administrations. >> and are you aware that federal squlujs to your knowledge -- >> can i answer my question? >> you have given me a sufficient answer considering the amount of questions i have and the amount of time. are you okay with that practice? would you agree that senior officials are responsible for documents they sign? i would assume the answer is yes. so now let me ask you the question. jason wine stein, is he possible for what is in the wiretaps? >> is he responsible? >> he is a responsible officer. is he responsible for them even if he only read a summary? >> he did not create that material. he would have been a person as a deputy who would reslew them. >> so when congress wlits a statute requiring certain slijs be responsible -- >> regular order. regular order. >> i am in the middle of a question.

>> the attorney general will be allowed to ask a question. >> he didn't ask a question. >> i am half way through it. if the statute says they are responsible and if, in fact, they are not read, then how are the american people to understand -- >> lregular order. >> the attorney general will be allowed to answer this question. >> anyone of ordinary reading including the atf form ee eer - >> do you have a question, mr. chairman? >> who is responsible, mr. attorney general? >> all right. you really conflated a bunch of things here. >> you delivered so little. >> regular order. now mr. chairman will he be allowed to answer the question now? >> i would appreciate no more interrupti interruptions. >> the responsibility about which you speak is the responsibility of a deputy

assistant attorney general looking at the summaries to make sure there is a basis to go into court and to ask that court to grant the wiretap based on a determination that a responsible official makes that probable cause exists. they do not look to see if in fact, to review all that is involved in the operation. i have read those now. i have read those. i have read those from wide receiver as well. i can say that what has happened in connection with fast and furious was done in the same way as the wiretap applications were done under the previous administration in wide receiver. i have looked at the summaries and they looked in a twha is consistent with the practice and the responsibility that they have as defined by the statute. >> the gentle woman is recognized. >> does the ranking member wish to speak out of order? >> if i may, please.

>> go ahead. >> i think that the previous questioning was the first note of hostility and interruption of the witness that i think has been uncharacter is tuncharacte would like to ask the chair to admonish all of the witnesses from here on out to please try -- all the members from here on out to please allow the witness to finish his answer. >> would the gentleman yield? >> of course. >> you know, i appreciate that there was hostility between the attorney general and myself. i would hope that the ranking member would understand that in fact, most of it was produced by the fact that i have a great many questions and a relatively little amount of time to get answers and for a year and a half, my committee through

subpoena and interrogatories has been attempting to get answers for which this witness has basically says he asserts a privilege. >> the gentleman from michigan has the time. >> parliamentary inquiry if the gentleman would yield. >> i would like to yield to the attorney general at this point, please. >> with all due respect to chairman issa, he says there is hostile ity hostility. i am feeling calm. i am okay. >> eric holder testifying before the house ju dish rare committee about two weeks ago on fast and furious in particular. the house oversight committee has wrapped up about three hours of a meeting to consider whether to hold the attorney general in contempt of congress. they have taken a recess because there was not a quorum present.

we're opening up our phone lines here ahead of the committee returning for that vote. here are the numbers to call. if you are a republican, 202-624-1111. democrats are 202-624-1115. independents is 202-624-0760. >> first up is kristy on a republican line. welcome and go ahead. kristy in san diego, hi. >> caller: this is evelyn. >> my apologies. >> caller: i have been following this and i have e-mailed to the white house and mr. holder that not only should he be held in contempt, he should resign and stop his arrogant behavior and just resign. this committee has been wasting time and money on something that

is so transparent to the american public that it is mind boggling that they -- the average person could not ignore a subpoena. they would be arrested by a sergeant, a marshall. it's just -- in this time and economy, i think it's a disgrace. i think it's a slap in the face to the american public and to the family of brian terry. >> some video yesterday on capitol hill after his meeting with committee leader issa. the president claiming executive privilege related to doums on fast and furious. to a democrats line next, go ahead. >> caller: yes, i have -- i want to voice my opinion. it seemed like all of the blacks of the democrats, they have a

hard time and that goes back if that person is not a respective person or a favoritism person, i don't care what color he or she is, that person will have a hard time. i live in a republican state and i know what the democrats are going through. especially blacks. >> do you think the committee's actions are racially motivated? >> caller: i do. >> thanks for joining us this afternoon. the associated press says this is the first time the administration has invoked executive privilege. bush used it, clinton, h.w. bush and reagan all used it. hi, kristy on the republican line. >> caller: i am glad you brought up executive privilege.

if barack obama was not involved why would he invoke executive privilege. i think holder should be held in contempt and spend time in jail if he refuses to comply and i do not deny that this is any racial politicking at all. if it was a white person in office, we would still have the same issues and we would still have the same concerns. eric holder is not above the law, barack obama is not above the law and if there are goings on that kill not only brian terry, his family deserves answers, too. both families deserve answers in this. if eric holder refuses to come ply he should be in jail. >> we will have the vote live on c-span 3. it comes up on the house votes. the committee would come back in

ten in my opinion nuts after the last house vote. the hash tag to use is c-span holder. next up is jeanie. >> caller: as someone who worked in the john f. kennedy campaign and that was the last campaign i was ever directly involved in, i am so, so -- i guess i will make it easy. i will echo the comments of the lady from san diego. there is absolutely no call for this type of goings on in our

country's capital. we are just so a palled by it all. those are my comments. thank you very much. good-bye. >> thank you. >> caller: i think we have a political theater going on right now. i think what we need to look forward to is, you know, a that mecaould all try to make a better. one thing that people really want to see and focus on is jobs and the economy and creating something better for america. this is just political gain that the republicans unfortunately have to use as a tool to get their mitt romney ahead on polls. this is nothing more -- i mean

we have to hold every aspect of our judicial system in tact. but one thing that has happened is this is not just happening now in the four years that obama has been in office. but this is happening way beyond that. look at the reagan administration. we were giving weapons to iran. this is not just something that just started happening and that we are now looking at. this is something that the republican congress has looked at to say we could take advantage of this and only to, you know, not -- okay. that person died because a weapon, you know? but listen, how many americans died because we put in -- we got

into a faulty war? >> thanks for your comments. we go next to wisconsin and independent line. hi, dean. >> caller: i would like to give my opinion. it brings me back to when ronald reagan -- a fire was put to his feet. he put the law above political desires. and i just wish that president obama and the democratic leadership would put the law, a subpoena means you comply. if i don't comply to a subpoena, i'm in a little 8 x 10 jail cell. why do these politicians, why are they above the law? it's not a question of should they be. it's obvious that they are above the law. >> both the house and senate are

in today and there is certain to be plenty of reaction from members. here is one from chuck grassly. he says that the senior republican says that the administration's ma nooifr raises monumental questions about who knew what and when. maryland is next on the republican line. good afternoon. >> caller: thank you so much for having me on today. i just would like to say i have been following this for a year and a half now and i am quite appalled that the mainstream media has been covering this. and i do believe that if president obama is going to insert himself by declaring this executive privilege, then he, too, is responsible and should be held responsible along with eric holder. it's not right for anyone to be

above the law because regular normal american citizens are not above the law. >> c-span has covered a number of the hearings specifically focusing on fast and furious both in the house and senate. plenty of those available. san diego next up. dave is on the democrats line. dave, go ahead. >> it is pretty much known that the people are some of the highest paid people in the world here. running to the investigation. >> you said big foot this investigation? what do you mean by that? atf buddies are contributing.

to protect the people who are in on this who support them. >> just what the associated prss writes about the investigation themselves. the fast and furious, federal agents. abandon's the practice of intercepting all weapons they believe to be illicitly purchased. the goal was to track such weapons to high level arms traffickers to dismantle their networks. let's take a look at twitter. one comment from back story mom who writes about the committee has harrassed our ag for over a year. up with more call here.

steve is on our republican line. >> caller: i have been watching things that is going on now. what has got me so upset, they have come down from the bottom and has got to be known why they don't go ahead and push to get this man as if it was a regular individual, they would be locked up. why they don't. it goes to the president. >> steve, thanks for your call. thanks for your calls and comments on the phone. more coverage coming up later this afternoon. we can't give you a specific time. we can tell you it will be some ten minutes after the last house vote and those votes should be getting underway shortly over on c-span. we will have live coverage when the oversight committee returns. and a reminder, too, if you missed any of this morning's

session or some of the previous hearings, those are available online at our video library. so live coverage when the committee comes back in. until then we will give you a look at the hearings starting from the beginning this morning with the chairman and ranking member. >> the committee oon oversight and reform will come to order. reporting a resolution finding the attorney general, eric holder jr., in contempt of congress. on the night of december 14, 2010, in a canyon west, u.s. border patrol agents were engaged in a shoot-out 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 fire fight, a bullet pierced agent terry's aorta and he died in that canyon. two weapons were found at the scene and 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 grassly launched an investigation into whistle blowers' allegations regarding fast and furious. we became involved only after senator grassly was told he would not receive answers from the justice department because he did not have subpoena power and was not the chairman. in the course of our

investigation, the committee has uncovered serious wrong doing by the justice department. that wrong doing led to 2,000 weapons crosses the mexican border that cost lives on both sides of the border including brian terrys. 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 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 giving 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 the 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 wrong doing 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. our work is not complete and we need the department of just toys 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 through extraordinary measures to participate and to help. we received today approximately

7600 document. a great many of those documents are responsive to other operations 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 offered the department an o comdation to address its concerns 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 supported a 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

mark-up, did we receive from the deputy attorney general a letter dated today, not spoken of last night which says and i'd 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. additional, 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 when congress comes calling which is from the constitution project, and i apologize if it seems preliminary, but this communication arrived only within minutes of the start of this mark-up. executive privilege, the president's communication's privilege, and i quote. the communications in question must relate to the quint essential and nondelegatable

presidential power that requires direct presidential decision-making. it 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 ambassadors and public ministers and the pardoning power. i claim not to be a constitutional scholar, but the house is currently working to find out what assertions may, in fact, arrive and we will take notice of them. having said that, more than eight months after a subpoena and clearly after the question of executive privilege could have and should have been asserted, this untimely assertion by the justice department falls short of any reason to delay today's

proceedings. we have made many attempts to accommodate the justice department. originally some 22 areas were on our subpoena, many of which were never complied with. we narrowed three master areas to two in a letter on may 18th, unprecedented letter from the speaker of the house asking for cooperation and narrowing the scope of the subpoena. since that time we have further narrowed to one area for purposes of contempt and we have been denied. the attorney general has refused to cooperate, offering to provide subpoena documents only if the committee agrees in advance to close the investigation. no investigator would ever agree to that, and as you can understand the other information related to those in the chain of command responsible for brian terry's murder and the death of

individuals both north and south of the border cannot be concluded simply based on a briefing about post-february 4th. the attorney general says that his offer is extraordinary. the only thing extraordinary about his offer is that he is asking the committee to close an investigation before the committee even gets to see the documents he is pretending to offer. i can't accept that deal. no other committee chairman would. this committee will be considering today a very narrow contempt, but members have said we owe it to the terry family to get to the truth. it is my intention to continue post-contempt to do our job while meeting our other obligations to pursue waste,

fraud and abuse in our government and with that i recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i -- it is -- i just want to, first of all, go back for one moment and the document that you read from june 20th, the one you and i just got from the deputy attorney general. we were talking about executive privilege and i think we need to study this and make sure that we understand exactly what the president is asserting here, but i just want to quote from it and on the last page, page four, and the executive privilege is set forth in the closed, from the attorney general, to congress and these internal executive