the reasonable thing to do at this point, especially in light of the executive privilege. >> would the general lady yield? >> yes, sir. >> as i said in the opening, we don't have an assertion of executive privilege at the house. executive privilege has to have specificity as to what is being asserted over what documents and normally as you know a privilege log goes with that. to date the house has not received that from the office of the president, so although i read the portion of the letter and the entire letter is in the record, i did so only so that we would take note that it may come and that we certainly may recess at some point to evaluate the actual statement. we're holding time right now actually. we stopped the clock. i want to make sure you have your full time. if the general lady would allow me to continue. when it comes to the question of postponing today, had the

attorney general yesterday turned over the documents he said he would turnover in return for essentially an ending of this investigation, had he turned over those documents, we would not be here today. we would be evaluating those documents, but until we evaluate documents that tell us that we can bring a close either to contempt or to the entire investigation, we can't assume that and of course as you know or hopefully the ranking member would explain, there was no log or no actual documentation showing what they intended to present, so i did go into that meeting yesterday with full intent that we would likely postpone based on something being produced. nothing was produced. i am still waiting and i said in the news conference yesterday that i would wait all night and we did have people here all night in hopes those documents would arrive and we would then postpone what we evaluated the documents. the general lady may resume. >> mr. chairman, assuming no

executive privilege had been invoked, and that we had only the offer to give the documents, if the chairman would consider after receiving the documents continued discussions and negotiations, wouldn't that have been the way to resolve this matter. >> if the general lady would further yield, if we were being offered in return for postponement documents and then we could judge them both the majority and minority, and then reenter negotiations as appropriate, we wouldn't be here today. >> mr. chairman, i believe that in light of that that some clarification on what the offer expected and what in fact occurred is an order rather than proceeding to contempt vote. >> would the general lady yield? >> yes, sir. >> chairman give me -- since you were trying to explain, a little

bit more time. all right. i said this before. the attorney general did not ask for the ending of the investigation. what he was trying to do and he spent quite a bit of the little 20 minutes we had together saying that he had limited personnel and his personnel were being tied up in going through these millions of e-mails and documents and whatever, and he basically said at some point he just wanted to see if we could move towards bringing the contempt situation to a conclusion, moving towards it, and that's what as i understand it what he was asking for, not -- i mean, he understood well that the investigation was going to go on because we have a lot to investigate. he did not -- he talked about the contempt and that was my understanding.

general lady. >> you could see, mr. chairman, finally, there is a dispute even on what went on in the room and i think it merits continuing discussions with the justice department. >> if the general lady would further yield. >> yes. >> i trust the justice department is hearing my interpretation. if they want to deliver documents, they're welcome to. again -- >> of course if a contempt is voted already, then of course we have ended that possibility, and since the justice department is now hearing a difference in between two people at the same meeting, does seem to me that it calls for some opportunity for the justice department to come forward and resolve that dispute between the two major figures

who were in the deliberations. i would ask that that be considered. >> i appreciate the general lady. further yield. general lady yield. thank you. >> i would be glad to yield. >> i want to go back to something you said. in the document sent from the attorney general's office this morning and now part of the record, i want to read the last few words. it says in closing while we are deeply disappointed intends to move forward with contempt citation, i stress that the department remains willing to work towards a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter and please do not hesitate to contact us. >> i thank the gentlemen and the general lady's time has expired. gentlemen from utah. >> i move to strike the last verse. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the beauty and miracle that is the united states of america is there is no one person in this country that's above the law.

i believe this committee has a duty, obligation, and a right to investigate this matter to its fullest effect. i would harken back to the words of president obama on his first full day of office. i would like to read from that. let me say as simply as i can transparency in the rule of law will be the touch stones of this presidency and i also hold myself as president to new standard of openness and he went on and said the mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it. the freedom of information act is perhaps the most powerful instrument we have for making our government honest and transparent and holding it accountable and i expect members of my administration not simply to live up to the letter but the spirit of the law. the president then issued a memorandum to the heads of the executive departments on january 1, 2009. quote, the government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure because errors or failures might be revealed or because of speculative or

abstract fears. en quote. the president on march of 2011 in talking about fast and furious said there may be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made and if that's the case we'll find out and hold somebody accountable. ladies and gentlemen, that has not happened. on february 4th of last year, 2011, the congress was sent a letter that was false. it took ten months for that information to be provided, to be withdrawn. the subpoena that we're talking about today was issued in october of last year. now it is june 20th and the president is issuing -- is exerting executive privilege and we haven't yet seen this. i would like to enter into the record i ask unanimous consent mr. chairman to enter a letter of june 3, 2011, signed by 31 democrats sent to the president of the united states. >> without objection so ordered. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will read a couple of excerpts. quote, it is equally troubling the department of justice

delayed action and withheld information from congressional inquiries, end quote. later again a laert from 31 democrats to the president june 3rd of 2011. quote, while the department of justice can and should continue its investigation, those activities should not curtail the ability of congress to fulfill its oversight duties, end quote and last quote i will take from that we urge you to instruct the department of justice to provide complete answers to all congressional inquiries on this issue. end quote. none of that has happened. it is sad. it is disappointing. it shouldn't have come to this. nobody likes doing this. this is not about eric holder. it is about the department of justice and justice in the united states of america. have the guts, i hope we have the guts and the perseverance to get to the bottom of this. we have nearly 2,000 weapons purposely given to drug cartels. we have hundreds of dead people in mexico. we have a dead united states border parole agent. we have a government that's

withholding information so that we can not only get to the bottom but that we can fix it and make sure it never happens again. when we're issued a letter and ten months later they have to pull it back and say that's not true, something is fundamentally wrong. it is also not about 140,000 documents that the department of justice knowingly says they have and we have less than 8,000 of them. it is not about the numbers. it is the fact we don't have all of them, whatever that number is. when you have somebody like the former acting director of the atf say under oath, quote, it was very frustrating to all of us and appears thoroughly to us that the department is really trying to figure out a way to push information away from their political appointees at the department. talking about the department of justice. those are things that we should be concerned about. nobody wants to put a conclusion to this more than chairman issa. i want to put a conclusion to this. everybody on the panel should want to put a conclusion to

this. when these problems and challenges came up to the gs. a, they dealt with them, johnson stepped down. when we had problems at the secret service people within days resigned and stepped down. the reality is we have not gotten to the bottom of this and brian carey was killed in december of 2010. we have a moral obligation to get to the bottom of this. it is sad and disappointing and the department of justice should provide us these documents. it is disappointing that we have to be here today. it is not about eric holder. it is about the department of justice and justice in the united states of america. that's why i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to show the guts needed to pass this and move it to the floor for further debate. thank you, mr. chairman. yield back. >> thank the gentleman for yielding back. we recognize the gentleman from new york, the former chairman of the committee, mr. towns. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i am troubled over how we're

going about this. as a former chairman of this committee, i am deeply disturbed that this committee is continuing to pursue the unprecedented course of holding the sitting attorney general in contempt of congress. mr. chairman, you claim that contempt is warranted because mr. holder's office has refused to turnover documents that the majority asserts is critical to the investigation of gun walking operation along the arizona/mexico border. the majority claims are without merit. let me say that i could see it was a situation where the attorney general was not responding but he has been up here nine times testifying. let me say one other thing, too. in all of my 30 years of being in the united states congress, the way that he was treated when

he was here testifying before this committee i must admit i have never seen anybody treated in that fashion. i don't understand why we have to move in this order if they're cooperating. if they're not cooperating, then maybe we could understand what you're doing, but i will be honest with you. i think this is a mistake, a major mistake, and i really want you to know that i think that this should be discontinued and let's see if we can continue to get the information that he is willing to sit down and provide and as indicated that and i don't understand why we have to move in this fashion. there is credit to this committee and of course this committee as you know has a full name of oversight and government reform, and i don't see

reforming anything here. i just don't get the point, just does not make sense to me and it is the most ridiculous thing that i think i have seen in my years of being on this committee. i yield to the general woman from new york the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and i would like to be associated with his comments and also those of ms. norton. the administration and the attorney general have made an offer to continue discussions, and i believe these discussions should move forward in the spirit of getting some type of conclusion and the information that you need and solutions moving forward, and i want to quote from the letter that was sent to mr. issa from james cole. in it he says i stress that the department remains willing to work toward a mutually satisfactory resolution of this

matter, so why can't we work together? i would like to publicly thank mr. micca for working across the aisle on the transportation bill and hopefully this can move forward in a bipartisan way, and i think we should work across the aisle on getting this resolved in a way that satisfies the chairman and the members on both sides of the aisle and the fact that he has made an offer to continue discussions we should follow up, and i think that this offer reinforces the points that my good friend the congressman norton was making that the justice department is opened to working towards some type of conclusion. i would like to say we have never censureed a cabinet offer. i think it was people or had a

contempt vote and i can't remember. you can probably remember. never a cabinet officer and never the highest ranking member of law enforcement for our country who is willing to work with the chairman, so i feel that this is an area that we could work together in a positive way, and i yield back to the gentlemen from the great state of the new york. >> i think it is a great statement, mr. chairman, and i hope you consider it. >> would the gentlemen yield. staff informed me this committee did vote on the holding janet reno in contempt. in that case it was for the actions of janet reno. in this case we're only looking for the documents and i might say to my colleague and friend from new york where are the documents? >> i yield back to the gentlemen. >> i ask unanimous content, the gentleman have an additional 30

seconds to yield to the general lady from new york. without objection so ordered. >> even newt gingrich wouldn't hold a contempt vote on the floor of the united states congress against janet reno. >> i thank the general lady. who else seeks recognition? the gentleman from florida, mr. mack is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a sad day as it has been talked about a number of times here on committee. we have guns that went to mexico. at the same time you had the mexican officials so concerned about all of the weapons that were going to mexico and then we end up with a border patrol agent shot and killed by guns from the united states going to mexico. it is the duty of this committee to get to the bottom of this,

and it is clear and people who might be watching this hearing, it is clear that there are those that do not want to get to the bottom of this and get the answers, that people would rather use legal ease to try to avoid turning over the documents that will help bring closure to a family who lost a family member. it is our responsibility on this committee to get this done. the other side is making an argument that in some letter talking about getting to the bottom of this or about documents that is mutually satisfactory. you can't come to that conclusion when the other side doesn't want to turn over the information. if they wanted to turn over the documents, they would have done

that by now. this hearing would look a lot different. it would be about what do we do in the future and it would be about reform and instead we have got the justice department that continues to withhold this information, and if i could, mr. chairman, i know that this is a very narrow scoped markup, but i want to point out that there are a lot of troubling signs in this case. we had the opportunity in foreign affairs on october 27, 2011, with secretary clinton, and just so everyone understands, under the arms export control act, the justice department is required to receive a written waiver from the state department to account for their intent to cause arms to be exported across our borders and into mexico. i asked secretary clinton on that day did the state department, and i am quoting, i

asked, did the state department issue the justice department a license or a written waiver and order to allow for the transfer of thousands of weapons across the u.s. mexico border. secretary clinton's response s was, congressman, this is the first time i have asked this and i can tell you based on the record of any activity by the bureau that would have been responsible, we see no evidence but let me check. secretary clinton points out that in her department they weren't asked for a written waiver. that's in violation of the law. so as this committee moves

forward, and i thank the chairman for his patience, we need to make sure that we get to the bottom of this, that the state department acknowledges that they weren't asked for this waiver. we're just looking for the information. here at the last hour the president is trying to -- if they were so willing to give the documents, you wouldn't at the last hour have a letter come from the administration claiming executive privilege or whatever it is they're claiming. we owe it to the people of this country to get to the bottom of this and owe it to the family that lost a loved one to get to the bottom of this, and, mr. chairman, i am with you on this. i will yield to the gentleman. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to make a point that a week before last in the house judiciary committee chairman issa, a representative gowdy and i were there. i asked the attorney general if

he was willing to sit down, and he was so adamant that the senior level of department of justice people were not involved, i asked him, would you be willing to come sit with us, allow mr. gowdy and i to come sit with you and share this information and show us what you have and he said no. he said no. he said i am done doing this. i have given you every bit of information and i have no intention of further talking to you. sadly, that's in part why we're here today. yield back. >> gentleman yields back. who else seeks recognition, the gentleman from cleveland, ohio, kucinich is recognized. >> at the risk of stating the obvious, the assertion of executive privilege has taken this proceeding into a whole new realm, and while congress has the constitutional right and this committee to whom that right is delegated to require the production of records, the

administration similarly has a constitutional right to claim executive privilege and to refuse to produce those records. now, when you have a conflict between the legislative branch and the executive branch, those conflicts generally will go to the courts to make the decision as to whether or not the administration's claim of executive privilege should be upheld. it would seem to me that before this committee would take any action on the question of contempt, we would first appropriately have to apply to a court to order the production of the records. if then the records were not produced, it would seem that the question of contempt would then be germane, so i just want to

ask the chairman that in the interest of avoiding an untimely collision over an issue of contempt, if the chairman is prepared to seek a court order for the production of the records prior to having this committee act on the issue of contempt. >> if the gentleman is asking did we go to the court to request a subpoena. >> no, would you, would you once the president asserted executive privilege as he has, are you prepared to challenge that in court or are you prepared to proceed nevertheless with a contempt citation when that issue has not really been resolved, whether or not he has

to produce those records? >> if the gentleman would yield. as i announced earlier, we're concurrently evaluating and trying to get from the white house a log of the actual assertion. as you know, the deputy attorney general cannot assert executive privilege, only the president can do it, so a letter saying that the president has done it is not sufficient. to that extent, we're working right now both with house counsel and attempting to work with the white house to get that, but to the gentleman's answer to his question that probably is most illustrating, mr. kucinich, i believe you voted to find the harriet myers bolten in contempt and president bush had asserted executive privilege. he then continued to assert executive privilege after it was voted successfully out of the house and it went to the u.s. attorney in the district of columbia, so there is a

precedent of every member on that side of the aisle that was here probably voted for that contempt but having said that, this is not about that vote. we're trying to evaluate where the president might assert executive privilege, if he has asserted it, and we will take note of that, but since it hasn't been asserted before this committee, only a letter arriving from the deputy attorney general, that's the reason we're going forward. i will announce if the gentleman will continue yielding, it is our intent if the president produces a privilege log of what is not to be produced because categories specifically were part of his deliberate process, it would be my intention to carve that out of contempt to send a clean contempt resolution to the floor. we can't do that based on an assertion by the deputy attorney general with no specificity and in light of arguments made,

statements made by the attorney general and the president in the past that they didn't communicate but we certainly are working on that, and i think the gentleman's point is good. i don't want to repeat a situation in which if you will and i think the general lady had already said that, in much it arrives at the u.s. attorney's office and then is not pursued. that's not our intent. our intent is to get the documents as appropriate. i would ask the gentleman have an additional 30 seconds without objection. >> as has been stated by individuals on your side of the aisle, you have waited eight months, i think it is now. you have made your point as far as what the authority of the committee is. the question is whether or not you would be willing to postpone any action on the contempt citation, give the white house the chance to produce the log that you're asking for, anden

this determine whether or not it would be most appropriate to either apply to a court of jurisdiction that would give you the chance to challenge the white house's position or then proceed with the contempt. it just seems that given all of your patience that it would be a shame to produce kind of a titanic contest here between the two branches of government if there is a way to try to make one more effort to avoid it. >> i thank the gentleman and take note of his comments. does anyone else seek recognition. gentleman from michigan recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the deliberate efforts you made including all the hearings, the letter writing, our bipartisan trip to mexico city where we met with mexican law enforcement officials as well as u.s. officials on this issue.

there is a time that a deliberate body needs to continue our efforts for oversight as well as government reform. this is all that we're doing here. mr. chairman, this hearing gives me no excitement or joy but brian terry, a proud son of the state of michigan, a district in that state i represent, a proud and dedicated marine, dedicated law enforcement officer, and son of a grieving family deserves our fullest effort to know the truth and not what our office of the attorney general calls evolving truth. there is no certainty in evolving truth. the attorney general has publicly stated that the department of justice is committed to working to accommodate the committee's legitimate oversight needs. the problem with that position is the attorney general believes

he is the arbiter of the committee's, quote, legitimate oversight needs. the attorney general's position that the department of justice decides which documents we need and which ones we don't is contrary to the constitution in a century of case law. the evolving truth has an eroding impact on our citizens understanding of what the rule of law is. as well as the constitution. still, the attorney general and his deputies have repeated that position time and time again in the last week. the attorney general's last best offer was to produce a, quote, fair compilation of documents covered by the subpoena. you can probably guess who the attorney general's proposed would decide which documents make it into that, quote, fair compilation. evolving truth again which is difficult to work with.