Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  June 15, 2016 9:00pm-12:01am EDT

9:00 pm
told the director of the department of public safety in texas, because he called me right after like, oh, i just got a call from napolitano, he says he's just finished fully briefing secretary napolitano on what elibiary did on his own laptop at his home, downloading this information. and she said the next day, i have no idea by as i -- basically what you're talking about and the next time i ask her, you said would you investigate, she said, we investigated, there's nothing to it, none of that was true. there was no ngs. she was testifying falsely about hat as well. what are radical islamists upposed to take from all this? you've got an administration protecting them.
9:01 pm
when you view documents that have been cleaned out, purged out of the training material for the f.b.i. for the state department -- for the f.b.i., for the state department, for the defense department, for intelligence, for department of defense, it's no wonder f.b.i. agents cannot discern that tsarnaev had been radicalized even though russia told us twice and still this administration could -- they had so miseducated d underelingted our -- and undereducated our agents, they didn't know what to ask. how do you establish somebody had been radicalized. my tear friend, philip haney, one of the original members of homeland security, probably was a record the number of people that he put together the information to show their terrorist ties he got a commendation for it. but when he started showing there were ties to people with
9:02 pm
this administration were having with no -- with known terrorist they deleted thousands of pages of entries of what he has done. when he filed an i.g. report, they came after him. they impaneled a grand jury to try to destroy him and he was so squeaky clean, even though it put his wife in the hospital, patriot lled her, this who has given his life and the opportunity to make millions of dollars with the kind of brilliant mind he has, gave it all for his country. and what did this administration do in return? this award-winning, wonderful patriot was harassed and investigated, had rumors spread, and so that they could make sure that the other agents within homeland security knew that you don't want to say anything about
9:03 pm
people with terrorist ties because that -- this will happen to you next, he's been run through the wringer with the brand jury, now we're going to take away his gun, his weapon in front of others, terrible humiliation, and then basically put in a closet and push him into retirement. thank god he was close to retirement. now he can tell all that was not classified. and we find out just how bad things have been as this administration did more to protect radical islamists than it has done really to help keep america safe. i know i'm critical a lot, but i'm grateful. i'm very grateful that after this terrorist attack, the president didn't go play golf this time he didn't call the governor of florida, but i'm very grateful that he didn't go play golf, he didn't go to a baseball game, he wasn't on a
9:04 pm
kiss camera somewhere. i think he's making progress now after 7 1/2 years, and i'm grateful for that. thank him for that, mr. speaker, through you. but this article from "the daily caller," peter hasan says syrian imgrant who said 9/11 changed the world for good is a homeland security advisor. and it goes through and it talks about, you know, that she was picked by jay johnson to help advise him. and here are some of the tweaks, lethe way, mr. elbiari they him end his term after he said the international caliphate was inevitable, obviously the united states, his comments will have to fall on our knee -- we'll have to fall on our knees in front of the ultimate caliph, perhaps the 2th imam in his --
9:05 pm
the 12th imam in his mind. but he said americans need to get used to it. here's a new replacement. looks like she has some of the views of mr. elbiari. this is a lady named, last name, alawah. she tweeted out, this was february 4, 2013. i can't deal with people saying america is the best nation in the world. be critical. be conscious. don't be idiots. well, this nation has previously been the best nation in the world. it's been the freest nation in the world. and that has been shown but in recent years we have fallen further and further down the list of the most free nations in the world, we're certainly not the most free nation anymore,
9:06 pm
although we have been the most blessed nation with personal freedoms and personal assets. the only nation in history that i'm aware of where the number one health problem for the nation's poor involved obesity. she also, advisor to jay johnson, tweeted out that the u.s. has never been a utopia, unless you were a straight, white male that owned land, straight up, period, go home, shut up. isn't that great, mr. speaker, that we have people with this for americad hatred and bigotted racial positions that she can advise our secretary of homeland security? here's another one. eptember 17, 2014. 9/11 is your tai to pull out
9:07 pm
your flag themed clothing and it's my day to look behind my back as i walk home. well, actually, i don't see a lot of attacks on muslims in america. especially by true christians. because that's not a christian thing to do. it is a radical islamist thing to do. and that is actually quite confirmed by this tweet, 26 april of 2013, she said, you can't say something intolerant and not expect consequences, not on my watch. what she is advocating there in america, under our constitution, under every law of every state is called a crime. she's advocating a crime. our american revolution saw the quoting, usually attributed to voluntary, some differ for
9:08 pm
proper -- usually attributed to voltaire, some differ for proper attribution, i don't agree with what you say but i defend to the death your right to say it. now this high-flying advisor to our homeland security department, that's being changed. basically, to put it more in voltaire's words, ms. alawah is say, i disagree with what you say and i am going to cause hell to come down on you. there will be consequences. because i disagree with what you say and i am going to make you suffer for it. well, see, that's under sharia law. and we find obviously she follows sharia law. she doesn't believe in the
9:09 pm
united states constitution. she doesn't believe in freedom of speech. and yet here she is, a top dvisor to our own homeland security secretary. here's another tweet. and this was after pamela geller was exposing the lies and hypocrisy of radical islam and ad a drawing contest about mohammed and she says, how the blank is, and she fills in blanks, how the blank is the s blank at pamela geller spewing free speech? it's straight up war mongering hate speech and xenophobea. no the hatred is belonging to ms. alawah. here's another to show her racism. she says, because you know, at he because you know,
9:10 pm
@thebachelor, white people are not going to be the dominant majority much longer. it's wonderful that secretary johnson feels that the way to protect america is to have racist, sharia loving, above the constitution advisors telling him that you got to go easy on the radical islamists and not call them what they are and be mean and tough on people who are concerned about their physical safety and you need to take the guns away. i mean, i found a statement, this is consistent, this administration says, when radical islam attacks, it's time to take guns away from law-abiding americans. and he keeps proposing this idea that this list that only this administration can compile, nobody in congress is allowed to
9:11 pm
even know how they put their list together, potential watch list, terrorist watch list they won't tell us, won't tell people how you get off the list. and yet, this unconstitutional way of depriving people of their constitutional rights is being advocated by most everybody in this administration. we have got to take away americans' right to keep and bear arms. if the president puts them on a list that says he doesn't want them to have guns. and i mean, we've already seen this administration, what they've done to seniors, ok if you're a senior citizen, and you have found it's easier because of arthritis in your hands, whatever reason, it's easier for a family member to take care of your checking account and pay your bills, so you don't have to
9:12 pm
suffer the problems, i know, i've had relatives deal with this. and had -- and have some now. so if somebody is taking care of your checking account, you lose your second amendment right to protect yourself with a gun. but what i have seen repeatedly is seniors that may have a family member take care of their checking account, but they sure do know when somebody is breaking into their home and they need to defend themselves. they know that. it's instinct. but apparently not in this administration. and how about this. the security firm that employed orlando gunman guards u.s. nuclear sites. well, we had heard he worked for this, believe it was g-4-s, something like that, had thousands of employees, and they guard nuclear sites, i've read before publicly from the request
9:13 pm
for proposal to provide security for dulles airport right out here from washington such an important airport to our nation's government and it's a request for proposal for independent contractors to provide security and the only qualification to providing the security for dulles airport, for the toll roads if they are perimeter around dulles, where you don't want somebody that might leave a gate open for a terrorist friend, well, your only qualification is you have to be other 21 and legally allowed to work. which means you can be a syrian refugee and gotten one of the work permits this administration hands out as a basic form of amnesty or maybe be part of a gang bang group that came up from central america and lied about who you were, where you were coming from and got a work permit through this president's amnesty bill. you're welcome to go to work at
9:14 pm
dull let providing security. great stuff. and then this article, american born children of immigrants proving fruitful recruiting ground for jihad in the u.s. seems like i've been talking about that for six years. people come over here on visas, they have children, and then the children are taught to hate erica and in fact, our own alawaqui, the first american citizen to have been killed by presidentialed or we are a drone strike, even though he'd worked with the administration, he's led prayers, he's so dangerous the muslim staffers here on capitol hill had him lead their prayers a number of times. so dangerous the president had to take him out with a drone strike and yet he was an american citizen, only because his parents came over on college visas, had him here, took him back to yemen and taught him to
9:15 pm
hate america. the orlando terrorist worked for the same security contractor that has been moving illegal aliens into the united states by the van loads. his from debra hein, june 13 from p.j. media. the f.b.i. twice probed orlando gunman from david barrett, june 13, "wall street journal." the f.b.i., the government, homeland security, all kinds of warnings. but they chose to keep just playing patsy with people that bigotted, a that are cist, islamic supremists and the nation has suffered as a result. so what are we're supposed to take up a bill and applaud our party's leaders. they have made very clear that the president is making a
9:16 pm
severe mistake by not using the term islamic terrorists. so we're taking up a nine-page bill tomorrow. uses the president's term repeatedly over and over, counter violent extremism. we any of use the term islam. we require reports and training basically in the secretary's discretion, if he wants to, the bottom line is, it gives cover for countering violent extremism when we're supposed to be pointing out radical islamists are our enemy. this is not the bill we should be passing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. gohmert: i move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m.
9:17 pm
to gavel is expected in tomorrow, and we will have live coverage on c-span. we spoke earlier to a capitol hill reporter. as the house continues to debate the spending bill, we are joined by john donnelly, a senior defense reporter. this is a bill that comes up under new rules, limiting amendments on appropriations bills. why was this change made by house republican leadership, and how might it affect the passage of appropriations bills, particularly this defense bill? mr. donnelly: i am not sure if it will get in the way of passing the ill, but it has definitely changed the way the house has done it business over
9:18 pm
the last couple of decades, for the most part, and that is to have a strong and open process for debating the appropriations of bills. actually, i will go back to the house's defense authorization bill, and amendment which would have effectively permitted contractors, government contractors, to discriminate against lesbians, gays, bisexual, transgender people if they cited a religious rationale . that was kind of what started the fight, and then democrats started to push back, and when the spending bill came to the floor of the house in late may, the house adopted an amendment, which would effectively be an antidiscrimination amendment, by maloney of new york, and then it turned -- that kind of through the whole process into chaos,
9:19 pm
the energy and water bill, and the bill went down on the strength of republican opposition to the amendment that had been adopted, in combination of democratic opposition on other things. the bill went down over the lgbt discrimination issue, so the whole decision to limit the number of amendments is really a decision to limit amendments like this that could scuttle the process. announcer: and as you said, there is a limitation, but even with that, 108 amendments proposed, they will be debated by the house, and the deadline gitmo, and thee, defense spending measure, start with guantanamo bay. donnelly: year after year, the republican-controlled congress has tied the president's hands and his ability to close gitmo, and i
9:20 pm
expect that will continue. the underlying bill has the --al provisions which bar over gitmo detainees and have severe restrictions on the transfer of detainees to other countries and that is what the bill says right now. democrats would like to rip ande provisions right out, republicans will almost certainly defeat the democratic attempt to rip those provisions out, so again, it is been there, done that on gitmo. anchor: there are house democrats and republicans in favor of some debate for the authorization of some use of force, the aumf. that?s behind mr. donnelly: there is a lot of lip service, but the reality is congress has not done it. continue.hat to i could be surprised. there are several amendments that address that issue. one of them would, for example, say no money for iraq and syria until congress passes an aumf or
9:21 pm
with an aumf passes signature, i guess is how they word it. anyway, the debate will be interesting, and once again, congress will scold itself for not authorizing the war, and yet at the end of the day probably will not authorize it. amendmentat is a key you are looking for on the floor question mr. donnelly: one which caught my eye is by massey and lofgren, and it would bar war it was surveillance of american -- it would bar warrantless surveillance of american citizens. you use a server overseas. the government has access to
9:22 pm
that information without a warrant, and to the proponents of that amendment, that is a violation of the fourth amendment, prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure. and then the information to look forhis information is key hawks to prevent terrorist attacks. we settled it with the cell phones with the nsa, but it is still out there with this other authority under section 702 of fisa. it would bar the government from mandating backdoor encryption, for devices, basically bar the government from being able to tell manufacturers of phones, for example, like apple, that they have to have -- that the government has to have a way in. anchor: the white house of view on all of this, like the authorization of administration strongly opposing the
9:23 pm
bill. what in particular don't they like? mr. donnelly: their recent veto statements are among the longest list that i have seen in all of the time i have been covering it. say we not necessarily will veto it over this or that. they say we will veto the bill because we do not like it, and then they will list 30 things, but one of the big things is its use of war money. they cut the war account in order to pay for programs that the pentagon did not formally request, and that the white house finds objectionable. anchor: a senior defense will call paid you can find him at cq.com. thank you for joining us. that in every way these are bipartisan proposals, and it's incumbent
9:24 pm
upon us to at the very least show the american public where the senate stands on these issues, show the people of indiana and connecticut and illinois where senators stand on these two simple questions that have bipartisan grassroots support in this country. mr. donnelly: let me ask you one more question, which is this. senator, do you think we are underestimating in this body that the senators are this couldl said harm terror investigations, in the wake of the mass shooting in the area, looking to use the spending bill to force another
9:25 pm
vote on such a provision. republicans in the senate rejected the same effort in a procedural vote on an amendment from democratic senator dianne feinstein of california in december after the mass shooting in san bernardino. again, that from cq roll call, and, of course, you can watch the senate live on our competitive network, c-span2. any have voted to cite member for allegedly affecting a congressional investigation into whether the iris targeted conservative groups with tactics and status. committee members passed a partyline vote that accuses the irs head of providing false testimony to congress and allowing evidence to be destroyed. the committee chair jason chaffetz has called it a first step in eventual impeachment proceedings. the judiciary committee will consider an impeachment bill last week. session is just
9:26 pm
under two hours.
9:27 pm
order, withome to an amendment, and without objection, the chair is authorized. our first and only item for consideration today is house thelution 737, censuring commissioner of the internal revenue service. the clerk will doesn't make the resolution. resolution 737, resolution condemning and censuring the commissioner of internal revenue, where the committee on oversight reform issued a subpoena -- the resolution
9:28 pm
be considered as read. without objection. so ordered. i went out recognize myself for five minutes to explain the resolution. complying with the subpoena is mandatory. it is not optional. testifying before congress is also mandatory. settling the court duties of compliance with a congressional subpoena and testify truthfully to congress, there must be repercussion. house resolution 737 as introduced is a necessary repercussion for the iris commissioner for the misconduct deserves condemnation and censure from the congress. makes sureion also that he should resign. if he does not, the president should remove him, and they should affect his pension. mr.e many are familiar with
9:29 pm
failures, i will go over them. he failed to testify truthfully. i will focus on 2014, when he came before us to say why they did not produce e-mails. at that time, a subpoena of e-mails was in place since august 2013. there was another subpoena issued in february 2014. nn june 20, 2014, mr. koskine said, and i quote, every e-mail has been preserved. nothing has been lost. nothing has been destroyed. that was not true. in mayestigation began 2012. yet, the inspector general found the iris destroyed, destroyed, 422 act updates, including 4, 2014, therch date on which we know there was obstruction. also on june 20, 2014, mr. wekinen told congress that
9:30 pm
confirmed that backup tapes for 2011 no longer existed because they have been recycled, pursuant to normal iris policy. that was not true either. available for almost two years after the congressional investigation began. he's false statements were even more disturbing because the irs new infantry 2014 there was a problem with her e-mail. on february 2014, the counsel to the commissioner realized that some of the e-mails were missing redaction to congress. ms. dubois was essentially managing the iris response to congress. monday, sheday, told colleagues at the irs about the problems she found. she talked to the information technology people. she taught to the people in the office of chief counsel. by the next day, february 4, herkane figured out that
9:31 pm
system crash, which is why her e-mails were evidently missing. so they knew in february 2014, there was a problem with her e-mails, and mr. kaufman and -- mr. koskinen said he knew about these in mid april. he still fail to take basic steps to locate the document. according to the inspector general general, he failed to look and five of the six places her e-mails could have existed. blackberry,, her the server, the backup server, and her laptop that was online. in fact, the irs barely looked for the missing e-mails at all. notify mr. koskinen congress of the problem. notify the treasury department and the white house that her e-mails were missing, waited and. koskinen
9:32 pm
then waited some more until june 13, when they told congress by burying them in a fifth page of an attachment to the letter of the finance committee. that triggered a number of hearings in congress, and he came up to testify about what happened, and then he lied to us under oath. told yet another on july 23,later 2014. he was asked what was missed, and remember earlier, he said they had confirmed this, and he said somebody went back and that, ind made sure fact, any backup tapes that existed have been recycled. that was completely and totally false. nobody at the irs went back and confirmed the tapes were destroyed. theyey had, in fact, if had done so, after they learned that some of her e-mails were missing and early february, they could have actually found the
9:33 pm
backup tape before they were destroyed. remember, the inspector general only took 15 days, 15 days for the inspector general team to find the backup tapes in west virginia. us they hadtelling spent millions of dollars and 250 people to get the job done, and they could not do anything, and the inspector general in 15 days did find it. the inspectorof general some did up by saying, and i quote, he said, quote, the best we can determine through the investigation, they simply did not look for those e-mails. for the thousand, over 1000 e-mails we found on the backup tapes, we found them because we looked for them. and quote. -- end quote. this is through 2016. last year, the government accountability office audited
9:34 pm
whether the irs had implanted changes from preventing this from happening again. remember, it was the president who said he was going to get somebody new in there to work hand in hand with congress to make sure this never, ever happened again, but again, the most recent gao report found nothing has changed. the environment for targeting still exist. a risknd there is still that the iris could, quote, select organizations for examination in an unfair manner, based on religious, educational, political, or other views. end quote. koskinen, the turnaround artist, has done nothing to prevent people from the targeted for their leaves. his term does not expire when president obama leaves office. based on the senate confirmation, until 2017 unless we act. the cousin of the actions of mr. koskinen, americans will never
9:35 pm
know the answers to how and why their rights were violated, and he should bear the ultimate repercussion and be impeached. towards that, censure is the helpful first step. we over to the american people that their government officials are held responsible for misconduct. when there is a duly issued subpoena, you have to comply. when you come before congress, you must testify truthfully. if you find later that there is a mistake in your testimony, you need to come and correct the record. none of that happened with mr. kinen, and this is why i asked my colleagues to support this. we will now recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings, for his statement. veryummings: thank you much, mr. chairman. let me start off by saying this.
9:36 pm
my colleagues know that i respect you, and i also consider you my friend. you know i try to work with you in a bipartisan manner. life is short, and i tried to make sure that whatever we do that we are effective and efficient at doing it. part of that effectiveness and efficiency certainly goes to integrity. yesterday, we hit an amazing milestone here on the oversight committee. 600th bipartisan letter since we have been serving together. letters, but of
9:37 pm
this has to be a record for this congress,in a single and it is a sea change from how things used to be around here. we have done serious investigations like this, the secret service investigation. athave looked just yesterday the park service, and we are in agreement with much of our conclusions of the hearing and our investigations. we have also worked on bipartisan legislation like the landmark for your improvement act, and the house this week sent it to the president, as well as the postal reform bill, which we will be unveiling today
9:38 pm
. simply, i want to be effective and efficient in whatever i do. i want this committee to be the same. sincerelyly and bothers and pains me when we press forward with bogus issues like the one we are discussing today. mr. chairman, i say this as your friend. you are completely and totally wrong on this one. the department of justice disagrees with you. inspector general disagrees with you. the distinguished senator from utah, whom you know well, senator hatch, chairman of the senate finance committee disagrees with you. there was no politically targeting.
9:39 pm
there was no lying to congress. .here was no obstruction it simply did not happen. and more thanars $20 million spent, it is finally --e to put this baseless these baseless conspiracy theories to rest. this resolution is a waste of time. it is going nowhere. andas no practical effect, certainly as i can see it, it is time to give up on this one. it is now undermining the credibility and integrity of the committee and the work that we do. our committee is at its best when we work together on productive reforms. i went to the house floor on monday and praised you for your leadership on proactive legislation.
9:40 pm
that is what the american people want us to do. i think that is one of the when they do not see us doing productive things, they become so frustrated. and that is the kind of work we should be doing. is an honorable man. this 70 60 gentlemen -- gentlemen -- this 76-year-old ge ntleman came out of retirement to take on this job. i cannot imagine anyone taking on that job under these circumstances. mr. was going on before koskinen arrived. he has testified more. he has answered questions after question about all of the
9:41 pm
allegations of this resolution. your core accusation about the he wasioner is that deceitful and that he misled the congress. disregard thetely difference between a misstatement and a lie. you know, whenever i am talking to my staff, i tell them, do not call anybody a liar, because it is something that will go to their grave with them and will be written in their obituary. you ignore the fact that the commissioner testified based on what he knew at the time. this distinction does not matter, but it does. case in point, i will be offering an amendment today to correct basic errors and inaccuracies in this censure resolution. them.are a number of
9:42 pm
mr. chairman, i want to make clear that i am not professing that you deceived the house when you included these inaccuracies in this resolution. i am not alleging that you were dishonest. i recognize that you were likely relying on others for information. the same is true of commissioner koskinen. we will also be offering a second amendment to recognize the bindings on the inspector general of the irs. mr. george identified no political targeting of any group , no order to destroy any e-mail , no obstruction of any investigation. i did not say that. mr. george, the republican ig did.ent -- appointed republicans may want to ignore these findings, but they are
9:43 pm
right here in black and white. finally, mr. chairman, let me close by making one final observation. on the committee's official website, there is a section called getting results. it allows employees to be called on or to be fired. inen's name isosk , theat list with a quote quote next to it. creating a hit list on federal officials is not something to be proud of. a publicdefaming servant who came out of retirement to take the helm of an agency in turmoil is not a positive result. it is a travesty. we can, and we should be proud
9:44 pm
of the bipartisan, proactive reforms we have worked on together and will continue to work on, as we would do this afternoon with regard to the postal reform. so i hope we can return to focusing on those issues that have the potential to deliver real results for the people who sent us here. one of the things that i say to my personal staff at the end of every week is, what did you deliver? and deliver deliver beyond a speech? what did you deliver to the people who sent us here? so i am hoping we will resolve this, and i yield back. gentleman, thank the and i appreciate the sincerity and the working relationship that we have. we dority of the time, come together, and i appreciate your comments in that regard.
9:45 pm
does any other member wish to speak on the resolution? we are ready to start the amendment process. are there any amendments to this resolution? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment. chair: the clerk will read the amendment. : an amendment from mr. cummings from maryland. cummings for maryland is recognized to explain the amendment, and without objection, the amendment is considered as read. mr. cummings: thank you, mr. chairman. censureately, this resolution is riddled with factual inaccuracies. it makes assertions that are just flat wrong. this amendment is intended to remove those inaccuracies. if we are going to vote on a censure resolution, taking the kinen,n away from mr. kos
9:46 pm
i went to make sure that whatever we are voting on is accurate. there are three errors particular way that this amendment would remove. paragraph 10 of the resolution inaccurately splices together two quotes from commissioner from completely different hearings, as if you set them together. this creates an impression that should have been corrected long ago. it is just wrong. second paragraph 11 of this asserts that commissioner koskinen should censure because he did not check. that is also wrong. tooknspector general possession of her blackberry six washs before mr. koskinen even sworn in. six months. again, this is not just inaccurate. it is wrong. another indicates that he knew,
9:47 pm
and i quote, as early as 2014 that her e-mails were missing and could not be produced to congress. this is also just wrong. it is in accurate. the committee has obtained no evidence that commissioner inkinen became aware february 2014. the commissioner has testified repeatedly that he is learned about her hard drive rash and the loss of e-mails in april 2014. these are all statements that are just wrong. they are inaccurate. they need to be corrected. whether you support the resolution or oppose it. we should at least be able to agree to get the facts right. makehair, i want to crystal clear again that i do not think he intentionally made these statements. i believe you thought that they were accurate at the time and relied on staff. i believe the same thing about commissioner koskinen.
9:48 pm
he is honest and told us what he knew at the time, and he relied on his daft, just like you did and just like i do. for these reasons, i urge all to many members to adopt this amendment. i yield back. chair: thank you. i recognize myself to speak to the amendment. i will be offering an amendment to the amendment. the gentleman is in -- is correct with the date. the quote is accurate. i would agree with you, should include the july 23, but the quote is accurate. as far as the blackberry i makent to it, again, these comments when i give my amendment to the amendment, but this is based on the irs having this in their possession. i would disagree with you on the
9:49 pm
adjustment of that, and then as it relates to as early as february 14, that is what mr. them, and we know that he definitively had it by april. and i am paraphrasing. i am not getting the quote exactly right, but it one point, nen testified before congress that when the council knew, he knew, and that happened to be in february 2014, so i will be offering an amendment to the mm and to get to the accuracy of july 23, but i will not concur with the other two portions. -- i will be offering at amendment to the amendment. let me go first to mr. conley of virginia, who is recognized for five minutes. >> i support the amendment of
9:50 pm
mr. cummings, and i associate myself with all of his remarks. this is my eighth year here in , and i have seen and committee do good work not so good work. today, you are about to smear the name of an honorable man, a distinguished public servant, 76 years old, came out of retirement to try to straighten out it agency that all of us were concerned about. we are going to make assertions about the truthfulness of his testimony before the committee on six occasions. as the ranking member indicates on this amendment, we cannot even get it right in many cases, splicing many comments to allow the impression that they all
9:51 pm
occurred at the same time and same setting. we do not give him the benefit of the doubt we are going to insist for ourselves in terms of accuracy. when you take away someone's good name, you pretty much take away everything they got. this is a difficult town, oncengton, and a gentleman said if you want a friend here, shortly -- surely , we could just once put aside partisanship and respect the that an individual before us was doing his best. he did not deceive. he did not mislead. he certainly did not live to this committee. those very harsh judgments that
9:52 pm
i hope are never held up to members of this committee at some point in their future. we are about to do something that i think is dishonorable and andges the kind of comity partisanship that, mr. chairman, i think you have genuinely try to foster during your tenure -- tried to foster during your tenure. a black mark on this committee and this congress and not worthy of our endeavor. i yield back. chair: thank you. i recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> like heck, he did not deceive. you are right. the iris new in february 2013 that the hard drive crash, and they waited four months before they told congress and the
9:53 pm
american people. in thatn, what happened interim? that is when 422 backup tapes were destroyed. if they had told us in february wouldhey knew, maybe they not have destroyed those backup tapes, and we would have access to those e-mails and to the information, which would have helped us in this investigation. that is what this is about, and he testified right at the table. if our chief counsel knew at the iris -- those were his words. in the finance committee, are you kidding? of course, that is deception. you cannot wait four months. several committees are investigating, and you wait that long to tell us? it is ridiculous. censured stay in the resolution. >> with the gentleman yield? >> of course. >> i will also say they informed the white house, and the white house informed treasury, but the white house did not tell congress.
9:54 pm
that is just a fact, and still nen sticksy, mr. koski with that story in did not correct it. if we got a eight wrong, we are going to correct it. that is the honorable thing to do, but still, -- if we get a date wrong, we're going to correct it. >> mr. chairman? chair: yes. >> there is another thing. he knows in february, does not tell congress until june, and not only do they destroy 422 backup tapes, he testifies four times before congress and does not tell us. i yield back. yield'she gentleman back. anyone else? yes, mr. hargrave from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i concur with the ranking member's remarks that we are in thea bogus day oversight and government reform
9:55 pm
committee. i would like to speak in favor of his amendment. the censure resolution asserts enat commissioner koskin should resign and forfeit his position because he has not gone to great lengths to retrieve 's e-mails, and that the commissioner failed to search her blackberry. on june 30, 2015, the ig issued a report on this issue, on page 19 of the report, it states, and i quote, took possession of learner's blackberry after she left the irs. the problem is that commissioner was not confirmed until december 20, 2013, and he was summer 23,n until 2013. that is six months after they took her blackberry, so the inspector general took possession of her blackberry when she left the irs six months
9:56 pm
n wase commissioner koskine ever sworn in and conducted his own forensic analysis, so that could not have been correct. i assume it must've been an oversight on the part of the chairman, but when we say oversight on this committee, we do not mean this is the mistake and i assume the chairman would not want this kind of mistake to stand in the resolution, and i say that when we go about this serious and sober business of deciding whether to censure a man and a black mark on his career for the , every littlefe detail matters, and i ask my callings to adopt this amendment. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i respect the
9:57 pm
views of our friends on the other side of the aisle. they certainly have a right to their opinion, but they do not have the right to change the facts, and we are dealing here with a situation where, without question, a federal agency has unleashed its power to apply undue, in proper, and politically motivated scrutiny against innocent americans, and it is appalling. there should be no citizen in this country that fears an agency of the government, specifically something with the power of the irs, which can destroy lives. exercising their god-given and constitutionally protected rights for a certain political viewpoint, and yet, that is exactly what has happened here. obviously, people are fearful of the irs. in fact, our recent polls have shown that fewer than one third of americans trust the irs, and
9:58 pm
that ultimately all comes down to leadership. n was supposed to be the man appointed by the president to clean up the agency and to institute reform and transparency, and starting right here with this committee, he certainly has not done, and i stand against this amendment. written. as things are written, it needs to a that way, and i yield back. chair: thank you. the gentlewoman from the virgin islands is now recognized. you, mr. chairman, and i want to give my support for the amendment because the facts are important, and being meticulous about them is what i think we are all about, and i think that the chairman, in giving the dates with which knew aboutr koskinen this that the chairman might be confusing what the irs new and his taking responsibility for
9:59 pm
the irs, as opposed to what he and i thinknew, that in the a norma's amount of questioning and hearings and evidence that has been presented, we also have the testimony, the sworn testimony, of the commissioner, and my good friend across the aisle, mr. jordan, was so kind enough to and in him on july 23, just want the record to reflect what he testified to in that rigorous cross-examination. inen said, quote, i did not know that there were e-mails lost, personally did not know, and this is what i was testifying about, and when i testified, and i have said this before in several hearings, when i testified in march, i did not know that her e-mails were not recoverable, and mr. jordan said, this is your testimony right here. i am reading john koskinen's
10:00 pm
testimony right here, and mr. kinen says, right. then he says this is certainly before the that means you are not going to get what is there. : no, and i am sorry. i take responsibility for the earlier actions of the agency. when i try to figure out what we knew, that is what the irs new. -- knew. when you asked me specifically what i knew, i did not know anything until april. i would henceforth say that we, as the irs, knew. when i testify, i tell you what ," and from this testimony
10:01 pm
that we have, we do not know from this date that we have here .hat he did not personally know it was not in march or april. i think the chairman has to stand by that sworn testimony of esther -- of mr. koskinen. irs would say that they knew in february, that they could say that, but to say that this man, this gentleman, would come before you with sworn takemony, then we have to that unless we have evidence to controvert what he personally knew that that date should stand and i yield back. the gentlewoman. any other member wish to speak on this amendment? the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair.
10:02 pm
i want to speak in favor of this commissioner knew as early as 2014, according to the report, and that e-mails missing could not be produced for congress. there is no evidence to support this statement. i think my colleague, ms. plaskett, for entering the record again that sworn testimony. committeee as a become so god-like that we could say that a person is lying and a person is not an a person did receive the information even when we do not have data to support that? the fact that if this body wants to say that the irs was aware, absolutely, then let's move forward, but how do we say without facts that a person actually knew about this
10:03 pm
situation? my republican colleagues may want to argue that the commission had learned about this early because it feeds into the position that they want to have or what i can even call a conspiracy theory, and that the commissioner intentionally withheld information and was complicit in it or even ordered the destruction of the background tapes, that cup tapes. but there is a zero evidence to support this claim. none. none but a personal belief or a theory that we cannot substantiate. checked, we were supposed to deal with facts, and if that had been the case that havenspector general would uncovered it during his multi-year and investigation or that the committee would have covered it during our exhaustive
10:04 pm
investigation or that the department of justice would have that the only reason that it includes this information is because it is part of a plan to have this massive attack. but it is wrong, and it is inaccurate, and i and i encourage all committee members, republicans, democrats, to vote in favor of this amendment, because we as a committee should never, ever, step outside of the fact that we are human and we are dealing with facts that are presented to us, and i yield back my time. chair: thanks to the gentlewoman. any other member wish to speak on the amendment? amendment toe an the amendment. clerk will designate that amendment. >> second-degree amendment offered by mr. chase it's -- mr.
10:05 pm
affetz. would likek you, i to recognize myself for five minutes. again, july should be included in there and if you will look at the amendment, the amendment includes that same portion, what i have moved to strike the first part of mr. cumming's amendment, as well as the last part, but let me address each of those, though. again, the part of the testimony in the record here from mr. hekinen, when he says "we," is the commissioner, i think that "he" is self-explanatory means him as well. that is why we say that as early of 2014 that there is a range in there and i think we
10:06 pm
have been clear as we can possibly can. 's testimonykoskinen he and he says, "in february, as i said, they briefed me, and the whole subject of the search terms means there was an issue with the dates. i got interrupted that there was but that is crash," what he testified to. in relation to the blackberry, the last part, i was actually the one who testified -- question mr. koskinen, and i asked, did they look at her blackberry, her phone? the inspector general says, "they did not." quote. again, this is part of the record, and i agree with mr. cummings to the middle part, if
10:07 pm
you will, the larger part, the middle part of the amendment, what we disagree with the other two, so that is why offer an amendment to strike those two portions. to cummings: i just want make sure i understand the argument in regards to the blackberry. thethe blackberry -- add blackberry in june of 2015? chair: correct. according to this, you are saying that he should have done what? is how itords, this is sworn in, and the ig has the blackberry, but what did you want him to do? i'm just curious. chair: i will reclaim my time. mr. cummings: of course. chair: the internal revenue service -- in fairness to mr. koskinen, it was already there
10:08 pm
with us happened, but the reason we believe that this censure, and i believe, impeachment, is ultimately the right and just thing to do is the way we have to, misled, i believe lied because there has been no correction of the record. there has been arrogance and a defiance that he is right on all points when the record does not reflect that and we rely on the inspector general, we rely on his testimony, but it says in our resolution that commissioner replied to the internal revenue service. i don't think he personally went and did it, but if he knew otherwise, or came into the fact later in his possession, he had a duty and obligation to correct the record and provide those to congress. he managed to tell the white house, he managed to tell the
10:09 pm
treasury department, but he didn't tell us and the record is clear that in terms of the blackberry, it was not checked and it did go into his possession. remember, this investigation started years ago and they bragged for months that they to $20 millionon to have this huge, massive orgnet out there, but five six sources were not checked, and that includes the blackberry. yields --gs: gemini gentleman yields? chair: sure. mr. cummings: so you are saying is that after he was sworn in and took possession of the blackberry, he should have gone on to others so we could say, take the blackberry? is that what you are saying? chair: no, no, that is not what i am saying. he did what he should not have done and it was an inconsistent, avoidable fact.
10:10 pm
ok, i yield back my time. any member, any other member which to's -- member wish to speak on my amendment to the amendment? mr. cummings: chairman, i just want to enter into the record a on it, itthe ig and is dated june 30, 2015, and on ae third page, there is quote, "however, the investigation does not uncover any evidence that the irs or its employees purposely erased e-mails from the congress, the but going back, and end of quote, but just going back, mr. chairman, you know, we are
10:11 pm
in ang mr. koskinen situation where you want him censured, you want him impeached , but at the same time, you are holding him responsible -- and i know, people make mistakes, we all make mistakes, whatever -- but again, i think this is going a bit far. with regard to this gentleman, and again, i have said enough. chair: well, without objection, we will enter that report into the record. that will be entered into the record. will the gentleman yield? mr. cummings: of course. chair: he came to our committee and testified that they had gone to such great lengths, that is the word he used, they had gone to such great lengths. and then he had gone back and testified that he confirmed,
10:12 pm
confirmed, that in fact -- and that, that is again where, again, we get into this pattern of deception that i think, as the leader of that organization, is intolerable -- no doubt we disagree about that. mr. cummings: again, as i said in my opening statement, it is one thing to say that somebody lies, it is another thing to say that they may have been in error based upon the knowledge that they had at that time, i just think that this is a bit much. take a man's suspension and then ruin his reputation, and again, putting a black mark on his life that will follow him straight on to the grave. with that i yield back. chair: general minute yields back. is there any other member who wishes to speak on the amendment? if not, i speak on the second amendment agreed to discuss, and all in favor say aye?
10:13 pm
all nos? the ayes have it. are there further amendments to the amendments. the question is now on the amendment offered from the gentleman from maryland. those in favor signify by saying aye. aye. those opposed, no. the amendment is agreed to as an amendment. are there further amendments to the bill? mr. cartwright has an amendment, the clerk will designate the amendment. offered by mr. cartwright of pennsylvania. chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright, is recognized for five minutes to explain the amendment, and without objection, the amendment is considered as read.
10:14 pm
mr. cartwright: we would strike the language from the current resolution and we would add the data of the republican inspector general of the irs, after his multi-year investigation, to reach these conclusions. the inspector general's staff interviewed more than 100 witnesses, reviewed tens of thousands of documents, and even restored information from backup tapes. censure contradicts these findings found by inspector general george. the inspector general found that in appropriate screening material was used by the irs but he did not find that anybody from the irs was politically motivated, and we all heard that testimony in this room. inspector general found no evidence that the commissioner intentionally erased backup tapes, and we all heard that testimony in this room. the inspector general found no
10:15 pm
inspectorhat the general try to conceal information from the congress, and we heard that testimony in this room. the inspector general found no evidence that they had directed anybody else to destroy or conceal information from the congress, we all heard that in contrary, thethe inspector general testified before this very committee on june 20 5, 20 15, and that the commissioner was, and i quote, " 2015, and that the commissioner was, and i quote, "extraordinarily uncooperative." end quote. concealed information but the inspector general found no evidence to support these claims. as has been mentioned. senator orrin hatch agreed with
10:16 pm
the republican inspector general george. "for theatch stated, most part, he has been very cooperative with us," he is referring to mr. koskinen. "this replaces them with the republican inspector general's conclusions word for word. i urge committee members to adopt this amendment because it is based in fact an entirely on conclusions from the republican inspector general, russell george. he interviewed more individuals than we did. he conducted an extremely thorough investigation and if we mean our proceedings here in the reforment and committees, if we mean to be fact-based and honoring the
10:17 pm
truth, then we should use mr. george's conclusion instead of the one that we cooked up right here in the committee. and with that, i yield back, mr. chair. chair: i thank the gentleman and i now recognize myself for five minutes. i am in opposition to this amendment. i understand the points of the try to makes about discouraging the character of the inspector general. though, iental flaw, believe, in argument in favor of this amendment is that the department of justice, the fbi, the inspector general, none of them were looking at mr. koskinen's comments since the report came out. they didn't do any investigation. they didn't conclude one way or another. they didn't even look at it. it is something based solely on the testimony before the
10:18 pm
committee in which we have dismissated, and so to the rest of these findings, we are concerned about mr. koskinen when he came on board. there was a subpoena put in place in august of 2013 and another subpoena after that was put into place and we had a fiduciary responsibility to comply with that sponsor ability based on the testimony that he has given. we find that to be false. gentlemen, i am sure disagreesedly, he with those conclusions, but i also want to make sure that based on previous statements that we are not trying to suggest that the ig, in any way, shape, or form, investigated mr. koskinen, because that sadly did not happen. and now i yield to the gelatin from ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. look at the last paragraph. is an honorable
10:19 pm
public servant. through preservation orders in play, to subpoena orders in 200 24nd he allowed backup tapes to be destroyed. of e-mail of the loss and waited for months to tell congress, and yet here is the closing statement of mr. cartwright's resolution, or amendment, excuse me, where he said he is quote, "an honorable public servant, and was cooperative with congress." excuse me? he is corporate of with congress when he has destroyed the very documents that have been asked for in these subpoenas? and he has been an honorable public servant? and is under investigation? that is ridiculous. and how about the first page?
10:20 pm
no members of the irs should engage in this -- how about the evidence that came out a week and a half ago? 426 groups that were talking. let me just read a few of the names. i will start on the last page, i number 426,ith tea party patriots, never 20 five, young americans for liberty foundation, north ns for freedom, western slope conservative alliance, west suburban patriots, people of texas, people of new york, we can go to the front page. very first one. three, fournumber theers liberty restoration,
10:21 pm
912 project of burlington county. i mean, to say that there was no evidence. we've got a list. 426 of them. almost everyone one of them is a conservative group. and we have an amendment in front of us that says there was no evidence that the irs employees were politically motivated? this is laughable. wasthat mr. koskinen extraordinarily cooperative with congress after he had to subpoenas and destroyed evidence? if that is cooperation, well -- it's there is any doubt, then i am against this amendment. i yield my time back. chair: we recognize the gentleman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. anh, i seem to recall
10:22 pm
awful lot of things from inspector general russell george, and he issued a report, and i have a quote from that report. he found, not the democrats in this resolution, quote, "no evidence the irs and its employees purposefully erased the tapes in order to conceal responsibility from the congress ." in that same report, the republican inspector general on whom we have relied so heavily found, and i quote again, "no evidence, no evidence that the irs was involved in a intending tapestroy data or the or the hard drives in order to keep this information from congress, the department of tigta." or
10:23 pm
we want to rely on these spectre general's comments when it is important, and not. there is a difference between being an investigative body that tries to pursue the truth. i yield back. the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell, is recognized for five minutes. you, mr.ll: thank chairman. we seem to make this much about the ig and mr. george and whether or not his testimony has been uncovered that there was testimony going on, that i would submit three previous questions, and i would ask that the irs
10:24 pm
testimony had stated, "that is left no stone unturned, given what had been brought forth." i asked, "was that true?" they said, "that would not be true." tapes wered if the recoverable and were the tapes erased after july 2014, and in the same month, july 2014, irs officials testified in the house ways and means committee and "confirmed the e-mails were unrecoverable." end quote. and i confirmed, "was the testimony true?" and we confirmed in this committee that this would not be true. and in the february 2015 testimony of mr. koskinen, he confirmed that the "tapes were not recoverable." end quote.
10:25 pm
i asked if that was true and the answer was, "that would not be true." so we can go when we can parse out certain things, that based on what we heard from the inspector general in this very room, there are statements that had been made under testimony before both the house and the senate and they would not be true with the knowledge of what they possessed at the time. have this problem and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. chair: the gentleman yields back. and now we recognize the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, miss norton -- ms. norton, for five minutes. ms. norton: the inspector
10:26 pm
general is usually the flagship of investigators. he has gone here before this committee and found no wrongdoing. do you remember the intense cross-examination under which he was put? and we found no wrongdoing? , diddepartment of justice an intensive investigation, and their investigation was not only to commissioner koskinen, what they found, and here i quote, "no evidence that any official involved in the handling of past, exempt applications of all irs leadership attempted to obstruct justice." that is investigation number two.
10:27 pm
investigation of a committee known for its partisanship. in a bipartisan briefing, the department of justice informed members of this committee and that the inspector general's office and the fbi agreed with the conclusions of the department of justice. has said thatman he has confidence in the fbi director combing --director comey. we work bipartisanly and we one completed the review and
10:28 pm
this committee, what it really wants is to do an impeachment, but even its own leadership could not stomach that. so its own leadership pushes it back to what we now have, which is a warmed over version of will meant that nothing, will go nowhere, will not be seen in the senate, will fade into history as another example of the stark partisanship of this committee, notwithstanding the facts of the report, and notwithstanding objective fact finding. i yield back. yields back, and now i recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer. -- mr.almer: think chair. thank you, mr.
10:29 pm
before --chair: before the gentle man yields back, i think the great deal of frustration is that there was evidence in their possession and it was destroyed. we issued a subpoena to mr. koskinen. will issuehe irs tens of thousands of subpoenas and summons on an annual basis. they know how this thing works. they get it. but they are not often on the receiving end of a subpoena. so we issued a subpoena to the irs. they know that. imagine if this had happened to our regular person. it.ine imagine if the irs sent you a notice and you said, "you know
10:30 pm
what, i have it, i have all the information, i have allwe've go. we are getting it. and then they destroyed it. and then they came back -- imagine if you went active the irs and said, that information, i had it and i shredded it. you can't have it anymore. what do you think the irs would do to you? they would drag you into court, put handcuffs on you, and you would be put in jail. we are not suggesting we prosecute mr. koskinen criminally, but he has all the resources, 90,000 employees, billions of dollars at his disposal -- he spent $20 million roughly, and they couldn't find -- they had them and they destroyed them. the reason the records will always be permanently incomplete
10:31 pm
is because the irs commissioner, under his watch, brought around the turn around person that was going to work with congress according to the president, they destroyed them, and they didn't let us know. they let the white house know. they let the treasury now. they didn't let congress know. put yourself on the other side of it. you would never get away with destroying documents that were under sabina from the irs. the conclusion about -- we're e-mailsabout 24,000 that were destroyed. then they came and said, i can't remember the exact words mr. koskinen used, but they checked all these, but the inspector general was able to recover 1000 of them. they were there, and still to this date, june 2016, mr.
10:32 pm
koskinen stands by all the statements which we know are absolutely false. i yield back to the gentleman, mr. ballmer. rep. palmer: thank you, mr. chairman. i would simply add that this committee has been here on several occasions, dealing with actions of other agencies that were inappropriate. i would like to point out, and this was before my election to congress, that this committee brought up the issue that if the irs had done what it should have done protecting the rights of citizens, one of whom is a good friend of mine who testified for the u.s. senate, if they had done what they should have done, we would not be here discussing this right now. ideally back. -- high yield back. -- i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
10:33 pm
i yield my time to mr. cartwright. cartwright: i acknowledge and understand the frustration and exasperation that you have just expressed. my regret is that you have chosen to vent your frustration and exasperation on this particular man, mr. koskinen. my amendment is to correct the record and to make it clear that the inspector general, mr. russell george, after an extensive investigation, he is essentially the chief prosecutor, found no evidence that the irs employees were politically motivated in their creation or use of the screening criteria, found no evidence that the irs purposely erased tapes in order to conceal e-mails,
10:34 pm
found no evidence that the irs employees involved intended to destroy data on the tapes or evidencee, found no that any irs employees had been directed to destroy or hide information from the congress. these are not my words. these are the words of the inspector general, the republican inspector general who serves as the quasi-prosecutor in this matter, and he concluded that mr. koskinen, and i invite the attention of my friend, mr. jordan, from ohio to the fact that it is said that mr. koskinen was extraordinarily cooperative. those are not mr. cartwright's words. those are the words of republican inspector general russell george, that mr. koskinen was extraordinarily cooperative. we're talking about putting a t on the service
10:35 pm
record of mr. koskinen, something that will follow in the rest of his career, something that he will be answering questions on the rest of his life. it is a quasi criminal prosecution that we are up to hear. is grave as this to a man's life and career, you want to have a high standard of proof. it is like a criminal prosecution. in a criminal case, a prosecutor has to prove his or her charges beyond a reasonable doubt. here, we have the chief prosecutor who has said there is cry fromce, a far meeting any reasonable standard of proof, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. that is why i have submitted this amendment. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment and think twice
10:36 pm
before we besmirch the good name of a hard-working public servant. i yield back. rep. the gentleman -- chairman chaffetz: the gentleman yields back. any other members wish to be heard? the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. rep. lynch: a procedural matter to begin with. i do know the judiciary committee, chairman bob goodlatte has scheduled a hearing examining the allegations of misconduct two,st mr. koskinen part june 22. part of me says, we are trying to hurry up and hang this guy. we will have the trial next week. i'm not sure what evidence will be prevented -- presented before the judiciary committee. chairman chaffetz: if the gentleman will yield. i'm on the judiciary committee.
10:37 pm
that is to examine the process of how does impeachment work. it has been 140 years since it has been done. it is not the specifics of the case. time,ynch: reclaiming my i'm sure the members of that committee will have time to raise questions of substance as well. i just think that more evidence is better and the procedural point i'm trying to make is that if we're going to continue to have hearings on this, we should now totaking a vote besmirch the gentleman's name. i understand the underpinnings of this. it is a very serious matter. the fact that the irs targeted particular groups, particularly politically active groups, for harsh treatment and denial of rights because of their
10:38 pm
political views his obnoxious. anger.stand the whether it was conservative groups or liberal groups that were targeted, that is a heavy weapon the government can use to trample on their rights. about theo question seriousness of what we're talking about here. i fully appreciate the gravity of what is at stake. but when we talk about the evidence, the list of people, of groups, that is just evidence of who was targeted. between no real nexus mr. koskinen and the targeting of those groups. there is the question of custody of e-mails and communications .ith respect to what happened but when you look at his whole body of work, mr. koskinen, and
10:39 pm
he's no favorite of mine, this whole thing was a mess. it was chaotic. you do look at the man's reputation, and what is at stake, and i look at his body of work over his time in service. he came back out of retirement to try to help a struggling agency get right. of his career, mr. koskinen has worked with republicans and democrats, has earned a reputation as a turnaround specialist of sorts who can salvage the most desperate situations. john lindsay, republican of new york, chose him to work for him. after time in the private president served as clinton's technical person when we had the lead up to the y2k controversy. he later was called up by
10:40 pm
president george w. bush's administration to become freddie mac's new chairman in the financial crisis. according to president bush's administrator, and this is a needed somedie mac stronger management, so we selected him and he accepted the job, and we were thankful. " georgeinspector general came to the conclusion there was no evidence to support what we're claiming here today. i don't understand the basis for damaging this man's reputation. i really don't. and trying to take his pension. he has devoted a significant portion of his life to public service. i got to tell you, this is wrong.
10:41 pm
politics, buts the querulous and petulant servantstowards public that sometimes prevails in today's politics, especially in this case, is again obnoxious. i wish we weren't doing this. i know about holding people responsible and accountable, but the evidence is not there to do this to mr. koskinen. it is not here. i know there are further hearings on this matter and i'm going to support the gentleman's amendment and i will oppose this. effect it has a chilling on people willing to engage in public service, when their reputations and their name can be ripped apart for no good reason. chairman chaffetz: does any other member wish to be heard on
10:42 pm
the amendment? mr. walker of north carolina. rep. walker: mr. lynch, thank you for your comments. chairman chaffetz: the chair reminds members to not address other members. rep. walker: thank you for the reminder, mr. chairman. there was some question about the handling of the e-mails. even if there is some question, i think it is a bit much to use the terminology that commissioner koskinen has been extra ordinarily cooperative with congress. the american people are getting hosed on this. if we think about specific targeting, something the irs apologized, even the president if i remember correctly talked about how angry he was about all this, and to say there might have been some questions, even from the perspective of our friends on the other side of the
10:43 pm
aisle, mr. chairman, if there's a shred of questioning or even incompetence for not managing this properly, this amendment certainly wouldn't qualify that as extraordinarily cooperative with congress. with that, i yield back, mr. chairman. chairman chaffetz: i now recognize the gentle woman from the virgin islands for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak in favor of this amendment. the censure is written without regard to inspector general george's conclusions that he found no evidence that there was an intentional destroying of information to obstruct congress, the department of justice, or the inspector general. there's a difference that i think this resolution confuses. two fundamental concepts, lying and mistakes. i think we are putting the onus
10:44 pm
on this one individual and destroying one individual for what this committee has found to be the irs' misdeed. putting the misdeeds of an entire agency on the back of this individual who, yes, has the responsibility of the agency, but has not shown himself to in fact be someone who has been untruthful to this committee in any way, is something i think this committee does not want to do. i cannot believe the chairman really wants to take this committee to that place. where the calculations and the actions of an entire agency can destroy one individual because they decided to become a public servant and take on that. everyone understands there's a difference in making a mistake. the fact that someone has intentionally not told the truth.
10:45 pm
i believe the censure is a serious that should be reserved for great misconduct, but i have not seen the grave misconduct, by definition, to be within the ext of what mr. koskinen has stated he's done. as everyone on this site has stated, i believe we are going to do far. -- too far. remove the irs. we decided to target the head. i think that is entirely what this is about and we are making a huge mistake. as my colleague, mr. lynch, said, we're going to have an enormous effect on honorable individuals that going to agencies that this committee says have made mistakes, or agencies that we know have problems.
10:46 pm
on would any individual take any of those agencies, knowing there's a possibility that oversight may decide they're going to go to the individual and destroy them? up with somell end bar secretaries and commissioners, directors of agencies. if they decide to take on anything that is a difficult task, knowing that oversight, and this congress may go after them if they can't reach the agency, or the president. i yield back the balance of my time. chairman chaffetz: i think the gentlewoman. i recognized the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. rep. duncan: i yield my time to the chair. chairman chaffetz: thank you, mr. duncan. i would remind members that it was the president himself who said, "inexcusable." to the his reaction
10:47 pm
report. he said, "our administration has to make sure we are working hand-in-hand with congress to get this thing fixed." >> mr. chairman, if you would yield, hiking he said that about irs, not the individual. that is who we should be going after. chairman chaffetz: clearly, but tigda did not have access to all the relevant evidence. lois lerner's e-mails were the most important evidence in thermining the degree of political targeting. but these e-mails were destroyed while mr. koskinen was the commissioner. part of my challenge with mr. cartwright's amendment is that you're trying to suggest that the inspector general did some sort of review of mr. koskinen's actions as commissioner.
10:48 pm
this is not right. lois lerner herself refused to testify based on her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. when people exercise their constitutional rights, we respect that, but he did have an extraordinary effect on our ability to gather and review those e-mails. i think it is absurd to include tigta's statement that there was no evidence or proof of irs innocence, when under the lack of leadership of mr. koskinen, that he failed to comply with a subpoena, directly contributed to this lack of evidence. we obviously probably disagree on parts of this, but this suggests we are accomplishing what the president said, to work hand-in-hand with congress. that to of us find
10:49 pm
be not happening and not true. i would point to the fact that the gao issued a report under mr. koskinen's watch that said that this political targeting has not been rooted out. the policies, procedures, changes, they have not been implemented. i would be fascinated to know if there is a different president and a different party in the white house, how you all would groups that you thought were worthy were being targeted. i think he standard should be a standard and there's a principle here. when you have a subpoena, you comply with it. when you testify to congress, you do so truthfully. if you learn additional facts later, you change the record. with that, i yield back to the gentleman from tennessee. the gentleman yields back. does any other member wish to be
10:50 pm
heard on this amendment? ranking member, mr. cummings. cummings: i want to go back to some of the things that mr. lynch talked about. there have been a few members who said they weren't here when all of this started. a number of us were here. you know, it seems like we forget that all of this started a employee at irs, who described themselves as a conservative republican, self-described, that started all this targeting, if you will. and it seems as if we are trying
10:51 pm
to, because it has been clear from the republican appointed ig , that a lot of the claims republicans were making from the very beginning were not accurate , it seems like we are trying to push a lot of this on to mr. koskinen. again, someone who has come out of retirement, someone who has and trusted by republicans democrats to address very difficult issues. meetingrman, we had a back in march, justice department, and you said that nobody has looked at koskinen and what he may have done. i remember, as i recall, during and meeting, then you and i
10:52 pm
staff and a few other members saying theyber them handled some of the things he had done. since we don't have a tape recording, i can't say exactly what they said, but clearly they didn't find anything he had done that was improper. -- i do want to refer back talked earlier about a june 30, 2015 ig report which was entered into the record. i want to enter into the record the october 23 2015 letter addressed to you and me from the justice department. chairman chaffetz: without objection, so ordered. rep. cummings: i want to quote here what the justice department had done in its investigation.
10:53 pm
it says, we found no evidence that any irs official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution. we also found no evidence that any official involved in the handling of tax exempt applications attempted to obstruct justice. it goes on to say, we also carefully, and i'm quoting, we also carefully considered whether any irs official attempted to obstruct justice with respect to reporting to congress. the collection and production of documents demanded by the department and congress, the delayed disclosure of the consequences of ms. lerner's hard drive crash, or the march 2014 you're sure of electronic backup tapes -- they go on to say that although those backup
10:54 pm
tapes should have been protected from erasure, there is no evidence that any irs employee attempted to conceal the backup , ors from our investigation realized that erasing them might violate preservation of demand. i just think that when we are going to the lengths we are going to hear, to take away somebody's pension and put a negative mark on their record, i think the fact that there may be frustration in that the ig did not find that there was certain violations, should not necessarily lead to a man who comes before us, based on information he has from his staff, presented to us, i just think it would run too far.
10:55 pm
with that, i yield back. chairman chaffetz: does any other member wish to speak on the amendment? the question is now on the amendment offered by mr. cartwright. those in favor, signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the no's had it. >> recorded vote, mr. chairman? chairman chaffetz: roll call vote has been requested. further proceedings on the question will be postponed. are there any further amendments to the resolution? if none, further proceedings on house resolution 737 will be postponed. we intend to recess. we have a number of markups happening in another committee. in order to make sure we have the maximum number of participation, we are going to reconvene at 11:45 to hold the vote at that time.
10:56 pm
committee stands at recess.
10:57 pm
10:58 pm
10:59 pm
11:00 pm
chairman chaffetz: the committee will come to order. is, appreciate the patience, i know we have a lot of mark in other meetings, but the question is now on the amendment to house resolution 737 which was previously postponed. the vote will occur on the card right amendment. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. chaffetz. >> no. >> mr. mica. mr. turner. >> no. > >> mr. turner votes no. esther duncan. mr. duncan votes now. mr. jordan. mr. jordan for snow. mr. wahlberg.
11:01 pm
mr. wahlberg votes no. mr. mosh. mr. a mosh votes no. mr. deja vu a. mr. gaudi. mr. baron thought. massey. mr. massey votes no. mr. meadows. mr. meadows votes no. mr. desantis. mr. desantis votes no. mr. mulvaney. mr. mulvaney votes now. mr. buck. mr. buck votes no. mr. walker. mr. walker votes no. mr. bluhm. mr. bluhm votes no. mr. hise. mr. hise votes no. mr. russell. mr. russell votes now. mr. carter.
11:02 pm
mr. carter votes no. mr. hurd votes no. mr. palmer. mr. ballmer votes no. mr. cummings. mr. cummings votes yes. ms. maloney. ms. maloney votes yes. ms. norton. ms. norton votes yes. mr. clay. esther clay votes yes. mr. lynch. mr. lynch votes yes. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes yes. mr. connolly. mr. connolly votes yes. mr. cartwright. mr. cartwright votes yes. ms. duckworth. ms. duckworth votes yes. ms. kelly. ms. kelly votes yes. ms. lawrence. ms. lawrence votes yes. mr. lou. ms. watson coleman. ms. watson coleman votes yes. ms. plaskett.
11:03 pm
mr. day sunday. mr. day sunday votes yes. mr. boyle. mr. boyle votes yes. mr. welch. ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham votes yes. how is mr.affetz: gose are of arizona recorded? >> mr. gosar of arizona is not recorded. mr. gosar votes no. chairman chaffetz: have all members voted? clerk will report the tally. >> on this vote, there are 15 yea's and 21 nay's.
11:04 pm
chairman chaffetz: the question is now on house resolution 737. >> mr. chairman, i have a parliamentary inquiry. chairman chaffetz: what is your inquiry? chairman, the question really has to do with what this resolution does and does not do. on may 18, you said the resolution requires the forfeiture of mr. koskinen's pension, or to quote your words, requires the forfeiture of his and for today's markup of your resolution, you said, requires forfeiture of his government pension and any other federal benefits for which he is eligible. that is what the website says. now -- chairman chaffetz: what is the
11:05 pm
parliamentary inquiry? >> is it not true that this resolution expresses the sense of the house that he should forfeit his pension and that this is a resolution, it does not have the force and effect to require the forfeiture of a pension or any other benefits, it never goes to the president, it is the expression of this committee and if it passes, of the house, and no more than that, is that not the case? it has no legal force and effect, as impeachment might? chairman chaffetz: i will have to allow you to seek your own counsel, but as the resolution states, it is the sense of the house, and then you go to the last page, be required to forfeit. i will let you interpret that as you will. i'm not going to interpret the
11:06 pm
bill for you. >> if i may, with a parliamentary inquiry -- chairman chaffetz: i asked if you had a parliamentary inquiry. >> i have a further parliamentary inquiry. does the sense of the house require any action of the government of the united states? chairman chaffetz: i don't know that that is a parliamentary inquiry. i will let you make that determination. we've had a vibrant debate on this and we will continue with the vote. the question is on the adoption and reporting house resolution 737. all those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. roll call has been requested. the clerk will take the role. >> mr. chaffetz. mr. chafe its votes yes. mr. micha.
11:07 pm
mr. turner. mr. turner votes yes. mr. duncan. mr. duncan votes yes. mr. jordan. mr. jordan votes yes. mr. wahlberg. mr. wahlberg votes yes. mr. gosar. mr. gosar votes yes. wdy.go votes yes. mr. massey. mr. massey votes yes. mr. meadows. mr. meadows votes yes. mr. desantis. esther desantis vote yes. esther mulvaney. mr. mulvaney votes yes. mr. walker. mr. walker votes yes. mr. bluhm. mr. bluhm votes yes. mr. hise. mr. hise votes yes. mr. russell. mr. carter. esther carter votes yes. mr. grossman.
11:08 pm
mr. grossman votes yes. mr. palmer. mr. palmer votes yes. mr. cummings. mr. cummings votes no. ms. maloney. ms. maloney votes no. ms. norton. ms. norton votes no. mr. clay. mr. clay votes no. mr. lynch. mr. lynch votes now. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes no. esther connolly. mr. connolly votes no. mr. cartwright. mr. cartwright votes no. ms. duckworth. ms. duckworth votes no. ms. kelly. ms. kelly votes no. ms. lawrence. ms. lawrence votes no. mr. lou. ms. watson coleman. ms. watson coleman votes no. ms. plaskett. mr. boyle. mr. boyle votes no. mr. welch. ms. lujan grisham.
11:09 pm
ms. lujan grisham votes no. have allchaffetz: members voted? the clerk will report the tally. >> on this photo, there are 23 yea's and 15 nay's. chairman chaffetz: the resolution as amended is ordered favorably reported. without objection, motion reconsider is laid on the table. we had already called the vote -- understood. without objection, motion to reconsider is laid on the table. members will have two days to submit views on the resolution considered today. ask unanimous consent that staff be allowed to make necessary
11:10 pm
changes to the resolution ordered, reported today, subject to approval of the minority. if there's no further business, without objection, the committee stands adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
11:11 pm
tonight on c-span, british
11:12 pm
prime minister david cameron makes the case for staying in the european union to parliament. and members of congress read the victims' statements in the stanford rape case on the floor of the house. cia director john brennan testifies thursday at an open hearing of the senate select intelligence committee about the cia's operations around the world and global terror threats. at 9:00watch it live a.m. eastern on c-span 3, also www.c-span.org. i often say that 50 is not the new 30 and 60 is not the new 40. 50 is the new 50 and it looks good. people are to own their age. we ought not be talking about being over 50 as the period of
11:13 pm
decline. ceo joanneight, aarp jenkins talks about the challenges older americans face and what aarp is doing to assist them. thes also the author of book, "disrupt aging." >> the fastest growing age segment is people over 85. the second is people over 100. when these programs were put in orce, life expectancy was 67 68. not only are there more people in the system, they are living longer. we have to look at these programs and make meaningful adjustments, that are going to allow people to live with .ignity >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern "q&a."an's q&a bank." -- will vote on whether
11:14 pm
to stay members of the european union. british prime minister david cameron has been an advocate for staying in the eu. he made the case in prime minister's questions. this is 40 minutes. day. >> order. questions to the prime minister. >> i know the whole house will join me in sending our profound entities to the family and friends at the 49 people who died in the horrific attacks in orlando on sunday. this is a naval attack of hatred of me condemn both of them. this along with the callous murder is a stark reminder of the challengers face to defeat the poisonous ideology both online and on a street. i believe together with our
11:15 pm
friends, allies, we will prevail. this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others in addition to make duties i shall have such meetings today. thank you, mr. speaker. i share the prime minister's sentiment for the victims families and friends of those in orlando. the australian parent company united kingdom ltd. we see europe as a major market expansion have put on hold for a to build a factory. enormous potential for serving, but does the prime minister share my concern the opportunity would be placed at risk if the u.k. leads the e.u. >> assures me share my honorable friend's concern.
11:16 pm
he's right that many companies come to britain and invest in britain for many reasons. one of the most important has access to the single market of 5000 customers it next week we have the opportunity to put our place in the market beyond doubt and i hope we wake up knowing businesses will invest more in our country, create more jobs because that will help the families and another welcomed falling unemployment continued progress moving forward. [shouting] thank you, mr. speaker. i concur with his remarks about the terrible deaths in orlando. i joined thousands of lgbt in soho in london to mark the deaths of the 49 replace a thank you to does all of the country who attended vigils on monday night to show their concern.
11:17 pm
quite simply we defeat atrocities to love and solidarity and we need to send a message out. three ago thursday across policy for the implementation of section 40 and to proceed once criminal prosecutions were concluded. the prime minister will be aware today there's a lobby of parliament by the big guns of phone hacking. the prime minister said a few years ago we all do too much cozying up to rupert murdoch. some of his colleagues are certainly cozying up at the moment. for the prime minister gave a commitment today that he will make the big dance and assure them he will keep his promise on this? >> by me again after what he said about the event of bombings in terms of the love is an issue, we said we would make a decision about the second stage of the inquiry once the criminal
11:18 pm
investigations and prosecutions were out of the way. they still continue so that is the situation there. we will do so again. right now cozying up to rupert murdoch is not one of them. >> will he make the victims of phone hacking i hope you will be promised he would make them. a major funder of the league campaign said, and i quote, if it were up to me i would privatize the national health service. the honorable member said if people have to pay for nhs services, table valued them more. the honorable member of the government that is that the nhs into record deficit. these people are now masquerading as saviors of the nhs, wolf in sheep's clothing.
11:19 pm
in the honorable member get it right when she rejected the duplicity of this argument and decided to join the remained in campaign? >> wanting of changing her mind which is a brave thing for politicians to do and the nhs would be safer if we remain inside the reformed european union. i believe that profoundly because the key to nhs is a strong economy and there can't be any doubt that nine out of 10 economists come in the imf, oecd, other organizations say in our economy will be stronger and it's a strong economy that delivers a strong nhs. thank you, mr. speaker. last week the prime minister gave a welcome commitment with the closing of the loophole in the posting of workers directive. we will hold him to that.
11:20 pm
but we are concerned about the x location of micro-brokers in the undercutting of wages in this country as a result of that. on that issue, while issue, what the prime minister today commit to the outline of the practice of agencies that only advertise jobs in reality jobs in this country? >> first of all, he and i agree about the evils of modern slavery. we pass without party support in with double the fines that can be put on companies for exploiting labor in this way. we strengthen the licensing authority and they've carried out a number of prosecutions including the east of england where he left yesterday and we will continue to take action to make sure people are paid the wages they should be paid and protections are in the minimum wage in a national living wage. we will continue at those measures.
11:21 pm
i want people to get a fair days pay for a fair days work. >> mr. speaker, the practice of advertising agencies in other countries. tens of thousands of e.u. and other people have migrated to britain working on public services and do a fantastic job. many people are also concerned about immigration in local communities. what communities need is practical solutions like the migrant impact fund set up by gordon brown when he was prime minister to do with the extra pressure on housing, schools and ask those. will the prime minister now can be that it was a mistake to abolish the plan and will he work with us to reinstate as a matter of urgency to give support to those communities facing problems on school places in doc tears searches. >> is absolutely right. advertising about employment
11:22 pm
agencies that advertise overseas workers, we are looking to see if we've can ban that practice because we don't believe it's right. the answer to so many questions is to make sure we are training, educating and employing british people and getting them the qualifications they need to take on the jobs our economy is creating a peer in terms of funds to help communities impacted by migration, where the pledge in in our manifesto which we're looking forward to bringing forward which is a controlled migration on to make sure we put a name to communities where there are pressures because there are some pressures and we do need to address them and i'm happy we will overcome to cross party basis to do that. there are good ways of controlling migration on one of them is the import rule said people don't get instant access to welfare system a bit there about ways of controlling immigration, wrecking our
11:23 pm
economy is certainly one of them. thank you, mr. speaker. today campaigning on fishing quotas not going to the u.k. domestic reach. look out the window and i haven't seen them come yet, but reasonably on the way. the prime minister will be aware that reforms that were made three years ago actually put the power back into the hands of member states and it's the u.k. government giving nearly two thirds of the english and welsh fishing quotas to just three companies.if excluding small communities all along our coast. can the prime minister stop blaming brussels and tell our sustainable fishing community what action he will take to allow them to continue their work and indeed go further out in collecting fish. >> first of all, can i thank him for the reforms we carry through in the last parliament in my
11:24 pm
honorable friend was actually crucial in delivering those changes. what was actually seen in the last five years is an increase in the value of the u.k. fishing industry is something like 20%. the points i would make is to export every year a billion pounds of fish to the e.u. and there's no country in the world that has a trade agreement that doesn't involve tariffs, taxes on the sale of its fish. there's no way to get a better deal from the outside them until they get on the inside. working with our fishermen, keeping the market open in making sure that we manage our stocks locally and appropriately as part of our plan. >> the government still did end quote is over to three very large companies at the expense of small communities around written. i hope he will reflect on that. but just eight days to go before the referendum, the labor
11:25 pm
position is we are going to be voting to remain because they believe it is the best way to stop tad to protect jobs and public services. we would oppose any budget just as they've opposed any austerity budget proposed by this government. for the prime minister take this opportunity to condemn the opportunism of 57 colleagues who have sent in the numbers to back the bedroom tax, and care for the elderly who suddenly have now had a devastating version to the entire stare at a movement. does he have any message for him at all? >> what i say to the right honorable gentleman is there are very few times when he and i are on the same side of an argument. this may save the people
11:26 pm
watching back in home doing it got the leader of the labour party and indeed almost all of the labour party conservative government, and the scottish national party saying we have huge disagreements, but on this issue, the best option for britain is to remain in the european union. this is a huge choice for our country. choices have consequences. if we wake up and we remain in our economy and continue to move forward, if we thought out, the experts warn us will have a smaller economy, less employment, lower wages and less tax receipts. that is why we would have to have measures to address a huge hole in our public finances. nobody wants to have an emergency budget. nobody wants cuts in public services. nobody wants tax increases.
11:27 pm
but i would say this. there's only one thing worse than not addressing the crisis in public finances and that is ignoring it. if you ignore crisis, you see your economy go into a tailspin. confident that your country reduce. we can avoid all of this by voting next week. [shouting] thank you, mr. speaker. [inaudible] the finest answer like the taste from many brewed locally recognized the u.k. can the prime minister -- they must benefit small and medium-sized arrays in the country. >> happy to agree with my honorable friend.
11:28 pm
having spent last week, i agree with eric that a large quantity is one of the best ways to get through this referendum campaign and i would recommend it to everybody. the british industry is in good health because of the duty cuts for my right honorable friend a chance there because of the microburst tax regime. they've got cry still coming through in our country. it's an industry in good state did they want the single market open and they want us to remain in. thank you, mr. speaker. on orlando and on the death of condolence has been expressed by the prime minister and leader of the opposition, we are now a week away from the biggest question of the u.k. has faced in a long time and that is the continuing membership of the european union. exports of goods and services
11:29 pm
from this irish economy are massively important. hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on them come and meanwhile public services including the nhs are supported by many hard-working people from elsewhere. does the prime minister agree with me if we want to protect jobs, protect public services, we must vote to remain in the european union. >> i do believe the most important argument, but the most important is the future of our economy and it seems obvious to me you can listen to experts or make a commonsense argument today we have full access to 500 million people for an economy like scotland. there is no way we get a better deal with a single market on the outside can we get on the inside. if we've laughed, we would see our economy suffered. we would be job suffered. that is just plain common sense. i agree with him for jobs and
11:30 pm
for likely does we should remain in. but as a consequence for finances because if our economy is doing well, public finances would be doing a spell and have consequences for scotland, too. >> on that issue, may raise that with the prime minister. today we've learned from a conservative chant the ibx checker in the former labour chancellor that they would be likely to be 30 billion pounds in cuts to public services or tax writers. what impact would that have on public services in scotland? please can we learn now before we vote what impact would that have on the budget in scotland that pays for the nhs and for all key public services. another reason we must go to remain in the european. the >> what i say is that these
11:31 pm
figures are not days on what the chancellor of the exchequer is saying. they are based on the institute of fiscal studies and economic social research talking about 20 to 40 billion hole in our public finances if you were to go ahead. these organizations often quoted across this house many times against the government because they respected for independence. clearly if that is the impact on public finances, decisions to cut public spending in the u.k. budget to have an impact on scotland. to anyone who says these warnings of coors could be wrong or inaccurate. this uncomfortable point to make to the right honorable gentleman. there were warnings before the scottish referendum. it turned out to be worse than the experts warn. thank you, mr. speaker.
11:32 pm
since the terrorist attack in paris and brussels, many of my constituents are worried that remaining in the e.u. with fears exacerbated by people like nigel for roche. does my right honorable friend agree that they are helped, not hindered by the e.u. >> out save directly to my honorable friend i've done this job for six years. i'd working with the secretary, seeing how closely intelligence and security services work with other services around the world. by the way we work and i am in no doubt the increasing extent of information exchange and takes place through the european union is a direct benefit to our country here at its not just that you need a border. you also need information and intelligence to police the
11:33 pm
border properly. the passenger name records. of course outside the e.u. we could negotiate and we are and then driving them and making them keep people safe in our country. >> mr. speaker, they expect to receive 10 million pounds in e.u. funding over the next three years. they keep to attract businesses to the qvc which created 2.5000 jobs. isn't the case that this important funding from the e.u. could be lost if we both leave the european union. >> the gentleman makes an important point, which if you look at the independent report, they say there is no financial saving from leaving the e.u. the issue for fiscal studies conclude that leaving the e.u.
11:34 pm
would not leave more money to spend on the nhs. preferably by spending less on public services are taxing more. i would argue that there is a dividend from remaining inside the e.u. and we start to feel it next friday. britain made a decision and investors would know that britain meant business and they are investing in our country. there's no saving from leaving and that's what the experts agree. thank you, mr. speaker. the number of children growing up in something nearly half a million since 2010. will the prime minister continue wages are no more jobs in a growing economy. >> i think my honorable friend is right that the most important thing we can do is to help them get the job to earn a living and provide for their family and in our strategy measuring work crews i think are really
11:35 pm
important in helping to ensure we continue to let children out of poverty. the >> mr. speaker, we live in businesses but the chairman said tonight the votes next week are hurt by the trail of immigrants that the first friends on sunday and are considering leaving permanently if we exit the e.u. while the prime minister to stay as they are highly valued. >> there are many people who work hard and make a contribution and help to build our communities. it is important to get the numbers in some days. e.u. nationals, italians, germans and the rest of it. only five are going to be e.u. and national spirit as he says, but get nhs pay 50,000 e.u.
11:36 pm
nationals working as doctors and nurses. 60,000 e.u. nationals helping to look after elderly relatives with dementia and other conditions as they come towards the end of our life. pointing to make sure people who come here make a contribution but we should celebrate the contribution they make. the thank you, mr. speaker. given the government enthusiasm for making forecasts and predictions, can the prime minister please tell the house in which year will we meet our manifesto commitment to reduce immigration into the tens of thousands? last year for which e.u. migration with imbalance and british nationals leaving our shores to work in europe and a number of e.u. nationals coming to live and work here. the last year that was imbalance was 2008.
11:37 pm
i would say to my honorable friend we need to do more to control migration from outside the e.u. and we are doing that with the closure of colleges and other measures and we are doing more inside the e.u., not saying if they don't get a job after six months they have to leave. if they do work, they have to contribute for years before they get access to the welfare system. those are sensible ways of controlling immigration. a non-sensible way is damaging jobs, economy and having to explain why we self imposed a recession on our economy. >> many from my constituency are struggling to make ends meet. the world trade organization say if we leave the e.u. we could save major terrorist state and would have to renegotiate over 163 agreements. does the prime minister agree
11:38 pm
with me that leaving the e.u. but take the cost of living is too big a risk to take. >> it is always the poorest of those and economy suffers a recession. there are two ways in which the cost of living could be a factor. if we lived the single market, go to wto rules, we'll have tariffs imposed on the goods they sell to europe and that would make us suffer. many independent experts forecast the cost of living rises in the cost of family shop rises in holiday rancid and she's right it's not worth the risk. we should keep our country safe. thank you, mr. speaker. file in the chance is very welcome announcement to the growth commission, could the prime minister outlined the focus to deliver the much-needed infrastructure and economic
11:39 pm
development that would allow my wonderful constituent did. >> whenever i get a question, i remember how grateful i am that she is sitting or rochester and representing happy days. [shouting] in terms of the 2050 growth commission from the key areas are still in infrastructure and there is a serious amount of money committed to the infrastructure and we need to look at things including the crossing to make sure they can make the most of its potential. thank you, mr. speaker. 2.5000 in my constituency jobs are dependent on e.u. trade. the rights are protected by the chapter and may have been rebuilt.
11:40 pm
are they producing more spend than a potter's wheel? despite europe's loss, they could give us picking up the pieces of a broke and economy for years to come. >> i'm going to make that sound bite. it's a good one. the honorable lady is spray. if we leave the single market and the european union, the process probably takes two years and after that you then have to negotiate a trade deal with the european union undergoes a trade deal like canada, that could take seven years and we're seven years and we're looking at decade of uncertainty for our economy. i am advised by my parliamentary private sector before they did do a worthwhile job of working in that industry --
11:41 pm
[laughter] [shouting] he may not be spending pots anymore, but a spinning from effectively. we exported 38 billion pounds in china to the e.u. and if we were outside without a trade deal, there would be a 12% tax. i don't want to stay british manufacturers, car makers. we should be investing in most industries in helping them support and not making the situation difficult. thank you, mr. speaker. 30 years ago when i was a little flat, my parents quit their jobs jobs -- [laughter] 30 years ago, my parents quit their jobs and founded a school manufacturing business around our kitchen table. today, british manufacturers were particularly small businesses are worried.
11:42 pm
they are worried because if we leave the european union, they'll continue to make their product to common european standards because they value the free market. they value the single market. they value and want to export. they are aware the united kingdom will have no say whatsoever in the formulation of those standards and their competitive advantage will be destroyed. what advice does my right honorable friend have for my parents, for small businesses and for the millions of jobs that depend on them. >> i always assumed that honorable friend was under 30. i'm shocked to get this news. he makes an important point that if we were to leave, we lose the seat around a table that fits the rules of a single market. sometimes those rules can be annoying or burdensome. at the end of the day they are
11:43 pm
the most we have to meet. if you have no say over those rules, you don't gain control, users control. that's an absolutely crucial argument on why small businesses are back in the e.u. as well as a large majority of. >> dr. alastair make donald. >> mr. speaker, could i endorse the comments that the comments of the prime minister about our window and pirates of the death they are. could assured the prime minister it is fully behind them fully behind him in his efforts to secure. but the campaigners have been securing our borders are spending more crime. when it comes to building order for the u.k. and the rest of the e.u. we are dismissed until would change there. he returned to customs passport checks and hard border would be critical -- critical economic
11:44 pm
issue. can the prime minister once and for all tell the people of northern ireland what will become of the border if the u.k. wants to leave the european union. >> and thank him for his remarks about dear linda shooting. on this issue if we vote to stay in, we know what the situation is. when of the common travel area works. we know it can continue under can continue to never one can have confidence. if we were to leave and make a big issue about borders, outside the european union and therefore you could only you there have been new border controls between the republic and northern ireland for which we would regret some sort of checks on people as they left belfast or other parts of northern ireland to come to the rest of the united kingdom. we can avoid these risks. risk to her children's jobs,
11:45 pm
risks to economic future, border community. i say avoid the risks. thank you, mr. speaker. next week i'll be visiting 25 stores in my constituency to explain both sides of the referendum argument to the most heavily impacted by a decision which they cannot make. but the prime minister have been a worse for the young people for the remaining segment? >> and very grateful. but i would say it this is a vote for those people in the schools unable to vote will affect their futures. i hope they will talk to their parents and grandparents after being inspired by the honorable friend about wanting to grow up in a country with opportunity. we are bound to have more if we remain in a reformed european union with 27 other countries. also it goes to a point about wizard of country want our children to grow up in. not just one of economic job
11:46 pm
opportunities, but were country is able to effect change and get this done in the world. we don't diminish ourselves, we enhance the power britain and the greatness of our country. [shouting] thank you, mr. speaker. approximately 11,000 most loyal employees with overt or a tv or service are about to get a serious pay cut. cuts to sunday pay, holiday and antisocial hours pay almeida on the back of the national living wage means they'll take home less next year than they do this year with some losing up to 2000 pounds. this is not just any pay cut. this is a take that marketing expenses pay cut. could the prime minister agree with his chancellor that anywhere else on the back of the national living wage is wrong and if so, will to make this
11:47 pm
possible? >> obviously we want the national living wage feeding through into people that having higher take-home pay, not lower take-home pay would urge all companies to make sure that is the case. i haven't seen the information, but they now like any retailer that they need to attract and retain and motivate what they have. it is crucial in retail particularly with competition online that they continue to do that and they won't do that if they cut people's pay. >> mr. speaker, i agree with the prime minister and europe. on the night of november last year, and i quote, some people seem to say britain couldn't do it for the european union. i don't think that is true. the argument is the mother they could survive. of course it could. so despite the panic driven negativity from the remaining street, the british people vote
11:48 pm
next week to become a nation again. will my right honorable friend join me and racing the optimism and opportunity and people in this momentous decision. >> i say to my honorable friend. of course britain can survive outside the e.u. no one is questioning now. the question is how are we going to create the most jobs? how will we create the most investment and opportunities for children? how are we going to get things done? i'm all those issues covered the arguments are on the side. thank you, mr. speaker. that i associate myself and indeed all of my party across the country with the remarkss td
11:49 pm
pushed low in people further into crippling debt. there is a long-term economic plan on offering which economic those people who are hard-working families not to suffer and the folks remain on thursday. >> e. and i are off and on opposing sides of arguments, but it says volumes about the breadth of the campaign to remain in a european you that we have built democrats as well as
11:50 pm
the trade unions, business and so many others coming from different areas but i'll save crucially our economy will be better off so families will be better off if we remain in. he's absolutely right when he says about interest rates. the last thing homeowners need an homebuyer state and the last thing our country needs is a hike in interest rates damaging our economy. i'm glad he supports the plan and as part of his plan remaining and a reformed european union. thank you, mr. speaker. can i congratulate my right honorable friend for delivering this historic referendum. unfortunately, we have hers done hysterical scaremongering during this debate and there are those in this house and in the other place to which they believed the british people decide to leave the e.u. there should be a second referendum. can he assure the house in the country do whatever the results
11:51 pm
on june 24th, his government will carry out the wishes of the british people and will remain and if the vote is to leave, then we leave. >> and they're happy to agree with my honorable friend. it means we remain in a reformed european union. out means they come out. as the late campaigners have said can out inside of the european union, out of the single market, out of the council of ministers, out of all of those things. and it means a process of delivering that which would take at least two years in delivering a trade deal which could take as many as seven years. i would say to anyone still in doubt and there are members in this house still again about how to vote. if you haven't made up your mind yet, if you are uncertain, when you think of the decade of uncertainty, don't risk in and
11:52 pm
remain. >> mr. speaker, the hospital accident and emergency unit is in complete meltdown. will the prime minister committee taking swift actions to tackle this crisis? >> well, i do understand it's a very busy unit. as received 13,600 patients in april alone, but it's managed to carry out 40,000 operations and 62,000 diagnostic tests every year. if we look at what has happened since 2010 there is 20 more doctors, 280 nurses recruited the trust. they will monitor this closely. this comes to the core argument if we remain in, we have to make sure we take the proceeds of growth and continue to put them into the nhs as i've always done. the
11:53 pm
>> mr. speaker, i'm looking forward to the british people giving many opportunities for the vindictive emergency. though my right honorable friend explained that if the government is so strapped for cash, why is it still intent on spending 50 billion pounds? >> we will be strapped for cash if you believe the institute for fiscal studies at the national institute of economic and social research both impeccably independent state there at rio: our public finances between 20 and 40 billion. you don't have to be an economic expert to see if the economy shrinks and you have fewer jobs and low wages, you get less tax receipt. if you have less tax receipt, you either have to make cuts or put a taxes were increased borrowing. it's a simple matter of mathematics. there's an easy way to avoid the situation that is devoted
11:54 pm
>> prime minister's questions from the british house of commons is live every week that parliament is in session. a.m.sday mornings at 7:00 eastern on c-span2. re-airs sunday evenings c-span.p.m. eastern on after the surrender at afo states facedunited more than a dozen years of reconstruction. ats saturday starting 1:00 p.m. eastern, american history tv on c-span3 is live from gettysburg college for the civil war institute summer conference, as authors, professorsand examine topics that confronted country, suchied as freed peoples refugee camps, reconstruction in the north with associate professor of history
11:55 pm
at east tennessee state university. and the post-civil war career of s. grant with brooks simpson from arizona state university. conversations on the return of the confederate veteran and the origins of the lost cause. the annual civil war institute summer conference live all day at 1:00 p.m.nning eastern on c-span3's american history tv. for the complete american history tv weekend schedule, go c-span.org. >> in response to the mass florida,at an orlando, nightclub, that killed 49 people, house democrats are calling for a vote on the bill that would bar individuals on the no-fly list from buying firearms. democratic leaders discussed the measure in a news briefing at the capitol. this is 20 minutes. >> good morning.
11:56 pm
chairman of the house democratic joined by our democratic leadership including congressman israel, chair of our communications and policy committee. just had another discussion doing something, taking action as a result of weekend's mass killings, the atrocities that occurred in orlando, florida. to all those who are thinking about the victims and their we say,, #standwithorlando and in spanish, hash tag. [speaking spanish] note that for the latino community, this has hit when youy hard because they're human beings but i don't believe in
11:57 pm
the latino community people would have expected that so many of the names would have had language surnames and it brings home to so many of us this could be your family, as well. pretty simplee a message coming out of our democratic caucus. leaveongress should not this week without giving us a simple.something very no-fly, no-buy. if you can't fly because you're list by our government, and you are not allowed on an airplane, you should not be allowed to enter a gun shop and walk out with an assault weapon. we're now beginning to hear some republicans, including presumptive republican nominee trump, saynt, donald that there's something to no-fly, no-buy. is this -- this congress is asleep at the wheel.
11:58 pm
congress,a do-nothing especially when it comes to the issue of gun safety. no guarantee that anyone in congress will have an to prohibitto vote someone who's on a no-fly list from being able to purchase a weapon. between 2004 and 2014, 2,000 suspects legally -- thelly purchased guns in united states. witho it's time to stand orlando, or san bernardino, or charleston, or newtown -- and the list could go on and on. us to stand and do something, not just hold moments silence. it's time to stand with orlando. [speaking spanish] now yield to our leader, nancy pelosi.
11:59 pm
much for yourery thoughts and leadership in twoging us together now days since the deaths in orlando. yes, we are orlando. sos is so tragic, so sad in many ways. it does offer an opportunity for us, though, to do something about it and i would hope that we could reach out to our republican colleagues and say, the least we can do is the no-fly, no-buy legislation. more, of course. we want regional background the rest and we think we have the votes for that on the floor of the house if the biller would bring up the but right now our focus is to say to the republicans in congress, if 80-some-percent of the american people, 70% of n.r.a -- owners -- republicans, independents, all support passing the no-fly, no-buy bill -- if you're not allowed to fly, you shouldn't be allowed to buy the gun.
12:00 am
to them, disprove what they suspect, that the republican majority in the congress of the united states is ownedly subsidiary of the national rifle association. and that is what is standing in the way of our being able to protect the american people. we call upon them to disprove that, at least in this instant. our friends, the lgbt community, our friends in the gun safety community, our friends in the african-american community, who offer gun violence, so many people suffer gun violence every day of the week in their neighborhoods. mr. clyburn will address the one-year anniversary of what happened in south carolina. so if we can organize all of those folks, all expert in mobilization, all successful in changing the public mind and the public policy in relns

20 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on