I yield back. Yes, sir. I just want to note for the record i find it supreme irony that the chairman of this committee would unilaterally side [inaudible] that an american citizen has waived her fifth amendment rights while actually exercising his fifth amendment right not to answer your question to be asked of the minority of this committee. Thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] the house debated a resolution to hold lois lerner in contempt of congress. Chairman, mr. Speaker. Its probably nothing more sacred to americans, nothing than portant to protect the Democratic Electoral process which has made this by far the greatest country in the world, getting everyone an pportunity to participate. Were here today to hold lois lerner in contempt. Its been stated she didnt have her rights recognized. She has the right to take the fifth. Shes done that. Under the constitution. May ught her in twice, 22, 2013, march, 2014. She began and you can see the tapes declaring her innocence. Even before that, when it was pointed out that she was at the heart of this matter, in fact everyone and her employees, when she tried to throw them under the bus, they said she threw them under a convoy of mack trucks. Every road leads to lois lerner. Lois lerner held the congress of the United States in contempt and is holding it in contempt. Lois lerner held the electoral process that is so sacred to his country in contempt. Lois lerner has held the American People and the process they cherish and the chief financial agency, the i. R. S. , who we all have to account to, as a tool to manipulate a national election. This was a targeted, directed focus attempt and every road leads to lois lerner. Shes had twice the opportunity to come before congress and to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and she has failed to do that and i urge that we hold lois lerner in contempt. Thats our responsibility. And it must be done. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from california reserves. The gentleman from maryland is recognized. Mr. Cummings with all due respect to the gentleman who ust spoke, even the i. G. Found that lois lerner did not learn about the inappropriate terms until a year afterwards. The i. G. That was appointed by the republican president with. That, i yield three minutes to the distinguished member from virginia a member of our committee, mr. Conway. The speaker pro tempore the mr. Connolly. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Connolly i thank my friend. I think if the founders were here today and had witnessed the proceed thonings government and Oversight Reform Committee with respect to ms. Lois lerner, they would have unanimously reaffirmed their commitment to this to the fifth amendment because rights were trampled on, frankly starting with the First Amendment rights of the Ranking Member who was cut off and not allowed to speak even after the chairman allowed himself abopen an Opening Statement and no fewer than seven questions before cutting off entirely the Ranking Member. Then we proceeded to trample on the fifth amendment. And case law is what governs here. The court has said the selfincrimination clause must be interpreted in favor of the right it was intended to secure. Since the respect normally accorded to prive sledge normally buttressed by the defendant in a trial, in other words its the same. Its the equivalent of the presumption of innocence. Madison said if all men, and he meant all men and women, im sure, were angels we wouldnt knead need the fifth amendment. Lois lerner is not to be defended here. Shes not a heroic character. But she is a citizen who has an enumerated right in the constitution of the United States. The relevant case, besides quinn vs. The United States, in the 1950s a u. S. Citizen, diantha ho fwmbings ue was taken tpwhever permanent subcommittee, she also had a prepared statement declaiming her innocence, that she was not a spy, not engaged in subversion and then she proceeded to invoke her fifth amendment. Ms. Hogue answered some questions yes or no that were put to her. She was found in contempt. The chairman of the committee jumped on it and said, aha, i got you. The court found otherwise. The Court Unanimously ruled that ms. Hogue had not waived her fifth amendment right, she was entitled to a statement of innocence and that didnt somehow vitiate her invocation of the fifth amendment right and her fifth amendment right was upheld. This is a about trampling on the Constitutional Rights of u. S. Citizens. And for a very crass reason. For partisan, political reason. We heard the distinguished majority leader, my colleague and friend from virginia, assert something thats absolutely not true, which is that only conservative grouped were targeted by the i. R. S. Thats not true and we have testimony thats not true. Words like occupy. Acorn. Progressive. Were all part of the so called bolo list. They too were looked at. This was an incompetent, ham handed effort by one Regional Office in cincinnati by the i. R. S. Was it right . Absolutely not. But does it rise to the level of a scandal or the false assertion by the chairman of our committee on television as the Ranking Member cited that somehow it goes all the way to the white house picking on political enemies . Flat out untrue. Not a scintilla of evidence that thats true. And to have the entire house of representatives now voting on the contempt citation and declaring unilaterally that a u. S. Citizen has waived her Constitutional Rights does no credit to the this house and salo moment that evokes the spirit of joe mccarthy from a longago era. Shame on us for what were about to do i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from maryland reserves. The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Issa nobody answered the debunking we put out this document this document makes it clear it was all about targeting and abusing conservative groups and the gentleman from virginia knows that very well. With that, its my honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma who has champion sod many of these issues in our investigation, mr. Lankford. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Lankford thank you, mr. Speaker. About three years ago, all of our offices started getting phone calls from constituents. They were being said they were being asked unusualle unusual questions by the i. R. S. They were applying for nonprofit status. They were patriot groups, tea party groups, they were getting questions coming back new york questions like, tell us as the i. R. S. Every conversation youve had with a legislator in the and the contents of those conversations. Tell us and give us cop dwhroifs documents that are only given to members of your organization. If theres a private part of your website thats only set aside for members, show us all of those pages and by the way, all of those questions were prefaced with the statement from the i. R. S. , whatever documents you give us will also be made public to everyone. So the statement was, tell us what you privately talked about with legislators, tell us what only your members get because were going to publish it. So of course we start to get questions about that. The Inspector General starts an investigation on that. On may 10 of last year, 2013, lois lerner stands up in a conference, plants a question in the audience to talk about something completely irrelevant to the conference so she can leak out that this investigation is about to be burst out and four days later, the Inspector General launches out this investigation and says, conservative groups have een unfairly targeted. 298 groups had their applications held, isolated. They were asked for all these things when they turneding to be yumets in, they were store the initial accusation is, this was a crazy group from cincinnati that did this so our committee happened to bring in these folks from cincinnati. They all said they wanted to be able to advance these applications and they were told no. We asked the names of the people in washington that told them to hold them. We brought those folks in. They said they wanted to move them. They were told by the counsels office to hold them. As we continue to work through point after point, through person after person, all come back to lois lerners office. Lois lencher who had come in before us on may 22 of 2013, made a long statement professing her innocence, saying shed done nothing wrong, has broken no law, and then said i wont answer questions. Whats at stake here is a constitutional principle, can a person sit for a court or before congress and make a long statement, ive done nothing wrong and then choose to not answer questions . This is a precedent before every congress from here on out and in front of every court. Can this be zphone and we would say no. Its not just a statement about accepting that shes guilty. Though all the evidence leads back to her and her office. Its, if you have the right to remain silent, do you actually remain silent during that time period . With that, i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from california reserves. Mr. Cummings i would say to the gentleman, we are talking about the Constitutional Rights of a United States sint and we do not have the right United States citizen and we do not have the right to remain silent if those rights are being trampled on. I yield three minutes to the distinguished leader from hoyer from maryland. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Hoyer thank you, mr. Speaker. If this is a precedent, it is a bad precedent. It is a dangerous precedent. It is a precedent that we ought not to make. Read the constitution, i heard, over and over and over again. Ive read probably the opinions of 25 lawyers whom i respect from many great institutions in this country. None of whom, as im sure the Ranking Member has pointed out, none of whom believe that the precedent supports this action. Mr. Speaker, what a waste of the peoples time. For congress to spend this week on politics and not policy. We are about to vote on a resolution that is really a partisan political message. Everyone here agrees. Everyone. That the i. R. S. Should never target anyone based on anything other than what they owe in taxes. Not their political beliefs or any other traits. Other than their liability and their opportunities to pay the fair share to the United States of america. And in fact, during the exhaustive investigation into the i. R. S. , chairman issas committee, interviewed 39 witnesses, analyzed more than 530,000 pames and could not find the pages and could not find the conspiracy they were looking for. That they always look for. That they always allege. 14 million of taxpayer money has already been spent on this investigation. And all that was found was that which we already knew. That the division led by ms. Lerner suffered from fundamental administrative and managerial shortcomings that bore no connection to poll tirks or to to politics or to partisanship. Independent legal experts concluded that chairman issas efforts to hold ms. Lerner in contempt of congress is constitutionally deficient. This resolution before us today is of course not meant to generate policy. Its nonet generate headlines. Its meant to generate headlines. Republicans once again are showing that they are more interested in partisan Election Year gimmicks than working in a bipartisan way to tackle our countrys most pressing challenges. We ought to turn to the important matters of creating jobs, raising the minimum wage, restoring emergency unemployment for those who are struggling to find work. Issues the American People overwhelmingly support and want their congress to address. I urge my colleagues to give this partisan resolution the vote it deserves. And to feed and defeat it so we can turn to the peoples business. In closing, let me say this, mr. Speaker. There are 435 of us in this body. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman will suspend. The gentleman from california reserves. The gentleman from maryland is recognized, the gentleman from maryland is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. Mr. Hoyer i thank the gentleman. I urge all my colleagues, do not think about party on this vote. Think about precedent. Think about this institution. Think about the constitution of the United States of america. And if you havent read, read some of the legal opinions. That say you have to establish a predicate before you can tell an american that they will be held criminally liable if they tobet respond to your questions. If they dont respond to your questions. Thats what this issue is about. Not about party. Not about any of us. But about the constitutional protection this is a every american deserves and ought to be given and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from maryland reserves. Mr. Couple spgs may i inquire how much time is remaining . The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from maryland has eight and a quarter minutes remaining, the gentleman from california has eight minutes remaining. Mr. Issa i want to correct the record, earlier a minority member stated that with 35 words said by lois lerner, our count is 305. Hopefully the inaccuracy of their experts will be considered the same. With that, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. Gosar. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Gosar i thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, i rise in support of this resolution. The peoples house has thor hi documented lois lerners trespasses, including her history of targeting conservative groups as well as the laws she has broke. Theres a 443page committee reporting supporting these allegations. We know ms. Lerner refuses to comply with a duly issued subpoena from the House Oversight and government Reform Committee and without ms. Lerners full cooperation the American Public will not have the answers it needs from its government. My friends across the aisle have continuously cried foul over this legitimate investigation. But where is there evidence where is their evidence to put this to rest . I do not enjoy hold anything federal official in contempt or pursuing criminal charges because doing so mean we was a government run amok and a u. S. Attorney general who does not uphold the rule of law and such a predicament is a loselose situation for all americans and our constitution. As uncomfortable as it may be, it is our job to proceed in the name of government accountability. I support this resolution and it is way pastime for contempt for lois lerner. With that, i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from california reserves. The gentleman from maryland is recognized. Mr. Cummings i yield two minutes to mr. Welch. Mr. Welch i thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, theres a reason that the American People hold the congress of the United States in such low esteem. Were providing them with some additional basis to have that opinion. And heres what it is. Number one, this was an important investigation. We should do it. We should do it energetically and we should do it together. Instead, information was constantly withheld from the minority. Our own Ranking Member was cut off with really quite a bold gesture by the chairman at a certain point, and it created an impression that it was going to be a onesided affair rather than a balanced cooperative approach. Thats essential to having any credibility. The second thing is, what do we do about mrs. Lowey who took the fifth will lois lerner who took the fifth . And the manner which she did that took her to waive that. Your side think she waived it and therefore should be held in contempt. Our side, and we have the side of legal opinion, said she didnt waive it. You know, thats a legal question and there is a document called the constitution that separates the powers. Whether this person crossed the line or didnt the idea that a congress, this time run by republicans, next time by democrats, can have a right to make a determination about the rights of a citizen is in complete conflict with the separation of powers in our constitution. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from vermont yields back. The gentleman from maryland reserves. The gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Issa i thank the gentleman from vermont in advance for his yes vote on this because the only way to send this to the court to be decided is to vote yes. In fact, we are not try lois lerner. We are determining that she should be tried. The question should be before a federal judge. With that, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from wyoming a member of the committee, mrs. Lummis. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. Mrs. Lummis thank you, mr. Speaker. I contend that in the interest of protections the protecting the Constitutional Rights of this country from the behavior of the i. R. S. , from lois lerner, herself a lawyer, who understands that you can waive your right to remain silent as to matters to which you chose to testify. And that she did that. She said, ive done nothing wrong, i have broken no laws, subsequently, we find out that she blamed the rimplet s. Employees in cincinnati for wrongdoing that was going on here in washington, d. C. That she was targeting conservative groups and only conservative groups, thereby violating their First AmendmentConstitutional Rights. The Oversight Committee needs to find the truth and to that e