of the supreme court is to guard against the encroachment of the executive branch on the power of the other branches. and i think the chief justice has been a little bit too willing and eager to give the administration, then the bush administration, president obama goes on to say, whether it's mine or george bush's, more power than i think the constitution originally intended. think about that, mr. speaker. now, this is, again, an election year. this is 2008. the president's running to be the president of the united states. he's being asked about what that separation of powers means, he's being asked whether or not the constitution matters, he's being asked, how do we continue this great experiment in self-governance that is the united states of america and he said, one of the most important jobs of the supreme court is to guard against the encroachment of the executive branch on the power

of the other branches. mr. speaker, i want you to listen to what's coming out of this white house when we talk about this lawsuit the house is considering filing. is this what you hear? is what you hear from president barack obama in 2014 the same thing you heard from him as candidate for president barack obama in 2008? the most important job of the supreme court is to guard against the encroachment of the executive branch. that is all this house is asking the court to decide. and we didn't choose a controversial issue, one that we might disagree with the president on whether or not it should be implemented. we chose his own health care bill to say, mr. president, i know you're proud of this health care bill and so let's do it. let's implement it. let's not pick and choose. let's do the whole thing exactly the way you signed it, exactly the way the house and

senate passed it. let's do it that way. you don't get to make those decisions on your own. the president knew that as a senator. in fact, he criticizes the supreme court. in the same way that today what i hear coming out of the white house is a criticism of the u.s. house for even going to the court, to try to chasten the president when he was a senator he went the other way. i think the chief justice has been a little bit too willing and eager to give the administration, whether it's mine or george bush's, more power than i think the constitution originally ntended. there's a lot of pressure to get your agenda accomplished. it's not just a capitol hill thing. it's not a white house thing. it's a life thing.

we've been talking about that since we were kids, mr. speaker. do the ends justify the means? does the process matter? i'll tell you, if you have a broken process, you're going to end up with a broken product. we have an opportunity in this chamber to do exactly what then-senator obama asked us to do which was to stand up for his division of power. then-senator barack obama, mr. speaker, may 19, 2008. he says this about the division of power. he does understand it. at least in 2008 he got it. this is what he said. he said, everybody's got their own role. he says, congress' job is to pass legislation, and the president can veto it or sign it. but what george bush has been doing as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency is he's been saying,

well, i can basically change what congress passed by attaching a letter that says i don't agree with this part or that part. he says, what president bush is saying, i'm going to choose to interpret it this way or that way. but then-senator barack obama oes on to say, that's not part of the president's power. he says, this is part of the whole theory of george bush, that he can make up the law as he goes along. then-senator barack obama says, i disagree with that. mr. speaker, it does not matter whether you are the most liberal democrat in this country or the most conservative republican or anybody in between. there is no question that there is picking and choosing going on in the implementation of laws in this country. i'm going to enforce this law because i like it. i am going to ignore this law because i don't like it. i'm going to change this law

because i'd like it better if it did this or that. the lawsuit this institution is proposing is not to settle any kind of policy dispute. it's to process dispute. it says, whatever you think about the affordable care act, it passed the senate. whatever you think about the affordable care act, it passed the house. whatever you think about the affordable care act, it was signed into law by the president of the united states nd upheld by the supreme court . so let's enforce it. let's enforce it. let's do what it says. if it says these policies should be outlawed, let's outlaw them. you don't get to choose which ones you think and shouldn't be -- think should and shouldn't be outlawed. no policies shall be sold after this date. if you believe that the protections of the affordable

care act -- i don't call them protections. they've done more to destroy health insurance in my district than to protect the uninsured in my district, but if you believe those protections are important to america, implement those. implement those. you saw the chaos that was caused in the individual market when that one set was implemented. no more deadlines have been implemented since that time. president obama said that wasn't quite what i intended. wasn't supposed to work out that day. he said in ordinary times i'd call the house of representatives, call the speaker and said, let's work together to change the law. but these are not ordinary times so i'm going to change it myself. as the executive of the united states. you won't find those powers in this constitution, mr. speaker. you won't find them here. of will find a long history senators and house members saying, mr. president, you can't do that. you will find a long history of

the supreme court saying, you can't do that and you will find in the case of this president, in particular, because he had decades as a constitutional scholar, you will find speech after speech. you'll find quote after quote. you'll find article after article. that says to the then-president of the united states george bush, stay in your constitutional lane. obey that simple document that is our united states constitution. if you want something done, go to the congress to get it done. do not do it by yourself in the white house. don't pick up your pen. don't pick up your phone. get in your car and drive down to the united states congress, and every single time then-senator barack obama said that, he was right.

and there were far too few republicans in this chamber, far too few republicans in the senate who stood up and agreed with him. as republicans we had a war on our hands. the nation was in crisis. national security crisis. terrorism on our shores like we've never seen before. and we thought, you know what -- and again i wasn't here then. i can only imagine what was going on in this body. only imagine what those with voting cards were thinking. but i imagine they were thinking, i hate to criticize my own president in these tough times for america. maybe it would be better if i looked the other way. maybe it would be better if i just turned my head just this once irrespective of what the constitutional guidance requires. and if that was the thought of

any man, woman in this chamber, if that was the thought of any man, woman in the senate, they were 100% wrong. i get it. i get how they could feel that way, but they were 100% wrong. and if any man or woman in this chamber or in the united states senate is thinking today, i must protect my president from the stricters of the constitution, they are wrong. the constitution exists not to protect the president. the constitution exists to protect the people. the constitution is not a document to make sure that government power is preserved. the constitution is a document to make sure the people's power isn't abrogated. it's not easy. i hope folks like to see the gentleman from massachusetts and the gentleman from north carolina, the gentlemen who disagree so much on policy in

this chamber, gentlemen from different parties, gentlemen agreeing on the constitutional role of this house when it comes to send really our young men and women into harm's way. they were exactly right. we have to come together to do this, mr. speaker. and if we come together to do this, a lawsuit wouldn't even be necessary. again, we used to have giants. we used to have giants in this institution who put the country first and the party a distant, distant second or third or fourth. we've got to bring those traditions back. president barack obama, august, 2013. an incredibly popular president sat for re-election, re-elected for a second term by the american people, constitutional

scholar having forewarned for decades about too much power in the executive branch, having warned the american people about the importance of including congress, having told the bush white house how absolute power does not resolve, there cannot reside there, must have ideas originating in the united states house, said in a normal political environment it would have been easier for me to call up the speaker and said, you know, let's tweak this legislation. that would be a normal thing and that would be something i'd prefer to do but i'm not going to do it. we're not in a normal atmosphere around here, he says. i have executive authority and i used it. funny thing about the constitution, mr. speaker. people always talk about their constitutional rights. sometimes the rights they're talking about are constitutional. sometimes they're not.

the funny thing about this constitution is, it allows the president to do anything he wants to do or she wants to do until somebody stands up and says no. the powers are in the congress. the powers are in the courts. the executive's role is to implement those rules, to implement those laws, but if no one stands up and says no, the largest branch of the country is the executive branch, they continue to operate unfettered. we don't have an opportunity to say no. we have an obligation to say no . not to say no to this president but to say no to the office of the president. when these powers slip away, these powers that don't belong to this chamber but belong to the american people, when they slip away they're hard to get back. we didn't have a revolution in this country because the executive wasn't powerful enough. we had a revolution in this country because the executive

was all-powerful, and we thought there was a better way. the president, speech after speech, article after article thought there was a better way, but the power of that office, perhaps the burdens of that office, the responsibility of that office have brought a 180-degree change in the president's view of the constitution. we're back to where he identified george bush as being eight years ago, where the constitution is treated as a nuisance. the constitution is not a nuisance. the constitution is the only the standing between american people and a complete seizure of their freedoms. this is that document. this balance of power -- and i'm going to end where i began,

mr. speaker. 9-0 the supreme court says president barack obama had no constitutional authority to do what he did. no constitutional authority. and what the court observes is friction between the branches is an inevitable consequence of our constitutional form of government. we can absolutely do away with the friction. we can absolutely get things done. can absolutely move all the obstacles out of the way. that would not be america. that would be our -- that would not be our constitutional form

of government. there is not a constituent in my district back home that would make that choice. we've got to embrace the friction. we've got to embrace the battles of ideas that is america, and we have to commit ourselves, even when it is inconvenient, to playing by the rules of the united states constitution. it has protected our freedoms as a self-governing people for 200 years, and it can do it for another 200 if we don't lose track of our obligation to protect it today. . mr. speaker, thank you for being down here with me today and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 2244, cited as the television risk insurance program

re-authorization act of 2014, in which the concurrence of the ouse is requested. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m. tomorrow.

the federal aviation administration has warned u.s. pilots earlier this year not to fly over portions of ukraine because of tensions in the region. some congressional reaction to the down line on twitter today. -- new jersey republican

>> house speaker john boehner and minority leader nancy pelosi today held their weekly briefings with reporters. to show you both of those next, here on c-span, starting with speaker boehner. >> good morning, everyone. many of you were in attendance last friday as we heard from both parties join together to send a bipartisan jobs bill to the president's desk. a great example of what we can accomplish when we all listen to the american people. another example came on tuesday, when we passed a bipartisan highway bill to prevent projects from shutting down here in the next several months. i expect a quick resolution of this matter in a bipartisan way.

the house also passed bipartisan legislation to keep the internet tax-free. the bill would benefit american families and small businesses and encourage greater economic growth. i think it deserves an up or down vote in the u.s. senate. i don't have to remind you that we still have over 40 bipartisan bills that passed the house that will help our economy am a that continue to sit in the united states senate. working parents desperately need more flexibility and we have helpd legislation to balance the demands of work and family. middle-class families are struggling with higher energy prices. we passed legislation to lower those costs. small businesses are struggling under the weight of the presidents mandates and regulations and red tape. we have passed legislation to ease this burden. these are just a few examples of what republicans are working on to foster more economic growth

and more job creation in our country. for the nearly four years of our majority, republicans have stayed focused on the economy and on jobs. we have listened to the american people and their priorities are our priorities. lastly, i would like to address the situation in israel, which is under attack. i'm glad the president telephoned the prime minister, but i think we must send a clear, unified, and public message. israel is our friend, and israel's enemies are our enemies. the israelis recently intercepted iranian supply gaza.s headed for it's part of iran's long history of providing rockets and rocket parts to gaza-based terrorist organizations, as well as has block, which operates in lebanon and in syria. those weapons reused to attack

israel. the obama administration is pursuing nuclear negotiations with iran. thee are some who believe administration should engage the iranians to help deal with the situation in iraq. in light of that, let me restate this. israel is our friend, and israel's enemies are our enemies. it would be in iran's best interest to have a nuclear divide in iraq, it is not in the united states's best interest. our interest are not aligned, and republicans remain focused on pushing the white house to do more to counter iran's support for terrorists, and efforts to destabilize a key u.s. ally in the region. spendinghad these big him broccoli owes, as we work on this border bill -- big spending

imbroglios. owe >> we are continuing to work and our border working group. conversations have gone on all week. no decisions have been made. speaker boehner, there seems to be a huge gulf between democrats and republicans on how to hide -- handle this crisis. do you have confidence that the two sides can come to some kind of agreement by the end of the month? >> i certainly hope so, but i don't have as much optimism as i would like there. but again, we are working with our group and working with the chairman of the appropriations committee, trying to find some way to deal with what is a humanitarian crisis at our

border. it needs to be dealt with. >> is to speaker, senator cruz just left and interview and said he is going to demand that the dock a policy be stopped as a condition of this passing. as you know, a lot of your members listen to ted cruz. they're very closely line to issues with you in the past. how difficult does it make it for you to get votes for this deal when senator cruz is making demands like this? >> we'll have a bill yet. we are having a lot of discussions, and we will continue those discussions. that the think [indiscernible] their tax address overseas, should there be something more done on that reform or otherwise? >> it's kind of a sad situation that companies find themselves

having to relocate their headquarters overseas, but one only has to look at a tax code with the highest tax rate in the world. while the president likes to talk about the fact that he is fixing this problem, i've not seen a proposal out of the white house that would do that. -- a tax proposal earlier this year dealt with this issue in a very responsible way. the sooner that we have real tax reform on the corporate and personal level, the sooner we will see this issue come to an end. >> the contracting has been attacked -- has been attached to 40 procreation spills. >> i don't really know enough about it. you disagree with calls to [indiscernible]

if the president takes actions that exceed his constitutional authority, would you withhold funding in the next appropriations bill? >> there's a lot of different ways to deal with this issue, but we've got a republican house and a democratic senate. there are a lot of things we passed here that the senate clearly has not passed. when it comes to that issue, -- iof these actions wouldn't guess there is an appetite in the u.s. senate to withhold those funds. decided that've the more direct approach of suing the president is the right path to go down here. i'm for upholding the constitution. i'm for protecting the interest of the house. vis-à-vis the power grab going on by the white house.

why we have the authority to issue executive orders, he does not have the authority to unilaterally change laws in our country, which he has done. >> speaker banner, we go back to why is yourices, optimism now fleeting regarding the border crisis? commentshas been some made by her colleagues across the aisle. they're going to make this much more difficult to deal with. going to continue conversations and try to come to some agreement. >> just to follow up, that has become the flashpoint in this debate. is the only way to get the money that the president wants, will republicans only tied to that policy change?

>> again, we're having this conversation and i don't want to lock myself in. i don't know how you can address the problem down there without looking at the law. i don't know how congress can send more money to the border to begin to mitigate the problem if you don't do something about the law that is being abused. and it is being abused. [indiscernible] >> i haven't really looked at all the details of it, but i know mr. henn serling is trying to find some way to get it passed. he is the right guy to ask. [indiscernible] to cut spending elsewhere to pay for the highway trust fund.

people have argued that was not much of an emergency. offsets foru seek the supplemental? >> there were offsets provided in the highway bill, and it's a sound proposal. it got bipartisan support in the house. to the extent that it's possible we woulduse side, attempt to do that with this other money that's going to be spent. was talk of nondiscretionary spending offsets is a price for the supplemental money. is that something you're considering? >> we are. [indiscernible]

would you prefer to have that separately discussed elsewhere? >> we are discussing it with the border group. under the 2008 law, the administration has the authority in exceptional circumstances to make tweaks to that law. would there be up wallace he for the homeland security secretary [indiscernible] clearly is an option. i'm not familiar with how much authority they have under the 2000 eight law. i do know they have the ability to take a number of steps now, without congress acting, to begin to mitigate this problem, but they are not taking them. members aregine our going to want to send more money down there without attempting to mitigate the problem at the border. thanks.

>> good morning, good morning. yesterday, democrats gathered on the steps of the capital to launch our middle class jumpstart. we are excited about it. contains our agenda for good paying jobs here in our country, tax credits to keep jobs here, rather than the republican initiative to send jobs overseas. it's about the building of the infrastructure of america. it's about fairness, the ceo-employee fairness initiative

of mr. van hollen. so it's about jobs. the second point is about america's succeeds. one of the best things you can do to grow the economy is to unleash the full power of women in our economy. it's about equal pay for equal work, raising the minimum wage. the 60% of women -- 60% of people making minimum wage are women. it's about affordable quality childcare, which is the missing link in the evolution of women in the workplace. that work-home balance is essential for men and for women, and then the third, affordable education to keep america number one. innovation and entrepreneurship and all the rest all began in the classroom.

making higher education more affordable by lowering interest rates. it all begins at a very early it's about early childhood education, children learning, parents earning. we are very proud of the initiative and look forward to continuing to talk about it throughout the country. while we were on the steps of the capital talking about jobs, jobs, that four letter word, how to keep them here, how to grow the economy to create jobs, how we prepare our workforce and how we have work-home balance. but all centered in the workplace. republicans were inside the capital waking -- wasting time and taxpayer dollars suing the president. once again, actions taken to avoid a real responsibility to meet the needs of the american people. over 50 times to overturn the affordable care act

unsuccessfully, and now they want to sue the president. another issue while they're doing this is comprehensive immigration reform. as you know, they have said two weeks ago that they are going to do anything about comprehensive immigration reform. that is the answer to many of the challenges that we face in terms of immigration. have comprehensive immigration reform. whether or -- were concerned about deportation our children at the border, whatever it is, the big answer is comprehensive immigration reform. neede absence of that, we republicans to send the supplemental as soon as possible because resources are need to address the crisis on the border. that crisis could be an opportunity to show our greatness as a nation on how we can discern how we can address the needs of those who should be , and their day in court

those who had that day in court in depth staying in the united states. we keep telling you about the best interest determination. for the children is what should drive our policy. so we are waiting to see the supplemental on that, and come soon.t will the speaker said i think next week that would have something maybe on the floor, but it would be for us to see, look closely with our appropriators, what the president asked for in the supplemental is what we need to get the job done. we are waiting to see what part of it they will send over. but just to get to that point for a moment, people keep asking the difference between contiguous and noncontiguous and all the rest. did you ever think you would

become an expert on that? you never know here. the purpose of the legislation passed in 2008, and some of the groundwork that was laid before that, was to address the issue of trafficking. betweena distinction contiguous and noncontiguous countries. that means mexico, but for some reason they decided they would --e a net bill that children to prevent trafficking from turnedwould be summarily back. i don't know what their intention was, but that was a net outcome of it. expediteurces we can the procedure to have a more timely procedure with more representation and with more ,udges to deal with the issues no matter where the children come from. if you have a lawyer, 50% of the

time come of the child can stay in the u.s.. if you don't have a longer, one in 10 times you can stay in the u.s.. so representation is important, because what child can plead his or her own case? so it is current, it is hot, it is an opportunity. faith based organizations and humanitarian groups have said we must act in the best interest of the children determination. we need the resources to get that job done. any questions you may have? week you said that since the 2008 trafficking law was a dealbreaker to pass the supplemental. it seems like you kind of changed her mind there. considering republicans land to include changes to the 2008 law, is that a deal worker for you?

>> let me be clear. the question i was asked was about the supplemental that the president put forth, which was a ,upplemental that has resources that can more expeditiously give due process to these children. i do not appreciate the characterization come you're trying to say him for sending kids back or something. i am for giving them the process to do so. all of these things are of a piece. it's not about what is your price to take this penalty. it's about how do we deal with this issue? it's stunning to me, i am really surprised around here, it's stunning how the republicans have tried to politicize this issue. not all of them. most of them are responsible for the good legislation that passed in 2008. as i said before, i have been a

rightsn for children's have,ny of my colleagues but in the here and now on this legislation, what we have to do is what is right for the children, what's right for the american people, and that is not to draw lines in the sand with the legislation that we have. i do not believe that they need a change in legislation to more expeditiously provide due process for all of the children that we are talking about. and trafficking is an issue. a large amount of it -- the trafficking of children we are concerned about is mexico-based. could you support a supplemental that included changes to that -- >> could you describe what that supplemental would look like otherwise?

hear.re still waiting to >> asked me when you see it, ok? i don't know what analogy to use. backould send a child barefoot and hungry, over sending a child back to a situation where the resources in thebill allow for integration of that child into society in a safe way, whether going back home, as you make a judgment as to whether the child is legitimately entitled to asylum or is a refugee? there are categories of people that we have welcomed, neighboring countries have welcomed in their own central american region. ay don't we just, instead of bill that we haven't seen, we don't know what it's going to be, although they said it's not going to be what the president has sent, so let's see with that bill is and what the mitigating .actors are

i think this can be done under current law with the proper resources. that's what we need to bring is some level of assurance that the best interest determination for the children, which is what the bishops have out there. the president's own secretary of homeland security says he does think there is a similar change in a law. you are saying is becoming an weekend they said embassy personnel in those countries, american officials were saying the law is the problem. >> i don't agree with that. the point is that there are issues other than the law that are drawing people here. the conditions in the country. if you have a child and you said you're going to go cross mexico

because it's safer to do that than to stay here and be subjected to rape and other forms of violence, including murder him in a country comedy and you know it's something that's pretty bad there. again, this is a very emotional issue. people are passionate about it. we have to be dispassionate and how we make our valuations of what is necessary. i would certainly hope that if they want to change any laws related to immigration, they do so in a comprehensive immigration reform bill. just put it all together in its oneness there, and this time get with therces to deal humanitarian challenge that we face on the border. wouldn't that be a better way? and if those resources are sufficient to have legal representation, a sufficient to expedite the

process, to perhaps engage in processing in country. in other words, in the country we will notfamily have well-founded grounds for being received in the united states to stay, so don't bother making the trip. let's see how we can deal with it in a way that doesn't just send the children, as the bishops have said, back into a burning building. but there are distinctions they can be made, that should be made, and can be made with resources. let's deal with that and then let's talk about comprehensive immigration reform. that is yet again another reason for us to take up comprehensive immigration reform. congress tries to assemble this package in the next few days, do you envision

yet another kind of two-step here where the speaker gets on the phone with you and says ok, i'm going to provide 50-70 votes here, and can you guys carry the weight? we don't know what the packages going to look like on the policy or the spending side am a but on most major pieces of legislation the last 2.5 years, that's the way it has gone. do you envision that scenario coming down the pike again? >> you are always asking these questions about why did night in , or howe president would we have done it differently. seeill be interesting to how many votes the speaker has on his side for this legislation to help the children. again, of here -- but value is what they have said in their public statements is, they don't want to do all that much money, and they want to have

legislation in their that is harmful to some of the children that we are dealing with at the border. that sounds like an all republican bill to me. ok, how many republicans do you get for that? what more would you want to get more republicans? moneywise inou go it to get the republican vote? we will just have to see what they put forward. >> he could be of push comes to shove, the democrats feel there is a moral imperative to say this isn't all the money, it is all the border issues -- >> i think i have taken it the other way, if you need -- that's how we get some things done around here. the way we funded the war in iraq, was to have a two-step, that's how we finally passed the

violence against women act. the republicans overwhelmingly voted against an over -- violence against women act that said we are against it unless you native american, immigrant, or lgbt. that is something they were proud of. i don't get it, but that's something they were proud of, so they voted for that. we voted with some republicans to pass the all-inclusive violence against women act. maybe they wanted to get their people to vote their hearts out on this and have a good bill. i don't know -- in other words, we are legislators. we know that legislation is about compromise and the rest, and balance. it's really damaging unless you do this, so let's see how we can do it. have -- in terms of human

rights and respect for the dignity of people in concert with the bishops on many of issue ofues and on the trafficking. because the number of girls coming over is so much higher than it has been in the past, there is really an urgent need to get this done. so let's be optimistic and hope that the better angels will prevail and we will see that does the job for recognizes the house majority, and when we do comprehensive immigration reform, we will put this in that perspective, but not to hold up the funding here. the funding is really urgent, and that's why last week we said we need that money now. all that has transpired in terms of the characterizations of motivation and this and that it's light weight a minute, i thought we were operating on

shared values here. if not let's put it in writing, let's see what you have read yes ma'am. >> it sounds like you want to wait and see what the actual legislative language -- >> before i say if i would support it? that would be the normal course of action. >> a growing number of the members of the democratic caucus are already voting to draw a line in the sand and say i will not vote for any fund them -- supplement funding package that includes any tweaks whatsoever. are you concerned that your members are already taking a hard line -- i think theall, characterization of the hispanic -- you havee that to have a press conference with them. i don't speak for the caucus. but i do know that they greatly care about this issue. they have first-hand knowledge of this, as many of them

represent border areas or areas contiguous to the border districts. of that the issue comprehensive immigration reform is something they would like to see immigration law dealt with their, rather than in a supplemental to meet an emergency. when we see that ,he bill and how it is written it is encouraging or describing this to happen. there is one other problem that we have heard, that there is not enough money, that it may be unfriendly to children legislation in it, and that they nondefensea discretionary offset. that is just saying we don't think it's an emergency. this is an emergency, and that's why you have a supplemental, for

emergency. that would be problematic as well. so why don't we just take a look at it, because it could have many problems. the better the bill is in other the more opportunity it gets for expedited processing and representation processing, and security. the better hearing it will get from the members. we can criticize bills all we want. i never like to draw a line in the sand, because unless you legislationee the -- and i'm open to see what is there, what we have seen so far is going in the wrong direction. if they want democratic votes, they've got to go more in the right direction. ok?

we have an important personage who needs the room now, right? >> on to another issue of companies that are immigrating elsewhere. the house last week in a roll call vote put a restriction on federal contracts for companies that go to the cayman islands are her mirror where you're surprised with that vote -- were you surprised with that vote? i'm not surprised by the vote, because every time we take gotten enoughhas republicans in the vote. >> we break away from this record a program to take you live to capitol hill, where

members of the senate intelligence committee are coming out of a briefing on the crash of the malaysia airlines plane. here's chairman dianne feinstein. >> it's obviously very concerning. separatists have shot down more than a dozen planes, helicopters in ukraine over the past few months. it's too soon to make any conclusion about the malaysian .irlines crash right now we hope to have more information within the next day or so if evidence emerges that russia was involved, that would obviously be extremely concerning. >> are there preliminary ideas that it was in fact a surface to air missile? >> no, you said are there preliminary ideas? >> are there preliminary findings?

>> not at this time. this is just beginning, so it is hard to tell. >> are you confident that the u.s. will be able to figure out exactly what happened? i hopeconfident, and that international regimes can get in there and get the black box, and really be able to look at what might have happened. it appears, just to somebody that looks at this, that it was an in air explosion, because the debris field is so widely spread. >> i heard what you heard. it's my understanding that the manifest is not yet available, but may be soon. >> but there were some americans on or, do you believe? >> do i believe everything i hear from the press? that's where i got that information. [laughter] stage. believe at this

i will wait to find out. >> what would be the appropriate u.s. responsive found that it was a weapon? a let's not speculate on hypothetical. let's wait until we have the actual information, ok? when she were concerned a few months ago that the u.s. didn't have the proper intelligence assets in that region. do you think the u.s. does now? a all i can say is we had much better briefing today than we did a couple of months ago. positive indication of progress. [indiscernible] thee was here to talk to vice-chairman about something else. thank you.

>> members of the senate intelligence committee getting a briefing on the crash of the malaysia airlines plane. comments there to reporters by the chair of the intelligence committee, diane feinstein of california. withmalaysia airlines jet 290 five people aboard crashed today in ukraine near the russian border. the crane officials say the plane may have been shot down by russian forces. say thene officials plane may have been shot down by russian forces.

>> again, our camera on capitol hill, the members of the senate intelligence committee receiving a briefing this afternoon on the crash of that malaysia airlines .lane in ukraine with heard from diane feinstein who chairs the senate intelligence committee a few moments ago. waiting now to see if any other members are going to come to the microphone.

>> again, our live camera on capitol hill. we heard from diane feinstein, who chairs the senate intelligence committee a few moments ago. members of that committee getting a briefing on the crash of that malaysia airlines plane in ukraine. we will continue to have our camera here, and if any other members come to the microphone, we will record that for you and have it for you later in our program schedule. the malaysia airlines jet, with

295 people aboard, crashed today in ukraine near the russian border. ukrainian officials say the plane may have been shut down by russian forces. he associated press reporting that back in april, the federal aviation administration had warned u.s. pilots not to fly over portions of ukraine because of tensions in the region. in reaction to the airline crash in ukraine from house speaker john boehner, he issued a statement today saying -- a house oversight subcommittee today held a hearing on the justice department's investigation into allegations that the irs targeted conservative groups. deputy attorney general james cole testified. republican congressman jim jordan of ohio chairs the

hearing. the hearing continues the committee's ongoing oversight of the irs and its targeting of conservative, tax-exempt groups. on may 10, 2013, lois lerner apologize for the iris targeting and responding to a planted question at him secure tax law. four days later attorney general eric holder called it outrageous and unacceptable and valve the justice department would begin a criminal investigation. that was may of last year. latere are now, 14 months , with nothing from the administration about a criminal investigation. we've learned that barbara boxer

is playing a leading role in the investigation. she is a substantial contributor to the democratic national committee and it's her job to investigate the targeting of people who oppose the president's policy. the attorney general comes out and says she is not alone as she's working with the public -- these are conflicts of interest but they want us to look the other way. we have a named law enforcement sources who leaked to the "law "treet -- wall street journal saying no charges were going to be targeted. then you had the president of the united states go on

television and say there's not a smidgen of corruption in the service. that is not prejudging the case, i don't know what is. calling on the special prosecutor, 26 democrats -- 26. kratz joined every single republican in the house of representatives in approving this measure, but the administration still won't appoint a special prosecutor. my question is this. what more will it take for the administration to appoint a special counsel? then we found out just last month that the irs lost two years of e-mails from lois lerner due to a hard drive crash. says the justice department is investigating. that is good will stop someone in the administration recognizes there's something rotten with missing e-mails but more must be done. we have serious concerns about the it ministration's

investigation and serious questions for our witness today. we need to hold all wrongdoers accountable for the targeting of americans for exercising their first amendment rights to speak up in a political fashion and that's why this is so important. with that, i yield to mr. coming. but thank you very much, mr. chairman. chairman jordan and i welcomed to this hearing deputy at attorney general cole. for more than here, republicans have claimed that the white house directed the irs to target conservative groups. now that we have conducted our investigation, we know the truth. there is no evidence to suggest the white house played any role in direct or developing the search terms identified by the inspector general as inappropriate.

any other aspect of how irs employees processed these applications. we have now conducted 42 interviews. these were witnesses that were called by the republicans. clear that anery irs screening agent in cincinnati developed these inappropriate criteria on his own. supervisorw from his who describes himself as a conservative republican -- that that he did this not for political reasons, but because he was trying to treat similar cases consistently. not one of the witnesses we interviewed, including senior officials at the irs, the

treasury department, and the justice department identified any white house roles in this process. investigation confirmed the findings of the inspector general who was appointed by republicans. reported they were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the irs will stop the inspector general has testified repeatedly before identifiedat he has no evidence of any white house role or motivation. so now, the republicans have a different argument. although they are still trying to win this to the white house. now they claim it is targeting of conservative groups that is a massive, governmentwide conspiracy involving the theident, the irs am a

securities and exchange commission, the federal elections commission, and numerous other agencies all coordinated in response to this recent court decision in citizens united. they claim the justice department is a key player in the conspiracy. justicehey accuse the department of the united states of the united states of america engaging in criminal activity by obstruct the committee. even closing down its own investigation for political reasons, and they claim the deployment of a special counsel is needed. mr. chairman, i have prepared a detailed memo that sets forth the top 10 most egregious accusations against the department of justice. as well as specific responses showing why each one is unsubstantiated. i asked him his consent this

memo be entered into the official record. at me address one of these allegations. westmont, chairman i said chairman jordan said the department conspired with the irs to comply -- to compile an illicit registry with confidential taxpayer information to criminally prosecutors conservative groups for their clinical speech. here's what the letter said -- the irs had 27 discs with 1.1 million paces -- pages with non- -- including confidential taxpayer information for the federal bureau of investigation in october 2010. the letter then accused the department of working with the irs to assemble a massive database of nonprofit groups, which they called an illicit and comprehensive registry. these accusations are complete nonsense.

illicit registry, no singling out of conservative groups. the vast amount of information was available to the general public and was never used for information or prosecution. 90'srs provided form nine not only from conservative groups but all groups, regardless of political affiliation. it was not until earlier this year, more than three years later, that the department discovered a limited amount of taxpayer information was stored on those discs. this was an inadvertent area that affected only 33 of 12,000 forms, less than .5%. the bottom line is these discs were never even reviewed or used as part of any investigation or prosecution. the department wrote a letter the fbias follows --

advises on receipt of the disc, an analyst reported the index which is set forth into a spreadsheet but did nothing further to the disc and to the best of our knowledge, the disc was never utilized for any investigative purpose. that is from the fbi. where is the so-called illicit registry? the fact is it simply does not exist. this is not the basis of a white house scandal. this is the latest example of republicans desperately searching for one and then using any excuse to manipulate the facts until they no longer have any resemblance to the truth will stop our committee has now held 10 hearings and the irs has spent more than $18 million responding to congressional investigations. stop wasting

millions of taxpayer dollars and start focusing on her forms to help our government work the way it should effectively and efficiently for the american people. >> i would ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record 2010ple of e-mails from from mr. pilger's lawyer and public integrity section of the justice department e-mailed to lois lerner. lois, the fbi says a raw format is best because they can put this into their systems. ranking member was just talking about -- one point one million pages, 21 discs of information -- the fbi got any exact format they wanted, had it for four years and am aware of the testimony from the justice department that they did not use this information. but they also had it for four years and it did contain confidential taxpayer information. i would ask we enter this into

the record as well. ask that mr. cole, since we want to be efficient and not get caught up in distraction and dysfunction, that when he answered these questions, he would be allowed to answer because i want to hear the answer to that also. does answer and say it's an ongoing investigation. that's why we've got him here. make anlse wish to opening statement? the gentle lady is recognized. >> i'm reading the opening statement on behalf of ranking member cart right will stop thank you for testifying today. 2013, inspector general russell george released a statement saying irs employees used inappropriate criteria to screen out attempts for tax exempt status. republican and democratic members, including myself, condemned the mismanagement

identified in the inspector general's report. concerns expressed before this committee had even begun to investigate, chairman i said went on national television and declared the irs was involved in the targeting of the resident clinical enemies. inspector general has repeatedly refuted this allegation reported senior leaders at the irs said the criteria were not influenced by any individual or organizations outside the irs. on may 17, 2013, the inspector general was asked for a ways and means committee -- did you find any evidence of clinical motivation and tax exempt one -- tax exempt applicants. he responded we did not. after interviewing 42 employees from the irs, the treasury department, doj, receiving 80,000 pages of documents, the committee has not found any evidence of icehouse involve month or local bias.

despite these facts, republicans continue to invent partisan election season conspiracy theories. one of the allegations as the supreme court decision in citizens united wanted president obama for democratic members of congress, and the irs, doj and other agencies to launch a governmentwide effort targeting conservative groups. i firmly believe the citizen united decision severely undermines our campaign finance laws, allowing special interest hours to drown out the voices of average americans. republican attempts to characterize these as local pressure to target conservative groups lacked merit. preposterous accusations have been contradicted by the committee's own investigation. we know the inappropriate criteria started with an employee in cincinnati. the report says they developed inappropriate criteria. this was confirmed in a committee interview. explaining they first came up

with an appropriate search terms not for political reasons but to promote consistency. he proved his point by telling us he's a conservative republican. ae former irs commissioner, 2008 president bush appointee was asked did the citizens united case effect the irs process handling tax applications. his answer was no. to the best of my knowledge, it was not. the head of the election crimes branch of the doj said citizens united is not a problem. it is the law, so i'm not aware of any effort or heart of any effort to fix a problem from citizens united will stop while republicans continue to promote their unfounded allegations, they overlook the funding -- funneling of dark money into elections. 501(c) four organization's are not barred from participating in the campaigns that they state clinical activity must be an insubstantial part of the

activity, less than 50%. taxe groups can gain exemption as a 527 organization, but that would require them to disclose their donors rather than keeping american people in the dark about where they're getting their money. anonymoustedly said, money in politics disrupt the democratic ross is will stop that's why ranking member cart right introduced the open and act which would require organizations to disclose clinical funding to shareholders. this legislation will shine a light on the dark money funneling -- funding clinical activity. i commend chairman leahy and jnator udall for advancing as resolution 19, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution restoring reasonable limits on financial contributions and expenditures in elections. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i think the gentle lady.

i invite you to submit opening statements for the records. to welcome the deputy attorney general of the nine states. stand up for a raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear and affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? please to have you with us. you have done this a few times. you've got five minutes more or less. fire away. >> i will take less than that, mr. chairman. before i start, i want to thank the chairman for accommodating the request i made to have a rescheduling of the data. i was already scheduled to be down at the southwest order looking at the mcallen station, dealing with the issues down there in dealing with the issues we have there. thank you for accommodating that.

to testify iny response to the committee's thesight interest that internal revenue service targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. the attorney general immediately ordered a thorough investigation. that investigation is being conducted by career attorneys and agents of the department's criminal and civil rights ofision, the federal bureau investigation, and the treasury inspector general for tax and mesh ration. confidence inost career professionals in the department. i know they will follow the facts wherever they lead and apply the law to those facts. while i understand you are interested in learning the results of the investigation, in order to protect the integrity and independence of this investigation, we cannot disclose nonpublic information

while the investigation remains pending. this is consistent with a long-standing department policy across both democratic and republican administrations, which is intended to protect the effectiveness and independence of the criminal justice process as well as the privacy interests of third parties. you the investigation includes investigating the circumstances of the lost e-mails from this learner's computer. to your request, we have undertaken substantial efforts to cooperate with the consistentn a matter with our law enforcement obligations. we have produced documents regarding ivo onesie organizations by criminal division attorneys with lois lerner him who is ahead of the exempt organizations division of the irs. also taken the extra terry step of making visible to career prosecutors from the department's public integrity section hooks waned these

contacts with ms. learner. of2010, for the purpose understanding what criminal violence -- criminal finance relations might involve following the supreme court decision in citizens united versus the fec, they reached out to the irs and was paid -- and were directed to ms. learner. in the course of that meeting, it became clear it would be difficult to bring criminal prosecutions in this area and in fact no criminal investigations were referred to the department of justice by the irs and no investigations were opened by the public integrity section as a result of the meeting. a separate contact between the public integrity section and ms. learner occurred in may of 2013 when the department of justice had been asked both in the senate hearing and subsequent letter from sheldon whitehouse whether the department and treasury department had an effective mechanism for communicating about potential false statement submitted to the

irs by organizations seeking tax-exempt status. an attorney in the public integrity section reached out to ms. learner to discuss the issue and ms. learner indicated someone else from the irs would follow up with a section but that all of it not occur. in some, these two instances show attorneys in the public integrity sector were merely fulfilling their responsibilities as law enforcement officials. they were educating themselves on the ramifications of changes, and the area of campaign finance laws, and ensuring the department remains vigilant in its enforcement of those laws. as we have asked into the committee previously, in 2010, in conjunction with the meeting i previously described, the irs discs tovia die with contain only public portions of files returned from tax-exempt organizations. as we have indicated in letters to the committee, the fbi has

advised us that upon their receipt of those discs, an fbi analyst reviewed only the index of the disc and did nothing further with them. to the best of our knowledge, they were never used for any investigative purpose. pursuant to the subpoena, we provided you with copies of the is gone june 2, 2014. when it remained our understanding the discs contained only publicly available information, shortly thereafter, the irs notified the department the discs appeared to inadvertently include a small amount of information protected 10internal revenue code 60 three and we promptly notified the committee of this fact by letter on june 4, 2014. we promptly provided our discs to the irs and suggested the committee do the same. ourrder to provide you with best information regarding the discs, including the fact they

were not used by the f ei for any investigative purpose, we've written the committee several letters regarding the disc and the director of the f ei answering questions from chairman jordan in a house judiciary committee this year. we recognize the committee's interest in this matter. we share that interest and our conduct in a thorough and complete investigation and analysis of targeting by the irs. i know you're frustrated by the fact that i cannot disclose any specifics about the investigation. i do pledge to you that when our investigation is completed, we will provide congress with detailed information about the facts we uncover and the conclusions we reached in this matter. thank you, mr. chairman, i will now be happy to answer questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. learned in congress on june 13, 2014 that two years worth of

lois lerner's e-mails were missing. when did the justice department learned about that? >> we learned about it after that from the press accounts in the paper following the irs's notification to congress. >> you read about in the press and nobody in the irs ever went to the justice department to give you a heads up knowing you are conduct in the investigation or that some evidence may have been destroyed? >> not before the 13th of june. >> let me ask you this -- you said in your testimony you are conducting a thorough and complete investigation and analysis of the allegations of targeting by the irs. if that's the case, why wouldn't you have known these e-mails were missing? in you simply not seek to a the course of the investigation or did the irs not provide documents the justice department

requested? >> again, it is ethical to get into the details of the investigation, but there are number of different sources of --ails in the irs will stop the irs. there are lots of recipients and senders and we are looking at many if her and sources of those e-mails and it did not become apparent based on that that there were anti-missing e-mails before that. -- if you are investigating an entity and that agency has a duty to preserve evidence, correct? >> that is correct. that agency head is responsible for making sure they comply with the justice department? >> i imagine the agency head ultimately bears responsibility but there are people further down who do the work. of in the course investigating a case, if you are investigating an agency or itity and there is evidence

was destroyed in the agency knows they are under investigation, and don't they have a duty to report that to the justice department says that you know the evidence has gone missing? >> we would like to know that information. it depends when they learn of it. it is certainly information we would like to have. makef you are in court and a representation to a judge, even if it is in good faith and you find out the representation you made is factually incorrect, you have a duty as an attorney and member of the bar to go back to the court and follow the duty of candor to inform the tribunal and correct the record, is that right? >> that's right. as you in thek justice department look in a congressional investigation, if we have somebody heading an agency or who is involved with an agency and they provide information to us, that

information, later they determined to be incorrect, due they have a duty of candor to the congress to correct the record? >> yes. >> very well. let me ask you this -- there was a record -- we sent a subpoena for documents and received a response on may 28, 2014 sign by peter cat state. the department's position saying they're certain items we requested that the department is not going to produce. is that accurate? >> yes. the reason cited was substantial confidentiality. notnt to clarify -- is producing the documents, is the reason for that that the president is exerting executive privilege in this matter? >> i do not believe there was an assertion of executive privilege. there were documents involving ongoing investigations that

traditionally over decades, in combination with the department and congress, those are not produced because they are law enforcement sensitive items. >> my final question would be, this congress held lois lerner in contempt. almost nine weeks ago. federal law requires when that happens that the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia take that to a grand jury. is it your understanding of that law that it is an obligatory duties at this attorney must take it before a grand jury? >> my understanding of the law is it does not strip the u.s. attorney of the normal discretion the u.s. attorney has. he proceeds with the cases he believes it is appropriate to do so. usc 194 says it shall be the duty to bring the matter with a grand jury. you are saying even though congress mandated the duty, a prosecutor would be able to

trump that language by exercising discretion? >> i believe there are seven that give a prosecutor prosecutors real discretion on how to run a case and how to review a matter. i understand this matter is under review and as far as whether or not it has been presented to the grand jury, that is information you cannot disclose because -- >> i understand that entirely. maybe we will follow up on that. gentleman from maryland is recognize. but thank you very much for being here. i wish it were under more constructive circumstance. this committee has accused your department, the justice department, of engaging in criminal conduct, of obstructing the committee and conspiring with the irs. let me ask you directly -- are any of those accusations true?

>> they are not. focus on one specific accusation -- chairman isa and chairman jordan have accused the department of justice of conspiring with the irs to create what they call an illicit registry of confidential taxpayer information to prosecute conservative organizations him a the claim is based on the fact that back in 2010, the irs provided to the with1 computer disks annual tax returns, or form 990's for organizations with tax exempt status. according to your letter, these discs contains the forms of all january 1,d between 2007 and october 1, 2010. locale -- regardless of affiliation. is that correct? >> that is my understanding, but

i have not seen the list myself. my understanding is it was resented to assess public record information and not selected on the basis of any sort of political affiliation. theyed on your knowledge, were not just conservative organizations? >> that is not my understanding. >> as i understand it, the vast majority of this information is acceptable to the public -- accessible to the public. organizations guide -- is that right, to your knowledge? >> my understanding when we received the disks is that it was represented to us that would it was all public information. >> so these forms were provided in 2010, but earlier this year, more than three years later, you discover a very limited amount of confidential taxpayer was gore -- taxpayer information was stored on those discs.

>> that's right. >> is effected only 33 of 12,000 forms on those discs. that's less than 1%. >> i don't know how much it specifically was. i knew it was a small amount. xd you have any reason to believe do you have any reason to believe that these reductions were done incorrectly or on purpose? >> i have no reason to believe that other than that it was just a small amount in what was represented to us. >> finally, to me, the most important point here is that these discs were never reviewed. is that right to your knowledge? >> that's correct. other than the index, basically the first page of it, they were never reviewed and never used. >> deputy attorney general cole, having dealti hear with the justice department so many years and dealt with the justice department so many

very best and the brightest citizens go into that department, many of them could make a lot more money doing other things, but they decide that they are going to give their life to what i call feed their souls and make a difference for people. and then, just the idea to hear that the justice department is accused of criminal activity -- the very department that has done so much to make sure that ,ur laws are upheld -- i mean it's very upsetting to me. i would like to give you an opportunity, since you represent so many of these wonderful people who have decided to give their careers to us, the idea that they are working hard, but

then they give you these accusations. i want to know your reaction to that. ranking member, i represent all of them. the career people we have at the are reallyof justice some of the best and most honest lawyers i have ever seen. the amount of integrity that is there is really quite outstanding. you are right -- they do sacrifice a great deal of money to work there. they work there because they feel it is important to go after the pursuit of justice. they work to try to find out what the facts are, what the law facts to the law, and let the chips fall where they may. there is no politics involved with all of these career people, and it's really impressive to see the work that they do and the results that the justice department is able to bring about and the credibility that the justice department has because of the wonderful work of the career lawyers that we have.

>> it is my understanding that if you will find that the crash of ms. lerner's computer had any criminal elements in it, you would be looking into that and addressing it as you would any other criminal case, is that correct? >> that's what we do in everything. we look to determine if there are any criminal violations of any federal laws, and if there are, we act appropriately. that's the purpose of the justice department -- to find out what's going on, what the truth is, and to take action. >> thank you very much. >> is it true that richard pilgrim met with lois lerner back in 2010? >> yes, it is. >> is it true that he got the information -- this 1.1 million pages of information -- in the format that he ask for it? >> i think there was a request of several different forms it could come in, as i understand it, and we were asked to pick which one the fbi would prefer. >> lois lerner said, "i'm

getting you the disc we spoke about. does the fbi have a format preference?" he said raw format was best because they could put in into their systems like excel. you guys asked for specific information -- that's right? you guys asked for this data? >> am not sure. i have not seen an e-mail specifically asking for it. >> sure looks like you asked for it. and then you get the data, right? >> my understanding is that we did get the data, that the requests were made before the meeting and that the data was delivered -- >> if it is publicly available information, why did you ask the irs for it, and why did you have to meet with lois lerner to get a? >> i don't have the answer to that right now. >> that is an important point. we would like an answer for it. you're the one who has said several times its public

information, and yet you had to go to lois lerner and the irs and get it in the format you wanted, and mr. cummings says that's no big deal, and you had it for four years? >> the discs were in the possession of the fbi for -- >> 21 discs? one .1 million pages? >> i think that's correct. >> most importantly, it did 6103 information, correct -- >> we learned about that -- >> i did not learn about that -- -- i did not ask when you learned about it. i asked if it contained it. mr. cummings just at this is no big deal, but it is. the justice department asked for information you said was public information, but you go to lois lerner to get it. you say it is available publicly, but you do not get it publicly. you go get it from the irs, and the contents confidential taxpayer donor information. all those are facts, correct? >> they are not necessarily facts that are all linked

together, mr. chairman. >> they are all in the database, correct? the irs told us it was confidential. i did not make that up. the irs told us there was confidential information in there. >> there was no request at the time. i'm not even sure if the justice department requested the information or the irs offered it. format you get it in the you asked for, sure looks like you asked for it. >> i'm not sure how the actual idea of providing that information to the justice but it wascame up, provided after the meeting. >> let's go to your testimony. your written testimony. thesay on page two of written testimony that there was a separate contact between this same lawyer and ms. lerner and the commentsnse to in a senate hearing looking at statementing a false against the very groups targeted

by the irs. follow where imad? >> it has nothing to do with the groups targeted by the irs. that is not correct. whether or not false statement groups could be brought -- >> they are the same groups. trust me. ms. lerner indicated that someone else with the iris would follow-up with succession, but that follow-up did not occur. why did that follow-up not occur? >> i don't know. >> let me give you a reason why i think it might not have occurred. because this correspondence, this meeting took place on may 8 2013. you know what happened two days later? >> yes, i do. >> what happened two days later? >> ms. lerner gave a speech at an aba conference and talked about the issue. >> where she explained to the whole world that the irs was caught with her hand in the cookie jar and were targeting these groups. that's why the follow-up did not occur. two days before, the very lawyer who met with lois lerner in 2010 got the database in the format

they want it, two days before ms. -- jump ahead three years later, two days before ms. lerner goes public, he's meeting with her again saying follow-up will take place, but it does not take place because ms. lerner knowpublic and says, "you what? targeting did in fact happen. she tried to spin this in a way that blames good public service to good public services in cincinnati, which unit was false, and it's no big deal that you had all this information? give me a break. last question before i go to the next member. this committee was told just a week ago that it was known in april of this year that a substantial portion of lois lerner's e-mails were lost, and he waited two months to tell us, and he waited even longer to tell you. if a private citizen does something like that under investigation, find out they have lost important documents

and does not tell someone, .hat's a problem is it a big deal to you? it's a big deal to the justice department that the head of the internal revenue service waited two months to tell the united states congress, two months to tell the american people, and most important, two months to tell the fbi and justice department that they have lost lois lerner's e-mails. >> this is matter were obviously we would like to know about the loss of the e-mails -- >> i'm asking if it was a big deal. circumstances were he knew in april. i asked why he did not tell us, why he waited two months. know all theke to circumstances from him as to why there was the two-month wait -- >> i would like to know as well. >> before i answer whether it was a big deal. right, the gentlelady from illinois. >> thank you. i believe that in his testimony, he actually -- the response to why there was a two-month wait was that he was informed and

then for the next two months, they were attempting to recover the lost e-mails from other host computers where those e-mails were located, so that just because you lose the e-mails from ms. lerner's hard drive, where -- they from vendor, that toey would exist in the recipients. i believe over 80 other host computers where there were looking. that is part of the delay, but i would like to know also the full extent of what was going on as well. deputy general cole, as i'm sure you are aware, the nature of the justice department investigation into irs practices regarding tax-exempt applications has been subject to lengthy discussions before various congressional .ommittees despite unsubstantiated allegations that the justice department has prematurely fored its investigation political reasons, attorney general holder has repeatedly

confirmed before both the house and senate judiciary committees that the justice department and fbi are still actively investigating this matter. on january 29, 20 14, the attorney general testified that the matter "is presently being ."vestigated interviews being done, analysis being conducted. several months later, the attorney general further testified before the house judiciary committee and offirmed that the department investigation was still an ongoing matter that the justice department is actually pursuing. general, can you confirm that the department still actively investigating irs practices surrounding tax-exempt applications? >> this is still an ongoing investigation. that's correct. >> thank you. accusations that the department has prematurely closed investigations are false. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> some have alto -- also limited the length of time this investigation has span.

is it uncommon for him to >> investigations such as this one to take a substantial amount of time to complete? >> broke as a prosecutor and defense attorney, this is not an unusual amount of time for an investigation like this. >> thank you. is there anything unusual or troublesome about the length of department irs investigation is taking? you would expect another investigation of similar complexity to take a similar amount of time? >> this is normal, yes. >> can you comment on reports that the justice department has decided not to bring charges against irs officials? >> no decisions have been made in this case. >> can you confirm no decision has been made yet about whether to criminally charge anyone in doj's ongoing investigation? i know you said that, but because it references the fact that the decision is still -- the investigation is still ongoing. >> there have been no decisions made as of right now. >> so there could potentially

still be criminal charges if you were to discussions -- discover some cause? >> the whole range of options is open. >> i thank you for your cooperation, and i want to give you a chance to respond to some of the allegations come -- of whether the justice department worked with the irs to compile illicit andse for comprehensive registry by law enforcement officials. was this something that was a collusion between the justice department and the irs? >> no, it was not. irs use thisj or registry for the potential prosecution of nonprofits? >> we did not. as a matter of fact, we did not use it for any purpose. >> in a letter on june 2014, it was said that a special forecutor is needed

targeting. do you support that? >> i do not. i do not think what is necessary here. not think one is necessary here. >> i'm going to give you time to respond to the accusations on how the doj is conducting the investigation and these allegations that you are colluding, delaying, lying. i only have 30 seconds, which is not a lot of time, but go ahead. >> short of saying we are not doing that, this is the same thing -- we are not talking about what we are doing in investigations either way. if my answers would help us or hurt us, we are not talking about what we do in investigations. that's just how we proceed in investigations for a lot of very good reasons. >> name some of the good reasons why you would do that in general. >> first of all, you do not want people to prejudge when not all the facts are in. you want to make sure that you gather all the facts that are available so you have a complete and full record on which to make the determinations. you want to protect people's

privacy because many times, people will provide us information, and you do not want to start going out and telling everybody who is talking to us, who is not talking to us. you do not want to have some witnesses infected by what other witnesses had said so that you can get the pure statements from each type of witness. some people, you may just want to make sure they are protected because there are allegations about them that turned out not to be true, and it is not fair for this to be published. you also just want to make sure that everything is done with fairness and thoroughness, and you want to make sure that you have the ability to do that without the interference and public spotlight. that's not the way investigations are done well. >> thank you. >> would that include the president of the united states prejudging the outcome of the case when he said there was not a smidgen of corruption? talking about you did not wanting -- not want anyone saying anything, but the head of the executive branch prejudge is the entire investigation on a nationally televised interview.

>> i'm talking about what the department of justice does -- >> you're talking that doing a good investigation, getting to the truth, and you do not want certain witnesses in certain people talking about it. i would think that would include the highest-ranking official in the country. >> mr. chairman, if i may, we do not want the justice department -- the justice department does not talk about the investigation. we are the ones who know what the facts are and the fact that we are gathering. lots of people have talked about the investigation on both sides. they are free to do that. that is part -- part of their first amendment right. we do not do that. is eric holder, and his boss is the president of the united. that's a completely different category than members of congress or a private citizen talking about it. you just went through a whole list of reasons why you cannot tell us what you are doing and cannot talk about who is involved in the case, but somehow we bring up the president, no big deal. the german from arizona is recognized.

from arizona is recognized. >> i assume you are familiar with the portion of the code of federal regulations dealing with the prohibition of disqualification arriving from personal political relationships with regard to a criminal investigation, correct? >> yes. >> you surely understand that it explicitly states, "no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political any person orith organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution or any person or has azation which specific and substantial interest that could be directly affected by the investigation" -- do you understand that? it says.hat is what >> you probably also understand there is a carveout section that states employee assigned to or participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who

believes his participation may be prohibited shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to a at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. if a supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists, he shall relieve that employee from participation in less he determines further in writing that full consideration the relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee services less than fully impartial and professionally, and employee participation would not create an appearance likely to affect public perception of the -- you understand all the supplies to the department of justice, correct? >> yes, it does. this is the regulation and the guidance. attorney believe the of the department of civil rights division and major contributor to president obama campaign and democratic national campaign means the standard set

forth in the code? >> you have to look at section c of that regulation, which defines those terms, and it political relationship as close identification with an elected official, a candidate, whether or not successful, for elective public office or a political party or campaign organization arising from service as a principal advisor thereto or principal official thereof. >> would you not say a principal advisor is someone who contributes to that party? >> know, an adviser would not be a person who makes a contribution. >> really? do you also believe that she should also have brought this forward as a conflict of interest? that, as the definition states, she did not fall within the political relationship under the definition. >> let me ask you a question -- are you familiar with the impeachment of richard nixon? >> i am. >> article to exhibit one was the irs.

power public mindset, the to tax is the power to destroy, so even more public scrutiny should be applied, would you not agree? >> we are applying a great deal of scrutiny. >> again, the same type of code should be very explicit in making sure that it is squeaky clean in regards to the perceptions of the public. >> i agree, and she did not meet the definition. >> sidestepping, i would say. i am a an attorney, but dentist. it is just the implication of likeaspect in a public main street america which shows that there was a conflict of interest. from that 10 point, the public is the one we should be adhering a fair andure it's equitable evaluation. i think that does not only to you, but also mrs. bostrom and in regards to her concept to the they owend i think that further detail. would you not agree? >> i think you have to go through the regulations. you have to apply the law to the

matter, and the law in this matter has a clear definition of what is meant by the terms, and those terms did not encompass her. >> i see. i want to go back to some of the comments you made. the president made a comment that there is not a smidgen of opportunity there's corruption in this case. would you agree with that? >> this investigation is open -- >> i'm going to cut you off there because how would you define "a smidgen?" small? >> congressman -- >> smidgen, small -- is the big? is it small? the'm not sure the context president meant. >> you were watching the super bowl? you did hear that. you are a literate person. a smidgen would be what? >> a smidgen is small. >> in this case, there's not an opportunity for something to be wrong and corrupt it in this aspect in your professional

judgment? >> i'm not going to comment on the findings we have made so far and the fact we have gathered in this investigation. we do not do that. if somebody else wants to render an opinion -- >> i'm going to cut you off right there. you made a comment of the ranking member that these individuals that work as criminal attorneys are fantastic people. are they human? >> of course they are. >> so they do make mistakes? >> of course they do. >> thank you very much. >> the german from pennsylvania .s recognized >> thank you for being here today. i do hope we can use this opportunity to lay to rest some of the more outrageous allegations that have been circulating about the department of justice. and chairman jordan's letter to attorney general holder noted they were "shocked to learn" that the

justice department and irs had a meeting attended by lois lerner in early october 2010 to discuss the criminal enforcement of campaign finance laws. in that letter, they claimed that testimony about the october " that theng "reveals justice department contributed to the political pressure on the to "fix the problem" posed by the citizens united decision. do you have any reason to believe that the october 2010 between irs and doj representatives was improper in some fashion? >> no, i do not. >> i also wanted to say during the transcribed interviews, committee staff asked about that

october 2010 meeting. the chief of doj's public integrity section had the following exchange with -- "at thetaff october 8, 2010, meeting him and did you or anyone else at the department of justice suggested irs employees that they should fix the problem posed by "itizens united decisions? answer -- no. your opinion, does the citizens united decision pose a problem?" "my job is to -- enforce the law. citizens united is the law of the land. that was the answer that was given. agree that citizens united is the law of the land is doj's role and responsibility to enforce that law?

>> yes, it is, and to enforce all the other laws that are involved in that area. >> all right. director of the election crimes branch of the doj's public integrity section was asked about citizens united during his interview. in response, he said the islowing -- "citizens united not a problem. it is the law, so no, i am not aware of any efforts or part of any effort to fix a problem from citizens united. i am aware that it changed the that lawgh, and enforcement reaction to such changes must be vigilant about the opportunities they present for lawbreaking." my question for you, deputy cole -- areeral you aware by any attempt of the justice department to "fix" a problem posed by citizens united? >> i'm not aware of any such

effort. there was no problem, particularly. that was the law. >> now the statements from doj witness is and the deputy attorney general himself have directly refuted the chairman's contributedhat doj to the political pressure on the by to fix the problem posed the citizens united decision, i want to say i hope this claim is .ut to rest once and for all it's time to stop creating fake scandals and start focusing on conducting real oversight, which is the charge of this committee, and i yield back. >> i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement made by ms. lerner at a speech eight days after the meeting mr. cartwright just referenced at duke university in 2010 where ms. lerner said, "everybody is screaming at us right now fix it now before the

election." forgot what mr. cartwright said, but we do know ms. lerner gave a speech eight days after that meeting and said everybody is asking me to fix it. i thank the chair. since we are putting stuff in the record, i would ask unanimous consent that the full transcript of the staff interview with the director of the election branch of doj -- >> i object. mr. chairman, is not the policy of this committee to put transcripts in the entirety out. i respect the gentleman's right to take any and all pertinent areas, but putting questions and answers of transcripts has coach to be used to witnesses, and the coaching of witnesses later on i'm sure mr. cole would tell you is not productive in an investigation. mr. chairman, i have a second unanimous consent request.

want to cherry pick around here, i was simply trying to avoid that because i know that the committee chair frowns on that. that this may 29, 2014 interview with the chief of doj's public integrity section also be entered into the record. >> again, i object and lets the gentle man can cite appropriate items -- he is certainly welcome to. but the policy of this chair is that it is destructive to to dog investigations entire transcript and for the most part has been avoided. >> mr. chairman, then i will of theo sections interview that i hope the chairman would not be -- would not object to being in it into the record at this time. >> i'm afraid i have to read them because otherwise you'll not know. , "since iector said join the public integrity i have never

encountered politically motivated decisions. to the contrary, it's been my consistent experience the section is active on a strictly nonpartisan basis and all of its decisions and actions. in my experience, politics plays no role in our work as prosecutors." chairman, one, mr. and then i will cease -- on may 29, john kennedy's birthday this of doj's public integrity section explained to us that, "since i have been chief of the section, i have never encountered, nor will i tolerate any politically motivated decisions. politics does not and cannot play a role in our work as prosecutors." i thank the chair. >> i thank the gentleman. more to get the two because we have two votes. would you agree that it would

be wrong to continue an investigation for any length of time if there is not a smidgen of evidence of wrongdoing? >> if you have completed the investigation and you have satisfied yourself that there is no wrongdoing in the investigation then the investigation is done. >> that was not my question, mr. cole. if you begin an investigation and you go through weeks, months, basically now one year, and you do not have a smidgen of evidence of a crime, is it appropriate to continue spending taxpayer dollars? yout depends whether or not think there is a chance you will find additional evidence of crime. >> you have an ongoing investigation that has been going on now for one year. you have confirmed an ongoing investigation. it is appropriate to say that your