izenu.org where there is a lot of good stuff. host: thank you very much for being with us. we have done our cram for the exam this year and good luck to the students out there. that's it for our program today. another edition of "washington journal" comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow and we will see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] c-span, a debate earlier this week on the house on whether to hold lois

ofner contempt congress. then eric holder to appoint a special counsel to investigate the irs targeting. and second transistors cable show in los angeles hosted by the national shaw communications association. later, a discussion about climate change knowing the release of a white house report assessing the impact across the united states. tonight, marco rubio in new hampshire. he was the keynote speaker at annualkingham county freedom counters dinner. you much that it it :00 p.m. eastern. it 8:00 p.m. eastern. this week, the house of voted mostly along hard lines. for refusing to cooperate. year, she invoked

her fifth amendment right not to testify at a hearing before the house oversight committee. after she delivered an opening statement in which he denied any wrongdoing during her time as director. this debate is a little more than one hour. mr. issa: i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. 2013, : on march 29, the congress started an investigation into whether the i.r.s. used a flawed process to find tax exempt organizations. to wit, i subpoenaed lois lerner because she was in charge of the office that

executed and we believe targeted conservative group thesms two divisions of the i.r.a. most involved with the targeting were the e.o. determinations unit in cincinnati and the e.o. technical unit in washington, d.c., headed by lois lerner. before the hearing, ms. lerner's lawyer notified the committee that she would invoke her fifth amendment privilege and decline to answer any questions from our committee members. instead of doing, ms. lerner read a voluntary statement, self-selected statement, included a series of specific declarations of her innocence. she said -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will please come to order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: she said, i have not done anything wrong. i have not broken any laws.

i have not violated any i.r.s. rules or regulations. and i have not provided false information to this or any other committee. she then refused to answer our questions, she invoked her fifth amendment right. she wouldn't even answer questions about declarations she made during her opening statement. he said, that is not how the fifth amendment, mr. speaker, that is not how the fifth amendment is meant to be used. the fifth amendment is protection, it is a shield, lois lerner used it as a sword to cut and then defend herself from any response. a witness cannot come before the committee to make a voluntary statement, self-serving statement and then refuse to answer questions. you don't get to use the public hearing to tell the press and public your side of the story and then invoke the fifth.

additionally, mr. speaker, when asked about -- after invoking the fifth, when asked about previous testimony she made and document she answered and authenticated those and then again went back to asserting her fifth amendment rights. it is disappointing that things have come to this point. lois lerner had almost a year to reconsider her decision not to answer questions to congress. she gave a game -- -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. would the gentleman from california like to yield himself additional time? mr. issa: i would be happy to any time the chair tells me my time is expired. the speaker pro tempore: your time has expired. mr. issa: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. mr. issa: in the meantime, after invoke, she gave a no strings attached interview to the justice department, this was sent to the press entirely,

voluntarily, before a large gathering. her position with respect to complying with a duly issued subpoena has become clear. she won't. her testimony is a missing piece of the investigation into i.r.s. targeting. we have now conducted 40 transcribed interviews and reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents and mr. speaker, the facts lead to lois lerner. i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: just shy of a year ago, the secretary general of facts administration reported the i.r.s. had used inappropriate criteria to review applicants for tax exempt status. the same day, chairman issa wept on national tv, before he received a single document or interviewed a single witness, and said the following.

this was the targeting of the president's political enemies. targeting of d -- the president's political enemies and lies about it,ent end of quote. the republicans have spent the last year trying to prove these allegations. the i.r.s. has produced more than half a million pages of documents. we have interviewed 39 witnesses, 40 witnesses, i.r.s. witnesses, treasury department employees. and after all of that, we have not found any evidence of white house involvement or political motivation. yesterday, i issued a report with key portions from the nearly 40 interviews conducted by the committee to date. these were witnesses called by the majority. these interviews showed definitely, definitively, that there was no evidence of any white house direction or political bias. instead they described in

detail how the inappropriate terms were first developed and how there was inadequate guidance or -- on how to process the application. now let me be clear, i'm not defending ms. lerner. i wanted to hear what she had to say. i have questions about why she was unaware of the inappropriate criteria for more than a year after they were reated. i want to know -- after they were created. i want to know why she did not mention the inappropriate criteria in her letters to congress. but i cannot vote to violate an individual's fifth amendment rights just because i want to hear what she has to say. a much greater principle is at stake here today. the sanctity of the fifth endment rights for all citizens of the united states of america. i will not walk a path that has been tread by senator mccarthy and house un-american activities committee. in this case, a vote for

contempt not only would endanger the rights of american citizens, but it would be a pointless and costly exercise. when senator mccarthy pursued a similar case, the judge dismissed it. the supreme court has said that a witness does not waive her rights by professing her innocence. in addition, more than 30 independent experts have now come forward to conclude that chairman issa botched the contempt procedure by not giving ms. lerner the proper warnings as a -- at the march 5 hearing when he rushed to cut off my microphone and adjourn the hearing before any democrat had the chance to utter a syllable. for instance, stan grant who served as house counsel from 1976 to 1983, concluded that chairman issa's actions were, quote, fatal to any subsequent prosecution, end of quote. the experts who came forward

are from all across the country and all across the political spectrum. jay richard bro began, a member of the -- brogan a member of the republican national lawyers association and a law professor, concluded that ms. lerner, and i quolet, would likely have a defense to any ensuing criminal prosecution for contempt pursuant to the existing supreme court precedent, end of quote. i didn't say that, the republican national lawyers association member said that. rather than squandering our valuable resources pursuing a contempt vote that more than 30 independent experts have concluded will fail in court, we should release the nearly 40 transcripts in their entirety that have not yet been made public and allow all americans to read the unvarnished facts for themselves. with that, i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jordan: i thank the chairman for yielding, i thank the speaker. here's what we know. lois lerner was at the center of the scandal from the get-go. we know she waived her fifth amendment rights, on two separate occasions, she came in front of committee, as che chairman pointed out and made multiple factual statements. when you make fultpl factual assertions you can't say, i invoke my fifth amendment privileges. she waived it a second time when she agreed to sit down with the department of justice. when you waive it in one proceedings, you can't ignore that in another. the new i.r.s. commissioner

said it may take as many as two years for him to get us all lois lerner's emails and most importantly, we know that lois lerner and the internal revenue service systemically targeted american citizens, systemically targeted groups for exercising their first amendment rights. think about that, mr. chairman. think about your first amendment rights, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and speech in particular that's political. to speak out against your government, your most fundamental right. that's what they targeted. and so, to get to the truth, we need to use every tool we can to compel ms. learner, the lady at the center they have scandal, to come forward and answer our questions so the american people can understand why their first amendment rights were targeted. because we know, we know, the criminal investigation department of justice is a sham. they've already leaked to the "wall street journal," no one will be prosecute. they already had the head of

the executive branch, the president of the united states, go on national television and -- national television and say, no corruption, not even a smidgen, and the person leading the investigation is a maxed out contributor to the president's campaign. the only route to the truth is through the house of representatives and compelling ms. lerner to answer our questions. that's why this resolution is so important. that's why i'm supporting it. that's why i hope my colleagues on the other side will support it as well. it's about this most fundamental right and ms. lerner is at the center of the storm. we want her simply to answer the questions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california continue to reserve? the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i would say to the gentleman, as the professor said, it's explicit that a person does not waive a fifth amendment right by answering questions outside a formal setting or by making statements that were not under oath, when he referred to the issue of her making statements to the justice department. with that, i yield to the distinguished gentlelady, a member of our committee, ms.

speer for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady is recognized. ms. speier: i thank the gentleman for his leadership and to say a few minutes here on the floor. i'm not here to defend lois lerner today but i am here to defend the constitution and every american's right to assert the fifth amendment so as not to incriminate themselves. and every single member of this body should be as committed to doing the same thing. i'm also here to defend the integrity of the committee and the rules of that committee. lois lerner pled the fifth amendment before our committee. and she also professed her innocence. pure and simple. 30 independent legal experts have said the proceedings were constitutionally deficient to bring a contempt proceeding. they were constitutionally

deficient because the chair did not overrule ms. lerner's fifth amendment assertion and order her to answer the question. and as long as that deficiency is there, there is no reason to move forward with this effort today. but let's move on to the bigger picture. every single 501-c-4 that was in the queue before the i.r.s. could have self-certified. they didn't even need to be in that queue. so whether or not there was a list of progressive organizations and conservative organizations that they were through omehow get the thousands of applications they had, they could have moved aside and self-certified. there have been 39 witnesses before this committee, there have been 530 pages of documents.

there is no smoking gun. but the other side is locked and loaded, they're just shooting blanks. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. does the gentleman from maryland reserve? the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: if they hasn't made their applications perhaps they wouldn't have been asked the abusive questions like what books do you read, who are your donors, inappropriate questions that happened. with that i yield one minute to the distinguished member from virginia, the leader of the house, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman, chairman from california. mr. speaker, i rise today in support -- in strong support of this resolution to hold ms. had lois lerner in contempt -- ms. lois lerner in contempt. the substance of this resolution should not be taken lightly. the contempt of the u.s. house

of representatives is a serious matter and one that must be taken only when duly warranted. there's no doubt in my mind the conditions have been met for today's actions. mr. speaker, there are few government abuses more serious than using the i.r.s. to punish american citizens for their political beliefs. the very idea of the i.r.s. being used to intimidate and silence critics of a certain political philosophy is egregious. it is so egregious that it is practically -- that it has practically been a cliche of government corruption in works of fiction for decades since president nixon's administration. yet, mr. speaker, unfortunately in this instance, under ms. lerner's watch, this corruption became all too real. conservatives were routinely targeted and silenced by the

i.r.s., leading up to the 2012 election, unjustly and with malice. those targeted were deprived of their civil rights to an unbiased administration of law. these citizens, these moms and dads simply trying to play within the rules and make their voices heard were left waiting without answers until election day had come and gone. liberal groups were not targeted, as my colleagues across the aisle like to claim. only conservative groups were deliberately singled out because of their political beliefs and they were subjected to delays, inappropriate questions and unjust denials. mr. speaker, the american people are owed a government that they can trust, not a

government that they fear. the only way to rebuild this trust is to investigate exactly how these abuses occurred and to ensure that they never happen again. whether you're a conservative or a liberal, a republican or a democrat, or hold any other political or philosophical position, your rights must be protected from this administration and all those that come after it. for nearly a full year lois lerner has refused to testify before this house about the singling out and targeting of conservative organizations. she spoke up and gave a detailed assertion of her innocence and then refused to answer questions. she later spoke with d.o.j. attorneys for hours but still refused to answer a lawful subpoena and testify to the american public.

as a public servant, she decided to forego cooperation, to forego truth and transparency. in 2013, ms. lerner joked in one uncovered email that perhaps she could get a job with organizing for america, president obama's political arm. this is no surprise. our committees have found ms. lerner used her position to unfairly deny conservative groups equal protection under the law. ms. lerner impeded official investigations. she risked exposing and may actually have exposed confidential taxpayer information in the process. day after day, action after action ms. lerner exposed herself as a servant to her political philosophy rather than a servant to the american

people. this, mr. speaker, is why the house has taken the extraordinary action of referring ms. lerner to the department of justice for criminal prosecution. and why we will request a special council to investigate this case. not only has the president asserted that there is, quote, not even a smidgen of corruption at the i.r.s., but leaks from the department of justice have indicated that no one will be prosecuted. that's not surprising, as a top donor to the president's campaign is playing a key role in their investigation. potentially compromising any semblance of independence and justice. an independent, nonpartisan, special prosecutor is needed to ensure a fair investigation that all americans can trust.

mr. speaker, the american people deserve to know the full context of why these actions were taken. as early as 2010, leading democratic leaders were urging the i.r.s. to take action against conservative groups. the decision made to take action against them? the american people, ms. lerner's employers, deserve answers. they deserve accountability. they deserve to know that this will never happen again, no matter what your political persuasion. the american people deserve better. because of ms. lerner's actions, because of her unwillingness to fully testify, and because she has refused to legally cooperate with this investigation, i urge my colleagues in the house to hold

ms. lerner in contempt. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> i yield to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding. in response to those recent allegations, i do want to point out that our committee did look at the question of political motivation in selecting tax exemption applications. we asked the inspector general, russell george, on may 17, 2013, in a hearing before the ways and means committee, and i quote, this was the question, did you find any evidence of political motivation in the selection of tax exempt applications? he -- he responded, the inspector general who investigated this case testified, and this is a quote, we did not, sir. period. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this contempt resolution. what began as a necessary and

compelling bipartisan investigation into the targeting of american citizens by the internal revenue service has now deteriorated into a -- into the very sort of dangerous and careless government overreaching that our committee was set out to investigate in the first place. the gentleman from california commenced this investigation in may of 2013 by stating the following during his opening statement. this is a quote. when government power is used to target americans for exercising their constitutional rights, there is nothing we as representatives should find more important than to take it seriously, get to the bottom of it and eradicate the behavior, closed quote. i would remind the chairman that our solemn duty as lawmakers to safeguard the constitutional rights of every american does not only extend to cases where a powerful federal department has deprived citizens of freedom vested in the first amendment, rather, we must be equally vigilant when the power of government is brought down on americans who have asserted their rights

under the fifth amendment and its guarantee that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against him or herself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. and in a system where innocent until proven guilty lies at the bedrock of our constitutional protections, ms. lerner's brief assertions of innocence, 36 , rds, should not be enough to e -- ax her fifth amendment rights. regrettably this contempt resolution utterly fails to reflect the seriousness with which we should approach this constitutional issue at stake. in the face of supreme court precedent and a vast body of legal expert opinion, holding that ms. lerner did not in fact waive her fifth amendment privilege by professing her assistance, chairman issa has moved forward with a contempt proceedings without even affording the members of our own committee the opportunity

to receive public testimony from legal experts on this important constitutional question. as held by the supreme court in 1949 in smith vs. united states , testimonyal waiver is not to be lightly inferred and the courts accordingly indulge every reasonable presumption against finding a testimonial waiver. chairman issa has also chosen to pursue contempt against ms. lerner after refusing an offer from her attorney for a brief one-week delay so that his client could finally provide the testimony that members on both sides of the aisle have been asking for. these legally flawed contempt proceedings bring us no closer to receiving ms. lerner's testimony and have only served to divert our time, focus and resources away from our rightful inquiry into the troubling events of the i.r.s., they also reflect the bipartisan -- excuse me, the partisan manner in -- -- the partisan manner in which this

as been conducted to date. he has released two staff reports on these events that were not even provided to the democratic members prior to their release. in closing, i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i'd like to correct the record. it's now 40 transcribed interviews and we received 1,000 emails from lois lerner today. so that 14 million probably went up a little bit because today the i.r.s. finally turned over some of the documents they owed this committee under subpoena for over half a year. i now recognize the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. mica, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. mica: thank you, mr. chairman, mr. speaker.

it's probably nothing more sacred to americans, nothing than portant to protect the democratic electoral process which has made this by far the greatest country in the world, getting everyone an pportunity to participate. we're here today to hold lois lerner in contempt. it's been stated she didn't have her rights recognized. she has the right to take the fifth. she's done that. under the constitution. may ught her in twice, 22, 2013, march, 2014. she began -- and you can see the tapes -- declaring her innocence. even before that, when it was pointed out that she was at the heart of this matter, in fact

everyone and her employees, when she tried to throw them under the bus, they said she threw them under a convoy of mack trucks. every road leads to lois lerner. lois lerner held the congress of the united states in contempt and is holding it in contempt. lois lerner held the electoral process that is so sacred to his country in contempt. lois lerner has held the american people and the process they cherish and the chief financial agency, the i.r.s., who we all have to account to, as a tool to manipulate a national election. this was a targeted, directed focus attempt and every road leads to lois lerner. she's had twice the opportunity to come before congress and to

tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and she has failed to do that and i urge that we hold lois lerner in contempt. that's our responsibility. and it must be done. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: with all due respect to the gentleman who ust spoke, even the i.g. found that lois lerner did not learn about the inappropriate terms until a year afterwards. the i.g. that was appointed by the republican president with. that, i yield three minutes to the distinguished member from virginia a member of our committee, mr. conway. the speaker pro tempore: the -- mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: i thank my friend. i think if the founders were here today and had witnessed the proceed thonings government and oversight reform committee

with respect to ms. lois lerner, they would have unanimously reaffirmed their commitment to this -- to the fifth amendment because rights were trampled on, frankly starting with the first amendment rights of the ranking member who was cut off and not allowed to speak even after the chairman allowed himself abopen -- an opening statement and no fewer than seven questions before cutting off entirely the ranking member. then we proceeded to trample on the fifth amendment. and case law is what governs here. the court has said the self-incrimination clause must be interpreted in favor of the right it was intended to secure. since the respect normally accorded to prive sledge normally buttressed by the defendant in a trial, in other words it's the same. it's the equivalent of the presumption of innocence. madison said if all men, and he meant all men and women, i'm sure, were angels we wouldn't

knead need the fifth amendment. lois lerner is not to be defended here. she's not a heroic character. but she is a citizen who has an enumerated right in the constitution of the united states. the relevant case, besides quinn vs. the united states, in the 1950's a u.s. citizen, diantha ho fwmbings ue was taken tpwhever permanent subcommittee, she also had a prepared statement declaiming her innocence, that she was not a spy, not engaged in subversion and then she proceeded to invoke her fifth amendment. ms. hogue answered some questions yes or no that were put to her. she was found in contempt. the chairman of the committee jumped on it and said, aha, i got you. the court found otherwise. the court unanimously ruled that ms. hogue had not waived her fifth amendment right, she

was entitled to a statement of innocence and that didn't somehow vitiate her invocation of the fifth amendment right and her fifth amendment right was upheld. this is a about trampling on the constitutional rights of u.s. citizens. and for a very crass reason. for partisan, political reason. we heard the distinguished majority leader, my colleague and friend from virginia, assert something that's absolutely not true, which is that only conservative grouped were targeted by the i.r.s. that's not true and we have testimony that's not true. words like occupy. acorn. progressive. were all part of the so called bolo list. they too were looked at. this was an incompetent, ham handed effort by one regional office in cincinnati by the i.r.s. was it right? absolutely not. but does it rise to the level of a scandal or the false assertion by the chairman of our committee on television as the ranking member cited that somehow it goes all the way to the white house picking on

political enemies? flat out untrue. not a scintilla of evidence that that's true. and to have the entire house of representatives now voting on the contempt citation and declaring unilaterally that a u.s. citizen has waived her constitutional rights does no credit to the this house and salo moment that evokes the spirit of joe mccarthy from a long-ago era. shame on us for what we're about to do i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: nobody answered the debunking we put out this document this document makes it clear it was all about targeting and abusing conservative groups and the gentleman from virginia knows that very well. with that, it's my honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma who has champion sod many of these

issues in our investigation, mr. lankford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lankford: thank you, mr. speaker. about three years ago, all of our offices started getting phone calls from constituents. they were being -- said they were being asked unusualle -- unusual questions by the i.r.s. they were applying for nonprofit status. they were patriot groups, tea party groups, they were getting questions coming back new york questions like, tell us as the i.r.s. every conversation you've had with a legislator in the -- and the contents of those conversations. tell us and give us cop dwhroifs documents that are only given to members of your organization. if there's a private part of your website that's only set aside for members, show us all of those pages and by the way, all of those questions were prefaced with the statement from the i.r.s., whatever documents you give us will also be made public to everyone. so the statement was, tell us what you privately talked about with legislators, tell us what

only your members get because we're going to publish it. so of course we start to get questions about that. the inspector general starts an investigation on that. on may 10 of last year, 2013, lois lerner stands up in a conference, plants a question in the audience to talk about something completely irrelevant to the conference so she can leak out that this investigation is about to be burst out and four days later, the inspector general launches out this investigation and says, conservative groups have een unfairly targeted. 298 groups had their applications held, isolated. they were asked for all these things when they turneding to be yumets in, they were store the initial accusation is, this was a crazy group from cincinnati that did this so our committee happened to bring in these folks from cincinnati. they all said they wanted to be able to advance these applications and they were told no. we asked the names of the people in washington that told

them to hold them. we brought those folks in. they said they wanted to move them. they were told by the counsel's office to hold them. as we continue to work through point after point, through person after person, all come back to lois lerner's office. lois lencher who had come in before us on may 22 of 2013, made a long statement professing her innocence, saying she'd done nothing wrong, has broken no law, and then said i won't answer questions. what's at stake here is a constitutional principle, can a person sit for a court or before congress and make a long statement, i've done nothing wrong and then choose to not answer questions? this is a precedent before every congress from here on out and in front of every court. can this be zphone and we would say no. it's not just a statement about accepting that she's guilty. though all the evidence leads back to her and her office. it's, if you have the right to remain silent, do you actually remain silent during that time period? with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from california reserves. mr. cummings: i would say to the gentleman, we are talking about the constitutional rights of a united states sint and we do not have the right -- united states citizen and we do not have the right to remain silent if those rights are being trampled on. i yield three minutes to the distinguished leader from hoyer from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. if this is a precedent, it is a bad precedent. it is a dangerous precedent. it is a precedent that we ought not to make. read the constitution, i heard, over and over and over again. i've read probably the opinions of 25 lawyers whom i respect

from many great institutions in this country. none of whom, as i'm sure the ranking member has pointed out, none of whom believe that the precedent supports this action. mr. speaker, what a waste of the people's time. for congress to spend this week on politics and not policy. we are about to vote on a resolution that is really a partisan political message. everyone here agrees. everyone. that the i.r.s. should never target anyone based on anything other than what they owe in taxes. not their political beliefs or any other traits. other than their liability and their opportunities to pay the fair share to the united states of america. and in fact, during the

exhaustive investigation into the i.r.s., chairman issa's committee, interviewed 39 witnesses, analyzed more than 530,000 pames and could not find the -- pages and could not find the conspiracy they were looking for. that they always look for. that they always allege. $14 million of taxpayer money has already been spent on this investigation. and all that was found was that which we already knew. that the division led by ms. lerner suffered from fundamental administrative and managerial shortcomings that bore no connection to poll tirks or to -- to politics or to partisanship. independent legal experts concluded that chairman issa's efforts to hold ms. lerner in contempt of congress is

constitutionally deficient. this resolution before us today is of course not meant to generate policy. it's nonet generate headlines. -- it's meant to generate headlines. republicans once again are showing that they are more interested in partisan election year gimmicks than working in a bipartisan way to tackle our country's most pressing challenges. we ought to turn to the important matters of creating jobs, raising the minimum wage, restoring emergency unemployment for those who are struggling to find work. issues the american people overwhelmingly support and want their congress to address. i urge my colleagues to give this partisan resolution the vote it deserves. and to feed -- and defeat it so we can turn to the people's business. in closing, let me say this, mr. speaker. there are 435 of us in this

body. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized, the gentleman from maryland is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i urge all my colleagues, do not think about party on this vote. think about precedent. think about this institution. think about the constitution of the united states of america. and if you haven't read, read some of the legal opinions. that say you have to establish a predicate before you can tell an american that they will be held criminally liable if they tobet respond to your questions. -- if they don't respond to your questions. that's what this issue is about. not about party. not about any of us. but about the constitutional protection this is a every

american deserves and ought to be given and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. mr. couple spgs: may i inquire how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has eight and a quarter minutes remaining, the gentleman from california has eight minutes remaining. mr. issa: i want to correct the record, earlier a minority member stated that with 35 words said by lois lerner, our count is 305. hopefully the inaccuracy of their experts will be considered the same. with that, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gosar: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this resolution. the people's house has thor hi documented lois lerner's trespasses, including her history of targeting conservative groups as well as the laws she has broke .

there's a 443-page committee reporting supporting these allegations. we know ms. lerner refuses to comply with a duly issued subpoena from the house oversight and government reform committee and without ms. lerner's full cooperation the american public will not have the answers it needs from its government. my friends across the aisle have continuously cried foul over this legitimate investigation. but where is there evidence -- where is their evidence to put this to rest? i do not enjoy hold anything federal official in contempt or pursuing criminal charges because doing so mean we was a government run amok and a u.s. attorney general who does not uphold the rule of law and such a predicament is a lose-lose situation for all americans and our constitution. as uncomfortable as it may be, it is our job to proceed in the name of government accountability. i support this resolution and it is way pastime for contempt for lois lerner. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield two minutes to mr. welch. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, there's a reason that the american people hold the congress of the united states in such low esteem. we're providing them with some additional basis to have that opinion. and here's what it is. number one, this was an important investigation. we should do it. we should do it energetically and we should do it together. instead, information was constantly withheld from the minority. our own ranking member was cut off with really quite a bold gesture by the chairman at a certain point, and it created an impression that it was going to be a one-sided affair rather than a balanced cooperative approach. that's essential to having any credibility. the second thing is, what do we do about mrs. lowey: who took the fifth

-- will lois lerner who took the fifth? and the manner which she did that took her to waive that. your side think she waived it and therefore should be held in contempt. our side, and we have the side of legal opinion, said she didn't waive it. you know, that's a legal question and there is a document called the constitution that separates the powers. whether this person crossed the line or didn't

the idea that a congress, this time run by republicans, next time by democrats, can have a right to make a determination about the rights of a citizen is in complete conflict with the separation of powers in our constitution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i thank the gentleman from vermont in advance for his yes vote on this because the only way to send this to the court to be decided is to vote yes. in fact, we are not try lois lerner. we are determining that she should be tried. the question should be before a federal judge. with that, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from wyoming a member of the committee, mrs. lummis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. speaker. i contend that in the interest of protections the -- protecting the constitutional rights of this country from the behavior of the i.r.s., from

lois lerner, herself a lawyer, who understands that you can waive your right to remain silent as to matters to which you chose to testify. and that she did that. she said, i've done nothing wrong, i have broken no laws, subsequently, we find out that she blamed the rimplet s. employees in cincinnati for wrongdoing that was going on here in washington, d.c. that she was targeting conservative groups and only conservative groups, thereby violating their first amendment constitutional rights. the oversight committee needs to find the truth and to that end, we need answers from lois lerner. the committee has sought these answers for more than a year. lerner's refusal to truthly answer these questions posed by the committee cannot be tolerated. i urge a yes vote. following that swift action by the justice department to

ensure that lois lerner provides answers on exactly what she i.r.s. was up to. mr. chairman, i thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. on the time remain, the gentleman from california has 11 -- has 12 minutes left. the gentleman from maryland has 6 1/4 minutes left. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield two minutes to mr. davis of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davis: i agree that one of the responsibilities of our committees is to investigate, to try and make sure that the laws are carried out the way we intended and to try and make sure that the money is being spent the way we intended for it to be spent. that we spent

$14 million up to this point investigating this one issue, and while i think the investigations are designed to tell us something we don't know , we have not learned anything new. we have not learned of any kind of conspiracy. we have not learned of any kind of underhandedness. the only thing that we know is that we have said to a united states citizen that you cannot invoke the fifth and say that i have a right not to answer questions if i think it's going o damage me. i'd rather see us spend the there are 14 million creating jobs, providing educational opportunities for those that need it, doing something that will change the direction and the flavor of the economics of our country rather than wasting

$14 million more on continuous investigations. i vote no and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: at this time it's my distinked honor to yield two minutes to -- distinct honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. >> you know, it is amazing. the american people still have not received answers that they deserve, i believe, from lois lerner. i think sitting here on the floor and listening to the last few minutes, it just really amazes me about what's being said. it said if the chairman had done this and if we had not done this then maybe we would have had more time and maybe we'll find out the truth. mr. collins: she did talk. she said a lot of things, including making 17 different factual assertions and then

decided, oops, don't want to take anymore. here's the problem. no one has said or even implied that you can't assert your fifth amendment right. that's never been said on this floor. it's never been asserted by any member of the republican party. what has been asserted is you can't come in and you can't say, i've done nothing wrong, i'm clean, and oh, by the way, quit asking because i'm not going to answer any of your questions. when do you that, then you're taking advantage of a system that you are not supposed to be taking advantage of. you could have -- she could have said, mr. chairman, with all due respect, i am not going to answer your question. i am asserting my fifth amendment right. she did not do that and what we have now is not a waste of time. i believe there's a lot of things. the republican majority is working on economic development. one thing we have to reassert in this country is trust, and right now the american people do not trust us and they do not breeb the government is in

their favor. and incidents like this when they are being asked inappropriate questions, when they are trying to fulfill their right and freedom of speech, this is why you're here. you can't keep doing it. ms. lerner needs to be held in contempt. i have heard arguments that reminds me the song from pink floyd, i am comfortably numb, because at this point the facts don't matter. she chose to say, i didn't do anything wrong. that's not the way this process works, ms. lerner. it's time to testify. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the remaining time for the gentleman from california is 10 minutes. the gentleman from maryland has 4 3/4 minutes. mr. cummings: i'd say to the gentleman who is leaving the floor, the arguments do matter this is still the united states of america. there are still constitutional rights which we declare -- mr. collins: if the gentleman will yield? mr. cummings: no. i'm about to yield to ms.

norton, it's her time. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: if the point is of the contempt resolution is to find out what ms. lerner knows, what the committee wants to know, deliberately here, of course, is whether there was deliberate targeting of citizens for political reasons. the fact is that the committee passed up the opportunity to learn this information. it asked her attorney, would you tell us what she will tell us? t's called a prover. indeed, her attorney sent a letter to the chairman offering to provide a prover. that's the information -- a proffer. that's the information we want to know. this proffer would detail what

ms. lerner would testify. instead of accepting that proffer, the chairman went on national television and claimed that this written offer never happened. the chairman, therefore, never obtained the proffer that the attorney was willing to offer. the information which is the only reason we should be on this floor at all and when the ranking member tried to ask about it at a hearing in march, the chairman famously cut off his microphone and closed down the hearing in one of the worst examples of partisanship the committee has ever seen. the chairman did something similar when mrs. lerner's attorney offered to have her one-week h a simple extension, mr. speaker. since the attorney had obligations out of town. rather than accepting this

offer to get the committee the information that is at the ttom of this contempt matter today, the chairman went on national television and declared inaccurately that she would testify without the extension. of course, that meant nothing could happen. there was no trust left. clearly what the committee wanted was a fifth amendment show hearing in violation of ms. lerner's rights. hey wanted a contempt citation vote. that's an example of a political contempt citation vote. it will never hold up in the courts of the united states of america. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i work long and hard with the gentlelady from the district of columbia, and she's a good person but her facts are simply 100% wrong.

in every single one of her assertions -- and every single one of her assertions was simply not true. you can go to every page and see that none of those statements are true. we would have accepted a proffer from the attorney. we were not given one. although i will say he did tell one time we wouldn't like what she would say if she said something. i went on national television to say she would appear and testify. additionally, the gentlelady did make one point that was very good. it was very good. the attorney told us that she needed a week to prepare, which we were pg willing to give her. when we learned it was actually inconvenient for the attorney to necessarily prep her, we said if he would come in with his client and agree she was going to testify we would recess and give her the additional week. when they came in that day, no

such offer was on the table from her attorney but in fact he said she had decided that she simply didn't want to speak to us. not that she was afraid of incrimination because you can't be afraid of incrimination and not afraid back and forth. that's pretty clear. her contempt for her committee was in fact contempt for the body of congress while she was happy to speak at length apparently with the department of justice, perhaps with that $6,000 or $7,000 contributor to president obama that is so involved in that investigation. and with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. bentivolio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. bentivolio: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i stand in support of this resolution recommending that the house of representatives find lois lerner in contempt of congress. our pledge of allegiance ends with the words, for liberty and justice for all.

lois lerner's actions have made it nearly impossible for us to follow those ideals for the victims of the i.r.s. targeting scandal. she has placed obstacle after obstacle in front of our pursuit for the truth, worrying that her ideology and actions of a corrupt federal agency will be exposed. i ask my colleagues to join our effort in promoting transparency in our government. as members of congress, it is our job to protect rights, not take them away. and with that i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. is is with that, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, member of the committee, mr. farenthold. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. farenthold: i'm here today because i believe lois lern waived her fifth amendment

rights to testify and by so ing in not answering our questions. the other side makes a big deal about this. but the way the system is supposed to work, we will find mrs. lerner in contempt. there will be a full hearing in the court and this may well make it to the united states supreme court. her rights will be protected. but we have also got to protect the rights of the people. we are the people's house. it'sure job to get to the bottom of the scandals that are troubling the american people so we can regain the trust to the american people. you know, it's healthy to be skeptical of your government but if you don't believe a word that comes out of the mouth of the administration, there is a real problem. i don't think the justice department is going to pursue this. the same thing that is going to ppen to ms. lerner and we've

got to do our job. we've got to deal with these people that are in contempt of congress. for that reason, i have h.r. 4447 that is pending before this house that would withhold the pay of anyone in contempt of congress. we have to use the power of the purse and everything we've got to reclaim the power of the purse and the power that the constitution gave this body to get to the truth and be the representatives of the people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is ecognized. the gentleman from california has 5 1/2. the gentleman from maryland has 2 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from california is recognized. is is i yield a minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, who is, in fact, a

constitution -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: i was struck by the comments by the minority whip instructing us to check the constitution. that really struck me, because i believe i recall him standing up and applauding in this chamber when the president said if congress doesn't do its job, i'll basically do it for them. so someone that would do that doesn't need to be giving lectures on the constitution. we have powers under the constitution we got to protect. and when someone stands up and exerts their innocence repeatedly and then attempts to take the fifth amendment right, it's not there. this is the next step. it will preserve the sanctity and the power of this body whether it's democrats or republicans in charge for anyone

who attempts to skirt justice and provide truth. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves? is is i reserve subject to the close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, as i close, i want to remind all of my colleagues several references have been made to the oath that we take every two years in this chamber. and every two years we extend in this chamber and say i will swear and support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. the first words we say. but it's interesting that in the beginning of that swearing-in is that we will defend the

constitution of the united states of america. and yesterday, we had a very interesting argument in rules when one of the members of the rules committee questioned whether when one becomes a public employee, whether they then lose their rights as an american citizen. and it is clear that those rights do stand no matter whether you are a public servant or whether you are a janitor at some coffee shop. and we are in a situation today where we need to be very clear what's happening. not since mccarthy has this been tried, that is the stripping away of an american citizen's constitutional right not to

incriminate themselves and then holding him in contempt criminally. mccarthy. we are better than that. we are so much better. and the idea that somebody can come in after their lawyer has sent a letter in saying they are going to take the fifth, then the lawyer comes in and sits behind them while they take the fifth, then that person said they are taking the fifth, and then suddenly when they say i clare my innocence, we say gotcha. the supreme court has said this is not a gotcha moment. it is not about that. the supreme court has said these rights, no matter how much we may not like the person who we are talking about, no matter how much we may think they are

hiding, they have rights. and this is what this is all about. with that, i yield back and i urge my colleagues to make sure that they vote against this, because this is about generations yet unborn, how they will view us during our watch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. is is mr. speaker, i regret that we have to be here today. and if it is within my power, if at any time lois lerner comes forward to answer our questions, i'm fully prepared to hear what she has to say. and at that point, i would certainly ask that the criminal prosecution be dropped. it may not be within my power after today, but for more than a year, our committee has sought to get her testimony. for nearly a year we have sought to get her to testify honestly. it was shocking to us on the ommittee that a lawyer

represented by a distinguished lawyer would play fast and loose with the fifth amendment assertion. it's a pretty straight-forward process to assert your rights and in fact, her attorney may have planned all along to have a controversy. i'll never know. what i do know is we asserted that she had waived because we were advised by house counsel, an independent organization, that she had. we continued to investigate and only today, nearly a year after a subpoena was issued, the treasury, the i.r.s. gave us like 12,000 emails and earlier emails, they indicate a deeply political individual, partisan in her views, who apparently was at the center of deciding that when the president in this well objected to citizens united, that it meant

they wanted us to fix it and she was prepared to do it. that's for a different court to decide. the only question now is did she, in fact, give testimony and then assert the fifth amendment and then give some more testimony and can we have that kind of activity? we have dismissed other people who came before our committee, asserted their fifth amendment rights after enough questions to know they were going to continue to assert, we dismissed them. we have a strong record of respecting the first, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth amendment and so on. that's what this congress does and we do it every day and our committee does it. rather than listen to debate here which was filled with factual inaccuracies, refuted in documentation that is available to the american people, rather than believe that the minority's assertion should carry