Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I never thought that we would be here today. I never thought this point would come. Throughout 18 months of investigation, through countless areas of negotiations in order to get the minimum material necessary to find out the facts behind Fast and Furious and the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, I always believed that, in time, we would reach an accommodation sufficient to get the information needed for the American people while at the same time preserving the ongoing criminal investigations. I am proud to say that our committee has maintained the ability for the Justice Department to continue their ongoing prosecutions. Neither the majority nor the minority has allowed any material to become public to compromise that. However, the facts remain--in Fast and Furious, the Department of Justice permitted the sale of more than 2,000 weapons that fell into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels, which was both reckless and inexcusable. And it clearly was known by people, both career professionals and political appointees, from the lowliest members on the ground in Phoenix to high-ranking officials in the Department of Justice. But that's not what we're here for today. Today we are here on a very narrow contempt, one that the Speaker of the House, in his wisdom and assistance, has helped us to fashion. Let it be clear: we still have unanswered questions on a myriad of areas related to Operation Fast and Furious. But today we are only here to determine how, over the 10 months from the time in which the American people and the Congress of the United States were lied to, given false--literally the reverse statement, that ``no guns were allowed to walk'' during those 10 months before the Justice Department finally owned up and recognized that they had to come clean that, in fact, Fast and Furious was all about gunwalking. The Department of Justice maintained a series of documents. Many of these documents are believed to be communications between and with the very individuals at the heart of the decision to go forward with Fast and Furious. Therefore, we have focused our limited contempt on those documents. If our committee is able to receive the documents in totality that show who brought about the dishonest statement to Congress and who covered it up for 10 months, we believe that will allow us to backtrack to the individuals who ultimately believed in Fast and Furious, facilitated Fast and Furious, and ultimately made it responsible for Brian Terry's death.

Mr. ISSA. No, I do not.

Mr. ISSA. I thank the Speaker. I submit the following: House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC, May 24, 2012. Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Ranking Member Cummings: Last February, I joined Senator Grassley in investigating Operation Fast and Furious, the reckless and fundamentally flawed program conducted by the Phoenix Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). As you know, during Fast and Furious, ATF agents let straw purchasers illegally acquire hundreds of firearms and walk away from Phoenix gun stores. The misguided goal of this operation was to allow the U.S.- based associates of a Mexican drug cartel to acquire firearms so they could be traced back to the associates once the firearms were recovered at crime scenes. On December 15, 2010, two guns from the Fast and Furious operation were the only ones found at the scene of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry's murder. An Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (0CDETF) Wiretap Case Operation Fast and Furious got its name when it became an official Department of Justice Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Strike Force case. The OCDETF designation resulted in funding for Fast and Furious from the Justice Department's headquarters in Washington, D.C. The Strike Force designation meant that it would not be run by ATF, but would instead create a multi-agency task force led by the U.S. Attorney's Office. The designation also meant that sophisticated law enforcement techniques such as the use of federal wire intercepts, or wiretaps, would be employed. Federal wiretaps are governed by Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, and are sometimes referred to as ``T-IIIs.'' The use of federal wire intercepts requires a significant amount of case-related information to be sent to senior Department officials for review and approval. All applications for federal wiretaps are authorized under the authority of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. In practice, a top deputy for the Assistant Attorney General has final sign-off authority before the application is submitted to a federal judge for approval. This deputy must ensure that the wiretap application meets statutory requirements and Justice Department policy. The approval process includes a certification that the wiretap is necessary because other investigative techniques have been insufficient. Therefore, making such a judgment requires a review of operational tactics. Since gunwalking was an investigative technique utilized in Fast and Furious, then either top deputies in the Criminal Division knew about the tactics employed as part of their effort to establish legal sufficiency for the application, or they approved the wiretap applications in a manner inconsistent with Department policies. From the beginning, ATF was transparent about its strategy. An internal ATF briefing paper used in preparation for the OCDETF application process explained as much: Currently our strategy is to allow the transfer of firearms to continue to take place, albeit at a much slower pace, in order to further the investigation and allow for the identification of co-conspirators who would continue to operate and illegally traffic firearms to Mexican DTOs which are perpetrating armed violence along the Southwest Border. * * * * * The ultimate goal is to secure a Federal T-III audio intercept to identify and prosecute all co-conspirators of the DTO. . . . Tracking the illegally-purchased guns after they left the premises of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) would allow ATF and federal prosecutors to build a bigger case, one aimed at dismantling what was believed to be a complex firearms trafficking network. The task force failed, however, to track the firearms. Instead, according to the testimony of ATF agents, their supervisors ordered them to break off surveillance shortly after the guns left the gun stores or were transferred to unknown third parties. Many of the firearms purchased were next seen at crime scenes on both sides of the border. The Fast and Furious Gun Trafficking Network Was Not Complex We now know the gun trafficking ring that Fast and Furious was designed to target was relatively straightforward. It involved approximately 40 straw purchasers; a money-man, Manuel Celis-Acosta (Acosta), and; two figures tied to Mexican cartels. Acosta and the cartel figures were the top criminals targeted by ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office. On January 19, 2011, 20 suspects were indicted, including Acosta and 19 of his straw buyers. In all, it is believed that the Fast and Furious network purchased approximately 2,000 firearms. An internal ATF document dated March 29, 2011, shows that of the indicted defendants, only a select few purchased the majority of the firearms, and nearly all of the purchases occurred after ATF knew that these defendants were straw purchasers working with Acosta. These four indicted defendants alone illegally purchased nearly 1,300 firearms: Uriel Patina (720), Sean Steward (290), Josh Moore (141), and Alfredo Celis (134). The Goals of Our Investigation A central aim of our investigation has been to find out why and how such a dangerous plan could have been conceived, approved, and implemented. Who in ATF and the Justice Department knew about the volume of guns being purchased? Who approved of the case at various stages as it unfolded? Under whose authority did this occur? Who could have--and should have--stopped it? By closely examining this disastrous program, our Committee hopes to prevent similar reckless operations from using dangerous tactics like gunwalking ever again. Our investigation also aims to determine what legislative actions might be necessary to ensure that such a program will not happen again. The Department's Failure to Comply with the Committee's Subpoenas Our Committee is still entitled to thousands of documents responsive to our subpoenas. These documents will undoubtedly shed more light on the misguided tactics used in Operation Fast and Furious. If the Justice Department changes course and complies with the Committee's subpoenas, some of these documents will cover the targets of an FBI investigation of the individuals who were the link between the drug cartels and the Fast and Furious firearms trafficking ring. Other documents will chronicle the Department's response to allegations of whistleblowers following Agent Terry's death and how it shifted its position from the outright denial that there was any misconduct to the Department's formal withdrawal of its false statement in December 2011. Most importantly, as you are well aware, we are still waiting for documents relating to the individuals who approved the tactics employed in Fast and Furious. In his recent letter to me, Deputy Attorney General James Cole asserted that such documents ``will not answer the question'' of what senior officials were in fact notified of the unacceptable tactics used in Fast and Furious. This statement is deeply misleading. We are aware of specific documents that lay bare the fact that senior officials in the Department's Criminal Division who were responsible for approving the applications in support of the Fast and Furious wiretap authorization requests were indeed made aware of these questionable tactics. Cole's letter goes on to state that ``Department leadership was unaware of the inappropriate tactics used in Fast and Furious until allegations about those tactics were made public in early 2011.'' That statement is even more misleading and utterly false. The information provided to senior officials in the affidavits accompanying the wiretaps includes copious details of the reckless investigative techniques involved. Senior department leaders were not only aware of these tactics. They approved them. Wiretap Application Obtained by the Committee The Committee has obtained a copy of a Fast and Furious wiretap application, dated March 15, 2010. The application includes a memorandum dated March 10, 2010, from Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division Lanny A. Breuer to Paul M. O'Brien, Director, Office of Enforcement Operations, authorizing the wiretap application on behalf of the Attorney General. The memorandum from Breuer was marked specifically for the attention of Emory Hurley, the lead federal prosecutor for Operation Fast and Furious. In response to your personal request, I am enclosing a copy of the wiretap application. Please take every precaution to treat it carefully and responsibly. I am hopeful that it will assist you in understanding the information brought to the attention of senior officials in the Criminal Division charged with reviewing the contents of the applications to determine if they were legally sufficient and conformed to Justice Department policy. The information is as vast as it is specific. This wiretap application, signed by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco under the authority of his supervisor, Assistant Attorney General Breuer, provides new insight into who knew--or should have known-- what and when in Operation Fast and Furious. To assist you in better understanding the facts, I appreciate the opportunity to provide relevant and necessary context for some of the information in this wiretap application. Due to the sensitivity of the document, individual targets and suspects will be referred to with anonymous designations. You will notice, however, that the individuals referred to in the wiretap application are well- known to our investigation. Although senior Department officials authorized this application on March 15, 2010, a mere four months after the investigation began, it contains a breathtaking amount of detail. The detailed information about the operational tactics contained in the applications raises new questions about statements of senior Justice Department officials, including the Attorney General himself. Before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 8, 2011, the Attorney General testified: I don't think the wiretap applications--I've not seen--I've not seen them. But I don't know--I don't have any information that indicates that those wiretap applications had anything in them that talked about the tactics that have made this such a bone of contention and have legitimately raised the concern of members of Congress, as well as those of us in the Justice Department. I--I'd be surprised if the tactics themselves about gun walking were actually contained in those--in those applications. I have not seen them, but I would be surprise[d] [if that] were the case. At a hearing before our Committee on February 2, 2012, the Attorney General also denied that any information relating to tactics appeared in the wiretap affidavits. He testified: I think, first off, there is no indication that Mr. Breuer or my former deputy were aware of the tactics that were employed in this matter until everybody I think became aware of them, which is like January February of last year. The information--I am not at this point aware that any of those tactics were contained in any of the wiretap applications. Contrary to the Attorney General's statements, the enclosed wiretap affidavit contains clear information that agents were willfully allowing known straw buyers to acquire firearms for drug cartels and failing to interdict them--in some cases even allowing them to walk to Mexico. In particular, the affidavit explicitly describes the most controversial tactic of all: abandoning surveillance of known straw purchasers, resulting in the failure to interdict firearms. The Justice Department's Office of Enforcement Operations reviews the wiretap applications to ensure that they are both legally sufficient and conform to Justice Department policy. Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole has verified this understanding. In a letter he sent to Congress on January 27, 2012, he stated that the Department's ``lawyers help AUSAs and trial attorneys ensure that their wiretap packages meet statutory requirements and DOJ policies. When Assistant Attorney General Breuer testified last November about the wiretap approval process, however, he stated: [The role of the reviewers and the role of the deputy in reviewing Title Three applications is only one. It is to insure that there is legal sufficiency to make an application to go up on a wire, and legal sufficiency to petition a federal judge somewhere in the United States that we believe it is a credible request. But we cannot--those now 22 lawyers that I have who review this in Washington--and it used to only be seven--can not and should not replace their judgment, nor can they, with the thousands of prosecutors and agents all over the country. Theirs is a legal analysis; is there a sufficient basis to make this request. Assistant Attorney General Breuer failed to acknowledge that before a wiretap application can be authorized, it must adhere to Justice Department policy. Yet, the operational tactics included in the enclosed wiretap application-- including abandoning surveillance and not interdicting firearms--violate Department policy. According to Deputy Attorney General Cole, operations allowing guns to cross the border do indeed violate Department policy. In an e-mail he sent to southwest border U.S. Attorneys on March 9, 2011, Deputy Attorney General Cole stated, ``I want to reiterate the Department's policy: We should not design or conduct undercover operations which include guns crossing the border.'' The Committee understands the limitations of the Office of Enforcement Operations function. Nevertheless, when presented with alarming details such as those contained in this application, a sensible lawyer--vested with the important responsibility of recommending to the Assistant Attorney General whether a wiretap should be authorized--must raise the alarm. Senior officials reviewing the application for legal sufficiency and/or whether Justice Department policy was followed, however, failed to identify major problems that these manifold facts suggested. March 2010 Wiretap Application States the Main Suspect Had Intent to Acquire Firearms for the Purpose of Transporting Them to Mexico According to the wiretap application obtained by the Committee, as early as December 2009, the task force had identified the main suspect in Fast and Furious (Target 1), a figure well-known to our investigation. The affidavit provides transcripts of entire conversations obtained through a prior DEA wire intercept. These conversations demonstrate that key suspects in Operation Fast and Furious were running a firearms trafficking ring. In one conversation that took place on December 11, 2009, Unknown Person 1 asks, ``Can you hold them [firearms] for me there for a little while there?'' Target 1 responds, ``Well it's that I do not want to have them at home, dude, because there is a lot of . . . uh, it's too much heat at my house.'' Unknown Person 1 then asked where he could store the firearms and Target 1 responds, ``[m]ake arrangements with that guy [Straw Purchaser X], call him back and make arrangements with him.'' The affidavit acknowledges that while monitoring the DEA target telephone numbers, law enforcement officers intercepted calls that demonstrated that Target 1 was conspiring to purchase and transport firearms for the purpose of trafficking the firearms from the United States to Mexico. March 2010 Wiretap Application States that Nearly 1,000 Firearms had Already Been Purchased, and that Many Were Recovered in Mexico The Probable Cause section of the affidavit shows that ATF was aware that from September 2009 to March 15, 2010, Target I acquired at least 852 firearms valued at approximately $500,000 through straw purchasers. As of March 15, 2010, twenty-one straw purchasers had been identified. Between September 23, 2009, and January 27, 2010, 139 firearms purchased by these straw purchasers were recovered--81 of which were in Mexico. These recoveries occurred one to 49 days after their purchase in Arizona. March 2010 Wiretap Application Describes How Smugglers were Bringing Firearms into Mexico The wiretap affidavit details that agents were well aware that large sums of money were being used to purchase a large number of firearms, many of which were flowing across the border. For example, in the span of one month, Straw Purchaser Z bought 241 firearms from just three cooperating FFL,s. Of those, at least 57 guns were recovered shortly thereafter either in the possession of others or at crime scenes on both sides of the border. The wiretap affidavit even shows that ATF agents knew the tactics the smugglers were using to bring the guns into Mexico. According to the affidavit: The potential interceptees conspire with each other and others known to illegally traffic firearms to Mexico. The potential interceptees purchase firearms in Arizona and transport them to Mexico or a location in close proximity of the United States/Mexico border. The potential interceptees deliver the firearms to individual(s) both known and unknown who then transport them into Mexico and/or the potential interceptees transport the firearms across the border and deliver them to customers both known and unknown. The fact that ATF knew that Target 1 had acquired 852 firearms and had the present intent to move them to Mexico should have prompted Department officials to act. Department officials should have ensured that the firearms were interdicted immediately and that law enforcement took steps to disrupt any further straw purchasing and trafficking activities by Target 1. Similarly, by way of example, if Criminal Division attorneys were reviewing a wiretap affidavit that showed that human trafficking was taking place for the purpose of forcing humans into slavery, the attorneys should act to make sure such a practice would not continue. Accordingly, Target l's activities should have provoked an immediate response by the Criminal Division to shut him and his network down. March 2010 Wiretap Application Contains Details of Dropped Surveillance The wiretap affidavit also describes firearms purchases by individual straw purchasers. For example, Straw Purchaser Y purchased five AK-47 type firearms on December 10, 2009, and surveillance units observed Straw Purchaser Y travel from the FFL where he made the purchase to Target l's residence. The next day, surveillance units observed Straw Purchaser Y purchase an additional 21 AK-47 type firearms, and within an hour, arrive at Target l's home. On December 8, 2009, agents observed Straw Purchaser Z purchase 20 AK-47 type firearms. While Straw Purchaser Z was making this purchase, Z saw a commercial delivery truck arrive at the gun store with a shipment of an additional 20 AK-47 type firearms. Straw Purchaser Z then told FFL employees that he wanted to purchase those additional firearms. Later that same day, Straw Purchaser Z returned to the FFL to buy them. After Straw Purchaser Z left the FFL with the firearms, Phoenix police officers conducted a vehicle stop on Straw Purchaser Z's vehicle and identified two of the passengers as Straw Purchaser Z and Target 1. The officers observed the firearms in the bed of the truck and asked the subjects about the firearms. Straw Purchaser Z told them he had purchased the firearms and they belonged to him. ATF agents continued surveillance until the vehicle arrived at Target l's residence. The very next day, nine of these firearms were recovered during a police stop of a third person in Douglas, Arizona, on the U.S.-Mexico border. Five days later, Straw Purchaser Z bought another 43 firearms from an FFL. On December 24, 2009, Straw Purchaser Z bought even more firearms, purchasing 40 AK-47 type rifles from an FFL. All of these rifles were recovered on January 13, 2010, in El Paso, Texas, near the U.S./Mexico border. Although the individual found in possession of all these guns provided the first name of the purchaser, agents did not arrest the individual or the purchaser. Though the wiretap application states that agents were conducting surveillance of known straw purchasers, none of these weapons were interdicted. No arrests were made. March 2010 Wiretap Details How Fast and Furious Firearms Had Been Found at Crime Scenes in Mexico The wiretap affidavit also details the very sort ``time-to- crime'' for many of the firearms purchased during Fast nd Furious. For example, on November 6, 2009, November 12, 2009, and November 14, 2009, Straw Purchaser Y purchased a total of 25 AK-47 type firearms from an FFL in Arizona. On November 20, 2009--just eight days later--Mexican officials recovered 17 of these firearms in Naco, Sonora, Mexico. Another straw purchaser, Straw Purchaser Q, purchased a total of 17 AK-47 type firearms from an FFL on November 3, 2009, November 10, 2009, and November 12, 2009. Then, on December 9, 2009, Mexican officials recovered 11 of these firearms in Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico, along with approximately 421 kilograms of cocaine, 60 kilograms of methamphetamine, 48 additional firearms, 392 ammunition cartridges, $2 million in U.S. currency, and $800,000 in Mexican currency. Once again, although ATF was aware of these facts, no one was arrested, and ATF failed to even approach the straw purchasers. Upon learning these details through its review of this wiretap affidavit, senior Justice Department officials had a duty to stop this operation. Further, failure to do so was a violation of Justice Department policy. Straw Purchasers Had Meager Financial Means The affidavit provides details of the straw purchasers' financial records. As of March 15, 2010, just four straw purchasers had spent $373,206 in cash on firearms. Yet, these same straw purchasers had only minimal earnings in Fiscal Year (FY) 2009. Straw Purchaser Q earned $214 per week, while Straw Purchaser Y earned only $188 per week. Straw Purchaser Z earned $9,456.92 during FY 2009, and Straw Purchaser X did not report any income whatsoever. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Money spent on Name firearms by 3/15/ FY 2009 income* 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Straw Purchaser Y................. $128,580 $9,776 Straw Purchaser Q................. 64,929 11,128 Straw Purchaser X................. 39,663 None reported Straw Purchaser Z................. 140,034 9,456

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I now yield all remaining time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), an experienced prosecutor, to close.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I respect the gentleman from Michigan, the dean of the House, but you're just wrong. There were plenty of opportunities for the minority to ask for witnesses. They chose not to except at one hearing, and then they wanted the former Attorney General. They did not avail themselves of the procedures allowing them to have a hearing even though they know how to do it and have done it. But more importantly, when you say you represent Brian Terry, you do not. The Terry family issued this statement, referring to Congressman Dingell: His views don't represent those of the Terry family. Nor does he speak to the Terry family. And he has never spoken to the Terry family. Secondly: His office sent us a condolence letter when Brian was buried 18 months ago. That's the last time we heard from him. Third: A year ago, after the Oversight and Government Reform Committee began its work, one of Brian's sisters called Representative Dingell's office seeking help and answers. No one from his office called back. Lastly: If Rep. Dingell truly wants to support the Terry family and honor Brian Terry, a son of Michigan, he and other Members of Congress will call for the Attorney General to immediately provide the documents requested by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Then I will reserve my right to close.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, as a point of inquiry, do I have the right to close?

Mr. ISSA. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of talk about the documents that the Attorney General couldn't give us. These documents, documents under seal, would be an example of documents that we should not see, except in camera, and we've taken great care to ensure that no one outside Members of Congress and key staff have ever looked at them. But I've looked at them, and what I know is that these documents, read by any person of ordinary learning, make it very clear that these wiretap applications were read and signed by individuals in the Department of Justice in Washington. And if you read them, you knew they were gunwalking. People will tell you differently. I give you my word: You read this, you know they were letting guns go to Mexico. They knew who the buyers were, who the intermediaries were, who the recipients were, and, most importantly, where they ended up. And there are reports in here, as part of the evidence given to judges in order to get wiretaps--there is evidence that they knew that, in fact, weapons had already ended up in Mexico. That's before Brian Terry was killed. That's how Fast and Furious could have been stopped. That's how people could have been warned. In fact, that's at a time in which ATF agents in Mexico City, if they punched in the serial number of a weapon found there, they got an erroneous, an error. They did not get meaningful information because that was being blocked--not by ATF, per se, but by the Department of Justice under the auspices of the U.S. attorney and his bosses. Now you're going to hear that this began under President Bush and Attorney General Mukasey. I'm going to tell you that's just false. What happened in previous administrations with some of the same local ATF agents was they exercised extremely bad judgment. They did things and pushed on programs that I believe were poorly conceived and poorly manned and as a result they lost track of weapons repeatedly. That happened. And it was wrong. The U.S. attorney at the time even declined prosecutions because of failed techniques. All of these were shut down during the Bush administration. President Bush can take no credit for it. He didn't know it. As far as I know, the Attorney General didn't know. And anyone who saw the record of that should say: This was wrong-minded. But during this administration, during the time in which the Attorney General and his key lieutenants, including Lanny Breuer, were in charge, they reopened the prosecutions from a failed program called Wide Receiver and they opened Fast and Furious. Now I'm the second child in a family. I have an older brother. I learned at a very young age you in fact cannot, when you do something wrong, say: My brother Billy did it. It doesn't work that way. You're responsible for what you do wrong, whether it happened before your watch or not. This happened on the Attorney General's watch. But that's not why we're here today. We're here because when we asked legitimate questions about Brian Terry's murder, about Fast and Furious, we were lied to. We were lied to repeatedly and over a 10- month period. The fact is that is what we're here for. The American people want to know if you give false testimony to Congress. The minority leader talked about, Why is there such a hurry? Why was there a 10-month delay? I was sworn in just a few days before this investigation began, and now we're nearing an election. We don't want to have this during an election. We want to have resolution for the Terry family. The important thing is, we know enough to know that we have people who have told us under penalty of criminal prosecution--they have told Congress and their employees certain documents exist. And we've asked for those documents. And we've been denied them. We can't bring Kenneth Melson back in in good faith and say, Well, we've got to get them in front of our committee, if in fact there's documents he says exist. And they do, and they will not be given to us. We want to have those so we can ask the best questions. You've heard earlier that in fact we've denied somehow due process to the minority. My ranking member is very capable, and has asked for minority days; in other words, hearings exclusively for him. He chose not to do it. When we were having the local ATF and other individuals in early on, all of whom worked for this government, he didn't even ask for any. It wasn't until we asked to have the Attorney General come in, based on these false statements and final retraction, that he suddenly wanted a previous Attorney General, who happened to say, No, I don't want to come. So on that particular day we would have had to subpoena him to get him in. I have no objection to having the former Attorney General in. I believe that on his watch and his predecessor's watch and his predecessor's watch and for a very long time we have not done a good job of overseeing the actions of field agents when it comes to guns. But, again, we're here today, for the first time in over 200 years, to deal with an Attorney General who has flat-out refused to give the information related to lies and a coverup exclusively within his jurisdiction. That's what we're voting on. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the contempt on behalf of the Terry family. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it's amazing that people would say there's no evidence of a coverup when somebody says, No, we didn't do what we did, and then hides it for an additional 10 months. By any normal American standard, that would be a coverup. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's been a long day for America, but it's been a longer day for the Terry family. I'm going to urge everyone to vote for the ability to hire counsel, and that's what the last vote is, and I believe it will pass overwhelmingly. But I'm going to use this time to pledge to the America people, to pledge to the Terry family, and to pledge to my colleagues: this investigation has in fact been brought to a halt in one area--and the area is the Attorney General's flat refusal to any longer cooperate with this committee. But it doesn't change the fact that in the days and weeks to come, we will use what we can in the way of other tools, including some of the individuals that the minority has talked about today, to glean additional information, to find ways to prove accountability for the many people that had to be involved in this OCDETF operation in order for those guns to walk. We will continue to do that. We will try to find the truth. Hopefully in the weeks to come, we also will begin getting cooperation from the administration again. But if we don't, I will tell the ranking member here today, it has always been my intention to look backwards to previous gunwalking programs that we believe were certainly poorly designed and resulted in weapons getting out of the hands of lawful people and into the hands of criminal elements. That's not going to change. It's not going to change because it's our obligation to investigate and because this one we cannot let loose until the Terry family has been kept a promise that the ranking member and I both made. So I take the ranking member at his word today that, in fact, he will not rest until we get some answers, and I commit the same that I will not, and I urge the passage of this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if I heard the gentleman right when he said that I ``silenced whistleblowers'' in order to keep them from talking about gun control. Is the gentleman disparaging and falsely claiming that I did something that I know for a fact I did not?

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Walter J. Zable upon his passing. Mr. Zable was a leader, job creator, and a great contributor to the San Diego community. In 1951, Mr. Zable formed the Cubic Corporation in Southern California. Today it employs over 8,000 people worldwide in the field of defense systems, mission support services and transportation systems for government and commercial customers. Mr. Zable served as the chairman, president, and CEO of the corporation for five decades. Prior to forming Cubic, Mr. Zable attended the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia studying physics and mathematics while enjoying football. It is during this time that he married his beloved wife, Betty. Excelling in football, he played on scholarship at William and Mary and credited the sport to helping him get through the Great Depression. Mr. Zable later played professional football with the Richmond Arrows and the New York Giants. Multiple sports awards followed, including the 1962 Sports Illustrated Silver Anniversary All-American Team. Today, the William and Mary football stadium bears the Zable name. Mr. Zable began putting his engineering skills to work in the early 1940s in Southern California. His drive and determination led to the creation of Cubic Corporation. Regular growth has led the company to great success including worldwide offices and the public trading of its stock on the NYSE. Our military relies on the work of Cubic as a provider of realistic combat training systems, cyber technologies, asset tracking solutions, and defense electronics. Many of the world's public transportations systems rely on Cubic for collection systems and services. At the age of 97, Mr. Zable's passing marks a lifetime of great accomplishments. His legacy lives on in the continued achievement of the Cubic Corporation and his personal philanthropy. In 1971, he established the San Diego Chapter of the National Football Foundation and College Hall of Fame (NFFCHF). NFFCHF assists student athletes in achieving their full individual potential. Mr. Zable is an example of the American Dream fulfilled. Through hard work, dedication, and a deep sense of community, he lived a full and inspiring life. Today we remember his contributions to San Diego and our country.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I include the attached exchange of letters between Chairman John Mica of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and myself on the Senate amendment to H.R. 2297. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC, June 25, 2012. Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning the Senate amendment to H.R. 2297. There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In order to expedite the House's consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2297, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. However, this is conditional on our mutual understanding that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice the Committee's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the Committee in the future. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding, and would request that you include our exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the House floor. Sincerely, John L. Mica, Chairman.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Our committee has participated in $83 billion worth of this package, saving our men and women in uniform from finding themselves holding wooden rifles. I use that term because it once happened. It wouldn't happen under sequestration, but we would make cuts that would make them just as endangered in some cases as if they were carrying wooden rifles. Now, many people will talk about public servants in a less than kind way. I am not one of them. The Federal workforce has kept its promises. The Federal workers are not always well led or well managed, but they themselves deliver the product they're asked to deliver. However, the President's own commission--often called Simpson-Bowles on which the chairman of the Budget Committee served--found something that they all agreed on, that was that, in fact, the pension program that we as Federal employees--and I say ``we'' because Members of Congress pay into Social Security, have a 401(k), but we also have a pension--that that pension was more generous than our counterparts in the private sector. They recommended that we, in fact, make it a 50/50 shared pension. My contribution from our committee, in fact, does that. At a rate of 5 percent, phased in over 5 years, we bring the Federal workforce, members of the civilian DOD, members of your Park Service and Members of Congress, House and Senate, we bring us all into paying what Simpson-Bowles, on a bipartisan basis, very much felt was a fair share. Now, I want to make sure that everyone understands today that this is, in fact, a changing for members of the Federal workforce from what they perceived they would always have. It will not be easy. They will know that after this goes into effect, they will, in fact, not have as much take-home as they did the day before. That's not to say it isn't due, that it isn't known, and it doesn't need to happen. What it's to say is, let's be understanding. These are tough times. The American people have made sacrifices for many years before this one. The Federal workforce has made some sacrifices. The President implemented a pay freeze. But I must tell you, our looking at it is that because of an outdated system, the pay freeze does not, in fact, freeze pay. Step increases have virtually automatically, almost 100 percent automatically caused the vast majority of these individuals to be eligible and receive pay increases, even at a time in which, theoretically, it was frozen. Additionally, civil servants know that if we're going to continue to hold on to a civil service workforce that has the confidence of the American people, their wages have to be comparable to their civilian counterparts. Our committee will continue to work with others to study to make sure we do keep Federal workers fairly paid as compared to the nongovernment workforce. But our bill today takes the President's own recommendations, the recommendations made to the President, and implements them, for a savings over 10 years of $83 billion. We believe this is the Federal workforce and we, as their representatives, asking them to make a reasonable sacrifice, one that I know they will do, while remaining confident that they will deliver the kinds of products they can. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, there are things that are not in this bill. The kind of pay-for-performance that we'd like to see enhanced, the kind of procedure for a quick remedy for individuals who have become disabled-- those are not in there. There are many other savings and improvements for the Federal workforce. We intend to go back on a bipartisan basis and do that. But when it comes to purely paying your fair share, we believe that Simpson-Bowles got it right. We believe the Federal workforce will not like this, but they will accept that this allows them to say our package is not inherently more generous than the private sector. It's been normalized for it. That and other changes that we made in this bill allow the Federal workforce to say stop saying that we somehow get something everyone else doesn't. The Federal workforce pays into Social Security, into Medicare and, in fact, they're going to be paying half the cost of their pension plan, which is commensurate with their private sector. So I want to be very positive here in saying this is never easy to do in times of austerity, but, in fact, the Federal workforce will stand behind this, as Congress will, in recognizing that they're doing their share. I'm very proud of the people throughout government who recognize that getting this right is part of being able to say to the American people, we're all in this together. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

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

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Although this is a small piece of property, it's part of a vast amount of property the Federal Government currently owns, controls, and does not use. So as we take this step today, I hope all of my colleagues in the House and the Senate will look at this as at least a small contribution to a direction we should go, find ways to take government-owned property, get it in private hands, paying property tax, being developed, and creating jobs throughout the areas in which it lies. As I urge support, I would like to thank my colleague, the gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), for her work; I would like to thank the Senate cosponsors, including Senator Boxer, for getting this to us; and I would like to thank Mr. Denham for brining it to the floor at this time. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. S. 1302 would direct the General Services Administration to sell 150 acres of land in Tracy, California, to the city of Tracy for not less than its appraised fair market value. This property is undeveloped land that was once under the custody and control of the Federal Government. However, the Federal Government maintains a reversionary interest in the property based on certain usage restrictions. Through three separate pieces of legislation enacted since 1999, Congress has conveyed the 150 acres to the city of Tracy and has restricted its use of the land to educational and recreational uses only. Over the past decade, the city of Tracy has determined that these uses are no longer feasible, and it would like to utilize the land for economic development, thus adding to its base and to the welfare of the citizens of Tracy. In fact, the city expects significant commercial interest in the property and is optimistic that future development on the land will create hundreds of much-needed jobs. S. 1302 would remove all restrictions currently imposed on the property by Congress and would transfer complete ownership of the land from the Federal Government to the city of Tracy. Additionally, this legislation advances the goal of the disposing of unneeded Federal property, which is something that Mr. Denham, who is with me today, has been very active in. As we look at the Senate bill passed by the Senate unanimously in August of last year, I believe we see a win-win. The Federal Government takes a piece of land it has no further interest in and that it has, through congressional acts in the past, locked up for specific uses not likely to occur, and we receive full fair market value for the property. This is the way Federal land in excess should be disposed of--sold at fair market value or above and assured to be put to good use by the recipient, which, in this case, is the city of Tracy. I urge support for this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC, April 25, 2012. Hon. Ralph M. Hall, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 4257, the Federal Information Security Amendments Act of 2012, and your willingness to forego consideration of H.R. 4257 by your committee. I agree that the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has a valid jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of H.R. 4257 and that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely affected by your decision not to request a sequential referral of H.R. 4257. As you have requested, I will support your request for an appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation should such a conference be convened. Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this response in the Committee Report and in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you again for your cooperation. Sincerely, Darrell Issa, Chairman.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, in closing, I urge all Members to support the passage of this bill, H.R. 4257, as amended. I want to make one closing statement. Often we talk about cybersecurity, and people think just about the Internet. We sit here in a room that is essentially windowless. I've been in this room when the lights are out. It is very, very dark. We would have a hard time finding our way out. Yet the very essence of keeping the grid up requires computers to talk to each other. Our phone systems, our lights, our power, our sewage, our water all depend today on interoperable computer systems that span the entire country and, in many cases, the entire world. So, as people realize the government-to-government relationship and, particularly, the public-private partnerships that this bill encourages and asks the Office of Management and Budget to assure occur, we are doing so, of course, in order to maintain a reliable Internet; but much more importantly, the fundamentals of the very electricity that powers the Internet must be maintained and protected. I believe we've gone a long way today in the passage of this bill. I urge its passage. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his leadership on this important matter. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) who coordinated so much of the work that we're doing today from multiple committees.