and i refuse to believe that -- i mean when i read the various documents in this case, i think some people really screwed up. but i don't think necessarily folk were trying to obstruct, trying to cover up, i mean we go on and on and on. and i don' don't -- it doesn't like we're getting close to what we're looking for as to find ought what happened to brian terry and how he ended um being killed. ladies and gentlemen, again, i said it a few minutes ago, it's so easy for us to sit here and second guess the attorney general, whose number one law

enforcement officer trying to protect over 300 million people. it's easy to sit back in the chair of the former prosecutor. it's easy, make all kinds of decisions. and, you know, people talk about he should know and -- sometimes you don't even know what people are doing in your own office. of 21 people. this guy's got -- i mean people all over the country, in mexico, atf, when we went down and we talked to the atf and we talked to the mexican people in a bipartisan trip, they said we need some better gun laws. when the whistle blowers, everybody said, oh, we're so concerned about the whistle blowers. well, what did the whistle blowers say? their number one concern, they begged us, get better laws.

do us that favor. and so, you know, come on, i think, again, i have said it before and i'll say it again, we want to get to the bottom of this, i think we can get to the bottom of this, i think the attorney general is acting in good faith and i think we ought to try to work with him and i can see that my colleague wants some time. i yield. >> i thank the ranking member, just to respond to the gentleman's e-mail, recitation there, i just want to make clear that what the gentleman was talking about when he said the author of that e-mail said that guns had walked. he was talking about the wide receiver program, not fast and furious. that's how i explain it. and there's a further clarification here on an e-mail and he says, first of all, let me clear up the confusion that you noted about the pronouns, when i say it is a tricky case given the number of guns that

have walked, that is the wide receiver program. and i ask to submit this for the record. >> the question -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, all those in favor signify by saying aye, those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the eye ayes have it. a recorded vote is ordered and postponed pursuant to committee rules. does anyone else have an amendment? you have an amendment? we'll wait on yours if you don't mind. does the gentle lady have an amendment? the clerk will read the amendment. >> amendment to the reported offered by ms. maloney of new york. >> without objection, it is considered as read, the gentle lady is recognized to explain her amendment as it's being

distributed. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i first would like to be absolutely clear that there is no question that the death of border patrol agent brian terry was a terrible, terrible tragedy. and there's no question that there were problems with fast and furious and that it was ill conceived and poorly executeded, as were the three prior programs. but my amendment addresses the fast and furious report that you have and it would add language to the report explaining that proceeding to contempt charges at this time is unwarranted because the committee's investigation and the narrative of the contempt citation as serious an glaring flaws.

and one of the most significant and partisan decisions of the investigation, the chairman has refused requests, including requests today to hold a public hearing with mr. kenneth melson, the former head of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and exploeives. the agency responsible for conducting these operations, it seems logical and common sense that we would want to hear from him in a public forum, in a public hearing where all of us are not just reading a transcript, but have a chance to question him.

i believe that one reason that he has not been called for this may be due to the fact that mr. m melson's testimony would be contrary to the partisan narrative in the contempt citation that we will regrettably be voting on today. back this july 2011, the committee investigators conducted a transcribed inter interview -- that he never informed the attorney general or other official staff at the department -- because he was, quote, unaware of it himself.

the key fact is admitted entirely from the contempt citation. and mr. mel son's statements directly contradict the claim in the contempt citation that senior justice department officials were aware of gun walking. the concept citation asserts the top justice officials must have been aware of gun walking prior to the public controversy, because gary grindler then acting deputy attorney general, and i quote, received an extensive briefing on fast and furious from mr. melson in march of 2010. during his own interview with committee staff, mr. grindler confirmed mr. melson's account, stating categorically that neither mr. mel son, nor the deputy director of atf, william

hoover ever raised concerns about gun walking in operation fast and furious. both mr. melson and mr. hoover told committee staff that gun walking violated agency doctrine, that they did not approve of it and that they were not aware that atf agents in phoenix were using the tactic in fast and furious. because they did not know about the use of gun walking in operation fast and furious, they never raised it up the chain of command to senior justice officials. after reviewing over 12,000 pages of documents, and interviewing two dozen witnesses, and holding three hearings on this matter, the committee has obtained no evidence that the attorney

general or any other high level justice department political appointees authorize, condoned or approved in any way, shape or form gun walking. we can all agree that the tactics employed in fast and furious and the three prior gun walking operations in prior administrations that occurred under the former administration were absolutely deplorable. both the investigation and this investigation i am very sorry to say, has degenerated into a purely political per size to tarnish the attorney general and the president in an election year. and has juan williams. a political analyst for fox news stated, and i'm not used to quoting fox news.

>> be brief, please, your time has expired. >> this is what he said and i quote, is a monstrosity breaking apart public trust and dragging the nation's already polarized politics to the bottom of the sea, unquote. so holding someone in contempt is win of the most serious and formal actions congress can take and it should not be done as a political weapon against any administration and i -- >> i thank the gentle lady. >> i appeal to my colleagues to support this, this is just report language in the report that reflects the accurate fact. >> i thank the gentle lady, the gentleman from utah is recognized in opposition. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. i don't know how we come one is 12,000 documents when we have been given less than -- i would also highlight that the acting director of the atf, mr. melson

was appointed by president obama to that position. he has since been reassigned. mr. melson, spent nearly two days before the committee, july 4 of 2011, in a bipartisan transcribed interview which is available for all members of this committee for you to review. two things, careful what you wish for is always something. one of the things he said in that transcribed interview is that my view of the whole matter of the response of this -- he went further to say this is a very frustrating all of us and it appears thoroughly to us that the department of justice is really trying to figure out a way to push the information away from their political appointees at the department of justice, end quote. i added the justice part in there when he was talking about the department, he was talking about the department of justice. these things have been available for 11 months. they are part of the justification for this committee to get to the other documents that would provide and shed

further light and information about what is going on in this situation. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i mean i just want to check with the other side. is it -- it's your position that the head of the phoenix atf that ran this program should not be called before this committee? >> no, i'm talking about mr. melson, who's the acting director of the atf in washington, d.c. is the one -- >> the transfer, but during this program, he was down there. >> would the yes man yield? >> go ahead. >> for the record, he was in washington, he did not run this program, it was an osdef program, he said in his testimony when he read the very wiretaps that you all have had an opportunity to read, he became sick to his stomach and that was when he realized they had been gun walking. >> which program, the wide receiver? >> fast and furious. >> reclaiming my time. it was because of his concern

that we are also should be concerned because he gave us this system some 11 months ago. i think it is important to get to everyone, as mr. goudy has cited. gun walking was wrong, it's still wrong, it was always wrong t attorney general said this was fundamentally flawed. doesn't that beg the question why in february of 2011 we were sent under the department of justice letter head, something that was totally an completely false, something the department of justice pulled back some 10 months later. remember the senior people, gary grindler who was cited by the negligental woman, he got a promotion, he's now the chief of staff. there hasn't been the people made accountable. my concern is that the people who did ultimately -- if you look at february 4, you look at lanny brewer and what he was doing, the very day that we're sent, this totally false letter,

he's in mexico advocating for gun walking, and he's still the senior most person in this administration in charge of the criminal division. there has not been the accountability that president obama promised when he did his march 2011 interview with euna vision. contrast that with what happened at the secret service, within days they had taken care of this. and here we are in june of 2012? he didn't want this to be an election year deal, this should have been disposed of in early 2011 and because it has not, we are here today and we're still spending money and we are going to followthrough with brian terry's family and get to the bottom of this. so please, if you have questions about mr. melson's point of view in a bipartisan way, the staff interviewed him, it's transcrib transcribed, there's a lot of information, it should not slow down our efforts here today. yield back mr. dharm. -- [ inaudible ]

>> the gentle lady from the district of columbia is recognized for five minutes. >> i would like to speak to this amendment and i have to say it goes also to the welch amendment. mr. chairman, you and virtually everyone who has spoken have indicated that the point here is to find out why officer brian terry was killed. and i want to submit that that's all the public understands. all the discussion here about documents is meaningless to those who are watching us today. i am not saying they are meaningless in and of themselves. i'm saying that brian terry is all that counts here. my difficulty with the failure to call mr. melson so that we could haerl from him publicly, with the failure to call the attorney general, is that if we

are interested in getting to the bottom of why brian terry was murdered, we cannot allow only a partial story to come forward, we cannot start at the -- in the middle when there was a new justice department, this is not about they did it too, it's about how did we get into this so we continue get into it again. there is no possibility of under standing how, why brian terry was killed, if we're only look at the back half or part of the story, the story when this attorney general entered the picture, but not the story when the first justice department entered the picture, there was a beginning to this story. not just where we are now,

beginning, or near the end. we won't never get to the bottom of it by pretending that this is about fast and furious and not about it's former name wide receiver. and how the decision was made in the first place. >> would the gentle woman yield. >> be happy to yield. >> i believe it's conclusive in the record that it starreded in 2009. but please, can i also remind the gentle woman, the mexican government has told us that they believe that there are over 300 people who have been killed, killed with the guns from fast and furious. and that the attorney general -- >> reclaiming my time, you're not going through the point i am making. the point i am making for the rest of my time is that this is not about who struck john in each administration. it's about what you and virtually every member has said.

why was officer brian terry killed? we are entering this story and insisting upon hearing the part of the story that began with a democratic administration as if there was no beginning to the story. no matter what you are saying about what this attorney general has done, the fact is we have no information and we have been allowed to question none of those who were responsible for beginning this story. i want to make sure no one begins this story again, not just holding accountable the people who inherited the story, but people who have stopped the guns, but the people who started it. and we are hearing -- and so when the welch amendment is voted down, or perhaps the maloney amendment is voted down, you are simply saying once again, as far as we're concerned, a partial story is enough. when it comes to finding out buy

officer brian terry was killed, the only way the public is going to take us seriously, is if we look at the whole story, not because we want to blame the bush administration, everybody made a mistake here. >> would the gentle woman yield. >> because there is only one story or there is no story at all. >> will the gentle woman yield. >> i yield to the gentle lady from new york. >> i support her position and we need to look at the full story and we need to call all the people here before us. but i want to come back to my amendment. my amendment goes back to the transcribed interview that everyone talks about, mr. melson's statement and i am saying that if you proceed with this contempt charge, that the report be accurate. and that it reflect what mr. melson said, that was closed to the public and i think his statements should have been open to the public, but during that

interview, he told them that he never informed the attorney general and ore senior officials at the justice department about gun walking operation fast and furious because he was unaware of it himself. i think that should be added in all fairness to the report. >> i thank both the gentle the ladies. as i go to the gentleman from pennsylvania, i might remind people that although these were all in order and i'm accepting all amendments the contempt is only on the refusal to provide a certain period of documents and it is -- does in no way does this end or limit the overall investigation, including many of the points being made. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i think this latest discussion really goes to the essence of why we need to be able to have access to documents that tell us the full story. as a former member of the justice department, i'm actually

not surprised that an acting head of atf would not have detailed knowledge about the substance of -- and the tactics of investigations all the way through. in fact, the chain of communication here is what's important. it is the evidence that's being obtained by the investigators on the ground, that then goes to the assistant united states attorneys that prepare the affidavits that then go directly to justice. that go to the oeo. they don't get rooted through the head of atf. they go directly to oto. the office that oversees the applications for the wire taps. and so, it -- but the point of it is, with the limited evidence that we have been able to get, some things have been made very, very clear. and it is that in september

2009, lanny brewer, who was in charge of the criminal division, sent a prosecutor from the united states attorney's office to arizona to prosecute atf cases. the first case that lanny brewer chose was the prosecution of operation wide receiver, the previous case that had been initiated under the bush administration. but the u.s. attorney's office in arizona objecting to the tactics used in wide receiver had previously refused to prosecute the case. so what we have is a denial, but now if we have all the facts, we understand why that individual was being sent by this administration to reopen a case that had already been downtu downturned, and that very person was reporting to james trustee who was the criminal division's gang unit head and this is her language.

we only have partial access to a few e-mails, which is why we need the record. but in the record that we have been able to get, the assistant attorney general, who was sent or assistant attorney sent from washington to arizona, she says, the case involves 300 to 500 guns. this is the e-mail. it's my understanding that a lot of these guns walked. whether some or all of them was intentional is not known. so, we have that person sent from washington, who's on the ground in arizona, e-mailing back saying specifically to the justice department in washington, it is my understanding a lot of these guns walked. now whether it was intentional or not was not known and that's the essence of what we're trying to get to. and the essence of why we've asked for these documents. and why the failure to give us

access to these simple things to tell the whole story is the tragedy that's taking place today. >> i thank the gentleman. >> give back my time. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the jeptsle lady from new york. those in favor signify saying aye. those opposed no. >> no. in the opinion of the chair the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose is the gentleman from south carolina? rise. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment an the desk and i would ask the chairman's permission that madam clerk be permitted to read the amendment in its entirety. >> unless unanimous consent the clerk will read the amendment. >> amendment to the report offered by mr. gaudy of south carolina. page four strike the seventh sense snns of the paragraph the department has not provided a privileged log delineating with particularly why certain documents are being withheld. page 44 strike the last sentence

of the first paragraph under the subheading document productions. page 42 insert after the last paragraph under heading additional accommodations by the committee the following, on june 20th, 2012, minutes before the start of the committee's meeting to consider a resolution holding the attorney general in contempt the committee received a letter from deputy attorney general james cole claiming that the president asserted executive privilege over certain documents covered by this subpoena. the committee has a number of concerns about the validity of this assertion. one, the assertion was transparently not a valid claim of privilege given its last-minute nature. two, the assertion was obstructive given that it could have and should have been asserted months ago but was not until the day of the contempt markup. three, the assertion is eight months late. it should have been made by october 25th, 2011, the subpoena return date. four, to this moment the president has not indicating he is asserting executive privilege. five the assertion is

transparently invalid in that it is not credible, that every document withheld involves a communication authored or solicited and received by those members of an immediate white house adviser staff who have brought significant responsibility for formulating the advice to be given the president on the particular matter to which the communications relate. six, the assertion is transparently invalid where the justice department has provided no details by which the committee might evaluate the amilkibility of the privilege such as the senders and recipients of the documents. seven, even if the privilege were valid as an initial matter, which it is not, it certainly has been overcome here as the committee has demonstrated a sufficient need for the documents as they are likely to contain evidence important to the committee's inquiry and two, the documents sought cannot be obtained any other way. the committee has spent 16 months investigating, talking to dozens of individuals, and collecting documents from many sources.

the remaining documents are ones uniquely in the possession of the justice department. and eight, without these document, the committees important legislative work will continue to be stymied. the documents are necessary to evaluate what government reform is necessary within the justice department to avoid the problems uncovered by the investigation in the future. the president has now asserted executive privilege. this assertion, however, does not change the fact that attorney general eric holder jr. is in contempt of congress today for failing to turn over lawfully subpoenaed documents and explaining the department's role in withdrawing the false letter it sent to congress. >> the gentleman is recognized in support of his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam clerk. mr. chairman, i noted pair ren threatically this morning the evolution of president obama's position on executive privilege when he was then senator obama. he believed that executive

privilege was a rouse that presidents hid behind when they did not want to disclose unflattering material. that may not be a verbatim quote but it's pretty darn close. fast forward to this morning, mr. chairman, and apparently, the president is invoking executive privilege and i use the word apparently, mr. chairman, because to my knowledge we have not heard from the president himself. as the chairman knows the privilege belongs to the executive. its cannot be asserted by anyone else. let's go with the assumption he is asserting executive privilege. it is curious and legally significant that he did it on the eve of trial, so to speak, mr. chairman. this subpoena was issued in october of 2011, eight months ago. the return date was october 25th, 2011. nearly eight months ago.

he has not asserted that privilege up until today. i noted with interest there was some discussion that the attorney general had offered to produce documents last night, some documents, in exchange for postponement of this hearing. that would constitute a waiver and would also be legally significant but mr. chairman, what strikes me as most significant, unless my recollection is faulty, which sometimes it is, but i don't think it is in this instance, the president and my very fine colleague from utah can correct me if i'm wrong, the president told univision well over a year ago he had nothing to do with fast and furious, didn't know who approved it. i don't believe there's been any allegation, mr. chairman, that the president drafted the february 4th -- the demon strably false, calculated to mislead and deceive february 4th, 2011