Relating to the consideration of House Report 112-546 and an accompanying resolution, and providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 706) authorizing the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas.

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.

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.

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.