[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 99 (Thursday, June 28, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H4164-H4175]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE REPORT 112-546 AND ACCOMPANYING 
 RESOLUTION, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 706, 
AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM TO INITIATE OR 
     INTERVENE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE CERTAIN SUBPOENAS

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 708 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 708

       Resolved, That if House Report 112-546 is called up by 
     direction of the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform: (a) all points of order against the report are waived 
     and the report shall be considered as read; and
       (b)(1) an accompanying resolution offered by direction of 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall be 
     considered as read and shall not be subject to a point of 
     order; and
       (2) the previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     such resolution to adoption without intervening motion or 
     demand for division of the question except: (i) 50 minutes of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform or their respective designees; (ii) after 
     conclusion of debate one motion to refer if offered by 
     Representative Dingell of Michigan or his designee which 
     shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (iii) 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The 
     Chair may reduce the minimum time for electronic voting on 
     the question of adoption of the motion to recommit as though 
     pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the resolution (H. Res. 706) authorizing the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to initiate or 
     intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain 
     subpoenas. The resolution shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution to adoption without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question except: (1) 20 minutes of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my colleague 
on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, pending which I yield myself such 
time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all 
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the 
underlying resolution it brings to the House floor.
  The rule provides for consideration of two contempt of Congress 
charges laid against Attorney General Eric Holder. You're going to hear 
a lot of folks say how historic today is. That ``historic-ness'' is why 
the rule provides for debate and separate votes on both contempt 
charges. The rule also provides for a motion to refer the criminal 
contempt charges, if offered by Mr. Dingell, as well as motions to 
recommit both resolutions.
  I don't assume to put words in his mouth, but I'm sure and I'm 
willing to bet that Mr. McGovern is sitting over there getting ready to 
tell me it's not enough time. I'm not going to disagree.
  But as we all know, before we leave Friday evening to go to work in 
our districts, we have a lot to get done here. We need to reauthorize 
our Nation's highway and infrastructure systems. We need to save 
college students and recent graduates from student loan interest rates 
that are 2 days away from doubling. We need to move forward with the 
open amendment process and finish considering the appropriations bill 
to fund our transportation and housing programs. It's a lot to get done 
in 2 days. And, frankly, if we didn't put a time limit on today's 
contempt debate, we could spend days on end talking about nothing but 
this one issue.
  But beyond all of that--beyond floor schedules and expiring 
authorizations, we're left with this truth: Border Patrol Agent Brian 
Terry was shot on December 14, 2010, and died of those injuries the 
next day. His family has been looking for answers about what led up to 
and caused his death for over a year and a half. If we can do anything 
to answer those questions, then we cannot and should not do anything to 
make them wait any longer--not another month, not another day, not 
another hour. Today, the House of Representatives is going to do what 
we can to get those answers for the Terry family.
  Thanks to whistleblowers at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 
and Explosives, Members of Congress were alerted to the fact that Agent 
Terry was killed by guns--AK-47 assault rifles, specifically--that our 
government allowed to walk into Mexico. When confronted with these 
claims, the Justice Department denied the whistleblowers' claims. What 
we now know all too well is just how right the whistleblowers were. 
However, it took the Department of Justice 10 months after their first 
denial, almost a year after Border Patrol Agent Terry's death, to 
formally retract their denial about the reckless program that 
contributed to the deaths of Agent Terry and hundreds of Mexican 
citizens.

[[Page H4165]]

  You know, I was a cop for almost 40 years and a sheriff for the last 
10. As the head of a law enforcement agency, you have two options when 
you make a mistake: you can hope it doesn't come out, and if it does, 
you go into lockdown and deny, deny, deny; or you can get out in front 
of it, admit you made a mistake, tell the American people you're going 
to investigate, and then do everything you can to make sure that this 
never happens again.
  As sheriff, I found it was my moral imperative to always admit when 
we'd been wrong, hold folks accountable, and make my agency better so 
we wouldn't make the same mistake twice. It's the responsible thing to 
do, and it takes away any sting of the possibility of a coverup.
  That's not what DOJ did. They've gone the other route--hide, deny, 
and stonewall.
  They sent a letter with false information to Congress, the 
institution that's constitutionally mandated with government oversight, 
and it took them 10 months to retract that statement. It appears that 
in those 10 months between lying and admitting the truth, members of 
DOJ and the ATF colluded to intentionally cover up what happened. What 
we're trying to figure out is if there really was a coverup, and we 
need the information to determine the facts.
  Yesterday at the Rules Committee, a couple of people mentioned 
President Nixon and Watergate. And I agree, this is like the Watergate 
scandal. But President Nixon didn't leave office because of the scandal 
itself; he was forced to resign because of the coverup.
  I said it last night and I'm willing to bet, Attorney General Holder 
didn't know all the specifics about what was happening with Fast and 
Furious, but when the facts started coming to light and congressional 
investigators started looking for answers, he repeatedly kept us from 
getting information we need. And that has kept the Terry family from 
getting the closure they need.
  Attorney General Holder is responsible for his agency, but he has 
essentially given his top leadership a free pass.
  Mr. Speaker, a law enforcement officer who was employed by the United 
States Federal Government is dead. Somebody knows what happened to 
result in his death, and the Justice Department and now President Obama 
are refusing to release that information to Congress, to the American 
public, and to Agent Terry's family.
  This institution has a duty to oversee the executive branch and to 
find out what happened. The answers are there. Attorney General Holder 
knows the answers are there because he's the one who has the documents 
that contain the answers we're looking for. He's the gatekeeper here, 
and if he won't give us the information this institution needs to do 
our duty, our constitutional duty, then we will use every legal and 
constitutional tool that we have to get to it.
  I've heard some people say this is all about politics. In my heart, 
it's just the opposite. It couldn't be further from the truth. These 
contempt charges aren't about politics. They aren't about Attorney 
General Holder, President Obama, or anything else but this: a man died 
serving his country, and we have a right to know what the Federal 
Government's hand was in that.
  It's clear this country somehow played a role in his death. We need 
to root it out, find the cause, and make sure this never, ever happens 
again. These votes today aren't about politics; they are about answers 
that, at the very least, this country owes Agent Terry and his family.
  President Obama promised his would be the most open administration in 
history. When discussing executive privilege in the past, Attorney 
General Holder has made it clear that the DOJ won't invoke the State 
secrets privilege to conceal ``violations of the law'' or 
``administrative error,'' avoid ``embarrassment,'' or to ``prevent or 
delay the release of information.''
  Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened so far with Fast and 
Furious. It is for this reason why the House today sees no other choice 
other than to charge Attorney General Eric Holder with both civil and 
criminal contempt of Congress charges.
  I'm going to support both of these resolutions, Mr. Speaker, not 
because it's the political thing to do, not because it's the easy thing 
to do, but because it's the right thing to do.
  And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Nugent), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad and deeply troubling day for 
this House of Representatives. The Republican leadership of this body 
is asking us to take the unprecedented and unjustified step of holding 
a sitting Attorney General in contempt of Congress.

                              {time}  1240

  They are doing so based on a completely partisan ``investigation.''
  This is a witch hunt, pure and simple, Mr. Speaker, and it has no 
place in this House. Eric Holder is a good and decent and honorable 
public servant. He has reinvigorated the Justice Department, especially 
on efforts to stop partisan voter suppression across the country.
  I find it interesting that the Republican leadership has scheduled 
this nonsense for the floor today when it is certain to be buried under 
the avalanche of news and reaction to the Supreme Court's health care 
decision and the highway bill and the student loan bill and everything 
else. Is it possible that the Republican leadership doesn't really want 
the American people seeing what the House is doing today? Why else 
would they feel the need to rush this to the floor a mere week after 
the House Oversight Committee voted along strictly partisan lines to 
adopt the Republican contempt citation?
  Let me say at the outset that there are certain things that all of 
us, Democrats and Republicans alike, agree on. We all agree that the 
death of Agent Terry was a terrible tragedy. We all agree that the ATF 
field office's embrace of gunwalking--which began under the Bush 
administration, by the way--was a terrible idea. We all agree that the 
ATF should not have sent an erroneous letter to Senator Grassley in 
2011. But the contempt resolution before us doesn't have anything to do 
with any of that.
  The Department of Justice has provided thousands and thousands of 
documents about gunwalking. The Attorney General has testified nine 
times. The Department has provided over 1,000 pages of documents about 
the letter sent to Senator Grassley. So this isn't about getting to the 
truth; this is about politics. It is about politics. This is about the 
Republicans refusing to take ``yes'' for an answer. This is about doing 
whatever it takes to attack the Obama administration no matter the 
issue, no matter the cost.
  During the committee's ``investigation,'' the Republican majority 
refused all Democratic requests for witnesses and hearings, as well as 
requests to interview any Bush administration appointees. All of them 
were denied.
  The Republicans refused Democratic requests to hold a hearing with 
Ken Melson, the head of ATF. You know, if you're actually interested in 
learning about an ATF operation, don't you think you would want to talk 
to the leadership of the ATF?
  Republicans refused Democratic requests to hold a hearing with former 
Attorney General Mukasey, who was briefed on botched ATF operations in 
2007. If you're actually interested in learning about these botched 
operations, wouldn't you want to talk to the man who was briefed about 
them?
  I would hope that we would all agree that we should never take a step 
like finding a sitting Attorney General in contempt lightly, and that 
we should only do so based on accurate information. But Ranking Member 
Cummings and his staff have found, in a very short time, 100 concerns, 
omissions, and inaccuracies in the committee report that is the 
foundation of this contempt resolution--100 inaccuracies and omissions 
and concerns. Sadly, instead of getting answers to those questions, 
this has been rushed to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people expect us to address the issues that 
matter most to them--issues like jobs and the economy and education and 
health care--but the Republican majority refuses to listen. Instead, 
they bring this

[[Page H4166]]

resolution to the floor, and then they wonder why Congress is so 
unpopular.
  What troubles me most, perhaps, is that under this Republican 
majority, everything has to be a fight--everything. Everything has to 
be a confrontation, everything has to be a showdown. And I get the 
politics. I understand this is an election year. But this goes way, way 
too far. It is just wrong.
  I wish the Speaker of the House would have intervened here and kept 
this off the floor. By moving forward today on this resolution, we 
diminish the House of Representatives. This is not a happy day for this 
institution.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying 
resolutions, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts made a 
statement. This is about a contempt citation because the Attorney 
General has not provided all the information the committee has asked 
for. Out of 140,000 pages--by his own testimony in front of Judiciary--
he's given a little over 7,000 pages. That's not reaching out and doing 
the right thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Scott), a fellow Rules Committee member.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that my friends on the left need some 
clarification on why we are here this afternoon. This is not a good day 
for America, and it is certainly still not a good day for the Terry 
family.
  My friends on the left continue to talk about this as if it were a 
witch hunt--a witch hunt. We have a slain Border Patrol agent, and my 
friends on the left want to politicize this by talking about a witch 
hunt when in fact we all know that this, Mr. Speaker, is about justice. 
This is about justice.
  My friend on the left just said that we Republicans refuse to hear 
``yes,'' we refuse to accept ``yes'' as an answer. Well, Mr. Speaker, 
we want a ``yes'' for Kent Terry, we want a ``yes'' for Josephine 
Terry, the parents of Brian Terry. We want a ``yes'' for the American 
people. We want a ``yes'' as it relates to the integrity of the 
process, and we want a ``yes'' for justice. And, Mr. Speaker, my 
friends on the left continue to consistently say ``no.''
  We are here, Mr. Speaker, for only two reasons. The first is because 
United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry is dead because of a 
Federal Government operation that allowed American guns to be walked 
across the border in the hands of drug lords and cartels. We are here 
today, Mr. Speaker, because the Department of Justice; the Attorney 
General, Eric Holder; and now the President refuse to comply with 
congressional subpoenas that will give us clarity on these questions, 
give us clear answers for the Terry family and for the American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NUGENT. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. We have been trying for 18 long months 
to get to the bottom of this issue, and yet we are being stonewalled.
  Yes, we hear that the Federal Government has provided 7,000-plus 
pages; but, Mr. Speaker, there are over 100,000 pages that we have 
requested. We are talking about a period from February 4, 2011, to 
December 2011, where we were given false information. It is our 
responsibility, it is our duty to find the truth for the American 
people and the Terry family.
  Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by simply saying, how are we supposed to 
protect and ensure the safety of our Border Patrol agents in the future 
if we do not know who allowed the guns to walk across the border? How 
are we supposed to give Brian Terry's family any sense of closure, Mr. 
Speaker? This is why we have no choice but to be here today. The 
refusal of the Attorney General to provide answers regarding Brian 
Terry's death leaves us no choice but to be here today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself such time as I may 
consume before I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. Speaker, the last time Congress dealt with a contempt resolution 
was in the case of Joshua Bolton and Harriet Miers. The period of time 
between when the committee voted out the resolution and before there 
was floor action was 6 months. The reason why there was time taken was 
to make sure that we got it right.
  This is less than a week. And I'm going to say to my friends on the 
other side of the aisle that the minority staff has compiled a list of 
100 inaccuracies--100 inaccuracies in the report that was the basis for 
this contempt resolution--100--and they're rushing it to the floor. So 
don't tell me this is not about politics. Don't tell me this is not a 
witch hunt. It is exactly what it is.
  Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. The gentleman from Massachusetts is absolutely 
correct, this is a sad and troubling day.
  What we see here today, Mr. Speaker, is nothing more than using the 
Halls of Congress for extreme partisan political purposes.

                              {time}  1250

  This case is all about a politically motivated confrontation with the 
executive branch on a matter that does not even begin to rise to this 
level.
  This case is not about gunwalking. Those documents have been provided 
and are not in dispute. The documents at issue are completely unrelated 
to how gunwalking was initiated in Operation Fast and Furious. The 
Department has produced thousands of pages of documents. The committee 
has interviewed two dozen officials, and the Attorney General has 
testified on nine occasions.
  This is an election-year witch hunt. I say that to the gentleman from 
South Carolina. This is an election-year witch hunt. During this 16-
month investigation, the committee refused all Democratic requests for 
witnesses and hearings, as well as requests to interview any Bush 
administration appointees.
  Never in our Nation's history has the House of Representatives voted 
to hold a sitting Attorney General or a Cabinet member in contempt. 
What's different?
  I will tell you what's different. It is the simple fact that 
Republicans have a dogged determination to discredit and defeat this 
President at all costs. Plain and simple, it's politics.
  My Republican friends, do not use your majority to engage in a 
political stunt. The integrity and legacy of this institution deserve 
better than that. If you want to discredit and defeat this President, 
you need to leave this floor and leave the C-SPAN cameras, and go out 
and give it your best shot. This is not the place to do it.
  When the history of this despicable proceeding is recorded, it will 
be said that your actions were politically motivated to discredit and 
defeat a President who has worked so hard over the past 3 years.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in refusing to vote for this 
gimmick and walk to the steps of the Capitol and explain the 
circumstances of this dark day. Do not vote for this resolution.
  For those of you who choose to vote, I ask that you defeat the rule 
and vote against these contempt resolutions.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  You know, it's amazing that my friends forget about history because 
they referenced history in 2008 as related to House Resolution 979 and 
House Resolution 980. And you know what they did?
  They passed a rule and said it's hereby adopted. You never even had 
discussion on the House floor like we're going to do today. Never had 
debate on the House floor. They just passed it in the Rules Committee 
and said, guess what, it's hereby adopted.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Issa), the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform.
  Mr. ISSA. I place in the Record at this time the statement by the 
Terry family concerning Congressman Dingell's criticism of the contempt 
vote.

   Terry Family Statement with Regard to Congressman John Dingell's 
                       Criticism of Contempt Vote

       On Wednesday, Representative John Dingell invoked the Terry 
     family name while saying he would not back the contempt 
     resolutions but instead wants the Oversight and

[[Page H4167]]

     Government Reform Committee to conduct a more thorough 
     investigation into Operation Fast and Furious.
       Congressman Dingell represents the district in Michigan 
     where Brian Terry was born and where his family still 
     resides, but his views don't represent those of the Terry 
     family. Nor does he speak for the Terry family. And he has 
     never spoken to the Terry family.
       His office sent us a condolence letter when Brian was 
     buried 18 months ago. That's the last time we heard from him.
       A year ago, after the House Oversight and Reform Committee 
     began looking into Operation Fast and Furious, one of Brian's 
     sisters called Rep. Dingell's office seeking help and 
     answers. No one from his office called back.
       Mr. Dingell is now calling for more investigation to be 
     conducted before the Attorney General can be held in contempt 
     of Congress.
       The Terry family has been waiting for over 18 months for 
     answers about Operation Fast and Furious and how it was 
     related to Brian's death. If Rep. Dingell truly wants to 
     support the Terry family and honor Brian Terry, a son of 
     Michigan, he and other Members of Congress will call for the 
     Attorney General to immediately provide the documents 
     requested by the House Oversight and Government Reform 
     Committee.

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to offer my support to 
hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress.
  In December 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed with a 
gun that was allowed to walk across the border as a result of Operation 
Fast and Furious.
  Mr. Speaker, some, including this Attorney General and some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, state that this operation 
began in a previous administration. This is demonstrably false, and 
nothing could be further from the truth.
  While there was a program under the previous administration known as 
Wide Receiver, the differences are quite stark. Under Wide Receiver, 
weapons were tracked, the Mexican government was involved, and no one 
died as a result of that operation. In fact, Operation Wide Receiver 
ended in late 2007, nearly 2 years before Fast and Furious began and 
nearly 9 months before this President was sworn into office.
  Fast and Furious allowed guns to walk across the Mexican border with 
no tracking, no involvement by Mexican officials. Over 2,000 firearms 
disappeared across the border under this failed operation. Hundreds of 
Mexicans are dead because of this failed operation.
  An American hero and United States Marine, Agent Brian Terry, is dead 
because of this failed operation. Agent Terry stood his ground and told 
moms and dads across America that no one would hurt their children on 
his watch. He stood up and took that responsibility.
  To this day, no one, and I mean no one, in this administration has 
had the guts to stand up and say, ``It was my fault.'' Attorney General 
Holder has refused to comply with a congressional subpoena that was 
issued in October of 2011.
  I was a practicing attorney in the real world before I came to 
Congress. In the real world, Americans are expected to comply with 
subpoenas. Is the Attorney General any different? No, he is not.
  Are we just supposed to take Mr. Holder's word that we have all the 
information?
  That may be how Washington works, Mr. Attorney General, but that is 
not how Main Street works.
  Mr. Attorney General, what are you hiding? What are you hiding from 
the Brian Terry family? What are you hiding from the American public?
  I've said it before and I will say it again: you can delegate 
authority but you cannot delegate responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General can stonewall all he wants. The 
Attorney General can misremember all he wants. But whether he likes it 
or not, today responsibility will land on his desk.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud Chairman Issa for his steadfast leadership in 
the pursuit of the truth. I applaud my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle who are putting the search of the truth before party.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield another 15 seconds to the gentleman 
from Florida.
  Mr. ROSS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I applaud all of those, like Agent 
Terry, who wear the uniform of the Armed Forces or stand on the border 
and guard our Nation. Agent Terry knew a thing or two about duty. He 
died while on duty.
  It is now the duty of this Congress to hold those responsible and 
accountable for this failed operation. We will not forget, and we will 
always stand with you.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, Members are advised to direct 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend from Florida (Mr. Nugent) talked about obstructionism, and 
I want to say a couple of words about that because I think this whole 
process has obstructed justice.
  During the committee's 16-month investigation, the committee refused 
all Democratic requests for witnesses and hearings, which is 
unprecedented. For instance, the committee refused to hold a public 
hearing with Ken Melson, the head of ATF, the agency responsible for 
this operation, after he told committee investigators privately that he 
never informed senior department officials about gunwalking because he 
was unaware of it.
  The committee also refused a hearing, or even a private meeting, with 
former Attorney General Mukasey, who was briefed on botched efforts to 
coordinate interdictions with Mexico in 2007, and was informed directly 
that these efforts would be expanded during his tenure; refused the 
opportunity to have the Attorney General as a witness.
  Mr. Speaker, this partisanship was demonstrated by the committee's 
vote along strictly partisan lines to hold the Attorney General in 
contempt and to vote along strictly partisan lines on every amendment. 
This is about politics. This is not about the truth. This is not about 
justice. This is about politics, and that is why this is such a sad day 
for this institution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Speaker, the investigation that's being conducted by the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is a legitimate 
investigation. But the recommendation to this House to hold the 
Attorney General in contempt is reckless, irresponsible, unnecessary, 
and will actually get in the way of the pursuit of truth.
  Why do I say that?
  If you're going to do an investigation, you have to begin at the 
beginning, and the beginning of Fast and Furious and gunwalking began 
in the Bush administration. There's no evidence that President Bush was 
aware of it. There's some questions about what his Attorney General 
knew, what and when.
  But if you are sincerely interested in trying to find out what 
happened, how it happened, how in the world do you not begin at the 
beginning?
  And despite that fact, the requests of many of us on the committee 
who support an investigation, who support the use of a subpoena, who 
support the aggressive right of Congress to get access to documents 
that it needs, have been denied the opportunity to bring in witnesses 
about what happened and how it happened during the Bush administration.
  We've been denied the opportunity to bring in Attorney General 
Mukasey, despite the fact that there was evidence that he was 
personally briefed on the botched efforts to coordinate interdiction 
with Mexican authorities. Then-Attorney General Mukasey was also told 
that the ATF field office in Phoenix planned to expand these operations 
during his tenure. So our question really quite simply is, begin at the 
beginning.
  That foundation of an open and exhaustive search is what this 
committee, the Committee on Government Reform, owes to this House of 
Representatives before it asks the Members of this House to vote on the 
extraordinary measure of finding a sitting Attorney General in 
contempt.
  Secondly, we've got to do our job with care. The original subpoena 
that went out and was there until the Friday before the Wednesday in 
which we voted was demanding that the Attorney General turn over 
documents that

[[Page H4168]]

would have been illegal for him to turn over--transcripts of the grand 
jury.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. WELCH. So transcripts of the grand jury, transcripts of wiretap 
applications, which is not only a violation of the U.S. Code, but would 
jeopardize law enforcement officials if that word got out. That is an 
irresponsible and overbroad subpoena.
  So the bottom line is to let the investigation continue, but let's 
acknowledge that the job that the committee needs to do before it asks 
for a vote of contempt has not been done.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Judge Poe.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today because of an ill-conceived, 
dangerous, illegal, gun-running scheme called Operation Fast and 
Furious.
  This operation has resulted in the death of at least one--maybe two--
Federal agents and in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican nationals; yet 
we still cannot get a straight answer from the Justice Department as to 
what happened. The Attorney General says he doesn't know who authorized 
this nonsense, but he won't let Congress help him find out the facts.
  In December of last year, Attorney General Holder testified before 
the House Judiciary Committee and told me that Operation Fast and 
Furious was ``flawed and reckless'' and that it was ``probably true'' 
that more people were going to die.
  Now, isn't that lovely?
  Why is the Attorney General being so obstinate? After months of 
delay, delay, delay, today is the day of reckoning.
  This administration claims to be the most transparent administration 
in history. So why won't the administration let the American people 
know what happened during Fast and Furious? What are they hiding?
  This contempt resolution is about one thing. It's about finding out 
how such a stealth and dangerous operation could ever be authorized by 
the Government of the United States. Why would our government help 
smuggle guns to our neighbor and put them in the hands of the enemy of 
Mexico and the United States--the violent drug cartels?
  And no wonder the Attorney General of Mexico wants those in the 
United States who are responsible to be extradited to Mexico and tried 
for those possible crimes. Mexico is more interested in Fast and 
Furious than is our own government.
  As a former judge, I can tell you that contempt is used as a last 
resort to let individuals know they will comply with a lawful order 
whether they like it or not. Even the Attorney General cannot evade the 
law.
  Time for America to find out the truth about gun smuggling to Mexico. 
Time for a little transparency. Today is judgment day.
  And that's just the way it is.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my friend that this 
gunwalking program started under President Bush. And that's just the 
way it is.
  I would like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Members, I'm from Texas. We believe it's our 
constitutional right to own every gun that was ever made, and we don't 
want to export them to anywhere--but this resolution is pure politics.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the resolution 
recommending that the House of Representatives find Eric H. Holder, 
Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, in contempt of 
Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the 
committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  In 2005, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 
(ATF) initiated Project Gunrunner that focused on stemming the flow of 
firearms into Mexico. This would stop guns from being obtained by drug 
cartels and criminal organizations that have killed thousands in Mexico 
in recent years.
  Part of Project Gunrunner was Operation Fast and Furious, which has 
come under scrutiny over the past year due to reports that the ATF 
allowed the sale of hundreds of assault weapons to suspected straw 
purchasers, who then allegedly transported these weapons through the 
Southwest and into Mexico. In December 2010, suspected firearms linked 
to Operation Fast and Furious were found at the murder scene of Border 
Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
  This resolution is not about Project Gunrunner or Operation Fast and 
Furious because the Department of Justice has produced thousands of 
pages of documents, two dozen officials have been interviewed, and the 
Attorney General has testified nine times, to show it was not 
responsible for these operations. The Attorney General has continually 
offered to provide even more information, including documents outside 
of the Committee's original subpoena. The documents that are now at the 
center of the resolution are completely unrelated to how Project 
Gunrunner or Operation Fast and Furious were initiated.
  This investigation is nothing more than a hyper-partisan, election-
year effort. The Committee vote was strictly along partisan lines and 
every amendment passed or failed on party-line votes. During this 
investigation, the Committee refused all Democratic requests for 
witnesses and hearings, as well as requests to interview any Bush 
Administration appointees.
  Attorney General Eric Holder has produced sufficient evidence, 
through thousands of pages of documents and testifying nine times 
before the committee, to confirm that once he learned about Operation 
Fast and Furious, he took action to bring it to a close. The denial of 
Democratic requests to interview officials of the Bush Administration 
on this matter only further proves this is strictly a partisan 
political game to hold the first sitting Attorney General in contempt.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a former law 
enforcement officer who lost her husband in the line of duty, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Adams).
  Mrs. ADAMS. I am going to come to you from a different angle, one of 
a law enforcement officer.
  I served over 17 years as a law enforcement officer, and I worked 
many undercover operations. As a law enforcement officer, you knew you 
didn't give guns to bad guys. The drug cartels, they're bad guys. You 
know if you let a gun walk with a bad guy that you're going to see that 
gun whether it's at a crime scene, or you're going to be looking down 
the barrel of it.
  So when the Attorney General came to our committee, I asked him, Who 
approved this operation? Why was it approved? And he just wouldn't 
answer. He didn't know.
  Okay. Well, what rises to the level of the Attorney General? If an 
international operation that allows guns to walk to another country and 
that are then used to kill one of our agents and that are used to kill 
and maim their citizens doesn't rise to his level of approval, who 
approved it?
  This is something that is just normal procedure in any operation in a 
law enforcement agency.
  So now you have an Attorney General who won't tell us or can't tell 
us who approved this international operation. You have others saying, 
Well, this is something that started under another administration.
  It didn't. That was a different operation, and they realized they 
couldn't keep up with those guns, so they stopped it. When this one 
started, it was flawed from the beginning. The Attorney General said it 
was flawed from the beginning.
  Yet we still have no answers. We don't have answers. The American 
people don't have answers, and most importantly, the Terry family 
doesn't have answers. That's just unacceptable.
  I've heard from the other side of the aisle and from my colleagues 
here today that this is political. This isn't political. To me, it's 
personal. We have a law enforcement officer who was doing his job and 
who was killed by a flawed operation that no one will take ownership of 
in the Attorney General's Office; and the Attorney General, himself, 
won't tell us what rises to the level of his knowing what's going on in 
his agency if an international operation does not.
  So I will tell you that it was not political when I started looking 
into this and when we started looking into it. It is not political 
today. The way that it became political was when there was asserted, 
right before the gavel dropped in the committee, an executive 
privilege.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NUGENT. I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

[[Page H4169]]

  Mrs. ADAMS. I ask you today to approve this resolution. Bring some 
credibility back to our Department of Justice. If this had happened in 
another agency throughout this Nation and if one of our officers had 
died and if the Department of Justice were involved in the 
investigation, they would be asking for the same documents that we are 
asking for.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentlelady that if 
she is interested in why the United States pursued this gunwalking 
program, she should talk to the Attorney General under the Bush 
administration, Attorney General Mukasey, when this thing started 5 
years ago.
  Unfortunately, notwithstanding the fact that the Democrats have asked 
that he be called before the committee, the request has been denied. 
She wants to know why this is political? The request for every single 
witness that the Democrats asked to be brought before the committee was 
denied, the request for every single witness.
  That is unprecedented in this House in any committee, the fact that 
the Democrats have been locked out of having any of their witnesses 
come forward. This is not about gunwalking. This is not about finding 
the terrible truth about what happened to Agent Terry. This is about 
politics, plain and simple; and it diminishes this House.
  I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Any doubt that today's contempt resolution is political was put to 
rest when the NRA joined in to blowtorch vulnerable Democrats to vote 
for contempt today.
  The gun lobby is directly responsible for the gap in Federal law that 
allowed the straw purchases of guns here that were taken to Mexico, 
ultimately resulting in the tragic death of a border agent. Yet because 
of a political mandate from the gun lobby, our committee spent no time 
on the root cause of this tragedy. Instead, after the majority failed 
to get the documents it requested that were under court seal and 
documents related to ongoing investigations, it asked for internal 
communications that no Republican or Democratic administration has ever 
given up.
  Instead of sparing no effort to give law enforcement the tools it 
must have to protect our border agents, our committee has spared no 
effort to get to today's contempt resolution over issues unrelated to 
the tragic killing. After 16 months, the committee found no evidence 
that the Attorney General or other top Justice Department officials 
knew about the ATF gunwalking. And the committee resolutely refused to 
hear from top ATF officials who said that they, in turn, had given the 
Justice Department no such information.

                              {time}  1310

  It is Attorney General Holder who stopped the gunwalking authorized 
and started by the Bush administration. The contempt today, Mr. 
Speaker, is for the truth.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it very clear that the 
House rules of article XI talk about, specifically, j(1) as it relates 
to the rights of the minority. But you have to ask for that. A majority 
of the minority has to ask for it. It has to be focused on the issue at 
hand. They were talking about issues as it related to, I guess, gun 
ownership, and that was not germane to that issue.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Quayle).
  Mr. QUAYLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today's vote is long overdue. For months, my colleagues 
and I have worked to uncover the truth about Operation Fast and 
Furious, which cost the life of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in my 
home State of Arizona.
  Congressional efforts to get to the bottom of this tragedy and bring 
accountability to those responsible were met with derision by Attorney 
General Holder. At hearings, when we questioned Mr. Holder, he evaded. 
When we requested documents, he obfuscated. When I questioned Mr. 
Holder on June 8, he looked me in the eye and stated plainly that there 
was nothing whatsoever in the wiretap applications that suggested the 
existence of a gunwalking program. Yet, all I had to do was review 
those same applications to see that what the attorney general had said 
to me, my colleagues, and to the American people, was nothing but a 
boldfaced lie. Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that again. It was a 
boldfaced lie.
  Today, let Congress' vote be a signal to Mr. Holder that dishonesty 
on the part of administration officials will never be tolerated.
  Today, let this vote be a signal to President Obama that the security 
of the American people must always come before his own job security and 
the job security of his Cabinet officials.
  Let this vote be a reminder to Mr. Holder and to President Obama that 
despite their executive overreach, there are, in fact, three coequal 
branches of government.
  Let this vote demonstrate that Congress has not forgotten its right 
or its responsibility to provide oversight and to bring accountability.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Florida (Mr. Nugent) 
mentioned the issue of gun ownership as related to the witnesses that 
the Democrats wanted to have appear before the committee. How inviting 
the head of the ATF, which is responsible for Operation Fast and 
Furious, or inviting the former Attorney General, who was briefed on 
gunwalking and knew about it, how that has anything to do with gun 
ownership--what that has to do with, Mr. Speaker, is getting to the 
truth.
  The minority has submitted a request for witnesses in writing and 
even requested for a--which I guess they have the right to do--a day of 
minority witnesses, which they were told they would not be granted that 
day in a timely fashion.
  This is about politics. This, by all measures, is about politics. 
Again, the fact that we are doing this today, I think, diminishes the 
House of Representatives.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, every Member of this Chamber wants to get 
to the bottom of the issue of the tragic death of Officer Terry. Every 
Member of the Chamber wants to find out how the ATF and Justice 
Department were run as related to that tragedy.
  So the committee that's looking into this refused to hear the 
testimony of the person running the ATF.
  The committee that's looking into this refused to hear the testimony 
of the Assistant Attorney General, who was responsible for the ATF and 
talked about this with Attorney General Holder.
  The committee that is responsible for this received thousands of 
pages of documents from the Attorney General to try to get to the 
bottom of the matter.
  This procedure does violence to the American Constitution. Yes, we 
have three separate branches. Those branches are designed to respect 
each other's prerogatives. Those branches are designed to avoid a 
constitutional confrontation and engage in one only when necessary.
  In the 225-year history of this institution, there has never been a 
vote like this before--never.
  Is it because the Attorney General didn't turn over documents? He 
turned over thousands of pages of documents.
  Is it because the people that know about this issue haven't been made 
available? To the contrary. The committee refused to hear the testimony 
of the head of the ATF and the Assistant Attorney General.
  This procedure diminishes the House. It vandalizes the Constitution. 
It should not go forward.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. The record will reflect that in a bipartisan way, the 
Acting Director of the ATF, the person that was actually appointed by 
President Obama, was deposed by both Democrats and Republicans about a 
year ago for 2 days around July 4. It was 2 days that he was deposed. 
That record is there. It is crystal clear.
  We were also denied, by the Department of Justice, to speak with 
Lanny Breuer and Kenneth Blanco, two of the key central people at the 
highest levels of the Department of Justice. To suggest that we were 
given an opportunity to talk to them is patently false.

[[Page H4170]]

  The final part I will make is you can't complain that Attorney 
General Holder was here nine times between the House and the Senate 
talking in part about Fast and Furious and then say that you never had 
a Democratic witness.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we need to deal with facts in this debate 
because this is an important matter.
  The gentleman just talked about these hearings, these meetings with 
the head of the ATF. The reality was that a year ago Republican staff 
met with the head of the ATF on July 3 without notifying Democratic 
staff. Democratic staff were invited to come on July 4. There were no 
public hearings, and no Members were there.
  Again, I'm not sure what the problem is with having the head of the 
ATF come before the committee so the American people can hear what the 
truth is and what the facts are. I don't know why that's such a big 
deal. But to suggest that this was a bipartisan effort is just outright 
false.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is pursuing an 
unprecedented and a partisan constitutional confrontation today, and 
it's unnecessary.
  The contempt resolution that's before the House is both disgraceful 
and it really is demeaning to this House. It's being brought forth by 
the other side simply to drag Attorney General Holder through the mud 
and to publicly accuse him and the administration and, frankly, by 
extension, the President of the United States, of a coverup, claiming 
that our Attorney General was obstructing justice. Republicans even 
went so far as to call him a liar on national television. This is 
unheard of, it is hyperbolic, and it's disrespectful to the office and 
disrespectful to this House.
  The fact is that Chairman Issa and Republicans have continuously 
moved the goalpost and disregarded the good intent and good faith shown 
by the Attorney General, the Justice Department, and the President's 
administration.
  As has been said before, the Department of Justice has provided the 
Congress with over 7,600 pages of documents and made numerous officials 
available for testimony, but that's been rebuffed. Just last week, the 
Attorney General offered to provide even more internal documents and 
requested a show simply of good faith on the part of the Republican 
majority that they wanted to resolve the contempt issue, but they 
refused, choosing this constitutional confrontation instead. That's 
because the Republicans, to be clear, are not interested in a 
resolution. They're not looking to compromise. They're only looking to 
score political points at the expense of the integrity of the House and 
the good name of the President and the Attorney General.
  So I would ask us to carefully consider what we're doing here today 
and to raise into question what we're doing to this House, to the 
institution, and to the Presidency. I would ask my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle to ask themselves whether the American people 
want us to focus on their business, to focus on the business of moving 
the country forward, or to simply play politics because you can't win 
any other way.
  It's a really simple proposition that's in front of us today. And I 
would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: it is time for 
us to simply walk away from the nonsense that is not doing justice to 
the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is pursuing an unprecedented and 
partisan constitutional confrontation today.
  The contempt resolution before this House is disgraceful and 
demeaning to the House. It's been brought forth by the other side to 
drag Attorney General Holder through the mud and publicly accuse him 
and the Administration by extension the President of the U.S. of a 
``cover-up'', claiming that Attorney General Holder was ``obstructing 
justice.'' Republicans even went so far as to call him a ``liar'' on 
national television--unheard of, blatantly hyperbolic, and 
disrespectful to the office.
  The fact is that Chairman Issa and the Republicans have continuously 
moved the goalposts and disregarded the good faith shown by the 
Attorney General, the Justice Department, and the President's 
Administration.
  All told, the Department of Justice has provided Congress with over 
7,600 pages of documents and has made numerous high profile officials 
available for public congressional testimony. The Attorney General 
himself has answered questions at nine public hearings.
  Last week, the Attorney General offered to provide even more internal 
documents, including documents outside of Chairman Issa's subpoena. All 
the Attorney General requested was a show of good faith on the part of 
the Republican majority to resolve the contempt issue, but they 
refused. That's because the Republicans are not looking to compromise. 
They are looking simply to score political points at the expense of the 
integrity of the House.
  And so, on June 11th, Chairman Issa announced his intention to hold a 
contempt vote. On June 20th, just nine short days later, Chairman Issa 
called the vote after the President invoked executive privilege.
  From George Washington to George W. Bush, Presidents of both 
political parties have asserted executive privilege to protect the 
confidentiality of certain kinds of executive branch information in 
response to demands by Congress. In fact, dating back to President 
Reagan, Presidents have asserted executive privilege 24 times.
  In previous situations, Committee Chairman put off contempt 
proceedings in order to conduct serious and careful review of 
Presidential assertions of executive privilege. Then Oversight and 
Government Reform Chairman Waxman put off a contempt vote after 
President Bush asserted executive privilege in the Valarie Plame 
investigation. Chairman Waxman did the same when President Bush 
asserted the privilege relating to EPA ozone regulations--on the same 
day as the contempt vote. Mr. Dingell, as Chair of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee held two hearings before proceeding to a contempt 
vote, after he received President Reagan's assertion of executive 
privilege.
  But on June 20th, after the invocation of executive privilege by 
President Obama, and over the requests of several committee members to 
delay action, Chairman Issa proceeded with the contempt vote.
  One question that comes to my mind is why the rush? The Committee 
recently ``completed'' a 16-month investigation, one in which the 
committee refused all Democratic requests for hearings and even for a 
single witness. Then one week and just seven days after the committee 
reported out the contempt resolution on a party-line vote on June 20th, 
the House today will vote on this privileged resolution.
  The last time the House voted on contempt resolution against 
executive branch officials was during an investigation in the Bush 
administration into the firing of U.S. Attorneys. In that situation, 
the House Judiciary Committee cited two officials for contempt of 
Congress in July 2007. The full House did not actually consider and 
vote on those contempt resolutions until eight months later in February 
2008.
  The Obama administration has argued that the documents in question in 
this instance fall within the executive privilege because they have 
been generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning the 
Justice Department's response to Congressional oversight, not because 
the President knew more about this matter than he admitted to or that 
there was a conspiracy in the White House, as Chairman Issa falsely 
asserts.
  For some reason, the Republican majority feels that this is a 
pressing issue. But I can think of a large list of other issues that I 
feel that Americans would rather we address.
  It is hard to imagine that the House Republican majority's actions 
are anything else besides election-year politics designed to make this 
administration look bad. This resolution will not create jobs, nor will 
it strengthen our economic recovery. It is far past time to getting 
around to solving the real problems that the American people sent each 
of us here to resolve.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to carefully consider 
what we are about to do today. Never in our nation's history has the 
House voted to hold a sitting Attorney General in contempt. I urge my 
colleagues to vote down this partisan and political contempt 
resolution.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time 
remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NUGENT. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. What began as a 
legitimate investigation into an operation called

[[Page H4171]]

Fast and Furious has, unfortunately, degenerated into yet another 
partisan political attack in an election year. And it's a shame this is 
taking place for many reasons. First and foremost, because the American 
people have a legitimate interest in getting to the bottom of the gun 
violence that spills across our border, with the tens of thousands of 
weapons made in America that end up in the hands of the cartels. But 
instead of looking into that investigation, instead of finding out what 
we can do about this gun violence, this has now become a fight over 
documents, a fight that is completely unnecessary and unjustified.
  The very documents that are at issue in this resolution were created 
after this operation had long since been shut down. They will shed no 
light on the operation. They will shed no light on what we can do to 
stop this gun trafficking. But then that's not the goal. The goal here 
is simply the fight.
  The Justice Department has bent over backwards, produced thousands of 
documents. The Attorney General has testified eight or nine times 
before the House, has made every effort to cooperate in this 
investigation, but the committee will not take ``yes'' for an answer 
because that's not the goal. The fight is the goal.
  And so we are here when we should be doing the Nation's business, 
when we should be working on legislation to create jobs. Instead, we 
are here in what is nothing less than a partisan brawl over nothing. 
And you know how this will end? It will end months or years from now 
with a settlement in Federal District Court in which the Justice 
Department will provide the very same documents they have already 
offered to provide. But we will have wasted our time; we will have 
wasted our money; and we will have wasted the precious opportunity to 
get the people's business done here in the House.
  In case the majority hasn't noticed, we are in the midst of a very 
difficult economy, where people are struggling to find work. They are 
not struggling to find another partisan fight on the House floor. This 
is something that cried out for resolution, but those cries were 
ignored. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Chaffetz).
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, the reason I am so passionate about this 
issue is that it's about openness, it's about transparency, it's about 
the idea that there is no one person in our government that's above the 
law; that when you have a duly issued subpoena, you comply with that 
subpoena.
  In fact, I would like to hearken back to the remarks by President 
Obama as he took office. He said:

       Let me say as simply as I can. Transparency and the rule of 
     law will be the touchstones of this presidency. I will also 
     hold myself, as President, to a new standard of openness. But 
     the mere fact that you have legal power to keep something 
     secret does not mean you should always use it.

  He went on to say:

       I expect members of my administration not simply to live up 
     to the letter but also the spirit of this law.

  He went on to send something to all of the department heads. He said:

       Government should not keep information confidential merely 
     because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, 
     because errors or failures might be revealed, or because of 
     speculative or abstract fears.

  The President further said, relating to Fast and Furious:

       There may be a situation here in which a serious mistake 
     was made, and if that's the case, we will find out, and we 
     will hold somebody accountable.

  We have a dead Border Patrol agent. We have over 200 dead Mexican 
people. We have a program that the Attorney General called 
``fundamentally flawed.'' We have thousands of weapons that are 
missing. We have a duty, an obligation to pursue this to the fullest 
extent and to make sure that we have all those documents so we can make 
sure that it never, ever happens again.
  Now there are 140,000 documents, according to the Attorney General, 
that deal with Fast and Furious. We've been given less than 8,000 of 
those. Less than 8,000 of those. We deserve to have that.
  Also, I will be submitting for the Record this statement from the 
National Border Patrol Council. This is the AFL-CIO-oriented 
organization of 17,000 Border Patrol members who call for the 
resignation of Attorney General Holder. In fact, they say that it's ``a 
slap in the face to all Border Patrol agents who serve this country'' 
and ``an utter failure of leadership at the highest levels of 
government.''
  ``If Eric Holder were a Border Patrol agent and not the Attorney 
General, he would have long ago been found unsuitable for government 
employment and terminated.''
  These are from the people on the front lines. We have an obligation 
to get to the bottom of this.

        [From the National Border Patrol Council, June 20, 2012]

     NBPC Calls for the Resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder

       June 18, 2012.--The union representing U.S. Border Patrol 
     agents called for the resignation of Attorney General Eric 
     Holder for his role in the ``Operation Fast and Furious'' gun 
     smuggling scandal that directly resulted in the murder of 
     Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 15, 2010.
       National Border Patrol Council President George E. McCubbin 
     III called the actions of the Attorney General Holder, ``A 
     slap in the face to all Border Patrol agents who serve this 
     country'' and ``an utter failure of leadership at the highest 
     levels of government.''
       Border Patrol agents are indoctrinated from day one of 
     their training that integrity is their most important trait 
     as a Border Patrol agent and that without it they have little 
     use to the agency. Border Patrol agents are quickly 
     disciplined whenever they lie or show a lack of candor. The 
     standard that applies to these agents should at a minimum be 
     applied to those who lead them. ``If Eric Holder were a 
     Border Patrol agent and not the Attorney General, he would 
     have long ago been found unsuitable for government employment 
     and terminated.''
       ``The heroism that Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry 
     demonstrated on that cold night in the dessert of Arizona was 
     in keeping with the finest traditions of the United States 
     Border Patrol and will never be forgotten by those who patrol 
     this nation's borders. We cannot allow our agents to be 
     sacrificed for no gain and not hold accountable those who 
     approved the ill conceived `Operation Fast and Furious' '', 
     said McCubbin.
       ``The political shenanigans surrounding this scandal and 
     the passing of blame must stop.'' A Border Patrol agent 
     cannot accidentally step foot into Mexico without a myriad of 
     U.S. and Mexican government agencies being made aware, so 
     there is no possible way that this operation was conducted 
     without the knowledge and tacit approval of the Department of 
     Justice and the Obama administration.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, if this is about openness, then why does the committee 
have secret meetings where they lock Democrats out? If this is about 
openness, then why won't they let any Democratic witnesses appear 
before the committee?
  And since there seems to be some confusion as to whether or not 
Democrats actually formally requested witnesses, I will insert into the 
Record a letter to the Honorable Darrell Issa on October 28, on 
November 4, and on February 2, requesting witnesses, including the 
former Attorney General Mukasey and Mr. Melson, the head of the ATF.
         Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of 
           Representatives,
                                 Washington, DC, October 28, 2011.
     Hon. Darrell E. Issa,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As I have stated repeatedly, I believe 
     Operation Fast and Furious was a terrible mistake with tragic 
     consequences. As I have also stated, I support a fair and 
     responsible investigation that follows the facts where they 
     lead, rather than drawing conclusions before evidence is 
     gathered or ignoring information that does not fit into a 
     preconceived narrative.
       On several occasions over the past month, you have called 
     on Attorney General Eric Holder to appear before the House 
     Judiciary Committee to answer questions about when he first 
     became aware of the controversial tactics used in Operation 
     Fast and Furious. The Attorney General has now agreed to 
     testify before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8, 
     2011, when you will have another opportunity to question him 
     directly.
       With respect to our own Committee's investigation, I do not 
     believe it will be viewed as legitimate or credible--and I do 
     not believe the public record will be complete--without 
     public testimony from Kenneth Melson, who served as the 
     Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
     Explosives (ATF).
       A hearing with Mr. Melson would help the Committee and the 
     American people better understand what mistakes were made in 
     Operation Fast and Furious, how these tactics originated, who 
     did and did not authorize them. and what steps are being 
     taken to ensure that they are not used again.
       Our staffs have already conducted transcribed interviews 
     with Mr. Melson and the

[[Page H4172]]

     former Deputy Director of ATF, William Hoover. During those 
     interviews, these officials expressed serious concerns about 
     the controversial tactics employed by the Phoenix Field 
     Division of ATF as part of this operation. They also raised 
     concerns about the manner in which the Department of Justice 
     responded to congressional inquiries.
       Both officials also stated that they had not been aware of 
     the controversial tactics being used in Operation Fast and 
     Furious, had not authorized those tactics, and had not 
     informed anyone at the Department of Justice headquarters 
     about them. They stated that Operation Fast and Furious 
     originated within the Phoenix Field Division, and that ATF 
     headquarters failed to properly supervise it.
       Since the Attorney General has now agreed to appear before 
     Congress in December, I believe Members also deserve an 
     opportunity to question Mr. Melson directly, especially since 
     he headed the agency responsible for Operation Fast and 
     Furious. My staff has been in touch with Mr. Melson's 
     attorney, who reports that Mr. Melson would be pleased to 
     cooperate with the Committee.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
                                               Elijah E. Cummings,
     Ranking Member.
                                  ____

         Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of 
           Representatives,
                                 Washington, DC, November 4, 2011.
     Hon. Darrell E. Issa,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to request that the 
     Committee hold a hearing with former Attorney General Michael 
     Mukasey in order to assist our efforts in understanding the 
     inception and development of so-called ``gun-walking'' 
     operations over the past five years.


                            The Mukasey Memo

       Documents obtained by the Committee indicate that Attorney 
     General Mukasey was briefed on November 16, 2007, on a 
     botched gun-walking operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). A briefing paper 
     prepared for Attorney General Mukasey prior to a meeting with 
     Mexican Attorney General Medina Mora describes ``the first-
     ever attempt to have a controlled delivery of weapons being 
     smuggled into Mexico by a major arms trafficker.'' The 
     briefing paper warns, however, that ``the first attempts at 
     this controlled delivery have not been successful.'' Despite 
     these failures, the briefing paper proposes expanding such 
     operations in the future. It states:
       ATF would like to expand the possibility of such joint 
     investigations and controlled deliveries--since only then 
     will it be possible to investigate an entire smuggling 
     network, rather than arresting simply a single smuggler.
       Attorney General Mukasey's briefing paper was prepared only 
     weeks after ATF officials had expressed serious concerns with 
     the failure of these tactics and claimed they were shutting 
     them down. After ATF officials discovered that firearms were 
     not being interdicted, William Hoover, then ATF's assistant 
     director of field operations, wrote an e-mail on October 5, 
     2007, to Carson Carroll, ATF's assistant director for 
     enforcement programs, stating:
       I do not want any firearms to go South until further 
     notice. I expect a full briefing paper on my desk Tuesday 
     morning from SAC Newell [Special Agent in Charge William 
     Newell] with every question answered.
       The next day, Special Agent in Charge Newell responded in 
     an e-mail, stating:
       I'm so frustrated with this whole mess I'm shutting the 
     case down and any further attempts to do something similar. 
     We're done trying to pursue new and innovative initiatives--
     it's not worth the hassle.
       It is unclear from the documents what changed between 
     October 6, 2007, when Special Agent in Charge Newell 
     indicated that he was shutting down these operations, and 
     November 16, 2007, when Attorney General Mukasey was 
     presented with a proposal to expand them. The documents do 
     not indicate whether Attorney General Mukasey read this 
     briefing paper or how he responded to the proposal to expand 
     these operations.


    Additional Gun-Walking Operations During the Bush Administration

       Other documents obtained by the Committee indicate that the 
     officials who prepared the November 16, 2007, briefing paper 
     for Attorney General Mukasey were aware that it did not 
     disclose the full scope of previous gun-walking operations. 
     After reviewing the briefing paper, Mr. Carroll wrote an e-
     mail to Mr. Hoover, stating: ``I am going to ask DOJ to 
     change `first ever'.'' He added: ``there have [been] cases in 
     the past where we have walked guns.''
       Mr. Carroll's statement appears to be a reference to an 
     earlier operation in 2006 known as Operation Wide Receiver. 
     The documents obtained by the Committee do not indicate 
     whether Attorney General Mukasey was in fact informed about 
     this operation, which occurred a year earlier.
       The documents obtained by the Committee appear to directly 
     contradict your claim on national television that gun-walking 
     operations under the previous Administration were well 
     coordinated. During an appearance on Face the Nation on 
     October 16, 2011, you asserted:
       We know that under the Bush Administration there were 
     similar operations, but they were coordinated with Mexico. 
     They made every effort to keep their eyes on the weapons the 
     whole time.
       Your assertion was particularly troubling since the 
     Committee obtained these e-mail exchanges in July, several 
     months before your appearance on Face the Nation.


                               Conclusion

       Over the past year, you have been extremely critical of 
     Attorney General Eric Holder, arguing that he should have 
     known about the controversial tactics employed in these 
     operations. He has now agreed to your request to testify 
     before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8, 2011, to 
     answer additional questions about these operations.
       Given the significant questions raised by the disclosures 
     in these documents, our Committee's investigation will not be 
     viewed as credible, even-handed, or complete unless we hear 
     directly from Attorney General Mukasey.
       During a press appearance on Wednesday, you stated: ``Our 
     job for the American people is to make sure--since they say 
     they shouldn't walk guns and they did walk guns--is that we 
     know they'll never walk guns again.'' I completely agree with 
     this statement, and I believe my request will help us fulfill 
     our shared goal. Thank you for your consideration of this 
     request.
           Sincerely,
                                               Elijah E. Cummings,
     Ranking Member.
                                  ____

         Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of 
           Representatives,
                                 Washington, DC, February 2, 2012.
     Hon. Darrell E. Issa,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Given your statements at today's 
     hearing, I am writing to formally reiterate my previous 
     request for the Committee to hold a public hearing with 
     former Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
       On November 4, 2011, I wrote to you requesting a public 
     hearing with Mr. Mukasey in order to assist the Committee's 
     efforts in understanding the inception and development of so-
     called ``gunwalking'' operations over the past five years in 
     Arizona.
       As I described in the letter, the Committee has now 
     obtained a briefing paper prepared for Mr. Mukasey prior to a 
     meeting with Mexican Attorney General Medina Mora. The 
     briefing paper describes efforts in 2007 by the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to coordinate 
     interdiction efforts with Mexico after firearms crossed the 
     border. The briefing paper warns, however, that ``the first 
     attempts at this controlled delivery have not been 
     successful.'' Despite these failures, the briefing paper 
     proposes expanding such operations in the future. It states:
       ATF would like to expand the possibility of such joint 
     investigations and controlled deliveries--since only then 
     will it be possible to investigate an entire smuggling 
     network, rather than arresting simply a single smuggler.
       Since I sent the letter to you in November, the Committee 
     has not held a public hearing with Mr. Mukasey.
       In addition to these documents, I issued a report this week 
     documenting that Operation Fast and Furious was actually the 
     fourth in a series of reckless operations run by the Phoenix 
     Field Division of ATF and the Arizona U.S. Attorney's Office 
     dating back to 2006 involving hundreds of weapons across two 
     administrations.
       At today's hearing, several Members of the Committee 
     acknowledged that the documents obtained by the Committee do 
     not indicate that Mr. Mukasey approved gunwalking, just as 
     they do not indicate that Attorney General Holder approved 
     gunwalking. Nevertheless, these Members expressed their 
     belief that Mr. Mukasey's public testimony is necessary if 
     the Committee intends to conduct a thorough and evenhanded 
     investigation of this five-year history of gunwalking in 
     Arizona.
       During an exchange with Committee Member Gerry Connolly at 
     today's hearing, you stated that you were open to all 
     requests for hearings relating to this investigation. 
     Attorney General Holder has now testified publicly six times 
     about these issues. It is only appropriate for the Committee 
     and the public to hear testimony from Mr. Mukasey at least 
     once.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
                                               Elijah E. Cummings,
                                                   Ranking Member.

  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today we need to understand that 
there are two classes of documents. The ones that relate to pending 
criminal investigations, those are not discoverable or cannot be 
distributed outside of the Justice Department under

[[Page H4173]]

penalty of U.S. law. You can get 5 years for doing that. You can't 
expect the Attorney General to turn those over. The other class of 
documents is internal communications. There may be some whiff of 
discoverable information in those, but they're covered by executive 
privilege. And you really don't know why the Attorney General has 
invoked executive privilege on those issues, but we have to trust the 
fact that there's good reason for that to be the case.
  Now when you compare what has gone on today and over the last 7 days 
with what happened the day that President Obama was sworn in, you can 
understand why they're doing what they're doing today. You see, not 
very long after President Obama was sworn in, we got word that Mitch 
McConnell said that his mission was to make President Obama a one-term 
President. And then we know that later on that afternoon, later that 
evening, when everyone else was enjoying themselves at the Presidential 
balls, there was a group of Congresspeople--leadership in the 
Republican Party--that were scheming on how they were going to disrupt 
and say ``no'' and obstruct everything that this President put forth. 
So they have done that. They have done everything they can to make this 
President look bad.
  This is a manufactured crisis. It has no legal substance whatsoever. 
This is just simply a cheap political stunt to bring disfavor upon the 
President of the United States. And I ask my colleagues to not let us 
sink to this level. It is the first time in history that any Cabinet 
member has been found in contempt of Congress. This is truly saddening.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I would have to concur. This is an 
incredibly sad day. This administration that started talking about 
transparency has now sunk to the level of actually concealing 
documents.
  Never has an Attorney General been held in contempt of Congress 
because every other Attorney General has turned over documents to 
Congress when they were requested. This Attorney General has not.
  I would just compare this whole controversy with the Secret Service 
scandal from several months ago. They put everything out, released all 
the documents, walked through it. It was done. The GSA scandal, 
released all the documents, held people accountable. It was done. ATF 
even, when we started this investigation a year and a half ago, put all 
their documents out, put all their people out, done.
  As soon as we get to the Department of Justice, it's slow. It's 
delay, it's delay, it's delay. The question is, Why? Why this matters 
when we get to the Department of Justice documents? Because in the 
Phoenix office, everything was organized in the Phoenix office, then 
was approved by the U.S. attorney in the Phoenix area, and then went to 
the Department of Justice--not to the head of ATF--but to the 
Department of Justice, to DOJ and their leadership, to be approved.

                              {time}  1330

  It is essential that we know what was done there and who did it in 
the process. So this is not some ancillary thing that's added to it. 
This is an important part of this process.
  Now, there's all this obfuscation to say it's Bush's fault, this is 
political, there's not enough witnesses. The essence of this particular 
contempt deals with the documents that, on February 4 of last year, the 
Department of Justice sent us a letter that said they had no idea about 
this. And then by December, after all yearlong saying, No, we didn't 
know, we didn't know, we didn't know, come back in December and say, 
Oops, we did. It is what Eric Holder has called his evolving truth.
  We want to know the facts of how it started here and went here. 
There's 130,000 documents that they say they have. They have turned 
over a little over 7,000 of those documents. This is not the 
prerogative for them to continue to hold and conceal those documents.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NUGENT. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Fast and Furious has moved to slow and tedious. We have 
got to have those documents to be able to finish up this investigation. 
It should have long since been done.
  Eric Holder told our chairman that he has these documents, but he's 
using the documents as a bargaining chip to get a better deal. This is 
not the prerogative when we have a subpoena.
  We are not looking for some conflict with the administration. We're 
looking to get to the facts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman.
  I served for many years on the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee. I've been involved in a lot of these investigations over 
time. I served for many years on the House Ethics Committee.
  The Congress should be embarrassed about the conduct of this 
investigation and the charade that brings us to the floor today. The 
Attorney General can't provide these documents. The President has 
protected them under executive order, executive privilege, which means 
that the person who works for the President can't provide them to the 
Congress. We all know that. So to take a decent man who's served his 
country in almost every capacity--as a military veteran, as a U.S. 
attorney here in D.C., as a judge--and to drag his name wrongfully 
before this House, this majority, which clearly has lost its way--in 
their pursuit of power, they have lost all sense of principle--this is 
a disgraceful act.
  But we will get through it. We are a big country, and the American 
people will recognize the disservice that the Republican majority 
brings to this floor today.
  I wouldn't be surprised, at the end of the day, whether we couldn't 
even find this Congress held in more contempt than it is now. I think 
we're at a 9 percent approval rate. That's because of the actions of 
this majority. And the public will have to take account of that as we 
go forward.
  Mr. NUGENT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  This should be labeled ``Fast and Foolish'' or maybe ``Fast and 
Fake.'' We are not talking about gunwalking here. We are doing nothing 
to help the family of Brian Terry recover. What we're talking about are 
interoffice emails between the administration executives in the AG's 
office. I want everyone here to be willing to turn over all of their 
interoffice emails.
  But, more importantly, let's talk about whether there's precedence 
for the assertion of executive privilege. And let me just point to a 
number of cases when executive privilege was asserted for noninvolved 
Presidential communications.
  In October 1981, President Reagan asserted executive privilege over 
internal deliberations within the Department of the Interior 
concerning, interestingly enough, the Mineral Lands Leasing Act.
  In October 1982, President Reagan asserted executive privilege over 
internal EPA files concerning Superfund provisions.
  In July 1986, President Reagan asserted executive privilege over 
documents written by William Rehnquist when he was the head of the OLC 
at DOJ.
  In August 1991, President George H.W. Bush asserted executive 
privilege over an internal Defense Department memorandum regarding an 
aircraft development contract.
  In December 2011, President George W. Bush asserted executive 
privilege over internal Justice Department materials relating to 
prosecutorial decisionmaking.
  It has been done many, many times before by Republican Presidents. 
What we are doing here is a travesty to this institution and to this 
country.

  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from 
Florida how many more speakers he has, because we have no more speakers 
on this side but myself.
  Mr. NUGENT. We have no more speakers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page H4174]]

  Mr. Speaker, there isn't a single person in this House who doesn't 
honor the service of Agent Terry. There isn't a single person in this 
House who does not want justice for Agent Terry's family--and the 
truth. There isn't a single person in this House, I believe, who 
doesn't want to get to the bottom of how gunwalking started and how 
these operations were so terribly botched.
  But every single attempt for an evenhanded investigation has been 
thwarted by the Republican majority. There has not been an evenhanded 
investigation. Every single witness that the Democrats requested to be 
called before the committee was refused. Every single witness. It's 
unprecedented.
  Let me say that Eric Holder is a good and decent and honorable man. 
He's doing an excellent job as Attorney General. He does not deserve 
this. And this institution does not deserve this.
  I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Do you really 
want to go down this road? This is a race to the bottom. This is a 
witch hunt. This is politics, pure and simple. It diminishes this House 
of Representatives. We are better than this.
  Does everything have to be a confrontation? Does everything have to 
be in your face?
  Now, you want to maintain your majority. I get it. You want to win 
elections. That's understandable. But at what cost? Do we really need 
to drag the House of Representatives down this road?
  This is a stain on this House of Representatives. We should not be 
here today. We should be talking about jobs and putting people back to 
work and about making sure student loans don't double. But instead, we 
are doing this.
  This is so political and so blatantly partisan that I think the 
American people are sickened by this. And as a number of people have 
said, You want to know why the approval rating is so low? Watch the 
videotape of this debate here today. We should be doing the peoples' 
business.
  This is not the peoples' business. This is not about getting to the 
truth in the case of Agent Terry. This is a political maneuver to go 
after this administration. And this has, unfortunately, become a trend 
and a pattern in this Congress. We need to find a way to solve our 
problems without always having these big confrontations.
  So I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, don't go down 
this road. We urged the Speaker of the House yesterday to pull this 
from the floor. This is wrong. Please defeat this rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is about Agent Terry, who gave his life for this country. This 
is about what this government has done not to expose the truth but to 
block the truth. This is about calling on the Attorney General to 
follow the Constitution. It's about us following article I of the 
Constitution in regards to our ability to have oversight.
  I hear this stuff about witch hunt and about politics and it gets me 
sick, because I will tell you this: as a former law enforcement 
officer, we should be more worried about what lousy policies that 
Attorney General Holder has covered up that caused the death of one of 
our own in protecting this country. That's what this is all about. This 
is about holding people accountable.
  I hear a lot of things down here. But the rule of law, when I was 
subpoenaed as a sheriff, we complied with the subpoena. I understand 
that the Attorney General feels that he's above the law in regards to 
the subpoena, and I understand the President's come in to protect him.
  But we talk about this body and what the American people think. How 
about we do the right thing, Mr. Speaker, and we move forward and do 
the right thing in regards to all the Attorney General has to do is 
comply with the subpoena. By saying that he's bent over backwards, I 
would suggest to you that under 8,000 pages of documents out of 140,000 
is not bending over backwards.
  This is about our constitutional responsibility to provide oversight. 
This is about our constitutional responsibility to make sure that the 
Federal Government stays on track, that these executive branch 
decisions that are made don't put more Americans at risk.
  Nobody seems to care about the 200-plus Mexican nationals that have 
been killed. Obviously, Mexico cares because they want to indict those 
that were responsible for coming up with this failed idea.

                              {time}  1340

  This is about Congress doing its constitutional responsibility, 
holding hearings to find out what happened. And when the Federal 
Government or branches of the Federal Government stand in the way and 
obstruct, that's not the right thing to do. My friends on the other 
side of the aisle should be more concerned that the Attorney General 
has said to the Congress: Guess what, you don't matter.
  Congress does matter. Congress has a constitutional responsibility, 
Mr. Speaker, to do just that, to have oversight over the executive 
branch, and the subpoena is a tool to allow us to do that. And, 
unfortunately, this Attorney General feels he doesn't have to comply. I 
beg to differ.
  I think the American people--but more than that, the family of 
Officer Terry--deserve to know what transpired and what the end of this 
is. And I think that we should be protecting those law enforcement 
officers that are out there today. In the United States of America, 
they are going to be facing these same guns that were walked during 
Fast and Furious. If you read the transcripts, hundreds--hundreds--of 
guns walked. Some have been recovered in the United States. And, 
unfortunately, some have been recovered in Mexico and have led to 
deaths in Mexico. One has to wonder how many of those guns are going to 
lead to deaths here in America.
  You know, when I raised my hand, along with everybody else, it was to 
support and defend the Constitution. When I raised my hand as a 
sheriff, it was to support and defend the Constitution. And when 
Officer Terry raised his hand, it was to support and defend the 
Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.
  We owe it to all of our law enforcement officers--Federal law 
enforcement officers, in particular--on this issue, to make sure that 
they're protected. And to all of our local law enforcement officers who 
are going to be the first line of defense on the streets of our cities 
and counties, they have a right to know what this Attorney General's 
office and the leadership has done, not giving people a free pass 
because it is expedient to do and because we really don't want to hear 
what the absolute facts are. Let's just push the facts aside.
  Those on the other side of the aisle really don't want to talk about 
the facts. They want to talk about it is a witch hunt or it's politics.
  The facts are clear. Officer Terry is dead. Officer Terry died 
because weapons were allowed to walk from the United States under the 
nose of the ATF and under the nose of the Attorney General's office 
through an OCDETF case. Those are the facts.
  I would suggest that we should find out how did that come to pass. 
And then in regards to what was transpired and sent to Congress and 
Members of Congress about the fact that it didn't really occur, and 
then 10 months later, Oh, by the way, you know that memo we sent, it 
wasn't correct; we did, in fact, allow guns to walk.
  We put law enforcement officers of the United States of America at 
risk because this Federal Government had a botched idea and a bad idea.
  Mr. NUGENT. With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on House Resolution 708 will be followed by 5-minute votes 
on suspending the rules and passing: H.R. 4251, if ordered; and H.R. 
4005, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 254, 
nays 173, not voting 5, as follows:

[[Page H4175]]

                             [Roll No. 437]

                               YEAS--254

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--173

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cardoza
     Forbes
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lewis (CA)

                              {time}  1407

  Ms. EDWARDS and Mr. COHEN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana and Mrs. LUMMIS changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________