[laughter] >> that one looks like a good one. >> it used to be -- >> oh, i know. yeah, yeah. are you in these state senate here? >> yeah, i am in northeast iowa. >> where a bit -- whereabouts? >> northeast of your. -- northeast of dubuque. [laughter] >> that is not too far. do you know where -- valley is? i used to do a lot of hunting over there.

>> thank you for representing us. >> appreciated. >> could i get your signature and a photo? you are really an inspiration. >> thanks, nigel. are we going over there? >> this young lady. >> ok. pushed the button, -- push the button, hon. >> that is awesome. >> takeover for me. have a good day. great. >> good evening.

i am a state senator. >> where? >> [indiscernible] >> did you really? my wife could not come out. her sisters were there. >> thanks for what you have done. >> yeah. thank you. >> what is your name? >> billboard bob. billboard bob. >> oh. >> [indiscernible] >> we had a privilege of having a house party in '06. >> where was this? >> here in cedar rapids.

we met one time, we had a great dinner with all of them. this is the first time i have been able to be part of the campaign again. i was not 100% on board. but, yeah, we are still friends -- [indiscernible] such a class family. >> that is the shame of it all. people did not get a chance to see who he really is. did that give you a sense of what he is really like? >> the other thing i do, the last 12 years -- [indiscernible] everybody in town is trying to get him to come back. he came back and share the gospel. >> where do you work? >> hyvee. >> yeah. we have stephen baldwin coming

in next friday. >> stephen baldwin, yeah. not alec. [laughter] now?ere is he >> well, he is in phoenix. >> could we take a picture? >> ok, ready? 1, 2, 3. good. >> bonus shot. >> i just want to make sure i get it good. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. yeah. that will be nice. appreciate it. >> hi.

photographer.ood yeah, and now i am interning. >> cool. nice to meet you. >> awesome. >> got it. >> thank you. >> thank you for your work. >> thank you. we really appreciate what you are doing these days. we have five kids here. homeschooled.

very cool. thank you for coming. appreciate it. nice to meet you. go has got the camera? -- who has got the camera? >> i do. >> can i get a picture? >> you bet. >> awesome. what your name? -- what's your name? ethan? nice to meet you.

>> here we go. >> oh, in iowa? yeah, i went to high school there was. >> i shook your hand. >> yeah, i remember you now. >> yay! >> yeah. >> [indiscernible] >> nice to meet you. >> [indiscernible] >> oh, really? >> [indiscernible] >> oh, i did? >> [indiscernible] >> very cool. >> you work for the state senate? >> state house. >> you want to jump in the middle?

>> even though i am a vikings fan. [laughter] >> what is that? >> a super bowl ring. [laughter] >> i take it back. [laughter] >> hey, nice to see you. where are you from? >> i live in northwestern iowa. >> nice to meet you, too. >> awesome. >> thank you very much. >> it is good to see you again.

>> i have heard about it. >> you have to pull it up on youtube. it has been really good. it has gone very well. [indiscernible] >> i love it. [indiscernible] >> i know. >> thank you for your time. i am sorry. i get caught in the moment. [laughter] >> thank you.

thank you for coming. >> he is the president of iowa college republicans. >> where do you go to school? >> university of iowa. >> thank you, mr. congressman. >> thank you. >> thank you for coming. >> can we take a quick pic? >> you bet. >> nice to meet you. >> did you get some points? >> good. >> [indiscernible] >> i would not use of those words because they have been way overused. yeah, these principles are universal and would take our message everywhere and to every

corner. and we can win this country this election. i think we can win the big election in 2016. and save this country from what i think is a dangerous path. >> is there a problem in the iowa gop? >> i think it is important to talk about these things and the open. we have differences of opinion in the party and we should talk about the fact that we have the same objections and we may disagree, put it all in perspective and come together unified. iowa can do a lot of good for america in this coming election. a commitment i made a year ago. aj asked me about a year ago.

a commitment and i keep my commitments. >> would preempt any decisions -- >> i am not about to get in any of that stuff. i am focus on doing my job and help with my party and getting us to win elections. >> what did you think of the video? >> actually, i did not see the video, i read about it. i think it speaks for itself. >> in that case, is the calls for unified to get people to rally around the budget agreement? >> oh, no -- it is what i said. getting republicans to unify at the end of the day. get behind our candidate and whoever we see as the best possible candidates.

at the end of the day, we are fighting for the same objective and we believe in the same principles and we have to unify. it is very, very important. look at the budget we passed we passed yesterday. that is very important. we cannot just oppose, we have to propose and show what we are in favor of. now, i have passed four years in a row. they did a really good step. it shows unification. when you're doing a big thing like a budget, not everybody is going to be happy with everything. we are unified, we are bringing people together. >> [indiscernible] >> we're not going to make empty promises. we fully fund it for a decade which is very different from the

empty promise of the obama administration. they're proposing increases while not showing how they are going to pay for it. we do not think government should be making empty promises to people. we have to look at the fact that we are feeding tuition and inflation. a lot of good work has been done. a lot of this is showing that we have to go is the root cause. >> returning to unification with republicans. the lessons of 2012, how critical is that? >> i am a -- i am not focused on the candidates here. my understanding is we have some of the best. i heard that we have a fantastic crop coming up in 2014. i think we have 12 seats that are seriously in play.

>> [indiscernible] >> we are stuck in the same path and people say all this bigger government, the results are completely different than the rhetoric. people are losing health insurance and the cost is going up. we have a debt crisis in the future. i can go on and on and on. i wish it would have been different, but it is not. >> time for one more. saying goodbye to kathleen sebelius. what is her legacy? >> a good one. i did not know where to begin. i have had kathleen come in and

testify quite a bit over the years. we do not think obamacare was going to work in the first place. when you have the foundation of the law that was so fundamentally flawed but worse than what we anticipated. this web failure and design flaw. this law is a complete fiasco. i can understand why she is leaving. i do not wish her any ill will. i think it has been a complete fiasco. she was given an impossible task to implement a law that just will not work. >> thank you, everybody. >> how are you doing? [indiscernible] >> oh, yeah.

good to see you. >> that is right. you have the tall socks, too. free to do another one. >> nice seeing video. >> [indiscernible] -- nice seeing you. >> thank you. >> i am kelly. >> know him well. he used to work for us.

cool take care. >> tomorrow, the freedom summit. it includes him. since -- it includes them. -- it includes the appearances of senator paul, senator cruz, senator huckabee, and donald trump. years, c-span brings public affairs from washington directly to you, putting you in the room of congressional hearings,

briefings, and conferences, and offering complete coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to the public service by your local cable or satellite provider. follow us on twitter. >> after the resignation of health and human services secretary sebelius, president obama named sylvia mathews burwell to be the next head of the department. urwellebelius and b whereat the white house rose garden. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president and the vice president of the united states accompanied by secretary kathleen sebelius and sylvia mathews burwell. >> good morning everybody. [applause]

>> everybody have a seat, everybody have a seat. good morning. in my sixth year in office, i am so grateful to have some the great advisors.

early in march, my secretary of health and human services told me she would be moving on once the open enrollment time for the affordable care act came to an end. after five years of extraordinary service to our country, and 7.5 million americans who have signed up for health coverage, she has earned that right. [applause] i will miss her advice, i will miss her friendship, i will miss your wit, but i'm proud to

nominate somebody to succeed her who holds these traits in abundance. sylvia mathews burwell. [applause] just a couple of things about kathleen. when i nominated kathleen more than five years ago, i've gotten to know her when she was governor of kansas, and showed extraordinary skills there. she was a great supporter and my presidential campaign. i knew she was up for a tough job ahead one of her responsibilities would be to make sure that the countries repaired for a pandemic flu outbreak. i did not know that that would literally be her first task. to give you a sense of the sorts

of daily challenges that kathleen has handled, often without fanfare, often on acknowledged, but have been critical to the health and american -- welfare of the american people. she has fought to improve children's health from birth to kindergarten. brought us close to the first aids free generation. he has been a tireless advocate for women's health. of course, what kathleen will go down in history for his serving as the secretary of health and human services when the united states of america finally declared equality of affordable health care is not a privilege but a right of every single citizen. [applause]

kathleen has been here through the long fight to pass the portable care act. she has bonds, i got bumps, bruises, but we did it because we knew, of all of the people that we have met all across the country who have lost a home, had put off care, had decided to stay with the job instead of started business because they were uncertain about their health care situation, we have met families who had seen their children suffer because of the uncertainty of health care. we are committed to get this done. that is what we have done. and that is what kathleen has

done. yes we lost the first quarter of open enrollment with the problems of healthcare.gov. they were problems. but the under kathleen's leadership, heard team at -- her team at hhs turns the corner, got it fixed, got the job done, and the final score speaks for itself. there are seven point five people across the 7.5 million people across america who have health care. most of it because of the woman standing here next to me today. it is a historic accomplishment. [applause] >> in the meantime, alongside

7.5 million people being enrolled, health-care costs under kathleen's leadership are growing at their slowest rate in 50 years. folks keep saying, they're not doing anything about cost, except -- what do they mean? health records are moving from dogeared paper to high-tech systems. kathleen partnered with the department of justice to progressively pursue health care fraud and return billions of dollars, record sums for the medicare trust fund. kathleen's work will benefit our families in this country for decades to come. we want to thank kathleen's

husband, gary, first dude of kansas. [laughter] two outstanding sons, ned and john, who have been willing to share their mom with us these past five years. kathleen, your dad served as governor of ohio and inspired you to pursue public service and he passed away last year. he would've been so proud of you today. we want to thank you once again for your service to our country. [applause] >> thank you.

>> now, we know there is still more work to do at hhs. there is more work to do to implement the affordable care act, there's another enrollment period coming up, there is a whole array of responsibilities to meet over at this large and very important agency. i could choose no manager as experienced and confident as my current director of the office of management and budget, sylvia. [applause] sylvia is from a small town in west virginia. she brings the common sense that you see in small towns. she brings the values of caring about your neighbor and ordinary folks to some of the biggest and most complex challenges of her time.

she is a proven manager who has demonstrated her ability to feel the great teams, forge strong relationships, and deliver results at the highest level in the public and private sectors. as c.o.o. and later president of global development at the gates foundation, she worked on the cutting edge of the world's most pressing health challenges. as head of the walmart foundation, she gained first-hand experience into how insurance markets work and how they can work better for businesses and families. here as my budget director at the white house, she has already delivered results. in the years since she arrived, the deficit has plunged by more than $400 billion. i'm just saying. [laughter] [applause]

when the government was forced to shut down last october and even as most of her own team was barred from reporting the work, sylvia was a rock, a steady hand on the wheel who helped navigate the country through very challenging time. once the government was allowed to reopen, sylvia was vital to winning the two-year budget agreement that put an end to these manufactured crises we have seen in washington so we can keep our full focus on growing the economy and creating new jobs and expanding opportunity for everybody who is seeking opportunity. all the while, she has helped advance important initiatives to bring the government into the 21st century, including efforts to speed up job creation by dramatically speeding up the permitting process for big infrastructure projects. sylvia is a proven manager, and she knows how to deliver results. and she will need to be a proven

manager, because these are tough tasks. from covering more families with economic security that health insurance provides to ensuring the safety of our food and drug supply to protecting the country from outbreaks or bioterror attacks, to keeping america at the forefront of job creating medical research, all of us rely on the dedicated servants and scientists, the researchers at hhs and the fda and cdc and nnih. all of them are in next ordinary team, and sometimes the american people take them for granted, the incredible network of outstanding public service that we have that is helping to keep us healthy and improve our lives every single day. i want to thank stephen. sylvia's husband, and matthew, and helene, for sharing wife and mom with us a little bit longer.

we will miss seeing you around the white house, but i know you will do an outstanding job as america's secretary of health and human services. i hope the senate confirms sylvia without delay. she's going to do great. last time she was confirmed unanimously. i'm assuming not that much has changed since that time. with that, i want to give them both an opportunity to say a few words, starting with kathleen. [applause] >> thank you. i want to start by thanking you, mr. president and mr. vice president, for giving me the opportunity of a lifetime to serve in this cabinet. i want to thank my hhs family, many of whom are here, at least the health leaders are here, for their incredible work. and my personal family, represented today by our oldest son ned.

my husband gary is on the bench in kansas today, doing multiple hearings, which he does each and every day. our youngest son is in equador, -- in ecuador, but they are with us in spirit. hhs is an amazing department, full of bright and talented and hard-working people who believe strongly in our important mission, providing health care and essential human services to all americans. inscribed on the walls of the humphrey building where your office will be are the words of the namesake. hubert humphrey said, the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are

in the dawn of life -- the children -- those are who in the twilight of life -- the elderly -- and those who are in the shadow of life. that describes what we do at hhs. our employees help their friends and neighbors every day. the researcher is in nih labs and scientists working to improve new drugs and devices are helping change the face of humanity by advancing new cures, research, and innovation. we are advancing public health in the u.s. and around the globe, with anti-smoking efforts and child health. finally, behavioral health and physical health issues will be considered both part of essential treatment, and that's a big step forward. our workers look out for a safe and secure food and drug supply in a global market. our smart diplomacy, sharing

health expertise and advances, win the hearts and minds of nations across the globe. we have done transformational work in communities across this country. at any point in our history, that mission would be highly rewarding and some of the most important work anybody could do. but i have had an additional amazing opportunity. no one has had this before. i got to be a leader of hhs during these most historic times. we are in the front lines of a long overdue national change, fixing a broken health system. this is the most meaningful work i have ever been a part of. it has been the cause of my life. there's a reason that no earlier president was successful in passing health reform, despite

decades of attempts. throughout the legislative battles, the supreme court challenge, contentious reelection and years of votes to turn back the clock, we are making progress, tremendous progress. critics and supporters alike are benefiting from this law. my professional work as a legislator and insurance commissioner and governor have been tremendously helpful in navigating the policy and politics of this historic change. at the end of the day, health is personal. it's personal to all of us. family illnesses and personal health challenges touch us to our core. i spent time as a daughter, navigating care for ill parents. as a mother and now grandmother, i have experienced and worried

about prenatal care and healthy babies. we have had family health challenges, as all of us have, and finding the right care can be difficult even with the best contacts and the right resources. the personal reward for me at the end of the day are the folks who approach me, the strangers who approach me at a meeting or pass me a note on a plane or hand me a phone with someone on the other end saying thank you. their stories are so heartening about finally feeling secure in knowing they can take care of themselves and their families. unfortunately, a page is missing. [laughter] so i'm just grateful for having had this wonderful opportunity. the president was in austin yesterday at the lbj library, commemorating 50 years in the civil rights efforts led by lyndon johnson. 50 years ago, my father was part of that historic congress. he served in the congress with the passage of medicare and medicaid, with head start. those programs are now in the agency i have had the honor to

lead. it seems like a wonderful passing of the baton. the affordable care act is the most significant social change in this country in that 50 year period of time. i'm so grateful to have had this opportunity. i appreciate all of the effort and support. i think my cabinet colleagues who are here on the front row, and not only are they here today, but they have been part of an all hands on deck effort making sure that seven and a half million people were able to sign up for affordable health care. thank you, mr. president. i know that sylvia is a trusted and valued friend, a great partner. i know she will be a terrific leader for hhs. [applause]

>> first i like to thank you, mr. president and mr. vice president for the trust you placed in me in my role at omb and your confidence in nominating me for this new role. as we all honor kathleen's accomplishments today, i also want to personally thank her for her support and friendship through this year. i want to express my heartfelt thanks to the team at the office of management and budget and to our congressional counterparts with whom i've had the privilege to work closely throughout this year. omb is an extraordinary institution. it's a credit to the professionalism and commitment

of omb's people that we have been able to meaningfully improve our nation's fiscal policy over the past year. i want to thank my family, especially my husband, stephen. i'm humbled and honored and excited for the opportunity to build on the achievement that kathleen, the president, and so many others have put in place. if confirmed by the senate, i look forward to carrying on the important work of ensuring that children, families, and seniors have the building blocks of healthy and productive lives, whether it's through implementing the affordable care act, supporting affordable childcare, or finding new frontiers to prevent and treat disease. thank you, mr. president. [applause] >> give these extraordinary women one more round of

applause. thank you, sylvia and kathleen, for your service. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] erkornhave jennifer hab on the phone. sylvia burwell at the white house, nominated to replace kathleen sebelius. what is her passband -- background?

>> she comes into this through the senate confirmation process. she served at the office of management and budget. she was in the private sector she works at the gates foundation. she served during the entirety -- clinton administration. she comes from an economic management background. management of the economy is more her thing. that might be what they need right now. they need to continue to right the ship on health there -- healthcare.gov. >> you mentioned if she gets through the senate. you talked about that in your politico article. what do you expect? >> the nomination will have to go through the senate finance and ready. she got through the confirmation a year ago. she got three unanimously. this is a very different

process. republicans will use this hearing to relitigate the health care law. one thing that will come up is that there is a lot of authority over how gets implemented. she will come into a job that has a lot of power. republicans will draw problems with the laws through her confirmation. she only needs 50 votes to get through the senate. she can really afford to lose some senate democratic votes and get through the process. >> when you expect these hearings will get underway? >> it will happen over the next two weeks. it is something that will happen shortly.

the further we go to the november election, the harder this process will be. it will be pretty early. >> what key senators do you assume will be involved? >> the chairman of the senate finance committee will stop he put out a statement praising her as an excellent choice. the top republican on that panel is orrin hatch. he stressed that she would have to prove -- willing to work with for publicans on the law. i think the moderate democrats who are facing tough reelection. >> although senators be? >> mary landrieu in louisiana. they will not be anxious to vote for anyone who will be the chief

implementer of obamacare. like i said, she can lose five senate democrats. they will be the ones to watch. >> what do you think her chances are? will she win approval in the senate? >> i think it is too early to say. if i have to put money on it, i say she will get through. the democrats will align behind her. they will face pressure at home. republicans will use this vote against him if they vote for her. >> jennifer haberkorn, we appreciate your time as always. >> thank you. >> there's a question of

integration of baseball. he said something very interesting. me that he had serious doubts about integration of baseball. what would happen is i think what they want is they want a fan, the fan base. we are packing them in. friends. our it might take one or two players. we have bunches of lawyers -- players who play major league baseball. integratingaige and

baseball. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. >> during this month, c-span is pleased to show our winning entries. studentcam is the annual competition that encourages middle and high school students to think critically about issues. students were asked to create their documentary answering the question, what is the most important issue the u.s. congress should consider in 2014? second prize winner benjamin blum is an eighth grader from san rafael, california. he said congress should consider how the intelligence agency uses surveillance to collect data. >> hi, i am ben blum. imagine if you could have access to the government's private, classified data. if the government found out about it, you would be subject

to arrest and prosecution under federal law. in reality, the government has been spying on ordinary citizen for years. it is unconstitutional. ♪ [sirens] >> after the fall of the twin towers, president george w. bush issued a secret order that authorizes surveillance tools to be used to combat terrorism including digital spying on americans online and telephone communication.

in 2014, the government is still using those surveillance tactics. in the summer of 2013, edward snowden revealed the prism program which intercepts and collect data on american citizens with absolutely no connection to terrorism at all including theire-mail, chat with friends, and private videos. the nsa has access to all of our data and internet communication. consequently, in the internet era, everybody's privacy has the potential to be compromised. >> surveillance in general, sure, it can be used as an investigative tool for example. the reason we have agencies like the nsa and fbi is because of their role in stopping attacks on the u.s. or crimes within the u.s.

but, this is not something that is totally unchecked, happened without any oversight. of course, there are pros and cons. it is up to the american people to decide what sort of surveillance is being done and whether those pros outweigh the cons. >> they were actually engaged in a plot to bomb the new york stock exchange. >> he said tapping into the e-mail of an al qaeda leader in yemen led to this man in kansas city and two other americans prepare to attack. >> the united states' government employed several tactics to spy on citizens. the bottom line is all of the tactics share the same purpose -- to collect information for offensive or defensive purposes. the prevention of terrorist attacks on u.s. and foreign soil

has clearly a benefit to these programs. however, the overuse of surveillance is unconstitutional. surveillance cannot be an advantage if it breaches civil rights. >> it allows agencies to share americans' private e-mails. >> i spoke with nsa whistleblower mark fein who were built his company's cooperation with the government to install hardware to capture american -- >> the internet is a whole new level of surveillance that was never dreamed of. the internet has penetrated into every part of society. it is in your house, your phone you walk around with every day. it is in your car. every day, they are expanding places where the internet can access.

and the nsa can penetrate all of those places in scooping up all of that and collecting it and storing it in huge data warehouses. we hear from snowden that it is tapped into the fiber-optic cables that cover a good portion of the world's communication. anytime the government was to look up someone, it is all there. they can find all of your associates, what you talked to people about, what your financial transactions are. what kind of pictures and videos you look at. your whole life is out there on the internet. >> throughout american history, intelligence has helped secure our country and freedoms. u.s. intelligence agencies were anchored in a system of checks and balances with oversight from elected leaders and protections from ordinary citizens. >> government surveillance is a crucial issue that congress must address in 2014. the fact that the government is

targeting and using billions of e-mails and chats and other data without a warrant or cause is a breach of united states constitution. the basis for all of american freedom. to protect the citizens of the united states, the fourth amendment protects all u.s. citizens from a reasonable search and seizure. for this reason, congress should have policies that limit -- surveillance to suspected terrorist and require nsa to

obtain individual search warrants for those people of interest. microsoft's executive vice president of legal affairs said -- "people will not use technology they do not trust. governments have put in this trust at risk and governments need to help restore it." >> to watch all the winning videos and learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on the studentcam and tells what you think about the issues. pose your comment on studentcam's facebook page or tweet us. >> the house oversight committee voted to hold lois lerner in contempt of congress. we talked about why the committee took this action with heritaget from the foundation. this is 40 minutes.

segment ister the john malcolm. he is a senior legal fellow at the heritage foundation. inky for being with us. >> -- thank you for being with us. >> my pleasure. >> it's went to us what it means to be held in contempt. >> i believe it was 24-12. mr. lerner was at the irs for a number of years, she is in the involvingthis scandal the targeting of conservative organizations. she has appeared a couple of times in front of congress. one she asserted her fifth amendment right. another time, she did something different to my which is she gave a statement about her background and claimed her innocence of any wrongdoing and

then she asserted her fifth amendment right. the house has taken the position that by asserting her innocence by making certain statements that she had waived her right to refuse to answer questions. another thing that happened of significance is that her own attorney has made statements that she had given extensive statements to the u.s. government in connection with this investigation. it is the house majority's opinion that by making the statements to the government at , she has toespect answer questions about the. this explain how we got to point. there is an investigation going on into the alleged wrongdoing at the irs. the allegations are essentially that a number of conservative organizations filed for taxes

and status under section 501(c) four gerbil organizations or i 501c4 andee for -- they were singled out because they contain words like tea party or progressive or 912. they were subject to extra scrutiny. the applications were delayed. demanded --ded of gun. is theg confidential tax formation from conservative organizations. some was leaked to certain liberal organizations that publicized that information. lerner was at the center of doing all ofas

this. obviously they would like to get questions from her. host: the government reform about the fact about it is not one that they take lightly and we'll get your take. hasoday the committee convened a business meeting to consider a resolution recommending contempt of congress for a former irs executive, lois lerner. it is not an action i take lightly. for all most a year since she leaked information from the inspector general's report, the committee has been trying to get to the bottom of the irs targeting. we need her testimony to complete our oversight work and bring the truth to the american people. why did she do certain things and who else was involved? it is important to review how we arrived at this resolution today .

she appeared before this committee last may and made an entirely voluntary opening statement in which she professed her innocence. she said she did nothing wrong and broke no laws and did not violate any irs rules. under oath, wide ranging claims of innocence, mr. lerner entered additional questions and lernerfused -- mr. asserted her fifth amendment right and then answered additional questions after serving the fifth. host: john malcolm, tell us what we heard there. guest: invoking of the fifth amendment. if you're in a criminal trial or similar -- or civil trial and you're on the witness stand and

you told me your side of the story, and then in order to subject the rest of the statement to the crucible of cross-examination, somebody got to ask you questions and said no, i have told my side of the story, the court would say you can't do that. oy told my side of the story. i'm going to refuse to answer those questions. a court would say you can't do that. privilege.ived the now whether she did enough to waive it. that plays into it because of certain laws that apply to the federal courts here in d.c. our guest is john malcolm a senior fellow at the heritage foundation. he number is 202-585-3881.

or democrats 202-585-3880. for independence 202-585-3882. pat is on the line for ndependence. caller: yes, i'd like to say that i looked at all of the coverage yesterday. it's a shame the way the won't say are -- i senator but congressman keep the witnesses. so i don't blame her. now her appearance with the justice department is something entirely different. if she chose to go to the justice department and make her . se, that's one thing

to appear before all of those congressmen who have decided that she's already guilty and to assert her fifth amendment right that is right that is right. -- she said was she soug her fifth amendment right. >> thank you very much for calling in. unfortunately, she really didn't have much choice about appearing before congress. she had been subpoenaed. you cannot refuse to appear before congress because you think you are going to be treated rudely. it is certainly rude that congressmen do treat people rudely. that's a long of the standing history behind that.

but that's not a reason not to appear in front of the committee. the committee is it into told ask you questions. you are entitled to invoke your right against self-incrimination if you tend to believe that the statements that you are going make might incriminate you. however, what you are not entitled to do is to give your side of the story and then refuse to answer questions that would test the vowrassity of your side of the story. with respect to going to the department of justice, here's why significant. so you can assert your fifth amendment privilege if you think it might incriminate you with respect to criminal wrongdoing. it's the department of justice who prosecutes people. so if you are going to assert your fifth amendment right doing it before the department of justice is the place primarily where you would do that. if on the other hand, she has either been granted immunity of some sort so that her stames can't be used against her or

she has waved her fifth amendment privilege by providing voluntary statements under the department of justice, in d.c. circuit law she has waived the privilege with respect the breadth of the statements that the government already knows came out of her house. she would only assert the privilege if any additional statements would further incriminate her go beyond anything she's told the government. but she has admitted she has spoke on the the government and been giving information that could be used to prosecute her. >> what could the punishment be? guest: what happened at the moment there's been a vote of discommittee. so now the contempt citation will be considered by the full house. to her ll house votes

in contempt then a referral the be need need -- need department of justice. that has happened before. if the department of justice they might choose to prosecute her if she's is convicted it is a misdemeanor offense, and she and she could go to prison for up to a year if the department of justice refuses to do that, then the house could hire its own attorneys and try to go to court and get her held in civil contempt if she's held in civil n templet then a judge could put her in jail. >> also we heard representative elisha cummings he's the ranking member of the oversight committee. let's take a listen to that now.

>> i want to be clear. i really would love to hear her system. i would love to hear even some of the answers to what my good friend mr. gowdy presented because they are legitimate questions ey are that will allow its committee to work most effectively and efficiently. that instance the idea there are rights, that one had -- can assert not incriminate herself, i think we have to deal with that first.

as i said in my opening statement, it's not about -- this is bigger than us. it's bigger than this moment. erner. ger than ms. is ngressman cummings correct. we do have constitutional rights. however that as with all of our constitutional rights one can waive them and so the question becomes whether mr. lerner either by protesting her innocence through the house committee or the statement she gave to the department of justice, whether she has waived them or not that's a legal question. it seems assuming the parts an politics is out of this equation and we'll see what a court of law has to say about it. i don't think that his argument is frivolous. however by no means is it clear

that mrs. learner through her contact has not waived the privilege. caller: yes, good morning and thank you for taking my call. i have couple of quick questions and a comment. the a democrat back in 1980's. i became a republican. what really concerns me is on the moderate side of the republican party. you know, i'm kind of horrified what the republican party is doing. and it's absolutely making me rethink what, you know, where i stand. i think of becoming i. the actual polarization in this action is that we should be prs cuting the n.s.a. you're talking about constitutional rights.

there's where our issues are. and we're talking about this lerner.th ms. i understand that everybody has the right to free speech. but in regards to the actual law that was written that the supreme court kind of altered with the verbiage of the law. technically i believe that both, you know, had been broken in regards to -- with democrats and outside groups. but you know, the way we are wasting money, weaing time rather than working towards real problems in this country are concerning, concerning the unemployment. concerning, you know, the major issues that face our country today. >> malcolm, your take? >> i want to thank the caller for calling in. i want to thank him for his

opinion although i respectfully disagree. the i.r.s. can be quite intrusive. it can through its action chill freedom of association, freedom of speech. many people fear the i.r.s. for good and sufficient reasons. back early in my legal career, i worked at a law firm with one of the partners with a guy named randolph. he just died last month. he was commissioner of the i.r.s. from 1969 to 1971. when the nixon white house actually contacted the i.r.s. and said look, we want the tax returns of people who are on our enemy's list of people who we want to look at. randolph thrower had the fortitude to stand up to the white house and to say, no, i'm not going to give you that information. it's been done for political purposes to chill's people constitutional right. he got fired for that.

and in fact, when articles of impeachment were drawn for president nixon one of the articles was that he attended to get information to go against political enemies at the i.r.s. and thank god that randolph thrower was there to prevent that. that's what we were talking about here. so the allegations are that after the citizens you nied decision in january of 2010 the democrats were very, very upset because corporations weren't upset about labor unions but they could contribute to 501-c-4 organization that engage in political activity. and the allegations are that this, the i.r.s. engaged in a partisan attempt to stop conservative social welfare organizations from engaging in this activity because they viewed them as a threat, politically and through to the president's reer leaks efforts but as a general manager as a political threat.

that imposes on our right to freedom of association. it does it on the basis of freedom of speech. administering very partisan law in a partisan fashion thatch's the allegations that this committee is trying to investigation. and while the n.s.a. and the unemployment rate are certainly very, very serious issues, this is as well. host: next call ser ronnie in franklinville, new jersey. caller: yes, good morning. my question is, first let me make a statement. from what i understand these two party groups who are just formed in 2008 -- now, why were these groups not supposed to be investigated by the i.r.s. why would they just be given the 501 of c-4. that seemed hypocritical because it's ok to investigate democratic parties but not

these. i would like to know your answer on that. >> i appreciate the question. 501c-4 organizations are welfare organizations that engaged to be in political activities. they are some on both sides of the political spectrum. ea parties organization. there's the aclu and the north carolinaa that are 501-c4 organizations. what that means is that the donations that they receive are not tax deductible to the people that donated those funds but they do not count as funds by the organization that received them. and indeed those organizations should be scrutinized when it's appropriate to do so in order to see whether they qualify for that tax exempt status.

the allegations here is that the i.r.s. were pushing through all of the 504 c-4 organization by the left leaning organizations but was pewing the stoplight asking all kinds of intrusive organizations of training materials, issues that they espouse and were denying applicationing that would be on the right side of the -- applications that were on the right side of the ledger. >> wouldn't the cautious attitude be that every single person take the fifth immediately unless they end up possibly entrapped in the cross the f political gain answer to that is may be. if you think the answers that you are going to give involve you in criminal wrongdoing, it is your right and it is an absolute right and it is yours

to assert your fifth amendment privilege that's a constitutional right that we all enjoy and it is a cherished right and should be upheld. if on the other hand, you choose to assert it frivolously and by the answer could in no way, shape, or form implicate you in a crime or if you have waved that privilege then it would be an inproper invocation. >> our next call ser are mesquite. mark is on the line for independence. >> yes, hello. guest: i'm with john malcolm of the heritage foundation. caller: i'm all for this lois lerner. she shouldn't take the fifth. this money could go back to the taxpayers. especially the previous one hat you guys are talking about the resigned and everything about obamacare i think it was,

my question is, you know, they're asking for $20.1 billion to help other countries. >> you know, we have a lot of organizations in that the united states have to go army.h like salvation >> i think she should be prosecuted. >> that's ultimately a determination that would be made by the depend of justice. one would hope that the department of justice is conducting serious nvestigations. i have a lot of respect for federal prosecutors. and i certainly hope the facs do come out and that they're prosecuted to the fullest xtent of those laws.

>> he denied the chairman any nowledge of his investigation. we found out yesterday that there were e mails and asking for information from the i.r.s. and he came back and stated that he was only looking for public information but a lot of cuments that were redacted and also he wanted to bring out all the documentation on interviews -- i wonder if he included the information he received from the i.r.s. to see if it was public or there was private information he wasn't privy too. all the we got

people's testimony, that gives a heads up to everybody that they're trying to investigate. there's a lot more witnesses they have to question. appreciate your time. >> well, i pressure the call. i'm also delyinged to see congressman cummings that he wants the information. the organization wezz founded a woman named katherine engelbrecht who was very upset at voter proud to. d so her organize has been focused on voter i.d. laws.

voter i.d. laws are controversial. some people view them as necessarily to voter integrity and others believe that voter i.d. laws are an attempt to suppress the votes of minority organizations. she applied for 501 c-4 status. and received a whole slew of letters from the i.r.s. asking for incredibly detailed and intrusive information that no 501 c-4 organization in the past had ever been asked to disclosed. engelbrecht s. received a series of letter first the i.r.s. asking for increasingly more and more and more information. and fairly close on the heels of those letter which is asked about the information the software they used the training, the vendors that they

used, she also received three letters on different occasions from congressman cummings asking for very, very similar information.ical cleta mitchell had a hearing this past february. it seemed more than coincidental that she was going to get down to bottom of this. he too noted the similarity between the request being made by the i.r.s. and congress. he said perhaps perhaps there was some improper coordination going on between the i.r.s. an congressman couplings' staff. in january of 2013, the congressman did contact the i.r.s. and did request publicly available information. that information was provided by a deputy of lois lerner's

who is now on administration active -- administrative leave. it didn't involve any criminality and has nothing to do with the letters that cummings sent to katherine engelbrecht. >> i have a question -- should cummings by compeled to resign from the committee and should he be included in the investigation? >> look, there's obviously some bad blood twenal congressman issa of california and congressman cummings. that's unfortunate. i view it as an unfortunate side show. i don't want to get into whether or not congressman is in -- engaged in

proper conduct. at this point i think what's important is that the committee continue its investigation try to go get the truth and that the issue of whether or not ms. lerner has waived the privilege should be decided in front of a court of law. >> good morning. how you doing? >> great. thank you. three quick things. i was under the impression that this so-called scandal was debunked that those people that you stated earlier they may have been upon investigation but both parties were investigating and no one lost their status. also why wasn't darrell issa held in contempt for wasting taxpayers' money $15 million holding these hearings when he knows there's nothing there to see? why isn't his heart held in contempt for shutting this

government done for $24 million. they said they couldn't help the veterans of this country for $16 billion they didn't have that money. but republicans can shut the government down and say oh, we, we just wanted respect. guest: well, thank you, betty. i pressure your question and commentary. i respect your opinion but i respectfully disagree with it. i do not believe this matter has been debunked. quite the contrary. it's very clear that laws have been broken. was ential information disclosed to liberal organization. with respect to your statement sides i was on both agree with that. dozens of organizations were

delayed and denied and in some case prove that only after two or three years and a myriad of incredibly intrusive information was demanded from them. with respect to progressive organizations, the evidence so far has shown that there were seven organizations compared to dozens if not hundreds of organizations that were tagged for further review because of the -- that contains the word progressive. i.r.s. agents have testified before the committee and provided information before the committee that all seven of those organizations were granted their status in short order and that were scrutinized and having nothing to do with these organizations. and there were many organizations that have had their apply cases for years that have fill not received them. >> our guest is john malcolm of the heritage foundation.

>> i do like the tea party. i'm in the process of doing a 5:00 -- 501 c 3. i.r.s. is your partner and they are the boss over you. and they can scrutinize any activities of any group. if they find out that somebody had done something illegal, that's one thing. but the i.r.s., you have to keep -- you have to tell them what activities you're doing. i had trouble filling out my 10-23 but i have to fill out all my forms to be completely exempt. i have to do the activitys that i tell them i'm doing and keep with that or i can get in trouble. so they -- if there's not something illegal, i think tea pears are big babies about this all and that's something they can find it specifically you

know broke the law. they have to do that with every group. and they are -- when you're a 501 c 3 i can get a lot of benefits. but -- >> well, jonathan i certainly never heard anybody at any organization reforethe i.r.s. as their partner. i would consider them a mighty strange partner. yes they have to collect tax revenue and yes, they have to make certain rulings. and yes, when there's an obligation of wrongdoing they have to investigate it and scrutinze it. they have to do so in a nonpartisan a-political manner. and that clearly did not occur here. with respect to your designation, it is incredibly important. f you are a 501c3 organization which is the organization that you say you are going to establish then people can donate found your organizations. they can take tax deductions for those conversations.

and the organization that se them can use those funds. they don't have to pay taxes on those donations. if you are a 501c4 organization then the people who donate money to you cannot take tax deductions but you nonetheless do not have to report those donations and engage in social welfare sivet and you do not have to disclose who your donors are. if you are not a 501 c4 organization if you want to stay under number 527 of the code. then either the donations that you received are taxable information to you or you have to disclose all of your donors which of course, it may be politically unpopular in certain circles can subject them to harassment. and that has happened. >> will's on the line for republicans.

>> thank you very much, mr. malcolm, thank you, c span. i appreciate the time this morning. >> my question. first of all, wane to make a this is an t -- attempt to shut freedom of expression down. i simply go by the time line that has been -- that has been offered to the public -- all the evidence shows that this started after the citizens united case. talks lks like a duck, like a duck, then it is a duck. people can see this as total attempt of shutting down freedom of egs presentation. so i thank you for your time. i'll be listening for your

comment. >> well, thank you, will. the timeline is indeed very important. so on january 21st of 2010 is when the supreme court issued its citizens united cation. so corporations and labor organizations can contribute to 501 -- c44. democrats felt threatened by this because of the yolvement of these organizations in elections and indeed less than a week later during the state of the union address, president obama in front of a number of the supreme court justices said what an awful decision it was. from that point on, there was a steady drum beat from the white house and radio addresses, representatives like david axle rod from various senators in congressman declined the citizens united case. calling for new legislation that would require do nor lists

no to be open. lois lerner gave a speech at duke law school in which she said and i quote "everybody's screaming at us rite now. fix it now before the election. can't you see how much these people are spending? that steady drum beat continued and of course, what happened, happened which is that 501c4 applications were pushed through while those of conserve tiff organizations were delayed, denied and harrised. >> next from salem, oregonful doug is on the line for democrats. >> good morning. i'm -- i'm just calling. i'm listening to your responses to a lot of these questions. and you like to tend to agree

to disagree. and i'm -- i'm going to all in card too. i agree -- disagree with you. the american heritage foundation that's pretty well exposed. these dog an pony shows they know full well that they're going to be spoken, yelled at, put on the frying pan and they're going to be -- when you're being interrogated like that from the congressman, you're bound to say something. bites to get these sound that respondees that are against them in the campaign. and to use against them in

their. and it just seems to me like they just keep regurgitating this over and over again. they keep this in the focus to .rum up i guess that's a comment. i really don't have a question. keep up the good work. bye. >> i appreciate that comment. there's no question that there's a political theater at times entertaining at times irritating. ere's no surprise there that has happened and has been exacerbated ever since there's been cameras in congress. they do have important work to do. they do need shine a light into government dealings and see

whether our laws are being enforced with integrity and with an equal hand or whether wrongdoing or impropriety is taking place. they need to shine that light in order to see whether there need to be reforms to law and people need to be investigated. that's important work of the committee. do i not consider it to be a waste of time. i think it's an important issue. hopefully the political theater pects will not overwhelm the committee. although perhaps sometimes it does. dax ter is on the line for independence. hey, dax ter, are you with us? one more try. all right. we're going move on then to cameron, north carolina where gary is on the line for democrats. john malcolm of the heritage foundation.

>> yes, sir, i would like to know where in the constitution it says where you're entitled to tax-free exemptions. >> it doesn't say that you're it into told a tax-free exemption. it does have that you have first amendment right, freedom of speech, readdress of grievances of all kinds that engage those sorts of activities an you're right from a tax free exemption doesn't come from your constitution but from the internal revenue code and that's supposed to be applied in a nonpartisan manner from the i.r.s. which did not do in this case. >> john malcolm thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you, i appreciate being asked. >> on the next washington journal, we'll talk about the general -- gender pay act. an peter morici. a look at the license and regulate tax preparers with

elaine povich. washington journal begins live at k78 a.m. on c-span. >> coming up on c-span the house oversight committee of dering a con templet lerner. against lois congress routinely don't speak the truth with the american public. it's not just on inaccuracies on what the affordable health care act would do. it's the absence of speaking the truth of where we are. here are we?

we now have unfunded obligations and pure debt of $1.1 million per family. that needs to be spoken so we can build the context of the tough things that are going to come. the biggest problem that i see with congress is denial of reality. and you can still be a good person and deny reality. we all have flaws. we all deny realities in some sense in our lives every day because we don't want to face them. but the fact is we haven't had the leadership in this country a long time and i'm talking presidential and congressional that would stand up and tell the truth to the american public about the situations. i have an idea what caused i. >> senator coburn on his reasons for retirement from the

senate at the end of the session. sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." >> on thursday the house oversight committee voted along in lines lois lerner ontempt of the constitution. before voting on the resolution members debated the measure in a three-hour meeting. it begins with committee chairman darrell issa.

>> today the committee has convened a business meeting to consider a resolution recommending contempt of congress for former i.r.s. executive lois lerner. this is not an action i take lightly. for almost a year, since lois lerner leaked the information from the inspector general's report, the committee has been trying to go get the bottom of i.r.s. targeting. we need ms. lerner's testimony to complete our oversight work to bring the truth to the american people.

why did she do certain things and who else was involved? it is important to review how we arrived at this resolution today. mrs. lerner appeared before this committee last may and made an entirely voluntary opening statement in which she professed her innocence. she said she did no wrong, broke no laws and di not iolate any i.r.s. rules. ms. lerner answered additional questions -- i'm sorry. ms. lerner asserted her fifth amendment rights then answered some additional questions after

asserting the fifth? we know from her attorney that no at down for a lengthy, strings attached interview with eric holer's justice department. she was not granted immunity. think about that for a second. mrs. lerner who once held a position of great power and responsibility at the i.r.s. is willing to talk to the justice department, the executive branch. but she remains unwilling to answer questions from elected representatives of the american people. at one point ms. lerner's attorney told us she would testify but then rescinded that offer after seeing some of the evidence gathered by the committee. that's not the way these things work. the american taxpayers certainly don't get to plead the fifth and escape all accountability when the i.r.s.

audits them. yesterday, the ways and means committee voted to release the information allows chairman camp to send a letter referring her to the justice department or probable criminal acts. i now ask unanimous consent that those documents be placed in the record. without objection, so ordered. i am concern that ms. lerner violated the law. if she or her lawyer explained -- she or her lawyer explained what she wanted to admit and why she needed immunity to tell the full truth, i certainly would consider it. but i'm not going to support immunity so ms. lerner can continue to lead this community if she really did nothing wrong and wants to tell the full truth, she doesn't need immunity.

absence, a charge -- i'm sorry. absence a change of position by ms. lerner, this committee has already derrelled that she waived her fifth amendment claim. it would be irresponsible for the committee not to vigorously pursue her testimony that includes holding her accountable if she fails to meet her obligations. the i.r.s. released self-selected and self-beneficial documents purr poring to show the i.r.s. also targed liberal groups. e i.r.s. prioritized those documents incluing her e mails which were the subject of subpoena an to this day have not all been turned over. on monday, the committee released a 141-page staff showed the evidence

that tea pears and conservative groups were targetted because of their political beliefs. the misinformation campaign continues. the new arrest commissioner testified just two weeks ago. the commissioner tried to engage in some revisionist history flatly denying that the inspector general had call it targeting. the commissioner was simply wrong. in fact, the fact chesapeake bayer found the commissioner's claim was a significant factual error. the american people rightfully don't trust the i.r.s. to tell them what really happened. that responsibility falls to us. we cannot tell the american people that we have done all we can do to get to the truth in

this investigation if we offer a pass to a critical witness like ms. lerner. we are here today for one fundamental reason to go get the full truth about i.r.s. targeting. we cannot abandon our responsibility and i recognize the ranking member for his statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i believe with all my heart very ou take this meeting seriously and as you said you o not take it lightly. there is no one on this side of the aisle and i'm sure on the other side who takes it lightly either. before i begin i would like to note that i would like to be recognized at the appropriate time for a motion after the

members finish speaking on a resolution. today i do not direct my comments to my fellow committee members. my statement is directed to the generations of americans yet unbhorn will learn about this vote in their history books long after i'm dead. i speak to those who are reading the transcript of today's proceedings. 50 to 100 years from now and are trying to understand why congress in the year 2014 tried to strip away an american citizen's right under the fifth amendment of the constitution of the united states of america. i want them to know that members of this body believe that this vote was a rejection of the constitutional principles who were sworn to uphold. and i wanted to know that i

objected. let me make clear that i am not defending the actions of lois lerner. but rather the protections guaranteed by the constitution to every american. and perhaps i'm a little sensitive about rights having been the son of two former chair croppers with only a second grade education who did not have certain rights throughout their lives. so let me also make clear that wanted to hear ms. lerner's testimony. i would want to know why she did not discover for more than one year that inappropriate criteria was being used in cincinnati. i also wanted to know why she did not tell the congress sooner about these actions. wever, the vote would put me in the same page of history

books as the house un-american activities an i do not draw that comparison lightly. today this committee is trying to do something that even joe mccarthy could not do in the 1950's, something virtually unprecedented. 60 year ago, joe mccarthy tried and fail to obtain a criminal conviction of an american citizen after she professed her innocence before this committee and aserped her right not to testify under the fifth amendment. i want to read briefly from the hearing transcript. in 1954, senator mccarthy, accused a woman named die yaga hoge of being a communist. she worked at the westing house company in a maul town in new york, making $1.71 per hour. and the similarities to today's

hearing are simply striking. like ms. lerner, she pro fode -- professed her interest. she said i will not so engage in the future. she t a spy nor saboteur argued that she waved her fifth amendment rights stating and i quote "when she waved the fifth amendment not just to that question but to the entire field of espionage. chairman issa is here today. and senator mccarthy sought criminal prosecution. but the federal court rejected senator mccarthy's legal theory. they did not waive her privilege under the fifth amendment and that she was it into told a judgment or

acquital on all accounts. if today's vote was really about weighing these significant constitutional questions, we would have -- we would have held at least one hearing with experts on all sides of the debate because we do not take this lightly. and i know you do not either, plch. i knead request nine months ago. last june, but the committee has not held alingle hearing. l of today a total of 91 independence experts have come across to identify fatal flounds. they concluded they she did not have cue process protects. these are not my lawyers as the chairman had said. they include two former house council. three former spreet court clerks. and prosecutors and profess ors from across the country. significantly they also include

oth democrats and republicans. > she said i quote "my face in the constitution is complete. it is total. i'm not going to sit here and be an idle setback to the subversion, the destruction of the constitution." as i close, it is the chairman's prerogative not to hold hearings an not to hear from these experts but given the significance of this issue and it's grave implications for all americans, i believe we should have. and simply disagree on this. but i will not be an idle spectator. so today i will vote against the resolution. do i not want to go to the same thing we are which congressman tried to trip away the

constitutional rights of american citizens. they had nothing to do with their responsible oversight and everything to do with the worse kind a partisan politics. and i yield back. >> i believe that any member who would like to submit a written statement may do so. the report will be considered under regular order and members will be recognized and offered amendments under the five-minute rule. i will now call up the contempt report regarding lois g. lerner. the report has been distributed to all members. without objection it will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. does any member twoish speak on the report? >> gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's recognized for five minutes. >> james madison when he was representative madison talking about the role of the house of

representatives and he said this, the house should possess itself of the fullest information in order do jus toys the country and to public officers. the fullest information. that's as much information that you can get so that you can ar50eu6 at the truth and you want to arrive at the truth so you can do justice. now here's what we know. here's what we know. lois lerner systematically targeted conservative groups. systematically attacked our most fundamental right. religious liberty, freedom of assembly. our most fundamental right, the freedom of speech, the tree dom to speak out in a political fashion and criticize your government and that was systematically attack. go back to october 19, 10. she is giving a speech at duke university talking about the

citizens united case. and she said this, the supreme court overturned 100-year-old precedent. they want the i.r.s. to fix the problem. ho's the "they" there. they called up the supreme court at the state of the union address. they want the i.r.s. to fix the problem. everybody's screaming right now. fix it before the election. she said, i can't do anything right now. she couldn't do it before the election in 2010. but she could put in place a system targeting to fix it the next year. that's exactly what we did. in the limited number of mails we got from lois learner she said we'll do a c-4

project. "we need to be cautious so it isn't a per se political project" which means what? it was a political project. and guess what? she got caught. and when she got caught we called her in front of this committee. she sat at that table and the only thing she said -- if we can put that in the screen. she said the only testimony from lois lerner was that testimony right there. we know it's false. the ways an means committee knows it's false. everyone knows it's false. and so now here we are. the only remedy we have to go get the truth is to use every tool at our disposal to try to get lois lerner to testify and answer the question. that's the only remedy we have. and the only route remember this, the only route to the truth is through the house of

representatives. that's what madison was talking about. we know this. the investigation of the justice department is a complete joke. the f.b.i. on january 13th of this year, the f.b.i. weeks to "the wall street journal," no one's going to be refered to the prosecution. the person heading the investigation gave $650,000 to the president's campaign, a democrat national committee, and just this week on tuesday in the judiciary committee i asked eric holder have you looked into the leak that the f.b.i. gave to "the wall street journal"? have you investigated that? and his response -- no i -- no, i haven't. they haven't even checked time-out leak. the only path to the truth is through this committee, the house an ways committee, the house of representatives. so we've got to pass this resolution. it's the only chance we have to give the american people to get

the truth about a fundamental right that was systematically attacked. and i want to close with a statement that was made from our colleague when we had the head of the i.r.s. here. congressman lynn said this. i talked to him on the floor yesterday. and i don't know how he's going to vote. i don't know. i don't know how anyone's going to vote. but this statement is right on target. and i talked to him on the floor last night. and i went and looked at his statement last night. here's what congressman said two weeks ago. the i.r.s. a very powerful agency with a lot of information on a lot of individuals it's been targeting u.s. citizens and that's serious stuff. it sure is. and i think that justifies the scope of the committee's inquiry and the urgency that we go get the bottom of this. that's just not good for the

republicans. that's just not good for democrats. that's good for our democracy. recognition -- mr. chairman, i seek regular in addition for five minutes. >>ly take the liberty of going in order of senior. >> i will take the little bit of going in the order of seniority. >> mr. chairman, i whole heartedly agree that this committee should the lead way in inl suring that our government is properly managed and working diligently on behalf of the american people. but unfortunately, this is not what this investigation has been about because if this committee was truly interested in examining allegation in undue insurance outside the arrest there, would be an offer

of immunity on the table right now for lois lerner, an offer of immunity so we could ask her what if anything she was instructed to do by others. but there's no offer of immunity on the table which happens in most serious investigations. just as there no atompte seriously pursue a legitimate line of inquiry. mr. lerner has invoked her constitutional right to remain lent turned -- under the fifth amendment. it states that no american should be come piepelled in any -- nal case to be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against herself. they say that there is a criminal case to be made. and they wish to compel her to be a witness against herself. the constitution says no matter

how powerful you believe yourself to be and our country, you just cannot do that. guilty or innocent? ms. lerner has a constitutional right to remain silent on this issue. >> under our founding documents we believe she is noter do ied with that. just like just like the first anticipate right of free speech and the second amendment right to bear arms. amendment and its right to remain silent is a bed of our democracy. it cannot be suspended by this congress. like to emphasize that our side of the aisle is just as to get to the truth on this matter as you are. thetrying to rip up constitution and run rough-shod

aer the bill of rights is not path to truth. it is merely political theater. and i would like to remind all those in attendance that just month the treasury i.t. for tax administration testified its own audit found no evidence to support the wassations that there political collusion. the i.g. found no evidence that its i.r. employees were foundcally motivated and no reason to believe there was any influence from individual creatinghe i.r.s. and the criteria or causing the delay. i.g.'s reporthe that began this whole thing. this committee has pursued the relentlessly, it has now collect more than 400,000 pages of documents from the i.r.s., cd