senior officials cannot halt this operation. i support the ongoing pursuit of the documents responsive to the subpoena. i think they're necessary in order for every one of the members of this committee to identify the answers for bipartisan questions that have been passed through the course of the last year. i think the american people also have the right to know the complete and total truth about this operation. it is our obligation to seek and identified that operation. certainly the people of new hampshire have asked me about the engagement and involvement. i hope we can continue this in a fashion where we obtained fax.

facts. that is the crux comment to that directly pertain. when you look that there is a minimum of 140,000 documents and only 7600 have been released it begs the question what is not being released to this committee? it does beg the question why since february 2011 there is a very limited information provided to this committee. that is why we continue to support the effort to obtain these documents. i yelled back. >> thank you. does anyone else seek recognition?

>> we come here with some regret. we have requests from this administration. we have had the sadness of what happened to the brian terry family that has been developing every single proceeding. i want to get to the bottom of what happened to brian terry. and wanted it to the bottom of what happened to other people who have been damaged. the key question has always been what does this administration know and when did they know it backs we have been asking this for close to 1.5 years. if you could just answer some questions. the other side continue to talk about yesterday. they continue to say that there

is a reasonable request made of you. my understanding is that you were supposed to completely agree to not hold these proceedings in the future if they were going to give you those didn'document. >> i agree. their return for documents not presented yesterday. >> the reason for request was that they were not going to be off the table anyway. i do not find that reasonable. i do not think the american people will find a reasonable period if they would have come to the meeting yesterday and would have said we're going to give you those documents and the weekend to discuss it, i think that would have been a reasonable request. if you would have said you can hold it later but let me try to

comply, i think that would of been reasonable. instead we have been sitting here. the attorney general has an obligation to provide truthful and accurate testimony to congress. when he testified before congress, his statements were either untrue or deliberately misleading. it is clear from recently released documents that he knew about fast and furious well before he publicly admitted. eric holder has a troubling pattern of belt cooperation with the legislative branch. because of this, i now call for his resignation. i said that from the beginning. the attorney general has still to produce all the relevant documents. us fromventied

revealing the truth. what did they know and when did they know it? keen as nothing. he says nothing. he seeks for nothing. never in my life have i been met by a man more concerns with the search for the truth. he protests appeared with the look of a man who knew he had been found out. since then we found more instances of him being ignorant of key facts. he used the phrase "i am not at this point aware that gun walking practices were obtained." now after having reached them,

we do know that those tactics were outlined. contrary to his testimony, it is clear that mr. holder is either not telling the truth or he is grossly incompetent. i repeat my call for his resignation. i support what this committee is doing. i yield back. >> does anyone else see recognition? >> we have been here for almost three hours discussing this matter. that indicates that members feel like it is important. i am passionate about getting to the truth of this matter. it is important that the american people know what is going on. i would like to take a couple of minutes to address some of the

things that have come to the other side. they say why don't you wait a little bit longer? folks are real quick to say we are a do nothing congress. when we're trying to do something they say slowdown. i find that to be wrong. we have been working on fast and furious investigation for a year. the subpoena has been in place for the better part of a year. the attorney general has had every opportunity to voice his objections and comply. instead of the way to the last hour. we say give us some more time. it has been 30 years since i am in law school. my recollection has been verified by some of the other folks. executive privilege is very narrow.

it gives people the freedom to speak to the president. we might as will pack this committee up and go home. we need to look into what the decision making process is so we can develop laws of policy to ensure that it is better. i am concerned this is thing turned into a partisan issue. i like you to remember the righteous indignation that you felt when agent terry's family was up here. when we were first hearing about this. there was bipartisan discussed idiscussion about what was going on. we are circling the wagons and

drawing this along party lines. remember the promises that were made in this room. we would not rest until we got to the bottom. we are taking our good time. you also hear that maybe we should have hearings about tightening gun control. in corpus christi, we just got a new police chief. one of the first thing who did receive an increase in traffic crime. he did not go to the legislature. he enforce the laws that were on the books. it is a red herring. this committee has a constitutionally mandated duty

to conduct oversight and to inform the legislative function. we must take actions. taxpayers have their right to know what went on. the families of the fallen have a right to know. we need the information. if you look at the history of investigation, all the way back to the nixon administration, it is not the crime that gets you but the cover-up. the american people are willing to forgive a mistake if someone says yes i made a mistake and i will not do it again. on the cover of stops, the american people do not tolerate being lied to. they do not tolerate their officials being lied to. they do not appreciate not having a transparent government. this stonewalling has got to

stop. >> i think the chairman. i know you're being complemented for your patience. again more compliments to the people of the united states. why are these documents not being given to us tha? agent terry is dead. there are hundreds the mexicans dead. what is it about these documents that are so sensitive. is this a political charge? it is. we're running for reelection. it is totally political.

if it was not, why will not be getting these documents? this as an thing to do with him as a person. it has to do with his being a chief enforcement officer. no one is above the law appeared that includes us and the president of the united states. it cannot find a way to use the law, why would you do that? i do not speak as a constitutional expert. the common sense of what is wrong is what comes to light all the time. there is something basically flawed when the department of justice cannot give you the answers. when the attorney general cannot give you the answers. you hear an evolving truth. what does that mean.

when the attorney general inadvertently make claims to a committee that michael mckee sea had been briefed about gun walking. -- mckasey have been briefed about gun walking. in addition, they released a one-page of additional material prior to his meeting on capitol hill. the department says it just recently discovered. the notes indicated that when jason weinstein met with senior officials in 2010 regarding the problem of gun walking the deputies said they also attended the meeting. it indicates that fastened years was also a topic.

it shows criminal division chief had a more concerned about the implications of gun walking the making sure the atf ended the practice. the senior doj officials felt to make the connections between gun walking and wide receiver which member were admitted to knowing about. it is suspicious that we know everything about wide receiver. we countless documents. only ask about documents for fast and furious, we can i give those to you. it is political. the american people are fed up.

the highest ranking officer in the united states does. why we had to come to this is because we were forced to come to this. if the attorney general to not want to go through this, just give us the documents. what could be so damning that they cannot be given to us? everything from fast and furious cannot. is a political? absolutely. >> does anyone else seek recognition that the question would occur on the resolution before us. i know a quorum is not present. i announced a recess. it will conclude and we will convene with the anticipation of boatvotes.

finally so in not quits on a loan note an essay during the recess the clerk should observe her birthday which i understand is today. we stand in recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> prior to our recess the previous question was called. i ask consent that we rid draw the previous question. does any members seek recognition to offer an amendment? what reason does the gentleman from vermont rise t? >> the gentleman is recognized to explain the amendment. >> my mmm, has it been

distributed redid my amendment, has been distributed? -- my amendment, has it been distributed? this goes to point out is making earlier what this does is calls on the committee to postpone action on contempt until the investigation is done. this explains that proceeding to content is unwarranted. we have not done the

investigation that needs to be done to establish a credible basis for the committee for what will be historic action and request for content of a sitting ignited state attorney general. i say that as a member of the committee who is a strong supporter of the efforts of the committee when it is led by the republican chair to get to the bottom. as a strong supporter of the use of the subpoena power, whether it is being by this on the other hand, i do think the committee has irresponsibility to do a thorough -- a response ability to do a thorough investigation.

i thought many of the remarks of my colleagues were very compelling. this'll give a peace of mind to the american public that this is us in support of our duty. it will limit some of the questions about whether it is a partisan motivation. i think this is appropriate. i would feel much more sick here it the work and this committee have been more conclusive of the or origins of this operation. this is a report based on a

thorough review of the evidence. this is not something that is new. it is a lot of questions about what officials knew. it had been going on before this for at least five years. the committee has achieved documents showing this. i appreciate the urgency that this committee has under your leadership to try to get access to all the information it feels it needs. what i also believe is that the committee should be doing as much as a comprehensive investigation that those factor both administrations to get to

the truth. we should do this in a way that establishes the absolute foundation of credibility before we ask congress to take an action that will be for the first time in the history of this country that we ask congress to hold. the thousands of pages of documents. this is providing everything we can legitimately ask. cribbs the final point is you raising the question about privilege laws.

the nature of the subpoena was significantly change. to really have to do this now? it stopped short of what is going to be an unprecedented action. might notice be restricted to less items. anytime you have to do less there's nothing to decide. i would hope everyone would understand that we did not change " grasping for. we narrowed it all we would consider to be content. regardless for your amendment

and the content vote, i am not done looking at justice. i am sure mr. grassley is not done of looking at this for the serious reorganization that will be necessary to prevent this and other misconduct for occurring. >> thank you. i have the greatest respect for the gentleman from vermont. i know he is passionate about .his country picni i do stand in opposition. this has been going on for a long time. also cite the actual content item. i would point to item number

one. out also point to items number two, four, and number five. this was not limited to just fast and furious. all things limited, and the chamber's task based in arizona to or from the following individuals. it says relating to operation fast and furious to support any other firearms.

atf broke up surveillance of weapons and became this. our concern here is about gun walking. the moving forward with the contempt order is to get the department of justice to provide the committee the document it needs to make sure it never happens again. the president said in march 2011 that justice has to have its. to say we airline to put this are going to put this there is a different issue.

i am committed to working with you and others. if the department of justice is right when they make the jury the senior levels were not all the rest, i disagree. why is it that president obama is invoking president privilege on documents that we were told us to date they would be glad to give us tax this doesn't add up. there is something of blini to know about. this should have been disposed of last year. we have been patient. we still have irresponsibility

to follow through on our response abillity it regardless of party to get to the bottom and make sure it never happens. >> >> did you just say that they indicated that they would provide the document? now you are asking why they would not? >> can you understand why the white house would move to protect the attorney general with the claim when it realized that irrespective of the willingness to provide such documents we were going to move forward to the citation? >> that is not true. that is inaccurate. we started we issued a subpoena.

the week before last attorney general holders said there were 140,000 documents. this committee has been given less than 8000 of what the attorney general said were 140,000 documents. until they will articulates this of a play why they will be given as. the president said he did not know about it. now 15 minutes before we're starting this hearing is family comes to the hearing that maybe i should invoke executive privilege. it means he was somehow personally involved. we deserve some answers. >> i just wanted to go to the

mmm. they entered one from mr. kohl. one of the things the refer to is a letter of june 13, from chairman issa. they say that in that letter, and ad hoc -- in that letter, it says the committee is focused on the january 4. that letter was from a week ago, saying this is what we spotlight. you talk about things changing. things did change.

they became narrower. the focus was on the post- february documents, new ones that would go to retaliation against employees, if there was such. then, you talked about privilege laws, and think of that nature. you have to remember. in a way, i understand what the chairman is saying. but in a way, the gold posted change a little bit. -- the goal posted change a little bit. this happened a week ago. you have to focus on that stuff. the attorney general said all along he was willing to provide documents, but he needed time to do that. the other thing i want to go to

is that this attorney general is the one who said that these tactics must come to an end. there were not brought to an end under the casey -- mccasey. this attorney general asked for the investigation. there is something going on here that really should bother all of us. that is that we do have an attorney general who, just like we did, swears to uphold the constitution of the united states. it seems to be a presumption that when certain privileges are asserted, certain concerns are raised by the attorney general with regard to the lucrative -- collaborative documents that

have traditionally been privileged, that he has to be hiding something, but he has to be dishonest. -- that he has to be dishonest. i think we do need to respect the separation of powers here. this whole idea, what is he hiding? i do not think he is hiding a damn thing. i think what he is trying to do, and he said this during our meeting with him yesterday -- he made it clear that this was his watch, and that there are certain things that attorne general's protect as a part of this office. not of eric holder, but this office. he said he is going to protect those things. but at the same time, he will try to accommodate the committee. you know, it is easy to presume the negative. but just maybe the attorney general is trying to do what

attorney general's have traditionally done, but at the same time, try to work to accommodate the committee. i would recommend to everyone that you take a look at the letter sent today, because he basically lays out what his efforts have been, where he will continue to do. going back to the chairman, i know that no matter what the vote is today that the attorney general will continue to try to work with this committee to make things work. so that we can do our job, and so he can do his job. he has a job to, and i respect that. i listened to him the other day. it was clear to me that he wanted to try to work things out, to do that balancing. i would hope that no matter what happens in this vote that we would continue to work with him, so we can get the information we

need. >> would the gentleman yield? do you recall yesterday that he said if we vote contempt that is the end of it, and there will be no more cooperation? >> i do not remember him saying that. i think, in a heated moment -- i have to tell you, mr. chairman. sometimes, sitting in a meeting with you can be rough. in a heated moment -- >> yesterday, i did not think it was particularly heated. >> you did not think so. i did. it was a very heated. he said that things would be difficult. when you look at the letter today, after having a night to rest over it, i think the letter says very clearly, i want to work with you. >> i hope so. i think the gentleman. i recognize the gentleman from oklahoma. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on the thought that this was something new, just thrown out recently -- in october of last

year, we dictated about 22 different categories. those have since been narrowed to one. this was one of the categories given in october of last year. january 31, the german route to the attorney general, asking for the same documents. he also sent a card on perris 14, asking for the documents again. it is hard to imagine getting a subpoena last october, getting a letter in january, hitting a letter in february. finally, we cannot get to the point to say, let's turn things over? even if he just got it friday, he would have had time to turn over two documents. he has given us zero. this is not something, i am just in a hurry. this is a systematic stalling.

i do want to mention a couple of things. this attorney general has been more than willing to turn over documents related to the previous administration. in fact, immediately started throwing out things related, even when they are not requested. to bring in a former attorney general -- the role of the oversight and reform committee is the deal with oversight of current administrative actions. it is to try to reform current policies. i know we want to try to relive everything from the bush administration. this amendment smacks of, it is bush's fault. fast and furious is not obama fault -- obamacare fault in started in the bush administration, when they are unconnected. i would like for us to be able to get to the fact. with the details came out related to the murder.

the weapons are there. atf began blowing the whistle to say, this is something we have been trying to shut down in phoenix, but have been unable to do. now, the whole system collapses. eric holder did shut this down after there was a huge public humiliation of the product itself. it is easy to close things down after you have been humiliated. the reality is we have to get to the documents to determine what is there. if we want to relive the bush days, and of hearings over all of that, we have plenty of documents from this administration. they are more than eager to throw anything out on the bush administration. but we have to get to the facts as well. it is not consistent to say we need the old data before we can deal with new data. >> would my friend yield? >> i would. >> would the gentleman from

oklahoma agree that the ranking member actually made a request that in lieu of a hearing, what if we had a private session with the former attorney general, just for members only, so we could at least have a chance to question him? and was it not true that that request was also turned down? >> how does that resolve a letter that was sent to us. 4, with false information, and retracted in december? >> i think it goes to the heart of what you indicated. somehow, the democrats on this committee were saying first that, and only after that, to look at the current administration. that is not the case. we were even willing to a candid in camera, to at least get informed of what were you thinking. how does this relate to the current situation?

it was the antecedent of this program. it would help. >> let me reclaim my time. i am sure this is about to come up. the next amendment that is coming is dealing with the former director, the acting director of atf. we had two full days of private meetings with him. >> i might note for all of us that the 24 interviews, effectively depositions, were bipartisan. all members are able to come to them. general managers -- general members do not choose to go to them. if you read the 24 interviews,

the staff asked exhaustive questions, more than i have ever seen asked from the dais. >> i think the gentleman. >> the gentle lady from new york. >> in 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 was not called once. possibly because it does not fit into the narrative. what he had to say was he did not know anything about it, and he did not tell anybody about it at the justice department. i think the point that the attorney general was here nine times, but the head of the atf, and this was an atf program, was not called here once -- i feel

that is a glaring unfairness, and and a disproportionate focus on one area, as opposed to getting the full picture. >> will the gentleman yield? i have looked at the record of all mine appearances. the attorney general appears before appropriations for money, the judiciary for broad oversight. i will note that he appeared here one time, which was the one time to my knowledge he appeared in which he knew the subject would be fast and furious. i appreciate his presence here. until today, i thought we were fairly exhaustive with the former atf acting director, because of the days he testified. with appears it is not to his satisfaction, although it is not germane to this amendment. i will look at whether we can

provide additional information as part of getting to the bottom of wide receiver, hernandez, and every other program similar to fast and furious. >> i appreciate the offer of the gentleman and chairman to have kenneth nilsson come before the body and publicly address this to the and there -- the american public. i think that would be helpful. the ag was at some of these hearings. he said at the judiciary committee meeting he was questioned intensely on fast and furious. i was not at the committee, but that is what they told me. reclaiming my time, i do believe the ag has turned over backwards to be responsive to the chairman and the requests of this committee. in fact, the elector of his

deputy says that are open. they want to discuss things further. they want to work this out. i feel we should be working this out, instead of moving toward contempt. >> will the gentle lady further yield? >> the letters were available to the committee. they were working records -- open records. we talk past each other for days, basically offering a briefing. we were asking for documents. yesterday, he brought no documents, no writing. we walked away, although the ranking member and i may disagree slightly, with my saying i am happy to accept the documents. the documents did not come. we are still prepared to accept documents. i would hope there would be forthcoming. this letter says he is asserting executive privilege. consultation and discussions are well and good, but they have to lead to something.

yesterday's meeting was a great disappointment to the ranking member, and to me. to me, it was a disappointment because he came with nothing but an offer he did not even bring paper to describe. the frustration of this committee in not getting documents for a year and a half must be satisfied today. it is the reason we expect to go to a vote on these amendments for final passage. i think the gentle lady. >> has my time expired? >> you still have 44 seconds. >> i will yield to my good friend, mr. welch. >> my amendment would be to the text of the report to the house. it would not stop the house from voting. it would state in the report that the committee on government reform has not asked attorney general mike mckay see -- mccasey to discuss the evolution

of gun walking operations since 2006. there was an indication mr. mccasey was briefed personally on the botched efforts. my request is to let that information be part of what is presented to the full house, so that members are aware of that and can take into consideration as they make a decision on any motion presented to them. thank you. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> mr. chairman, while i recognize and appreciate the good faith effort of my good friend from the other side, i am afraid we may be going down a little bit of a red herring. i think it needs to go to the issue, on which we have had substantial testimony, regarding the concept of gun walking, and

the distinction that occurred in the time in which things were alleged to have happened during a previous administration, and those which have happened during this administration. let me begin by the fact that i have in my hand a june 18 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. i think it is important. the previous attorney general, he said, had been briefed on misguided operational tactics, and taken no action in response. but when we heard the testimony of the agents, who do this for a living, when they were talking about misguided tactics, the tactics were ones in which the concept of gone walking -- gun walking was not alleged, for the

most part. really, what they were talking about is controlled deliveries, and joint investigations and control deliveries, in which the question is the continuing oversight and maintenance of the chain of custody. that is what was happening. in this concept, they tried ways to maintain the joint custody, including working with mexican officials, and lost them. as a result of losing, notwithstanding their best efforts, they lost the control of those weapons. that is what is alleged, for the most part. my recollection, going to the extensive report, which was largely not germane to the current administration, but an effort to put out everything -- there are very few references. there may be one in which they said gun walking did occur by

the atf in phoenix. but there is an important distinction. what did not happen in the aftermath of that was on 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. they were denied based on those tactics. at the conclusion of that administration, what you have is an official position in which prosecutorial discretion says those tactics are wrong. we have a new administration comes in, and there is a revisiting of this issue. one of the first things they say is, how we approach this question? they send a prosecutor from washington to go to the atf. that prosecutor begins to revisit all the tactics, sending a subtle message -- in fact, a

direct message, that not only are we overruling the determination made by the then- u.s. attorney, which suggests this is improper. we are suggesting move it more directly. we have direct language from the prosecutor, that sent memos back to the main justice department, explicitly stating there were over 300 guns that are part of this. we have the knowledge that they know now that guns have been walked. notwithstanding, the effort is made in multiple meetings that go all the way up to continue this kind of operation, with knowledge in the record. i think we can spend a lot of time going down a path in which the fact of the matter is we are going to get there is a distinction. in many ways, and irrelevant distinction. the question was the conduct that took place with the oversight at the highest levels

of the justice department, in which we have information, clearly, that there were decisions being made which were influenced by directions from the current justice department, not the other. for those reasons, i do believe -- nobody says it better than the attorney general. he himself has called back the allegation that he had been briefed on the misguided tactics, and said it was controlled deliveries. it is a subtle distinction, but important. >> on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from vermont, all those in favor? those opposed? in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman requests 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. because these votes are important, would you tell us now exactly how you plan to proceed with the voting, so the members can be here in a timely manner? >> we expect to roll until the last amendment, and we will proceed to the vote. members are advised not to stray too far. at the current time, we have three amendments pending. mr. lynch, are you choosing to go next? the gentleman is recognized for the purchases of offering -- purposes of offering an amendment. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> the courts will please distribute the amendment. >> the lynch amendment. insert the following section at the end of the report. >> unanimous consent, is considered as read. >> thank you. this is a simple,

straightforward amendment. basically, it is a paragraph. it says the house committee on oversight and government reform could provide a complete accounting of the cost incurred by this committee and the department's in connection with the house investigation of operation fast and furious. this investigation has gone on for about 16 months. there are thousands of man and council hours that have been put in on this investigation. this is just a straightforward accounting request, in terms of what we have spent on this. it does not reflect the opportunity costs from this committee. i believe there are several dozen other issues which could be focusing on, but we are focusing principally on this. i 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 are spending our time on while we have a real problem with creating jobs and addressing the deficit, and some of the other issues the american people think we should be focusing on. i will yield. >> i join with the gentleman in finding that the amount spent is probably much higher than any of us would have liked. i would note that the agency's we would like to get the information as to how much they spent are not within the power of the contempt motion. however, in the case of our expenditures, although they are in the public record, if the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, i would ask our nonpartisan staff to jointly put together an estimate of hours and time spent of our committee. i apologize, but i can find no basis on which we could use contempt to compel these.

>> i think that would be accurate, if i were amending the contempt order. i am actually amending the report, in terms of information 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 connected with the guns that were released purposely into the hands of the cartel's, for as much as the future decade. is the gentleman suggesting the cost to the department of justice to track down those guns be also part of that accounting for what was botched by the department of justice? >> we want to know what things cost around here on a bunch of different issues. this has been a really olympic

investigation. it has gone far beyond what i think any of us anticipated when this started out. i think the costs are going to turn out to be staggering, if we look at what these individual departments expended in this effort. i am just trying to balance out what we might get, between what we cost. again, i repeat. this is only a partial accounting of what the costs are. there is also the opportunity costs of us grappling with some other issues that are desperately needed to be addressed in this country. we are focusing an overwhelming amount of our time on this one issue. 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? >> and certainly would. >> while there is tremendous

cost involved in this, there are a couple of dynamics that make it difficult to do the processing on this. one is we have a border agent who was murdered in this process. it is difficult to wrap around and say we spent a lot of money investigating one murder, and going through that process. that is difficult to wrap around. obviously, the cost dramatically increases as we have back and forth with the administration, as they dragged their feet to produce documents. that increases our cost. that increases their costs. that is difficult to evaluate. the final thing is in all of these, i would be interested to know how much the department of justice spent on multiple evaluations of roger clemens, in that hearing. we have all kinds of things that we look at. we probably spent way too much money evaluating that roger clemens hearing. >> i agree. we should know that number, and

we have it. we know what the justice department spent on a matter. i am looking for the same treatment of this case, that we look at what has happened here. this has gone far beyond the investigation of agent terry's murder. we are trying to crack open the thought processes of individuals in the justice department, and their internal deliberations. this is far beyond the investigation of that terrible tragedy. that is the point of my inquiry, here, to try to get an assessment of what these costs are. thank you. i yield back. >> i recognize myself in opposition. our committee records are public and available. the other agencies certainly probably will, and certainly are welcome to make known, their lawyer ring up, their obstruction, they're not providing how much it costs.

if they simply give us carbon copies of most of what they gave, and i am showing my age with carbon copies -- if they give us photocopies of the documents they gave to the inspector general, their costs would be 80,000 times less than a penny. when you obstruct, it costs. when you cover up, it costs. since it was noted earlier, mrs. spear talked about a 20 minute gap in tapes. watergate cost a lot of money because we went to the supreme court. we went through a process of a president and administration that were covering up their actions, and covering up their involvement. it rose and rose. when this began, this was about a murder in a canyon in arizona. a simple answer of yes, we let the guns walk on february 4.

yes, it was a mistake. perhaps, yes, similar things went on during the bush administration, and it needs to stop. that would have been much more like the secret service response after the las vegas item became public. this committee was given a false statement. the later testimony was given that asserted it was true. there were discussions that went on behind closed doors about how they would the would not tell us that they had given us false statements. i had used the terms on occasion. i am not a lawyer. they giving something which is false he deserves every penny we

have spent. it agencies have spent extra money trying to block us, so be it. we will get to the bottom of dangerous weapons being allowed to go in violation of existing laws into the hands of the kind people that killed brian terry. >> this is something for which i questioned the cost of a human life unnecessarily take again, it not in the line of duty but because powerful weapons in good conditions were put in the hands of people who probably would not have had that quality of weapon if not for that program. >> if indeed we were trying to

get to the bottom of what they contend citation targets, we would be trying to figure out from the atf supervisor why they provided false information. we have decided to ignore all that. i honestly believe if this was the investigation of his death of we would be asking the people who ran this operation and that directly did lead to the circumstances of his death. what i am afraid of is that somewhere along the line during this investigation this has become more about the next election. let me complete my statement.

>> it is my time. i will reclaim my time for now. >> i would ask the gentleman has actually read the wiretap application. i have read every single one of them. not one statement that the attorney general or anybody in those wiretaps had anything in those allegations. >> i find that fall. se. i have read them. other people's names are signed on those documents. it is crystal clear in that information. and just to come to a conclusion when he had not seen

the documents. what we are asking for is to see the documents. if it clears the department of justice, if the white house did not know, it and show us the documents. they will not provide the documents. if you continue to act in ignorance, he cannot make a proper and just conclusion. >> thank you. if you want to get to the bottom of this, why not bring the chief of the atf here like we have asked on several occasions. if the gentleman will yield, in a bipartisan way over the course of today's comet they were interviewed. if you had read those, that information is here. we did question it.

>> we did not have an opportunity as we have with other witnesses to examine the allegations of the head of the atf in phoenix. what i am saying is that there is nothing there that supported the allegations made about senior officials of knowing what is going on. the insinuation that the wiretap would support that is totally misguided. i will go into details. >> thank you. we have to be cautious because

of the privileged nature of the wiretaps. i cannot talk about the content. i can say nothing in those supports it. the debris fused everything you're saying. >> i totally disagree with it. he said to you think they should have them participate when fast and furious are unsealed. it is a tricky case. >> i have listened to all the comments. we hear so many comments.

i want to make something real clear. this is something that is very painful to me. there is an implication that maybe the people do not care about the family. we want to get to the bottom. we made the same commitments. when he came before this committee it is after my nephew was slain. i have a conference with him. i refuse to believe, when i read the various documents in this case, i think some people really

screwed up. i do not think that folks were trying to obstruct and cover up. it does not seem like we're getting to what we claim the we are so concerned about. that is finding out exactly what happened with regard to brian terry. i said it a few minutes ago. it is so easy for us to sit here and second-guess the attorney general who is the number one law enforcement officer trying to protect over 300 million people. it is easy to sit back. it is easy to make all kinds of

decisions. he said no. sometimes you do not even know what is going in your own office. people all over the country. when we went down and talk to the mexican people in a bipartisan trip, they said we need some better gun laws. everyone said we're so concerned about the whistle-blowers. what do they say? they bad debts. they have better laws. to us that favor. we want to get to the bottom of this. i think the attorney general is

acting in good faith. >> thank you. i just want to make clear that what the gentleman was making clear is that he was talking abt the wide receiver program, not fast and furious. let me clear up confusion keynoted about the pronouns. when i say it is a tricky case, i am talking exclusively about wide receiver. i asked to submit this to the record. >> the question is on the

amendment. all those in favor signify by saying aye. the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> it is ordered them postpone. does anyone else have an amendment? we will weigh on yours if you do not mind. does the young lady have an amendment? >> the amendment to the report. >> without objection considered as read. >> thank you. 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 strategtragedy. their problems with fast and furious. it was ill-conceived. my amendment addresses the fast and furious report that you have. it would add language to their report explaining that proceeding to content charges at this time is unwarranted because the committee's investigation in the narrative of the contempt citation has serious and glaring flaws. one of the most partisan decisions of the investigation the chairman has refused requests including requests a day to hold a public hearing with mr. kenneth r. nelson, the

former head of the bureau of fire arms and explosives, the agency brees possible for conducting these operations. it seems common sense that we would want to hear from them in a public hearing where all of us are not just reading a transcript but also have a chance to question him. it is incomprehensible and unfair to me that we could be investigating major flaws in and a hefty program like this and not call the person responsible to testify in person before this committee. i believe that one reason that he has not been called for this may be due to the fact that his testimony would be contrary to the partisan narrative's in the

contemn citation that we will regrettably be voting on today. in july 2011, the investigators conducted a transcribed interview which many of the reference today that was close to the public. during that interview he told investigators that he never informed the attorney general or other senior staff officials at the justice department's about gun walking because he was unaware of it himself. he is admitted in the contempt citation. the statements treacly contradict the claim in the contempt citation that officials

were aware of gun walking. it asserts the top justice officials must have been aware of gun walking prior to the public controversy because he then received an extensive briefing on fast and furious. during his own interview confirmed his own account stating categorically that neither he nor the deputy director of atf william hoover ever raise concerns with him about the gun walking in operation fast and furious. they told the committee staff

that gun walking violated agency doctrine. they did not approve and there were not aware that agents were using the tactic. because they did not know about the use of gun walking they'd never raised it up the chain of command to senior justice officials. after reviewing overtop thousand pages of documents and holding three hearings, the committee has maintained no evidence that the attorney general or any high level political appointees authorize, condoned, or proof gun walking. we can all agree that the

tactics employed in the three prior gun walking operations that occurred under the former administration absolutely deplorable. this investigation has degenerated into a purely political exercise to tarnish the attorney general and the president and an election year. i am not used to coaching fox news. "is a monstrosity, breaking apart public trust and dragging the nation's already polarized politics to the bottom of the sea."

holding someone in contempt is the most serious and formal actions congress can take. it should not be done as a political weapon against any administration. i appeal to my colleagues to support this that reflex the accurate fax. >> thank you. i rise in operation. i do not know how we come up with 8000 documents. the acting director of the atf was appointed by president obama. yes since been reassigned. he is in a transcribed interview that was available.

careful what you wish for. my view is the whole matter of this was a disaster. meaning the department of justice. he said it is a ververy frustrag to all of us. they're finding out a way to push the information away from their political appointees. these things have been available for 11 months. they're part of the justification to get to the other documents that would provide in shed further information about what is going on in this situation. >> i just want to check with the other side. it is your position that the head of them that ran this

program should not be called. >> i am talking about the acting director of the atf. during this program he was down there. >> for the record, he was in washington. he did not run this program. he read the wiretaps of all of the average 90 to read. he realized they had been gone walking the. -- gun walking. in fast and furious. >> it was because of his concern that we are also concerned. he gave us this testimony 11 months ago. it is important to get to everyone. this has been wrong.

it was always wrong. he said this is fundamentally flawed. we were sent letterhead, something that is totally and completely false. the senior people got a promotion. he is now the chief of staff. there have not been the adjustments made. my concern is the people who did approve this are still on the position of power to continue forward. if you look at february 4 any look at what he was doing, the very day we were sent this false letter, he is in mexico advocating for gun walking. he is still the senior most person in charge of the criminal division. there's not been the accountability that president obama promise.

there are not the people held accountable. contrast that with what happened at the secret service. within days they had taken care of it. here we are in june of 2012. we did not want this to be an election year. we are still spending money. we are going to follow through. we're going to get to the bottom of this. if you have questions about his point of view, it is transcribe. there's lots of information. it is the slowdown our efforts. >> could i be recognized? >> i would like to speak to this amendment. this goes to the welsh amendment.

everyone that has spoken has indicated that the point is to find out why officer brian terry was killed. i want so the public understands that this is meaningless to go through this. i'm not saying they're meaningless of themselves. i am saying that brian terry is already here. my difficulty has the failure to call him so that we could hear from him publicly with the failure to call the attorney general. if we are interested in getting to the bottom of why brian terry was merger, we cannot allow only a partial story to come forward.

we cannot starts in the meadomie when there was a new justice department. this is about how do we get into this so we will not get into it again. there is no possibility of understanding how, why brian terry was killed if we're only looking at the back half forepart of the story when this attorney general entered the picture there was a beginning. we will never get to the bottom of that by attending that this is about fast and furious and not about his former name, wide

receiver. >> with the gentleman yield? >> i believe it is conclusive that started in 2009. can i also remind the gentlewoman the mexican government has told us that they believe that there are over 300 people who have been killed with the guns from fast and furious? >> you're not going to the point i am making. the point i am making for the rest of my time is that this is not about to struck john in each administration. it is whaabout what you and evey other person said. why was officer brian terry killed? as if there is no beginning to

the story. no matter what you are saying, the fact is we have no information. we have been allowed to question none of those who are responsible for beginning this story. i want to make sure no one begins the story again. >> we are hearing. when the amendment is voted down the you are simply saying once again in a parcel story is enough when it comes to finding out what officer brian terry was killed. the only way they will take as seriously as if we let that the whole story.

everybody made a mistake care. there's only one story or no story at all. >> i support her position. we need to look at the full story. we need to call all of the people here before us. my memory goes back to the transcribed interview that everyone talks about. if you proceed with this content, and the report be accurate. it should reflect what he said that was close to the public. his statements should of been open. he told them that he never told them about gun walking. he was unaware of that himself. that should be added.

the might remind people that while these are all in order this is only in their refusal to provide documents. in no way limits the overall investigation. >> thank you. i think displayed this discussion goes to the essence of why we need to be able to have documents that tell us the full story. as a former member, i am not surprised that an acting head of atf would not have detailed knowledge about the substance and tactics of investigations of all the way through.

the chain of communication is what is important. it is the evidence being obtained by the investigators on the ground that then goes to the assistant united states attorney's that prepare the affidavits. they did not get looted through -- routed through the head of atf. they go directly to the office that oversees the applications for the wiretaps. with the limited evidence we have been able to get, things have been made very clear. in september 2009, brewer who was in charge of the criminal division sent a prosecutor to arizona to prosecute an atf case. the first case that burt chose

was a wide receiver. the bush administration. but the u.s. attorney's office 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 been down turned 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

from wash. to arizona, she says, the case involved 300-500 guns. it is my understanding that a lot of these guns were lost. whether some or all of them was intentional is not known. we have that person sent from washington on the ground in the arizona e-mailing back, the same specifically to the justice department and the washington, understanding a lot of these guns walked. that is the essence of why we have asked for these documents and why the failure to give us access to these is simple things to tell the whole story is the tragedy that is taking place today. >> i thank the gentle man. the question is on agreeing to

the amendment offered by the gentle lady from new york. those in favor signify by saying aye. -- those oppopseosed no. the no's have it. >> i would ask the chairman's permission that madame clerk be able to read the amendment in its entirety. >> the clerk will read the entire amendment. page four strike the last sentence of the seventh paragraph and replace with the following. the department have provide a privileged log delineating why certain documents are being withheld. page 42, insert after the last paragraph under heading, additional accommodations of the falling -- on june 20, 2012,

before the start of the committee's meeting holding the attorney general in contempt the committee received a letter from deputy attorney general claiming the president exerted executive privilege over certain documents covered by the subpoena. the committee has concerned about the validity of this assertion. at the assertion was not a valid claim of privilege to give its last-minute nature. two, the assertion was obstructed given that it could have and should have been asserted months ago was not -- but was not until the day of the content markup. 3, the assertion is eight months late. four, to this moment, the president himself has not indicated he is exerting -- asserting executive privilege. 5, it is invalid and that it is not credible that every dartmouth withheld and balsa communication solicited and received by those remembers of the immediate white house adviser our staff who brought us

again responsibility for formulating the advice to be given to the president on the particular matter to which the communications for laid-off. 6, the assertion is invalid where the justice department has provided no details by which the committee might evaluate the applicability of the privilege such as the senders and recipients of the documents. off seven, even if the privilege were valid, which is not, and 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 policy inquiry. and the document cannot be obtained and the other way. the committee has spent 16 months talking to dozens of individuals and collecting documents. the remaining documents are in uniquely the possession of the justice department. and eight, without these documents, the committee's important legislative work will continue to be started.

the documents are necessary to evaluate what government reform is necessary within the justice department to avoid the problems uncovered by the investigation. the president has asserted executive privilege. this assertion does not change the fact that eric holder is in contempt of congress today for failing to turn over lawfully subpoenaed documents explain the department's role in its letter to congress. >> of the gentlemen is recognized in support of the amendment. >> i noted this morning the evolution of president obama is positioned on executive privilege when he was a then senator obama. he believed executive privilege was are rues the president hit behind when they did not want to disclose on flattering material that may not be our verbatim quote but it's pretty darn close. fast forward to this morning,

mr. chairman, and apparently the president is invoking executive privilege. i use the word apparently because to my knowledge we still have not heard from the president himself. as the chairman knows, the privilege belongs to the executive. it cannot be asserted by anyone else. but let's go with the assumption that 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 late october, 2011. the return date was october 25, 2011. he has not deigned to assert the 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 a

postponement of this hearing. that would constitute a waiver and would be legally significant. but mr. chairman what strikes me as most significant is, unless my recollection is faulty, which sometimes it is, but i do not think it is in laid this instance, -- in this instance, the president told univision a year ago he had nothing to do with "fast and furious". and did not know who approved it. i do not believe there has been elliot -- any allegation that the president drafted the false calculated to mislead and deceive the february four, 2011 letter to senator grassley. there has been no allegation he participated in the drafting or approving or delivering of the letter. there has been no allegations he participated in any an attempt

to cover up the known fault of these or that he was part of the decision to withdraw the letter 10 months later. so, mr. chairman, i am not sure what he is asserting executive privilege of rough. for that reason, i want this contempt for resolution to make it very clear to the reader that his executiveaware of privilege. that we found it to be legally insufficient and wanting and we proceeded anyway. >> would my colleague yield for a question? >> i would be delighted to yield to the gentleman from virginia. >> i thank my colleague and my friend. when this committee subpoenaed documents with respect to the then attorney general was not executive privilege in fact

invoked at that time by the bush administration? >> i think executive privilege was asserted when this congress, which it i was not a member of, sought to hold mr. bolton in contempt of congress. >> do you remember how executive privilege was communicated to this committee? >> it was on the eve of the content vote. but i do not know. i was a prosecutor in those days could >> i believe the invocation was conveyed to this committee precisely in the same manner this one has spent by a letter from the department of justice, not by a separate letter from the president. >> the gentleman raises a very good point. it was, i think, when i was 11 or 12 that the defense stopped working in my household. i do not know what took place before i got here, but it goes

to the bigger issue -- and there has been some delay veiled executions on the other side that were attempting to cover and do not want information about the bush to administration to come out. i want every piece of information to come out in respect of of with the attorney general was. if there is anything that should rise above partisan politics is to be respect for the rule of law. but i cannot possibly imagine what the former attorneys general had to do with the traffic of the february 4, 2011, letter. unless there was an allegation that attorney general gonzalez was part of the february 4, 2011 letter, what does that have to do with our vote today? unless there were part of withholding documents from congress, what does that have to do with what we are doing today? i see my time has run out for. >> we recognize the gentle man from massachusetts in opposition. >> i know we talked a lot about

former attorney general michael mukasey and i want to do it in a different context. i want to read a quote from 2008 when he was writing then about a justification for then-president george bush to assert executive privilege over the environment protection agency documents pertaining to the agency's proposed ozone regulations. i know the others are doing that, too. but when people write a legal opinion and may our attorneys general, then many people agree or disagree, but it is an attorney general's opinion and it gives off -- not an excuse -- and at least some people's mind, it is a legal explanation for why it is done. this is what mr. mukasey wrote. "the document of executive privilege also encompasses delivered of communications that not implicate president decision making. as the supreme court has explained, the privilege recognizes the valid need for protection of communications

between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties." going back to mr. mukasey comments, based upon this principle, the justice department under administrations of both political parties has concluded that it may be invoked to protect against congressional subpoenas. became is pretty similar. this administration is not saying that it has a privilege to necessarily that it is protecting but that those who are protecting, those high government officials that are being advised, it is that protection they are seeking. we have heard a number of claims otherwise. back when this was brought to then chairman waxman's attention, he disagreed as you disagree today. but he did decide to delay the contempt a vote until he had time to reduce the assertion and to see how to proceed on that. i think we have a constitutional

obligation to try to reach some accommodation between the two branches. because there seems to be quite a bit of uncertainty as to just how the president is invoking it here, although i think in context of this it seems clear he is invoking it for the department itself, but it might make sense to put this off, especially where the attorney general said he would produce documents, that he will take the time to go over with the committee chair and others and explain a document and get the information that needs to be there. i think we have a lot of the documents there. we found out from the chairman that was admitted the looking for documents that could not be produced. >> with the gentleman yield for one second? >> we have a narrow set of documents. he will produce them. he will come in and produce them. the executive privilege has been invoked that -- under something the previous administrations

have agreed with. it is not mean that he has a statement that is protected but the people in his administration have. it would be appropriate to put this offer or weaker so and let the attorney general have a go at satisfying the committee -- to put this off for zero weeks or so. >> we want to make two things clear. first of all, there were not things we asked for that were inappropriate. we never ask for anything that was going to be law enforcement sensitive that would compromise an existing investigation or prosecution. we made it very clear that although it may be covered by a subpoena, we were not looking for those. that is one of the reasons we did not look for those documents. separately, the attorney general's office that if i see the dance is not in fact discovered. >> that is your interpretation of a meeting and one that does not seem reasonable that he would make that claim. >> and where are the documents?

>> having heard the ranking members account of the meeting at all, it seems it was quite clear that the representation was made that he would prepare documents and explain things and give you an accounting of what documents he might not be able to prepare and a listing of why, that there should be an accommodation made to give that opportunity to occur. i guess that is a suggestion how we might proceed reasonably on this and less political, but i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. i now recognize the gentle lady from new york. >> we have just received a statement from brian terry's family. as we debate this amendment and talk about holding the attorney general in contempt of congress, i think it is very important that we continue to put a face of a life that was lost. it is fitting that we hear from his family. >> i ask unanimous consent that the statement be placed in the record. >> without objective, if so

ordered. >> he released the following statement -- attorney general eric holder's refusal to fully disclose the documents associated with operation "fast and furious" and president obama assertion of executive privilege serves to compound this tragedy. it denied the terry family and the american people the truth. our son, a border patrol agent, was killed by the member of a mexican drug cartel armed with weapons from this field justice department gun trafficking investigation. for more than 18 months, we have been asking our federal government for justice and accountability. the documents saw by the house oversight committee and associated with operation "fast and furious" should be produced and turned over to the committee. our son lost his life protecting this nation, and it is very important that we are now faced with an administration that seems more concerned with protecting themselves rather

than revealing the truth beyond operation "fast and furious". i yield back my time. >> the gentlelady deals becard the question now is on the amendment offered by the gentle man from south carolina. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. a recorded vote is order. with that, i ask unanimous consent that the previous amendment voted down by voice vote be set aside and a recorded vote be ordered on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from new york. without objection, so ordered. we now return to produce a postponed amendments. with that, i asked -- call the roll on the welsh amendment. >> mr. isa. >> no. >> mr. burton. >> mr. mica. mr. platz.

votes no. mr. turner votes no. mr. mchenry. mr. jordan. mr. mack votes no. mr. wahlberg votes no. mr. mosh votes no. ms. berkel votes no. mr. labrador votes no. mr. walsh votes no. mr. gaudy votes no. mr. ginza votes no. mr. kelly votes no. mr. cummings votes aye. mr. towns votes eye. aye. ms. norton votes aye. mr. clay?

mr. lynch votes aye. mr. conley votes aye. mr. davis votes aye. mr. welch votes aye. mr. murphy? ms. speer votes aye. >> mr. kucinich. >> am i recorded? >> i vote aye. >> you raare not, sir. mr. burton votes no. mr. mchenry votes no. >> does anyone else seek recognition? aye.. murhpphy votes >> the clerk will report.

vote, 14thtate ayes and 23 nos. >> that vote is not agree -- that amendment is not agreed to. we know claall a vote on the lynch amendment. >> [calling roll vote]

>> the clerk will report.

>> on the vote, 15 ayes, 23 nos. >> the moment is not agreed to. the question occurs on the amendment offered by the lady from new york, in which the nos prevailed by a voice and a recorded vote was ordered. the clerk will calle the roll. >> [calling roll vote]

>> that vote, 16 ay commites, 23 no's. >> the amendment is not agreed to. it will now proceed to the amendment previously passed by voice vote on which it recorded vote was asked for and delay. the clerk will call the roll on the gaudy amendment. >> [calling roll vote]

>> ms. norton? >> it is really a good amendment -- [laughter] >> no.

>> mr. towns votes no. ms. norton? you're no. mr. kucinich votes no. [continuing roll call vote]

>> the clerk will report. >> on the vote, there are 23 ayes, 17 no's. >> a quorum being present, the question is on favorable report and, of all those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed no. the clerk will call the roll. >> [calling roll vote]

>> the clerks will report. >> 23 ayes, 17 no's. >> the ayes have it. and a contempt record is ordered reported to the house. without objection, the staff shall be authorized to make necessary and technical corrections and conforming changes to the report. >> as to the requisite days to file? >> without objection, so ordered. the committee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> coming up on c-span, the head of the drug enforcement

administration testifies at a house judiciary hearing. then atlantic monthly hosts a form on the market for biofuels. and federal reserve chairman ben bernanke discusses the economy and fed policy at a news conference in washington. . .

. .

the u.s. was not the leader in the world in biofuel. since then, the u.s. is. conventional left in all but also in the development of second-generation biofuels. it has galvanized the development of these new technologies. i do not think it has been in constant turmoil. that is why it has worked. we have a lot of capacity that is efficient and effective. my concern is more about not having the patience and letting this thing continue to play out which is on track to success. companies that have a track record -- track record of technology like our own, companies like bp, dsm, that are

in this are in this for success and to know they can do this. we have to let this play out, private industry has made a tremendous investment and can and will commercialize this. we have to have the leadership to stick the course. >> your take on this? you are in this business. how on earth to do you framed these choices in an area where, ok, i accept what he has said. it is not in constant flux but this uncertainty, that must have a bearing on the decision to making your business. >> there is some uncertainty and we would hope the current legislation is critical for the industry. it comes down to what the government says. if we want to move toward renewable fuel, this is

something we have to support. if we want to use every drop of oil on the ground, maybe it is not something we are interested in. i think there is an active debate going on. at least in the media about climate change and what is driving these things. but even if you do not believe in climate change, most people believed in it jobs and agriculture is a great manufacturing industry. a lot of jobs are there. a lot of potential, and keeping the money was in the united states instead of sending it overseas. for all of those reasons, even if you are not in the climate change camp is a good reason to support this going forward and i would agree that new technology is coming and they're going to make biofuels much more competitive in the future.

>> any questions from the audience? wait for the microphone and tells us who you are. >> green connections radio. this is related to biofuels, could you talk about the work that is being done in a turning waste into energy? i know the doe has made some investments and that would hopefully give us the land that is being used by landfills, give us that back. could you talk about turning waste into energy tax >> this is an area that has been explored. we're not investing in that right now. other parts of doe are. most of the energy content is in

cellulose, sort of in all forms of waste. there are some other challenges, there are a lot of contaminants that are problematic. it is potentially an interesting source. we're not investing in it at the moment. >> what about you guys? >> if you're talking about a municipal waste, it is not something we are working on. but wait think the kinds of things we're doing could increase the productivity by 50% depending on where exactly the acre is. using the residue that is normally left on the ground and in some cases groups maintained their high yields and are

starting to remove it. in those situations, -- >> this goes to what you were saying. but even in this is not your business, you are an intelligent observer of these technologies. what to do you make of the prospect for using waste in -- is that worth exploring? >> i think it is worth exploring. instead of recycling everything, the stuff you could not recycle if you convert it into renewable energy, that would make it more productive. i think groups should look at it. but it is not something we are actively working on. >> the technology we are developing, we know a lot about corn cure our pioneer business.

we have been involved since 1926. that's technology can be applied to municipal solid waste. in my view it is the appropriate thing to do. when you drive by a municipal solid waste landfills, they are large and it would be good to do something useful in them. i think it is more a solution to the landfill that the energy problem. although they look large, in the big picture they are not very big. they are not big enough for raw material. but i think it is something -- >> that is interesting. madam, we will take a question here at the front. >> i'm with the naval postgraduate school. i know this is not in your

domain that where do you stand on algae? [laughter] >> i do not have a position myself. we have spent some time looking at algae. we're looking at organisms that produce fuel molecules rather than growing it as a source of biomass. some i would say my feeling is that there has to the tremendous advances in reactors before that technology is likely to be economically viable. i think that, right now you have to grow the organisms over an area and i have not seen any models that show that close to economically viable. until it is possible to harvest

proton's over an area and grow organisms, it is tough to see how you can make this a viable. >> i would like to follow upon the question and get your take on that. in regard to waste water energy, we have a 24/7 source looking at energy. they're mixing oil and other materials from restaurant waist down in orange county, creating fueling stations. is that an area you are interested in? >> again, if you look at municipal waste, there are oils and things like that from restaurants. it sounds like a big number when

you compare them to the scope of the problem that is liquid fuel, it is a small opportunity that most of the energy content still is in cellulose. there have been efforts, and you have the same problems with landfill. you still have to find a way to do deconstruction and you have the additional problem of contaminants from heavy metals and things like that. it is not an area we are actively exploring. >> i am interested in this line of questioning because the other environmental benefit to associated with these innovations, they are not likely to make a significant contribution to the energy problem because they are not on

the sufficient scale. that is not necessarily rule out those innovations. >> absolutely. sir. >> my question is actually about, you talked about ethanol and car transportation. you have not talked about jet fuel. my question is regarding, what is happening lawn and jet fuel? i know the department of defense is doing a lot of work to promote some sort of a biofuel jet fuel and when is this going to be a possible replacement? unlike cars with batteries, there is no alternative to a d

liquid fuel. >> there are a number of companies pursuing that opportunity. it is not in our around but i know groups are looking at it and there has been a discussion of around the navy buying biofuel at a higher cost. >> there is a scale issue. how significant is this in terms of our energy problem? finding an alternative solution? >> it is 10%. as you point out, there is no alternative for some fraction of a vehicle transportation. i do not think that any fraction of air transportation is going to be electrified. it is important to remember if you're talking about a drop in

replacement, there is no such thing as a fuel monocle. there's nothing that is going to be converted into a fuel blend. we have a number of people who are pursuing those things that could go into that process for that reason, there is no alternative. whether you are talking commercial aviation or the military. we are working on that issue. >> first, a comment on the waste of energy but the technology already exists and is used in sweden, denmark, and austria. a large fraction of that is from combined generations of heat and electricity. that is doable.

sweden is the highest percentage of recycling. you can do both. my question goes to eric, on electric fuel and these future technologies, what you see the potential for a biology to do some of these molecules? and is there a risk looking back at previous u.s. fractus -- fracas over gm that there is a government aspect that needs to be looked at? >> the potential is enormous. no doubt it is enormous. the things we can do today, not just in the simple organisms we have worked with in the past that allow the construction of complex molecules is absolutely

extraordinary. i would say for the production of fuel is more important this idea of a metabolic and engineering. it is another thing to make a molecule at $100 million a year at $70 a barrel. being able to insure you are stirring every calorie through a molecule is an important component. with regard to the control of genetically modified organisms, that is something that has to be addressed. the concerns depend -- vary depending on how they are deployed. if there contained, it is much less of an issue than if they are genetically modified data going to grow and cover thousands of acres. i do not think there is a single answer to your question. i would tell you that our

performers who are preparing genetically modified organisms worry about more wild ones getting in and they do about modified an organism's getting out. they are almost always on fit. but it is an important issue. >> if you challenge our scientists, it will be able to make just about any molecule. the challenge is in the fuel setting to do this cost effectively. very low cost and fit it in a supply chain that really works. that is why, in collaboration, we have a molecule that we can make with about the same carbon yield as ethanol. from a biology perspective, it works. it is attractive. it is not a very challenging

like making jet fuel or something. on the other hand, it is a molecule that if it is halfway between ethanol and gasoline in the number of cartons over oxygen. it works very well. i think you have to pick these targets pragmatically so that they work well with the infrastructure and as a fuel. you do not want to put yourself in front of a target that maybe intellectually challenging but in feasible. >> any other questions from the floor? yeah. >> hi, scientific american. you guys painted a rosy picture of biofuels and their progress but the reality is cellulosics that were supposed to be here

have not materialized and the epa keeps rolling back the number that is going to be produced to meet mandates. what is the possum -- problem with crook -- cellulosics? >> i do not think there is a particular problem. the legislation was specific and laid out an obtainable vision that has an impact on the economy of this country and its energy independence and gives a terrific benefit. like many things, it may have been optimistic. companies like the ones i have mentioned before, and dupont, bp, companies that have a track record of developing these difficult technologies knew that this would take longer. the law also foresaw this.

they have tools by which the epa manages this. and can bring this back. in the meantime a number of those projects are in construction or very close to construction. it is not a problem as much as it is if you look at the technology that was developed, it did go at a very high speed. the microorganisms, new processes. we have done these at large scale. we have a facility in tennessee. we are rolling these out. this is very realistic and happening. it will be realized. >> will that do?

>> if it was optimistic, what is a more realistic timeline? >> 2013, 2014. after that we will see a quick growth in capacity. >> i did not have anything to add. cellulosics is more difficult than when it was anticipated. you see that in the difference when it is being produced. there are a number of facilities being built, and if you get into the specifics of things that challenging for the growth, these facilities are not like other facilities. they are technologically enabled and the cost a lot more because of that.

atypical facility, if you think about it, costs a dollar per installed gallon. the first facility is probably quite a bit higher than that, $7 to $10. there are a number of things that groups are working on to get the cost down to make it a compelling investment opportunity to enable the kind of growth you saw in the ethanol industry when it really got going between 2003 and 2008. >> the sting in the question was this technology was what we were told to expect. they have let us down relative to the initial expectations.

>> if you look at the total volumes but the -- that was called for, it is very largely unmet. the only place where there was optimism was on cellulosic and it is well underway. >> let me come back to the policy-setting. could i ask you to think, not so much about biofuel now, but our larger strategy. the key to solving this problem is innovation. it seems to me the strategic question, encouraging the right kind of innovation, do you do it by supporting innovators through subsidizing research and development or ascending prices signals out into the market

that create opportunities for technology? i know you will say you have to do both but imbalance has to be struck. i hear the criticism that u.s. has made a mistake in putting too much of its money into supporting production rather than backing earlier stage development that might solve some of these problems. what is your take on that? >> you have to be careful. you are almost talking apples and oranges. we just had a discussion on expectations. you have to remember that the sort of things we're talking about take a long time to make it to market. there is no doubt there has to be more investment in early stage technology to create an

array of possibilities for the marketplace to make decisions about it later down the road. closer to market, we need price signals until they become fully mature. >> you think it is about right. >> i have no comment. >> what t make of that? >> you have to do both. dupont started our work with a matching grant. we have some of our own money in play and we think that is important. those are fairly small grants and funds that the government uses to sponsor certain amounts of r&d and died a. that is an appropriate role for

government. at the same time, regimes like predictability.d what you do as a private company, i know your question was on a single to crookcellulo, but you have to take a basket of risks. the technology race, we have put to rest. we are comfortable with it. you go on and you really want that basket of risks to be low enough and the regulatory uncertainty is part of that. what something they do without subsidizing and is creating some attractiveness uncertainty to that market.

>> i would say it depends on what the specific sector is and how close it is to market. if you are early you need much more funding. as things start getting traction, then you need greater infrastructure for deployment. that is really where you want private funding coming into takeover and the government stepping back. >> please join me in thanking this panel. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> detailing fast and furious. >> this was swept under the rug and kept from the american people and the mexican people. there are hundreds of innocent mexican citizens who have been

murdered as a result of this. the only thing we knew outside the government program was that guns from gun dealers were going into mexico and causing all of these problems with the cartel when the government was sanctioning these sales. >> she is interviewed by a why house correspondent. part of a book tv this weekend on c-span2. this weekend on american history tv, the civil war and the movement to end slavery. >> one of the fascinating aspects of abolition is that when lincoln is inaugurated, the abolitionists are a minority. they are despised. what transforms abolitionists in to respected critics of the american -- is for sumner.

>> and more on our series on political figures that ran for president and lost. a look at to eugene debs, sunday at 7:30 p.m. a >> de fragile reserved announced lower expectations for the economy this year. recovery will continue at a slow place and unemployment will remain at 8% according to ben bernanke. he said the federal reserve is committing $257 billion to extend its operation twist program which aims to keep interest rates low. >> before we get to questions, i will summarize today's actions by the committee and then places decision in the context of our outlook and the judgment about

the path to monetary policy. as indicated in the statement, and the committee is maintaining an accommodative policy. we decided to keep the range at 0% and we continue to anticipate condition warrant low levels of funds through late 2014. we decided to continue our program of lengthening the majority of our holdings rather than completing the program this month as previously scheduled. the intent to purchase of securities with remaining maturities of six years to 30 years at the current pace and to redeem an equal amount of securities with remaining maturities of three years or less. the details of our plans were described in a statement released today and can be found on the web site.

when the continuation of the extension program should pressure on interest rates and make broader conditions more accommodative and they would otherwise be there by supporting economic recovery. in conjunction with the meetings, the board members and presidents submitted their individual projections and assessments for 2012-2014. these projections are important for deliberation. incoming information suggest the economy continues to expand at a moderate pace in the face of headwinds generated by europe, the depressed housing market, tight credit, and fiscal restraint at the state and local levels. spending is increasing the household spending appears to be rising at a slower pace than earlier this year employment

gains have been smaller and the unemployment rate remains elevated. in light of these developments, the participants have marked down their projections but most see the economy is expanding and picking up gradually. based on their projections, participants foresee slower progress in reducing unemployment than they did in april. participants projections for the fourth quarter have a tendency of 8.2% decline in 2717% in the fourth quarter of 2014. all levels that would remain above estimates of the longer run of unemployment. in addition to projecting slow progress, most to see the risk to the outlook weighted toward slower growth and higher unemployment.

strains in global financial markets, associated with the situation in europe, continue to pose risks to the recovery an improvement in labor market conditions. inflation has declined recently reflecting lower prices of crude oil and gasoline. inflation has remained stable and the committee anticipates inflation will run at or below the 2% rate that is consistent with its mandate for maximum employment. have a central tendency of 1.4% for 2014. the economic projections submitted by participants are conditioned on their assessment of the corporate pac of monetary policy. committee participants have a range of views about when the initial increase is likely to

be warranted. after a discussion of those views, and of the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the outlook, it maintained is a judgment that economic conditions are likely to warrant " levels through 44 teen and have a further support to economy. -- through 2014 and further support the economy. sustained improvement in labor market conditions in the context of price stability. i would be glad to take your questions. >> cnbc, looking back on the last four years of policy, it is fair to say it has been bold and yet halting. qe1, and now you

have extended operation twist to o. how would you feel if somebody said it was to incremental and the reason why the economy underperformed was because of that incrementalism. order their worries about that today? -- what are the worries about that today? >> we cut until december of 2008. since then we have been operating with nonstandard monetary tools including asset purchases and purchases of maturities. by their nature they tend to be lumpy. we have not done them in a continuous away. our view of the effects of these programs on the economy is that the total stock of outstanding securities in our portfolio is what determines the level of accommodation that economy is

receiving. it would not be a start and stop, rather whenever we have stopped purchasing, the level of accommodation remains there until conditions warrant further action. beneath all of this is the fact that the outlook has changed. like many other forecasters, the federal reserve was too optimistic about the pace of recovery and we have had to add additional accommodation going forward as we have seen that he had winds, kept to the recovery from being as strong as we would like. by the nature of the unconventional tools, they tend to be more discreet in their size but they continue to have accommodative affects even after the purchase has ended. we have taken a step today which will provide additional commendation for the economy and

we have stated we're prepared to take further steps if necessary to promote sustainable growth in the labor market. we're prepared to do what is necessary. we are prepared to support the economy. >> many analysts have characterized this as a somewhat modest. your own outlook has a lower gdp projection. the unemployment rate shows possibly no improvement at all in the unemployment rate through the end of this year. the program itself is smaller and a shorter duration than the original operation twist. given this outlook, why such a modest program? are you prepared to take further action? does that mean you are prepared to do a new asset purchase

program? >> there has been a great deal of economic news since our last meeting. the incoming data were somewhat disappointing but not entirely clear how to read them. we had issues whether it was seasonal adjustment. meanwhile, europe has additional problems. we have seen some of those are facts in the financial markets. there is a case to be made for additional judgments about where the economy is going. and the extension of the program is ahasewould be among e things we would consider if we need to take additional measures to strengthen the economy. >> the wall street journal. i would like to ask you to respond to a different set of

criticisms. this criticism is that the fed has ari pushed interest rates to a low level. -- already pushed interest rates to a low level. the criticism is that the fed should stand down and let congress or the why house -- white house attend to the economy's elements. what do you think to those arguments? >> monetary policy is not a panacea. it is not going to solve our economic problems. we welcome health and support from any part of the government i would not accept the proposition that the fed has no more ammunition.

i think our tools to create more accommodative financial conditions, provide support for the economy, help us return to a more normal economic situation. again, and the other support that is forthcoming, and the other policies that are undertaken and helpful in terms of making our economy stronger, are welcome. i think that monetary policy has some capacity to strengthen, the economy by easing financial conditions. >> mitt romney said that qe2 had little impact on the economy. he said that was because of the president's policies and said

that qe 3 was not warranted. do you agree? you think the policies have had an effect on the effectiveness of monetary policy? is it appropriate for candidates to comment on the future path of monetary policy? >> first, we think that the asset purchase programs have significant effects on asset prices and financial conditions. although there were certain problems of transmission, the housing market has not been as responsive, we think they were both effective in providing support for the economy and ended an incipient inflation problem. i think those have been effective. as i said, we think these kinds of programs can provide additional support.

with respect to the rest of your questions, the federal reserve is non-partisan. we are very serious about taking our decisions based on economic grounds, without political considerations and we will continue to do that. >> the l.a. times. mortgage rates are already at historic lows. how much health care and operation twist to an adoring willingham -- in lowering interest rates? >> interest rates are low and they're being pushed more by safe havens and other factors. i think we can lower interest rates more. beyond that, operation twist works to other challenges -- channels. by acquiring securities, and

bringing them on to the balance sheet, we induce investors to move into substitute securities. for example, an investor who sells a security to the fed may buy a corporate bond instead. the effect will be to lower corporate spreads. or a bank may, having sold the securities, decide to make a loan instead. it is not just the effect on the long term interest rate. there is a broader set of facts that feed through other spreads and provides broader ease which is supported to the economy. -- supportive to the economy. >> given the projections today going back out to 2014, seeing unemployment where it is now,

can you look past 2014? can this go on for a decade? can this go on at margaret? can you reassure americans that it will not go on for a dozen years like the depression? >> it is our intention to do what we can to ensure it does not go on indefinitely. unemployment is still too high but has come down. it was 10% and now is closer to 8%. it is going down too slowly but it is going down. our sense is that people are finding jobs, not at the rate we would like to see. as i said, if we do not see improvement in the labor market we will be prepared to take additional steps if appropriate.

>> new york times. i am looking at the projections that showed unemployment will be 8% at the end of the year. you told congress that the defining factor in your decision whether to do more was whether unemployment was coming down. that is a decrease and i am struggling to understand why you are not doing more now when you said you can do more in that you would do more if it was not happening. >> we took a step today by extending the maturity extension program to the end of the year. that is a meaningful step. it depends. each individual has their own path of policy. we will provide more information about that in the minutes. we are prepared to do more. we have to get further information about where things

are going. i would add to that that each of these non standard programs does have various risks associated with it with respect to financial stability, i do not think they should be done lightly. there should be a conviction that they are needed but if we come to that conviction will take those additional steps. >> christine peterson with dow jones. european and policymakers are the first line of defense but under what circumstances would the fed does decide to get more involved with other central banks? >> as you say, the europeans are the first line. europe is a wealthy area. they have adequate resources to address these problems. they are committed to addressing

these problems because keeping the eurozone together is very important to the economy of those countries. if we leave to them the leadership, the federal reserve is very much involved in talking with and consulting with european leaders. i talked frequently to central bankers, including mario draghi and others. we tried to provide whatever support we can. we coordinated earlier in the parisian of the dollar swaps to other central banks which have been useful in reducing funding markets and allowing european banks to lend in dollars including u.s. bar wars. -- navarro -- borrowers. we're working to see if that can be done constructively but at this point we are mostly in consultation mode.

>> you talked about trying to get help with some other branches of government so that leads to questions about the fiscal cliff. have you seen any evidence that the lack of progress on resolving the fiscal cliff issue is having an impact on the economy? is it slowing growth? job creation as we saw last year during this same debate to? if you have not seen it, when might we start to see it hit the economy? >> is a bit early but as we move forward in the year, we anticipate that the uncertainty associated with the fiscal cliff will have economic effect. we heard anecdotes in the meeting about firms that might be not sure about whether the contracts would be in place on january.

making employment decisions based on that. financial markets do not like uncertainty. particularly uncertainty of that magnitude. that would be a negative. that will be an issue. most importantly is that congress get the policy right. i have talked about the three elements, the first is to do no harm, try to avoid a fiscal cliff that would damage the recovery. maintain the effort to achieve a sustainable path. to use fiscal policy to have a better tax code and make good use of spending programs and make them inefficient and effective. if congress does all of those things, the benefits would be substantial. >> peter cook with buber television. if i could follow up regarding

the fiscal cliff, how beneficial wouldn't it be for the economy given some of the talk on capitol hill that the lawmakers deal with those issues temporarily, kick the can down the road, sooner than later? with that limit some of the uncertainty given the state of the economy? >> that is a difficult problem. clarity would probably be helpful for the reasons i describe because people are uncertain about what is going to happen. investors would like to see congress take actions that put us on a long-term pact. kicking the can down the road without any indication of what might be done, it could be a negative because it might induce people to worry more about the seriousness of congress in addressing our fiscal issues.

>> financial times. when a critique of the actions over the past few years has been added that it does help to those with the least propensity to spend. while the impact on those with the most propensity to spend, middle-income, has been muted. i was hoping you could address this criticism. >> access to credit is a major problem. mortgage access is tighter than it has been for a long time. even credit-card access is more restricted than it has been. what that does is mutes the impacts of the fed's actions. i do not think is accurate to say policy is not helping the public. first of all, many americans

are able to take advantage of lower interest rates. many people have bought homes. others have taken out loans to buy cars. although loans are cheapened available. -- auto loans are cheap and available. if a firm thas a low cost of capital, they are more likely to hire. to add captital and although again the extent to which payrolls have increased has been disappointing. there have been significant increases and the unemployment rate has come down. some of that comes from the broad impact on spending, investment, and those affect the

broad public indirectly by promoting hiring and demand for products that the people are producing. >> if you could talk about where you think the chokepoints' are in the economy. there was a conference call in which they blamed the fiscal cliff and europe and said it is a much bigger pass through the and anybody anticipated. today the business roundtable said we are already trimming jobs. we are already cutting back. every else is doing the same. what are you hearing? are you on the telephone with people? would've -- what is your sense

of were the chokepoint start? >> i gave a list in my opening remarks. situation is slowing u.s. economic growth. europe is not in a recession in every country but many countries are in recession. that affects our trade with europe and demand for our products. the effects of a european concerns have added to volatility and brought down the stock prices and have been a negative for economic growth. we have seen some slowing in global economic growth more generally, including in asia, which has reduced our ability to export. i mentioned two others. one is housing. housing usually plays an

important role in economic recovery. both through the construction itself but also higher house prices, promoting consumer spending. housing seems to be doing somewhat better. there are some signs in housing and nevertheless we're not getting the amount of help in the recovery would normally get from the housing recovery. the other area is fiscal. that happens at all different levels. now standing programs earlier on in the last year or two, we have been seeing fiscal consolidation, particularly at the state and local level. tight budgets have led to the cancellation of products. i understand these are necessary steps from individual states and

localities. it is a factor that these contractions are affecting the pace of growth in the broader economy. i think those would be the main things i would point to. put them together and the economy is growing less quickly than it normally would following a recession of the magnitude we saw. >> given the environment you have sketched out and the fact that interest rates are at historically low. -- low point, could we take advantage of that? >> the government is gradually increasing the duration of its debt. it has been doing that for some time.

there is a bit of an issue which is that what the federal reserve is doing with the program we announced today is we're taking a longer-term debt off the market to induce markets to lower long-term interest rates. to the extent the treasury sought to lengthen its borrowing, it would offset the benefits of those policies. my understanding of what the treasury is doing they have a plan they are sticking to and on the margin the effects of the fed's actions can be felt. >> you seem to be waiting on the labor market. what exactly are you looking for? is there a rate of growth you need to see? an unemployment rate comes down,

will that be enough? or are you going to be looking at the whole gestalt? >> cannot give you any specific numbers because this is a committee decision but what they will do is review all of the labor market indicators, including unemployment and participation and other measures of labor market activity and try to make a sense -- get a sense of whether the labor market is improving. it is not a month to month proposition. we saw two months of weaker gains. month-to-month their needs to be a statistical noise and a lot of factors that can cause job gains to vary. the question is, is the improvement sustainable? it is a long-lasting? that is the kind of thing we will be looking at.

i cannot be more specific than that. >> mr. chairman, when you speak of the fiscal cliff, typically you do not differentiate between the automatic tax hike aspect of that and the automatic spending cuts which leaves the impression you are giving equal weight to both sides. some would contend that the automatic hikes would be more onerous. how do you parse the importance of those aspects? if they may be permitted, i am also curious how the fed is going to conduct open market end ofons if by tehe the year they will have no short-term securities? >> on the fiscal >>, the way that he -- cliff, the way that

the tax cut expiration's, including the payroll tax cut, it is larger than the spending cuts. but i am not making any judgment about individual programs. putting these things together, you have a substantial withdrawal of income from the economy that will affect spending and the ability of the economy to recover . it in making decisions about how to modify those automatic changes, congress has to look at the long run. what is the most efficient structure? when is the best way to spend our resources? those are tough decisions congress has to make. in terms of the fiscal cliff and what is going to happen in january, it is the total spending cuts and tax increases which has the impact which we have identified as being a

concern. we will still to open market operations with our securities, even if the short term debt is low. and over time, as securities come close to maturation, we will have other securities that have short duration. >> there have been a lot of questions as to whether the volcker will would have prohibited loss at j.p. morgan. given that regulators are in the middle of the rule-writing process and what went wrong, as a supervisor, do you think it is the right time to perhaps pump the brakes and slow down the rule-writing process or has this made it a stronger case for proceeding with a bolder role ex