the record will stay open for a week, as it will from this morning's hearing, and we will be building the record in a written fashion also. thank you. this is c-span 3, with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week, and every weekend, 48 hours of people and events telling the

american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our websites, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. we are live on capitol hill this morning as the house government reform and oversight committee is considering contempt charges against attorney general eric holder. those charges are a result of committee chairman darrell issa's request for more documents on operation fast and furious. the committee's been investigating how much the justice department knew about the operation's use of a tactic known as gun walking which allowed weapons to be smuggled from arizona to mexico. the justice department has so far declined to release some documents related to its own investigation of fast and furious. if the committee votes in favor of contempt, the next step would be a vote in the full house of representatives.

as the committee members continue to assemble here on capitol hill, yesterday, committee chair darrell issa and attorney general holder met to discuss those documents that congressman issa requested. it was a 20-minute meeting during which mr. holder offered congressman issa a deal, saying that he wants an assurance from mr. issa that the transfer of those records that he had requested would satisfy a subpoena from the house oversight and government reform committee. mr. issa rejected, apparently, that deal and so here we are on capitol hill, moving ahead with

this hearing to consider contempt charges. after that meeting yesterday, attorney general holder held a briefing with reporters to discuss what took place. >> good afternoon. the deputy attorney general and i came here today in good faith in an attempt to resolve the ongoing dispute that we have with the committee and with chairman issa. we have made to date available an unprecedented number of documents, really inconsistent with the way in which the justice department has looked at many of these matters in the past.

we've provided deliberative materials to the committee. we laid out a plan that might resolve this matter. we have offered to make materials available, documents available in the period from february to december of 2011 to brief on those documents, to answer any questions that might come up with regard to the documents that we produced. at least as of now, the committee has rejected that proposal. it is our hope that we can somehow find a way through this. the offer that we made is still there, it's still outstanding, and it is one that goes far beyond what any justice department has done previously. >> can you assess what were the types of documents that you were going to present? i realize you can't tell us in great detail but what were these documents that you were going to present to him on the condition that they avoid the markup tomorrow? >> well, it wasn't on that. we offered the documents on the condition that we would resolve

the subpoena question, that he would view the provision of these documents as fully satisfying the two subpoenas that had been sent to us. it's a whole variety of material and it's consistent with what we have already made available, e-mails, documents of that nature, that really go into the way in which the department handled itself from february of 2011 until december of 2011, and i think pretty clearly demonstrate there was no intention to mislead, to deceive. this is material that we think was not even called for in some of the subpoenas that we have received. we nevertheless thought in good faith and as i said, in an attempt to resolve this matter, that we would make this material available. >> based on what you've heard inside with the chairman and the other members, do you believe that there's anything that you can do at this point, producing documents or interviews or anything else, to avoid the proceedings tomorrow? or did you get the sense that it's a done deal, they're going ahead? >> i don't know. i think the ball's in their court. they rejected what i thought was

an extraordinary offer on our part. they have i guess until they decide, they have the ability to change their minds. but as i said, we made i thought an extraordinary offer and indicated to them that these materials have been accumulated, they are there for distribution to them. we will make as i said somebody available to brief on them and we will answer questions connected to them. >> congressman cummings told us just earlier that he believes that chairman issa came in and had already made up his mind he was moving forward with this contempt vote. do you believe the same? >> i have to say given the extraordinary nature of the offer that we made and given the extraordinary way in which we have shared materials to date, that i think we are actually involved more in political gamesmanship as opposed to trying to get the information they say they want. nevertheless, we are prepared to provide these materials, to brief on these materials, answer

questions about these materials. >> will you hand over any of those materials tonight? >> what we asked from the chairman was an indication that if we provided these materials, that would be considered to resolve the subpoenas that were extant. he has not indicated a desire to do that at this point. i hope he will change his mind. [ inaudible ] >> i don't want to answer that question. >> chairman issa foreclosed his rights to enforce the subpoena without seeing the documents, isn't that what you're asking him to do? >> no. not necessarily. >> not necessarily, or are you? >> no, i'm saying we have made an offer, that we will make these things available on the condition that subpoena would be considered resolved and to the extent that there are other questions that might be generated as a result of us turning over these documents, we're prepared to answer those questions. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> what needs to be done to break the logjam? >> again, that briefing yesterday. we are live once again on capitol hill. attorney general holder and house oversight and government reform committee chair darrell issa are expected here on the hill in this contempt hearing. neither party is in the room just yet. we understand ranking member elijah cummings is there along with a number of attorneys on the panel.

>> again, as we're waiting for this house oversight and government reform committee hearing to get under way, we are just receiving this news from the associated press, that the justice department is saying that president obama has exerted executive privilege over those fast and furious documents that are in question that were the subject of a meeting yesterday

between committee chair darrell issa and attorney general eric holder. those two did meet yesterday for about 20 minutes. afterwards, congressman issa held a briefing that lasted just a few minutes for reporters. >> i guess i want to thank you all for coming. we've had about a 20-minute meeting with the attorney general and the deputy attorney general.

to summarize, he came with an offer of a briefing. we went through the process of what was being offered and responded as i think we have to, which is that the documents that they may choose to give in the future, we need to have before tomorrow. ultimately, the documents necessary to cause a postponement appear to be in their possession. we're hoping that we have them tonight. if we can evaluate them even partially, then that will give us grounds to negotiate a postponement and perhaps a final resolution. >> it seems as though in your letter, though, reported yesterday that the deadline was really this morning, and this sounds like there's movement -- >> chad, the deadline will always move to the very last minute. we always want to be respectful that if we get the information or any information that allows us to rethink contempt and in

fact, make progress on behalf of brian cherry's family and the american people, then we will take it. we have no hard deadlines. we do have a markup for tomorrow. if we receive no documents, we'll go forward. if we receive documents, we'll evaluate them and we'll take such time as is necessary in delay to be sure of the quality of these documents and whether they're sufficient. >> it sounds as if there really wasn't much progress made in this meeting, because what we're hearing from you is a lot of what we heard in the communications in the letters back and forth. >> essentially this meeting, i would characterize and others may characterize it differently, but it was a reiterating of positions that we both had in the letters. our position is give us the documents. their position is they would like to give us a briefing, then documents supporting their assertion that essentially there was no wrongdoing, and then bring it to a close. i think we have to in good conscience see documents that

convince us that it's time to say that there has been sufficiency as to the subpoena. we are willing to do that. but if they have documents they believe makes the case, they certainly should give those to us first. we also discussed a log of what they weren't giving, which is normal in these kinds of procedures. we did not make any progress on that but we also hope to make progress on, if there are things they don't want to give us, that they at least tell us what they're not giving and why. >> -- hand over these documents tonight? >> he said he was prepared to do the briefing, then hand over the documents. obviously what wasn't resolved that causes me to be out here is we need the documents, not the briefing. we need the documents to know whether or not he's being responsive to a paper request. we welcome a briefing once we've seen the documents. >> are you disappointed that you have not gotten the documents during this meeting? >> we are disappointed. we had hoped and some news services had even reported that

they expected documents to be delivered. we never expected to get all the documents, but our hope was and still is that later this evening, we'll receive such documents as allow us to say that at least for the time being, we're evaluating future documents. i want you all to understand, we never moved toward contempt until the flow of meaningful documents dried up, and that ultimately is what caused the impasse that led to the speaker's may 18th letter in which he narrowed to the minimum he could and because of the receipt of the wiretaps, we further narrowed to one issue and that issue is not resolved. >> in 2007, when democrats tried to gain a contempt vote against attorney general gonzalez, you were very honest, you boycotted that vote, you said the administration, the bush administration, shouldn't release any documents.

why is it different now? >> i do remember the day we all went to the stairs and had a press conference basically. i serve on judiciary committee in addition to my committee. the question of firing of u.s. attorneys was vetted through a great many hearings. i participated in those hearings. i think that the firing of political appointees certainly needs to be within bounds to be looked at but it's a very different issue. brian terry is dead. he's dead with weapons that were allowed to walk by our government and in fact, then false statements were made about letting guns walk. holding the people responsible for brian terry's death within the justice department is critical to the family and to me. holding responsible for false statements made to congress that the american people relied on for eight months is also important. those are the areas that we need to resolve.

i know you all realize that if it was your loved one who was gunned down in the streets or in the country in tucson, arizona area, you would be equally upset. so i think getting answers to these questions in which a real law enforcement agent was killed with real guns is at least fairly unique, in my career. okay. last, please. >> do you think that ultimately whatever the attorney general decides to do, the president is responsible for whatever the attorney general decides to do? >> we're not looking to hold people responsible. we're looking for document production. ultimately the attorney general is the custodian of the documents we wish to receive and that's why the contempt cites him. we would hope that the president would ask his attorney general to be more cooperative. 31 democrats asked for more cooperation than we've gotten. okay. thank you.

>> first of all, good evening. we had i thought a very good meeting with the attorney general. he offered to provide the documents with regard to post-february 4th. he also agreed to provide a substantive briefing on the department's actions. he also agreed to request -- a request by senator grassley for description of the categories of documents and fourth, he also agreed to entertain substantive follow-up requests for information and all he asked in return was a good faith effort to bring this matter to resolution. he was very clear that answering these subpoenas has taken up a substantial amount of time of

the attorney general's office and i thought he was, as i have always thought, he has been very reasonable in trying to address this issue. keep in mind that this effort to subpoena the records from the attorney general is a legitimate duty of our committee. our committee has as part of its mission to investigate, but we also have as part of our mission to bring about reform when that is appropriate. the attorney general had been asked before if you read the first contempt citation, he had been asked to produce the documents that were unlawful for him to produce, such as

application, wiretap applications, and he had been asked to produce documents that might have placed trials and investigations in jeopardy. on our side, we issued a dissenting opinion with regard to that -- >> statement yesterday from congressman elijah cummings. now back to capitol hill. live coverage of the house government reform and oversight committee.

>> the committee on oversight and government reform will come to order. the committee meets today to consider reporting a resolution to the house of representatives finding the attorney general eric holder jr. in contempt of congress. on the night of december 14th, 2010, in a canyon west of rio rico, arizona, u.s. border patrol agents were engaged in a shootout with armed mexican bandits preying on illegal immigrants. one of the agents was 40-year-old brian terry, a three-year veteran who had served as a u.s. marine and gone through boot camp at camp pendleton in my district. during that firefight, a bullet pierced agent terry's aorta.

he died in that canyon. two weapons were found at the scene. they were later traced to an operation conducted by the department of justice called fast and furious. 16 months ago, this committee along with senator chuck grassley launched an investigation into whistle blowers' allegations regarding fast and furious. we became involved only after senator grassley was told he would not receive answers from the justice department because in fact, he did not have subpoena power and was not the chairman. in the course of our investigation, the committee has uncovered serious wrongdoing by the justice department. that wrongdoing led to 2,000 weapons crossing the mexican border that cost lives on both sides of the border, including brian terry's. a year and a half later, the

terry family is still searching for answers. the operation contributed to the deaths of countless mexican citizens. it has soured our relationship with our neighbor to the south. it's created an ongoing safety problem here in the united states in which even the attorney general has admitted more lives could be lost. the department of justice has fought this committee's investigation every step of the way, starting with an unequivocal denial that it used the reckless tactics we now know were used in fast and furious. the denial proved to be false and ultimately, the justice department withdrew it. they withdrew it in december, having given it to us in february. today's contempt is in no small

part because the materials between the time a false statement was given to us in writing and later affirmed in sworn testimony by the justice department's representative, an officer of the court, a lawyer, and now the dean of a law school, was ultimately false, that intervening period remains one of the areas of investigation. it's clear that congress relies on its ability to get truthful testimony when investigating wrongdoing in and around the executive branch. in spite of this lack of transparency, the committee has managed to piece together much of what happened and we believe we can help participate in making sure it never happens again. but our work is not complete. and we need the department of justice to cooperate. thus far, the cooperation has not been forthcoming. over and over again, the department has sought to protect its political appointees.

it has used this investigation -- its investigation by the department's inspector general which has been pending a very long time as a reason not to cooperate. we are now on the second inspector general. there's been no interim report and although they say it will be forthcoming within a month, we and the american people need answers sooner, not later. the attorney general has in fact said he has gone to extraordinary measures to participate and to help. we have received to date approximately 7600 documents. a great many of those documents are in fact responsive to other operations conducted before he was attorney general, and those documents pale in comparison to the 80,000 documents or more that the inspector general has received. our purpose has never been to hold the attorney general in

contempt. our purpose has always been to get the information the committee needs to complete its work that it is not only entitled to but obligated to do. we had offered the department an accommodation to address its concerns about information related to ongoing prosecutions. if the justice department had delivered the documents they freely admitted they could deliver, we wouldn't be here today. as late as last night in discussions with the attorney general, our offer -- his offer was only to give us a briefing and such documents as supported the briefing and then only if we ended the investigation. contempt today is not about whether we end the investigation or not. it is about a narrow subset of the documents that the committee must ultimately receive. the subpoenas are eight months old.

we have not received a credible reason for them not being supplied and in fact, no constitutional assertion has occurred. rather, it is the duty of the executive branch and its agencies to represent itself honestly before congress and to make available such transparency as necessary for us to fund and authorize now and in the future the request of this and future presidents. only today, only a few minutes before the gaveling of this markup did we receive from the deputy attorney general a letter dated today, not spoken of last night, which says, and i would

ask unanimous consent the entire letter be placed in the record. without objection, so ordered. in the first paragraph, it says i write now to inform you that the president has asserted executive privilege over relevant post-february 4th, 2011 documents. it goes on for several pages. as we speak, as i speak, the committee is evaluating this. we have verified that no communication from the president has arrived before the house. additionally, at least in a preliminary evaluation, we discover that the president well after february 4th has said that in fact, he has not discussed this and was not made aware of it. additionally, the attorney general has repeatedly given us

testimony showing that he did not speak to the president about this. i now read for the record from page 25 of when congress comes calling, which is from the constitution project, and i apologize if this seems preliminary but this communication arrived only within minutes of the start of this markup. executive privilege. the president's communications privilege and i quote, the communications in question must relate to the quintessential and nondelegatable presidential power that requires direct presidential decision making. the privilege is limited to the core constitutional powers of the president such as the power to appoint and remove. the commander in chief power. the sole authority to receive