should play a and normally you would hope in an economy with those severe downside risks, monetary and fiscal policy would not be working at cross purposes together. whether or not in such extreme circumstances there might be a for, let's say, coordination, close coordination, with the central bank playing a role in financing fiscal policy, this is something that academics are debating. it is something that one might legitimately consider. i would see this as very abnormal, extreme situation where one needs an all-out attempt, and even then, it's a matter that academics are debating, but only in an unusual situation. >> justine, the steven.

>> justine underhill, yahoo! finance. now that the fed has started the process of raising rates, various fed officials have said, including ben bernanke, that the fed could go cash flow negative in this scenario as capital losses are taken on the portfolio bond. do you still see this happening, and when might this happen? >> you're talking about our income going negative? conceivable, in a scenario where growth and inflation will really surprised us to the upside. we would have to raise short-term interest rates so rates we would be paying on reserves would exceed what were on the portfolio. bout $2en, we have a trillion in liabilities, namely

currency, on which we pay no interest, so this does require an extreme scenario with very rapid increases and short-term interest rates. it is conceivable, but quite unlikely, that it could happen. but, you know, if it were to happen, we would have an economy that would be doing very well. this is probably an economy that everybody would feel very well,d, was performing where than expected, and monetary policy -- our goal is price stability and maximum employment, and we would probably feel that we had done very well in achieving that. we usually make money. we would be making a lot of money in recent years, but the goal is not to maximize our income. in a very strong economy like

that, the treasury would be seeing a lot of influence in the form of tax reviews. madam chair, to what extent do you feel constrained in raising interest rates by the low or even negative rates that foreign central banks are pursuing, possibly out of concern for what it might mean for the dollar exchange rate? and if that is a constraint, to what extent might you also be concerned about the impact, long-range, of load to mr. gravew domestic rates distorting markets? >> should the state of foreign economies, both their growth outlooks in the stance of monetary policy, those are

factors that influence the u.s. outlook and influence the appropriate stance of monetary policy. so of course we do look at foreign rates. s for growth in those economies in considering the stance of policy. differentials between countries ths do tendolicy pass d to spill over into exchange rates. that is a standard part of how monetary policy works, and a stronger dollar does have both a depressing effect -- it creates channels through which domestic demand is depressed. will, moment, net exports

for quite some time and probably going forward, will be somewhat of a drag on u.s. growth. so that is a factor that we take into account. the dollar that we have seen since mid-2014 have served to push inflation down as well. that can also have impacts on commodity prices that are relevant. relevant toainly this stance of u.s. monetary policy, and a factor, but when one says a constraint, i would not go so far as to say it is a constraint on monetary policy. outlook for an we haveng trend growth, reason to believe inflation would overshoot our target. we would see a case to gradually raise rates over time. at the moment, i think markets

do expect -- and this is factored into market prices -- a gradual path for rates to increase over time, but for example, if we were to see upside surprises, to growth and to inflation, and had to raise short-term rates faster, thought we should, one of the channels by which that would work would be the associated impact on the dollar that is standard channel through which the monetary policy transmission mechanism works, and we would take it into account and would not feel constrained, but that would be part of the work. >> last question will be nancy. how much are you watching oil prices and their impact on inflation, and how that could affect the timing the future rate increases, and how much of might increase rates? >> well, oil prices have had

many different effects on the economy, and so we have been watching oil prices closely. as you said, falling oil prices pull down inflation. totakes falling oil prices lower inflation on a sustained basis, once they stabilize at whatever level. their impact on inflation dissipates over time. so we are beginning to see that happening. stabilized,e they they have moved up some, and their inflation, their impact on inflation is waning. oil prices have also had a very substantial negative effect on drilling and mining activity linked to weakness in investment spending and job loss and manufacturing and the energy

sector. it has different effects in different countries and factors for american households. we have estimated that since may the 2014, the decline in energy prices has probably resulted in gains of about $1400 per u.s. household, and that is having an offsetting, positive impact on spending. but in many countries around the world, there are important commodity exporters. the decline we have seen in oil prices has had a depressing effect on their growth, their trade with us, and other trade partners. it has caused problems that have had spillovers to the global economy as well. it's a complicated picture. >> thank you.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> john brennan testifies this morning at an open hearing of the senate select intelligence committee about the cia's operations around the world and global terror threats. you can watch its live beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three and c-span.org. >> the tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some programs coming up this weekend. on saturday night at 8:00 eastern, the publishing industry's annual trade show in chicago. kareem abdul-jabbar discusses his forthcoming book, "writings on the wall," about the current political and social landscape. a roundtable

discussion about donald trump's book, "the art of the deal." panelists include a book critic, a senior writer for politico, and a senior writer for the wall street journal. at 9:00 p.m., "afterwards." a political science professor talks about his book, "isis: a history." he is interviewed by another author. ofso this spectacular surge the was a direct result of deepening sectarianism, the civil war's nin all and the perception that somehow the arab spring, the peaceful action could not really change the existing order. >> go to book tv.org for the complete we can schedule. >> i am pleased that the senate

body has come to this conclusion. willision in the senate undoubtedly provide citizens with greater access and exposure to the actions of this body. this access will help all americans, to be better informed of the problems and the issues which faced this nation on a day by day basis. >> lebron is here is not partisan -- what brought us here is not partisanship, but the man who happened to be the president, who happened to be elected by the people and given the most solemn responsibility in the nation to be the chief law enforcement officer of the miserably infailed that responsibility and he deserves to be impeached based on what he did. >> i hereby appoint the honorable susan m. collins to perform the duties of the chair. >> the majority leader is recognized. perhaps yousident, have already noticed that the

senate seems to be i've abordinarily well-organized. with apologies for the chaplain at the majority leader, i think we should note that a significant milestone in the 210 year course of this senate's history is taking place today. never before has a team composed entirely of women members and staff opened the day's proceedings. >> celebrating 30 years of coverage of the u.s. senate, on c-span2. >> the house oversight committee the irsd to censure commissioner for allegedly obstructing a congressional investigation into one of the irs's targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. many members passed a resolution in a partyline vote that accuses

the irs head of providing false testimony to congress and allowing evidence to be destroyed. committee chair jason chaffetz has called the resolution a "first step" in the eventual impeachment proceedings. the judiciary committee will consider an impeachment bill next week. this markup session on the censure revolution is just under two hours.

>> the committee will come to order, house bill 1124. may postpone proceedings on measure matter adopting amendment on which recorded vote is ordered. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. first item house resolution 737 condemning and censuring commissioner of internal revenue service, the clerk will designate the resolution. resoluc

>> house resolution 737. condemning and censure john koskinen international revenue. issued a subpoena to john koskinen. >> ask it read and be opened at any time. the resolutionsked that be considered as read. without objection. so ordered. i went out recognize myself for five minutes to explain the resolution. complying with the subpoena is mandatory. it is not optional. testifying before congress is also mandatory. settling the court duties of compliance with a congressional subpoena and testify truthfully to congress, there must be repercussion. house resolution 737 as introduced is a necessary repercussion for the iris commissioner for the misconduct deserves condemnation and censure from the congress.

makes sureion also that he should resign. if he does not, the president should remove him, and they should affect his pension. mr.e many are familiar with failures, i will go over them. he failed to testify truthfully. i will focus on 2014, when he came before us to say why they did not produce e-mails. at that time, a subpoena of e-mails was in place since august 2013. there was another subpoena issued in february 2014. nn june 20, 2014, mr. koskine said, and i quote, every e-mail has been preserved. nothing has been lost. nothing has been destroyed. that was not true. in mayestigation began 2012. yet, the inspector general found the iris destroyed, destroyed,

422 act updates, including 4, 2014, therch date on which we know there was obstruction. also on june 20, 2014, mr. wekinen told congress that confirmed that backup tapes for 2011 no longer existed because they have been recycled, pursuant to normal iris policy. that was not true either. available for almost two years after the congressional investigation began. he's false statements were even more disturbing because the irs new infantry 2014 there was a problem with her e-mail. on february 2014, the counsel to the commissioner realized that some of the e-mails were missing redaction to congress. ms. dubois was essentially managing the iris response to congress. monday, sheday,

told colleagues at the irs about the problems she found. she talked to the information technology people. she taught to the people in the office of chief counsel. by the next day, february 4, herkane figured out that system crash, which is why her e-mails were evidently missing. so they knew in february 2014, there was a problem with her e-mails, and mr. kaufman and -- mr. koskinen said he knew about these in mid april. he still fail to take basic steps to locate the document. according to the inspector general general, he failed to look and five of the six places her e-mails could have existed. blackberry,, her the server, the backup server, and her laptop that was online. in fact, the irs barely looked

for the missing e-mails at all. notify mr. koskinen congress of the problem. notify the treasury department and the white house that her e-mails were missing, waited and. koskinen then waited some more until june 13, when they told congress by burying them in a fifth page of an attachment to the letter of the finance committee. that triggered a number of hearings in congress, and he came up to testify about what happened, and then he lied to us under oath. told yet another on july 23,later 2014. he was asked what was missed, and remember earlier, he said they had confirmed this, and he said somebody went back and that, ind made sure fact, any backup tapes that existed have been recycled.

that was completely and totally false. nobody at the irs went back and confirmed the tapes were destroyed. theyey had, in fact, if had done so, after they learned that some of her e-mails were missing and early february, they could have actually found the backup tape before they were destroyed. remember, the inspector general only took 15 days, 15 days for the inspector general team to find the backup tapes in west virginia. us they hadtelling spent millions of dollars and 250 people to get the job done, and they could not do anything, and the inspector general in 15 days did find it. the inspectorof general some did up by saying, and i quote, he said, quote, the best we can determine through the investigation, they simply did not look for those e-mails. for the thousand, over 1000

e-mails we found on the backup tapes, we found them because we looked for them. and quote. -- end quote. this is through 2016. last year, the government accountability office audited whether the irs had implanted changes from preventing this from happening again. remember, it was the president who said he was going to get somebody new in there to work hand in hand with congress to make sure this never, ever happened again, but again, the most recent gao report found nothing has changed. the environment for targeting still exist. a risknd there is still that the iris could, quote, select organizations for examination in an unfair manner, based on religious, educational, political, or other views. end quote. koskinen, the turnaround

artist, has done nothing to prevent people from the targeted for their leaves. his term does not expire when president obama leaves office. based on the senate confirmation, until 2017 unless we act. the cousin of the actions of mr. koskinen, americans will never know the answers to how and why their rights were violated, and he should bear the ultimate repercussion and be impeached. towards that, censure is the helpful first step. we over to the american people that their government officials are held responsible for misconduct. when there is a duly issued subpoena, you have to comply. when you come before congress, you must testify truthfully. if you find later that there is a mistake in your testimony, you need to come and correct the record. none of that happened with mr. kinen, and this is why i

asked my colleagues to support this. we will now recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings, for his statement. veryummings: thank you much, mr. chairman. let me start off by saying this. my colleagues know that i respect you, and i also consider you my friend. you know i try to work with you in a bipartisan manner. life is short, and i tried to make sure that whatever we do that we are effective and efficient at doing it. part of that effectiveness and efficiency certainly goes to integrity. yesterday, we hit an amazing

milestone here on the oversight committee. 600th bipartisan letter since we have been serving together. letters, but of this has to be a record for this congress,in a single and it is a sea change from how things used to be around here. we have done serious investigations like this, the secret service investigation. athave looked just yesterday the park service, and we are in agreement with much of our conclusions of the hearing and our investigations.

we have also worked on bipartisan legislation like the landmark for your improvement act, and the house this week sent it to the president, as well as the postal reform bill, which we will be unveiling today . simply, i want to be effective and efficient in whatever i do. i want this committee to be the same. sincerelyly and bothers and pains me when we press forward with bogus issues like the one we are discussing today. mr. chairman, i say this as your friend. you are completely and totally wrong on this one. the department of justice disagrees with you. inspector general disagrees with you.

the distinguished senator from utah, whom you know well, senator hatch, chairman of the senate finance committee disagrees with you. there was no politically targeting. there was no lying to congress. .here was no obstruction it simply did not happen. and more thanars $20 million spent, it is finally --e to put this baseless these baseless conspiracy theories to rest. this resolution is a waste of time. it is going nowhere. andas no practical effect, certainly as i can see it, it is time to give up on this one. it is now undermining the credibility and integrity of the committee and the work that we

do. our committee is at its best when we work together on productive reforms. i went to the house floor on monday and praised you for your leadership on proactive legislation. that is what the american people want us to do. i think that is one of the when they do not see us doing productive things, they become so frustrated. and that is the kind of work we should be doing. is an honorable man. this 70 60 gentlemen -- gentlemen -- this 76-year-old ge ntleman came out of retirement to take on this job. i cannot imagine anyone taking on that job under these

circumstances. mr. was going on before koskinen arrived. he has testified more. he has answered questions after question about all of the allegations of this resolution. your core accusation about the he wasioner is that deceitful and that he misled the congress. disregard thetely difference between a misstatement and a lie. you know, whenever i am talking to my staff, i tell them, do not call anybody a liar, because it is something that will go to their grave with them and will be written in their obituary. you ignore the fact that the commissioner testified based on what he knew at the time. this distinction

does not matter, but it does. case in point, i will be offering an amendment today to correct basic errors and inaccuracies in this censure resolution. them.are a number of mr. chairman, i want to make clear that i am not professing that you deceived the house when you included these inaccuracies in this resolution. i am not alleging that you were dishonest. i recognize that you were likely relying on others for information. the same is true of commissioner koskinen. we will also be offering a second amendment to recognize the bindings on the inspector general of the irs. mr. george identified no political targeting of any group , no order to destroy any e-mail , no obstruction of any

investigation. i did not say that. mr. george, the republican ig did.ent -- appointed republicans may want to ignore these findings, but they are right here in black and white. finally, mr. chairman, let me close by making one final observation. on the committee's official website, there is a section called getting results. it allows employees to be called on or to be fired. inen's name isosk , theat list with a quote quote next to it. creating a hit list on federal

officials is not something to be proud of. a publicdefaming servant who came out of retirement to take the helm of an agency in turmoil is not a positive result. it is a travesty. we can, and we should be proud of the bipartisan, proactive reforms we have worked on together and will continue to work on, as we would do this afternoon with regard to the postal reform. so i hope we can return to focusing on those issues that have the potential to deliver real results for the people who sent us here. one of the things that i say to my personal staff at the end of every week is, what did you deliver? and deliver deliver beyond a speech? what did you deliver to the people who sent us here?

so i am hoping we will resolve this, and i yield back. gentleman, thank the and i appreciate the sincerity and the working relationship that we have. we dority of the time, come together, and i appreciate your comments in that regard. does any other member wish to speak on the resolution? we are ready to start the amendment process. are there any amendments to this resolution? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment. chair: the clerk will read the amendment. : an amendment from mr. cummings from maryland. cummings for maryland is recognized to explain the amendment, and without objection, the amendment is considered as read. mr. cummings: thank you, mr. chairman. censureately, this

resolution is riddled with factual inaccuracies. it makes assertions that are just flat wrong. this amendment is intended to remove those inaccuracies. if we are going to vote on a censure resolution, taking the kinen,n away from mr. kos i went to make sure that whatever we are voting on is accurate. there are three errors particular way that this amendment would remove. paragraph 10 of the resolution inaccurately splices together two quotes from commissioner from completely different hearings, as if you set them together. this creates an impression that should have been corrected long ago. it is just wrong. second paragraph 11 of this asserts that commissioner koskinen should censure because he did not check. that is also wrong. tooknspector general

possession of her blackberry six washs before mr. koskinen even sworn in. six months. again, this is not just inaccurate. it is wrong. another indicates that he knew, and i quote, as early as 2014 that her e-mails were missing and could not be produced to congress. this is also just wrong. it is in accurate. the committee has obtained no evidence that commissioner inkinen became aware february 2014. the commissioner has testified repeatedly that he is learned about her hard drive rash and the loss of e-mails in april 2014. these are all statements that are just wrong. they are inaccurate. they need to be corrected. whether you support the resolution or oppose it. we should at least be able to agree to get the facts right.

makehair, i want to crystal clear again that i do not think he intentionally made these statements. i believe you thought that they were accurate at the time and relied on staff. i believe the same thing about commissioner koskinen. he is honest and told us what he knew at the time, and he relied on his daft, just like you did and just like i do. for these reasons, i urge all to many members to adopt this amendment. i yield back. chair: thank you. i recognize myself to speak to the amendment. i will be offering an amendment to the amendment. the gentleman is in -- is correct with the date. the quote is accurate. i would agree with you, should include the july 23, but the quote is accurate. as far as the blackberry

i makent to it, again, these comments when i give my amendment to the amendment, but this is based on the irs having this in their possession. i would disagree with you on the adjustment of that, and then as it relates to as early as february 14, that is what mr. them, and we know that he definitively had it by april. and i am paraphrasing. i am not getting the quote exactly right, but it one point, nen testified before congress that when the council knew, he knew, and that happened to be in february 2014, so i will be offering an amendment to the mm and to get to the accuracy of july 23, but i will not concur with the other two portions.

-- i will be offering at amendment to the amendment. let me go first to mr. conley of virginia, who is recognized for five minutes. >> i support the amendment of mr. cummings, and i associate myself with all of his remarks. this is my eighth year here in , and i have seen and committee do good work not so good work. today, you are about to smear the name of an honorable man, a distinguished public servant, 76 years old, came out of retirement to try to straighten out it agency that all of us were concerned about. we are going to make assertions about the truthfulness of his

testimony before the committee on six occasions. as the ranking member indicates on this amendment, we cannot even get it right in many cases, splicing many comments to allow the impression that they all occurred at the same time and same setting. we do not give him the benefit of the doubt we are going to insist for ourselves in terms of accuracy. when you take away someone's good name, you pretty much take away everything they got. this is a difficult town, oncengton, and a gentleman said if you want a friend here, shortly -- surely , we could just once put aside partisanship and respect the

that an individual before us was doing his best. he did not deceive. he did not mislead. he certainly did not live to this committee. those very harsh judgments that i hope are never held up to members of this committee at some point in their future. we are about to do something that i think is dishonorable and andges the kind of comity partisanship that, mr. chairman, i think you have genuinely try to foster during your tenure -- tried to foster during your tenure. a black mark on this committee and this congress and not worthy of our endeavor. i yield back.

chair: thank you. i recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> like heck, he did not deceive. you are right. the iris new in february 2013 that the hard drive crash, and they waited four months before they told congress and the american people. in thatn, what happened interim? that is when 422 backup tapes were destroyed. if they had told us in february wouldhey knew, maybe they not have destroyed those backup tapes, and we would have access to those e-mails and to the information, which would have helped us in this investigation. that is what this is about, and he testified right at the table. if our chief counsel knew at the iris -- those were his words. in the finance committee, are you kidding? of course, that is deception. you cannot wait four months.

several committees are investigating, and you wait that long to tell us? it is ridiculous. censured stay in the resolution. >> with the gentleman yield? >> of course. >> i will also say they informed the white house, and the white house informed treasury, but the white house did not tell congress. that is just a fact, and still nen sticksy, mr. koski with that story in did not correct it. if we got a eight wrong, we are going to correct it. that is the honorable thing to do, but still, -- if we get a date wrong, we're going to correct it. >> mr. chairman? chair: yes. >> there is another thing. he knows in february, does not tell congress until june, and not only do they destroy 422 backup tapes, he testifies four times before congress and does not tell us. i yield back. yield'she gentleman

back. anyone else? yes, mr. hargrave from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i concur with the ranking member's remarks that we are in thea bogus day oversight and government reform committee. i would like to speak in favor of his amendment. the censure resolution asserts enat commissioner koskin should resign and forfeit his position because he has not gone to great lengths to retrieve 's e-mails, and that the commissioner failed to search her blackberry. on june 30, 2015, the ig issued a report on this issue, on page 19 of the report, it states, and i quote, took possession of learner's blackberry after she left the irs. the problem is that commissioner was not confirmed until

december 20, 2013, and he was summer 23,n until 2013. that is six months after they took her blackberry, so the inspector general took possession of her blackberry when she left the irs six months n wase commissioner koskine ever sworn in and conducted his own forensic analysis, so that could not have been correct. i assume it must've been an oversight on the part of the chairman, but when we say oversight on this committee, we do not mean this is the mistake and i assume the chairman would not want this kind of mistake to stand in the resolution, and i say that when we go about this serious and sober business of deciding whether to censure a man and a black mark on his career for the , every littlefe

detail matters, and i ask my callings to adopt this amendment. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i respect the views of our friends on the other side of the aisle. they certainly have a right to their opinion, but they do not have the right to change the facts, and we are dealing here with a situation where, without question, a federal agency has unleashed its power to apply undue, in proper, and politically motivated scrutiny against innocent americans, and it is appalling. there should be no citizen in this country that fears an agency of the government, specifically something with the power of the irs, which can destroy lives. exercising their god-given and constitutionally

protected rights for a certain political viewpoint, and yet, that is exactly what has happened here. obviously, people are fearful of the irs. in fact, our recent polls have shown that fewer than one third of americans trust the irs, and that ultimately all comes down to leadership. n was supposed to be the man appointed by the president to clean up the agency and to institute reform and transparency, and starting right here with this committee, he certainly has not done, and i stand against this amendment. written. as things are written, it needs to a that way, and i yield back. chair: thank you. the gentlewoman from the virgin islands is now recognized. you, mr. chairman, and i want to give my support for the amendment because the facts are important, and being

meticulous about them is what i think we are all about, and i think that the chairman, in giving the dates with which knew aboutr koskinen this that the chairman might be confusing what the irs new and his taking responsibility for the irs, as opposed to what he and i thinknew, that in the a norma's amount of questioning and hearings and evidence that has been presented, we also have the testimony, the sworn testimony, of the commissioner, and my good friend across the aisle, mr. jordan, was so kind enough to and in him on july 23, just want the record to reflect what he testified to in that rigorous cross-examination. inen said, quote, i did not know that there were e-mails lost, personally did not know,

and this is what i was testifying about, and when i testified, and i have said this before in several hearings, when i testified in march, i did not know that her e-mails were not recoverable, and mr. jordan said, this is your testimony right here. i am reading john koskinen's testimony right here, and mr. kinen says, right. then he says this is certainly before the that means you are not going to get what is there. : no, and i am sorry. i take responsibility for the earlier actions of the agency. when i try to figure out what we knew, that is what the irs new. -- knew. when you asked me specifically what i knew, i did not know

anything until april. i would henceforth say that we, as the irs, knew. when i testify, i tell you what ," and from this testimony that we have, we do not know from this date that we have here .hat he did not personally know it was not in march or april. i think the chairman has to stand by that sworn testimony of esther -- of mr. koskinen. irs would say that they knew in february, that they could say that, but to say that this man, this gentleman, would come before you with sworn takemony, then we have to that unless we have evidence to controvert what he personally

knew that that date should stand and i yield back. the gentlewoman. any other member wish to speak on this amendment? the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. i want to speak in favor of this commissioner knew as early as 2014, according to the report, and that e-mails missing could not be produced for congress. there is no evidence to support this statement. i think my colleague, ms. plaskett, for entering the record again that sworn testimony. committeee as a become so god-like that we could say that a person is lying and a person is not an a person did

receive the information even when we do not have data to support that? the fact that if this body wants to say that the irs was aware, absolutely, then let's move forward, but how do we say without facts that a person actually knew about this situation? my republican colleagues may want to argue that the commission had learned about this early because it feeds into the position that they want to have or what i can even call a conspiracy theory, and that the commissioner intentionally withheld information and was complicit in it or even ordered the destruction of the background tapes, that cup tapes. but there is a zero evidence to support this claim. none. none but a personal belief or a theory that we cannot substantiate. checked, we were

supposed to deal with facts, and if that had been the case that havenspector general would uncovered it during his multi-year and investigation or that the committee would have covered it during our exhaustive investigation or that the department of justice would have that the only reason that it includes this information is because it is part of a plan to have this massive attack. but it is wrong, and it is inaccurate, and i and i encourage all committee members, republicans, democrats, to vote in favor of this amendment, because we as a committee should never, ever, step outside of the fact that we are human and we are dealing with facts that are presented to us, and i yield back my time.

chair: thanks to the gentlewoman. any other member wish to speak on the amendment? amendment toe an the amendment. clerk will designate that amendment. >> second-degree amendment offered by mr. chase it's -- mr. affetz. would likek you, i to recognize myself for five minutes. again, july should be included in there and if you will look at the amendment, the amendment includes that same portion, what i have moved to strike the first part of mr. cumming's amendment, as well as the last part, but let me address each of those, though. again, the part of the testimony in the record here from mr. hekinen, when he says "we,"

is the commissioner, i think that "he" is self-explanatory means him as well. that is why we say that as early of 2014 that there is a range in there and i think we have been clear as we can possibly can. 's testimonykoskinen he and he says, "in february, as i said, they briefed me, and the whole subject of the search terms means there was an issue with the dates. i got interrupted that there was but that is crash," what he testified to. in relation to the blackberry, the last part, i was actually the one who testified -- question mr. koskinen, and i asked, did they look at her blackberry, her phone?

the inspector general says, "they did not." quote. again, this is part of the record, and i agree with mr. cummings to the middle part, if you will, the larger part, the middle part of the amendment, what we disagree with the other two, so that is why offer an amendment to strike those two portions. to cummings: i just want make sure i understand the argument in regards to the blackberry. thethe blackberry -- add blackberry in june of 2015? chair: correct. according to this, you are saying that he should have done what? is how itords, this

is sworn in, and the ig has the blackberry, but what did you want him to do? i'm just curious. chair: i will reclaim my time. mr. cummings: of course. chair: the internal revenue service -- in fairness to mr. koskinen, it was already there with us happened, but the reason we believe that this censure, and i believe, impeachment, is ultimately the right and just thing to do is the way we have to, misled, i believe lied because there has been no correction of the record. there has been arrogance and a defiance that he is right on all points when the record does not reflect that and we rely on the inspector general, we rely on his testimony, but it says in our resolution that commissioner replied to the internal

revenue service. i don't think he personally went and did it, but if he knew otherwise, or came into the fact later in his possession, he had a duty and obligation to correct the record and provide those to congress. he managed to tell the white house, he managed to tell the treasury department, but he didn't tell us and the record is clear that in terms of the blackberry, it was not checked and it did go into his possession. remember, this investigation started years ago and they bragged for months that they to $20 millionon to have this huge, massive orgnet out there, but five six sources were not checked, and that includes the blackberry. yields --gs: gemini gentleman yields? chair: sure. mr. cummings: so you are saying is that after he was sworn in and took possession of the blackberry, he should have gone

on to others so we could say, take the blackberry? is that what you are saying? chair: no, no, that is not what i am saying. he did what he should not have done and it was an inconsistent, avoidable fact. ok, i yield back my time. any member, any other member which to's -- member wish to speak on my amendment to the amendment? mr. cummings: chairman, i just want to enter into the record a on it, itthe ig and is dated june 30, 2015, and on ae third page, there is quote, "however, the investigation does not uncover

any evidence that the irs or its employees purposely erased e-mails from the congress, the but going back, and end of quote, but just going back, mr. chairman, you know, we are in ang mr. koskinen situation where you want him censured, you want him impeached , but at the same time, you are holding him responsible -- and i know, people make mistakes, we all make mistakes, whatever -- but again, i think this is going a bit far. with regard to this gentleman, and again, i have said enough. chair: well, without objection, we will enter that report into the record. that will be entered into the record. will the gentleman yield?

mr. cummings: of course. chair: he came to our committee and testified that they had gone to such great lengths, that is the word he used, they had gone to such great lengths. and then he had gone back and testified that he confirmed, confirmed, that in fact -- and that, that is again where, again, we get into this pattern of deception that i think, as the leader of that organization, is intolerable -- no doubt we disagree about that. mr. cummings: again, as i said in my opening statement, it is one thing to say that somebody lies, it is another thing to say that they may have been in error based upon the knowledge that they had at that time, i just think that this is a bit much. take a man's suspension and then ruin his reputation, and again, putting a black mark on his life

that will follow him straight on to the grave. with that i yield back. chair: general minute yields back. is there any other member who wishes to speak on the amendment? if not, i speak on the second amendment agreed to discuss, and all in favor say aye? all nos? the ayes have it. are there further amendments to the amendments. the question is now on the amendment offered from the gentleman from maryland. those in favor signify by saying aye. aye. those opposed, no. the amendment is agreed to as an amendment. are there further amendments to the bill? mr. cartwright has an amendment, the clerk will designate the

amendment. offered by mr. cartwright of pennsylvania. chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright, is recognized for five minutes to explain the amendment, and without objection, the amendment is considered as read. mr. cartwright: we would strike the language from the current resolution and we would add the data of the republican inspector general of the irs, after his multi-year investigation, to reach these conclusions. the inspector general's staff interviewed more than 100 witnesses, reviewed tens of thousands of documents, and even restored information from backup tapes. censure contradicts these findings found by inspector general george. the inspector general found that in appropriate screening material was used by the irs but

he did not find that anybody from the irs was politically motivated, and we all heard that testimony in this room. inspector general found no evidence that the commissioner intentionally erased backup tapes, and we all heard that testimony in this room. the inspector general found no inspectorhat the general try to conceal information from the congress, and we heard that testimony in this room. the inspector general found no evidence that they had directed anybody else to destroy or conceal information from the congress, we all heard that in contrary, thethe inspector general testified before this very committee on june 20 5, 20 15, and that the commissioner was, and i quote, " 2015, and that the commissioner was, and i quote,

"extraordinarily uncooperative." end quote. concealed information but the inspector general found no evidence to support these claims. as has been mentioned. senator orrin hatch agreed with the republican inspector general george. "for theatch stated, most part, he has been very cooperative with us," he is referring to mr. koskinen. "this replaces them with the republican inspector general's conclusions word for word. i urge committee members to adopt this amendment because it is based in fact an entirely on conclusions from the republican inspector general, russell george. he interviewed more individuals than we did.

he conducted an extremely thorough investigation and if we mean our proceedings here in the reforment and committees, if we mean to be fact-based and honoring the truth, then we should use mr. george's conclusion instead of the one that we cooked up right here in the committee. and with that, i yield back, mr. chair. chair: i thank the gentleman and i now recognize myself for five minutes. i am in opposition to this amendment. i understand the points of the try to makes about discouraging the character of the inspector general. though, iental flaw, believe, in argument in favor of this amendment is that the department of justice, the fbi, the inspector general, none of them were looking at mr.

koskinen's comments since the report came out. they didn't do any investigation. they didn't conclude one way or another. they didn't even look at it. it is something based solely on the testimony before the committee in which we have dismissated, and so to the rest of these findings, we are concerned about mr. koskinen when he came on board. there was a subpoena put in place in august of 2013 and another subpoena after that was put into place and we had a fiduciary responsibility to comply with that sponsor ability based on the testimony that he has given. we find that to be false. gentlemen, i am sure disagreesedly, he with those conclusions, but i also want to make sure that based on previous statements that we are not trying to suggest that the ig, in any way,

shape, or form, investigated mr. koskinen, because that sadly did not happen. and now i yield to the gelatin from ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. look at the last paragraph. is an honorable public servant. through preservation orders in play, to subpoena orders in 200 24nd he allowed backup tapes to be destroyed. of e-mail of the loss and waited for months to tell congress, and yet here is the closing statement of mr. cartwright's resolution, or amendment, excuse me, where he said he is quote, "an honorable public servant, and was cooperative with congress." excuse me? he is corporate of with congress

when he has destroyed the very documents that have been asked for in these subpoenas? and he has been an honorable public servant? and is under investigation? that is ridiculous. and how about the first page? no members of the irs should engage in this -- how about the evidence that came out a week and a half ago? 426 groups that were talking. let me just read a few of the names. i will start on the last page, i number 426,ith tea party patriots, never 20 five, young americans for liberty foundation, north ns for freedom, western slope conservative alliance, west suburban

patriots, people of texas, people of new york, we can go to the front page. very first one. three, fournumber theers liberty restoration, 912 project of burlington county. i mean, to say that there was no evidence. we've got a list. 426 of them. almost everyone one of them is a conservative group. and we have an amendment in front of us that says there was no evidence that the irs employees were politically motivated? this is laughable. wasthat mr. koskinen extraordinarily cooperative with congress after he had to subpoenas and destroyed evidence? if that is cooperation, well -- it's there is any doubt, then i

am against this amendment. i yield my time back. chair: we recognize the gentleman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. anh, i seem to recall awful lot of things from inspector general russell george, and he issued a report, and i have a quote from that report. he found, not the democrats in this resolution, quote, "no evidence the irs and its employees purposefully erased the tapes in order to conceal responsibility from the congress ." in that same report, the republican inspector general on whom we have relied so heavily found, and i quote again, "no evidence, no evidence that the

irs was involved in a intending tapestroy data or the or the hard drives in order to keep this information from congress, the department of tigta." or we want to rely on these spectre general's comments when it is important, and not. there is a difference between being an investigative body that tries to pursue the truth. i yield back. the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell, is recognized for five minutes. you, mr.ll: thank chairman.

we seem to make this much about the ig and mr. george and whether or not his testimony has been uncovered that there was testimony going on, that i would submit three previous questions, and i would ask that the irs testimony had stated, "that is left no stone unturned, given what had been brought forth." i asked, "was that true?" they said, "that would not be true." tapes wered if the recoverable and were the tapes erased after july 2014, and in the same month, july 2014, irs officials testified in the house ways and means committee and "confirmed the e-mails were unrecoverable." end quote. and i confirmed, "was the

testimony true?" and we confirmed in this committee that this would not be true. and in the february 2015 testimony of mr. koskinen, he confirmed that the "tapes were not recoverable." end quote. i asked if that was true and the answer was, "that would not be true." so we can go when we can parse out certain things, that based on what we heard from the inspector general in this very room, there are statements that had been made under testimony before both the house and the senate and they would not be true with the knowledge of what they possessed at the time. have this problem and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back.

chair: the gentleman yields back. and now we recognize the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, miss norton -- ms. norton, for five minutes. ms. norton: the inspector general is usually the flagship of investigators. he has gone here before this committee and found no wrongdoing. do you remember the intense cross-examination under which he was put? and we found no wrongdoing? , diddepartment of justice an intensive investigation, and their investigation was not only to commissioner koskinen, what they found, and here i quote,

"no evidence that any official involved in the handling of past, exempt applications of all irs leadership attempted to obstruct justice." that is investigation number two. investigation of a committee known for its partisanship. in a bipartisan briefing, the department of justice informed members of this committee and that the inspector general's office and the fbi agreed with the conclusions of the department of justice. has said thatman he has confidence in the fbi director combing --director comey.

we work bipartisanly and we one completed the review and this committee, what it really wants is to do an impeachment, but even its own leadership could not stomach that. so its own leadership pushes it back to what we now have, which is a warmed over version of will meant that nothing, will go nowhere, will not be seen in the senate, will fade into history as another example of the stark partisanship of this committee, notwithstanding the facts of the report, and notwithstanding objective fact finding. i yield back.

yields back, and now i recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer. -- mr.almer: think chair. thank you, mr. before --chair: before the gentle man yields back, i think the great deal of frustration is that there was evidence in their possession and it was destroyed. we issued a subpoena to mr. koskinen. will issuehe irs tens of thousands of subpoenas and summons on an annual basis. they know how this thing works. they get it.

but they are not often on the receiving end of a subpoena. so we issued a subpoena to the irs. they know that. imagine if this had happened to our regular person. it.ine imagine if the irs sent you a notice and you said, "you know what, i have it, i have all the information, i have allwe've go. we are getting it. and then they destroyed it. and then they came back -- imagine if you went active the irs and said, that information, i had it and i shredded it. you can't have it anymore. what do you think the irs would do to you? they would drag you into court, put handcuffs on you, and you would be put in jail. we are not suggesting we prosecute mr. koskinen

criminally, but he has all the resources, 90,000 employees, billions of dollars at his disposal -- he spent $20 million roughly, and they couldn't find -- they had them and they destroyed them. the reason the records will always be permanently incomplete is because the irs commissioner, under his watch, brought around the turn around person that was going to work with congress according to the president, they destroyed them, and they didn't let us know. they let the white house know. they let the treasury now. they didn't let congress know. put yourself on the other side of it. you would never get away with destroying documents that were under sabina from the irs. the conclusion about -- we're e-mailsabout 24,000

that were destroyed. then they came and said, i can't remember the exact words mr. koskinen used, but they checked all these, but the inspector general was able to recover 1000 of them. they were there, and still to this date, june 2016, mr. koskinen stands by all the statements which we know are absolutely false. i yield back to the gentleman, mr. ballmer. rep. palmer: thank you, mr. chairman. i would simply add that this committee has been here on several occasions, dealing with actions of other agencies that were inappropriate. i would like to point out, and this was before my election to congress, that this committee brought up the issue that if the irs had done what it should have done protecting the rights of citizens, one of whom is a good friend of mine who testified for

the u.s. senate, if they had done what they should have done, we would not be here discussing this right now. ideally back. -- high yield back. -- i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield my time to mr. cartwright. cartwright: i acknowledge and understand the frustration and exasperation that you have just expressed. my regret is that you have chosen to vent your frustration and exasperation on this particular man, mr. koskinen. my amendment is to correct the record and to make it clear that the inspector general, mr. russell george, after an extensive investigation, he is

essentially the chief prosecutor, found no evidence that the irs employees were politically motivated in their creation or use of the screening criteria, found no evidence that the irs purposely erased tapes in order to conceal e-mails, found no evidence that the irs employees involved intended to destroy data on the tapes or evidencee, found no that any irs employees had been directed to destroy or hide information from the congress. these are not my words. these are the words of the inspector general, the republican inspector general who serves as the quasi-prosecutor in this matter, and he concluded that mr. koskinen, and i invite the attention of my friend, mr. jordan, from ohio to the fact that it is said that mr.

koskinen was extraordinarily cooperative. those are not mr. cartwright's words. those are the words of republican inspector general russell george, that mr. koskinen was extraordinarily cooperative. we're talking about putting a t on the service record of mr. koskinen, something that will follow in the rest of his career, something that he will be answering questions on the rest of his life. it is a quasi criminal prosecution that we are up to hear. is grave as this to a man's life and career, you want to have a high standard of proof. it is like a criminal prosecution. in a criminal case, a prosecutor has to prove his or her charges beyond a reasonable doubt. here, we have the chief prosecutor who has said there is cry fromce, a far

meeting any reasonable standard of proof, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. that is why i have submitted this amendment. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment and think twice before we besmirch the good name of a hard-working public servant. i yield back. rep. the gentleman -- chairman chaffetz: the gentleman yields back. any other members wish to be heard? the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. rep. lynch: a procedural matter to begin with. i do know the judiciary committee, chairman bob goodlatte has scheduled a hearing examining the allegations of misconduct two,st mr. koskinen part june 22. part of me says, we are trying

to hurry up and hang this guy. we will have the trial next week. i'm not sure what evidence will be prevented -- presented before the judiciary committee. chairman chaffetz: if the gentleman will yield. i'm on the judiciary committee. that is to examine the process of how does impeachment work. it has been 140 years since it has been done. it is not the specifics of the case. time,ynch: reclaiming my i'm sure the members of that committee will have time to raise questions of substance as well. i just think that more evidence is better and the procedural point i'm trying to make is that if we're going to continue to have hearings on this, we should now totaking a vote besmirch the gentleman's name. i understand the underpinnings

of this. it is a very serious matter. the fact that the irs targeted particular groups, particularly politically active groups, for harsh treatment and denial of rights because of their political views his obnoxious. anger.stand the whether it was conservative groups or liberal groups that were targeted, that is a heavy weapon the government can use to trample on their rights. about theo question seriousness of what we're talking about here. i fully appreciate the gravity of what is at stake. but when we talk about the evidence, the list of people, of groups, that is just evidence of who was targeted. between no real nexus

mr. koskinen and the targeting of those groups. there is the question of custody of e-mails and communications .ith respect to what happened but when you look at his whole body of work, mr. koskinen, and he's no favorite of mine, this whole thing was a mess. it was chaotic. you do look at the man's reputation, and what is at stake, and i look at his body of work over his time in service. he came back out of retirement to try to help a struggling agency get right. of his career, mr. koskinen has worked with republicans and democrats, has earned a reputation as a turnaround specialist of sorts who can salvage the most

desperate situations. john lindsay, republican of new york, chose him to work for him. after time in the private president served as clinton's technical person when we had the lead up to the y2k controversy. he later was called up by president george w. bush's administration to become freddie mac's new chairman in the financial crisis. according to president bush's administrator, and this is a needed somedie mac stronger management, so we selected him and he accepted the job, and we were thankful. " georgeinspector general came to the conclusion there was no evidence to support what we're claiming here today. i don't understand the basis for

damaging this man's reputation. i really don't. and trying to take his pension. he has devoted a significant portion of his life to public service. i got to tell you, this is wrong. politics, buts the querulous and petulant servantstowards public that sometimes prevails in today's politics, especially in this case, is again obnoxious. i wish we weren't doing this. i know about holding people responsible and accountable, but the evidence is not there to do this to mr. koskinen. it is not here. i know there are further hearings on this matter and i'm going to support the gentleman's amendment and i will oppose

this. effect it has a chilling on people willing to engage in public service, when their reputations and their name can be ripped apart for no good reason. chairman chaffetz: does any other member wish to be heard on the amendment? mr. walker of north carolina. rep. walker: mr. lynch, thank you for your comments. chairman chaffetz: the chair reminds members to not address other members. rep. walker: thank you for the reminder, mr. chairman. there was some question about the handling of the e-mails. even if there is some question, i think it is a bit much to use the terminology that commissioner koskinen has been extra ordinarily cooperative with congress. the american people are getting hosed on this. if we think about specific

targeting, something the irs apologized, even the president if i remember correctly talked about how angry he was about all this, and to say there might have been some questions, even from the perspective of our friends on the other side of the aisle, mr. chairman, if there's a shred of questioning or even incompetence for not managing this properly, this amendment certainly wouldn't qualify that as extraordinarily cooperative with congress. with that, i yield back, mr. chairman. chairman chaffetz: i now recognize the gentle woman from the virgin islands for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak in favor of this amendment. the censure is written without regard to inspector general george's conclusions that he found no evidence that there was an intentional destroying of information to obstruct

congress, the department of justice, or the inspector general. there's a difference that i think this resolution confuses. two fundamental concepts, lying and mistakes. i think we are putting the onus on this one individual and destroying one individual for what this committee has found to be the irs' misdeed. putting the misdeeds of an entire agency on the back of this individual who, yes, has the responsibility of the agency, but has not shown himself to in fact be someone who has been untruthful to this committee in any way, is something i think this committee does not want to do. i cannot believe the chairman really wants to take this committee to that place. where the calculations and the

actions of an entire agency can destroy one individual because they decided to become a public servant and take on that. everyone understands there's a difference in making a mistake. the fact that someone has intentionally not told the truth. i believe the censure is a serious that should be reserved for great misconduct, but i have not seen the grave misconduct, by definition, to be within the ext of what mr. koskinen has stated he's done. as everyone on this site has stated, i believe we are going to do far. -- too far. remove the irs. we decided to target the head. i think that is entirely what this is about and we are making a huge mistake.

as my colleague, mr. lynch, said, we're going to have an enormous effect on honorable individuals that going to agencies that this committee says have made mistakes, or agencies that we know have problems. on would any individual take any of those agencies, knowing there's a possibility that oversight may decide they're going to go to the individual and destroy them? up with somell end bar secretaries and commissioners, directors of agencies. if they decide to take on anything that is a difficult task, knowing that oversight, and this congress may go after them if they can't reach the agency, or the president. i yield back the balance of my time. chairman chaffetz: i think the gentlewoman.

i recognized the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. rep. duncan: i yield my time to the chair. chairman chaffetz: thank you, mr. duncan. i would remind members that it was the president himself who said, "inexcusable." to the his reaction report. he said, "our administration has to make sure we are working hand-in-hand with congress to get this thing fixed." >> mr. chairman, if you would yield, hiking he said that about irs, not the individual. that is who we should be going after. chairman chaffetz: clearly, but tigda did not have access to all the relevant evidence. lois lerner's e-mails were the most important evidence in thermining the degree of political targeting. but these e-mails were destroyed

while mr. koskinen was the commissioner. part of my challenge with mr. cartwright's amendment is that you're trying to suggest that the inspector general did some sort of review of mr. koskinen's actions as commissioner. this is not right. lois lerner herself refused to testify based on her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. when people exercise their constitutional rights, we respect that, but he did have an extraordinary effect on our ability to gather and review those e-mails. i think it is absurd to include tigta's statement that there was no evidence or proof of irs innocence, when under the lack of leadership of mr. koskinen, that he failed to comply with a subpoena, directly contributed

to this lack of evidence. we obviously probably disagree on parts of this, but this suggests we are accomplishing what the president said, to work hand-in-hand with congress. that to of us find be not happening and not true. i would point to the fact that the gao issued a report under mr. koskinen's watch that said that this political targeting has not been rooted out. the policies, procedures, changes, they have not been implemented. i would be fascinated to know if there is a different president and a different party in the white house, how you all would groups that you thought were worthy were being targeted. i think he standard should be a standard and there's a principle here. when you have a subpoena, you

comply with it. when you testify to congress, you do so truthfully. if you learn additional facts later, you change the record. with that, i yield back to the gentleman from tennessee. the gentleman yields back. does any other member wish to be heard on this amendment? ranking member, mr. cummings. cummings: i want to go back to some of the things that mr. lynch talked about. there have been a few members who said they weren't here when all of this started. a number of us were here. you know, it seems like we forget that all of this started a employee at irs, who

described themselves as a conservative republican, self-described, that started all this targeting, if you will. and it seems as if we are trying to, because it has been clear from the republican appointed ig , that a lot of the claims republicans were making from the very beginning were not accurate , it seems like we are trying to push a lot of this on to mr. koskinen. again, someone who has come out of retirement, someone who has and trusted by republicans democrats to address very difficult issues. meetingrman, we had a

back in march, justice department, and you said that nobody has looked at koskinen and what he may have done. i remember, as i recall, during and meeting, then you and i staff and a few other members saying theyber them handled some of the things he had done. since we don't have a tape recording, i can't say exactly what they said, but clearly they didn't find anything he had done that was improper. -- i do want to refer back talked earlier about a june 30, 2015 ig report which was entered into the record. i want to enter into the record

the october 23 2015 letter addressed to you and me from the justice department. chairman chaffetz: without objection, so ordered. rep. cummings: i want to quote here what the justice department had done in its investigation. it says, we found no evidence that any irs official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution. we also found no evidence that any official involved in the handling of tax exempt applications attempted to obstruct justice. it goes on to say, we also carefully, and i'm quoting, we also carefully considered whether any irs official attempted to obstruct justice with respect to reporting to congress. the collection and production of

documents demanded by the department and congress, the delayed disclosure of the consequences of ms. lerner's hard drive crash, or the march 2014 you're sure of electronic backup tapes -- they go on to say that although those backup tapes should have been protected from erasure, there is no evidence that any irs employee attempted to conceal the backup , ors from our investigation realized that erasing them might violate preservation of demand. i just think that when we are going to the lengths we are going to hear, to take away somebody's pension and put a negative mark on their record, i think the fact that there may be frustration in that the ig did

not find that there was certain violations, should not necessarily lead to a man who comes before us, based on information he has from his staff, presented to us, i just think it would run too far. with that, i yield back. chairman chaffetz: does any other member wish to speak on the amendment? the question is now on the amendment offered by mr. cartwright. those in favor, signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the no's had it. >> recorded vote, mr. chairman? chairman chaffetz: roll call vote has been requested. further proceedings on the question will be postponed. are there any further amendments to the resolution? if none, further proceedings on house resolution 737 will be postponed. we intend to recess.

we have a number of markups happening in another committee. in order to make sure we have the maximum number of participation, we are going to reconvene at 11:45 to hold the vote at that time. committee stands at recess.

chairman chaffetz: the committee will come to order. is, appreciate the patience, i know we have a lot of mark in other meetings, but the question is now on the amendment to house resolution 737 which was previously postponed. the vote will occur on the card right amendment. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. chaffetz. >> no. >> mr. mica.

mr. turner. >> no. > >> mr. turner votes no. esther duncan. mr. duncan votes now. mr. jordan. mr. jordan for snow. mr. wahlberg. mr. wahlberg votes no. mr. mosh. mr. a mosh votes no. mr. deja vu a. mr. gaudi. mr. baron thought. massey. mr. massey votes no. mr. meadows. mr. meadows votes no. mr. desantis. mr. desantis votes no. mr. mulvaney. mr. mulvaney votes now. mr. buck. mr. buck votes no.

mr. walker. mr. walker votes no. mr. bluhm. mr. bluhm votes no. mr. hise. mr. hise votes no. mr. russell. mr. russell votes now. mr. carter. mr. carter votes no. mr. hurd votes no. mr. palmer. mr. ballmer votes no. mr. cummings. mr. cummings votes yes. ms. maloney. ms. maloney votes yes. ms. norton. ms. norton votes yes. mr. clay. esther clay votes yes. mr. lynch. mr. lynch votes yes. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes yes. mr. connolly. mr. connolly votes yes. mr. cartwright. mr. cartwright votes yes. ms. duckworth.

ms. duckworth votes yes. ms. kelly. ms. kelly votes yes. ms. lawrence. ms. lawrence votes yes. mr. lou. ms. watson coleman. ms. watson coleman votes yes. ms. plaskett. mr. day sunday. mr. day sunday votes yes. mr. boyle. mr. boyle votes yes. mr. welch. ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham votes yes. how is mr.affetz: gose are of arizona recorded? >> mr. gosar of arizona is not recorded. mr. gosar votes no. chairman chaffetz: have all members voted? clerk will report the tally. >> on this vote, there are 15

yea's and 21 nay's. chairman chaffetz: the question is now on house resolution 737. >> mr. chairman, i have a parliamentary inquiry. chairman chaffetz: what is your inquiry? chairman, the question really has to do with what this resolution does and does not do. on may 18, you said the resolution requires the forfeiture of mr. koskinen's pension, or to quote your words, requires the forfeiture of his and for today's markup

of your resolution, you said, requires forfeiture of his government pension and any other federal benefits for which he is eligible. that is what the website says. now -- chairman chaffetz: what is the parliamentary inquiry? >> is it not true that this resolution expresses the sense of the house that he should forfeit his pension and that this is a resolution, it does not have the force and effect to require the forfeiture of a pension or any other benefits, it never goes to the president, it is the expression of this committee and if it passes, of the house, and no more than that, is that not the case? it has no legal force and effect, as impeachment might? chairman chaffetz: i will have to allow you to seek your own

counsel, but as the resolution states, it is the sense of the house, and then you go to the last page, be required to forfeit. i will let you interpret that as you will. i'm not going to interpret the bill for you. >> if i may, with a parliamentary inquiry -- chairman chaffetz: i asked if you had a parliamentary inquiry. >> i have a further parliamentary inquiry. does the sense of the house require any action of the government of the united states? chairman chaffetz: i don't know that that is a parliamentary inquiry. i will let you make that determination. we've had a vibrant debate on this and we will continue with the vote. the question is on the adoption and reporting house resolution 737. all those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. roll call has been requested. the clerk will take the role. >> mr. chaffetz. mr. chafe its votes yes. mr. micha. mr. turner. mr. turner votes yes. mr. duncan. mr. duncan votes yes. mr. jordan. mr. jordan votes yes. mr. wahlberg. mr. wahlberg votes yes. mr. gosar. mr. gosar votes yes. wdy.go votes yes. mr. massey. mr. massey votes yes. mr. meadows. mr. meadows votes yes. mr. desantis. esther desantis vote yes. esther mulvaney. mr. mulvaney votes yes.

mr. walker. mr. walker votes yes. mr. bluhm. mr. bluhm votes yes. mr. hise. mr. hise votes yes. mr. russell. mr. carter. esther carter votes yes. mr. grossman. mr. grossman votes yes. mr. palmer. mr. palmer votes yes. mr. cummings. mr. cummings votes no. ms. maloney. ms. maloney votes no. ms. norton. ms. norton votes no. mr. clay. mr. clay votes no. mr. lynch. mr. lynch votes now. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes no. esther connolly. mr. connolly votes no. mr. cartwright. mr. cartwright votes no. ms. duckworth. ms. duckworth votes no. ms. kelly. ms. kelly votes no. ms. lawrence. ms. lawrence votes no.

mr. lou. ms. watson coleman. ms. watson coleman votes no. ms. plaskett. mr. boyle. mr. boyle votes no. mr. welch. ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham votes no. have allchaffetz: members voted? the clerk will report the tally. >> on this photo, there are 23 yea's and 15 nay's. chairman chaffetz: the resolution as amended is ordered favorably reported. without objection, motion reconsider is laid on the table. we had already called the vote

-- understood. without objection, motion to reconsider is laid on the table. members will have two days to submit views on the resolution considered today. ask unanimous consent that staff be allowed to make necessary changes to the resolution ordered, reported today, subject to approval of the minority. if there's no further business, without objection, the committee stands adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> on the next "washington journal," david cicilline talks about the orlando shooting. journal,"n live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span. >> after the surrender of appomattox, the united states faced a decade of challenges. policies had a lasting impact on american history. this saturday, starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern, american history tv on c-span 3 is live from gettysburg college in gettysburg

for the annual civil war institute's summer conference as authors, historians, and professors examine topics that could threaten our newly unified country, such as refugee camps with abigail cooper, assistant professor of history at brandeis, reconstruction in the north with andrew -- an associate professor of history at east tennessee state. and the post-civil war gran career of ulysses s. grant. conversations on the return of the confederate veteran and the origins of the lost cause. al civil war institute summer conference. live all day saturday beginning at 1:00 p.m. saturday on c-span's american history tv. for the complete weekend schedule, go to c-span.org. >> in response to the mass shooting at an orlando, florida,