invasion. there was no massive military to protect the people of those days. my final point is there is no reason to have a gun. the ability to have a gun for entertainment or estimates of the protector selves is not justifiable when compared to how many people are killed or injured by a shooter who is the element of surprise. i'm a republican who believes in the government's responsibility to protect people from other people by allowing people to have guns that serve no purpose other than to kill, the government is failing me. from that was madalyn california. final thoughts? guest: i won't touch the control panel talkedst about that. in terms of isis inspired actually seewe

about half of the cases, individuals are interested in traveling to join a foreign terrorism organization. the question on guns and foreign plotting goes away and we have this question of what do you do with these individuals who are drawn to a foreign terrorist organization? individualseen 88 arrested in the last two years, u.s., butted for the pales in comparison to other countries. it is something we have to wrapper heads around. host: that is seamus hughes, the deputy program director from the program on extremism at george washington university. thank you so much for joining us. guest: thank you. concludes our program for today. we will be back tomorrow morning. see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪

>> coming up today, the house oversight committee takes action against an irs commissioner in the irs targeting investigation. then, at noon, we take you live to phoenix where the democratic national committee is considering its platform ahead of next month's national convention. >> known as the center of the country music industry, this weekend, the c-span cities tour explores the history and literary culture of nashville. ewing discusses his forthcoming book describing

how a nashville venue became the place for civil rights rallies and the home for the grand ole opry. >> the civil rights movement was very important in nashville, tennessee. a few blocks from here, students counter sit in, powe including congressman john lewis. they got arrested, they challenged the system of what was going on in nashville, tennessee, and the country. visitamerican history tv, the jackson's home and learned about the property history and how it grew from a two-story log a residence. country musicthe hall of fame and museum.

cash and bobjohnny dylan and how music helped to bridge differences. they brought a lot of rock 'n roll people here. the establishment in nashville did not really even accept country music. there were people who would like to pretend that the grand ole , but you canhere imagine, at the height of the 1960's counterculture, when there were divisions between long-haired hippie culture coming out at the time, and more conservative elements. >> watch the tour today at noon on booktv and sunday on american history tv on c-span 3.

>> this week, a resolution was approved against an irs commissioner for a legend misconduct. the resolution calls for his resignation and the forfeiture of his federal commission. it cannot be considered by the full house. however, republican leadership have yet to say whether the vote will occur.

>> we will come to order, with an amendment, and without objection, the chair is authorized. our first and only item for consideration today is house resolution 737, censuring the commissioner of the internal revenue service. the clerk will doesn't make the resolution. >> house resolution 737, resolution condemning and censuring the commissioner of internal revenue, where the committee on oversight reform issued a subpoena -- >> i asked that the resolution 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. the resolution also makes sure that he should resign. if he does not, the president should remove him, and they should affect his pension. while many are familiar with mr. koskinen's 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. on june 20, 2014, mr. koskinen said, and i quote, every e-mail has been preserved. nothing has been lost.

nothing has been destroyed. that was not true. the investigation began in may 2012. yet, the inspector general found the iris destroyed, destroyed, 422 act updates, including e-mails on march 4, 2014, the date on which we know there was obstruction. also on june 20, 2014, mr. koskinen told congress that we confirmed that backup tapes for 2011 no longer existed because they have been recycled, pursuant to normal iris policy. that was not true either. they were 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 from the irs redaction to congress. ms. dubois was essentially managing the iris response to congress. on the next day, monday, she 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. and by the next day, february 4, mr. kane figured out that her 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, he failed to look and five of the six places her e-mails could have existed. backup tapes, her blackberry, the server, the backup server,

and her laptop that was online. in fact, the irs barely looked for the missing e-mails at all. nor did mr. koskinen notify congress of the problem. the irs did notify the treasury department and the white house that her e-mails were missing, and then mr. koskinen waited and 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. mr. koskinen told yet another lie a month later on july 23, 2014. he was asked what was missed, and remember earlier, he said they had confirmed this, and he said somebody went back and looked and made sure that, in 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. if they had, in fact, if they 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. the irs was telling us they had spent millions of dollars and 250 people to get the job done, and they could not do anything, and the inspector general in 15

the inspector of the inspector 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. so for the thousand, over 1000 e-mails we found on the backup tapes, we found them because we looked for them. 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. gao found there is still a risk that the iris could, quote, select organizations for examination in an unfair manner, based on religious, educational, political, or other views. end quote. mr. 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. koskinen, and this is why i asked my colleagues to support this. we will now recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings, for his statement. mr. cummings: thank you very 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. we signed our 600th bipartisan letter since we have been serving together. we send a lot of letters, but this has to be a record for this committee in a single congress, 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. we have looked just yesterday at 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. >> "washington journal" continues.

so it really and sincerely 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. the republican 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. there was no obstruction. it simply did not happen. after three years and more than $20 million spent, it is finally time to put this baseless -- these baseless conspiracy theories to rest. this resolution is a waste of time. it is going nowhere. it has no practical effect, and

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 reasons why when they do not see us doing productive things, they become so frustrated. and that is the kind of work we should be doing. john koskinen 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. this was going on before mr. 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 commissioner is that he was

deceitful and that he misled the congress. but you completely disregard the 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. you suggested 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. there are a number of them. 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 appointment -- appointed ig did. 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. commissioner koskinen's name is on that list with a quote, the

quote next to it. creating a hit list on federal officials is not something to be proud of. publicly defaming a public 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? what did you deliver and 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. chairman: i thank the gentleman, and i appreciate the sincerity and the working relationship that we have. a majority of the time, we do 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. clerk: an amendment from mr. cummings from maryland. chair: mr. cummings for maryland is recognized to explain the amendment, and without objection, the amendment is considered as read. mr. cummings: thank you, mr. chairman. unfortunately, this censure 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 pension away from mr. koskinen, 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 koskinen 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.

the inspector general took possession of her blackberry six months before mr. koskinen was 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 koskinen became aware in 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. mr. chair, i want to make 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. but the day, i would agree with you, should include the july 23, but the quote is accurate. as far as the blackberry component to it, again, i make 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. koskinen told 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, mr. koskinen 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 the congress, and i have seen this committee do good work and 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, washington, and a gentleman once said if you want a friend here, get a dog, but shortly -- surely , we could just once put aside partisanship and respect the

fact 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 damages the kind of comity and partisanship that, mr. chairman, i think you have genuinely try to foster during your tenure ship -- tried to foster during your tenure. this is 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. and again, what happened in that interim? that is when 422 backup tapes were destroyed. if they had told us in february when they knew, maybe they would 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. it should stay in the censure 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 to this day, mr. koskinen sticks 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. chair: the gentleman yield's back. anyone else? yes, mr. hargrave from pennsylvania.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, and i concur with the ranking member's remarks that we are having a bogus day in the oversight and government reform committee. i would like to speak in favor f his amendment. the censure resolution asserts that commissioner koskinen should resign and forfeit his position because he has not gone to great lengths to retrieve lois lerner'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 koskinen was not confirmed until december 20, 2013, and he was not sworn in until summer 23, 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 before commissioner koskinen was 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 committee, 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 rest of his life, every little 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. just for people 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. john koskinen 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. as it is 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. >> thank 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 commissioner koskinen knew about this that the chairman might be confusing what the irs new and his taking responsibility for the irs, as opposed to what he personally knew, and i think 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 western him on july 23, and i just want the record to reflect

what he testified to in that rigorous cross-examination. koskinen 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 koskine'n's testimony right here, and mr. koskinen says, right. then he says this is certainly before the that means you are not going to get what is there. koskinen: 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 i know," and from this testimony that we have, we do not know

from this date that we have here that he did not personally know. it was not in march or april. i think the chairman has to stand by that sworn testimony of mr. koskinen. i think if the 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 testimony, then we have to take that unless we have evidence to controvert what he personally knew that that date should stand and i yield back. chair: we thank 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 amendment, the commissioner knew as early as 2014, according to the report, and that e-mails missing could not be produced fr congress. there is no evidence to support this statement.

i think my colleague, ms. plaskett, for entering the record again that sworn testimony. when did we as a committee 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? i appreciate 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. the last time i checked, we were supposed to deal with facts, and if that had been the case that the inspector general would have 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 covered it, 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? if not, i have an amendment to the amendment. clerk will designate that amendment. >> second-degree amendment offered by mr. chaffetz. chair: thank you, i would like 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. koskinen, when he says "we," he is the commissioner, i think that "he" is self-explanatory and that "we" means him as well. that is why we say that as early as october of 2014 that there is a range in there and i think we have been clear as we can possibly can. this is mr. koskinen's testimony 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 a hard drive crash," but that is 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." end 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. mr. cummings: i just want to make sure i understand the argument in regards to the blackberry. and the blackberry -- add the blackberry in june of 2015? chair: correct.

mr. cummings: according to this, you are saying that he should have done what? in other words, this is how it is sworn in, and the ig has the blackberry, but what did you wat 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 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? is there any other member who wishes to speak on the amendment?

mr. cummings: i want to enter into the record the report of the ig. . want to highlight this quote the investigation did not -- goingny evidence , mr. chairman, we are placing him in a situation where you want him impeach, at the same time, your home to give responsible. i know people make mistakes. going ofthink there's

it far with regard to this german. i have said enough. : without objection, we will enter that report into the record. my concern is he came to committee and testified we had gone through such great lengths, the quote he kept saying, then, went back and testified that he -- thatd that in fact is where we get the pattern of deception that, i believe, as leader of that organization, is dishonorable. claim myngs: every time. this is one thing to say somebody lied and another to say

it was inaccurate based on knowledge he had at the time. mica said, putting a black mark on his life that will follow him to the grave. chair: 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? tehe 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. clerk: 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. gentleman, 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 evidence that the inspector 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 this room, to the contrary, the inspector general testified before this very committee on june 20 5, 20 15, and that the commissioner was, and i quote, " -- june 25, 2015, and that the commissioner was, and i quote, "extraordinarily uncooperative." end quote. so he 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. senator hatch stated, "for the 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 government and reform 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. mr. 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 gentleman has try to make about discouraging the character of the inspector general.

the fundamental flaw, though, i 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 investigated, and so to dismiss 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 wholeheartedly, he disagrees 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. mr. koskinen is an honorable public servant. through preservation orders in play, to subpoena orders in play, and he allowed 200 24 backup tapes to be destroyed. he learned of the loss of e-mail 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 will start with number 426, tea party patriots, never 20 five, young americans for liberty foundation, north carolinans 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. number two, number three, four corners liberty restoration, the 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. and that mr. koskinen was 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. wash, i seem to recall an 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 to destroy data or the tapes or the hard drives in order to keep this information from congress, the department of justice, or tigta." 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. chair: the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell, is recognized for five minutes. mr. russell: thank you, mr. 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." i also asked if the tapes were 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. that is why we 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?

doj, department of justice, did 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.

not a partisan investigation of a committee known for its partisanship. in a bipartisan briefing, the department of justice informed members of this committee and its staff that the inspector general's office and the fbi agreed with the conclusions of the department of justice. even the chairman has said that he has confidence in the fbi director comey. so we work bipartisanly and we have completed the review and on 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 impeachment that will mean 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. the gentlewoman yields back, and now i recognize the gentleman

from alabama, mr. palmer. as to palmer: think mr.palmer: thank you, mr. chair. 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. remember, the irs will issue 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. imagine it. 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 got this dragnet out. 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 talking about 24,000 e-mails 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. pallmer. 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.

rep. 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 hard drive, found no evidence 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 permanent blot 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. if something 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 no evidence, a far cry from 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. 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 againt mr. koskinen part two, 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. rep. lynch: reclaiming my time, 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

not be taking a vote now to 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. i understand the anger. 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. there is no question about the 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. there is no real nexus between mr. koskinen and the targeting of those groups. there is the question of custody of e-mails and communications with 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. over the tenure 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 sector, he served as president 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 quote, "freddie mac needed some stronger management, so we selected him and he accepted the job, and we were thankful. "again, inspector general george 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. and politics is politics, but the querulous and petulant attitude towards public servants 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. i think it has a chilling effect 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. the chair reminds members to not address other members.

rep. walker: thank you for the reminder. 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. i feel like 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 context of what mr. koskinen has stated he's done. as everyone on this site has stated, i believe we are going too far. we can in fact 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. why would any individual take on any of those agencies, knowing there's a possibility that oversight may decide they're going to go to the individual and destroy them? i think we will end up with some 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 inexcusable." this is his reaction to the 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 determining the degree of the 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. a number of us find that to be not happening and not true. absolutely 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 feel if certain groups that you thought were worthy were being targeted. i think a 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 correct the record. in this case, did not happen and the situation is getting worse, not better. with that, i yield back to the gentleman from tennessee. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. does any other member wish to be heard on this amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> heard on this amendment? ranking member, mr. cummings. rep. cummings: chairman, 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. well, a number of us were here. you know, it seems like we forget that all of this started with a, an 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 that the 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 been trusted by republicans and democrats to address very , very difficult issues. you know, mr. chairman, we had a meeting 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 that meeting, that you and i and staff and a few other members had, i distinguish -- i distinctly remember them saying they 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 that he had done that was improper. but i do want to refer back -- i talked earlier about a june 30, 2015 ig report, which was entered into the record. and 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, in part, 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 their reporting -- with resort to their reporting function 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 erasure 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 tapes from our investigation, or realized that erasing them might violate the preservation of demand. again, i just think that when we

are going to the lengths we are going to here, to take away somebody's pension and put a negative mark on their record, i just 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: i think the gentleman. does any other member wish to speak on the amendment? if none the question is now on , the a moment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania 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.

as previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. are there any further amendments to the resolution? is known, as previously announced, further proceedings on house resolution 737 will be postponed. we intend to recess. we have a number of markups happening in other committees. in order to make sure we have participation, we are going to recess and reconvene at 11:45 to hold the vote at that time. committee stands at recess. [indiscernible] [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]

chairman chaffetz: the committee will come to order. the committee will come to order. the question 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 cartright amendment. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. chaffetz. >> no. >> mr. mica. mr. turner. >> no. >> mr. turner votes no. mr. duncan. mr. duncan votes no. mr. jordan. mr. jordan votes no. mr. walberg. mr. walberg votes no. mr. amash. mr. amash votes no. mr. desjarlais. mr. desjarlais votes no. mr. gowdy. mr. farenthold. mr. farenthold votes no. mr. massey. mr. massey votes no. mr. meadows. mr. meadows votes no. mr. desantis. mr. desantis votes no. mr. mulvaney. mr. mulvaney votes no. mr. buck.

mr. buck votes no. mr. walker. mr. walker votes no. mr. blum. mr. blum votes no. mr. hise. mr. hise votes no. mr. russell. mr. russell votes no. mr. carter. mr. carter votes no. mr. hurd. mr. hurd votes no. mr. palmer. mr. palmer votes no. mr. cummings. mr. cummings votes yes. ms. maloney. ms. maloney votes yes. ms. norton. ms. norton votes yes. mr. clay. mr. 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. lieu. ms. watson coleman. ms. watson coleman votes yes. ms. plaskett. mr. desaulnier. mr. desaulnier votes yes. mr. boyle. mr. boyle votes yes. mr. welch. ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham votes yes. chairman chaffetz: how is mr. gosar 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. haveman chaffetz: the no's it. the question is now on house resolution 737. >> mr. chairman, i have a parliamentary inquiry. chairman chaffetz: parliamentary inquiry. chairman chaffetz: what is your inquiry? >> mr. 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

pension," 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 really 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 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, page 4, "be required to forfeit." i will let you interpret that as you will. i'm not going to interpret the bill for you. >> while we are claiming -- if i may, with a parliamentary inquiry -- chairman chaffetz: i did not yield you time. i asked if you had a parliamentary inquiry. >> i have a further parliamentary inquiry. does the sense of the house require any action by the government of the united states? yes or no? chairman chaffetz: i don't know that that is a parliamentary inquiry. i will let you make that determination. we've had a good, vibrant debate on this, and we will continue with the vote. the question is on the adoption in favorably reporting house

resolution 737 as reported to the house. all those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the resolution as amendment is reported as favorably amended. roll call has been requested. the clerk will take the role. >> mr. chaffetz. mr. chaffetz votes yes. mr. mica. mr. turner. mr. turner votes yes. mr. duncan. mr. duncan votes yes. mr. jordan. mr. jordan votes yes. mr. walberg. mr. walberg votes yes. mr. gosar. mr. gosar votes yes. mr. gowdy. mr. gowdy votes yes. mr. fahrenthold. mr. farenthold votes yes. mr. massie. mr. massie votes yes. mr. meadows. mr. meadows votes yes. mr. desantis. mr. desantis votes yes.

mr. mulvaney. mr. mulvaney votes yes. mr. buck. mr. buck votes yes. mr. walker. mr. walker votes yes. mr. blum. mr. blum votes yes. mr. hise. mr. hise votes yes. mr. russell. mr. carter. -- mr. russell votes yes. mr. carter. mr. carter votes yes. mr. grothman. mr. grothman votes yes. mr. hurd. mr. hurd 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 no. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes no. mr. 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. lieu. ms. watson coleman. ms. watson coleman votes no. ms. plaskett. mr. jason year. desjeulner votes no. mr. boyle. mr. boyle votes no. mr. welch. ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham votes no. chairman chaffetz: have all members voted? the clerk will report the tally. >> on this photo, there are 23 yea's and 15 nay's. chairman chaffetz: in the opinion of the chair, the aye's have it, and 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. without objection to pursuant to clause 2l, members will have two days to submit views on the resolution considered today. ask unanimous consent that staff be allowed to make necessary technical and conforming changes to the resolution ordered, reported today, subject to approval of the minority. hearing no objections, so ordered. 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]

history tv on c-span three, starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern, we are live from gettysburg college in gettysburg, pennsylvania for the annual civil war institute summer conference as authors, historians, and professors discuss topics such as free people's refugee camps and the post-civil war for ulysses s. grant. and the origins of "the lost cause." the the approach of anniversary of the american and nasa museum, we look at

films. we at "science reporter: suited for space." >> here we have the al-shater suit. -- al shepard suit. this is the mercury suit. after that mercury suit, we have the gemini. this is a suit similar to this. wentical to this was one orn by white in his extravehicular excursions. this is one of our earlier models of the apollo suit. >> tracing developments of space suits. and sunday evening at 6:00 on american artifacts, curator jeremy kinney shows some of the museum's one-of-a-kind artifacts. in may, 1927,ne, flew over 3600 miles in 33 and a

half hours from new york to charleslown by bloomberg, an unknown male pilot. his goal was to win $25,000 for the first nonstop flight from new york to paris. that was the impetus for this flight. what it represents to the history of aviation is this telling of the airplane and that transformation of the airplane from what the wright brothers created and how it transitioned to what we would call a modern airplane. >> for the complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. a live look here in phoenix, arizona, where the democratic national committee is in the process of shaping its platform ahead of next month's national convention. an empty room now, but it should fill up soon. the platform committee about to reconvene for second day of testimony.

this forum in phoenix one of several being held either -- buy y the dnc. includethe speakers actor and actress patricia arquette. until then, we will show you a discussion from today's "washington journal." host: joining us now is joshua horwitz, executive director of the coalition to stop gun violence. he is here to talk about his group's position on gun control measures in the wake of the attack on the orlando nightclub. thank you so much for being here. can you start by telling us a little about your organization and we represent? guest: we represent a number of organizations in washington but we really represent our members. we have thousands of members across the country who are concerned about this. our main goal is we want to

translate research into policy success. we do that through policy development. advocacy and community engagement. we do it through technical assistance. host: i should net you wrote the book "guns, democracy and the insurrectionist idea" and you are a founding member of the consortium for risk-based firearm policy. you are a visiting scholar at the johns hopkins bloomberg school of public health. you also blog for the "huffington post." you have been working on this issue a long time. what have you seen since the attack in orlando? has the conversation around gun control changed? guest: i think it changed in a couple important ways. number is the enormous amount of one energy involved. this started, in my view, after the virginia tech shootings. and it has been building. after the disappointing votes in congress, after the sandy hook massacre, people thought this movement would disappear and go away. they were wrong. that was the beginning of the

development of a very powerful movement. now, we are millions strong. we have a whole coalition of organizations we work with. those people are incredibly energized. and the other thing that is interesting because of where the , shooting was, in a nightclub, the lgbtq community is incredibly energized. so you're seeing a historic coming together of powerful social movements. that is really changing some of the dynamic we are seeing out there. this is evolutionary. we will not get everything we want now. but it feels, to me, like a lot of momentum in a winning cause. i have been doing this a long time. during the brady bill -- i participated when we passed the brady bill. i was also here during the bush administration, which is a low year. i know what momentum feels like. i get calls constantly about "i

want to join, what do i do." survivors who have never talked about their loss are getting involved. host: what does your group and what do your members feel should be done? what policy proposals are you putting forth? guest: there are a bunch of policy proposals that are important. we will talk about what will be voted on in the next couple of days. we are talking about background checks, closing the terror gap. which is something that is important. but overall, we support -- obviously, there is going to be an attempt to ban assault weapons. we are also involved in a risk-based policy. it is important to have background checks but it is also important to know who's in the system, who should be prevented from having a gun. you mentioned the consortium for risk-based firearm policy. that is an organization we have formed of academics who advise

us who is at increased risk of violence. -- >> we will take you live now to day two of the democratic platform committee in phoenix, just getting underway. cummings: my name is congressman elijah cummings. i have the honor and high pleasure of once again convening this platform drafting committee. i would ask now that everyone please stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

rep. cummings: it was my pleasure to greet my colleagues and othermittee democrats to join us today. the members of the public. as you begin these important conversations about the future of the democratic party and the future of this great nation. i would like to thank the individuals who you will hear from today, many of them traveled long distances and sacrificed quite a bit of time from their families to be with us. thank you for making time to share your perspectives and recommendations on the issues confronting america and the world today. we sincerely appreciate you sharing your expertise, and we look forward to hearing from you throughout the forum.

i am also delighted to thank so many other democrats, who took time to post written and video testimony on the dncc website. in addition to welcoming you to phoenix, i am delighted to welcome everyone on the dncc as democrats assuring that everyone, and i mean everyone, has an opportunity to engage is paramount to all of us. i would remind the speakers that you do not have to be your testimony. you can give us a three minute summary. we found that the problem is the testimony, the less time the members of the panel have to ask questions. it b