of the 39 witnesses that have appeared before the committee indicated that the white house directed or was any way involved in irs employees

handling of applications from tea party groups. yet, the chairman has continued to leak selected excerpts from the committee's interviews and withhold portions that directly contradicted public accusation. for example, and june of last year that chairman leaked portions of an hyrax -- irs tax law interview to support his conspiracy theory a political targeting. what the chairman chose not to make public was that a portion of her transcript where she dismissed his allegation. when asked if she saw any evidence of a plot to do as the chairman plan to target the president's political enemies this republican irs employees said, no, not at all. that is kind of laughable that people think that. no, not at all. this is purely cases that unfortunately cincinnati did not have enough guidance on. that area is very, very

difficult area, and there is not much guidance. and so the lingering length of time, unfortunately, was just trying to apply the law to the specific facts of each case. let me repeat, it is kind of laughable that people think that. perhaps the chairman is more concerned at the release of these transcripts to give the public road map to the truth behind this whole partisan rhetoric. let's and the partisan bickering let's provide the facts. are you afraid of transparency? is there something in those transcripts that the public does not deserve to know? it will not hurt their criminal investigation. in fact, it may actually help the department of justice. i would like to yield my time now to representative clyde. >> i thank you, my friend, from nevada for yielding.

i am going to speak in favor of the motion because the american public deserves transparency. in an investigation that the chairman has marred with partisan attack and selective releases of interview transcripts. you know, i find it incredulous that my friend from florida talked about, this is about election integrity and protecting elections and stopping the manipulation of an election. where was that resolve for protecting integrity of elections after the 2000 hijacking of the national action ? it certainly was not in this room. it was not on this committee. and so what -- >> this is coming from nevada's time has expired. all-time -- no further members seek recognition and a sufficient quorum being present

the question is on favor of reporting contempt report to the house all those in favor signify by saying i. many opposed. clearly the i said that. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call]

[roll call] >> is anyone else seeking to be recorded? the clerk will report. >> on the vote, sir, there are 21 yeas, 12 nays. >> the eyes have it. the ayes have it. contender board is ordered reported to the house. without exacting job without objection the staff will be made to make changes to the report. >> i has directed the number of yeas. >> without objection, so ordered. without objection, we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> our guest for this segment, as senior legal fellow of the heritage foundation. thank you for being with us, this morning if. >> guest: my plan to file my pleasure >> host: they voted to hold her in contempt of congress. >> guest: that's right. >> host: and that was on party lines. >> guest: that's right. so ms. lerner, who was at the irs for a number of years, she is in the middle of this scandal involving the targeting of conservative organizations who had applied for tax-exempt status. she has appeared a couple of times in front of congress. once she asserted her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. another time she did something different. she gave a statement about her background. she then vociferously proclaimed her innocence of any wrongdoing,

and then she asserted her fifth amendment right. in the house has taken the position that by asserting her innocence and by making certain statements that she had waived her right to a few -- to refuse to answer questions. another thing that has happened of some significance as her own attorney who is seasoned council has made statements that she has given extensive statements to the u.s. government's and it is the house majority's opinion that by making misstatements of the government, at least with respect to the statement she has made to the government she has waived the privilege and has to answer questions about that. >> host: for our viewers who might not be familiar, explain how we got to this point. >> guest: well, there is an investigation going on. it is an over investigation into alleged wrongdoing at the irs. the allegations are essentially

that the number of conservative organizations apply for tax-exempt status either under section 501c3 of the irs code which is for charitable organizations or 501c4 of the irs code which is for social welfare. and that they were singled out because of things like the containment or tea party or progressive or 912 project. they were subjected to extra scrutiny. applications were delayed, all sorts of information of an incredibly intrusive nature was required to be produced by these organizations. the idea of delaying or denying their applications. another thing is that this is beyond doubt that confidential tax information of conservative organizations, some conservative organizations was leaked to some liberal organizations that then publicized that information. the house convened an oversight hearing with respect to this. ms. lerner at the center of the storm by being in charge of the organization with a section of

the irs that was doing all of this obviously would like to get questions answered from our. >> the chairman of the house oversight and government reform committee talked about this action yesterday and said it is not one he takes lightly. let's take a look at what he had to say. then i would like to get your take. >> today the committee has convened a business meeting to consider a resolution recommending contempt of congress for former irs executive lous lerner. this is not an action i take lightly. for almost a year since lous lerner .. permission from the inspector general's report to the committee has been trying to get to the bottom of ira starting. we need her testimony to complete our oversight work to bring the truth to the american people. why did she 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 statements in which she professed her innocence. she said she did nothing wrong, broke no laws, and not violate any irs rules. after her under oath wide-ranging claims of innocence ms. lerner answered some additional questions, then refused to fly on sorry, ms. ms. lerner asserted her fifth amendment rights and then answered some additional questions after asserting the fifth. >> host: tell us what we heard there. >> guest: well, what i said before, ms. lerner appeared a couple of times before this

committee. on one of those occasions she, rather than coming in and saying, i respectfully decline to answer questions in the book i read a fifth amendment upon advice of counsel would certainly would have been honored, she made voluntary statements and then answered certain questions. look, if you were in a criminal trial or a civil trial and you were witness on the witness stand and you told your side of the story and then in order to subject the veracity of that statement to the crucible of cross-examination somebody got to ask questions and said, no, i tell my side of the story. i'm going to refuse to answer those questions the core would say, you can't do that. you have waived the privilege. whether she made in a statement to to waive the privilege is something the court will determine it begins, she has also provided statements to the department of justice, and that plays into it because of certain laws that applied to the federal courts here in d.c. >> on the next washington journal a discussion on the economic arguments for and

against pay equality for women.

>> i think what we need is something akin to the grace commission during the reagan administration or the brandt commission, the base realignment and closing commission during, i

think among the clinton administration. an outside group with integrity, former members of congress, no current elected politicians to come in and do a complete audit of government from top to bottom every agency of government has a piece of legislation or a charter that created it. has a purpose. it is not the filling that purpose or not doing it within a reasonable budget is should be cut or eliminated. head start came in with the highest motivation. you know and i didn't until i researched, there are now three. early headstart, and hands to start, and regular headstart. why do we have the attitude? the first one wasn't working. the third one, because the second one was working. >> veteran columnist cal thomas on fixing a broken washington. and immediately following the heritage foundation but party as he signed his book. also this weekend this year's

national black writers conference saturday at noon eastern with panels on race, power, and politics, literature and shifting identities in africa. sunday at 2:00 strengthening communities, the historical narrative, plus a panel on publishing. book tv every weekend on c-span2 >> there is no question that congress routinely and administrations routinely do not speak the truth of the american public. and it is not just about inaccuracies on terms of the affordable health care act. it is the absence of speaking the truth about where we are. where are we? we are now at a standard of living the same as we and in 1988. we now have her family of unfunded obligations and pier debt of $1 million.

the biggest problem that i see with congress is the denial of reality. and you can still be a good person and deny reality. we all have lost and we all deny reality in some sense and our lives every day because we don't want to face them. but the fact is, we have not had the in this country along time in and talking presidential and congressional that would stand up until the chair to the american public about the situation we find ourselves in. you can debate what caused it. i pretty well have my idea of what cost it. >> senator cockburn on his career, politicked command reasons for his retirement from the sand at the end of the session some unedited:00. >> the world's finance ministers and central bankers are in washington this week for meetings of the international

monetary fund and world bank. the head of the imf brief reporters talking about the state of the global economy. this is 35 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. welcome to this press conference. on behalf of the imf, thank you for coming. we are on record this morning. we will get to your questions very shortly. as you to keep them short, stick to one question please. it is my pleasure to introduce to you this morning the managing director of the imf and our

first deputy managing director. with that let me turn to madame lagard for some opening remarks and then we'll get your questions. >> thank you very much. good morning to all of you. welcome to the 2014 spring meeting. you will have seen our numbers in the real couple of days ago. for those are not in the room, we expect global growth this year. the emerging markets and developing economies continue to be the main source of growth even after a bit slower than in the past. 5% in 2014 and slightly higher in 2014.

the advance to come to cut the best economies are strengthening with growth projected just on the two and a half%. this year and next year as well. the global economy is turning the corner. the recovery is still too weak and too slow. so it's fairly good but not quite enough. can do better. and for some despite the fact that growth is strengthening, they are not feeling it. we still have 200 million people unemployed. so there needed to generate more rapid, stronger, and sustainable growth as is outlined in our global policy agenda. kara gpa, which i know you have received overnight. make it reading fee last night.

we're sharing it with you for the first time in advance. so you probably wondered what policy makers are going to discuss during these meetings. we believe that the overriding topic for discussion would be a topic of growth. quality girl, more inclusive growth, and sustainable growth. what does that mean? it means the overriding a trio of -- rules. first and extended the time of low inflation and the immense economies. topic has been discussed. we are concerned about this potential risk and advanced economies in general and your area in particular. we know that low inflation would hurt the growth and jobs.

and in this context it is encouraging that the ecb has reiterated its commitment to use unconventional measures as needed it is just too low. many back now. that requires sections across the board. they need to get the pace of fiscal adjustment right and the normalization of the military policy right. it will be about timing, execution, communication. in the emerging market economies they need to strengthen macro and printer policies to safeguard against volatility.

our growth continues to be strong in the big guard against the bill the. that needs to be watched. short-term growth. we need to also guard against the risk of low growth in the future. to deal with that we need ambitious and coherent policies to avoid years of subpar growth and to secure global financial stability. that means that all countries, advanced from emerging, and low income need dustup of structural reform. that is certainly the case in product and service markets but is also the case and labor markets. together. it also means renewing the

momentum on global financial reform and containing financial's emerging and hot spots in various places. for instance, and a long bank sector but in the united states and in china and in high corporate debt in emerging economies, all of that is taking place against the rising risk of geopolitical major. how can we get to the destination and face those three hurdles? clearly we recently touched on what is needed for corporation. of the recent g20 meetings that took place in sydney it was noted that the right policies undertaken by the various countries. the corporations between, growth

could actually be higher by two percentage point over the next five years. that is the kind of growth that would help create jobs and improve the situation of those economies. what is the imf doing about it? the fact you are all your, the fact that a hundred and 88 members of the institution are represented here means very simply that the imf is the ideal forum for cooperation, communication, and officially in big public meetings but also bilaterally and private meetings our global has asked for support we are actively helping the austrian presidency in regard to the 2% objective and how we can measure it, taylor.

and that is also why the imf must be reformed. and that reform, as you know, is the reform of quota and therefore governments. when the help we can celebrate on the occasion of this meeting. we are still warning for the entire and certainly the institution as well. these are important amendments were commitments that were made by the entire are we giving up? now. it all happens. out quickly through which support. i hope the entire, and help it happens in. it is important because it

matters with the credibility of the institution. matters for the size of the institution, and we certainly look forward to a good dialogue during the imf sea and those particular issues so that we can rally support across the board. thank you. >> thank you, madam. let me turn to your questions. again, as the to keep them brief and to the point. we will begin here on the left with the the right here. >> thank you. my question is about china's economic growth. we have just seen very poor trade data. it -- if chinese authority were to continue to use the decrypted of depreciation of r&b as a tool to support economic growth through which its forecast is

75% what would be your comment on that? thinking. >> well, i think your jumping to conclusions. i certainly, the recent increase moves in the direction of the international isolation of the currency. i would not characterize it as an intended depreciation of the currency. and certainly we welcome the international as addition of that coming forward. we believe that there will be steps in that direction going forward. in terms of china's contribution to international grow, clearly china is playing a key role with seven & growth target for 2014. it is clearly contributing

significantly. from the various discussions i had two weeks ago when i was in china i took great comfort from the fact that the rebalancing that we have. >> going over right here. >> hi. such how concerned are you that the role could go and put the imf credibility of risk? thank you. >> well, thank you for your question. region new -- generally do not enter into negotiations with the idea that the program is going to fail. when he knew negotiate on the ground, when we do work with the authority with support from the

entire of the imf began not forecast failure. our plan and actual the conditions under which we enter into a program is for that country to deliver on its commitment and restore its plant -- financial situation so that it can finance itself, refinance itself and operate without support from the imf, and that is exactly the conditions under which we enter into that project which, by the way, is not yet completed. there has been an agreement in ukraine ten days ago. the board has met several times in an informal standing. we hope provided that the authorities deliver on their commitment which we have every reason to believe they will, we hope to review that program and submit it to the board at the end.

>> gentleman and a medal here. >> chris childs, the financial times. madame lagard, the imf regularly gives other countries and organizations advice and calls for a plan b, most recently asking the ecb to loosen the policy. given that it does not seem to be any sign that the u.s. congress is gonna change its mind about funding, is in a time now for a plan b for the imf for use circumvent the u.s.? >> you know, i hope the we can exhaust all the opportunities and the planning. we don't think that our institution should move to a

plan being to we have full certainty that plan a is definitely dead. i'm not prepared to declare that this one a man of very strongly hope that the resolve of the institution, the pressure brought to bear by the members of this institution on all those who have not yet ratified will deliver fruit in the not so distant future. >> the lady in a white jacket. thank you. >> the real projection. do you still believe in economics? since not working very well not

what you expect from him? and what tea -- thank you. >> well, i listened very carefully to the prime masters description of the three. and they were spurned in mind from the prime minister, finance minister in various meetings. and first the first has been delivered. we are seeing inflation rising, not yet to target, but significantly. we are very pleased to see the commitment to increase the consumption from 58%. medium-term fiscal plan needs to be articulated and knees to, you know, be convincing. we hope to see that. and the third arab, there are

many reforms, many changes of a structural nature. they have been touched on, not yet completely articulated by the japanese authorities. and i have a bilateral meeting with the minister and i will certainly discuss that with him. what the timetable is and what the extent of the reform is. i will particularly focus on the reform of the labour market, you know, facilitating and for japanese women for the job market because we believe that is a very important component of the structural reform. it is not the only one, but it is one where clearly the japanese authority is signaled interest, have responded to recommendations for which i was very pleased. and i will not give up on the. >> thank you. comedown to the front row here.

>> thank you. it was impressive demand. the imf program is ongoing. the country is still counting on official sector support to make its debt sustainable. the debt restructuring if necessary and when you expected to be concluded? >> it is the case that greece is still under program and that we have just recently approved a review of the program which shows that after coming you know, significant discussions and word -- work being done by the authorities cannot progress is being made. the issuance that took place today, an indication that greece is heading in the right

direction and that, you know, the testing that the authorities want to do is really successful. now, there is still a lot to be done. the program is not over, but this is a clear indication that the return to markets which is clearly the objective of any imf program is on the rise in. >> okay. i'm just going to stay right here. yes, sir. >> thank you. madam c'mon the ukraine and russia, obviously first i guess, you know closer to understanding the range of the contribution of the imf to the ukrainian program and secondly, as you have, russia has been supporting the

crime for a number of years it, still supporting ukraine. so my question is, is the new program intended to provide specifically for ukraine to be current with its debts for russia? being current on the current payments. thank you. >> in al, the ukrainian program, project of a program because it will be a program once the board has approved it has been negotiating on the ground, has been discussing formally with the board and there has been encouragement of very broadbased support from all corners of the board. the range of financing is going to be predicated on what the

international support will be to that country, whether on a bilateral basis or from other international institutions led the world bank, the ebrd in other regional institutions. for the moment what we are forecasting is the financing of the love ranging from 14 to 18 billion u.s. dollars. and that includes room for our appropriate payment of, you know, anything that is a legitimate area to any credit. i think that answers your question. >> thank you very much. swinging back around. yes, ma'am. right here. >> thank you. about a year ago when we had this meeting at that time emerging markets were clearly the star of global economy. one year later the role of the forces still climbing.

what is your opinion on this kind of shift? policy was what do you think the emerging market can do in order to regain their momentum and also to enhance the resilience of the market in the post qe error? thank you. >> i would not call it a shift. it is still the case today, but the bulk of growth is generated by the emerging market. so the story about the emerging markets lagging behind, slowing down and having lost momentum as a little bit overdone. they are still providing the bulk of growth. what is new is that advanced economies and picked up and there is that rebalancing happening at the moment. i would not, you know, call that a shift. i would call it rebalancing. having said that, clearly things -- since the tapering talk in may be emerging markets have been under some pressure. we have observed volatility

which has had, you know, and the fact, a significant effect on some of them which has since been essentially sort of -- by various policy measures. and they range from, you know, one to the other depending on the fundamentals of those economies. if you like it what india's tough monetary point of view, when indonesia has done on all scope of tools available to the authorities, clearly there's been good work done. there continues -- it continues to need constant attention to avoid the consequences of volatility. volatility is something that were going have to live with. we have been massively protected over the last few years from volatility because of quantitative easing taking place in many corners and lost by

various central banks. this is bound to be normalized of the course of time as the economy bounces back. >> thank you very much. i'm going to take -- yes, sir. yes, sir. >> okay. who has glasses. >> thank you. [inaudible question] by nigeria, you know. [inaudible question] what happened between the

federal government and the central bank, well, nigeria may not have an engine to do that right now. but we have to five nigerian segregation is only an isolated case in africa, but we have whistle-blower's coming out, you know. >> do you have a question. >> exactly. >> this was a bad one. the government tends to a -- but , you know, to put a proposal for a grant and stuff. in this case in the upper hand to play, you know, the superpower by one in the state, you know, with firm conditionality. >> okay. i think i've -- it is a very

important question that urey's. and i can assure you that there are cases when countries -- and i would not sing african countries, any country, when countries come for negotiations for a program, for a monitoring program whether with their without funding where we have done dialogue with the authorities about the authenticity, the evidence relating to contracts, the licenses, the ways in which business has been conducted, and there have been instances under my watch where we have said, sorry, but unless and until we have documented information about the circumstances under which such contract, such mining rights were granted, unfortunately we cannot work together. and i can assure you that it is efficient. all right.

and i applaud any instances when authorities in africa or elsewhere actually have the courage to step and to identify when there are shaky, if not shady circumstances under which those rights are granted. >> the gentleman in the front row. with the glasses. >> there seems to be a different assessment on the risks of protracted low inflation or deflation in the eurozone between the front-end the european monetary authority, especially in the timing of the response. it was said that the informational measures about several of its opponents of the ecb, these were imminent whereas with russia the other day, the sooner the better. so was the message that you're going to deliver to them later

today when you meet them? >> well, i'm obviously on the same pages my chief economist. the senate abettors good. but, you know, we have an ongoing dialogue with the european authorities. we highly respect the judgment of the central bank. they have a -- they have their finger on the pulse of the european economies, and we were very encouraged to see the latest book meeting and subsequent press conference that they are envisioning any tools to respond to the situation. and i think it's going to be a question of timing now. we are encouraged. yes, ma'am.

>> good morning. >> good morning. >> the question is about the imf . [inaudible question] they increase of the quota to the imf, which one would be scheduled. [inaudible question] governments and quota. the concerns about restructuring of the sovereign debt. it is said here that it is a rumor that an imf there supporting the possibility of leaving of the argument of tax collective, and actual process that has included in the seven -- sovereign debt after the crisis. and the probability of supporting some kind of.

[inaudible question] before it happens. >> in know, we don't comment on rumors. i am not calling to leave you with that. i think it's clear to everybody that as they are applied proved to have deficiencies. and we certainly realize that when we doubt whether greek sovereign debt restructuring. so what do we do? do we sit and wait or do we try to work in good cooperation with other members to see how they can be improved? i think our duty is to do some work to do enough consultation, and the federation of how they can be improved and then submit

them to a broad review and see how we move forward. we have been passed by the board to actually is ploy that. now, i want to dismiss the idea that we would be heading in the direction to what some of you have been around for a long time no has the s t rm which is that sort of the extremely structure and organized way of dealing with restructuring. we are not heading in that direction. let's be clear about it. if you hear rumors, you can tell them that i told you very specifically that we are not heading in that direction and all. i were working on the issue of cuts and the efficiency of cuts and how we could best deal with those matters? we have to. we have to. >> i think we're almost out of time. last question. >> on governments have already touched. i think i have outlined what my plan is. >> yes, sir.

>> please allow me to ask my question in french. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: of want to know, how was your meeting with the head of government, the prime minister and where is it heading in your estimation? kino that there will be doing a census. it is the first time a long time since it will be doing this. so what action plan to use the in 2014? what d.c. saying to the imf to try and impose reforms in the country. >> ever ready in the stands.

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: first of all, the prime minister's visit was a success as a see it. as a new prime minister he was there to explain to us the forms of it tends to put in place. and as the reforms of the prime minister. and i was quite struck by his determination to implement reform, to move the country forward, to modernize the country, to attract foreign investments, including in new areas. know that we will be able to continue to work together. we head to knees as an imf program that we also completed the third review recently. and substantial progress has been made. and i hope there will be allowed to continue to see progress and

this will continue to be a success story. take the opportunity to see that the imf uses a lot of multimedia for communication. they do it their research on the basis of fundamentals. so it does not mean that we review our figures. we do it on the basis of known figures in on the basis of figures that i in line with our international agreement. this means the sometimes they're is a slight gap between the latest developments in a given country, but this is not calling into question the underlying work that we give. >> i was just saying that the prime minister of ginnies' is this it was rare successful and that allowed him to describe exactly his program of reform for the country which is not our program of the imf, his program

will part of his government for the population to asia. i was particularly struck by focus on development on attracting foreign direct investment and very strong growth sectors and in really moving toward investment for growth in tunisia. i very much told that as the reviews of the program progress and destinies matures into as pro grams it will be a success story. i am convinced of it. he called his country and democracy star which i think is a great name. >> good, and with that we need to come to a conclusion. we are out of time. we look for dissing you over the next few days and thanks again for coming today. [inaudible conversations] >> next, a senate hearing and security issues in eastern. ..