the reason he initiated fast and furious, we have been trying to shut down in phoenix but have been unable to do, but the whole system collapses. eric holder did shut this down after there was a huge public humiliation of the project itself. it's always easier to close things down after you have been humiliated in it. but we have got to get to the documents to determine what's really there. if we want to relive the bush days, we have got documents that they're more than eager to throw anything out on the bush administration. but we have got to throw out factors as well.

it's not consistent to say we need all that old data before we can deal with new data. and i think we're are getting old data, we're just not getting new data. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i would. >> would the gentleman from oklahoma agree that the ranking member actually made a request that all right, in lieu of a hearing, what if we had a private session with the former attorney general just from members only so we could at least have a chance to question him and wasn't it true that that request was also turned down. >> so how does that resolve tfat and furious? how does that resolve this particular area of contempt? >> if the gentleman is asking me a question, i think it goes to the heart of what you initiated that some of the democrats on this committee were saying first that and then only after that do we look at the current administration. that's not the case.

we were more than willing to look at it contemporaneously, and we were more than willing to look at it in camera, to at least get informed, what were you thinking, how does this rels to the current situation, since it passed as prologue, it wasn't a decedent of this program, but we felt it would help. >> the issue, i'm sure this is about to come out, because my understanding is the next amendment that's coming is dealing with the former director, acting director of atf. we had two full days of private meetings with him and now there's a call to also have a public meeting, so while you were comment there at let's have a private meeting and that will be enough on it apparently is not enough with the acting director of atf that we're dealing with. >> will the gentleman yield? >> it still goes back to the issue of what it does -- yes i would yield to the chairman. >> the 24 interviews, effectively depositions were by partisan and all members are able to come to them in general

members are not choose to go to thome, they are done by career staff attorneys on both sides. but i would commend to all of you that if you read those 24 interviews, you'll find out, our staff asked tougher and more exhaustive questions of those witnesses that i have ever soon asked from medaeus. i thank the gentleman. the gentle lady from new york. >> this this narrative, i would like to point out that the attorney general was called before this committee and this congress nine times to testify, but the head of the atf wasn't called once and possibly because it doesn't fit into the narrative, because what he had to say is that he didn't know anything about it and he didn't

tell anybody about it at the justice tent. i think the at was here nine times i just feel that that's a glaring unfairness and a glar g glaring -- >> will the gentle lady yield? >> yes, sir. >> i will note that he appears here one time which was the one time to my knowledge that he appeared in which he knew the subject would be fast and furious. and i appreciate his presence here and would note that --

getting to the bottom of wide receiver hernandez and every other program that was also, with any similarity similar to fast and furious. >> i'm reclaiming my time. i appreciate the offer of the gentleman and chairman to have general nelson come out before this body and publicly address this to the american public. i think that would be helpful. i would also like to note that the ag was at some of these other hearings and i do know that my colleagues on the judiciary committee meeting, he was questioned intensely on fast and furious.

i do know that the ag has turned over backward to be responsive to this chairman and this committee. the letter from his deputy stay they are open, they want to discuss things further, they want to work this out and i feel that we should be working this out instead of moving toward a contempt vote. >> will the gentle lady further yield? we have had an exchange of letters, those letters were all available to the committee. they were open records. we talked past each other for days, the attorney general in those previous letters was basically offering a briefing, we were asking for documents, yesterday undeniably, he offered no documents, no formal writing, although the ranking member and i may disagree slightly, we walked away with my saying i'm happy to accept the documents, the documents did not come, we

are still prepared to accept documents and i would hope they would be forthcoming, this letter says he is asserting executive privilege, confrontation and discussions are all well and good, but they have to lead to something. yesterday's meeting was a great disappointment to the ranking member, i know, and to me. but to me it was a disappointment because he came with nothing but an offer for which he didn't even bring paper to describe. so the frustration of this committee in not getting documents for a year and a half, must be satisfied today and is the reason why we will vote on it's passage. and i thank the gentle lady. >> has my time experienced? >> no, you still have 44 seconds. >> i'll yield to my friend mr. welch. >> my amendment would be an amendment to the text of an amendment to the report to the house. it wouldn't stop the house from

voting, but it would state in the report that committee on government reform has not had attorney general michael mukasey who testified before the committee or to meet with committee members informally to discuss the evolution of gun walking organizations in both sets and documents obtained during the investigation indicated that mr. mukasey was -- firearms interdictions. my request is to let that information be part of what's being presented to the full house so that members are aware of that. >> while i recognize and appreciate what my good friend the colleague on the other side at this point in time, i'm

afraid that we may be going down a little bit of a red herring here, one more time. and i think it nids to go to the issue here, in which we have had substantial system regarding the concept of gun walking. and the thidistinction that occurred during the time that things were alleged to have happened during a previous administration and those that have happened during this administration. let me first begin by the fact thatth letter, which is now another time in which the current attorney general has made statements before the congress and then had to send a letter in which he has retracted those statements. but i think it's important in which he said that in previous -- the previous attorney general meaning michael mukasey had been misguided on operationsal tactics and had taken no action in response. and they could be misguided tactics, but when we heard the

system of the agents who do this for a living, while they were talking about misguided tactics, the tactics were ones in which the concept of gun walking was not alleged for the most part in the conduct during this time. that really what they were talking about is, and it's in here, controlled deliveries. joint investigations, and controlled deliveries in which the question is, the continuing oversight and sort of maintenance of that chain of custody, and that is what was happening, now in this concept, some of the things they did was they tried ways to maintain the joint custody including working with mention can officials and lost them, and lost them and as a result losing, notwithstanding their best efforts, they lost the control of those weapons. and that is what is alleged for the most part. now my recollection going

through the extensive report, again, which was largely not jermain to the current information, but to put out everything that had happened before, my recollection, there are very few recognitions, that will may be actually gun walking did occur by the atf in phoenix. but there's an important distinction as well. what did not happen in the after math of that was an approval by the then current united states attorney. in fact, we have testimony that is in the record, in which it is stated that those prosecutions were denied. and they were denied based on those tactics. and so at the conclusion of that administration, what you have is an official position taken in which prosecute torl discretion says those tactics are wrong. what we do have though, is a new administration that comes in and there is a revisiting of this issue. and one of the first thing they say was, well, how do we

approach this question? and they send a prosecutor from washington to go to the atf and that prosecutor begins to revisit all of the tactics, sending a subtle message, in fact a direct message to the atf that now not only are we overruling the effect, we're suggesting to you move it more directly and we have memos back to the justice department explicitly stating that we had more than 300 guns that were walked, that were part of this. so we have the knowledge that they know now that guns have been walked, not with standing the effort is made in multiple meetings that go all the way up to lanny brewer to continue this kind of operation, with knowledge, in the record that says gun walking, so i think we can spend a lot of time going

down a path in which the fact of the matter is, in the end, we're going to get that there was a distinction, in many ways an irrelevant distinction, what is at relevance right now is the conduct that took place at the oversight of the highest levels of the justice department in which we have information clearly that there were decisions that were being made which were influenced by directions from this current justice department, not the other one, for those reasons, i do believe, and began, nobody says it better than the attorney general, he himself has called back the allegation that it was, you know, that he had been briefed on the misguided tactics and said, you know, it was controlled deliveries. it's a subtle distinction, but a very important one. >> thank you, the question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from vice president cheney mr. welch, all those in favor please say aye, those opposed nay, in the opinion of the chair the nos have it, the

amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman requested a recorded vote. pursuant to the rules of the committee, this vote is postponed. does anyone else seek recognition for an amendment? >> just one point, mr. chairman, because these votes are important to do now, tell us now how you plan to proceed with the voting so the members can be here timely. >> we expect to roll until the last amendment and then we will proceed to the vote. so members are advised not to stray too far. at the current time, we have three amendments pending. mr. lynch, are you prepared to go next? >> mr. chairman, i believe i have an amendment. >> will the clerk read the amendment. and the clerks will please distribute the amendment.

>> the lynch amendment, insert the following section at the end of the report. >> that's unanimous consent. >> this is a simple straight forward amendment, basically it's one photograph paragraph, it says the house -- itemized accounting of the cost to the american people incur bid this committee, and any and all agencies within the department of justice, the department of homeland security and the u.s. department of state in connection with the operation of fast and furious. this investigation has now gone on for about 16 months, there are thousands of, you know, man and counsel hours that have been put in on this investigation. this is just a straight forward accounting request in terms of what we have spent on this. it does not reflect the

opportunity costs from this committee because i believe there are several dozen other issues we could be focusing on, but we are focusing principally on this. and i just think this would be an important piece of information for the voters to have and for the taxpayers to have in terms of what we're spending our time on while we have a real problem with creating jobs and addressing the deficit and some of the other issues that the american people think we should be focusing on. >> i would note that the agencies that we would like to get the agencies would not be in the power of contempt of the motion, however in the case of our expenditures, although they are in the public record.

i can find no basis under which we can use contempt of the two agencies. i'm actually amendmenting the report in terms of information that we want provided to us. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will yield. >> the attorney general has said that this program was fundamentally flawed. he also has said that he believes crimes will be committed with these guns that were released purposely to the hands of the cartels for as much as the future decade. the gentleman is suggesting that the cost at the department of justice to track down those jobs also be part of the accounting

that was botched by the department of justice. >> we want to know much things cost on a bunch of different issues. this has been a really olympic investigation, it's gone far beyond what i think any of us anticipated when this started out. and i think the costs are going to turn out to be staggering if we look at what these individual departments actually expended in this effort. and i'm just trying to look, i'm trying to balance out what we might get between what we cost and again, i repeat, this is only a partial accounting of what was -- what the costs are. there's also the opportunity costs of us grappling with some other issues that are desperately needed to be addressed in this country and we are focusing an overwhelming amount of our time on this one issue. and i would just like to try to have a balancing out of our

expenditures versus the benefits that might be accrued as a result of this investigation. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i certainly would, yes. >> thank you. >> while there's tremendous cost involved in this, there are a couple of dynamics that make it difficult in the processing on this. we have a border agent that was murdered in this process and this is difficult to wrap around and say, gosh, we have spent an awful lot of money just investigating one murder and going through that process. so that is difficult to wrap around. the second thing is, obviously the cost dramatically increases, as we have back and forth with the administration as they drag their feet to produce documents, that increases our costs, that increases their costs, so that's difficult to evaluate. i would say, and the final thing is, in all of these, i would be interested to know quite frankly how much the department of justice spent on multiple

evaluations of roger clements in that hearing because we have all kinds of things to say that roger clements hearing, we probably spent way too much money evaluating -- >> and i agree, we should know that number and we vitt. we know what the justice department spent on that matter. and i'm looking for the same treatment of this case that we look at, you know, what has happened here. this has gone far beyond the investigation of agent terry's murder. right now, we're looking, we're trying to crack open the thought processes of individuals in the just department and their internal deliberations, so this is far beyond the investigation of that terrible tragedy. that's the point of my inquiry here in trying to get an assessment of what these costs are. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, i recognize myself in opposition. our committee's records are

public and available, but the other agencies personal probably will and are certainly welcome to make known, they're lawyering up their obstruction, they're slow rolling, they're not providing what it cost. if they simply gave me when you obstruct it costs. when cow cover up it costs. since it was noted by ms. spear earlier, and she talked about a 20-minute gap in takes. watergate cost a lot of money, but it cost a lot of money because we went through the supreme court, we went through the process of a president and an administration where they were covering up their actions and covering 7-basically their

involvement and it rose and it rose and it rose. when this began, this was about brian terry's murder in a canyon in arizona. a simple answer of yes, we let guns walk on february 4 yes it was a mistake, perhaps similar things went on during the bush administration and yes we're going to take measures, would have been much more like the secret service's response or even gsa's response after the las vegas item became public. the truth is, that on february 4, this committee was given a false statement later testimony was given that was asserted as true. while the months went on there was discussion that went on behind closed doors about how they would or wouldn't tell us that they had given us false statements. i have used the term on occasions lie, i'm not a lawyer,

so the difference between giving us false statements and then not retracting them once they knew they were false and lying, or giving something which is false and truth evolves rather than calling it a lie is probably technically above my pay grade. but i will tell you, brian terry's family deserves every penny we have spent and if agencies have spent extra money trying to block us, it's caused us to spend more, so be it. in this congress, and the next congress, with this president and if there's a next president on my watch, we will get to the bottom of dangerous weapons being allowed to go in violation of existing laws into the hands of the kinds of people that killed brian terry. that is something for which i will never question the cost. this committee will report cost, but i will never question the cost of a human life unnecessarily taken, not in the

line of duty, but because powerful weapons were put in the hands of people that would not have had that quality of weapon if not for this program. >> i yield to the gentleman. >> if indeed we were trying to get to the bottom of what the gentleman's contempt citation targets would be trying to figure out from the atf supervise in phoenix, why they provided false information to the justice department about the gun walking operation that was ongoing. we have decided for some reason to ignore all that, we're not pulling that information forward. i honestly believe if this was about an investigation of agent terry's death, we will be asking the people who ran this operation, in phoenix, and that directly did lead to the circumstances of agent terry's death. what i'm afraid of, is that

somewhere along the line during this investigation over the last 16 months, this has become more about the next election, and less about -- let me complete my statement -- >> mr. issa with all due respect, it is my time, i'll reclaim my time now and y50e8d to the gentleman. >> mr. chairman, i would ask if the gentleman has actually read the wiretap applications? >> not one statement that the attorney general or anybody in those wiretaps had any information that supported the allegations that you're making. >> i find that absolutely totally false. >> each and every wiretap. each and every wiretap. i have read them too, and i tell you, deputy assistant attorney general jason

winestein, other people are signed on those documents. it is crystal clear in that information. and it is unfair and unjust to try to come to a conclusion when you haven't seen all the documents. >> you v. >> we have not. what we're asking for in this committee is to see the documents, if it clears the department of justice, if eric holder didn't know, if the white house didn't know, if the senior people didn't know, then let us have these documents and clear this up. that's why we don't have the documents. you continue to act in ignorance, you cannot do that. that's what this committee is supposed to do is get the information and make a proper and justice conclusion. >> i have an additional 30 seconds and yield to the gentleman. >> i we really wanted to get to the bottom of this, why not bring the chief of the atf here before the committee like we asked on several occasions, the person that is saying that -- >> if the gentleman would yield,

the weekend of july 4, of 2011, in a by partisan way over the course of two days, they were interviewed. those documents have been available for close to 12 months. that information is here. we did question them. >> we did not have an opportunity in this committee has we have with other witnesses to examine the allegations of the head of the atf in phoenix. what i am saying with the earlier statement regarding the wiretaps that there was nothing there that supported the allegations made about senior officials at justice know what's going on. the gentleman's insin situation that the wiretaps would support that is totally guided.

>> my name is expired. does anyone seek recognition. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much i'll yield in a minute to the gentleman. >> thank you. >> we have to be cautious because of the privileged nature of the wiretaps so i can't talk about the contents of those. but i can say after reading those, nothing in those wiretaps supports what you're alleging, as a matter of fact they refute, they refute earning you're saying. >> will the gentleman yield? >> certainly. >> it's the gentleman's time so -- >> 15 seconds. >> totally disagree with it. how do you explain that jason winestein sent an e-mail to the trustee that says, quote, do you think we should have lanny participate in press when fast and furious in tucson is a trick ice case given the number of guns that have walked. >> reclaiming my time. let me say this, as i listen to

this discussion, and i have listened to all the comments today, i have been here every second. and we hear so many comments about brian terry. and i want to make something really clear here and something that is real painful to me and there's an implication that maybe the people on this side don't care about that family. and that we don't care about the evidence, we do we want to get to the bottom of this too. we made the same commitments. as a matter of fact when the terry family came before this committee, it was right after my nephew was slain and i made a commitment to them that i would do everything in my power to make sure we found out who did a