Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, for 12 years, my greatest ambition here in Congress has been my membership in Judiciary and my activities of trying to bring real immigration reform that's a plus to our country.

My district has two notable areas: one, the agricultural areas that so desperately need a guest worker program; the other, throughout San Diego and Orange County, the high-tech areas that in many ways rival the best in the world, that, in fact, run out of H-1Bs on the day that they're offered. So I support the STEM skills reform because it's necessary.

But let me just go through two or three things quickly that are so obvious here in this debate.

One is: People who are detractors from this say, We'd love to have it; we simply want an expansion in the total number of immigrants. Let's understand, America allows more people to immigrate to our shores than the entire rest of the world, combined, does to theirs. We're already the most generous, and there has to be a number and that number has been set.

Secondly, it doesn't take away from anyone who has a valid need or reason to come here. It's not going to limit reunification. It's not going to limit those who have been tortured or in some other way affected in their foreign country.

But I think the most telling one is the CBO, our independent, nonpartisan organization that, in fact, has said that making this change will save over $1 billion in costs from the dependency that many diversity candidates prove to have, in spite of the regulations saying they shouldn't.

And lastly, and the most important one, as an employer of a high-tech company, a founder and employer for many years, America has to be like every high-tech company. You are always open to hire somebody who will make your company grow. America will grow in four jobs or more for each person who applies and receives one of these visas. That is about getting the economy going again and jobs happening again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of tens of thousands of women and their families. In 2012, over 22,000 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Tragically, 15,500 will die from this disease. Ovarian cancer is the deadliest gynecological cancer among American women.

This September, we recognize Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, honoring those who have battled cancer--and those who continue to struggle with the disease. Their courage is an inspiration to all of us and a reminder that together, we can beat ovarian cancer.

With early diagnosis, ovarian cancer is survivable. Over 95% of women who detect ovarian cancer during the early stages of the disease defeat the disease. By learning the symptoms, checking their family histories and visiting with their doctors, women can detect ovarian cancer before it's too late.

No one and no family should have to face ovarian cancer without the knowledge necessary to detect and defeat it. Along with my fellow Congressmen and citizens, I am proud to have helped fight ovarian cancer. In 2005, I joined my colleagues to create a federal educational campaign for gynecological cancer, urging the Center for Disease Control and the Office of Women's Health to cooperate with non-profits to raise cancer awareness among women and health practitioners.

That year, I also successfully introduced Johanna's Law. In memory of Johanna Silver, who lost her life to cancer after a three and a half month battle with ovarian cancer, Johanna's Law has helped increase awareness of gynecological cancers.

I urge all members to recognize and remember Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month and the impact of cancer upon our community.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. ISSA: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

H.R. 3609. A bill to provide taxpayers with an annual report

disclosing the cost of, performance by, and areas for

improvements for Government programs, and for other purposes;

with an amendment; referred to the Committee on House

Administration for a period ending not later than October 1,

2012, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and

amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee

pursuant to clause 1(k), rule X.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4078.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Job creation is, rightfully, at the top of Americans' agenda. Americans know that as long as the unemployment rate stays high, wages are stagnant and more than 12.7 million Americans seek jobs they cannot find. More than 42 percent, or nearly 6 million, of those Americans have been unemployed for more than 6 months.

Madam Chair, the verdict is in: the President's stimulus plan has failed. While costing over $1 trillion and still counting, those jobs that were created were short, and they too are disappearing. Ultimately, small business will create the engine going forward.

Today's bill, in fact, is designed specifically to give confidence to America's business creators, ones that we have heard from on the committee for more than 18 months, the opportunity to take a breath, evaluate what is the lay of the land, and go forward with the business plan, no longer worrying that out of the blue will come major regulatory changes, ones that were unforeseen just a little while ago, that ultimately change their plans, change their ability to make a profit.

Whether it's the President's ACA or ObamaCare or smaller $100 million, $200 million, $1 billion new regulations, this uncertainty has put dollars on the sidelines. Today, through more than seven different elements of the titles of the bill, our effort will be to ensure that we do not propose without serious consideration new regulations.

The President himself, while producing more than 106 major rules costing more than $46 billion, has said, We may be overregulated. His own chief spokesperson, Mr. Sunstein, has said that, in fact, regulations can cost jobs.

So, Madam Chairwoman, it is extremely important that we understand that we must have regulatory certainty, something we will only have by the passage of today's bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I trust the gentleman from Virginia is well aware that the typographical error in the bill under consideration was, in fact, a mistake done by professional staff. And although unanimous consents are not permitted in the Committee of the Whole, I would ask the gentleman from Virginia if he would be willing--or let me rephrase that--if he would not object to a unanimous consent in the House to make a correction in what was clearly a typographical error made by nonpartisan professional staff at the Leg Counsel's office.

Yes, I am.

Reclaiming my time, nothing could be more insincere than to pick on professional staff on a typographical error.

If we have to go to the Rules Committee, I guess we will. But I am really sorry to see that kind of an attitude on what the gentleman and all of us know was simply a typographical error.

With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).

I thank the Chair. I meant nothing other than I was shocked that the gentleman would say that he would reserve time on what was clearly a typographical error.

With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).

It is amazing that we are hearing that the world will come to an end if we slow down new regulations.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

I trust the gentleman from Missouri is aware that last year, out of over 3,000 regulations coming out of the administration, no more than 66 would have even qualified for this moratorium.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

There you go again. We're shutting down the entire regulatory system because 66 out of 3,000 regulations would be affected by this bill before us today. In just last year, 66 out of 3,000, that's shutting it down.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Madam Chair, it is now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma, (Mr. Lankford).

Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, pursuant to the unanimous consent made in the House, I will insert the staff report from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform entitled, ``Continued Oversight of Regulatory Impediment to Job Creation,'' the result of over 30 separate field hearings and hearings by the committee, and the work of countless hundreds of job creators around the country who have participated.

Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, Dr. Gosar.

Mr. Chairman, it's now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).

Mr. Chairman, hopefully the gentleman would note that the language he just quoted is from the President's executive order. It's not some sort of pocket information, but, in fact, something the President of the United States felt was a reasonable set of language.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

I am prepared to close.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I never thought I would hear former Chairman Waxman speak in terms of how dysfunctional Congress is, how we just don't operate and can't be trusted; but, clearly, I heard him say that today.

I still believe in the institution that all of us belong to. In living up to our responsibility, Congress has the responsibility to pass laws; and it has an absolute obligation to oversee the administration of those laws. The executive branch, or administrative branch, actually, only has the right to create regulations and executive orders to support the laws that have been created.

For too long, we have abrogated our responsibility. Former Chairman Waxman apparently would like to continue doing that, in what he said of our low rating and essentially repeating it.

Until the unemployment rate reaches 6 percent, taking back just less than 66 out of 3,000 regulations last year and making them accountable either to fall into emergency requirements into specific categories of essential harm or to come to Congress would seem to be a small task.

I have no doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot and President Bush was still in office and the Democrats were still in charge, that this bill would look more favorable to them. But that's not what we should be here deciding, who it favors or disfavors. When this bill becomes law, it will, in fact, become law for the future for Democrats and Republican Members alike.

The elimination of the ``midnight regulations'' that for so long have been abused by Presidents of both parties, H.R. 4607 absolutely is long overdue. President George W. Bush rushed excess amounts to close before he left. President Obama will, undoubtedly, do the same. That's wrong. It's simply wrong. And we know is. And we know that often, as this bill says, these are regulations that aren't heard before the election and are concluded in those 75 days before departure.

It's wrong. We know we need to stop it. We shouldn't abrogate our responsibility. And the Members on the other side will suddenly decide, I'm sure, this is a better idea, should Mitt Romney be elected in the fall.

This bill is supported by the Chamber of Commerce, Associated Builders & Contractors, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

The fact is, this is about simply saying not that we're going to stop 3,000 regulations, but that we're going to slow and evaluate more carefully the 66 largest of them by this administration last year.

During debate, the administration was essentially lauded for having passed fewer regulations in numbers than President George W. Bush. I checked that during debate. That's true. But that's because President George W. Bush did regulatory changes to eliminate regulations, and those scored. When you actually look at the cost of regulations under this administration, the cost is dramatically higher.

I will share with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that cost is not just dollars and cents, that you have to look at all the benefits. But for too long, we've had ``sue and settle.'' We've had the ability for these determinations to be made without that due process of looking at both sides.

So today, as we move this bill, I clearly appreciate the fact that the men and women of my committee--the staff, the hardworking people who never get seen in front of the camera, who, in fact, have worked through 30 hearings, through countless interviews with job creators-- have made sure that the right things are in this bill for the right reason.

I urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 459) to require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States before the end of 2012, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, directs the GAO to conduct a full audit of the Federal Reserve. The Dodd-Frank legislation mandated a GAO audit of the Fed, but that audit, issued by the Government Accountability Office in July of 2011, focused solely on the issues concerning emergency credit facilities.

GAO remains restricted, under the current law, from conducting a broader audit of the Fed that includes, for instance, a review of the Fed's monetary policy operations and its agreements with foreign governments and central banks. The bill remedies this situation by permitting GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, to conduct a nonpartisan audit that will review all of these transactions. The findings of the audit are to be reported to Congress.

It is particularly appropriate that we consider this legislation at this time. While Congress should not manage or micromanage details of monetary policy, it needs to be able to conduct oversight of the Fed. The Fed was created by Congress to be a central bank, independent of the influence of the U.S. Treasury. It was never intended to, in fact, be independent of Congress or independent of the American people.

In recent years, the Fed's extraordinary interventions into the economy and financial markets have led some to call into question its independence. We do not ask for an audit for that reason. We ask for an audit because the American people ultimately must be able to hold the Fed accountable; and to do so, they must know, at least in retrospect, what the Fed has done over these many years that it has been without an audit. That is why I support H.R. 459, a bipartisan bill with 273 other cosponsors.

I urge my colleagues' support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, it's now my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the author of this bill and the man who understands that not knowing should never be an answer.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman. Would you suggest that we should do both of those?

As I introduced my good friend and leader on this issue, Mr. Chaffetz, I might note that when the word ``Democrat'' and ``Republican'' are used in this Hall, hopefully when there are 45 Democratic Members on this bill as cosponsors, we would recognize this is a bipartisan bill.

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

It is now my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

It is now my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).

Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House prohibit going after someone's motivation. I'm very concerned that a bill that, in a substantially similar form, was placed into Dodd-Frank by then-Chairman Barney Frank is now being characterized as somehow ill-intended and mischievous activity by the proponent. I would trust that that is not the intent of the speakers on behalf of that side of the aisle about this bipartisan bill. It is virtually identical to the language that Barney Frank put into Dodd-Frank.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Reclaiming my time, I would like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas, the author of the bill.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

History records that Democrats broadly voted for it when it was voted out of this body. Nothing more need be said.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time we both have remaining, please.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it appears as though we agree on certain things. We agree that some transparency is required. We certainly agree, on a bipartisan basis, that what the GAO did, under Dodd-Frank, at a minimum, was a good thing. I think there's no question my colleague who was here earlier, Mr. Frank, certainly would agree to the numbers, the expansion of the Fed in that period that Mrs. Lummis talked about between 2008 and now.

I think we would all agree the Federal Reserve is the people's bank. It is broadly owned by 316 or 320 million Americans.

I served on the board of a public company, one that I founded. I understand that if you have more than 500 stockholders, you have an obligation to considerable disclosure.

Although the Fed is audited to see whether, basically, some numbers are correct or not on a limited basis, the truth is the Federal Reserve is not open and transparent, not even years after they make decisions.

I think the American people have a piercing question right now, one that is not the question that Dr. Paul was asking when he first wanted to audit the Fed. The question is, Will we be like Greece? Will we be like Germany? Will we be like the trauma that's sweeping over the European Union?

Do we, in fact, know the true numbers? Do we know the extent of the leverage and the policies and the accuracy and the knowledge of the Federal Reserve?

I think calmly we have to ask that question. Do we know what we need to know, or are we willing to not know, in hopes that we won't be political because we don't know?

I've been in Congress for 12 full years at the end of this term, and I've learned one thing: Congress has a tendency to do two things well: nothing at

all, and overreact. I trust today will be a day in which we're in between.

I yield myself an additional minute.

We would do something so that we would know more a year from now than we know today. We would not overreact. We would not want to stifle what the Fed has done historically, without an awful lot more study. Changes to an entity like the Central Bank should be done thoughtfully and over time.

My friend, Dr. Paul, would like to do more than this bill does; but this minimal effort, offered on a bipartisan basis, is offered today because we believe the American people have a right to know, an interest to know, and a need to know.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is available.

Mr. Speaker, I won't use all of our time.

I have a slightly different opinion than the ranking member's. I believe regular order has been followed on this bill, followed and then some.

This is something that Dr. Paul has worked on, on a bipartisan basis, with Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents, with Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses. The support for this, as you saw here today, goes to Republicans and Democrats, Progressives, Conservatives, Blue Dogs.

The American people want to know. I don't believe the American people are afraid to know. Of course, the American people would not be comfortable with interference with the Fed, with micromanaging policy decisions, with tearing down the institution.

But, in fact, I think that the 9/11 of the financial market, if you will, the meltdown in 2008 and 2009, $1 trillion nearly in TARP money, and countless trillions in expansion of the balance sheet, have taught us one thing: what we don't know can hurt us.

Now, before 9/11 of the financial market, before the meltdown, before Lehman Brothers and Bear, Stearns evaporated, we would have thought, well, there are some very smart people on Wall Street, and we'd have been right. But smart people can be wrong.

We put very good people on the Federal Reserve Board. We choose very good chairmen. Chairman Bernanke was a choice of Republicans and Democrats alike.

But, ultimately, looking over the shoulder by Congress, by my committee, by the Financial Services Committee, just to ask the question, are those numbers undeniable truths brought down on tablets; or are they, in fact, open to second guessing after the fact, questioning of whether or not a model works or whether there is just a small, but meaningful, opportunity for tens of trillions of dollars to fall on the backs of the American people if they got it wrong?

That's the question the American people asked, and after 2008, it's a question Congress must ask.

When Chairman Frank voted for Ron Paul's bill, perhaps he didn't want it, but he voted for it as did countless Democrats. Ultimately, it was reduced--but not eliminated--in conference. There was some recognition that it needed to be audited.

Today, what we are doing is asking to send to the Senate a piece of legislation that more purely and clearly says: I believe the American people have a right to know. Perhaps the Senate will take up a slightly different version. Perhaps it will be truly a one-time audit. Perhaps it will be limited.

The American people need to hold us in the House and our counterparts in the Senate responsible, that we do know what we need to know and that we will never again say we rely on other people to be so smart that we shouldn't look over their shoulders. That's not the America that I grew up in. It's not the clear and transparent America the American people are asking for.

With that, I urge the passage of this bipartisan bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. ISSA: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

H.R. 459. A bill to require a full audit of the Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal

reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States

before the end of 2012, and for other purposes; with an

amendment (Rept. 112-607, Part 1); referred to the Committee

on Financial Services for a period ending not later than July

18, 2012, for consideration of such provisions of the bill

and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that

committee pursuant to clause 1(h) of rule X.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters to Ranking Member Elijah Cummings regarding H. Res. 711.

Congress of the United States,

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC, May 30, 2012.

Hon. Elijah E. Cummings,

Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform,House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Ranking Member Cummings: This letter is a follow-up to

my letter dated May 24, 2012 regarding the March 15, 2010

application for a wire intercept that the Justice Department

authorized in support of Operation Fast and Furious.

Additional Wiretap Applications Obtained by the Committee

The Committee has obtained three additional wiretap

applications from the Fast and Furious investigation, dated

April 19, 2010, May 7, 2010, and May 18, 2010, respectively.

These three applications pertain to four target telephone

lines. Each application includes an accompanying memorandum,

dated April 15, 2010, May 6, 2010, and May 14, 2010,

respectively, from Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal

Division Lanny A. Breuer to Paul M. O'Brien, Director, Office

of Enforcement Operations, authorizing the interception

application. The memoranda from Breuer were 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 copies

of these three wiretap applications. Please take every

precaution to treat them carefully and responsibly. I am

hopeful that they will assist you in understanding the extent

of information brought to the attention of senior officials

in the Criminal Division who were responsible for 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. These

wiretap applications, signed by the late Deputy Assistant

Attorney General John C. Keeney under the authority of his

supervisor, Assistant Attorney General Breuer, provide

additional 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 these wiretap

applications. Due to the sensitivity of the documents,

individual targets and suspects will be referred to with

anonymous designations. Nonetheless, you will see that the

individuals referred to in the wiretap applications are well-

known to our investigation.

Facts Learned from the First Wiretap Application

As I understand it, the wiretap application authorized on

March 15, 2010 was the first in this controversial case. Like

many federal wiretap applications, the affidavit provided

significant details about the controversial operational

tactics used in the case, such as breaking off surveillance

of a suspect who had illegally purchased firearms. As we now

know, as early as December 2009 agents from ATF and DEA knew

that the main target of the case, Target 1, planned to

acquire firearms for the purpose of transporting them to

Mexico. In fact, the affidavit in the first wiretap

application provides entire conversations obtained through a

separate DEA wire intercept detailing Target 1's efforts. 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.

At the time it was preparing the first wiretap affidavit,

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

Target 1 acquired at least 852 firearms valued at

approximately $500,000 through straw purchasers. As of March

15, 2010, ATF had identified 21 of these straw purchasers.

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

purchased by these straw purchasers were recovered--81 of

those in Mexico. These recoveries occurred one to 49 days

after their purchase in Arizona. The document reflects that

the Justice Department should have been fully aware that

large sums of money were being used to purchase a large

numbers of firearms, many of which were flowing across the

border. In fact, ATF even knew the tactics the smugglers were

using to bring the guns into Mexico. The straw purchasers

would purchase the firearms in Arizona and then transport

them either to Mexico or a location near the U.S.-Mexico

border from which others would drive the guns into Mexico.

The first wiretap application in Fast and Furious contains

rich detail about the transactions by many of the straw

purchasers. Given this detail, it shocks the conscience that

federal law enforcement officials intentionally abandoned

surveillance. Even more shocking is that upon reviewing these

facts, senior Justice Department officials authorized the

wiretap applications instead of shutting down the

investigation.

New Information Contained in Additional Wiretap Applications

These three additional wiretap applications further

demonstrate that senior officials in the Justice Department's

Criminal Division failed to sound the alarm, despite being

presented with unmistakable evidence of the extent of the

Fast and Furious gun trafficking ring. Given the danger

involved, these officials should have intervened without

hesitation. Throughout this investigation, one of my goals

has been to hold these officials accountable for their

management failures. In public statements, you have indicated

you agree with this objective. Given this new evidence

obtained by the Committee, I expect you to join me in seeking

to hold these officials accountable.

Senior DOJ Officials Knew by May 2010 That At Least 1,500 Firearms Were

Involved, and Recoveries in Mexico Were Ongoing

The affidavits for the additional wiretap applications

demonstrate that senior officials at both ATF and Justice

Department headquarters knew that Target 1 was continuing to

acquire firearms illegally and traffic them to Mexico. By

April 19, 2010, Target 1 had acquired at least 1,217 firearms

through straw purchasers, costing approximately $800,000. By

May 17, 2010, less than a month later, Target 1 had acquired

nearly 300 additional firearms. Between September 23, 2009

and March 23, 2010, 302 of these firearms were recovered,

including 182 in Mexico and 116 along the U.S.-Mexico border.

These recoveries occurred between one and 105 days after the

firearms were purchased in Arizona. The affidavits illustrate

that ATF allowed Target 1 to continue to operate the firearms

trafficking ring despite evidence indicating that they should

have shut it down. Senior Department officials also failed to

act on these facts. As a result, Target 1 was able to acquire

even more firearms.

Monitored Phone Calls Detail Large Numbers of Firearms

The affidavits include details of phone conversations

showing that Target 1 and related straw purchasers were

heavily involved in illegal firearms trafficking. For

example, one affidavit details recorded conversations over

the course of a 30-day period between Straw Purchaser Y and a

cooperating FFL. In each of these recorded conversations,

Straw Purchaser Y discussed future firearms purchases from

the FFL. Following each of those conversations, Straw

Purchaser Y later arrived at the FFL and purchased firearms.

In that month alone, Straw Purchaser Y bought a total of

120 AK-47 type rifles, 6 FN Herstal 5.7 caliber pistols, a

Springfield Armory .40 caliber pistol, a Glock .45 caliber

pistol, a Colt model ``El Jefe'' .38 super, and a Barrett .50

caliber rifle. One person's purchase of over 120 assault-type

firearms in less than a month should have set off alarm bells

for Criminal Division lawyers reading these affidavits. That

fact alone should have been enough for a senior Department

official to stop this program. Nobody did. This failure to

raise an alarm represents a major breakdown in leadership.

Surveillance Continues on the Illegal Purchase and Transfer of Firearms

In addition to recording conversations of straw purchasers,

ATF surveillance units continued to observe them buy guns

illegally. For example, on April 16, 2010 surveillance units

witnessed Straw Purchaser Y buy three Barrett .50-caliber

rifles at a cost of $9,000 each from an FFL. Surveillance

followed Straw Purchaser Y and observed him transfer at least

one of the rifles into a vehicle registered to Target 1.

After the transfer, surveillance followed Target 1's vehicle

to the residence of Straw Purchaser V, where the firearm was

unloaded from the vehicle. Again, law enforcement did not

interdict these guns or make an arrest.

On April 24, 2010, surveillance units observed Straw

Purchaser Y purchase three FN Herstal 5.7 mm pistols from the

same FFL. Later that day, surveillance units followed Straw

Purchaser Y to his residence, where the same vehicle

belonging to Target 1 was parked. After leaving Straw

Purchaser Y's residence, the vehicle was later observed at

the residence of Straw Purchaser V. At that point,

surveillance was simply terminated.

A Barrett .50-caliber is a fearsome rifle that New York

City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has called a ``weapon of

war.'' Senior Justice Department officials should have asked

tough questions of ATF about the circumstances surrounding

each of these purchases. Given the circumstances of these

purchases and the subsequent transfer to Target 1's vehicle,

senior Department officials had a duty to intervene in the

operation to ensure that it was being conducted in accordance

with the law and Department policy. Instead, they stood by as

the straw purchasing ring continued unabated.

Tracking Border Crossings

The affidavits also describe Target 1's border crossings,

some of which occurred immediately following periods of

buying from the straw purchasers. From December 17, 2009 to

March 23, 2010, Target 1 made 13 documented crossings from

Mexico into the United States. Eleven of these crossings

occurred at Texas points of entry.

On December 31, 2009, Straw Purchaser Y purchased seven

firearms. The following day, Target 1 crossed by vehicle from

Mexico into the United States via a port of entry in Fabens,

Texas. From December 30, 2009 to January 15, 2010, Straw

Purchaser Y and Straw Purchaser Z purchased a combined total

of 80 firearms. Then, on January 18, 2010, Target 1 again

crossed from Mexico into the United States via the Faben,

Texas point of entry. From January 26, 2010 to February 12,

2010, Straw Purchaser B, Straw Purchaser N, and Straw

Purchaser Y purchased 62 firearms combined. On February 13,

February 15, and February 16, 2010, Target 1 crossed by

vehicle from Mexico into the United States via a port of

entry in El Paso, Texas. From April 6, 2010 to April 24,

2010, Straw Purchaser Y purchased 24 firearms. On April 26,

2010, Target 1 crossed by vehicle from Mexico into the

United States via a port of entry in Lukeville, Arizona. The

affidavits also state that Target 1 routinely travelled to El

Paso, Texas. In fact, according to the affidavits,

intercepted phone calls show that at that time, Target 1 was

engaging in conversations relating to firearms trafficking

with individuals in and around El Paso, Texas.

Moreover, one of the affidavits states that ATF agents

believed Straw Purchaser Y was also traveling to El Paso,

Texas to receive U.S. currency to transport back to Mexico

for future gun purchases in the Phoenix, Arizona area. For

example, on March 23, 2010, the day after Straw Purchaser Y

returned from El Paso, Texas, Straw Purchaser M, Straw

Purchaser N, and Straw Purchaser Q purchased a total of 30

AK-47 type rifles and 7.62x39 caliber ammunition from

Phoenix, Arizona FFLs. Straw Purchaser Y traveled to El Paso,

Texas on two occasions after March 21, 2010. On both

occasions, Straw Purchaser Y drove to El Paso, Texas, stayed

at a hotel approximately one day, and then drove back to

Phoenix, Arizona. On the second occasion, surveillance units

observed Straw Purchaser Y meeting with an unknown individual

before returning to Phoenix, Arizona a short time later.

Conclusion

These wiretap affidavits show that straw purchasers were

buying massive numbers of guns from Phoenix area FFLs, and

that federal law enforcement officials were contemporaneously

aware of many of these sales. By monitoring and recording

phone calls and conducting extensive surveillance, ATF

tracked the actions of the firearms trafficking ring. ATF

knew, and shared with the Criminal Division, that Target 1

facilitated the illegal transfer of these firearms to

Mexico for the drug cartels. The volume of firearms

distributed by the gun trafficking ring was a major threat

to public safety. Despite the volume of information

gathered through this field work, no one in ATF or Justice

Department headquarters took action. This is inexcusable.

The new facts these wiretap applications reveal are

dismaying. More than we previously believed, senior officials

at the Department of Justice were aware of specific

information about ATF's efforts to monitor illegal

transactions and subsequently abandon surveillance. Now, more

than ever, it is imperative that you join me in demanding

that these senior officials be held accountable.

Sincerely,

Darrell Issa,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, today many will address the House here and later in the day on subjects of great current importance, certainly the upholding of the President's health care initiative and, certainly, in fact, the contempt vote we're going to hear in a few minutes.

But this moment belongs to the people of San Diego. Walter Zabel died this week at 97. Normally, when someone dies at 97, they have long since retired. He, on the other hand, was still the inspiration for Cubic Corporation, a company he founded that did so much for our national defense over his 50-plus years at its helm. We cannot forget he was in the office less than a week ago. He was still providing stewardship, still receiving the technical benefits of his engineers, and still making sure that America was safe.

Today in San Diego is Walter Zabel Day. It is not a day for the other discussions of the House.

I place in the Record at this time the statement by the Terry family concerning Congressman Dingell's criticism of the contempt vote.

Terry Family Statement with Regard to Congressman John Dingell's

Criticism of Contempt Vote

On Wednesday, Representative John Dingell invoked the Terry

family name while saying he would not back the contempt

resolutions but instead wants the Oversight and

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. 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.

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 yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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, pursuant to House Resolution 708, I call up 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, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it's amazing that people would say there's no evidence of a coverup when somebody says, No, we didn't do what we did, and then hides it for an additional 10 months. By any normal American standard, that would be a coverup.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if I heard the gentleman right when he said that I ``silenced whistleblowers'' in order to keep them from talking about gun control.

Is the gentleman disparaging and falsely claiming that I did something that I know for a fact I did not?

Of course.

Reclaiming my time, it's pretty clear you are disparaging me, and you are disparaging me by making a claim that's untrue.

The bottom line is, in committee, witnesses were told that they need not answer questions that were not the subject of the hearing and, in fact, those witnesses were allowed and did answer questions by the minority having to do with gun control, an issue they prefer to talk about rather than the cause of Brian Terry's death.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

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

Reserving the right to close, I have no further requests for time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's been a long day for America, but it's been a longer day for the Terry family. I'm going to urge everyone to vote for the ability to hire counsel, and that's what the last vote is, and I believe it will pass overwhelmingly.

But I'm going to use this time to pledge to the America people, to pledge to the Terry family, and to pledge to my colleagues: this investigation has in fact been brought to a halt in one area--and the area is the Attorney General's flat refusal to any longer cooperate with this committee.

But it doesn't change the fact that in the days and weeks to come, we will use what we can in the way of other tools, including some of the individuals that the minority has talked about today, to glean additional information, to find ways to prove accountability for the many people that had to be involved in this OCDETF operation in order for those guns to walk. We will continue to do that. We will try to find the truth.

Hopefully in the weeks to come, we also will begin getting cooperation from the administration again. But if we don't, I will tell the ranking member here today, it has always been my intention to look backwards to previous gunwalking programs that we believe were certainly poorly designed and resulted in weapons getting out of the hands of lawful people and into the hands of criminal elements. That's not going to change. It's not going to change because it's our obligation to investigate and because this one we cannot let loose until the Terry family has been kept a promise that the ranking member and I both made.

So I take the ranking member at his word today that, in fact, he will not rest until we get some answers, and I commit the same that I will not, and I urge the passage of this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Walter J. Zable upon his passing. Mr. Zable was a leader, job creator, and a great contributor to the San Diego community.

In 1951, Mr. Zable formed the Cubic Corporation in Southern California. Today it employs over 8,000 people worldwide in the field of defense systems, mission support services and transportation systems for government and commercial customers. Mr. Zable served as the chairman, president, and CEO of the corporation for five decades.

Prior to forming Cubic, Mr. Zable attended the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia studying physics and mathematics while enjoying football. It is during this time that he married his beloved wife, Betty.

Excelling in football, he played on scholarship at William and Mary and credited the sport to helping him get through the Great Depression. Mr. Zable later played professional football with the Richmond Arrows and the New York Giants. Multiple sports awards followed, including the 1962 Sports Illustrated Silver Anniversary All-American Team. Today, the William and Mary football stadium bears the Zable name.

Mr. Zable began putting his engineering skills to work in the early 1940s in Southern California. His drive and determination led to the creation of Cubic Corporation. Regular growth has led the company to great success including worldwide offices and the public trading of its stock on the NYSE.

Our military relies on the work of Cubic as a provider of realistic combat training systems, cyber technologies, asset tracking solutions, and defense electronics. Many of the world's public transportations systems rely on Cubic for collection systems and services.

At the age of 97, Mr. Zable's passing marks a lifetime of great accomplishments. His legacy lives on in the continued achievement of the Cubic Corporation and his personal philanthropy. In 1971, he established the San Diego Chapter of the National Football Foundation and College Hall of Fame (NFFCHF). NFFCHF assists student athletes in achieving their full individual potential.

Mr. Zable is an example of the American Dream fulfilled. Through hard work, dedication, and a deep sense of community, he lived a full and inspiring life. Today we remember his contributions to San Diego and our country.

Madam Speaker, I include the attached exchange of letters between Chairman John Mica of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and myself on the Senate amendment to H.R. 2297.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, June 25, 2012.

Hon. Darrell Issa,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning the Senate amendment

to H.R. 2297. There are certain provisions in the legislation

which fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure.

In order to expedite the House's consideration of the

Senate amendment to H.R. 2297, the Committee will forgo

action on this bill. However, this is conditional on our

mutual understanding that forgoing consideration of the bill

does not prejudice the Committee's jurisdictional interest

and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar

legislation and will not be considered as precedent for

consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the

Committee in the future.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding, and would request that you include our

exchange

of letters on this matter in the Congressional Record during

consideration of this bill on the House floor.

Sincerely,

John L. Mica,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.

Our committee has participated in $83 billion worth of this package, saving our men and women in uniform from finding themselves holding wooden rifles. I use that term because it once happened. It wouldn't happen under sequestration, but we would make cuts that would make them just as endangered in some cases as if they were carrying wooden rifles.

Now, many people will talk about public servants in a less than kind way. I am not one of them. The Federal workforce has kept its promises. The Federal workers are not always well led or well managed, but they themselves deliver the product they're asked to deliver. However, the President's own commission--often called Simpson-Bowles on which the chairman of the Budget Committee served--found something that they all agreed on, that was that, in fact, the pension program that we as Federal employees--and I say ``we'' because Members of Congress pay into Social Security, have a 401(k), but we also have a pension--that that pension was more generous than our counterparts in the private sector.

They recommended that we, in fact, make it a 50/50 shared pension. My contribution from our committee, in fact, does that. At a rate of 5 percent, phased in over 5 years, we bring the Federal workforce, members of the civilian DOD, members of your Park Service and Members of Congress, House and Senate, we bring us all into paying what Simpson-Bowles, on a bipartisan basis, very much felt was a fair share.

Now, I want to make sure that everyone understands today that this is, in fact, a changing for members of the Federal workforce from what they perceived they would always have. It will not be easy. They will know that after this goes into effect, they will, in fact,

not have as much take-home as they did the day before.

That's not to say it isn't due, that it isn't known, and it doesn't need to happen. What it's to say is, let's be understanding. These are tough times. The American people have made sacrifices for many years before this one. The Federal workforce has made some sacrifices. The President implemented a pay freeze.

But I must tell you, our looking at it is that because of an outdated system, the pay freeze does not, in fact, freeze pay. Step increases have virtually automatically, almost 100 percent automatically caused the vast majority of these individuals to be eligible and receive pay increases, even at a time in which, theoretically, it was frozen.

Additionally, civil servants know that if we're going to continue to hold on to a civil service workforce that has the confidence of the American people, their wages have to be comparable to their civilian counterparts.

Our committee will continue to work with others to study to make sure we do keep Federal workers fairly paid as compared to the nongovernment workforce. But our bill today takes the President's own recommendations, the recommendations made to the President, and implements them, for a savings over 10 years of $83 billion.

We believe this is the Federal workforce and we, as their representatives, asking them to make a reasonable sacrifice, one that I know they will do, while remaining confident that they will deliver the kinds of products they can.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, there are things that are not in this bill. The kind of pay-for-performance that we'd like to see enhanced, the kind of procedure for a quick remedy for individuals who have become disabled-- those are not in there. There are many other savings and improvements for the Federal workforce. We intend to go back on a bipartisan basis and do that.

But when it comes to purely paying your fair share, we believe that Simpson-Bowles got it right. We believe the Federal workforce will not like this, but they will accept that this allows them to say our package is not inherently more generous than the private sector. It's been normalized for it.

That and other changes that we made in this bill allow the Federal workforce to say stop saying that we somehow get something everyone else doesn't. The Federal workforce pays into Social Security, into Medicare and, in fact, they're going to be paying half the cost of their pension plan, which is commensurate with their private sector.

So I want to be very positive here in saying this is never easy to do in times of austerity, but, in fact, the Federal workforce will stand behind this, as Congress will, in recognizing that they're doing their share.

I'm very proud of the people throughout government who recognize that getting this right is part of being able to say to the American people, we're all in this together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1302) to authorize the Administrator of General Services to convey a parcel of real property in Tracy, California, to the City of Tracy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

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

S. 1302 would direct the General Services Administration to sell 150 acres of land in Tracy, California, to the city of Tracy for not less than its appraised fair market value. This property is undeveloped land that was once under the custody and control of the Federal Government. However, the Federal Government maintains a reversionary

interest in the property based on certain usage restrictions.

Through three separate pieces of legislation enacted since 1999, Congress has conveyed the 150 acres to the city of Tracy and has restricted its use of the land to educational and recreational uses only. Over the past decade, the city of Tracy has determined that these uses are no longer feasible, and it would like to utilize the land for economic development, thus adding to its base and to the welfare of the citizens of Tracy. In fact, the city expects significant commercial interest in the property and is optimistic that future development on the land will create hundreds of much-needed jobs.

S. 1302 would remove all restrictions currently imposed on the property by Congress and would transfer complete ownership of the land from the Federal Government to the city of Tracy. Additionally, this legislation advances the goal of the disposing of unneeded Federal property, which is something that Mr. Denham, who is with me today, has been very active in.

As we look at the Senate bill passed by the Senate unanimously in August of last year, I believe we see a win-win. The Federal Government takes a piece of land it has no further interest in and that it has, through congressional acts in the past, locked up for specific uses not likely to occur, and we receive full fair market value for the property. This is the way Federal land in excess should be disposed of--sold at fair market value or above and assured to be put to good use by the recipient, which, in this case, is the city of Tracy.

I urge support for this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Denham), who has been a strong advocate for both the disposal of property in a profitable way and in particular contacted us and asked us to move this legislation with a powerful and convincing argument.

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

Although this is a small piece of property, it's part of a vast amount of property the Federal Government currently owns, controls, and does not use. So as we take this step today, I hope all of my colleagues in the House and the Senate will look at this as at least a small contribution to a direction we should go, find ways to take government-owned property, get it in private hands, paying property tax, being developed, and creating jobs throughout the areas in which it lies.

As I urge support, I would like to thank my colleague, the gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), for her work; I would like to thank the Senate cosponsors, including Senator Boxer, for getting this to us; and I would like to thank Mr. Denham for brining it to the floor at this time.

I yield back the balance of my time.