Aviation Security Stakeholder Participation Act of 2012

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I call up the report (H.Rept. 112-546) to accompany 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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 711) 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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record for both resolutions made in order under the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I never thought that we would be here today. I never thought this point would come. Throughout 18 months of investigation, through countless areas of negotiations in order to get the minimum material necessary to find out the facts behind Fast and Furious and the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, I always believed that, in time, we would reach an accommodation sufficient to get the information needed for the American people while at the same time preserving the ongoing criminal investigations.

I am proud to say that our committee has maintained the ability for the Justice Department to continue their ongoing prosecutions. Neither the majority nor the minority has allowed any material to become public to compromise that. However, the facts remain--in Fast and Furious, the Department of Justice permitted the sale of more than 2,000 weapons that fell into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels, which was both reckless and inexcusable. And it clearly was known by people, both career professionals and political appointees, from the lowliest members on the ground in Phoenix to high-ranking officials in the Department of Justice. But that's not what we're here for today.

Today we are here on a very narrow contempt, one that the Speaker of the House, in his wisdom and assistance, has helped us to fashion. Let it be clear: we still have unanswered questions on a myriad of areas related to Operation Fast and Furious. But today we are only here to determine how, over the 10 months from the time in which the American people and the Congress of the United States were lied to, given false--literally the reverse statement, that ``no guns were allowed to walk'' during those 10 months before the Justice Department finally owned up and recognized that they had to come clean that, in fact, Fast and Furious was all about gunwalking.

The Department of Justice maintained a series of documents. Many of these documents are believed to be communications between and with the very individuals at the heart of the decision to go forward with Fast and Furious. Therefore, we have focused our limited contempt on those documents. If our committee is able to receive the documents in totality that show who brought about the dishonest statement to Congress and who covered it up for 10 months, we believe that will allow us to backtrack to the individuals who ultimately believed in Fast and Furious, facilitated Fast and Furious, and ultimately made it responsible for Brian Terry's death.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

I won't read everything that's in my opening statement. But I will read just one more thing.

These words were said on the House floor in 2008 when Speaker Pelosi supported contempt. She said:

Congress has the responsibility of oversight of the

executive branch. I know that Members on both sides of the

aisle take that responsibility very seriously. Oversight is

an institutional obligation to ensure against abuse of power.

Subpoena authority is a vital tool for that oversight.

Speaker Pelosi, 2008.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the distinguished Congressman Meehan, a former U.S. attorney in that district.

Mr. Speaker, the minority knows that, in fact, this contempt is all about the Attorney General's refusal to turn over documents, not whether or not it was his lieutenants or he that personally was involved in Fast and Furious.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

I now yield 1 minute to the very distinguished and always participating member of the committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), an active participant, and from the district from which this event sprung.

I yield myself 10 seconds, and have no doubt that the gentleman will walk off the floor. But his motion is asking us also to delay, into an election, getting an answer for the Terry family. I know that is not the wise course, and I strongly support that we do this today.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador).

Mr. Speaker, I place in the Record at this time the statement by the Terry family regarding Congressman John 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 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. Chairman, I'm sure that the gentlelady from New York recognizes that the right of a minority hearing has not been exercised, and that would have answered the questions, as they are well aware, about bringing Kenneth Melson before the committee. That would be their right. They did not exercise their right.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the senior member of the committee.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

I respect my colleague from California, as we came in to Congress together some 12 years ago; but the fact is he talked about everything except the fact that Congress was lied to in a false letter and follow- up statement. Ten months went by. We're only asking for the information related to the false statements made to Congress during that intervening period and nothing more.

I reserve the balance of my time.

As I know the former Speaker of the House knows, the Attorney General is being held in contempt as the custodian of the records for refusing to deliver them, and not because we got to choose how far up or not to go.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

I would recognize myself for 10 seconds.

The distinguished gentleman from Maryland can have an opinion, but he can't have his facts.

Fast and Furious was an OCDETF operation that began under President Obama and Attorney General Holder. No ifs, no ands, no buts. And I would trust that the gentleman would no longer make statements that would be less than truthful.

And I reserve the balance of my time.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the former chairman of the Oversight Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of how much time is remaining.

I thank the Speaker.

I submit the following:

House of Representatives,

Committee on Oversight

and Government Reform,

Washington, DC, May 24, 2012.

Hon. Elijah E. Cummings,

Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Ranking Member Cummings: Last February, I joined

Senator Grassley in investigating Operation Fast and Furious,

the reckless and fundamentally flawed program conducted by

the Phoenix Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). As you know, during Fast and

Furious, ATF agents let straw purchasers illegally acquire

hundreds of firearms and walk away from Phoenix gun stores.

The misguided goal of this operation was to allow the U.S.-

based associates of a Mexican drug cartel to acquire firearms

so they could be traced back to the associates once the

firearms were recovered at crime scenes. On December 15,

2010, two guns from the Fast and Furious operation were the

only ones found at the scene of U.S. Border Patrol Agent

Brian Terry's murder.

An Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (0CDETF) Wiretap Case

Operation Fast and Furious got its name when it became an

official Department of Justice Organized Crime Drug

Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Strike Force case. The OCDETF

designation resulted in funding for Fast and Furious from the

Justice Department's headquarters in Washington, D.C. The

Strike Force designation meant that it would not be run by

ATF, but would instead create a multi-agency task force led

by the U.S. Attorney's Office. The designation also meant

that sophisticated law enforcement techniques such as the use

of federal wire intercepts, or wiretaps, would be employed.

Federal wiretaps are governed by Title III of the Omnibus

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, and are sometimes

referred to as ``T-IIIs.''

The use of federal wire intercepts requires a significant

amount of case-related information to be sent to senior

Department officials for review and approval. All

applications for federal wiretaps are authorized under the

authority of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal

Division. In practice, a top deputy for the Assistant

Attorney General has final sign-off authority before the

application is submitted to a federal judge for approval.

This deputy must ensure that the wiretap application meets

statutory requirements and Justice Department policy. The

approval process includes a certification that the wiretap is

necessary because other investigative techniques have been

insufficient. Therefore, making such a judgment requires a

review of operational tactics. Since gunwalking was an

investigative technique utilized in Fast and Furious, then

either top deputies in the Criminal Division knew about the

tactics employed as part of their effort to establish legal

sufficiency for the application, or they approved the wiretap

applications in a manner inconsistent with Department

policies.

From the beginning, ATF was transparent about its strategy.

An internal ATF briefing paper used in preparation for the

OCDETF application process explained as much:

Currently our strategy is to allow the transfer of firearms

to continue to take place, albeit at a much slower pace, in

order to further the investigation and allow for the

identification of co-conspirators who would continue to

operate and illegally traffic firearms to Mexican DTOs which

are perpetrating armed violence along the Southwest Border.

* * * * *

The ultimate goal is to secure a Federal T-III audio

intercept to identify and prosecute all co-conspirators of

the DTO. . . .

Tracking the illegally-purchased guns after they left the

premises of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) would allow ATF

and federal prosecutors to build a bigger case, one aimed at

dismantling what was believed to be a complex firearms

trafficking network. The task force failed, however, to track

the firearms. Instead, according to the testimony of ATF

agents, their supervisors ordered them to break off

surveillance shortly after the guns left the gun stores or

were transferred to unknown third parties. Many of the

firearms purchased were next seen at crime scenes on both

sides of the border.

The Fast and Furious Gun Trafficking Network Was Not Complex

We now know the gun trafficking ring that Fast and Furious

was designed to target was relatively straightforward. It

involved approximately 40 straw purchasers; a money-man,

Manuel Celis-Acosta (Acosta), and; two figures tied to

Mexican cartels. Acosta and the cartel figures were the top

criminals targeted by ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office.

On January 19, 2011, 20 suspects were indicted, including

Acosta and 19 of his straw buyers. In all, it is believed

that the Fast and Furious network purchased approximately

2,000 firearms. An internal ATF document dated March 29,

2011, shows that of the indicted defendants, only a select

few purchased the majority of the firearms, and nearly all of

the purchases occurred after ATF knew that these defendants

were straw purchasers working with Acosta. These four

indicted defendants alone illegally purchased nearly 1,300

firearms: Uriel Patina (720), Sean Steward (290), Josh Moore

(141), and Alfredo Celis (134).

The Goals of Our Investigation

A central aim of our investigation has been to find out why

and how such a dangerous

plan could have been conceived, approved, and implemented.

Who in ATF and the Justice Department knew about the volume

of guns being purchased? Who approved of the case at various

stages as it unfolded? Under whose authority did this occur?

Who could have--and should have--stopped it? By closely

examining this disastrous program, our Committee hopes to

prevent similar reckless operations from using dangerous

tactics like gunwalking ever again. Our investigation also

aims to determine what legislative actions might be necessary

to ensure that such a program will not happen again.

The Department's Failure to Comply with the Committee's Subpoenas

Our Committee is still entitled to thousands of documents

responsive to our subpoenas. These documents will undoubtedly

shed more light on the misguided tactics used in Operation

Fast and Furious. If the Justice Department changes course

and complies with the Committee's subpoenas, some of these

documents will cover the targets of an FBI investigation of

the individuals who were the link between the drug cartels

and the Fast and Furious firearms trafficking ring. Other

documents will chronicle the Department's response to

allegations of whistleblowers following Agent Terry's death

and how it shifted its position from the outright denial that

there was any misconduct to the Department's formal

withdrawal of its false statement in December 2011.

Most importantly, as you are well aware, we are still

waiting for documents relating to the individuals who

approved the tactics employed in Fast and Furious. In his

recent letter to me, Deputy Attorney General James Cole

asserted that such documents ``will not answer the question''

of what senior officials were in fact notified of the

unacceptable tactics used in Fast and Furious. This statement

is deeply misleading. We are aware of specific documents that

lay bare the fact that senior officials in the Department's

Criminal Division who were responsible for approving the

applications in support of the Fast and Furious wiretap

authorization requests were indeed made aware of these

questionable tactics. Cole's letter goes on to state that

``Department leadership was unaware of the inappropriate

tactics used in Fast and Furious until allegations about

those tactics were made public in early 2011.'' That

statement is even more misleading and utterly false. The

information provided to senior officials in the affidavits

accompanying the wiretaps includes copious details of the

reckless investigative techniques involved. Senior department

leaders were not only aware of these tactics. They approved

them.

Wiretap Application Obtained by the Committee

The Committee has obtained a copy of a Fast and Furious

wiretap application, dated March 15, 2010. The application

includes a memorandum dated March 10, 2010, from Assistant

Attorney General of the Criminal Division Lanny A. Breuer to

Paul M. O'Brien, Director, Office of Enforcement Operations,

authorizing the wiretap application on behalf of the Attorney

General. The memorandum from Breuer was marked specifically

for the attention of Emory Hurley, the lead federal

prosecutor for Operation Fast and Furious.

In response to your personal request, I am enclosing a copy

of the wiretap application. Please take every precaution to

treat it carefully and responsibly. I am hopeful that it will

assist you in understanding the information brought to the

attention of senior officials in the Criminal Division

charged with reviewing the contents of the applications to

determine if they were legally sufficient and conformed to

Justice Department policy. The information is as vast as it

is specific. This wiretap application, signed by Deputy

Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco under the authority

of his supervisor, Assistant Attorney General Breuer,

provides new insight into who knew--or should have known--

what and when in Operation Fast and Furious.

To assist you in better understanding the facts, I

appreciate the opportunity to provide relevant and necessary

context for some of the information in this wiretap

application. Due to the sensitivity of the document,

individual targets and suspects will be referred to with

anonymous designations. You will notice, however, that the

individuals referred to in the wiretap application are well-

known to our investigation. Although senior Department

officials authorized this application on March 15, 2010, a

mere four months after the investigation began, it contains a

breathtaking amount of detail.

The detailed information about the operational tactics

contained in the applications raises new questions about

statements of senior Justice Department officials, including

the Attorney General himself. Before the Senate Judiciary

Committee on November 8, 2011, the Attorney General

testified:

I don't think the wiretap applications--I've not seen--I've

not seen them. But I don't know--I don't have any information

that indicates that those wiretap applications had anything

in them that talked about the tactics that have made this

such a bone of contention and have legitimately raised the

concern of members of Congress, as well as those of us in the

Justice Department. I--I'd be surprised if the tactics

themselves about gun walking were actually contained in

those--in those applications. I have not seen them, but I

would be surprise[d] [if that] were the case.

At a hearing before our Committee on February 2, 2012, the

Attorney General also denied that any information relating to

tactics appeared in the wiretap affidavits. He testified:

I think, first off, there is no indication that Mr. Breuer

or my former deputy were aware of the tactics that were

employed in this matter until everybody I think became aware

of them, which is like January February of last year. The

information--I am not at this point aware that any of those

tactics were contained in any of the wiretap applications.

Contrary to the Attorney General's statements, the enclosed

wiretap affidavit contains clear information that agents were

willfully allowing known straw buyers to acquire firearms for

drug cartels and failing to interdict them--in some cases

even allowing them to walk to Mexico. In particular, the

affidavit explicitly describes the most controversial tactic

of all: abandoning surveillance of known straw purchasers,

resulting in the failure to interdict firearms.

The Justice Department's Office of Enforcement Operations

reviews the wiretap applications to ensure that they are both

legally sufficient and conform to Justice Department policy.

Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole has verified this

understanding. In a letter he sent to Congress on January 27,

2012, he stated that the Department's ``lawyers help AUSAs

and trial attorneys ensure that their wiretap packages meet

statutory requirements and DOJ policies. When Assistant

Attorney General Breuer testified last November about the

wiretap approval process, however, he stated:

[The role of the reviewers and the role of the deputy in

reviewing Title Three applications is only one. It is to

insure that there is legal sufficiency to make an application

to go up on a wire, and legal sufficiency to petition a

federal judge somewhere in the United States that we believe

it is a credible request. But we cannot--those now 22 lawyers

that I have who review this in Washington--and it used to

only be seven--can not and should not replace their judgment,

nor can they, with the thousands of prosecutors and agents

all over the country. Theirs is a legal analysis; is there a

sufficient basis to make this request.

Assistant Attorney General Breuer failed to acknowledge

that before a wiretap application can be authorized, it must

adhere to Justice Department policy. Yet, the operational

tactics included in the enclosed wiretap application--

including abandoning surveillance and not interdicting

firearms--violate Department policy. According to Deputy

Attorney General Cole, operations allowing guns to cross the

border do indeed violate Department policy. In an e-mail he

sent to southwest border U.S. Attorneys on March 9, 2011,

Deputy Attorney General Cole stated, ``I want to reiterate

the Department's policy: We should not design or conduct

undercover operations which include guns crossing the

border.''

The Committee understands the limitations of the Office of

Enforcement Operations function. Nevertheless, when presented

with alarming details such as those contained in this

application, a sensible lawyer--vested with the important

responsibility of recommending to the Assistant Attorney

General whether a wiretap should be authorized--must raise

the alarm. Senior officials reviewing the application for

legal sufficiency and/or whether Justice Department policy

was followed, however, failed to identify major problems that

these manifold facts suggested.

March 2010 Wiretap Application States the Main Suspect Had Intent to

Acquire Firearms for the Purpose of Transporting Them to Mexico

According to the wiretap application obtained by the

Committee, as early as December 2009, the task force had

identified the main suspect in Fast and Furious (Target 1), a

figure well-known to our investigation. The affidavit

provides transcripts of entire conversations obtained through

a prior DEA wire intercept. These conversations demonstrate

that key suspects in Operation Fast and Furious were running

a firearms trafficking ring. In one conversation that took

place on December 11, 2009, Unknown Person 1 asks, ``Can you

hold them [firearms] for me there for a little while there?''

Target 1 responds, ``Well it's that I do not want to have

them at home, dude, because there is a lot of . . . uh, it's

too much heat at my house.'' Unknown Person 1 then asked

where he could store the firearms and Target 1 responds,

``[m]ake arrangements with that guy [Straw Purchaser X], call

him back and make arrangements with him.'' The affidavit

acknowledges that while monitoring the DEA target telephone

numbers, law enforcement officers intercepted calls that

demonstrated that Target 1 was conspiring to purchase and

transport firearms for the purpose of trafficking the

firearms from the United States to Mexico.

March 2010 Wiretap Application States that Nearly 1,000 Firearms had

Already Been Purchased, and that Many Were Recovered in Mexico

The Probable Cause section of the affidavit shows that ATF

was aware that from September 2009 to March 15, 2010, Target

I acquired at least 852 firearms valued at approximately

$500,000 through straw purchasers. As of March 15, 2010,

twenty-one straw purchasers had been identified. Between

September 23, 2009, and January 27, 2010, 139 firearms

purchased by these straw

purchasers were recovered--81 of which were in Mexico. These

recoveries occurred one to 49 days after their purchase in

Arizona.

March 2010 Wiretap Application Describes How Smugglers were Bringing

Firearms into Mexico

The wiretap affidavit details that agents were well aware

that large sums of money were being used to purchase a large

number of firearms, many of which were flowing across the

border. For example, in the span of one month, Straw

Purchaser Z bought 241 firearms from just three cooperating

FFL,s. Of those, at least 57 guns were recovered shortly

thereafter either in the possession of others or at crime

scenes on both sides of the border. The wiretap affidavit

even shows that ATF agents knew the tactics the smugglers

were using to bring the guns into Mexico.

According to the affidavit: The potential interceptees

conspire with each other and others known to illegally

traffic firearms to Mexico. The potential interceptees

purchase firearms in Arizona and transport them to Mexico or

a location in close proximity of the United States/Mexico

border. The potential interceptees deliver the firearms to

individual(s) both known and unknown who then transport them

into Mexico and/or the potential interceptees transport the

firearms across the border and deliver them to customers both

known and unknown.

The fact that ATF knew that Target 1 had acquired 852

firearms and had the present intent to move them to Mexico

should have prompted Department officials to act. Department

officials should have ensured that the firearms were

interdicted immediately and that law enforcement took steps

to disrupt any further straw purchasing and trafficking

activities by Target 1. Similarly, by way of example, if

Criminal Division attorneys were reviewing a wiretap

affidavit that showed that human trafficking was taking place

for the purpose of forcing humans into slavery, the attorneys

should act to make sure such a practice would not continue.

Accordingly, Target l's activities should have provoked an

immediate response by the Criminal Division to shut him and

his network down.

March 2010 Wiretap Application Contains Details of Dropped Surveillance

The wiretap affidavit also describes firearms purchases by

individual straw purchasers. For example, Straw Purchaser Y

purchased five AK-47 type firearms on December 10, 2009, and

surveillance units observed Straw Purchaser Y travel from the

FFL where he made the purchase to Target l's residence. The

next day, surveillance units observed Straw Purchaser Y

purchase an additional 21 AK-47 type firearms, and within an

hour, arrive at Target l's home.

On December 8, 2009, agents observed Straw Purchaser Z

purchase 20 AK-47 type firearms. While Straw Purchaser Z was

making this purchase, Z saw a commercial delivery truck

arrive at the gun store with a shipment of an additional 20

AK-47 type firearms. Straw Purchaser Z then told FFL

employees that he wanted to purchase those additional

firearms. Later that same day, Straw Purchaser Z returned to

the FFL to buy them. After Straw Purchaser Z left the FFL

with the firearms, Phoenix police officers conducted a

vehicle stop on Straw Purchaser Z's vehicle and identified

two of the passengers as Straw Purchaser Z and Target 1. The

officers observed the firearms in the bed of the truck and

asked the subjects about the firearms. Straw Purchaser Z told

them he had purchased the firearms and they belonged to him.

ATF agents continued surveillance until the vehicle arrived

at Target l's residence.

The very next day, nine of these firearms were recovered

during a police stop of a third person in Douglas, Arizona,

on the U.S.-Mexico border. Five days later, Straw Purchaser Z

bought another 43 firearms from an FFL. On December 24, 2009,

Straw Purchaser Z bought even more firearms, purchasing 40

AK-47 type rifles from an FFL. All of these rifles were

recovered on January 13, 2010, in El Paso, Texas, near the

U.S./Mexico border. Although the individual found in

possession of all these guns provided the first name of the

purchaser, agents did not arrest the individual or the

purchaser.

Though the wiretap application states that agents were

conducting surveillance of known straw purchasers, none of

these weapons were interdicted. No arrests were made.

March 2010 Wiretap Details How Fast and Furious Firearms Had Been Found

at Crime Scenes in Mexico

The wiretap affidavit also details the very sort ``time-to-

crime'' for many of the firearms purchased during Fast nd

Furious. For example, on November 6, 2009, November 12, 2009,

and November 14, 2009, Straw Purchaser Y purchased a total of

25 AK-47 type firearms from an FFL in Arizona. On November

20, 2009--just eight days later--Mexican officials recovered

17 of these firearms in Naco, Sonora, Mexico. Another straw

purchaser, Straw Purchaser Q, purchased a total of 17 AK-47

type firearms from an FFL on November 3, 2009, November 10,

2009, and November 12, 2009. Then, on December 9, 2009,

Mexican officials recovered 11 of these firearms in Mexicali,

Baja California, Mexico, along with approximately 421

kilograms of cocaine, 60 kilograms of methamphetamine, 48

additional firearms, 392 ammunition cartridges, $2 million in

U.S. currency, and $800,000 in Mexican currency.

Once again, although ATF was aware of these facts, no one

was arrested, and ATF failed to even approach the straw

purchasers. Upon learning these details through its review of

this wiretap affidavit, senior Justice Department officials

had a duty to stop this operation. Further, failure to do so

was a violation of Justice Department policy.

Straw Purchasers Had Meager Financial Means

The affidavit provides details of the straw purchasers'

financial records. As of March 15, 2010, just four straw

purchasers had spent $373,206 in cash on firearms. Yet, these

same straw purchasers had only minimal earnings in Fiscal

Year (FY) 2009. Straw Purchaser Q earned $214 per week, while

Straw Purchaser Y earned only $188 per week. Straw Purchaser

Z earned $9,456.92 during FY 2009, and Straw Purchaser X did

not report any income whatsoever.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Money spent on

Name firearms by 3/15/ FY 2009 income*

10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Straw Purchaser Y................. $128,580 $9,776 Straw Purchaser Q................. 64,929 11,128 Straw Purchaser X................. 39,663 None reported Straw Purchaser Z................. 140,034 9,456

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. Speaker, as a point of inquiry, do I have the right to close?

Then I will reserve my right to close.

No, I do not.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of talk about the documents that the Attorney General couldn't give us. These documents, documents under seal, would be an example of documents that we should not see, except in camera, and we've taken great care to ensure that no one outside Members of Congress and key staff have ever looked at them.

But I've looked at them, and what I know is that these documents, read by any person of ordinary learning, make it very clear that these wiretap applications were read and signed by individuals in the Department of Justice in Washington. And if you read them, you knew they were gunwalking. People will tell you differently. I give you my word: You read this, you know they were letting guns go to Mexico. They knew who the buyers were, who the intermediaries were, who the recipients were, and, most importantly, where they ended up. And there are reports in here, as part of the evidence given to judges in order to get wiretaps--there is evidence that they knew that, in fact, weapons had already ended up in Mexico.

That's before Brian Terry was killed. That's how Fast and Furious could have been stopped. That's how people could have been warned. In fact, that's at a time in which ATF agents in Mexico City, if they punched in the serial number of a weapon found there, they got an erroneous, an error. They did not get meaningful information because that was being blocked--not by ATF, per se, but by the Department of Justice under the auspices of the U.S. attorney and his bosses.

Now you're going to hear that this began under President Bush and Attorney General Mukasey. I'm going to tell you that's just false. What happened in previous administrations with some of the same local ATF agents was they exercised extremely bad judgment. They did things and pushed on programs that I believe were poorly conceived and poorly manned and as a result they lost track of weapons repeatedly. That happened. And it was wrong. The U.S. attorney at the time even declined prosecutions because of failed techniques.

All of these were shut down during the Bush administration. President Bush can take no credit for it. He didn't know it. As far as I know, the Attorney General didn't know. And anyone who saw the record of that should say: This was wrong-minded. But during this administration, during the time in which the Attorney General and his key lieutenants, including Lanny Breuer, were in charge, they reopened the prosecutions from a failed program called Wide Receiver and they opened Fast and Furious.

Now I'm the second child in a family. I have an older brother. I learned at a very young age you in fact cannot, when you do something wrong, say: My brother Billy did it. It doesn't work that way. You're responsible for what you do wrong, whether it happened before your watch or not. This happened on the Attorney General's watch.

But that's not why we're here today. We're here because when we asked legitimate questions about Brian Terry's murder, about Fast and Furious, we were lied to. We were lied to repeatedly and over a 10- month period. The fact is that is what we're here for. The American people want to know if you give false testimony to Congress.

The minority leader talked about, Why is there such a hurry? Why was there a 10-month delay? I was sworn in just a few days before this investigation began, and now we're nearing an election. We don't want to have this during an election. We want to have resolution for the Terry family.

The important thing is, we know enough to know that we have people who have told us under penalty of criminal prosecution--they have told Congress and their employees certain documents exist. And we've asked for those documents. And we've been denied them. We can't bring Kenneth Melson back in in good faith and say, Well, we've got to get them in front of our committee, if in fact there's documents he says exist. And they do, and they will not be given to us. We want to have those so we can ask the best questions.

You've heard earlier that in fact we've denied somehow due process to the minority. My ranking member is very capable, and has asked for minority days; in other words, hearings exclusively for him. He chose not to do it. When we were having the local ATF and other individuals in early on, all of whom worked for this government, he didn't even ask for any. It wasn't until we asked to have the Attorney General come in, based on these false statements and final retraction, that he suddenly wanted a previous Attorney General, who happened to say, No, I don't want to come. So on that particular day we would have had to subpoena him to get him in. I have no objection to having the former Attorney General in. I believe that on his watch and his predecessor's watch and his predecessor's watch and for a very long time we have not done a good job of overseeing the actions of field agents when it comes to guns.

But, again, we're here today, for the first time in over 200 years, to deal with an Attorney General who has flat-out refused to give the information related to lies and a coverup exclusively within his jurisdiction. That's what we're voting on.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the contempt on behalf of the Terry family.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I respect the gentleman from Michigan, the dean of the House, but you're just wrong. There were plenty of opportunities for the minority to ask for witnesses. They chose not to except at one hearing, and then they wanted the former Attorney General. They did not avail themselves of the procedures allowing them to have a hearing even though they know how to do it and have done it.

But more importantly, when you say you represent Brian Terry, you do not. The Terry family issued this statement, referring to Congressman Dingell:

His views don't represent those of the Terry family. Nor

does he speak to the Terry family. And he has never spoken to

the Terry family.

Secondly:

His office sent us a condolence letter when Brian was

buried 18 months ago. That's the last time we heard from him.

Third:

A year ago, after the Oversight and Government Reform

Committee began its work, one of Brian's sisters called

Representative Dingell's office seeking help and answers. No

one from his office called back.

Lastly:

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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield all remaining time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), an experienced prosecutor, to close.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I commend him for his extraordinary patriotism, for his commitment to upholding our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, and for recognizing full well the congressional role of oversight of all branches of government. I think we all share the view that Congress has a legitimate role to play in oversight; thus, your committee has so much jurisdiction, and I respect that.

I think we also all agree--I think we all very, very much agree--that we are very sad and seek justice for the family of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. His loss is a tragedy for all who knew him, for all of us who care about him. We offer our condolences to his family. So sad. But that's not what we are here to debate, what we agree upon.

What we are here to debate is something very, very large because it is a major disagreement between the two sides of the aisle here--and I'm sorry to say that--about what our responsibilities are to the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution requires Congress and the executive branch to avoid unnecessary conflict and to seek accommodations that serve both their interests. That's how the Constitution guides us.

As Attorney General William French Smith, who served under President Ronald Reagan, said:

The accommodation required is not simply an exchange of

concessions or a test of political strength. It is an

obligation of each branch to make a principled effort to

acknowledge and, if possible, to meet the legitimate needs of

the other branch.

Mr. Speaker, on the floor today, the Republicans in Congress are not making a principled effort to acknowledge or to meet the legitimate needs of the other branch. What they are doing is exploiting a very unfortunate circumstance for reasons that I cannot even characterize, so I won't; but I will say this without any fear of contradiction:

The basic premise that this debate is predicated on today is a false premise. It is factually not true. In how many more ways can I say that? So we have

a debate predicated on a false premise. What can that lead to that has any good outcome? It is a situation in which we have a contempt of Congress resolution against a sitting Cabinet member, which is the first time in the over-200-year history of our country that this has ever happened. Again, what is the motivation?

Secondly--and that's why I quoted the Constitution--this motion is not a principled effort to resolve the issue. If it were, we would not be able to measure in hours and days, not even weeks, the rush--the railroading--of a resolution of contempt of Congress that the Republicans passed last week and are bringing this week to the House floor.

I say this because I took considerable heat myself when we brought contempt charges against two staff people at the White House--Josh Bolton and Harriet Miers--4\1/2\ years ago. We were asking for some papers. We got nothing, as I said to my friends, not even a wrapper of a piece of gum. Nothing. Stonewalled. Nothing. Yet, at the time, our chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, and our House leadership, Mr. Hoyer and others, kept saying, Find a way. Exhaust every remedy so that we do not have to take this action of bringing a contempt charge to the floor of the House.

For over 200 days, we tried, we tried, we tried to resolve the situation. When we could not, we brought it to the floor--two staff people at the White House--which is in stark contrast to the rush of one week to the next for an unsubstantiated--not even factual--charge against the Attorney General of the United States.

It may just be a coincidence--I don't know--that the Attorney General of the United States, the chief legal officer of our country, has a responsibility to fight voter suppression, which is going on in our country; has refused to defend the constitutionality of DOMA because he doesn't believe it's constitutional; or has some major disagreements on immigration, which fall under the enforcement of immigration law.

It may just be a coincidence that those are part of his responsibilities, or maybe it isn't. But the fact is is that the chief legal officer of our country and his staff have to spend enormous psychic and intellectual energy and time dealing with this unprincipled effort on the part of the Republicans.

Just when you think you have seen it all, just when you think they couldn't possibly go any further over the edge, they come up with something like this. It's stunning. It really is. I don't mean that in meaning it's beautiful. It's stunning. It stops you in your tracks because you say: How far will they go? Have they no limits? Apparently, not.

The temptation is to say: Let's just ignore the whole thing, to not dignify what they're doing by even being present on the floor when they do this heinous act, the first time in the history of our country, to bring contempt against a Cabinet officer. You would think they'd be more careful about what they say. But being careful about what they say is apparently not part of their agenda.

I know in our caucus there is a mixed response to this. They're acting politically; we should act politically. We shouldn't vote on this; I want to vote ``no.'' I think Members have to make their own decision about that. I'm very moved by the efforts of our Congressional Black Caucus to say that they're going to walk out on this. Perhaps that's the best approach for us to take. How else can we impress upon the American people, without scaring them, about what is happening here?

What is happening here? What is happening here is shameful. What is happening here is something that we all have an obligation to speak out against. Because I'm telling you it is Eric Holder today, and it's anybody else tomorrow on any charge they can drum up.

As has been said, the fact is that the papers that they have seen, they know are exculpatory. That means there is no blame on the Attorney General, and they know that. That's why they don't want to bring those responsible for this before their committee, and that's why I commend Chairman Dingell for his leadership in the motion that he will bring to the floor momentarily, a motion of referral, so that we can get to the bottom of this, so that we can see how this happened, so that we can offer some solace to Brian Terry's family, and so that we can have some sense of decency about what should happen on the floor of the House.

It seems to me the more baseless the charge, the higher up they want to go with the contempt. The less they have to say that is real, the higher up they want to bring the contempt charge.

I have always tried to make it a habit of not questioning the motivation of people. They believe what they believe, we believe what we believe, and we act upon our beliefs. It always interested me that in this Congress somebody can bring something to the floor that is not true. But if I were to call someone a misrepresenter of that information, my words would be taken down. So I guess that gives them liberty to say anything because it's in the form of a motion.

Let's make sure that we all take responsibility for doing the right thing by not letting there be an abuse of power, an abuse of this floor of the House, an abuse of the time of the executive branch, an abuse of the time of a member of the Cabinet who has serious responsibilities to our country.

I urge my colleagues to do what they want as far as walking off. I myself had said that I was coming to this floor to vote against this resolution. I thought it was so wrong that there was no question to take the opportunity to vote ``no.'' But listening to the debate, it is almost unbelievable. Not that what they're saying is believable, but unbelievable that they would say it.

I say to those who have a doubt about how they want to proceed, that instead of doing what I said before, which was just to come and treat this as a resolution before the Congress and express my ``no,'' after listening to the unconscionable presentation, I want to join my CBC colleagues in boycotting the vote when we have the walkout after we have the debate over Mr. Dingell's motion.

We all take our responsibilities seriously here, and one of them first and foremost is to support, uphold, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution requires the Congress and the executive branch--as I began--to avoid unnecessary conflict and seek accommodation to serve both interests, the executive branch and the legislative branch. We are not upholding that aspect of the Constitution here.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' or a ``no'' vote, but to seriously reject. Let's hope that this will not be repeated. But I'm telling you, it's Eric Holder one day, and you don't know who it is the next because of the frivolousness with which they treat a serious responsibility of the House of Representatives. It's appalling.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H. Res 708, ``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.''

Holding a sitting Attorney General in contempt would be unprecedented. In our Nation's history the House of Representatives has never held a sitting Attorney General in contempt of Congress.

In 1998, the then Chair of the House Oversight Committee led a vote to hold then Attorney General Janet Reno in contempt of Congress.

Attorney General Reno was also accused of withholding documents; however, the then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich elected not to bring the Contempt Citation to the Floor. Attorney General Reno and House leadership were able to resolve their difference without holding our Nation's highest law enforcement officer in contempt. Today's conflict can also be resolved without holding Attorney General Holder in contempt.

I firmly believe and I am joined by at least 65 other colleagues who believe that the Attorney General is acting in good faith based upon his actions over the course of the past 15 months.

The Attorney General has testified before Congress no less than nine times in the last 15 months and has made himself available for meetings with Members of Congress. Further, the Department of Justice has cooperated with Congressional inquiries into this matter and is willing to continue to engage in discussions with Congressional leadership and others.

As of today, the Attorney General has produced more than 7,600 pages of documents as part of 47 separate productions, including sensitive law enforcement materials related to the pending prosecution of the defendants in the underlying Fast and Furious case.

Attorney General Holder has consistently expressed his willingness to find a resolution to the issues surrounding the narrow list of documents for which he is being cited.

Holding the Nation's top law-enforcement officer in contempt of Congress would be a drastic, disproportionate action on the part of this body.

A contempt citation should be an act of last resort, after lengthy preliminary procedures, negotiations, gathering of evidence through other methods, appeals to potential intercessors and intermediaries.

Contempt Citations have been extraordinarily rare which is evidenced by the fact that the House has declared just four people in contempt over the last three decades. For these reasons and more we request that you elect not to bring the Contempt Citation to the Floor this Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, I delivered a letter to you that was signed by 65 Members of this body stating the same, that this destructive piece of legislation should not be brought to the Floor today. It appears that this is nothing more than destructive election-year politics pure and simple. It is Republicans following through on their threats to use their authority to try to damage this Administration, politically, and this Attorney General, specifically, who has placed an emphasis on enforcing civil rights, voting rights and defending our justice system and the rule of law.

This kind of divisive politics hurts Americans who want their leaders focused on fixing real problems they face every day and hurts law enforcement agents who are putting their lives at risk in ongoing investigations that could be compromised by the Committee's political fishing expedition.

Congress has the answers to its questions about who designed this flawed operation and who authorized it--they just don't like it so they have ignored the evidence they received last year which shows this was a tactic that was designed and employed in the field and it dates back to the previous Administration.

This Attorney General is the one who put a stop to the tactic, called for an independent investigation and instituted reforms and personnel changes to ensure it doesn't happen again.

The Department has made extraordinary efforts to accommodate Congress by turning over almost 8,000 documents--including all the documents that relate to the tactics in this flawed investigation and the other flawed investigations that occurred in Arizona in the previous administration.

The Department has even turned over internal deliberative material to answer the Committee's questions and the AG offered to provide additional deliberative documentation to resolve the subpoena, but the Committee rejected that offer.

The documents at issue now are after-the-fact--they have nothing to do with the flawed tactics in any of the investigations dating back to the Bush Administration or who designed, approved or employed them.

The resolution relates to a document request involving allegations of ``gunwalking'' in an ATF operation known as ``Operation Fast and Furious,'' which came to light when two weapons involved in the operation were recovered at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

However, the documents now at issue are completely unrelated to how ``gunwalking'' there is a question about whether gun-waling existed was utilized in the operation. Over the past year, the Justice Department has provided thousands of pages of documents to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and has made dozens of officials available for interviews and hearings, and the Attorney

General has testified before Congress nine times on this topic. The evidence demonstrated that Fast and Furious was in fact the fourth in a series of gunwalking operations run out of the ATF field division in Phoenix over a span of five years beginning in 2006 during the Bush Administration.

The investigation identified no evidence that the Attorney General or senior Department officials were aware of gunwalking in Fast and Furious. To the contrary, as soon as the Attorney General became aware of the tactic, he put a halt to it, ordered an IG investigation, and instituted internal reform measures.

The House of Representatives has never held an Attorney General in contempt. The only precedent cited in the Issa contempt resolution is a committee contempt vote that took place in the 1990's held by then- Chairman Dan Burton against former Attorney General Janet Reno. That action became so widely discredited that Speaker Gingrich chose not to bring it to the Floor for a vote.

The current contempt debate no longer focuses on any documents relating to how gunwalking was initiated and utilized in Operation Fast and Furious. Since Republicans could identify no wrongdoing by the Attorney General, the Committee shifted just last week to focus exclusively on a single letter sent by the Department's Office of Legislative Affairs to Senator Charles Grassley on February 4, 2011, initially denying allegations of gunwalking. The Department has already acknowledged that its letter was inaccurate, has withdrawn the letter, and has provided the Committee with more than 1,300 pages of documents relating to how it was drafted.

These documents show that Department staffers who drafted the letter did not intentionally mislead Congress, but instead relied on inaccurate assurances from ATF leaders and officials in Arizona who ran the operation. Despite these good faith efforts, House Republicans chose to move forward with a contempt resolution anyway.

Moving the goalposts again, the Committee is now demanding additional internal deliberative documents created even after the Grassley letter was sent. The Attorney General offered to provide them last week in exchange for a good faith commitment to move toward resolution of the contempt fight, but Chairman Issa flatly refused. When it became clear that contempt was inevitable, the Administration asserted executive privilege over this narrow category of deliberative Department documents, while indicating at the same time that it remains willing to continue negotiations.

The Issa contempt resolution is nothing more than a politically motivated, election-year ploy. During this investigation, the Committee refused every Democratic request for a hearing witness, including the head of ATF--the agency that actually ran the operation.

Chairman Issa has acknowledged that ``we do go down blind alleys regularly'' and has made numerous unfounded claims, including accusing the FBI agents of concealing a ``third gun'' from the scene of Agent Terry's murder--a claim that the FBI quickly demonstrated to be completely unfounded.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, Mr. Speaker, is a historic day in many ways. On the one hand, in a landmark decision by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court upheld the health care bill, ensuring that millions of American families will finally have access to effective and affordable health care.

On the other hand, Republican leaders of the House of Representatives are about to plunge into the history books as some of the most extreme and partisan ever. Rather than working together in a bipartisan way to create jobs and help our Nation's economic recovery, they're rushing to the floor under emergency procedures with a contempt resolution that is riddled with errors and is motivated by partisan politics.

When I first heard about the allegations of gunwalking at ATF, I was outraged. I fully supported our committee's goals of finding out how it started, how it was used, and how it may have contributed to the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. I made a personal commitment, which I will keep, to the Terry family to conduct a responsible and thorough inquiry.

But today's contempt vote is a culmination of one of the most highly politicized and reckless congressional investigations in decades. After receiving thousands of pages of documents from the Justice Department, conducting two dozen transcribed interviews, and hearing testimony from the Attorney General nine times, here are the facts:

First, the committee has obtained no evidence that the Attorney General authorized, condoned, or knew about gunwalking. Chairman Issa admitted this just yesterday before the Rules Committee. We've seen no evidence that the Attorney General lied to Congress or engaged in a coverup. We've seen no evidence that the White House had anything to do with the gunwalking operations--Chairman Issa admitted this on FOX News Sunday this past weekend.

Democrats wanted a real investigation. But Chairman Issa refused 10 different requests to hold a hearing with the director of ATF, the agency that ran these misguided operations. Let me say that again. During this entire investigation, no Member of the House has been able to pose a single question to the head of ATF at a public hearing.

How could you have a credible investigation of gunwalking at ATF and never hold a single hearing with the leadership of the agency in charge? The answer is, you can't.

Based on the documents, we now know that gunwalking, in fact, started in 2006. Yesterday, Chairman Issa said this about the misguided operations during the Bush administration: ``They were all flops. They were all failures.''

The committee has obtained documentary evidence that former Attorney General Mukasey was personally

briefed on these botched interdiction efforts during his tenure and that he was told they would be expanded. Chairman Issa refused to call Mr. Mukasey for a hearing or even for a private meeting. During our committee's year and a half investigation, the chairman refused every single Democratic request for a witness.

Instead of taking any of these reasonable steps as part of a credible and even-handed investigation to determine facts, House Republican leaders rushed this resolution to the floor only 1 week after it was voted out of committee. In contrast, during the last Congress, House leaders continued to negotiate for 6 months to try to avoid contempt in the United States Attorneys investigation.

Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues on the other side seem almost giddy about today's vote. After turning this investigation into an election year witch hunt, they have somehow convinced the Speaker to take it to the floor.

And they are finally about to get the prize they have been seeking for more than a year: holding the Attorney General of the United States of America in contempt.

They may view today's vote as a success, but in reality, it is a sad failure--a failure of House leadership, a failure of our constitutional obligations, and a failure of our responsibilities to the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) 2 minutes, a member of the committee.

I yield myself 1 minute.

I want to say in response to the Speaker, we, too, are all saddened by the tragic death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry who gave his life in service to his country on December 15, 2010.

But, Mr. Speaker, despite what my colleagues have claimed, this contempt vote is not about getting documents that show how gunwalking was initiated and utilized in Operation Fast and Furious.

Now, the only documents in dispute are the documents created after Fast and Furious ended and after Brian Terry's death, but we pledge to continue to find all the answers with regard to the death of Brian Terry.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), a member of the committee.

I yield the gentleman another 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time both sides have.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the minority leader, Ms. Pelosi.

I will remind the gentleman that all of this started under President Bush.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Again, the gentleman puts out statements in search of facts.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Does the gentleman have any further requests for time?

Mr. Speaker, as the Democratic leader said, there is no doubt that the Constitution gives Congress the right and responsibility to investigate. But the Constitution also requires something else. It requires Congress and the executive branch to avoid unnecessary conflict and deceit, accommodations that serve both of their interests.

In this case, the Attorney General has testified nine times. He has provided thousands of pages of documents. He has provided 13 pages of deliberative

internal documents, and he is willing to provide even more to me, the recent demands of Chairman Issa.

But House Republican leaders are not honoring their constitutional obligations. In fact, they are running in the wrong direction as quickly as possible. It is fundamentally wrong to vote in favor of this resolution at this time when the Attorney General has been working with the House in good faith. I believe this action will undermine the standing of the House, will cement the Speaker's legacy, and will be recorded by history as a discredit to this institution.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 1447, the Aviation Security Stakeholder Participation Act. Mr. Speaker, effective coordination between stakeholders and their regulators is critical to the implementation of policies that work. To that end, we have the responsibility to ensure that policy is informed by the realities on the ground. Arguably, nowhere is the need for policy coordination more important than at our Nation's airports.

Given that the aviation sector remains an attractive target for terrorists, the difference between a security policy that works and one that does not can be all that stands between life and death.

That is why I introduced H.R. 1447, the Aviation Security Stakeholder Participation Act. This legislation will ensure that the voices of those subject to policies and protocols put in place by TSA are heard and their recommendations are considered. It does so by directing the TSA to establish an Aviation Security Advisory Committee.

For years, such an advisory committee existed and worked effectively with TSA on matters such as aviation security methods, equipment, and procedures. For instance, in 2003, the ASAC's cargo working group, which included the Cargo Airline Association, made recommendations that formed the basis of TSA's program for 100 percent screening of air cargo. Unfortunately, during the last administration, the charter for this advisory committee was allowed to lapse, and the committee ceased operations.

While I am pleased that in response to my bill, the Obama administration reestablished this committee on its own authority, I strongly believe that it is critical that the Aviation Security Advisory Committee be codified in law to ensure that TSA's aviation security policy continues to be informed by the private sector. That is why my bill would, for the first time, establish the Aviation Security Advisory Committee in statute and require representatives from up to 27 member organizations participate.

I introduced H.R. 1447 in April of 2011, with the ranking member of the Transportation Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security, Representative Jackson Lee. It was favorably reported on a bipartisan basis in November 2011.

TSA has the responsibility to secure the American public from threats posed to our transportation sector. However, it cannot do so in a vacuum. TSA must leverage technical and operational expertise from our Nation's airports to deliver a collaborative and robust security system across our aviation sector. Strong partnerships with aviation stakeholders are critical to informing aviation security policy.

Just last month, the committee received testimony from the Airport Minority Advisory Council about arbitrary limitations set forth by TSA on the issuance of airport worker badges to airport-based small businesses, like newsstands, coffee, and souvenir shops. Since then, TSA has committed to reevaluate the policy and work with the private sector to address the concerns raised.

This is just one example of how a TSA policy--developed without input from the advisory committee--was not informed by economic realities. Now TSA is in the position of having to revisit this and other ill- informed policies to ensure that they enhance security in a manner that does not unduly burden the private sector.

My bill also directs the administrator of TSA to establish three targeted working groups to address the unique homeland security challenges related to air cargo security, general aviation security, and perimeter security.

Mr. Speaker, all of us have a stake in ensuring the security of our Nation. Let us pass this bill so that stakeholders who are expected to comply with the policies and procedures developed by TSA have a seat at the table. That way, we can be confident that TSA's policies are both effective from the security standpoint and address the economic and commercial realities of our Nation's airports.

Before reserving the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, Mr. King.

Mr. Speaker, as this bill has made its way to the House floor, the chairman and I have been engaged in ongoing dialogue over how to strike the right balance on who should be represented on the Aviation Security Advisory Committee. I am dedicated to ensuring that the voices of passengers and small and minority-owned businesses impacted by TSA's policies, procedures, and regulations are heard. It is important persons representing those groups have a seat at the table when TSA makes decisions that affect both passengers' rights and businesses' bottom line.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York for his assurance that as this bill continues its movement through the legislative process, he will work with me to ensure these important populations are included in this Aviation Security Advisory Committee legislation.

I thank the gentleman from New York for his commitment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. Since the gentleman from New York is prepared to close, I also am prepared to close.

I would like to express my gratitude to all the members of the Committee on Homeland Security for their unanimous support of this legislation when it was considered by the committee last September.

While the Committee on Homeland Security has not been as active on the legislative front as I had hoped it would be this Congress, I am pleased that several discrete bills introduced by both Democrats and Republicans have received bipartisan support on the House floor during the last month.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the Aviation Security Stakeholder Participation Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

U.S. Travel Association,

June 25, 2012.

Hon. Peter King,

Chairman, House Committee on Homeland Security, Washington,