GAPS Act

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. 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.

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

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. 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. 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).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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. 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).

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. 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).

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

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

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.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Speier).

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. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 708 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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.

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. 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.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield another 15 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe.

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).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

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. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time remains.

I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

We have no more speakers.

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.

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.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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.

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by recognizing and thanking Chairman King and Ranking Member Thompson for their continued leadership on this incredibly important issue.

The lessons of 9/11 have taught us we must be continuously vigilant and proactive in seeking out and preventing our country's most pressing threats. That's why, after 9/11, this Congress strengthened what proved to be one of our Nation's biggest security threats up to that point: aviation security. And while I applaud the great strides we've made in aviation security, we have not made the same level of improvements in port security.

This was such a priority for me when I came to Congress last summer that, at my very first Homeland Security hearing focusing on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations to Congress, I asked Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, What should Congress be doing to improve security at our Nation's ports? He responded by saying, My judgment would be that we have not focused enough on ports.

This lack of focus on our ports not only jeopardizes our national security, but our economic security as well. The U.S. ports remain one of our country's greatest economic resources, as they provide our Nation with the link to the rest of the world and the global economy. Each day, U.S. ports move both imports and exports, totaling some $3.8 billion worth of goods, through all 50 States. Additionally, ports move 99 percent of overseas cargo volume by weight and generate $3.95 trillion in international trade.

However, port security does much more than protect American commerce; it also protects American jobs. According to the American Association of Port Authorities, the U.S. port industry supports 13.3 million jobs and accounts for more than $649 billion in personal income. That's why I was pleased to cofound the bipartisan Congressional PORTS Caucus with my good friend and fellow alumnus, Ted Poe, in order to ensure that Congress recognizes the vital role ports play in our national economy and the importance of keeping them competitive and secure.

Despite all this, ports have failed to garner the attention I think they deserve. For instance, in the U.S., tens of thousands of ships each year make over 50,000 calls on U.S. ports. The volume of traffic gives terrorists opportunities to smuggle themselves or their weapons into the United States with little risk of detection. According to a recent CRS report, a 10- to 20-kiloton weapon detonated in a major seaport would kill 50,000 to 1 million people and would result in direct property damage of $50 billion to $500 billion, losses due to trade disruption of $100 billion to $200 billion, and indirect costs of $300 billion to $1.2 trillion.

Congress attempted to address this issue by passing the SAFE Port Act in 2006 and the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, which specifically required that 100 percent of the cargo coming into our ports be scanned by this summer. Unfortunately, DHS has made little progress in achieving this goal and does not plan to implement it. In fact, we've recently learned that DHS has only been scanning about 3 percent to 5 percent of all the cargo imported into our United States.

Now, while the feasibility of scanning 100 percent of incoming cargo may be a legitimate concern, there certainly needs to be improvement from where we are now. Whether it's increasing the number of Customs and Border Protection officers or investing in proven cargo scanning technology, there needs to be a plan for effectively and efficiently scanning our Nation's cargo.

Another major vulnerability is the threat posed to vessels during their voyage at sea. For example, cargo is often checked either before it's shipped or after it reaches our shore. However, there has not been much light shed on the specific threats that exist between a vessel's point of origin and its point of destination.

We also need to know more information about how fast a port could recover in the event of a terrorist attack or a national disaster if that did occur at one of our ports.

Without resolving these issues, we risk putting our economy and the safety of the American people at risk.

As a Member whose district borders one of the largest port complexes in the country, I understand the unique security challenges that ports pose to our economic and national security. My district borders the port complex of Los Angeles-Long Beach, which is responsible for approximately 44 percent of all the goods that flow into this country and 20 percent of the Nation's GDP.

During a 10-day lockout in 2002, which arose because of a dispute between labor and management officials, closure of the west coast ports cost the United States between $1 billion to $2 billion a day. If an attack were to occur there, it would be economically debilitating not only for my district, but for the entire country, as well.

While DHS has made a number of positive steps in strengthening port security and resiliency, the lack of attention on these vital issues creates a

huge problem for securing our ports. We cannot begin to come up with an effective solution without first knowing the extent of the actual problem.

The economic importance of our Nation's ports, combined with the existing port security loopholes, is why I introduced the GAPS Act. This bill will require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a classified study of the potential gaps in port security and ensure that the Department develops a comprehensive plan for addressing these vulnerabilities. By focusing on the specific dangers that threaten our port security, we can begin, I believe, to develop effective solutions to ensure that our Nation is prepared.

Again, I want to thank Chairman King and Ranking Member Thompson for their leadership on this issue, my Congressional PORTS Caucus cofounder, Ted Poe, for recognizing the importance of our ports.

I would like to point out that this bill went through regular order and is supported by both Democrats and Republicans on an issue that I know we all care about. I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

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.

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. 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.