can get them in this country anywhere you want with the exception of california. >> will the gentle lady yield? >> thank you for yielding. if you are so insistent in making sure that this never ever happens again, don't you want to see the documents? >> to your comment we have received 7,000 documents. we have the ag more than willing to negotiate with us for the doums, frankly, that have nothing to do with the actual activities of atf and how it got started and how it operates. we're talking about documents internal documents between staff members within the justice department after a letter was sent on february fourth that was erroneous to the end of the year when it was recalled by the administration. there is no cover-up here. there is no 20 minutes of a tape

that has been wiped out. >> if the gentle woman would yield? >> i have already yielded. i am trying to respond to your question. >> if what we are talking about is the process, the internal process of how a decision was made, recall that letter and say no, we were wrong, fine. that has nothing to do with the fact that agent terry was killed under a program that existed in this country where the highest levels of government didn't know what was going on. and we have got a rogue operation in atf. that's what we should be discussing. >> if the gentle woman would yield, that's what i am trying to find out and what i think you are trying to find out. but how can you come to a conclusion if you haven't seen the documents? >> the documents that we are requesting are the documents that relate to a letter that was developed by the legislative affairs department within the

justice department that was sent and was erroneous. >> if the gentle woman would yield. >> i am not yielding any longer. i want to yield the rest of my time to the ranking member. >> i thank the jegentle lady fo yielding. the attorney general yesterday agreed to provide documents. those documents would go the allegations that there may have been some retaliation against the whistle blowers. keep in mind, too, that the privilege that was asserted this morning by the president does not include that. you can -- you have those documents. and all the department's actions

to the issues you just raised. agreed to a request for a description of the categories. and part of the problem there was to do these privilege logs, you have got go through each document and tell what the document is and why you are with holding it or whatever. in that discussion he constantly said there are certain traditions and things that go with the office. not him, the office as has been in existence over the years. he said he wanted to continue that and he wanted to work with the chairman. i don't think that for one minute he is trying to hide anything.

i would love to see us work with him and get those documents. >> i thank the gentle woman. does anyone want to seek recognition? the gentleman from new hampshire. >> thank you. it was clear to me after the meeting with the majority and minority members of this committee as well as the senate committee yesterday and his team that he placed very specific conditions on this committee and this chairman. regarding information and briefings he would provide in exchange for the conclusion of this inquiry. that is not acceptable for one reason. that is less than 10% of the documents that exist relative to this inquiry. it is about releasing documents that are directly pertaining to who knew about this operation, who was engaged within the

justice department in this operation and based on today's developments of the president seeking executive prif lemg, it does call into question when the white house was engaged in this. i have had the opportunity as recently as monday to review the wiretap applications i was surprised by the volume and level of detail of information that senior department officials were presented with threw these application. to me it is unacceptable to tha senior officials did not halt this immediately upon learning of these tactics and that is very clearly stated. i support the ongoing pursuit of the documents responsive to this committee. i think they are necessary in

order for everyone of the members of this committee to identify the answers for bipartisan questions that have been asked through the course of the last year. i think the american people also have the right to know the complete and total truth. it's our obligation as members to seek and identify the information. certainly the people of new hampshire have asked me about the engagement and involvement. i hope we can continue this in not a political fashion but in a fashion where we obtain facts. to specifically identify facts that directly pertain to this inquiry. when you look at the fact that there is a minimum of 80,000 and as many as 140,000 documents and

only 7600 have been released, many of which don't even pertain to fast and furious, it does beg the question who is not being provided or released to this committee? it does beg the question why since february of 2011 there have been very limited information provided to this committee. and that's why i would continue to support the ongoing effort to obtain these doums and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for yield back. does anybody else seek recognition? >> we actually come to the state with some regret. we have had a year and a half of hearings of requests from this administration and we have had

that has been envel lopping the proceeding. i want to get to the bottom of what happened. we have been asking this question for close to a year and a half now on this matter. and i would request for you, mr. chairman and if you could just answer some questions. >> of course. >> the other second to talk about yesterday's proceedings and they continue to say there was a very reasonable request made of you. my understanding of the request is that you were supposed to completely agree to not hold these proceedings in the future if you if they were going to give you those documents. is that correct?

>> that's correct. i think the ranking member would agree that contempt had to be off the table in return for documents that we were not presented yesterday nor described. >> the reasonable request was that these proceedings would be completely off the table. not delayed but completely off the table? >> that's correct. >> i don't find that reasonable and i don't think the american people will find that reasonable and that's why we are here today. if the attorney general would have come to the meeting yesterday and would have said you know what? we're going to give you those documents and then we can discuss the contempt proceedings, i think that would have been a reasonable request. but instead we have been sitting here.

his statements were untrue or deliberately misleading. it is clear from recently released doums that mr. holder did know about fast and furious well before he pubically admitted. he has a troubling pattern. i have said that from the beginning and this pattern continues even until this morning. he has misled this committee and misled other kmt eyes preventing us from uncovering the simple truths of what happened. when did they know about it? what did they know and when did they know it? i brought to life his historical pattern of willful ignorance with a series of slides highlighting his lack of

knowledge. he knows nothing. he says nothing. and he seeks for nothing. never in my life have i been met by a man more unconcerned with the search for the truth. my slides struck a nerve with mr. holder with the look of a man that knew he had been found out. since then we have found more instances. i am not at this point aware that gun walking tactics were contained in wiretap applications. we do know that the tactics were outlined. once again the facts are clear. mr. holder, he is either not telling the truth or he is grossly incompetent. i repeat my call for his

resignation. i support the proceedings today and i support what the committee is doing. i yield back. >> does anyone else seek recognition? >> thank you. we have been here now for almost three hours discussing this matter and i think that indicates that members on both sides of the isle one of the reasons i am on this committee is i am passionate. i am on the committee because i think it's important that the american people know what is going on. i think my time rather than piling on to some of the things that have been said, i would like to take a couple of minutes to address some of the things that have come from the other side. they say why don't you wait a little bit longer. when you are trying to do something they say no, wait, slow down. i find that to be wrong.

we have been working on the fast and the purs furious investigation for some time now. this has be in place for the better part of a year. the tourj has had every opportunity in the world to voice his objections and come ply. instead we wait until the last hour and say give us more time. now it has been 30 years since i am in law school. but my understanding and has been verified is executive privilege is rightfully very narrow. it's there to protect the inner debates and give people the freedom to speak freely to the president we might as well pack this committee up and go home. we need to be looking into what

the government decision making process is within some of these agencies so we can develop laws and policies to insure that it's better. to remember the righteous indignation that we were all feeling over a year ago. there was bipartisan discussion at what was goin on. in order to protect a political appointee, we are circling the wagons and drawing this along party lines. and that's not right. remember the promises that were made in this room to terry's family. we would not rest until we got to the bottom of this. we may not be resting but we are taking our good time about it.

you also hear from the other side of the aisle that maybe we should have hearings about strengthening and tightening gun control laws. in corpus christi, we got a new police chief. he came and started saying all right, you' going to go out and write more speeding tickets. he enforced the laws that were on the books and solve that problem. i think sit a red herring there. this has a constitutionally mandated duty to conduct oversight and inform the legislative function. we must take action. t

tax. >> we need the letter. we need the information after this investigation started. if you look at the history of investigations in this government, all the way back to the nixon administration, it's not the crime that gets you so much, it's the cover up. the american people are willing to forgive a mistake. and says yes i made a mistake. i'm sorry. i'm not going to do it again. when the cover up starts, the american people do not tolerate being lied to. this culture of stone walling has got to stop. thank you. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i thank the chairman. i really, i know you're being complimented for your patience. i give more compliments to the people of the united states for their patience. we have been going at this for

quite some time. the question that comes up to me is why. why are these documents not being given to us. agent terry is dead. there are hups of mexicans dead. some people say it's too sensitive and we can't let that out there. there is something that is basically wrong and something that does not have the right feel to it. it is absolutely political. this is totally political. this has nothing to do with attorney general holder as a person but as the chief law enforcement officer of the united states.

why would you do that? i don't speak as a lawyer or a constitutional expert. the common sense of what is wrong here is what comes to life all the time when i sit in the hearings. there is something basically flawed when the department of justice can't give you the answers. when the attorney general can't give you the answers. when you hear that we have an evolving truth. what in the world does that mean? when the attorney general ined a ver tantly made claims to a committee that the attorney general had been briefed about gun walking. it was not in the testimony. i would like it to be entered unless there is some objection.

>> without objection, so ordered. >> in addition, the justice department released only one page. it is the page of handwritten notes by a public affairs specialist. it just recently discovered. the notes indicate that when attorney general jason winesteinment regarding the problem of gun walking and wide receiver. also attended the meeting. these notes further corroborate erroneous e-mails that show criminal division chief seem to have more concern about the press implications of gun walking than making sure the atf ended the practice.

and gun walking and fast and furious. i find it a little bit suspicious that we know everything about wide receiver. we get countless documents about wide receiver. when you ask for documents about fast and furious, you know what? we can't give those to you. the american people are fed up. they have lost trust. if you did this in the private sector you would be held in contempt of court. i don't have the option as a citizen to walk away from the obligations. not in this country, not at this time. why we have to come to this is

because we were force d what could be so damning in those documents? is it political? absolutely. and i yield back your time. >> seeing none, the question would so cur on the resolution before us. however, i know a quorum is not present. therefore i announce a recess. the recess will conclude and we will reconvene with the votes. ten minutes after the last vote on the floor which is expected to start at 1:30. and finally, i might note that during the recess, the clerk should observe her birthday, which i understand is today. happy birthday. we stand in recess.

>> the house oversight committee has been meeting for about three hours today to consider whether to citer reck holder for contempt for failing to turn over the documents related to the fast and furious, gun running operation. the president earlier invoked the executive privilege to with hold documents to the committee. that was asserted by the getty of the committee. as you just heard from the chairman, the committee is going to recess and they will do that so that members can vote on the house floor. coming up shortly probably in about ten or 15 minutes or so. what we're going to do is open up our phone lines in a few minutes to ache your reaction. a couple of ways to do that. if you are a republican, the

pho phone. make sure you mute your television or radio when you call in. we will get to calls in about ten minutes. you can use the handle cspanholder and we will read some of those. they will recess and coming back from a vote. the house ju judiciary committee. although he is not a member of that committee he was allowed a privilege to question the

attorney general. here is how that looked. >> december 14, 2010, brain terry was gunned down and we began knowing about fast and furious shortly therefore. people representing you have said repeatedly you didn't know about that before then. i sent you a number of letters. senator sent you a couple of letters. you mention the speaker's letter. the speaker did not limit the scope of the subpoenas you are under obligation to respond to. he simply said you are under response to two key areas. however, you imply that we were working together when in fact, since may 18, nothing has come from your department. not one shred of paper. i will ask you first of all

today, have you and your attorneys produced internally the materials spos ivesposive responsive. >> a good witness the question. let's go back again. have you and your attorneys produced internally. and find out what material you have response to it or simply invented a privilege that does not exist. >> you say internally? >> internally have you pulled all of that information? >> we looked at 240 kus toastians. >> how many documents are responsive that you are with holding at this time. >> we have produced 7600. >> i don't want to hear about the 7600. >> the lady is out of order.

>> mr. chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. i would beg to allow the attorney general to be able to finish his answer. >> the attorney general will be allowed to answer the question. >> i thank the chairman. >> and the attorney general will have more time to do that if we don't have interrupts. >> i would like my time reclaimed. >> mr. chairman i suggest that we take back the time that he used, the two minutes over his time that he used -- >> you want to give me an additional two minutes? >> i will give you the 45 seconds but we will apply a rule on one side of this aisle then we ought to apply it on both sides. >> the gentleman from california has the time. >> isn't it true that you have not produced a log of materials with held even though our investigators have asked for it? >> i know that -- i'm not sure about that. >> okay.

i'm sure you didn't. let's move on. march 15, 2010. before brian terry was gunned down, april 19, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down. may 7, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down. may 17, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down. june 2, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down. july 2, the real date of our independence before brian terry was gunned down. these were applications that we did not subpoena but were given to us by a furious group of whistle blowers that were tired of your stone walling indicate that a number of key individuals, in fact, were responsible for information contained in here that clearly shows that the tactics were known. they were known and contained in these wiretaps. i understand you have read these

wiretaps since we brought them to your attention. is that correct? >> i have read them and i disagree with the conclusion that you have just reached. >> james cole has written that the department has a greater obligation than just checking the legal sufficiency and approving the wiretap applications. is that correct? >> applications have to agree with doj policy? >> that's what he said. >> sure. >> okay. during a tlaransscribed intervi, jason winestein testified that they do not read the wiretap applications. is this practice acceptable to you? >> they read summaries of the applications. that is a process that has been us