student aid, transportation. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: you can send a tweet or aca.an use the attached hash tg the house is now in session. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant

to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on june 27, 2012, at 9:12 a.m. that the senate concurred in the house amendment to the bill senate 3187. with best wishes i am signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 17, 2012, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate . the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. dreier, for five minutes. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i know

that what i am about to say may be seen as here see by -- hearsay by many. if we take a step back and look at the big picture, setting aside demagoguery and knee jerk reactions, we see engagement with the worldwide marketplace is a positive thing for our economy and our shared quest to create good american jobs. being globally engaged takes many forms. it includes exporting our goods overseas. it includes imports. it includes complex supply chains that allow us to maximize comparative advantage and productivity on a global scale. it demands innovation, creativity and adaptability. this is all part of the dynamic worldwide marketplace and it

does not constitute a zero-some game. if u.s. manufacture can lower cost by importing some of their raw materials, increasing their competitiveness and hiring more u.s. workers as a result, our job market improves. american workers benefit by the same token as a company can tap in to other labor markets, becoming more competitive in the process and then hiring more u.s. workers as a result, we can all benefit. this is not a hypothetical scenario. we have the data that demonstrates the clear benefits of engaging in the worldwide marketplace. the last time the issue of outsourcing became a political flashpoint was in 2004. we often heard this term, benedict arnold c.e.o.'s who were sending good u.s. jobs overseas. mr. speaker, the mckenzie global institute did an in

depth analysis of the effect of outsourcing to see what impact it was actually having on our economy. what they found was very interesting. they found that companies that utilized outsourcing as a component of their business plans enjoy new export opportunities, increased productivity and significant cost savings, all of which support new investment in the united states and create greater job creation right here at home. furthermore, the jobs that are created by globally engaged companies contend to be higher -- they tend to be higher skill, higher wage jobs than those created by their nonglobally engaged counterparts. mr. speaker, the findings of the mckenzie report are only buttressed by my own firsthand experience. i will never forget several years ago i was in kathmandu visiting one of those call centers. now, many would have viewed that call center as a symbol of

outsourced jobs. yet, when i looked around i found u.s. companies right there. now, i'm not claiming that all of these products were manufactured right here in the united states, but many were manufactured here in this hemisphere. they had names on them like carrier air-conditioners. there was a westinghouse refrigerator there. dell computers and at&t phones. rather than stealing jobs from americans and this hemisphere, this call center epitomized the very way that global engagement benefits us all. it is simply inaccurate to claim that every job created overseas destroys a job here in the united states, and it completely misses the point. rather than demonizing those who are trying to build competitive companies that grow our economy and create opportunity for americans, we should be looking at what we can do to attract investment here to the united states. we should be looking at what we can do to empower entrepreneurs

to revitalize our economy and restore our job market. mr. speaker, attacking private enterprise won't create a single job here or elsewhere. in fact, the danger of isolationist, mercantilist rhetoric is that it can spawn what the policy that further stiffles innovation and economic growth. if we want to have a constructive debate that leads to policies that will encourage growth and job creation, we need to look at the fact and the facts are very simple. engaging globally through exports, imports, outsourcing, insourcing and all the many ways of tapping in to the dynamic competitive worldwide marketplace is the best way to get americans back to work. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues not to succumb to the politically expedient but economically damaging rhetoric.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, for five minutes. ms. speier: mr. speaker, thank you. i rise to implore this body to finally take meaningful action to end the epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the military. you know, for 25 years, congress has held dramatic hearings on this issue. it has rocked the military branches. committee members have beat their chests and demanded answers from decorated generals and the military leaders who testified. congress demanded reports. these reports were provided and are now gathering dust on shelves around washington, d.c. the time for reports is over. now it's time for action to solve this problem. the solution is to take the reporting and investigation of cases of rape and sexual assault out of the military chain of command and place them

in a separate office independent of the chain of command with the authority to investigate and prosecute within the military. last week i called for the house armed services committee to hold a hearing on the widespread sex scandal at lackland air force base in san antonio, texas. no hearing date has been set. the charges of rape, assault and sodomy are astonishing. one instructor is accused of raping or assaulting 10 victims. and another confessed to having sexual relationships with another 10 victims of his own. yesterday we learned that 12 instructors are under investigation for sexual misconduct with trainees and that a criminal investigation is ongoing on four different air force bases now. like many cases of rape and sexual assault, the perpetrators are not denying that they engaged in sexual

misconduct. they simply contend that the sex was consensual. it comes down to the word of the accuser and the accused, the instructor against the trainee. in the military this means the perpetrator gets off or receives a disproportionately small punishment and the victim endures an arduous and humiliating legal process with little justice at the end. everyone wants to know what is being done about it. this scandal is remarkably similar to the aberdeen scandal that rocked the army in the 1990's. 15 years ago a republican-led senate held a hearing on a sex scandal at aberdeen proving ground in maryland. the army brought charges against 12 instructors for sexual assault on female trainees under their command. nearly 50 women made sexual abuse charges including 26 rape accusations. one instructor was cleared.

the remaining 11 were either convicted at court marshal or punished administratively. then secretary of defense kenneth bacon said the issue here is the relationship between a trainer and a trainee. the army regulations bar intimate relationships between trainers and trainees, between drill sergeants and trainees because they are fraught with misuse of power, with the muss use of influence or the possibility of misuse of power and influence, unquote. this may be hard for some in the civilian world to relate to, but it is the constant reality within our armed forces. it is engraved in our military service men and women to follow the orders of their chain of command and never disobey. here's an excerpt from a 1996 interview with an army recruit who was raped by her instructor at aberdeen. the victim, a south carolina native, who joined the army in december of 1995 as a way to pay for college said her

instructor once ordered her to the bathroom. quote, a few minutes later he came in behind me and that's when he started to tell me to do certain things, she said. to disrobe, asked the reporter. she never screamed, never said no. only she was traumatized. quote, when you had sex in the bathroom, was it something you wanted, the reporter asked. no, blackly said. nothing has changed. last month in texas, two victims were asked if they resisted when their air force training instructor lured them in a dark supply room to have sex. no, they said. they froze. what is happening at lackland air force base is no different than what happened at aberdeen proving ground 15 years ago. after that scandal, we heard assurances of how seriously the crimes were taken and how we're going to get to the bottom of this problem. yet, clearly the military is unable to police itself on matters of rape and sexual assault. i called for a hearing into

lackland scandal because we need to know once and for all why instructors have been permitted to abuse power so freely and we need to know from the top that the phrase, zero tolerance for sexual assault in the military, is a fact, not a talking point. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

>> watch live coverage of the house when they return again at noon eastern. and live coverage of the senate on c-span2. a live pictures from the steps of the supreme court this morning where the justices have just handed down a decision in relation to the nation's health care law. the court, this is from the associated press, the supreme court has upheld the individual insurance requirement, that's the heart of president obama's health care overhall --

overhaul. it held them a campaign season victory and rejected comments that congress went too far in requiring most americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty. right now on c-span3 we are showing live coverage of some tweets that are being sent from scotus blog.com and preparing to take your phone calls as this decision is being looked at and announced to the nation. the court, again, making that decision this morning. we are offering it live on c-span3. and online at c-span.org. well, as we mentioned earlier, the full house will take a contempt of congress resolution against attorney general eric holder when they return at noon eastern. yesterday, i talked with a reporter to give us some insight into this debate and the resolution. john joins us from

"congressional quarterly." the congress is set to hold a vote in order to hold eric holder contempt of congress. what is this about? >> the justice department knowingly allowed hundreds of weapons, firearms to go into mexico in an attempt to trace them back to mexican drug cartels for the fast and furious operation. this was a very controversial operation and it's been a flashpoint on capitol hill for a long time. and now the house is weighing in on whether to hold the attorney general in contempt of what he see is stonewalling for information relating to this operation. >> is this the first ever vote of its kind? >> it would be. previous attorney general janet reno was found contempt by a congressional committee but it never reached the floor of the house of representatives when it's involving an attorney general. so this would definitely be

unprecedented. >> house republicans in the justice department tried several times to not reach a contempt vote. what does each side want them to do? >> well, the house republicans, led by house oversight and government reform committee chairman darrell issa has demanded a long list of documents and the attorney general and the justice department have offered some of those documents, not all of those documents. and just last week, the night before the committee voted to hold the attorney general in contempt, mr. holder offered a briefing rather than a document -- the documents that the republicans were seeking. mr. issa and the republicans on the house oversight committee found that not to be enough and went through with the committee level vote of contempt. >> we heard one democrat is likely to join republicans in favor of contempt. who is he and how many others could defect from the party from this vote in on top of that, would there be any

republicans to cross over to democrats to vote against the resolution? >> there may be a few republicans who vote no on the contempt resolution but i think much more likely is that democrats will vote yes on the resolution. i've heard that up to two dozen if not more democrats may join on the contempt resolution and there is pressure on them from the conservative national rifle association which is scoring this vote and has made clear there would be repercussions from that organization if democrats would vote against the contempt resolution. >> if the votes are there to hold attorney general holder in contempt, what's likely to happen next? >> well, that's a little bit less clear. there are theoretically three options for the house to proceed. the first is considered very unlikely. that would be to use its own authority to pursue a process known as inherent contempt whereby the house could ask the sergeant at arms of its chamber to go and physically arrest the attorney general. now, that hasn't happened in

either chambers since 1935 and people don't consider that very likely. the second more reasonable option is for the house to ask the justice department to formally charge mr. holder with contempt or find him in violation of a criminal statute that carries a misdemeanor conviction, a fine up to $1,000 and imprisonment up to 12 months. but that is also unlikely since the justice department is run by mr. holder. the most likely outcome is that the house will ask a federal judge to enforce the subpoena that it has already issued against the attorney general and therefore get the courts involved and try to have him comply with their demands for information that way. >> will this resolution need approval by the senate to go into effect? >> it does not. each chamber is capable of holding someone in contempt on its own authority. >> very quickly. beyond the specifics of this case, what might the ripple effects be from a successful contempt vote on relations and

future disagreements between the executive and legislative branches? >> well, it's a very big conflict between the two branches. this is sure to sour relationes that were already pretty sour in the last few months. this is an election year, of course, and no doubt conservatives will point to this vote on the campaign trail in the months ahead whereas the justice department and the president are likely to portray it as a purely political event. that argument could be made a little bit more complicated if a sizeable number of democrats joined with republicans on this vote. >> john gramlich is a staff writer for "congressional quarterly." we'll talk with you soon. >> thanks. >> and, again, the house will take up that contempt of congress resolution when they gavel back in at 12:00 noon eastern. to recap, about an hour of debate. the chamber will then take several votes. the first on whether to hold attorney general holder in contempt and refer the charge

to the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. the second vote would authorize the house oversight committee to seek a declaretory judgment in civil court affirming the attorney general's complying for the subpoena of documents. that is scheduled to get under way when the house gavels back in here on c-span. we'll have live coverage of course. attorney general holder on your screen along with vermont senior senator patrick hay leahy at yesterday's white house congressional picnic. he is scheduled to speak today at the united latin american forum. we will listen in on today's vote.

>> white house press secretary was asked during the daily briefing about the how's dess significance to hold a contempt of congress vote. here's a look at what he had to say. >> i can tell you that house republicans have made the strategic choice to try to score political points by focusing their time and attention on a law enforcement operation from 2009 that was botched and that everyone agrees was botched and it employed a flawed tactic and everyone agrees that it employed a flawed tactic.

and they made that choice rather than focusing on jobs and the economy and with millions of americans still struggling to pay their bills, i cannot imagine this will sit well with most americans. you saw i think that they met with committee staff yesterday to try to resolve this. and there was an ample opportunity yesterday to resolve this as there has been in the past when the attorney general met with the chairman. unfortunately the republicans have chosen politics. and i say that not just using my own voice but i am quoting a leading house republican who described this process as politics. we -- the justice department

has been extremely cooperative in providing thousands of pages of documents. the attorney general has appeared to testify numerous times on this matter. and the chairman of the committee himself said on sunday that he has and there is no evidence of any white house involvement in this operation and this issue. so it is unfortunate. we hope republicans change their minds as to what the right course of action is, what's the best thing to do for the american people, but we certainly understand or see and agree with the assertion that this is politics. >> you've spoken about the motivation. can you speak if the contempt

vote in the house would have any substantive impact on how he does his job? >> well, i'd refer you to the department of justice. for answers to questions like that. although that is a hypothetical. the vote has not happened. what i can say i think with some confidence is that it will be viewed for what it is if that takes place and that is political theater. an action taken by congress that does not respond to the most urgent priorities of the american people. and is the kind of political gamesmanship that frustrates the american people so much about what happens in washington. this is not why americans

across the country go to the ballot box every other november to elect members of the house. they don't do it so that the house, congress in general, engages in political gamesmanship and theater and launches phishing expeditions. they send them here to get work done that's essential for the health of the american economy, for our nation security, creation of jobs. and they send them for legitimate oversight. that's one of congress' responsibilities and this administration has been enormously cooperative with congress. in its legitimate oversight function. >> press secretary carney in yesterday's briefing. president obama is heading to walter reid army hospital later

today where he'll likely make remarks on the supreme court's decision on health care. the court, by the way, has handed down the decision on health care. the courts, and this is from the associated press, upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of president obama's health care overhaul. the decision handed the president a campaign season victory in rejecting arguments that congress went too far in requiring most americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty. chief justice john roberts announced the court's judgment that allows the law to go forward with the same of covering more than 30 million uninsured americans. we are taking your phone calls on c-span3, getting your reaction. again, live coverage on c-span3 and on c-span.org. the house oversight committee has been investigating how much senior justice officials knew about the use of a tactic during operation fast and furious called gun walking in which weapons are allowed to be smuggled across the mexican border. the goal of the operation was to find links between arms

traffickers and drug cartels. here's the hearing from last week. >> the committee on oversight and government reform comes to order. we consider reporting a resolution to the house of representatives finding the attorney general, eric holder jr., in contempt of congress. on the night of december 14, 2010, in a canyon west of arizona, u.s. border patrol agents were engaged in a shootout with armed mexican bandits preying on illegal immigrants. one of the agents was 40-year-old brian terry, a three-year veteran who had

served as a u.s. marine and gone through boot camp at camp pendleton in my district. during that firefight, a bullet pierced agent terry's aorta and he died in that canyon. two weapons were found at the scene. they were later traced to an operation conducted by the department of justice called fast and furious. 16 months ago this committee, along with senator chuck grassley, launched an investigation into whistleblower's allegations regarding fast and furious. we became involved only after senator grassley was told he would not receive answers from the justice department because in fact he did not have subpoena power and was not the chairman. in the course of our investigation, the committee has uncovered serious wrongdoing by the justice department.

that wrongdoing cost lives on both sides of the border including the life of brian terry. a year and a half later, the terry family is still searching for answers. the operation contributed to the death of countless mexican citizens. it has soured our relationship with our neighbor to the south. it's created an ongoing safety problem here in the united states in which even the attorney general has admitted more lives could be lost. the department of justice has fought this committee every step of the way, starting with an unequivocal denial that it used the reckless tactics we now know were used in fast and furious. the denial proved to be false and ultimately the justice department withdrew it.

they withdrew it in december having given it to us in february. today's contempt is in no small part because the materials between the time a false statement was given to us in writing and later affirmed in sworn testimony by the justice department's representative, an officer of the court, a lawyer, and now the dean of a law school, was ultimately false, that intervening period remains one of the areas of investigation. it's clear that congress relies on its ability to get truthful testimony when investigating wrongdoing in and around the executive branch. in spite of this lack of transparency, the committee has managed to piece together much of what happened and we believe we can help participate in making sure it never happens again. but our work is not complete

and we need the department of justice to cooperate. thus far, the cooperation has not been forthcoming. over and over again, the department has sought to protect its political appointees. it has used this investigation by the -- the investigation by the department's inspector general which has been pending a very long time as a reason not to cooperate. we are now on the second inspector general. there has been no interim report, and although they say it will be forthcoming within a month, we and the american people need answers sooner, not later. the attorney general has in fact he has gone through extraordinary measures to participate and to help. we've received to date approximately 7,600 documents. a great many of those documents are in fact responsive to other operations conducted before he

was attorney general, and those documents pale in comparison to the 80,000 documents or more that the inspector general has received. our purpose has never been to hold the attorney general in contempt. our purpose has always been to get the information the committee needs to complete its work, that it is not only entitled to but obligated to do. we had offered the department an accommodation to address its concerns about information related to ongoing prosecutions. if the justice department had delivered the documents they freely admitted they could deliver, we wouldn't be here today. as late as last night in discussions with the attorney general, our offer -- his offer was only to give us a briefing and such documents that supported the briefing and then only if we ended the investigation. contempt today is not about

whether we end the investigation or not. it is about a narrow subset of the documents that the committee must ultimately receive. the subpoenas are eight months old. we have not received a credible reason for them not being supplied, and in fact no constitutional assertion has occurred. rather, it is the duty of the executive branch and its agencies to represent itself honestly before congress and to make available such transparency as nation for us to fund and authorize now and in the future the request of this and future presidents. only today, only a few minutes before the gaveling of this markup did we receive from the deputy attorney general a

letter dated today not spoken of last night which says -- and i'd ask unanimous consent the entire letter be placed in the record. without objection, so ordered. in the first paragraph it says, i write now to inform you that the president has asserted executive privilege over relevant post-february 4, 2011, documents. it goes on for several pages. as we speak -- as i speak, the committee is evaluating this. we have verified that no communication from the president has arrived before the house. additionally, at least in a preliminary evaluation, we discover that the president, well after february 4, has said

that in fact he has not discussed this and was not made aware of it. additionally, the attorney general has repeatedly given us testimony showing that he did not speak to the president about this. i now read for the record from page 25 of when congress comes calling, which is from the constitution project -- and i apologize if this seems preliminary but this came within minutes of the start of the markup. executive privilege. the president's communications privilege, and i quote, the communications in question must relate to the quintessential and nondelegateable presidential power that requires direct presidential

decisionmaking. the privilege is limited to the core constitutional powers of the president such as the power to appoint and remove. the commander in chief power. the sole authority to receive ambassadors and public ministers and the pardoning power. i'd claim not to be a constitutional scholar, but the house is currently working to find out what assertions may in fact arrive, and we will take notice of them. having said that, more than eight months after a subpoena and clearly after the question of executive privilege could have and should have been asserted. this untimely assertion by the justice department falls short of any reason to delay today's proceedings. we have made many attempts to

accommodate the justice department. originally some 22 areas were on our subpoena. many of which were never complied with. we narrowed three master areas to two in a letter on may 18, unprecedented letter from the speaker of the house asking for cooperation and narrowing the scope of the subpoena. since that time we have further narrowed to one area for purposes of contempt, and we have been denied. the attorney general has refused to cooperate, offering to provide subpoena documents only if the committee agrees in advance to close the investigation. no investigator would ever agree to that, and as you can understand, the other information related to those in the chain of command responsible for brian terry's murder and the death of individuals, both north and south of the border, cannot be

concluded simply based on a briefing about post-february 4. the attorney general says that his offer is extraordinary. the only thing extraordinary about his offer is that he is asking the committee to close an investigation before the committee even gets to see the documents. he is pretending to -- he is pretending to offer. i can't accept that deal. no other committee chairman would. this committee will be considering today a very narrow contempt, but members on both sides of the dieas have repeatedly said that we owe it to the terry family to get to the truth. it is my intention to continue postcontempt to do our job while meeting our other obligations to pursue waste, fraud and abuse in our government. and with that i recognize the ranking member for his opening

statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. it is -- i just want to first of all go back for one moment and the document that you read from, june 20, 2012, the one you and i just got from the deputy attorney general, when he was talking about executive privilege, and i do believe we need to study this and make sure that we understand exactly what the president is asserting here. but just want to quote from it. on page -- the last page, page 4. it says the legal basis for the president's assertion of executive privilege is set forth. the enclosed letter. in brief the compelled production to congress of these internal executive branch documents generated in the course of the deliberate are a tif process concerning the

department's response to congressional oversight would have significant damaging consequences. as i explained at our meeting yesterday -- and this is still quoting from the letter -- it would inhibit the cannedor of such executive branch great lakeses in the future and would impair the executive branch's ability to response independently and effectively to congressional oversight. such compelled disclosure would be inconsistent with the separation of powers established in the constitution and would potentially create an imbalance in the relationship between these two co-equal branches of government. and now to my statement. first and foremost, i believe congress does in fact -- and we will agree on this, mr. chairman, have responsibility to conduct vigorous oversight

of the executive branch. that is our job. the constitution requires this from congress and the american people expect it from members who serve on this committee. and i take that very seriously. the constitution also requires something else. it requires us to recognize the legitimate interests of the executive branch and to avoid unnecessary conflict by seeking reasonable accommodations when possible. in my opinion the committee has failed in this fundamental responsibility. last night, the attorney general came to us in good faith. he offered to provide additional internal deliberative documents. he pledged to provide substantive briefing on the department's actions. he agreed to a request by

senator grassley to describe the categories of documents being produced and those being withheld. he made clear that he was willing to provide substantive responses to additional questions. he even offered to provide documents that are outside the scope of the committee's subpoena. he also made it clear that he had already provided documents that weren't even asked for. all he requested in return was that you, as chairman of this committee, give him your good faith commitment that we would move toward resolving this contempt fight. didn't ask for any investigation. just ending this contempt fight. and i double checked with my staff because when you said that, i heard -- i was in the meeting with him and i heard what he said was very clear. it wasn't a fair and reasonable

offer. especially in the light of the partisan and highly inflammatory personal attacks you made against him throughout this investigation. for the past year you've been holding the attorney general to an impossible standard. you accuse him of a cover-up, and i quote -- that's a quote, protecting documents he was prohibited by law from producing. you accused him of a cover-up of protecting documents that he was prohibited by law from producing. he obstructed the committee's work passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president of the united states. and earlier this month you went on national television and called the attorney general the

nation's highest ranking chief law enforcement officer, a liar. at the same time you refused request to hold a public hearing with ken melancon, the former head of a.t.f., the agency responsible for conducting these investigations. this refusal came after mr. mehlson told investigators privately that he never informed senior officials at the justice department about gun walking during operation fast and furious because he was unaware himself. last night you flatly rejected the attorney general's offer. you refused to even commit towards working toward a mutually agreeable resolution. instead, you rushed to a prearranged press conference to announce the failure of the

meeting. it seems you had no interest in resolving this issue and that the committee planned to go forward with contempt before we walked in the meeting with the attorney general. it pains me to say this, but this is what i believe. this is especially disappointing since the department has already turned over more than 1,000 pages of documents that answer your question. you wanted to know why the department sent a letter to senator grassley initially denying allegations of gun walking. the documents show when they were drafting this letter, the department's legislative affairs office relayed on the categorical and denials from the leaders of a.t.f. these are the same a.t.f. officials you now refuse to call for public hearing. this morning we were informed that the administration is now asserting executive privilege over -- and you are right -- a

narrow subset. it is indeed narrow of documents that remain at issue. as i understand it, the assertion does not cover everything in this category such as whistleblower documents , and the administration has independent indicated that it remains, and i emphasize remains, willing to try to come to a mutual resolution despite its formal legal assertion. as a member of congress, i treat assertions of executive privilege very seriously, and i believe they should be used only sparingly. in this case it seems clear that the administration was forced into a position by the committee's unreasonable insistence on pressing forward with contempt despite the attorney general's good faith offer. mr. chairman, it did not have to be this way. it really didn't. we could have postpone today's vote, accepted the attorney

general's offer and obtain additional documents and information. instead, by not honoring the constitution's charge to seek accommodation when possible, the prestige of this committee has been diminished and the result should concern us all. with that i yield back. >> i trust the gentleman did not mean to demean my intention but for the record, the press conference that occurred after our meeting was equally useable and intended to announce that we had a deal and a stay if it was appropriate, and i had prepared a written statement saying we would be staying today's markup had we been offered anything pursuant to our letters. i trust the gentleman would realize it could have gone another way and we had no idea. >> mr. chairman, i believe you when you say that.

i trust that's what the situation was. i simply was giving my opinion of the way it was set up. that's all. >> i thank the gentleman. i will hold the record open until the end of the day for members who would like to submit formal written statements. the report will be considered as read under regular order and members will be recognized to speak to offer amendments under the five-minute rule. i now call up the contempt report regarding attorney general eric holder. the report has been distributed to all members. without objection, the report will be considered as read and open for amendment at any time. does anyone wish to speak on the report? with that i would recognize the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton. for five minutes. >> well, first of all, let me just say after having been chairman of this committee for six years, i want to compliment our chairman on being so patient. i mean, if anybody looks at the record and sees how long darrell issa has dealt with

this issue and how he's handled it, i think it would say that he has been more than patient. and so i think that needs to be in the record. the second thing i'd like to say is that there's no question in anybody's mind that's been involved in this investigation that the attorney general has been stonewalling this committee. the chairman has contacted him and his associates numerous times and without result. and when the chairman met with him the -- in the last 24 hours and discussed this, there was no information forthcoming that would have been able to set aside this contempt hearing today. the second thing i'd like to say is that the president's assertion of executive privilege creates even more questions. one of the big issues that we've been dealing with is, who knew about fast and furious? when did they know about it? and how high up did it go?

and the attorney general has asserted on numerous occasions that he didn't know about this. now, the president of the united states has claimed executive privilege. that brings into question whether or not eric holder knew about it and how much did the president know about this. why would the president claim executive prirching unless there was something -- privilege unless there was something very, very important that he felt should not be made known to this committee and possibly to the public? and so my question is -- and i'm not going to take all my time -- who knew about this? how high up did it go? did it go to the attorney general or even the president of the united states? and when did they know it? and this committee needs to find that out, especially since we had not only weapons going across the border but a border patrol agent murdered with those weapons. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. does anyone else seek recognition? the gentlelady from new york is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. and i am astounded that today we are sitting here weighing whether to hold the attorney general of the united states, the highest ranking law enforcement officer in our country, in contempt of congress. the house of representatives has never in our long history held an attorney general in contempt, and i am horrified that you are going forward with this contempt charge when the president of the united states and the administration have invoked executive privilege for the documents sought by the chairman. and the attorney general is being attacked for protecting documents that he is prohibited

by law from producing. and i just speak strongly in opposition to this action and in opposition to this report. i would like to point out that our committee, the committee on oversight and government reform , is supposed to root out problems and find ways to reform how government works. it shouldn't be a political witch-hunt against the attorney general of our country and our president in an election year. and what we should be doing is looking at ways we can stop problems from happening again. so my basic question, mr. chairman is, where is the reform? our committee is supposed to be working on government reform,

and any legit mate investigation must be rooted -- legitimate investigation must be rooted in finding solutions to problems once they're identified, not just character assassination and overruling presidents and attacking the chief law enforcement officer in our land. so again i ask, where are the reforms? during this investigation we've learned a great deal about what went wrong in the phoenix field division at the a.t.f. and the arizona-united states attorney's office. we heard directly from a.t.f. agents who witnessed the misguided tactics of gun walking occur which started in prior administrations. and they asked for our help in implementing reform and coming forward with solutions to the problems that they were seeing every day along the southwest

border. the problem they were worried about was not paperwork and subpoenas and contempt charges. they were worried about guns. so where are the reforms and the actions that we could take in response to the problems that they put before us? throughout this investigation, a.t.f. witnesses consistently told this committee that they need reinforcement to the weak federal laws that prohibit gun trafficking. peter forselli, an a.t.f. special force agent in phoenix called existing gun laws toothless. so, mr. chairman, when do we put forward some teeth in the law to help our enforcement officers combat crime? efforts to simply discuss reforms have not been welcomed

by this committee. when i attempted to question the a.t.f. agents about defects with the current laws to combat gun trafficking, mr. chairman, you cut me off and specifically instructed the a.t.f. agents not to answer my question. so i tried to act on reforms with many members of this committee, including ranking member cummings. we tried to help law enforcement officers fight gun trafficking along the southwest border, and we did not get any support from the other side of the aisle. and mr. issa has rebuffed requests by ranking member cummings to address reforms at the department of justice and the clear need for legislation to fight illegal gun trafficking along the southwest border, including a request for a hearing on the topic. just a hearing. and the chairman has also demanded that the department of

justice produce a wiretap application that were ordered sealed. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. i'd ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady have additional 30 seconds. without objection, so ordered. >> and i must say, mr. chairman, i am offended personally by your calling the attorney general a liar, and it's extremely disrespectful and attacking to our public servant and you called me a liar. you apologized later and i accepted. but where have we degenerated to in calling names, not having hearings on meaningful reforms, not acting on reforms but merely den generating to attacking people and moving forward with paperwork that is

unwarranted, unfair and violates the law of the united states of america? >> i thank the gentlelady. who else seeks recognition? the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for upholding this investigative arm of the house of representatives to hold the highest ranking prosecutorial official in the united states and the united states government responsible for what turned into horrible death of one of our agents and a plan that went dramatically sour. i chaired the criminal justice drug policy subcommittee, worked on plan colomboa with mexican officials, warned them of what was coming.

in march, 2009, when mr. waxman was chairman of the time, this report says congressman mica reached out his hand at the new administration by passionately pledging his full support if the new administration alindicates large resources to assist the mexican government to contain drug violence with stpwhrour tolerance towards drug -- zero tolerance towards drug lords. mica asked the administration to put in plan to stop the slaughterhouse across the border and help mexico regain control of its country. i also criticize the previous democrat-controlled congress for not conducting a single hearing. i did dozens of them. the gentlelady's wrong in that this is the first attorney general to face this situation.

henry waxman threatened and scheduled contempt proceedings against some of the bush officials including the attorney general. he charged him with failing to produce documents in connection with the committee's investigation of the release of classified documents. this is not about relows of classified documents. this is very serious business. this is the highest judicial prosecutorial position in the united states involved in creating a situation in which an agent of the united states was murdered with weapons supplied by the department of justice in a scheme that went unbelievably sour, as i said. now, for the first 11 months, the administration denied -- he

denied participation in this to this committee, the investigative arm of the house of representatives. for eight months the chairman has -- we've had a subpoena out there and denied providing us the information. . at the last hour last night they offered a deal to provide us some information and tried to close down the case. this is absolutely absurd. then this morning the white house in an attempt to thwart the committee's lawful investigation, tries to throw out executive privilege, a complete fiasco. mr. burton and i, we have been on this committee a long time, there are reasons to exert executive privileges and to stop the -- try to stop the investigation of this committee

into the department of justice, bringing about one of the worst dispurgements on the history of the department of justice is indeed an injustice. to the congress, to the american people, and this important investigation -- investigative arm of the house of representatives. this is a very sad day for the united states of america. when the president would engage himself at the last minute and try to exert executive privilege. when the attorney general who, again -- you know, our job is to find out what went wrong. maybe he is innocent. maybe people are innocent in this, but there is no reason in the world or under the law or under the proceedings of congress and our constitution in the way this government is set up that this committee is not entitled to this information in this investigation to again

maintain the integrity of this important office. i don't know, maybe i'm idealistic. i didn't think this could go on in a department of justice in the united states of america in this day and age. it's a very sad day. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. does anyone else seek recognition? the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, actually i have a question about the process. >> the gentlelady is recognized for a question. >> that was undertaken within the last 24 hours. in light of the statement you have made. we are down, as i understand it, to internal deliberative documents which may be the basis of -- for the executive privilege, and the committee is no longer demanding documents that are under seal or involved in ongoing investigations,

criminal investigations. so we are down to the internal deliberative correspondent -- correspondence within the department. >> would the gentlelady state a question? >> yes. i was prefacing -- >> the gentlelady can be is recognized for five minutes for any reason. narrow your question. >> let me ask -- can i go on for five minutes? >> the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. during this process there has been a -- an attempted resolution. the concern that we learned about what caused the killing of the agent was a bipartisan concern. in your opening remarks you left the impression that the attorney

general came with certain official -- official of documents and demanded not to be held in contempt. the ranking member said in his statement that the attorney general asked that, and i'm quoting now from what the ranking member said, that we move toward, toward resolving this contempt. forgive me mr. chairman if i read that as a call for continued discussions and negotiations behind the contempt matter. mr. chairman, considering that no cabinet official has ever been held by the courts to be in contempt of congress that if this matter gets to the floor of

the house, it would then be referred to a democratic u.s. attorney just as to take the opposite case when this committee referred similar matters to ultimately a republican u.s. attorney, no action was taken, if we are interested in resolution, understanding that is the likely final result, it does seem to me, and i would ask you to reconsider, what appears to be an offer by the attorney general not a demand, and i believe some clarification is necessary here, but an offer that if he presented these documents, which he believes he did not have to

present, that you in turn agree to agree to engage in continuing discussions and negotiations. if that is the case, it seems to me, mr. chairman, that would be the reasonable thing to do at this point, especially in light of the executive privilege that's just been asserted. >> would the gentlelady yields?. >> as i said in the opening, we don't have an assertion of executive privilege at the house. executive privilege has to have specificity as to what is being asserted over what documents, normally as you know a privileged log goes with that. to date the house has not received that from the office of the president. so although i read the portion of the letter and the entire letter is in the record, i did so only so that we would take note that it may come and that we certainly may recess at some point to evaluate the actual statement. >> reclaiming my time. >> we are holding time right

now, actually. we stopped the clock because i want to make sure you have your full-time. but if the gentlelady would allow me to continue. when it comes to the question of postponing today, had the attorney general yesterday turned over the documents he said he would turn over in return for essentially an ending of this investigation, had he turned over those documents, we would not be here today. we would be evaluating those documents. but until we evaluate documents that tell us that we can bring a close either to contempt or the entire investigation, we can't assume that. of course as you know, hopefully the ranking member would explain , there was no log or actual documentation showing what they intended to present. so i did go into that meeting yesterday with full intent that we would likely postpone based on something being produced. nothing was produced. and i'm still waiting and i said in the news conference yesterday, that i would wait all night. and we did have people here all

night in hopes that those documents would arrive and that we would then postpone where we evaluated the documents. the gentlelady may resume. >> assuming no executive privilege had been invoked and that we had only the offer to give the documents, if the chairman would consider after receiving the document, continue discussions and negotiations, would that have been the way to resolve this matter? >> if the gentlelady would further yield. if we were being offered in return for a postponement documents and then we could judge them both the majority and minority and then re-enter negotiations as appropriate, we wouldn't be here today. >> mr. chairman, i believe that in light of that that will some clarification on what the offer expected and what in fact occurred is in order rather than

proceeding to contempt vote. >> would the gentlelady yield? >> yes, sir. >> would the chairman -- since were you trying to explain it may i have a little bit more time? i said this before, the attorney general did not ask for the ending of the investigation. what he was trying to do, and he spent quite a bit of the little 20 minets mints we had together, saying -- minutes we had together, saying he had limited personnel and his personnel were being tied up in going through these millions of emails and documents and whatever, and he basically said, at some point he just wanted to see if we could move towards bringing the contempt situation to a conclusion, moving towards it, and that's what he, as i understand it, what he was asking for. not -- he understood well that

the investigation was going to go on, because we have a lot to investigate. but he did not -- he talked about the contempt and that was my understanding. >> can you see, mr. chairman, finally, that there is a--i think it merits a continuing discussion with the justice department. >> if the gentlelady would further yield. >> yes. >> i trust that the justice department is hearing my interpretation. if they want to deliver documents, they are welcomed to. but again -- >> of course if a contempt is voted already then of course we have ended that possibility. and since the justice department is now hearing a difference in -- between two people who were at the same meeting, it does

seem to me that it calls for some opportunity for the justice department to come forward and resolve that dispute between the two major figures who were in the deliberations. i would ask that that be considered. >> i appreciate the gentlelady. >> the gentlelady yield? >> i would be glad to yield. >> i just want to go back to something you said. in the document which was sent from the attorney general's office this morning, now a part of the record, i want to read the last few words. it says in closing while we are deeply disappointed of the intent to move forward with a contempt citation, i stress the department remains willing to work towards a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. please don't hesitate to contact us. thank you very much for yielding. >> i thank the gentleman. i think the gentlelady's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the beauty and miracle that is the united states of america is that there is no one person in this country that's above the law. i believe this committee has a duty, obligation, and a right to investigate this matter to its fullest effect. in fact i harken back to the words of president obama on his first full day of office, i would like to read from that. let me say as simply as i can, transparency in the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency. i will also be -- hold myself as president to new standard of openness. he went on and said, but the mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it. the freedom of information act is perhaps the most powerful instrument we have for making our government honest and transparent. and holding it accountable. and expect members in my administration not simply to live up to the letter but also the spirit of the law. the president then issued a memorandum to the heads of the executive departments on january 1, 2009.

quote, the government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors or failures might be revealed or because of speculative or abstract fears, end quote. the president then on march of 2011 in talking about fast and furious said, there may be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made and if that's the case we'll find out and hold somebody accountable. ladies and gentlemen, that has not happened. on february 4 of last year, 2011, the congress was sent a letter that was false. it took 10 months for that information to be provided, to be withdrawn. the subpoena we are talking about today was issued in october of last year. and now it's june 20 and the president is issuing -- exerting executive privilege and we haven't yet seen this? i'd like to enter into the record -- i ask unanimous consent, mr. chairman, to enter a letter of june 3, 2011, signed by 31 democrats, sent to the

president of the united states. >> without objection, so ordered. >> going to read from it, thank you, mr. chairman. a couple of excerpts from this letter. quote, it is equally troubling that the department of justice has delayed action and withheld information from congressional inquiries, end quote. later it said, again, a letter from 31 democrats to the president, june p -- 3, 2011, quote, while the department of justice can and should continue its investigation, those activities should not curtail the ability of congress to fulfill its oversight duties, end quote. and last quote i'll take from that, we urge you to instruct the department of justice to promptly provide complete answers to all congressional inquiries on this issue. enquote. none of that has happened. it's sad. it's disappointing. it shouldn't have come to this. nobody likes doing this. this is not about eric holder. it is about the department of justice and justice in the united states of america. have the scuts, i hope we have the scuts and the perseverence to get to the bottom of this.

we have nearly 2,000 weapons purposely, purposely given to drug cartels. we have hundreds of dead people in next cow. we have a dead united states border patrol agent. and we have a government that's withholding information so that we cannot only get to the bombom -- about theom but fix it so it never happens again. when we are issued a letter and 10 months later they pull back and say that's not true, something is fundamentally wrong. it's also not about 140,000 documents that the department of justice knowingly says that they have and we have less than 8,000 of them. it's not about those numbers, it's the fact that we don't have all of them, whatever that number is. and when you have somebody like the former acting director of the a.t.f. saying under oath, quote, it was very frustrating to all of us and it appears thoroughly to us that the department is really trying to figure out a way to push information away from their political appointees at the department.

talking about the department of justice. those are things that we should be concerned about. nobody wants to put this more conclusion than chairman issa, i want to put a conclusion to this, everybody should want to put a conclusion to this. when these problems and challenges came up to the g.s.a., they dealt with this. we had the problems with the secret service, within days people had resigned and stepped down. the reality is we have not gotten to the bottom of this. and brian terry was killed in december of 2010. we have a duty, an obligation, a moral obligation to get to the bomb -- bottom of this. it's sad and disappointing, but the department of justice should have provided these documents. it's disappointing we have to be here today. it's not about eric holder, it's about the department of justice and justice in the united states of america. that's why i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to show the guts needed to actually pass this and move it to the floor for further debate. i thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for

yielding back. we recognize the gentleman from new york, the former chairman of the committee, mr. towns. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'm troubled over how we are going about this. as the former chairman of this committee, i am deeply disturbed that this committee's continuing to pursue the unprecedented course of holding a sitting attorney general in contempt of congress. mr. chairman, you claim that contempt is warranted because mr. holder's office has refused to turn over documents that the majority asserts is critical to the investigation of gun walking operation along the arizona-mexico border. the majority claims are without merit. let me say that i could see if it was a situation where the attorney general was not responding, but he's been up

here nine times testifying. let me just say one other thing, too. that in all of my 30 years of being in the united states congress, the way that he was treated when he was here testifying before this committee i must admit i've never seen anybody treated in that fashion. so i don't understand why we have to move in this order if they are cooperating. if they are not cooperating, then maybe we can understand what you're doing, but to be honest with you, i think this is a mistake, a major mistake, and i really want you to know that i think that this should be discontinued and let's see if we can continue to get the information that he's willing to sit down and provide and has indicated that. i don't understand why we have to move in this fashion.

it's a credit to this committee and of course this committee, as you know, has a full name of oversight and government reform. and i don't see reforming anything here. i just don't get the point. it just does not make sense to me. and it's the most ridiculous thing that i think i have seen in my years of being on this committee. i yield to the gentlewoman from new york. the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would like to be associated with his comments and also those of ms. norton. the administration and the attorney general have made an offer to continue discussions. i believe these discussions should move forward in the spirit of getting some type of conclusion and the information you need and solutions moving forward. i want to quote from the letter that was sent to mr. issa from james cole, in it he says i

stress that the department remains willing to work toward a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. so why can't we work together? and i would like to publicly thank mr. mica, chairman mica, really for working across the aisle on the transportation bill. and hopefully this can move forward in a bipartisan way. i think we should work across the aisle on getting this resolved in a way that satisfies the chairman and the members on both sides of the aisle. and the fact that he has made an offer to continue discussions, we should follow up. and i think that this offer reinforces the points that my good friend, the congresswoman norton was making, that the justice department is open to working towards some type of

conclusion. and i would like to say, we have never van hollen -- we have never common senseured a government officer. there was some e.p.a. officials. i can't remember. you can probably remember, but never a cabinet officer. and never the highest ranking member of law enforcement for our country. who is willing to work with the chairman. so i feel that this is an area we could work together in a positive way. i yield back to the gentleman the from great state of new york, my good friend, mr. towns. >> i think it's great statement, mr. chairman, and i hope you would consider it. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> this committee did vote on holding janet reasonee in contempt. it was for the actions of janet reno. in this case we are only looking for the documents. i might say to my colleague and friend from new york where are

the documents? >> i yield back to the gentlelady from new york. >> i ask unanimous consent that gentleman have an additional 30 seconds. >> without objection, so ordered. >> even newt gingrich wouldn't hold a contempt vote on the floor of the united states congress against janet reno. >> i thank the gentlelady. who else seeks recognition? the gentleman from florida, mr. mack, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a sad day. as it's been talked about a number of times here on committee, we have guns that went to mexico. at the same time you had the mexican officials so concerned about all of the weapons that were going to mexico, and then we end up with a border patrol agent that was shot and killed

by guns from the united states going to mexico. and it is the duty of this committee to get to the bottom of this. and it is clear, people who are -- who might be watching this hearing, it is clear that there are those that do not want to get to the bottom of this and get the answers. that people would rather use legalese to try to avoid turning over the documents that will help bring closure to a family who lost a family member. and it is our responsibility on this committee to get this done. the other side is making an argument that in some letter talking about getting to the bottom of this, or about documents that's mutually

satisfactory, you can't come to that conclusion when the other side doesn't want to turn over the information. if they wanted to turn over the documents, they would have done that by now. this committee would be -- this hearing would look a lot different. it would be about what do we do in the future? it would be about reform. instead we've got the justice department that continues to withhold this information. and if i could, mr. chairman, i know that this is a very narrow scoped markup, but i want to point out that there are a lot of troubling signs in this case. we have the opportunity in the foreign affairs on october 27, 2011, with secretary clinton, and just so everyone understands, under the arms export control act, the justice department is required to receive a written waiver from the state department to account for their intent to cause arms

to be exported across our borders and into mexico. i asked secretary clinton on that day, did the state department, and i'm quoting, i asked, did the state department issue the justice department a license or a written waiver in order to allow for the transfer of thousands of weapons across the u.s.-mexico border? secretary clinton's response, was congressman, this is the first time i have been asked this and i can tell you based on the record of any activity by the bureau that would have been responsible, we see no evidence. but let me do -- let me check. secretary clinton points out that in her department they

weren't asked for a written waiver. that's in violation of the law. so as this committee moves forward, and i thank the chairman for his patience, we need to make sure that we get to the bottom of this. that the state department acknowledges that they weren't asked for this waiver. we are just looking for the information. and here at the last hour the president is trying to -- if they were so willing to give the documents, you wouldn't at the last hour have a letter come from the administration claiming executive privilege, or whatever it is they are claiming. we owe it to the people of this country to get to the bottom of this. we owe it to the family who has lost a loved one to get to the bottom of this. mr. chairman, i'm with you on this. i yield to the gentleman. >> i thank the gentleman for

yielding. i simply want to make a point that week before last in the house judiciary committee chairman issa, representative and i were there i asked the attorney general if he was willing to sit down. he was so adamant that the senior level of department of justice people were not involved. i asked him, would you be willing to come sit with us, allow mr. gowdy and i to come sit with you and share this information, show us what you have. and he said no. he said no. he said i'm done doing this. i have given you ever bit of information and i have no intention of -- every bit of information and i have no intention of further talking to you. sadly that's in part why we are here today. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. who else seeks recognition? the gentleman from cleveland, ohio, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. at the risk of stating the obvious the assertion of executive privilege has taken this proceeding into its own

realm. and while congress has the constitutional right and this committee to require the production of records, the administration similarly has a constitutional right to claim executive privilege and refuse to produce those records. when you have a conflict between the legislative branch and the executive branch, those conflicts generally will go to the courts to make a decision as to whether or not the administration's claim of executive privilege should be upheld. it would seem to me that before this committee would take any action on the question of contempt, we would first appropriately have to apply to a court the order for production

of the records. if then the records were not produced, it would seem that the question of contempt would then be germane. so i just want to ask the chairman that in the interest of of avoiding a -- an untombly collision over an issue of -- untimely collision over an issue of contempt, if the chairman is prepared to seek a court order for the production of the records prior to having this committee act on the issue of contempt, -- >> if the gentleman is asking did we go to the court to request a subpoena? >> no. would you under -- once the president has asserted executive privilege, as he has, are you prepared to challenge that in

court? or are you prepared to proceed nevertheless on a contempt citation when that issue has not been resolved, whether or not he has to produce those records? >> if the gentleman would yield. as i announced earlier we are concurnl currently evaluating and trying -- concurrently evaluating and trying to get from the white house the actual assertion. as you know the deputy attorney general cannot assert executive privilege, only the president can do it. so a letter saying that the president has done it is not sufficient. to that extent we are working right now both with house counsel and attempting to work with the white house to get that. but to the gentleman's answer to his question, it probably is most ill luss interest tafe, mr. kucinich, i believe you -- i believe you voted on the meyers

contempt. president bush had asserted executive privilege. he then continued to assert executive privilege after it was voted successfully out of the house, and it went to the u.s. attorney in the district of columbia. so there is a precedents. every member on that side of the aisle that was here probably voted for that contempt, but having said that, this is not about that vote. we are trying to evaluate where the president might assert executive privilege, if he has asserted it. we will take note of that, but since it hasn't been asserted before this committee, only a letter arriving from the deputy attorney general, that's the reason we are going forward. i will announce if the gentleman would continue yielding, it is our intent if the president produces a privileged log of what is not to be produced because categories specifically were part of his deliberative process, it would be my intention to carve that out of contempt so as to send a clean

contempt resolution to the floor. we can't do that based on an assertion by the deputy attorney general with no specificity, and in light of arguments that have been made, statements that have been made by the attorney general and the president in the past, that they didn't communicate, but we certainly are working on that. i think the gentleman's point is good. i don't want to repeat a situation in way, if you will, and i think the gentlelady had already said that, in which it arrives at the u.s. attorney's office and is not pursued. that's not our intent. our intent is to get the documents as appropriate. >> well, the -- >> the gentleman has an additional 30 seconds, without objection. >> as has been stated by individuals on your side of the aisle, you have waited eight months, i think it is now, you made a point as far as what the authority of the committee is. the question is whether or not you would be willing to postpone

any action on the contempt citation, give the white house the chance to produce the log that you are asking for, and then determine whether or not it would be most appropriate either to apply to a court of jurisdiction that would give you the chance to challenge the white house's position, or then proceed with the contempt. it just seems that there is -- given all your patience, it would be a shame to produce kind of a titanic contest here between the two branches of government if there is a way to try to make one more effort to avoid it. >> i thank the gentleman. i take notes of his comments. does anyone else seek recognition? the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the deliberative efforts you have made, including

all the hearings, letter writing . our bipartisan trip to mexico city where we met with mexican law enforcement officials as well as u.s. officials on this issue. but there is a time that a deliberative body needs to continue our efforts for oversight as well as government reform. this is all that we are doing here. mr. chairman, this hearing giving me no excitement or joy, but brian terry, a proud son of the state of michigan, district in that state i represent, a proud and dedicated marine, dedicated law enforcement officer, and son of a greefing family -- grieving family, deserves our fullest effort to know the truth and not what our office of the attorney general calls evolving truth. there is no certainty in evolving truth.

the attorney general has publicly stated that the department of justice is committed to working to accommodate the committee's legitimate oversight needs. the problem with that position is the attorney general believes he is the arbiter of the committee's, quote, legitimate oversight needs. the attorney general's position that the department of justice decides which documents we need and which ones we don't is contrary to the constitution and a century of case law. the evolving truth has an eroding impact on our citizens understanding of what the rule of law is. as well as the constitution. still the attorney general and his deputies have repeated that position time and time again in the last week. the attorney general's last best offer was to produce a, quote, fair compilation of documents covered by the subpoena. you could probably guess who the attorney general's proposed --

would decide which documents make it into that, quote, fair compilation. evolving truth again, which is difficult to work with. contrary to what the attorney general seems to think, complying with the committee's subpoena is not optional. the failure to produce documents purr suned to a congressional subpoena -- pursuant to a congressional subpoena is a violation of federal law. still the attorney general refuses to give the committee even a list of documents he is withholding from us. let alone to give us access to all the documents covered by the subpoena. so it is fair to say we don't know what we don't know. again i say this is the problem of evolving truth. on the other hand, the committee has gone to great lengths to accommodate the department's interest as an agency of the executive branch. the committee has made a series of accommodations in an effort to avoid today's vote.

citizens in my district are wondering why we have been so gracious in the time length we have pursued this fast and furious issue. we agreed to view documents in camera. we have accepted redacted documents. we have done voluntary interviews instead of depositions. and we have clarified and prioritized the scope of the subpoena, among other things. the department has not even cited any legal authority as the basis for withholding documents covered by this seen -- subpoena. nor has it asserted any privilege over the documents. it seems we are out of options. the attorney general has not produced one single document since the day's vote was announced and has put an impossible compromise on the table that takes us out of the running with no efforts on our part that would be sound and solid.

that's unprecedented. and i believe it reflects the low level of commitment the attorney general has to cooperating with this committee, a separate and co-equal branch of government. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me today in voting in favor of the contempt resolution. unless and until something more positive and concrete is brought before us to deal with. this is not what we should have been forced in to even considering today. this is not what i believe any member on this side of the dais wants to see this come to. but rather this has been brought about by the actions or should i say the inactions of a attorney general and his office in carrying on evolving truth. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. does anyone else seek recognition? the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes.

>> i yield po seconds to my colleague from -- 30 seconds to my colleague from new york, mrs. maloney. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding for a point of clarification. i want to make sure that the record reflects that the attorney general and his offer last night was an effort to fully satisfy the committee's last outstanding information request. and not to end the investigation. i ask unanimous consent to place in the record his comments that were made on this matter after that publicly. >> i object. ultimately the individuals that were in the meeting have asserted their view of what he said. if the attorney general wants to give us in writing something, i will agree to put it in the record as soon as it arrives. >> reclaiming my time. if i might, this is one time there is a legitimate investigation, something this committee should do and we have generally done in the past with the consent of all the parties

on both sides of the aisle. it's painful to sit here and watch it turn into a partisan political theater and unnecessary that it move in that direction. we made a promise to the terry family we were going to identify what went wrong and ensure it didn't happen again. we have gone a long way, i think, in identifying what went wrong. that's something that we can all be proud of or at least we did our job. somebody mentioned earlier pasheention. the patience the committee had gone on this, i do want to know some 7,600 documents have been provided to the committee. they show that the gun walking began in the phoenix field division of the a.t.f. in 2006. and that senior officials in the department of justice didn't know that this tactic was used in operation fast and furious until 2011. there were four of these operations. three happened under a previous administration. we asked the attorney general be allowed to testify because apparently he was briefed on that matter. he was not allowed to testify. this went by the bye. there were other people at the

a.t.f., acting authorities, who were going to testify that this administration, the attorney general and others, had not been informed. he wasn't allowed to testify. yet this committee thenish shied a subpoena and -- issued a subpoena, he wanted the attorney general to share that would compromise ongoing investigations. he wanted the plougs of grand jury documents and other federal -- things that were prohibited by the attorney general to turn over. documents related to active and ongoing criminal investigation that is would jeopardize those prosecutions. and wanted detailed information related to confidential informants. highly sensitive information that would encaninger the -- endanger the lives and lives of their families. that's the patience people were seeking those documents that never should have been produced. it wasn't until last friday night the chairman recognized this is unprecedent and contrary to the rule of law and withdrew those requirements.

then he came and moved the goal post and updated citation and now we look at what's left to fight over here. apparently we are left to fight about an explanation of how the department came to learn that the original denial that this gun walking that occurred was inaccurate. which now has acknowledged. and why they later changed course and admitted their error. nothing this this remaining set has anything to do with how gun walking happened and how it's going to be reform. that's what we promised the family. to find out how it happened, which we have done. and promised them reform, which we are not doing. when we tried to do that, we can recall during the hearings, there was an effort made to question witness abouts the failure of the current laws to combat gun trafficking and the chairman cut those questions off, specifically told the agents not to answer those questions. said it was outside the scope of the hearing and wouldn't be considered valid testimony. it seems to me we took reform off the table before we got started. that's an injustice to the committee's work. more particularly to the family and to the american public on

that. this is a narrow set of new objections that this committee is apparently after from the attorney general. he has said he will provide those documents that he can and that he will work with the committee on that. there is a duty in the constitution to accommodate each other, the executive branch and the legislative branch. seems to me that since the goal posts have been moved yet again since the chairman had been wrong in so many earlier matters he sought, and now agrees he cannot and should not get, there could be an accommodation made to commit to good faith. that's all the attorney general apparently ask for that he commit to a good-faith conclusion at these contempt hearings that he produce the documents and explanation that is went on. i would hope we get back to a little sense what this committee is about, accept that accommodation for now. you don't lose your chance to go after contempt if it doesn't work and have this committee do the rest of the job. we have done the oversight part. we know what happened. let's do the reform part and make sure it doesn't happen again. >> would the gentleman yield? >> four seconds, go ahead.

>> i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman have an additional 30 seconds. would the gentleman yield? pursuant to the statement that you referred to about attorney general michael mccasey, it is-t has now been retracted by -- from the testimony of attorney general eric holder where he claimed that his predecessor, then attorney general mccasey, had been briefed about gun walking in operation wide receiver. now the department is retracting that statement and claiming holder inadvertently made the claim to the committee. >> reclaiming my time. it would be wonderfully to have him come here as a witness and find out what the actual matters were and facts were. we shouldn't be predetermining them. the idea of asking for the testimony was to find out what it was. there is no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to testify, why mr. melman shouldn't be allowed to testify who knew what. we are not afraid to have the information come out. we want the people to testify. moving on and knowing what happened in this cay, let's do the rest of the job. let's get reform.

>> i appreciate the gentleman. i might note that kenneth nelson testified for two days before this committee and may well be back before the committee in the future. mr. mchenry, do you seek recognition? the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are here today because attorney general eric holder has failed to meet his obligation pursuant to the subpoena issued him by this committee. we promised that we would get to the bottom of this matter for brian terry's family and american people in order to make sure this type of operation never occurs again. that we would find out the facts, the information, reform the system based on the information. many republicans and democrats on this committee demanded the facts and answer abouts this case a year ago when all this started. but what started as a pursuit of facts has now turned into a slow crawl of evidence and delay. we cannot look at the evidence if the department of justice

refuses to turn over those facts. internally, they have reviewed 80,000 documents. they have actually turned over to our committee 7,000. i have no doubt that if the department of justice subpoenaed documents from someone, they would not patiently wait seven months for those documents to be produced. no u.s. attorney would allow someone to review their own documents and tell d.o.j. what they think is relevant or do this, i'll just brief the attorney on what those documents might include rather than turning the documents over. no u.s. attorney would go for that deal. yesterday attorney general holder admitted that he had additional documents consistent with our subpoena request, but instead of turning those documents over, he tried to use them as a bargaining chip to control this investigation. it begs the question, what is in those internal documents that the department of justice that is so self-incriminating that d.o.j. would not release them?

why would they rather use them as a negotiating tool? now, prior to today we have not had a request for executive privilege. but now it's been asserted apparently that the president is requesting executive privilege. we assume that the presidential executive privilege request only involves his communications, so prior to today we weren't even aware that the president was engaged in the deliberations in response to the actions after the february 4. what we requested. the reason we are interested in these documents is the department of justice gave congress a false statement, february 4 of 2011, about d.o.j.'s knowledge of fast and furious. december 10, brian terry was killed, with two of more than 2,000 guns allowed to walk into the hands of known or suspected criminals. february 4 of 2011, department of justice sent a letter to congress in which they stated that the allegation that a.t.f. sanctioned or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons who then transported them to mexico is

false. a.t.f. makes every effort to interdict weapons that had been purchased illegally and transported to mexico. we now know multiple people in the d.o.j. were involved in the drafting of this letter and their statement was false. march 22 of 20101 -- 2011, the president spoke to uni vision, there may be something here where serious mistakes were made. d.o.j. again stated to congress it remains our understanding that a.t.f. operation fast and furious did not knowingly permit straw purchasetories take guns into mexico. a very carefully worded statement to state something we now know is false. >> one month d.o.j. said the accusationings are false. the next month the president to the reporter appeared to state there may absituation which serious mistakes are made. awe tie months later d.o.j. tells congress they didn't permit those straw walkers to go

to mexico. to be flipped again in december of 2011 when the d.o.j., deputy attorney general cole, acknowledged that the february 4 letter contained inaccuracies. listen, we need to answer the following questions. who authorized this action? who was in charge of the oversight of the operation? why were they allowed to continue? and who will be held responsible for misconduct? when the department of justice refuses to provide these answers, the house of representatives is forced to collect them. this committee was united together to walkthrough the process with a.t.f. but now that it's with d.o.j., this committee seems to be separating off and saying a.t.f. was ok to investigate, but we shouldn't investigate inaccurate statements from d.o.j. why is this important? on a multiple level. truth and have a rassity are essential in government. this is also important because the d.o.j. is currently in an investigation dealing with security league leaks --

security leaks and this same d.o.j. would release a report in some future day that we also have to trust is accurate. i urge my colleagues to move forward with the contempt. we need this information. we have to get this out and get a full accounting of what has occurred and when it occurred and by whom. so we can hold people to account. with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from missouri is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we in congress are -- especially those of us who serve on this committee, can get pretty passionate about our responsibilities. and we take our duty seriously, which we should. when that passion increases to fervor, however, our interests in overseeing the federal government can sometimes get the better of us. we can become so focused on what we originally wanted that we can lose sight of the point of our

inquiry. and we have all experienced, i'm sure, how our staff can sometimes become overzealous in their attempts to help us do our jobs. when we take the time to investigate an allegation and we spend money examining the issue, naturally we want to see results. and we want to get to the bottom of the problem. of course we often feel the need to show that we are not wasting our time or the taxpayers' resources, but the test of leadership is not about sticking to the plan. no matter how badly it goes wrong. it isn't about seeing something through even though it's clearly a failure. successful leaders re-evaluate, they recognize when it's time to change course. when it's time to give up a

plainly incorrect they'rery. when it's time to admit one was wrong. i was encouraged when the majority correctly significantly narrowed the scope of the documents they demanded of the justice department. it would have been illegal for the department to produce wiretap applications, grand jury testimony, and information about confidential inform mants. however -- informants. however when one starts out with presumption of guilt, of a cover-up as the majority did when they began this investigation, is extremely difficult to admit when one is proven wrong. and that's how this began. with the presumption of guilt on the part of the administration and in particular on the part of the attorney general. not because -- >> that hearing from last week. you can see it in its entirety at c-span.org. look for the c-span video lie

brarery. also that contempt vote process against attorney general holder is set to start at about 12:30 after members gavel back in at noon eastern today. it will begin with an hour debate on the rule for deliberating the resolution. there will be a couple of procedural motions, and then a vote on passage of the contempt resolution later this afternoon. to get a look at all of this that's about to take place, just over a half-hour, we spoke with a reporter covering the story to help fill in some of the blanks. john joins us from congressional quarterly. the house is said to take a vote thursday to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress. what's this about? >> well, this stems from the so-called fast and furious gun tracking operation in which the justice department knowingly allowed hundreds of weapons and firearms to go into mexico in an attempt to trace them back to mexican drug cartels. this is a very controversial operation and it's been a flash

point on capitol hill for a long time. and now the house is weighing in on whether to hold the attorney general in contempt over what they see as his stone walling of information related to this operation. >> on the vote is it true this would be the first ever vote of its kind? >> it would be. previous attorney general janet reno has been found in contempt by a congressional committee, but it has never reached the floor of the house of representatives when it's involving an attorney general. this would definitely be unprecedented. >> house republicans and the justice department have tried several times to reach a compromise to avoid the contempt vote. what exactly does each side want the other to do? >> house republicans led by house oversight and government reform committee chairman, darrell issa, has demanded a long list of documents and the attorney general and the justice department have offered some of those documents, not all of those documents, and just last week, the night before the committee, voted to hold the

attorney general in contempt. mr. holder offered a briefing rather than the documents that the republicans had been seeking. but the -- mr. issa and the republicans on the house oversight committee found that not to be enough and went through with the committee level vote of contempt. >> we are hearing at least one democrat announced he's likely to join republicans in favor of contempt. who is he and how many others could defect from the party on this vote? on top of that, will there be any republicans crossing party lines to vote with democrats against the resolution? >> there may be a few republicans who cross party lines and vote no on the contempt resolution, but i think much more likely is that democrats will vote yes on the resolution. i have heard that up to two dozen if not more democrats may join on the contempt resolution, and there is pressure on them from the conservative national rifle association, which is scoring this vote, and has made clear that there would be repercussions from that organization if democrats would vote against the contempt

resolution. >> if the votes are there to hold attorney general holder in contempt, what's likely to happen next? >> well, that's a little bit less clear. there are theoretically three options for the house to proceed. the first is considered very unlikely, that would be to use its own authority and pursue a process known as inherent contempt whereby the house could ask the sergeant at arms of its chamber to go and physically arrest the attorney general. that hasn't happened in either chamber since 1935. people don't consider that likely. the second more reasonable option is for the house to ask the justice department to formally charge mr. holder with contempt or find him in violation of a criminal statute that carries a misdemeanor conviction, fine of up to $1,000, and imprisonment of up to 12 months. but that is also unlikely since the justice department is run by mr. holder. the most likely outcome is that the house will ask a federal

judge to enforce the subpoena that it has already issued against the attorney general and therefore get the courts involved and try to have him comply with their demands for information that way. >> this resolution need approval from the senate to go into effect? >> it will not. it goes into effect on its own. each chamber is capable of holding someone in contempt on its own authority. >> very quickly, beyond the specifics of this case, what might the ripple effects be from a successful contempt vote on relations and future disagreements between the executive and legislative branches? >> it's a very big conflict between the two branches. this is sure to sour relation that is were already pretty sour in the last few months. this is an election year, of course, and no doubt conservatives will point to this vote on the campaign trail in the months ahead. the justice department and the president are likely to portray it as a purely political event. that argument could be made a little bit more complicated if a

sizable number of democrats join with republicans on this vote. >> jeff is a staff writer for "congressional quarterly" we'll talk with you again soon. >> thanks. >> again that vote is set to happen sometime today. can you see it all unfold here on c-span. we also understand that during the vote members of the congressional black caucus are planning to walk out of the chamber in protest. from cnn a letter to house members the democrats opposed to voting on the g.o.p. sponsored resolution said contempt power should be used sparingly, carefully, and only in the most egregious situations. the republican leadership has articulated no legislative purpose for pursuing this course of action. for these reasons we cannot and will not participate in a vote to hold the attorney general in contempt. we do have cameras in the chamber as you know. we may or may not see members as they walk out. we'll have coverage of all the proceedings here on c-span as they continue. the house does have other

business today. they'll be voting on a number of suspension bills. originally we expected members to complete work on fiscal year 2013 spending for transportation and housing and urban development. we are learning the house has moved that to tomorrow's session. in the meantime there is another story on capitol hill this afternoon, of course this morning the supreme court voted 5-4 to uphold the nation's health care law. the court today upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of president obama's health care law. this from the associated press. the decision means the historic overhaul will continue to go into effect over the next several years. affecting the way the countless americans receive and pay for their personal medical care. that ruling also handed the president a campaign season victory in rejecting arguments that congress went too far in requiring most americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty. chief justice john roberts announced the court's judgment that allows the law to go forward covering more than 30 million uninsured americans. president obama is expected to

make a statement at about 12:15 eastern. you'll be able to see that on c-span3 when it happens. along with our live coverage from the steps of the supreme court and statement by members of congress on the decision, we are also taking your phone calls right now on c-span3. can you see minnesota congresswoman michelle bachmann, she's making a statement on the supreme court rules today house majority cantor has scheduled a vote to totally repeal the nation's health care law. that was announced today. that's set for july 11 and we'll have full coverage of that here on c-span. now to live coverage of the u.s. hoist. -- house. offered by our guest chaplain, reverend greg lafferty, will low chapel, pennsylvania. the chaplain: lord god, we

bless you this day because you are good. you let your sun rise on the evil and the good you let your rain fall on the just and unjust. we recognize that in this nation, we are among the most blessed. you have granted us freedom in abaundance -- freedom and abundance, safety and security, the rule of law and neighborly love. guide us that we my steward these good gifts for the benefit of all. today, lord, grant this house of representatives the wisdom, humility and dill yens to govern well that in some measure good might overcome evil, beauty might outshine ugliness and love might undo hate. in this, lord, may you be honored and may our nation dwell in deeper peace and safety. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and

announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve thsmed epledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. mrs. maloney: 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 speaker: the chair will entertain -- without objection this egentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts is recognized for one minute. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. speaker. it is an honor today to have greg lafferty, senior pastor of my home church, will lowdale chapel, open us in prayer today he studied at wheaton college and golden gate baptist theological seminary. he was ordained at saddleback

church in california where he served as a teaching pastor under rick warren. under greg, the church has grown dramatically. in his time as our pastor, he's made our church more active in our community and engaged around the world. one example is the work with hope international, touching lives in the congo through microenterprise development. the efforts of the church have been multiplied and improved in many ways under greg's leadership. he's helped our church show the love of christ in our community in new ways and around the world. greg has been married to his wife deann for 28 years. she joins us in the balcony. they have three children together, kelsey, krista, and ryan. it is a great honor to have them here and have greg open our chamber today with opening prayer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the

gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: today's decision by the supreme court is extremely disappointing, undermining limited government and expanded freedom. the decision reveals obamacare is a huge tax increase on middle class taxpayers, destroying jobs. we should have health care based on doctor-patient relationships, rather than a politician-patient relationship. i agree with the national federation of independent business that 1.6 million jobs are now at risk and small businesses cannot make plans for the future which destroys more jobs. house republicans will continue to work to repeal the government health care takeover law. we will remain focused on enacting common sense legislation that will preserve the doctor-patient relationship, provide every american the access they need to health care and promote jobs

in the private sector. in conclusion, god bless our troops, that we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? >> i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i recently added my name to a resolution sponsored by rosa delauro to honor the catholic sisters for their contributions to this country and my community. i grew up in the shadows of the mercy convent in buffalo, new york. the sisters came to buffalo in 1858 and started hospitals to heal the sick, schools to teach the ignorant and to help all of us see the gift of god's presence in a changing world. mr. higgins: the sisters take a vow of poverty and obedience to serve god and god's people, particularly women and children.

the catholic church said the sisters are not following catholic doctrine of. the sisters reject this and vow to fight. je us is said whatever you do for the least of these you do for me. the sisters are doing god's work with courage, conviction, and selflessness. may god continue to inspire their good work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today many will address the house here and later in the day on subjects of great current importance, certainly the upholding of the president's health care initiative. mr. issa: certainly, in fact, the contempt vote we're going to hear in a few minutes but this minute belongs to the people of san diego.

walter zable died this week at 97. normally after -- when someone dies at 97 they've long since retired. not so for walter. he was still active at cubit company. he was in the office less than a week ago, he was still providing the stewardship, still receiving the technical benefits of his engineers and still making sure that america was safe. so in san diego today is walt every zable day, it is not a day for the other discussions of the house. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady to from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. matsui: if you want proof of congress' partisanship look

-- ms. chu: look no further than today's cop temperature vote. he fought gang violence, protected intellectual property rights and worked to make sure every american has the right to vote. we should let the attorney general enforce our nation's laws, not make his job harder. the contempt vote against holder is unprecedented, unjustified and unfounded. never in the 223-year history of the house have we held an attorney general in contempt. yet today, we will do just that in this ridiculous partisan stunt. congress should be creating job, not wasting taxpayer money putting on a political sideshow during an election year. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> today marks the 101st

birthday of my grandmother, edna yoder. mr. yoder: she was raised on a kansas frm farm with her brothers and sisters. she did her part to raids livestock, grow wheat, i take great pride in my grandmother and her determination. she and others uphold values to build the most prosperous nation. my grandmother is a vital and healthy 101-year-old. her love of quilting, the lawrence weling show and board games and bin go keep her time occupied and keep her young at heart. grandma, you are an inspiration and we are proud today to congratulate you on the sell bation of your 101st birthday. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. last year i stood here and spoke out against the new free trade agreements. i mentioned a woman i met at the airport who after 23 years working in a textile factory was selling energy drinks because her jobs had been shipped south and then overseas. ms. hochul: that's why i'm fighting for -- fighting for policies to support making it in america. that's why i'm so proud that a company in my dict that makes furniture found in the white house has been recognized for their strong commitment to american manufacturing. this congress must work together to level the playing field for american businesses against unfair competition, particularly from china. the american government and consumers must continue their commitment to buying mesh -- american so we can have more success stories. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my rashes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: secretary clinton is giving away $2 billion of taxpayer money to green energy development in third world countries. this isn't money for vaccines, it isn't money for clean water, it isn't money to help child hunger, it's for green energy. we need to -- don't we need to make sure people have electricity before we worry about what kind of light bulb they're using? people are starving, being taken away by child soldiers and dying of buy die reia. so our country decided the best way to spend money is to put billions into the country for green energy. we wasted money for green energy here in the united states for companies like solyndra. congress didn't approve this $2 billion giveaway. with all the problems of debt in the united states and disease in other countries,

government is providing subsidies for green energy. who would have thought? the government is out of control. more taxpayer money thrown into the windmill of willful waste. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is reck thesed for one minute. >> i want to say i'm proud of the decision of the united states supreme court today. i was proud to serve on the energy and commerce committee that drafted that bill and i ran it many times and had a lot of amendments. the affordable care act has already benefited millions of americans and will continue to help those in greatest need. mr. green: children, young adults, people with pre-existing conditions and our seniors. in our own congressional district in texas, it's particularly important because we have one of the highest rates of uninsured individuals in the country. our constitution gives the u.s. supreme court the job to be the

decider on what is constitutional. the affordable care act is constitutional. just like social security and medicare, now it's the law of this great nation. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: today is a great day. it's a great day for students who want to stay or on they parent's insurance until they're 26, for people who don't want co-pays for preventive care, for people who don't want lifetime caps on their insurance or to be denied because of existing conditions. it's a great day for america because the rule of law has been uphold. justice roberts ruled that this was appropriate and constitutional. let us not forget justices ginsburg and sotomayor and kay

began and breyer. five justices who upheld the supreme court belief that the american people have that it is a rule of law and the court is not political. it was a great day for american health care and for american law and jurisprudence. i yield back the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> to address the thousands for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: does the jeament seek unanimous consent? >> i do. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: today is not a victory for one party or another. it is not a victory for an ideology. it is a victory for those who have gone for years without access to quality health care. it's a victory for women who will no longer be discriminated against in their insurance premiums and for pre-existing conditions and for women and children and seniors and families. this is a great day for our country as we finally join the

community of economically advanced nations that see to it that all their citizens have access to quality care. let's get on with the unfinished business of helping create more jobs and putting a nation of healthy americans back to work. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is reck nighed for one minute. . mr. costa: i rise to pay tribute to wind yea who passed away at the age of 64 after fighting a battle with lymphoma. she was a loving wife, mother, and committed respected community leader who touched the lives of many. wendy led a courageous and energetic life filled with love and add ventured. she joined the peace corps as an early age and served in

kenya. she swam the earth's five oceans. her work as an educator, nurse, and community leader demonstrated her dedication to fostering and preserving and improving the health and safety of children throughout the world. and her compassionate concern for the community also served as a testament to her extraordinary character. wendy wanes' unwavering loyalty to the county and well-being of future generations will ensure her legacy will live on. she stands as a role model not only for her family and all that knew and worked with her, her friends, we will all miss her. i will miss my dear friend, wendy wayne, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? america online ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for one minute. ms. fudge: thank you. mr. chairman, today i rise to speak in opposition to the

house resolution to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress. in total disregard of the fact that the attorney general and the department of justice have cooperated with each inquiry from the house oversight and government reform committee during the last 15 months, chairman issa decided to pursue this extreme and unprecedented action. to take action on this resolution is a gross misuse of this chamber's time and energy. given that the information requested by the chairman will shed no light on the person or persons responsible for the death of agent brian terry, and that is where our time and energy should be focused. instead of wasting the time of the committee, the department of justice and the american people with political distractions, the house should, should be addressing the issues important to the welfare of this country and its people. and that is jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition?

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. despite what has been said here it is the duty, obligation of this body to address a duel issued -- duly issued subpoena that has not been complied with. there has not been full compliance here. there has not been cooperation here. there has not been a willingness to share the information that is found within the department of justice. we have a dead border patrol agent. we have more than 200 weapons that are -- were used to kill people in mexico. we have thousands of missing weapons. we have a attorney general who said that this fast and furious program was fundamentally flawed. yet here we stand today after more than bending over backwards more than a year having not given the documents that we need as a body to make a proper decision. this should be a bipartisan in

our quest to right a wrong. it's not about eric holder, but it is about the department of justice. it is about justice in the united states of america. i am proud of the fact we are bringing up this contempt. it's sad we got to this day. we have no other choice, but we as a body, institution, separate branch of government have a duty and obligation. we are fulfilling that here today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. >> i come here today because when i was six years old in 1968 i saw the hate-filled work of the civil rights movement of laws that needed to be changed. ms. richardson: now i'm here with an opportunity to be here in congress and i kind of wonder what changes have really occurred. i see today that chief justice roberts stood and did the right thing because he ruled on behalf of the american people. and i will say that this motion that's going to come forward

will not have bipartisan support of this member because it's not done in a partisan manner tax done in a hateful manner. why? because we have an attorney general that this has never been done in this congress. materials have been provided, and where this committee has failed to accept a single witness asked by the other side. that's not partisanship. that's politics at its worse. i urge the american people to look and urge us to get back to work and do what you sent us here to do, which is to take care of you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> my question is simply this. what percentage of the truth do you want? we were asked to negotiate, when the attorney general comes and asks us for an extraordinary accommodation, whatever that means, when we are asked to compromise, my

question for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, mr. chairman, mr. speaker, is this, what percentage of the truth will you settle for? mr. gowdy: if you have ever sat on the other side of the table from parents who have lost a loved one, is 50% enough? is that enough of the documents? 75%? a third? the truth, the whole truth, so help me god. that's what we ask witnesses to do. that's what we ask jurors to do. that's not too much to ask -- for us to ask the attorney general of the united states of america to do. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: i rise today to declare the supreme court ruling on the affordable care act affirms there is no going back to health care, 2009, or even to health care, 1789.

improvements to health care are taking root right now in this country. that progress must continue. the supreme court's decision today is a welcomed victory for middle class families. mr. larsen: and bolsters the necessary changes taking place in health care today. now we must keep medicare sustainable and affordable by closing the prescription drug doughnut hole and cracking down on fraud. now we must make sure middle class families have diverse options for high quality affordable health care. now we must ensure that we meet the needs of northwest washington state seniors, veterans, and families. northwest washington has already seen improvement. seniors in the second district saved more than $800 on prescription medication sews far this year. more than 173,000 people in northwest washington state have health insurance that covers preventive care without co-pays or deductibles.

it is time to move forward on health care and today america took a great step. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman ask for unanimous consent? >> yes. >> the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. butterfield: as a former judge of the north carolina state supreme court, i have come to the well today to applaud the united states supreme court for its courage and ruling on the side of constitutionality of the affordable care act. this is a win, mr. speaker, for 40 million americans, democrats and republicans alike, who will receive stable, secure, and affordable health coverage forever. i believe much of the public confusion surrounding the bill because americans outside of the washington beltway simply did not understand what the affordable care means for them. so to put it plainly, americans can now enjoy without worry or jeopardy, coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, uninsured young people up to

age 26 will be able to receive coverage. if you become gravely ill there are no limits on your benefits. if you are a woman you can't be charged higher premiums. if you need preventive care, you won't have a co-pay or deductible. if you lose your job, you won't lose your coverage. and if your employer doesn't provide coverage, you will be able to buy it at affordable prices. the political theater republicans orchestrated around health care is over. congress debated, the court decided. this is done. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today not only as a congressional member but also a widow of a law enforcement officer who lost their life in the line of duty. mrs. adams: i rise to speak on behalf of all those families that have lost a loved one in the line of duty. and especially for brian terry

and his family. the terry family deserves to know what happened. the american people deserve to know what happened. and congress deserves to know what happened. but let us not forget his family, officer terry's family, deserves to know what happened. and i stand here on behalf of all of those families who lost law enforcement officers throughout our great nation and the line of duty. we must not waiver. we, as congress, need to find out what happened so it never happens again. and that's something that we never should lose sight of. we need to make sure that whatever took place, it doesn't happen again. we should not be losing our officers this way. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? mr. pallone: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: today is a great day for the american people. the supreme court's decision to uphold the affordable care act reaffirms our nation's commitment to make sure that all americans have access to quality, affordable health care and health insurance. for the millions of americans who have gone without health insurance, the seniors who have struggled due to inadequate coverage, the women, children, and young adults that have been denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. the court's ruling is not only a victory, but a validation that they deserve to have the most basic of human needs met, and that is access to health care. the a.c.a. addressed so many of the gaps in the american health care system from closing the medicare part d doughnut hole to stopping the practice of denying those with pre-existing conditions, insurance coverage, to claiming womanhood as a pre-existing health condition. to allowing young adults to

stay on their parents' coverage. this law has changed the way our country manages and delivers all phases of our health care system and i'm proud to have been part of that creation and prouder still today to learn that the court's decision was to uphold its constitutionality. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? the gentleman is recognized. mr. farr: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today because i think everybody in this country is always worried about health care and whether they are going to be able to have access to it, whether they can afford insurance, whether the complications of that insurance will knock them off health care by putting caps on it or saying they have a pre-existing condition. those worries are over. america has health safety now. everybody in this country will be able to have access to health care.

and the supreme court made the decision that no one without health care cannot get treated. i think it's a happy day and there will be a lot of discussions here about, you know, pros and cons how it's all worked out, but each individual i think will be able to decide, look, can i go to the doctor and get the kind of care i need and it's going to get paid for. the doctors and hospitals will make it. that's the bottom line. and there are children now, i left my office this morning, one of my interns is 25 years old. she says i'm got health care insurance because of the law you passed. until i'm 26 i can stay on my parent's health insurance and i otherwise would not have none because she's graduate interested college. this is a win-win for everyone. it's a great day for america. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 708 and ask

for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 141, house resolution 708, resolved, that if house report 112-546 is called up by direction of the committee on oversight and government reform, a, all points of order against the report are waived and the report shall be considered as read. and b, 1, an accompanying resolution will provide direction of the committee on oversight and government reform shall be considered as read and shall not be subject to point of order. and 2, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on such resolution to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except, i, 50 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and government reform or their respective designees. double i, after conclusion of debate, one motion to refer if offered by representative dingell of michigan or his

designee which shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. and iii, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the chair may reduce to minimum time for electronic voting on the question of adoption of the motion to recommit as though pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20. . it shall with be in order in the house to consider house resolution 706 to intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas. the resolution shall be considered as read, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on resolution to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except, one, 20 minute dofse bait equally divided and controlled by the minority

leader and majority leader or their respective designees. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one hour. >> for purposes of debate only i yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. pend -- pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. members have five -- i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise in support of this rule and the underlying resolution. the rule provides for consideration of of congress charges laid against attorney general eric holder. we're going to hear a lot of folks say how historic this day is. mr. nugent: this historicness is why it provides for separate

debate on the charges as well as motions to recommit both resolutions. i don't want to put words in his mouth but i'm sure and willing to met that mr. mcgovern is sitting over there getting ready to tell me it's not enough time. i'm not going to disagree. as we all know before we leave friday evening to go to work in our districts, we have a lot to get done here. we need to re-authorize our highway and infrastructure systems work need to save college students and recent graduates from student loan interest rates two days away from doubling. we need to move forward with the open amendment process and consider bills to fund our transportation and housing perhaps programs. that's a lot to get done in two days and if we didn't put a time limit on today's contempt debate, we could spend days on end talking about just this one issue. but behind all that, behind floor schedules and expiring

authorizations, we're left with this truth. border patrol agent brian terry was shot on december 14, 2010, and died of those injuries the next day. his family has been looking for answers about what led up to this and caused his death for over a year and a half. if we can do anything to answer those questions we should not do anything to make them wait any longer, not another day, not another month, not another hour. the house of representatives is going to do what we can to get those answers for the terry family. thanks to whistleblowers at the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives, members of congress were alerted to the fact that agent terry was killed by guns, ak-47 assault rifles, specifically, that our government, our government allowed to walk into mexico. confronted with these claims, the justice department denied the whistleblowers' claims.

we now know all too well how right the whistleblowers were. however it took the department of justice 10 months from their first denial, almost a year after border patrol agent brian terry's death to formally restract -- retract the denial about the reckless program that contributed to the deaths of agent terry and hundreds of mexican citizens. i was a cop for almost 40 years and a sheriff for the last 10. as the head of a law enforcement agencies, you have two options to make when you make a mistake. you can hope it doesn't come out and if it does you go lockdown and deny, deny, deny. or you can go out in front of it and admit you made a mistake. tell the american people you are going to investigate. and then do everything to make sure that this never happens again. as sheriff, i thought it was my moral imperative to always admit when we were wrong. hold folks accountable.

make my agency better so we wouldn't make the same mistake twice. it's the responsible thing to do and takes away any sting of a possibility of a coverup. that's not what d.o.j. did. they've gone the other route. hide, deny, and stonewall. they sent a letter with false information to congress. the institution is constitutionally mandated with government oversight. it took them 10 months to retract that statement. it appears that in those 10 months, lying and admitting the truth, members of the d.o.j. and a.t.f. co-lewded to cover up what happened. what we're trying to figure out is if there really was a coverup and we need the information to determine the facts. yesterday at the rules committee, a couple of people mentioned president nixon and watergate. and i agree. this is like the watergate scandal, but president nixon didn't leave office because of

the scandal itself. he was forced to resign because of the coverup. i'm willing to bet attorney general holder didn't know the specifics about what was happening with fast and furious. put when the facts start coming to light and congressional investigators started looking for answers, he kept us from getting the information we need and that kept the terry family from feting the closure they need. attorney general holder is responsible for his agency. he's given his top leadership a free pass. mr. speaker, a law enforcement officer employed by the united states federal government is dead. somebody knows what happens -- knows what happened as a result of his death and -- to result in his death and the justice department and president obama are refusing to release that information to the congress. to the american public and agent terry's family, this

institution has a duty to oversee the executive branch and find out what happened. the answers are there. attorney general holder knows the answers are there because he's the one who has the dumonts that contain the answers we're looking for. he's the gate keeper here and if we he won't give us the information this institution needs to do our constitutional duty, we'll do every -- we'll use every legal and constitutional tool we have to get to it. i've heard some people say this is all about politics. in my heart, it's just the opposite. couldn't be further from the truth. these contempt charges aren't about politics. they aren't about attorney general holder or or president obama or anything else but this -- a man died serving his country and we have a right to know what the federal government's hand was in that.

it's clear this country somehow played a role in his death. we need to root it out, find the cause and make sure this never, ever happens again. these votes today aren't about politics. they're about answers that at the very least this country owes agent terry and his family. president obama promised his would be the most open administration in history. when discussing executive privilege in the past, attorney general holder has made it clear that d.o.j. won't invoke state secrets privilege to conceal violations of the law or administrative error, avoid embarrassment or to prevent or delay the release of information. unfortunately, that is exactly what's happened so far with fast and furious. it is for this reason the house today sees no other choice than to charge attorney general eric holder with both civil and criminal contempt of congress charges.

i'm going to support both of these resolutions. mr. speaker, it's not about that. it's the political thing -- it's not about that it's the political thing to do, it's because it's the right thing to do. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgonsprk i thank the gentleman for yield me the kist mare 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend and yield myself such time as i -- as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: this is a sad and deeply troubling day for the house of representatives. the republican leadership of this body is asking us to take the uns predened and unjustified step of holding a sitting attorney general in contempt of congress. they are doing so based on a completely partisan, quote, investigation. this is a witch hunt, pure and

simple, mr. speaker. it has no place in this house. eric holder is a good and decent and honorable public servant. he has reinvigorated the justice department, especially in efforts to stop partisan voter suppression across the country. i find it interesting that the republican leadership has schedule this nonsense for the floor today when it is certain to be buried under the avalanche of news and reaction to the supreme court's health care decision and the highway bill and the student loan bill and everything else. is it possible that the republican leadership opportunity really want the american people seing what the house is doing today? why else would they feel the need to rush this to the floor a mere week after the house oversight committee voted along strictly partisan lines to adopt the republican contempt citation. let me say at the outset that there are certain things that all of us, democrats and republicans alike, agree on. we all agree that the death of

agent terry was a terrible tragedy. we all agree that the a.t.f. field office's embrace of gun walking which began under the bush administration, by the way, was a terrible idea. we all agree that the a.t.f. should not have sent an erroneous letter to senator grassley in 2007. but the contempt resolution before us doesn't have anything to do with any of that. the department of justice has provided thousand and thousands of dumonts about gun walking. the attorney general has testified nine times. the department has provided over 1,000 pages of dumonts about the letter sent to senator grassley. so this isn't about getting to the truth. this is about politics. it is about politics. this is about the republicans refusing to take yes for an answer. this is about doing whatever it takes to attack the obama administration, no matter the issue, no matter the cost.

during the committee's, quote, investigation, the republican majority refused all democratic requests for witnesses and hearings. as well as requests to interview any bush administration appointees. all of them were denied. the republicans refused democratic requests to hold a hearing with kennelson, the head of a.t.f. if you're interested in learning about the a.t.f. operation, don't you think you'd want to talk to the leader shirp at the a.t.f. republicans refused democratic requests to hold a hearing with former attorney general casey who was briefed on botched a.t.f. operations in 2007. if you're interested in learning about these operations, wouldn't you want to talk to the man who was briefed about them? i would hope that we would all agree that we should never take to -- we should never take a step like finding a sitting

attorney general in contempt lightly and that we should only do so based on accurate information. but ranking member cummings and his staff have found in a very short time 100 concerns, omissions, and inact acies in the committee report that is the foundation of this contempt -- inaccuracies in the committee report that is the foundation of this contempt report. over 100. sadly, instead of getting answers those questions, this has been rushed to the floor. the american people expect us to address the issues that matter most to them, issues like jobs and the economy and education and health care. but the republican majority refuses to listen, they bring this to the floor and wonder why congress is so unpopular. what troubles me most, perhaps, is under this republican majority, everything has to be a fight. everything. everything has to be a confrontation. everything has to be a

showdown. and i get the politics. i understand this is an election year. but this goes way, way too far. it is just wrong. i wish the speaker of the house would have intervened here and kept this off the floor. by moving forward today on this resolution, we diminish the house of representatives. this is not a happy day for this institution. i urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: the gentleman made a statement. this is mr. nugent: out of 140,000 pages, by his own testimony from our judiciary, he's given a lell over 7,000 pages. -- a little over 7,000 pages. that's not reaching out and

doing the right thing. mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, and fellow rules committee member, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. nugent, thank you for the time. mr. speaker, it seems to me that my friends on the left need some clarification on why we are here this afternoon. this is not a good day for america. it is certainly still not a good day for the terry family. a members on left continue to talk about this as if it were a witch-hunt. a witch-hunt. we have a slain border patrol agent, and my friends on the left want to politicize this by talking about a witch-hunt. when in fact we all know that this, mr. speaker, is about justice. this is about justice. my friend on the left just said that we, republicans refuse to

accept yes as an answer. mr. speaker, we want a yes for terry. we want a yes for josephine terry, the parents of brian terry. we want a yes for the american people. we want a yep as relates to the integrity of the process. and we want a yes for justice. and, mr. speaker, my friends on the left continue to consist tently say no. -- consistently say no. we are here, mr. speaker, for only two reasons. the first is because the united states border parole agent, brian terry, is dead because of federal government operations that allowed american guns to be walked across the border in the hands of drug lords and cartels. we are here todayers mr.

speaker, because the department of justice -- today, mr. speaker, because the department of justice, and the attorney general, eric holder, and now the president refuses to comply with congressional subpoenas that will give us clarity on these questions. give us clear answers for the terry family and for the american people. we have been trying for 18 long months. mr. nugent: i yield another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. scott: we have been trying for 18 long months to get to the bottom of this issue, and yet we are being stonewalled, and yes we hear that the federal government has provided 7,000-plus pages. but, mr. speaker, there are over 100,000 pages that we have requested. we are talking about a period from february 4, 2011 to december, 2011 where we were given false information.

it is our responsibility, it is our duty to find the truth for the american people and the terry family. let me close, mr. speaker, by simply saying. how are we supposed to protect and ensure the safety of our border patrol agents in the future if we do not know who allowed the guns to walk across the border? how are we supposed to give brian terry's family any sense of closure, mr. speaker? this is why we have no choice but to be here today. the refusal of the attorney general to provide answers to brian terry's death, leaves us no choice but to be here today. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, the last time congress dealt with a contempt resolution was in the case of john bolton and harriet myers. the period of time between when

the committee voted out the resolution and before there was floor action was six months. the reason why there was time taken was to make sure that we got it right. this is less than a week. and i'm going to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that the minority staff has compiled a list of 100 inaccuracies, 100 inaccuracies in the report that was the basis for this contempt resolution, 100. they rush it to the floor. don't tell me this is not about politics. don't tell me this is not a witch-hunt. it is exactly what it is. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. butterfield: thank you. the gentleman from massachusetts is absolutely correct. this is a sad and troubling day. what we see here today, mr. speaker, is nothing more than using the halls of congress for extreme partisan political purposes. this case is all about

politically motivated confrontation with executive branch on a matter that does not even begin to rise to this level. this case is not about gun walking. those documents have been provided and are not in dispute. the documents at issue are completely unrelated to how gun walking was initiated in operation fast and furious. the department has produced thousands of pages of documents. the committee has interviewed two dozen officials and the attorney general has testified on nine occasions. this is an election year witch-hunt. i say that to the gentleman from south carolina. this is an election year witch-hunt. during this 16-month investigation the committee refused all democratic requests for witnesses and hearings and request to interview any bush administration appointees. never in our nation's history has the house of representatives voted to hold a sitting attorney general or a

cap net member -- cabinet member in contempt. what's different? i will tell you what's different. it is the simple fact that republicans have a doinged determination to discredit and defeat this president at all cost. plain and simple. it's politics. my republican friends do not use your majority to engage in a political stunt. the integrity and legacy of this institution deserve better than that. if you want to discredit and defeat this president, you need to leave this floor and leave the c-span cameras and go out and give it your best shot. this is not the place to do it. when the history of this despicable proceed something recorded, it will be said that your actions were politically motivated to discredit and defeat a president who has worked so hard over the past three years. i encourage my colleagues to join me in refusing to vote for this gimmick and walk to the steps of the capitol and explain the circumstances of

this dark day. do not vote for this resolution. for those of you who choose to vote i ask that you defeat the rule and vote against these contempt resolutions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, it's amazing my friends forget about history. because they mentioned -- they referenced history in 2008 as related to house resolution 979 and house resolution 980. you know what they did? they passed a rule and said it's hereby adopted. you never had discussion on the house floor like we are going to do today. never had debate on the house floor. they just passed it in the rules committee and said guess what? it's hereby adopted. roque nies the gentleman, mr. issa, chairman of oversight. the speaker pro tempore: how

much time? mr. issa: i seek unanimous consent to place the statement by the terry family concerning congressman dingell's criticism of the contempt vote in the record at this time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek to yield further time? mr. nugent: i do. i seek to yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. ross. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. ross: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. nugent. today i rise to offer my support to hold the attorney general in contempt of congress. december, 2010, point of order a quorum is not presenter patrol agent brian terry was killed with a gun that was allowed to walk across the border as a result of operation fast and furiousous. mr. speaker, some, including this attorney general, and some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, state that this operation began in a previous administration. this is false and nothing could be further from the truth. while there was a program under the previous administration known as wide receiver, the differences are quite stark. under wide receiver, weapons were tracked, the mexican government was involved, and no

one died as a result of that operation. in fact, operation wide receiver ended in late, twetch, nearly two years -- 2007, nearly two years before fast and furious began and nine months before this president was sworn into office. fast and furious allowed guns to walk across the mexican border with no tracking, no involvement by mexican officials. over 2,000 firearms disappeared across the border under this failed operation. hundreds of mexicans are dead because of this failed operation. and american hero, united states marine, agent brian terry, is dead because of this failed operation. agent terry stood his ground and told moms and dads across america that no one would hurt their children on his watch. he stood up and took that responsibility. to this day, and i mean no one, no one in this administration has had the guts to stand up and say, it was my fault. attorney general holder has refused to comply with the congressional subpoena issued in october of 2011. i was a practicing attorney in

the real world before i came to congress. in the real world americans are expected to comply with subpoenas. is the attorney general any different? no, he is not. are we just supposed to take mr. holder's word we have all the information that may be how -- that may be how washington works, mr. attorney general, that is not how main street works. mr. attorney general, what are you hiding? what are you hiding from the brian terry family? what are you hiding from the american public? i have said it before and i will say it again, you can delegate authority but you cannot delegate responsibility. mr. speaker, the attorney general can stone wall all he wants. the san antonio can misremember all he wants. but whether he likes it or not, today responsibility will land on his desk. mr. speaker, i applaud chairman issa for his steadfast leadership in the pursuit of the truth. i applaud my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are putting the search of truth before party. mr. nugent: i yield another 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 15 seconds. mr. ross: finally, mr. speaker, i applaud all those like agent

terry who wear the uniform of the armed forces or stand on the border and guard our nation. agent terry knew a thing or two about duty. he died while on duty. it is now the duty of this congress to hold those responsible and accountable for this failed operation. we will not forget and we will always stand with you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. once again members are advised to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: my friend from florida, mr. nugent, talked about obstructionism. i want to say a couple words about that because i think this whole process has obstructed justice. during the committee's 16-month investigation, the committee refused all democratic requests for witnesses and hearings, which is unprecedented. for instance, the committee refused to hold a public hearing with ken nelson, the head of a.t.f., the agency responsible for this operation. after he told committee investigators privately that he never informed senior department officials about gun

walking because he was unaware of it. committee also refused a hearing or even private meeting with former attorney general mccasey who was briefed on botched efforts to coordinate interdiction was mexico in 2007 and was informed directly these efforts would be expanded during his tenure. refused the opportunity to have the attorney general as a witness. mr. speaker, this partisanship was demonstrated by the committee's vote along strictly partisan lines to hold the attorney general in contempt and vote along strictly partisan lines on every amendment. this is about politics. this is not about the truth. this is not about justice. this is about politics. and that is why this is such a sad day for this institution. mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. speaker, the investigation is being conducted by the

committee on oversight and government reform is a legitimate investigation. but the recommendation to this house to hold the attorney general in contempt is reckless, irresponsible, unnecessary, and will actually get in the way of the pursuit of truth. why do i say that? if you're going to do an investigation, you have to begin at the beginning. in the beginning of fast and furious and gun walking began in the bush administration. there is no evidence that president bush was aware of it. there is some questions about what his attorney general knew what and when. but if you are sincerely interested in trying to find out what happened, how it happened, how in the world do you not begin at the beginning? and despite that fact, the request of many of us on the committee who support an investigation, who support the use of a subpoena, who support the aggressive right of congress to get access to documents that it needs have

been denied the opportunity to bring in witnesses about what happened and how it happened during the bush administration. we have been denied the opportunity to bring in attorney general mccasey. despite the fact there was evidence he was permanently briefed on botched efforts to coordinate interdiction with mexican authorities. then attorney general mccasey was also told the a.t.f. field office in phoenix planned to expand these operations during thinks tenure. so, our question really quite simply is begin at the beginning. that foundation of an open and exhaustive search is what this committee owes, the committee on government reform, owes to this house of representatives before it asks the members of this house to vote on the extraordinary measure of finding a sitting attorney general in contempt. secondly, we've got to do our job with care. the original subpoena that