branch documented and generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning the department's response to congressional oversight and related to media inquiries would have significant damaging consequences. as i explained in our meeting yesterday and this is still quoting from the letter, it would inhibit the candor of such executive branch, deliberations in the future and significantly impair the executive branch's, to the oversight, such compelled disclosure would be inconsistent with the powers established in the constitution about potentially creating an imbalance and the relationship between these two co-equal branches of government and now to my statement, first and foremost, we agree on this, to

conduct vigorous oversight on the executive branch. that is our job. the constitution requires this from congress and the american people expect it from members who serve on this committee and i take that very seriously. but a constitution also requires something else it requires us to recognize the legitimacy of the executive branch and to avoid unnecessary conflict by seeking reasonable accommodations when possible. in my opinion, the committee has failed in this fundamental responsibility. last night the attorney general came to us in good faith. he offered to provide additional, internal, deliberative documents and he pledged to divide a substantive

briefing on the department's actions. he agreed to a request by senator grassley to describe the categories of documents being produced and those being withheld. they made clear that he was willing to provide substantive responses to additional questions and even offered to provide documents that are outside the scope of the committee's subpoena. he also made it clear that he already provided documents that weren't even asked for. all he requested in return that was you, as chairman of this committee, give him the good-faith commitment that we would move toward resolving this contempt fight. didn't ask for it in the investigation, just ending this contempt fight and i double checked with my staff because when with i said that i heard i was in the meeting with him, and i heard what he said he was very

clear. it was a fair and reasonable offer and especially in the light of the partisan and highly inflammatory personal attacks he made against him throughout this investigation. for the past year, he's been holding the attorney general to an impossible standard. we accused him of a cover-up and i quote, that's a quote, protecting documents he was prohibited by law from producing. let me say that again. he accused him of a cover-up from protecting documents that he was prohibited by law from producing. you claim that he and i quote, obstructed in a quote the committee's vote by complying with federal statutes passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president of the united states and earlier this

month you went on national television and called the attorney general, the nation's highest ranking chief law enforcement officer a liar. at the same time you refused requests to hold a public hearing with ken nelson, the former head of atf, the agency responsible for conducting these operations. this refusal came after mr. nelson told the committee investigators privately that he never informed senior officials and the justice department about gun walking during operation fast and furious because he was unaware himself. last year you flatly rejected the attorney general's offer. you refused to even commit to working toward a mutually agreeable resolution. instead, you rushed to a pre-arranged press conference to

announce the failure of the meeting. it seems clear that you had no interest in resolving this issue, and that the committee planned to go forward with contempt before we walked into the meeting with the attorney general. it pains me to say this, but this is what i believe. this is especially disappointing since the department has already turned over more than 1,000 pages of documents that answer your question. you want to know why the department sent a letter to senator grassley initially denying allegations of gun walking? the documents show that when they were drafting this letter the department's legislative affairs office relied on the categorical and emphatic denials from the leaders of atf. these are the same atf officials you now refused to call for a public hearing. this morning we were informed that the administration is now

asserting executive privilege over a narrow subset and it is indeed narrow of documents that remain at issue. as i understand it, the assertion does not cover everything in this category such as whistle-blower documents and the administration has indicated that it remains, and i emphasize, remains willing to try to come to a mutual resolution despite its formal legal assertion. as a member of congress i treat a sergsz of executive privilege very seriously, and i believe they should be used only sparingly. in this case, it seems clear that the administration was forced into a position by the committee's unreasonable insistence on pressing forward with contempt despite the attorney general's good faith offer. mr. chairman, it did not have to be this way. it really didn't. we could have postponed today's

vote, accepted the attorney general's offer and worked with the department to obtain additional documents and information. instead, by not arming the constitution's charge to seek accommodation when possible, to position the prestige of the committee has been diminished and the result should concern us all. with that, i yield back. >> i trust the gentleman did not mean to demean my intention, but for the record the press conference that occurred after our meeting was equally usable and intended to announce that we had a deal and a stay if it was appropriate and i had prepared a written statement saying that we would be staying today's mark-up had we been offered anything pursuant to our letter. so i trust the gentleman would realize that it could have gone another way and we had no idea. >> i -- mr. chairman, i believe

you when you say that. i trust that that's what the situation was. i simply was giving my opinion of the way it was set up. that's all. >> i thank the gentleman. i will hold the record open until the end of the day for members who would like to submit formal written statements. the report will be considered as read under regular order and members will be recognized to speak to offer amendments under the five-minute rule. i now call up the contempt report regarding attorney general eric holder. the report has been distributed to all members, without objection the report will be considered read and open for amendment at any time. does anyone wish to speak on the report? with that i would recognize the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, five minutes. >> first of all, let me just say after having been chairman of this committee for six years i want to complement our chairman on being so patient. i mean, if anybody looks at the

record and sees how long darryl issa has dealt with this issue and how he's handled it, i think you would say he's been more than patient and so i think that needs to be in the record. the second thing i'd like to say is that there's no question in anybody's mind that's been involved in this investigation that the attorney general has been stonewalling this committee. the chairman has contacted him and his associates numerous times and without result, and when the chairman met with him in the last 24 hours and discussed this, was there no information forthcoming that would have been able to set aside this contempt hearing today. the second thing i'd like to say is that the president's assertion of executive privilege creates even more questions. one of the big issues that we've been dealing with is who knew about fast and furious?

when did they know about it and how high up did it go? and the attorney general has asserted on numerous occasions that he didn't know about this now the president of the united states has claimed executive privilege. that brings into question whether or not eric holder knew about it and how much did the president know about this? how did the president claim executive privilege unless there was something very, very important that he felt should not be made known to this committee and possible tote public? and so my question is, and i'm not going take all my time. who knew about this? how high up did it go? did it go to the attorney general or even the president of the united states and when did they know it? this committee needs to find that out especially because we had not only weapons going across the border, but a border patrol agent murdered with those weapons. i yield back the balance of my

time. gentleman yields back. does anyone else seek recognition? the gentlelady from new york seeks recognition. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am astounded that today we are sitting here weighing whether to hold the attorney general of the united states, the highest ranking law enforcement officer in our country in contempt of congress. the house of representatives has never in our long history held an attorney general in contempt, and i am horrified that we are going forward with this contempt charge that the president of the united states and the administration have invoked executive privilege for the documents sought by the chairman and the attorney general is

being attacked for protecting documents that he is prohibited by law from producing, and i just speak strongly in opposition to this action and in opposition to this report. i would like to point out that our committee, the committee on oversight and government reform is supposed to root out problems and find ways to reform how government works. it shouldn't a political witch hunt against the attorney general of our country and our president in an election year, and what we should be doing is looking at ways we can stop problems from happening again. so my basic question, mr. chairman, is where is the

reform. our committee is supposed to be working on government reform and any legitimate investigation must be rooted in finding solutions to problems. once they're identified, not just character assassination and overruling presidents and attacking the chief law enforcement officer in our land. so again, i ask, where are the reforms? during this investigation we learned a great deal about what went wrong in the phoenix field division at the atf and the arizona attorney's office, we heard directly from atf agents who witnessed the misguided tactics of gun walking occur which started in prior administrations, and they asked for our help in implementing reforms and coming forward with

solutions to the problems that they received every day along the southwest border. the problem they were worried about was not paperwork and subpoenas and contempt charges. they were worried about guns. so where are the reforms and the actions that we could take in response to the problems that they put before us? throughout this investigation, atf witnesses consistently told this committee that they need reinforcements to the weak, federal laws that prohibit gun trafficking. an atf special agent in phoenix called existing gun laws toothless. so, mr. chairman, when do we put forward some teeth and the law to help our enforcement officers combat crime?

efforts to simply discuss reforms have not been welcomed by this committee. when i attempted to question the atf agents about defects with the current laws to combat gun trafficking, mr. chairman, you cut me off and specifically instructed the atf agents not to answer my question. so i tried to act on reforms with many members of this committee including ranking member cummings. we tried to help law enforcement officers fight gun trafficking along the southwest border and we did not get any support from the other side of the aisle, and mr. issa has rebuffed requests by ranking member cummings to address reforms at the department of justice and declare need for legislation to fight illegal gun trafficking along the southwest border including a request for a hearing on the topic, just a

hearing, and the chairman has also demanded that the department of justice produce a wiretap applications that were ordered sealed. >> the gentlelady's time has expired and i ask that she has an additional 30 seconds, without objection. so ordered. >> i must say, mr. chairman, i am offended personally by your calling the attorney general a liar, and it's extremely disrespectful in attacking to our public servant and you have called me a liar. you apologized later and i accepted, but where have we degenerated to in calling names, not having hearings on meaningful reforms, not acting on reforms, but merely degenerating to attacking people

and moving forward with paperwork that is unwarranted, unfair and violates the law of the united states of america? >> i thank the gentle lady. who else seeks recognition? the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for upholding the responsibility of this investigative arm of the house of representatives to hold the highest ranking prosecutorial official in the united states and the united states responsible for what turned into a horrible death of one of our agents and a plan that went dramatically sour. i chair the criminal justice drug policy subcommittee and

with mexican officials warned them of what was coming in march 2009. mr. waxman was the chairman at the time there was a new administration by passionately pledging his full support if the new administration allocates large resources to assist the mexican government that contained drug violence with zero tolerance. i would explicitly encourage the administration to put in place a plan to stop the slaughterhouse south of the border and help mexico regain control of its count r country. i also criticize the previous democrat controlled congress to recognize the hearing and there were dozens of them.

the gentle lady's wrong in that this was the first attorney general to face the situations, henry waxman contempt proceedings got some of the bush officials, including mccloskey, the attorney general. he charged him with failing to produce documents in connection with the committee's investigation and the release of classified documents. this is not about release of classified documents. this is very serious business. this is the highest judicial prosecutorial position in the united states involved in creating a situation in which an agent of the united states was murdered with weapons supplied by the department of justice and a scheme that went unbelievably sour, as i said.

now for the first 11 month, the administration denied -- they denied participation in this to this committee, the investigative arm of the house of representatives. for eight months we've had a subpoena out there and they denied providing us the information. at the -- at the -- last hour last night they offered a deal to provide us some information and tried to close down the case. this is absolutely absurd. then this morning the white house and in an attempt to thwart the committee's lawful investigation tries to throw out executive privilege, a complete fiasco. mr. burton and i, we've been on this committee a long time and there are reasons to exert executive privilege and to stop

and try to stop the investigation of this committee into the department of justice, bringing about one of the worst besmirchments on the history of the department of justice is indeed an injustice to the congress, and to the american people and this important investigative arm of the house of representatives. this is a very sad day for the united states of america, when the president when it gauged himself at the last minute and tried to exert executive privilege, when the attorney general who again -- and, you know, our job is to find out what went wrong. maybe he is innocent. maybe people are innocent in this, but there is no reason in the world or under the law or under the proceedings of congress and our constitution, the way this government is set up that this committee is not

entitled to this information in this investigation to again maintain the integrity of this important office. i don't know, maybe i'm idealistic. i didn't think this could go on in a department of justice in the united states of america in this day and age. it's a very sad day. the gentle lady from the district of columbia is recognized for five minutes. >> i have a question about the process. >> lady is recognized for a question. >> -- that was undertaken with respect to the last 24 hours in light of the statement you made. we are down, as i understand it, to internal, deliberative documents which may be the basis for the executive privilege and the committee is no longer demanding documents that are

under seal or involved in criminal investigations so we are down to internal, deliberative correspondence within the department. mr. chairman, clearly -- >> would the gentle lady state a question. >> yes. the gentle lady can be recognized for five minute, but narrow your question. >> can i go on for five minutes and -- >> the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> during this process there has been an attempted resolution, the concern that we learn about what caused the killing of the agent was a bipartisan concern. in your opening remarks you left

the impression that the attorney general came with certain offerings of documents and demanded not to be held in contempt. the ranking member says in his statement that the attorney general asked that, and i'm quoting now from what the ranking member said that we move toward resolving this contempt fight. forgive me, mr. chairman, if i read that as a call for a continued discussions and negotiations behind the contempt ladder and mr. chairman, considering that no cabinet official has ever been held by the courts to be in contempt of

congress that if this matter gets to the floor of the house it would then be referred to a democratic u.s. attorney just as to take the opposite case when this committee referred similar matters to ultimately a republican u.s. attorney, no action was taken. if we are interested in resolution, understanding that is the likely final result, it does seem to me, and i would ask you to reconsider what appears to be an offer by the attorney gener general, not a demand and i believe some clarification is necessary here, but an offer

that if he presented these do you means that he did not have to present that you in turn agree that you need to agree in continuing discussions and negotiations, if that is the case it seems to me, mr. chairman, that would be the reasonable thing to do at this point especially in light of the executive privilege that's just been asserted. >> would the gentle 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

statement. we're holding time right now, actually. we stopped the clock because i want to make sure you have your full time, but if the gentle 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 turn over in return for essentially an ending of this investigation, had he turned over those documents we would not be here today. wield we would be evaluatings those documents, but until we have documents that bring a close to the contempt or to the entire investigation we can't assume that, and of course, as you know and hopefully the ranking member. would explain, was there no log or no actual documentation showing what with 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, and i'm 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 that those documents would arrive and that we would then postpone while we evaluated the documents and the gentle lady may resume. >> assuming no executive privilege had been invoked and that we had only the offer to give the documents if -- if the chairman would consider after receiving the documents, continue discussions and negotiations would that have been the way to resolve this matter? >> if the gentle lady would further yield, if we were being offered in return for a postponement documents and then we could judge them both the majority and minority and then re-enter negotiations as appropriate we wouldn't be here today. >> mr. chairman, i -- i believe in light of that that some

clarification on what the offer expected and what, in fact, occurred is in order rather than proceed to the contempt vote. >> would the gentle lady yield? >> yes, sir. >> and would the chairman -- since you were trying to explain it? may i have a little bit more time? all right. i've 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 20 minutes that 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 conclusion or moving toward it and ts,