Transcripts For CSPAN2 Tonight From Washington 20120621

just wanted to see if we could move towards bringing the contempt situation to a conclusion, moving towards it, and that is what he, as i understand it, what he was asking for. i mean he understood well that the investigation was going to go on, because we have got a lot to investigate but he did not talk about it and that was my understanding. the gentlelady. >> you can see mr. chairman finally, that there is a dispute even on what went on in the room and i think it merits a continuing discussion. >> if the gentlelady would yield? i trust that the justice department is hearing my interpretation. if they want to deliver documents they are welcome to, but again -- >> of course if the content has been voted already been of course we have entered that possibility. and since the justice department is now hearing aid difference in -- between two people who were at the same meeting, it does seem to me that calls for some -- some reason for the department to come forward and resolve that dispute between two major figures who were and the deliberations and i would ask that they consider. >> i appreciate the gentlelady. will the gentlelady yield? thank you for yielding. sort of going back to something you said, in the document which was now a part of the record. i just want to read the last few words. says in closing while we are deeply disappointed that the committee tends to move forward with the citation i stress the department remains willing to work with a mutually satisfactory resolution in this matter. please do not hesitate to contact us. see eye-to-eye go the gentleman and a tank of the gentlelady in the gentlelady's time has expired. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> the beauty and miracle that is the united states of america is that there is no one person in this country that is above the law. i believe the committee has a duty and obligation and a right to investigate this matter to its fullest effect. in fact i hearken back to the words of personal bomb in his first full day of office not like to read to that. transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency. i will also be -- also held myself as president to a new standard of openness. he went on and said that america agree of the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it. the. the freedom of information act is perhaps the most powerful instrument we have for making our government honest and transparent and holding it accountable and expect members of my administration not simply to live up to the letter but also the spirit of the law. the president then issued a memorandum to the heads of the executive department on january 1, 2009. quote the government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed the disclosure because errors or failures might be revealed or because a speculative or abstract fears end quote. the president then on march of 2011 talking about "fast and furious" that there may be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made and if that is the case we will find out and hold somebody, bowl. ladies and gentlemen that has not happened. on february 4 of last year, 2011, the congress sent a letter that was false. it took 10 months for that information to be provided to be withdrawn. the subpoena we are talking about today was issued in october of last year and now it's june 20 and the president is issuing, exerting executive privilege and we haven't yet seen this? i would like to enter into the record and i ask unanimous consent mr. chairman to enter a letter of june 3, 2011 signed by 31 democrats and the president of the united states. i'm going to read from it. a couple of excerpts from this letter. quote on that is equally troubling that the department of justice has delayed action and withheld information from congressional inquiries and quote disappointing and it should not have come to this. nobody likes doing this. this. this is not about eric holder. it is about the department of justice and justice in the united states of america. have the guts, i hope we have the guts and the perseverance to get to the bottom of this. we have nearly 2000 weapons purposely given to drug cartels. we have hundreds of dead people in mexico. we have a dead united states order patrol agent. and we have a government that is withholding information so we cannot only get to the bottom of this but so we can fix it and make sure it never ever happens again. when we are issued a letter and 10 months later they get it back, it's not true it's -- there is something fundamentally wrong. the department of justice knowingly says that they have and we have less than a thousand come it's not about those numbers. is. is the fact that we don't have all of them. whatever that number is. when you have somebody like the former acting director of the atf say under oath quote, it was very frustrating to all of us and it appears thoroughly to us that the department is really trying to figure out a way to push the information away from their political appointees in their department. the department of justice, those are things we should be concerned about. nobody wants to -- more than chairman issa. i want to put it conclusion to this and everyone on this panel should want to put a conclusion to this. when these challenges came up to the gsa they dealt with them. when we had problems with the secret service within days people had resigned and stepped down but the reality is we have not gotten to the bottom of this. brian terry was killed in december of 2010. we have a duty and an obligation, a moral obligation to get to the bottom of this. it's sad and it's disappointing that the department of justice should provide these documents. it's disappointing we have to be here today. it's not about eric holder, it's about the department of justice and justice in the united states of america. that is why urged my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to show the guts needed to actually pass this and move it to the floor for further debate. thank you mr. chairman. >> i tangled the gentleman for yielding back. we now recognize the gentleman from new york the former chairman of the committee. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i am troubled over how we are going about this. as a former the former chairman of this committee, i am deeply disturbed that this committee continues to pursue the unprecedented course of holding a sitting attorney general in contempt of congress. mr. chairman, you claimed that contempt is warranted because mr. holder's office has refused to turn over documents that the majority has said is critical to the investigation of gun walking operations along the arizona and mexico border. the majority claims are without merit. and let me say that i can see the situation where the attorney general would not respond, but he has been up here nine times testifying and let me just say one other thing too. that in all of my 30 years of being in the united states congress, the way that he was treated when he was here testifying before this committee, i must admit, i have never seen anybody treated in that fashion. so i don't understand why we have to move in this order if they are cooperating. if they are not corporate incorporated then maybe we could understand what you are doing but i'll be honest with you. i think this is a mistake, admit your mistake and i really want you to know that i think that this should be discontinued and let's see if we can continue to get the information that he is willing to sit down and provide and he has indicated that. i don't understand why we have to move in this fashion. it's a discredit to this committee and of course this committee as you know has a full name of oversight and government reform. and i don't see reforming anything here. i don't get the point. this does not make sense to me, and it's the most ridiculous thing i think i have seen in my years of being on this committee. i yield to the gentlewoman from new york, the balance of my time. >> i tangled the gentleman for yielding and i would like to be associated with his comments and also those of ms. norton. the administration and the attorney general has made an offer to continue discussions and i believe these discussions should move forward in the spirit of getting some type of conclusion and the information that you need and solutions moving forward. i want to quote from the letter that was sent to mr. issa from james cole. in it, he says i stress that the department remains willing to work toward a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. so why can't we work together? and i would like to publicly tank o. mr. mica, chairman mike mica really for working across the aisle on the transportation bill and hopefully we can move forward in a bipartisan way, and i think we should work across the aisle on getting this resolved in a way that satisfies the chairman and the members on both sides of the aisle and the fact that he has made an offer to continue discussion we should follow up and i think this offer reinforces the point that my good friend the congressman norton was making that the justice department is open to working towards some type of conclusion. i would like to say, we have never ventured a cabinet officer into the government reform and oversight committee. i think -- or had a contempt of faux. i think there was one on the epa officials. you can probably remember but never a cabinet officer and never the highest ranking member of law-enforcement for our country. who is willing to work with the chairman, so i feel that this is an area that we could work together in a positive way. i yield back to the gentleman from the great state of new york, my good friend mr. towns. >> i hope you would consider it. >> would the gentleman yield? committee staff has informed me that this committee did vote on the holding of janet reno in contempt. in that case it was for the actions of janet reno. in this case we are only looking for the documents and i might say to my colleague and friend from new york, where are the documents? >> i yield back to the gentlelady from new york. >> i would ask unanimous consent. without objection, so ordered. >> even mr. gingrich was held to content on the floor of the united states against janet reno. >> i thanked the gentlelady. who well seeks recognition? the gentleman from florida, mr. is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. this is a sad day. as it has been talked about a number of times here on committee, we have guns that went to mexico. at the same time you had the mexican officials so concerned about all of the weapons that were going to mexico and then we end up with a voter patrol agent that was shot and killed by guns from the united states going to mexico. and it is the duty of this committee to get to the bottom of this, and it is clear, and you know people who might be watching this hearing, it is clear that there are those that do not want to get to the bottom of this and get the answers, that people would rather use legalese to try to avoid turning over the documents that will help her enclosure to a family who lost a family member. and it is our responsibility on this committee to get this done. the other side is making an argument that in some letter talking about getting to the bottom of this or about documents that are mutually satisfactory. you can't come to that conclusion when the other side doesn't want to turn over the information. if they wanted to turn over the documents, they would have done it by now. this hearing would look a lot different. it would tee up out what do we do in the future and it would be about reform but instead we have got the justice department that continues to withhold this information. if i could mr. chairman, i know that this is a very narrow scope markup, but i want to point out that there are a lot of troubling signs in this case. we had the opportunity and foreign affairs on october 27, 2011 with secretary clinton, and just so everyone understands, under the arms export control act the justice department is required to receive a written waiver from the state department to account for their intent to cause arms to be exported across our borders and into mexico. i asked secretary clinton on that day, did the state department, and i'm quoting, i ask, did the state department issued the justice department a license or a written waiver in order to allow for the transfer of thousands of weapons across the u.s.-mexico border? secretary clinton's response -- congressman this is the first time i have been asked this than i can tell you, based on the record of any activity by the bureau that would have been responsible we see no evidence. so let me check. secretary clinton points out that in her department, they were not asked. for a written waiver. that is in violation of the law. so, as this committee moves forward and i thank the chairman for his patience, we need to make sure that we get to the bottom of this. the state department acknowledges that they weren't asked for this waiver. we are just looking for the information. and here the last hour the president is trying -- if they were so willing to give the documents, you would have the last hour have a letter from the administration claiming executive privilege or whatever it is that they are claiming. we owe it to the people of this country to get to the bottom of this. we owe it to the family who has lost a loved one to get to the bottom of this and mr. chairman, i am with you on this and i will yield to the gentleman. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i simply want to make a point that the house judiciary committee chairman issa and representative gowdy and i were there. i asked the attorney general if he was willing to sit down and he was so adamant at the senior level of the department of justice people were not involved. i asked him, would you be willing to come and sit with us and allow mr. gowdy and died to come sit with you and share this information. show us what you have, and he said no. he said no, and then had doing this. i've i have given you every bit of information and i have no intention of further talking to you. sadly that is in part why we are here today. i yield back. >> the chairman yields back. who well seeks recognition? the gentleman from ohio mr. kucinich is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. at the risk of stating the obvious, the assertion of a cicada privilege has taken this proceeding into a whole new round, and while congress has a constitutional right on this committee to have rights delegated to require the production of records, the of administrations similarly has a constitutional right to claim executive privilege and refused to give those records. now when you have a conflict between the legislative branch and the executive branch, those conflicts generally will go to the courts to make the decision as to whether or not the administration claim of executive privilege should be upheld. it would seem to me that before this committee would take any action on the question of contempt, we would first appropriately have to apply to a court to order the production of the records. if then the records were not produced, it would seem that the question of contempt would then be germane. so i just want to ask the chairman that, in the interest of avoiding an untimely collision over an issue of contempt, if the chairman is prepared to seek a court order for the production of the records prior to having this committee to act on the issue of contempt? >> if the gentleman is asking did we go to the court to request a subpoena, no. >> would you, once the president has asserted executive privilege, as he has, are you prepared to challenge that in court, or are you prepared to proceed nevertheless with a contempt citation up when that issue has not really been resolved, whether or not he has to produce those records? >> if the gentleman would yield? as i now -- we are concurrently evaluating and trying to get from the white house a log of the actual assertion. as you know,, the deputy attorney general cannot assert executive privilege. only the president can do it so a letter saying that the president has done it is not sufficient. to that extent we are working now both with the houses counsel and attempting to work with the white house to get that but to the gentleman's, in answer to his question that probably is most illustrative, mr. kucinich i believe you voted on the harriet myers contempt. the president, president bush, had asserted executive privilege. he then continued to assert executive privilege after it was voted successfully out of the house and it went to the u.s. attorney in the district of columbia. so there is a precedent and remember on that side of the aisle it was voted for that contempt but having said that, this is not about that vote. we are trying to evaluate where the president might assert executive privilege if he has asserted it and we will take notice that, but since it hasn't been asserted before this committee, only a letter arriving from from the deputy attorney general, that is the reason we are going forward. i will announce that the genuine -- gentleman would continue yielding, it is our intent if the president produces a trip which log of what is not to be produced because categories specifically were part of his deliberative process. it would be my intention to code that out of contempt so as to send a clean contempt resolution to the floor. we can't do that based on an assertion by the deputy attorney general with no specificity and in light of arguments that have been made and statements that have been made by the attorney general and the president in the past that they didn't communicate. we certainly are working on that and i think the gentleman's point is good. i don't want to repeat a situation in which, if you will, and i think the gentlelady had already said that, in which it arrives at the u.s. attorney's office and that is not pursued. that is not our intent. our intent is to get documents. that's appropriate. i would ask the gentleman for an additional 30 seconds. >> as has been stated by individuals on your side of the aisle, you waited eight months i think it is now. you made your point as far as what the authority of the committee is. the question is whether or not he would be willing to postpone any action on the contempt citation if the white house had a chance to produce the the law that you are asking for and then determine whether or not it would need most appropriate either to apply to a court of jurisdiction. that would give you the chance to challenge the white house is position or then proceed with the contempt. given all your patience, it would be a shame to produce kind of a titanic context here between the two branches of government if there is a way to try to make one more effort to avoid it. >> i thank the gentleman and i take note of his comments. does anyone else seek recognition? the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the deliberative efforts you have made, including all the hearings, letter writing, our bipartisan trip to mexico city where we met with mexican law enforcement officials as well as u.s. officials on this issue. but there is a time that a deliberative body needs to continue our efforts for oversight, as well as government reform. this is all that we are doing here. mr. chairman this hearing gives me no excitement or joy, but ryan terry, a proud son of the state of michigan, it a district in the state i represent, a proud and dedicated marine, dedicated law enforcement officer and son of a grieving family. he deserves our fullest efforts to know the truth and not what our office of the attorney general calls devolving the truth. there is no certainty in evolving truth. the attorney general has publicly stated that the department of justice is committed to working to accommodate the committee's legitimate oversight needs. the problem with that position is the attorney general believes he is the arbiter of the committees quote legitimate oversight needs. the attorney general's position that the department of justice decides which documents we need and which ones we don't is contrary to the constitution and a century of case law. the evolving truth has an eroding impact on our citizens understanding of what the rule of law is as well as the constitution. still, the attorney general and its deputies have repeated that position time and time again in the last week. the attorney general's last best offer was to produce a quote fair compilation of documents covered by the subpoena. you could probably guess who the attorney general's proposed -- would decide which documents would make it into that quote fair compilation. evolving truth again, which is difficult to work with. contrary to what the attorney general seems to think, complying with a committee subpoena is not optional. the failure to produce documents pursuant to congressional subpoena is a violation of federal law. still the attorney general refuses to give the committee even a list of documents he is withholding from us. let alone to give us access to all the documents covered by the subpoena. so it is fair to say that we don't know what we don't know. again, i say this is a problem of evolving truth. on the other hand, the committee has gone to great lengths to accommodate the department's interest as an agency of the executive branch. the committee has made a series of accommodations in an effort to avoid state votes. citizens in my district are wondering why we have been so gracious and the time length that we have pursued this "fast and furious" issue. we agreed to view documents in camera. we have accepted redacted documents. we have done voluntary interviews instead of depositions, and we have clarified and prioritized the scope of the subpoena among other things. the department has not even cited any legal authority as the basis for withholding documents covered by this subpoena. nor has it asserted any privilege over the documents. it seems we are out of options. the attorney general has not produced one single document since the today's vote was announced and has put in a possible compromise on the table that takes us out of the running, with no efforts on our part that would be sound and solid. that is unprecedented, and i believe it reflects the low level of commitment the attorney general has two cooperating with this committee a separate and coequal branch of government. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me today in voting in favor of the contempt resolution, and less and until something more positive and concrete is brought before us. this is not what we should have been forced into even considering today. this is not what i believe any member on the side side of the dais wants to see this come to. but rather, this has been brought about by the actions, or should i say the inactions, evan attorney general and his office in carrying on the evolving truth and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. does anyone else seek recognition? the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield 30 seconds to my colleague from new york. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding four-point of clarification. i want to make sure that the record reflects that the attorney general and his offer last night was an effort to fully satisfy the committee's last outstanding information request, and not to mend the investigation. i ask unanimous consent to place in the record of his comments that were made on the matter after that. >> i object. ultimately the individuals that were in the meeting have asserted their view of what he said. if the attorney general wants to give those in writing something i will agree to put it in the record as soon as it arrives. >> reclaiming my time, if i might. >> this at one time have been a legitimate investigation in something this committee should do and something we have done in the past with all the parties on both sides of the aisle. we made a promise to the terry family that we were going to identify what went wrong and we would assure that it didn't happen again. we have gone a long ways i think in identifying what went wrong and i think that is something we can all be proud of or these we did our job. somebody mentioned earlier patience, the patients the committee had gone on this but i do want to say some 7600 documents have been provided to the committee. they showed that the gun walking began in the field division of the atf in 2006 and a senior officials at the department of justice didn't know that this tactic was used in "operation fast and furious" until 2011. there were for these operations. three of them happened under the previous admin station. we asked that the attorney general mukasey be allowed to testify because apparently he was briefed on that matter and he was not allowed to testify and that went by the by. there were other people acting authorities who were going to testify that this administration, the attorney general and others have not been informed and he was not allowed to testify. yet this committee then issued a subpoena and it wanted information that was illegal for the attorney general to share that would have compromised ongoing criminal prosecution investigations. they want information prohibited from disclosure by federal law when it was currently under seal by federal judge. they wanted jury documents prohibited by the attorney general to turnover and they wanted documents related to active and ongoing criminal investigations that would jeopardize those prosecutions and it wanted detailed information related to the confidential informants. highly sensitive information that would endanger the lives of the lives of their family so that is the patience that was referred to earlier that people were seeking most documents that should never been produced and it wasn't until friday night that the chairman rep denies this was unprecedented and contrary to the rule of law and withdrew those requirements. but then he came and moved the goalposts and a in a whole new updated citation and now we look at what is left to fight over here. apparently we are left to fight about an explanation of how the depression came to learn its original denial that this gun walking had occurred was inaccurate. which it now has acknowledged and later change course is emitting to air. nothing in this remaining set has anything to do with how the gun walking happened and how it's going to be reformed. that is what we promised the family, to find out how it happened which was done and that we promise reform which we are not doing. when we try to do that during the hearings, there was an effort made to question witnesses about the failure of the current laws of combat drug -- gun trafficking and specifically told the agents not answer those questions. they said it was outside the scope of the hearing and it wouldn't be considered valid testimony. so it seems to me to perform off the table before we even got started and i think that is justice to the committee's word and particular the family and i in the mac and public comment. this is a narrow set of new objects that this committee is apparently acted on the attorney general. he has said he would provide those documents and he will work with the committee on that. there's a duty in the constitution to accommodate each other, the executive branch and the legislative branch. it seems to me the goalposts have been moved again and since the chairman has been wrong on so many of the earlier matters he sighed and agrees he should not and cannot get, there could be a combination made to commit to good-faith. that's all the attorney general asked for was the chairman commit to a good-faith conclusion of these contempt hearings and produce the documents and explanations that went on. i would hope we would get back to a little sense of what this committee is about, except that accommodation for now. you don't lose your chance to contend if it doesn't work in an piven have this committee do the rest of the job. it's on the oversight party we know it happen. lets to the reform party make sure doesn't happen it doesn't happen again. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i would ask unanimous consent that the gentlemen have an additional 30 seconds. would the gentleman yield? pursuant to the statement that you referred to about attorney general michael mukasey, it has now been retracted from the testimony of attorney general eric holder where he claimed his predecessor then attorney general mukasey had been briefed about gun walking in operation white. now the department is retracting that statement and claiming holder inadvertently made the claim to the committee. >> i repay my time. it would be wonderful if we could have them as a witness and find out what the facts were. the idea of asking for testaverde the case was to find out what it actually was. there's the reason why he shouldn't be allowed to testify and why mr. melvin shouldn't be allowed to testify about who, what, when and why. we just want people to testify. now moving on and knowing what happened in this case let's do the rest of the job. >> i appreciate it gentleman and i might note that kenneth nelson testified for two days before this committee and may well be that before the committee in the future. the gentleman from -- >> mr. mchenry do you seek recognition? the gentleman from oklahoma's recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. we are here today because attorney general eric holder has failed to pursue the subpoena issued to him by this committee. we promised that we would get to the bottom of this matter for brian terry's family and the american people in order to make sure this type of operation never occurs again, that we would find out the facts and information, reform the system based on the information. many republicans and democrats on this committee demand to know the facts and answers about this casey year ago when all this started. what started as a pursuit of facts has now turned into a slow crawl of evidence, requests and delays. we cannot look at the evidence in the department of justice refuses to turn over those backs. internally, they reviewed 80,000 documents. they had actually turned over to our committee 7000. i have no doubt that if the department just a subpoena documents from someone, they would not patiently wait seven months for those documents do he produced. no u.s. attorney would allow someone to review their own documents until doj what they think is relevant. to do this, i will just briefed the attorney on what those documents might include rather than turn the documents over. no u.s. attorney would go for that deal. yesterday the attorney general holder admitted that he had additional documents consistent with our subpoena requests but instead of turning those documents over, he tried to use them as a bargaining chip to control this investigation. it begs the question, what is in those internal documents that the department of justice that is so self-incriminating that doj will not release them? why would they rather use them in the negotiating tool? now, prior to today we have not had a request for executive privilege and now it has been asserted apparently that the president is requesting executive privilege. we assumed that the presidential executive privilege request only involves his communications. prior to today we weren't even aware the president was engaged into operations in response. the actions after february 4. what we have requested. the reason we are interested in these documents is the department of justice gave congress a false statement about doj's knowledge of "fast and furious." december the tenth brian terry was killed with more than 2000 guns allowed to walk into the hands of known or suspected criminals. there for a fourth of 2011 the department of justice sent a letter to congress in which they stated that the allegations that atf sanctioned or otherwise knowingly allow the sale of assault weapons straw purchasers who then transported them to mexico is false. a tee up makes every effort to interdict weapons at them and purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to mexico. we now know multiple people in the doj were involved in the drafting of this letter and we know that their statement was false. march 222011 the president spoke to univision and he said there may be a situation here which serious mistakes were made. if that is the case we will find out and we will hold someone accountable. may the second of 2011, doj again stated to congress that remains are understanding the atf's operation fast and peers did not knowingly permit straw purchasers to take guns into mexico and in a very carefully worded statement to say something we now know is false. so one-month doj said the accusations were false in the next month the president to a reporter appear to state there may be a situation in which some serious mistakes were made in two months later doj again tells congress that they didn't permit the straw purchasers to move into mexico. all to be flipped again in december 2011 when the doj deputy attorney general colin acknowledge there were letters reporting inaccuracies. listen, we need to answer the following questions. who authorized? who is in charge of the oversight of their persian? why were they allowed to continue and who will be held responsible for misconduct? in the department justice refuses to provide these answers the house of representatives is forced to collect them. this committee was united together to walk through the process with atf. but now that it is with doj, this committee seems to be separating off and saying atf is okay to investigate that we should investigate inaccurate statements from doj. why is this important? on multiple levels, truth and of your central and government. it is also important because the doj is currently in an investigation dealing with security leaks and the same doj will release a report in some future day that we also have to trust is accurate. i urge my colleagues to move forward with the contempt. we need this information. we have to get this out both for the terry family and to get a full accounting of what has occurred and when it occurred in by home so we can hold people to account. with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from missouri is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. we in congress and especially those of us who serve on this committee can get pretty passionate about our responsibility and we take their duties seriously, which we should. when that passion increases to ferber, however interest in overseeing the federal government can sometimes get the better of us. we can become so focused on what we originally wanted, that we can lose sight of the point of our inquiry, and we have all experienced i am sure how our staff can sometimes become overzealous in their attempt to help us do our jobs. when we take the time to investigate an allegation and we spend money, examining the issue, naturally we want to see results, and we want to get to the bottom of the problem. and of course we often feel the need to show that we are not wasting our time or the taxpayers resources, but the test of leadership is not about sticking to the plan, no matter how badly it goes wrong. it is about seeing something through even though it's clearly a phase. successful leaders reevaluate and recognize when it's time to change course, when it's time to give up a plainly incorrect theory, when one is time to admit one was wrong. i was encouraged when the majority correctly, significantly narrowed the scope of the documents they demanded of the justice department. it would have been illegal for the department to produce wiretap applications, grand jury testimony and information about confidential informants. however, when one starts out with a presumption of guilt of a cover-up as the majority did when they began this investigation, it's extremely difficult to admit when one is proven wrong. that is how this began, with a presumption of guilt on the part of the administration and in particular on the part of the attorney general. not because of any evidence of wrongdoing, not because of any fact that would warrant such an aggressive bipartisan investigation, but because the majority came into this congress accusing the president of being and that quote, the most corrupt president in history. they majestically promised seven investigatory hearings a week. they predicted scandal after scandal after scandal would be uncovered and examined and confirmed, and one by one, the majority held hearings on the so-called scandals. one by one these so-called scandals turned out to be anything but that. grants weren't politicized, waivers weren't granted inappropriately, regulations were not job-killing. government employees were not creating efforts. the nlrb was not a rogue agency and the administration really is and all of the above energy policy. but the one charge, the one allegation, the one so-called scandal that seems to take hold at least in the press that is favorable to the majority was passed -- "fast and furious" with sensational charges, reckless accusations and by exploring a tragedy, the majority tried to create the scandal they were looking for. they put all of their efforts into making this the smoking gun that would once and for all prove the chairman's initial charge of corrupt. the most corrupt president in our history but in hearing after hearing, we have learned the opposite. we have learned that the operation began in the bush administration and attorney general holder and it. we have learned that the justice department was not improperly withholding documents, but in fact were properly safeguarding our documents according to the law. and we have learned instead of the wrongdoing or the corruption of a cover-up, that the majority had promised to deliver, there was nothing of the sort from on the part of the attorney general. so after being brought down this blind alley we come to this point. will the majority admit or even except that they were wrong and will they reevaluate where they truly be this committee and as i said i was encouraged by the narrow scope of the documents being demanded and that was a good first step towards bringing us out of this alley and i urge this committee to continue to reevaluate what clearly turned out to be in fact not a scandal and not a cover-up. and i urge my colleagues to reject the citation. >> i thank the gentleman. who else seeks recognition? the gentlelady from new york is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you on behalf of the committee. your efforts to really do due diligence to get us to a point where we are assuring that officials are held accountable for the irresponsible tactics used in this very flawed operation, which resulted in the death of brian terry. terry. brian terry has been dead for over 500 days now and still no one has been held accountable. so it is with disappointment and with brevity that this committee sits here and i sit here to hold someone accountable for what has happened. i would like to just read off of the web site, the oj our web site and i quote, our solemn responsibilities to hold government accountable to the taxpayers because taxpayers have the right to know what to get from the government. we will work tirelessly in partnership with citizens and watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people and to bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. that is what we are charged charge to do in this committee and very unfortunately this administration, this department of justice, has failed to provide this committee with the information and with the documents that we need to be accountable to the american people. my district is thousands of miles away from where this occurred, and yet the people in my district ask over and over again, who is responsible for this operation? who are you going to hold accountable for the deaths of ryan terry as well as hundreds of mexicans? we owe this answer to the american people. that is what this committee is charged to do. the terry family sat in this very room and we pledge to them that we would hold someone accountable for the death of their son, their brothers and their cousins. that is what this committee is charged to do and that is what we have a responsibility to do. throughout this investigation attorney general's actions have been reprehensible. he has been calloused towards the victim's family, and accurate information provided to congress and he is has not taken responsibility for his role. he has dodged difficult questions. if you want to provide the requested documents he would have done so already. we have given him time to do the right thing and he has failed to do it. in addition, the attorney general is stonewalling this committee and we now have the president threatening to invoke executive privilege. leaders must lead. they must take responsibility for the good and the bad, and that is what this committee is seeking to find. who is responsible for the death of a border patrol agents? the lack of transparency with respect to a dead order patrol agent is sickening and this morning's thread of asserting executive privilege to maintain the ballot secrecy is even more sickening. our mission in this committee is to shed light on government activity so that the american people know what their government is doing. my concern mr. chairman is what is being withheld from us? why is the department of justice stonewalling this investigation? we must as a committee and i personally want to know what he is hiding. where there are more guns that walked? were there more mexican gangs who were implicated? were there more border patrol agents who were silenced or hurt or maybe even killed? we? we want to know answers. the american people deserve answers and most importantly, the family of brian terry deserves those answers. i yield back my time. >> the gentlelady yields back. does anyone else seeks recognition? the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think this is a sad moment for this committee and for the congress. some might he forgiven for describing the proceedings today as akin to a kangaroo court. what are the elements of a kangaroo court? first of all, the verdict is decided in advance. and the facts and the process are modified to fit the verdict that has already been arrived at. the kangaroo court process involves the distortion of facts, the selective filtering out of facts, controlling testimony, controlling what is available to the court, making sure that verdict is arrived at in advance, is arrived at. softening up the intended defendant by name-calling or badgering, by insinuation, by character assassination, by name-calling. all of that one might say is characterizing this process. if this were a genuine attempt to make sure that the terry family had closure would have an open investigation, would make sure the previous administrations, wide receiver program that was the antecedent of "fast and furious," was thoroughly examined here on a bipartisan basis and the previous attorney general was called as a witness to give us simply the questions of what he knew and when he knew it. the conscious and deliberate of effort has been made here to make sure testimony is not ever heard. when you exclude legitimate avenues of inquiry is for a purpose and it's for a purpose to make sure that verdict is advanced is arrived at. nowhere have we had a hearing on whether or not our gun laws are sufficient that the southern part of our border, to address the overwhelming flow of weapons from the united states to mexico. i went to mexico too and when we asked on a bipartisan basis the attorney general mexico what is the one thing our country can do to help you, we were somewhat surprised by his answer. his answer was reinstate the assault weapons ban. but if your intent is to make sure that its political and to make sure that substantively we don't ever talk about guns in that sense, then you actually warrant a witness who dares to go astray in response to a question in saying, and atf witness, that we need tougher gun control. we need stronger consequences when those laws are violated. what we never had a hearing about, we are talking about atf, atf hasn't had a permanent director in six years. why? political obstruction from the other body because they don't want -- they don't want tough gun -- they want weak leadership so yes we are brought to this moment to believe that this is all about really a rogue attorney general who was uncooperative with this branch of government and he needs to be reined in and the ultimate penalty we have available besides impeachment, contempt for the first time ever needs to be meted out. to a man who is otherwise seen broadly as an honorable man who has put himself into this job, who is fighting all kinds of things on our behalf from voter suppression to guess, the drug cartels themselves. and we are going to demean him. we are going to tarnish his reputation access that is how we get the president of the jena. and you can forgive the public for the contempt in which this body is held in poll after poll when we behave this way and when we could have behaved so much differently and gotten so much more done on a bipartisan basis. i yield back. be the gentleman yield back. who else seeks recognition? the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i certainly appreciate the sentiments of my friend, the gentleman from virginia but as a former prosecutor i assure you that there is nothing kangaroo about the death of a border agent, and this is a very sad day. i take this responsibility very very seriously and i think the conduct of this committee very seriously. i try to approach it as they would as a former united states attorney and the position that i had an and look at the facts. we know from the beginning the facts that gun walking occurred and the gun walking is a direct violation of the policies of atf. we know that an agent was shot and killed and left to bleed out in the desert, shot with one of those guns that was part of that process. we know that atf originally denied this gun walking occurred and it was only in the process of that weekend began to see the efforts asserted by the agents, the whistleblowers, those who bring information to us because they are so concerned about the misinformation that is being given to the public and to us by those who are their superiors. and it came to senator grassley. no right wing republican crazy who reached out to the department of justice and asked for communication and was denied the communication that he sought. he only came to this committee so he would have the ability to have the capacity to be able to ask for answers to the very legitimate questions that he was asking. i am concerned because in the process some of the other things we found out is rather than thorough investigation into the conduct of what may have occurred first at the atf, what we have seen as evidence of intimidation of those very witnesses. they spoke about it before us. i have the information my hands from a newspaper article yesterday. some of the documents that were being requested by this very committee are being denied a document by the attorney general and yet the former u.s. attorney, who resigned in less than under pressure, is reported here to have the leaks that document to a reporter, the purpose of which was to disparage the reputation of the very whistleblower. so we have activity within the department of justice and instead of looking, we see intimidation of those that are trying to bring it to our attention. we see the individual who is the assistant united states attorney who is was charged with the responsibility of doing an internal investigation, who asked to testify and was instructed that he wouldn't vote his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination in this process. so there are a series of very legitimate questions to be asked. what we do know by the information that came forward is that there was knowledge of these tactics at the highest levels of the department of justice. and that there was a letter that was sent to the department of justice when a request was made about this information, where the head of the criminal position is reportedly participating in the editing of that letter, a letter of denial that gun walking occurred at all. so we know that this goes to the highest levels. trust me when i say the head of the criminal division, the department of justice, is that at the highest levels. .. how the united states attorney devotee tell the information that would be contained in an affidavit of probable cause that has to be forwarded to the department of justice as a matter of policy so that they may be able to oversee it not just for come efficiency but the conformity policy again to the highest levels. explicit detail for what is going on. we see this red herring that occurs on often occasions which suggest that somehow it's happened in a forward administration. it may have had an informal administration the prosecution did not and that is the essence of the discretion used to the ninth this very process yet this administration sends an atf prosecutor to help them reopen this case and some subtle messages that this process is endorsed. that is the essence of what we have to get to the bottom of. there is a great deal more here and i urge that my colleagues do not be afraid to ask the important questions on behalf of the united states of america and on behalf of agent terry petraeus mike we now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. this investigation on the hearings started in response to the loss of agent brian terry. and i think all of us continue to offer our condolences to his family and told his colleagues in uniform who protect our borders and all of our agencies and that really was the impetus for these investigations and i certainly could have been one of the 31 democrats the signed that letter to ask the department of justice and white house cooperate with this investigation and to be forthcoming with any evidence that help us get to the truth. but unfortunately over the course of these hearings and this investigation, that focus, the seriousness of purpose regarding the loss of the agent has been lost it is now morphed into a more selective, more partisan media seeking process. what we are talking about now is in the last iteration of the contempt citation we claim or at least the majority claims we are seeking documents surrounding the false letter that has been referred to by the gentleman from pennsylvania who just spoke and others that have spoken about this as well. in 2011 this was false and it denied the fact of gun walking. but phoenix office of the atf actually initially by the justice department. if we are going after those documents around the denial, the original denial that the mocking was going on, the investigators also came up with evidence that in drafting that false letter that went to grassley great reliance was made on the statements on the phoenix office of the atf. the phoenix office of the atf said we are not doing any gun walking. they gave that information to the department of justice and that letter went to mr. grassley. you would think if we were pursuing the truth we might call the folks from the phoenix office before this committee and have them answer why they gave that false information. here is where the us selective i would say the willful decision to ignore where the facts lead. we have never asked ken nelson the former head of the atf who was part of this decision, we've never asked him to come before this committee. and i think the reason is because his central testimony with investigators he has already said that he never informed the department of justice seniors to him regarding gun walking because he was unaware of it himself and the information he would bring if he were brought before the committee would be exonerating to the attorney general. so we didn't bring him forward. we didn't want to hear the facts. we didn't want to hear the truth. you would get in the way of going after the attorney general holder, so we never asked him to come. the search for the truth with respect to the death of agent terry. we know from the investigation that there was a prior program called white receiver, where under the bush administration foreweun wking weapons into mexico but we don't want to know about that because that would get in the we've our investigation and prosecution i we broutmchaelst ri mukasey who is actually briefed on the gun walking obligation in office when the gun walking began the would deflect the incoming nations against the current sitting attorney general. so thi process has been very selective, for the partisan. it's bn a distortion of the work of this committeeshould be when we all started out you have 31 democrats asking the white house and the department of justice to cooperate and bring forward the truth. but what we see is that long after that request was made this has been made a political issue. this has been put forth to dirace the sitting attorney general. it has been done in a way that has ignored the facts and has been aisrria is committee is supposed to be about in finding the truth. i'm disappoint,reatly sappnted about how this has gone on. there are remaining questions to be asked but we are not asking the right people we have refused them before this committee. michael mukasey, the previous attorney general, and the head of the atf were the false information came from, we are not asking them questions. we are putting blinders on. >> will the gentleman yield? >> you were not in the room when we quoted that the attorney general has retracted his statement about the former attorney general mukasey having actually been briefed. that's no longer accurately asserted. >> with the gentleman yield? >> he brought that up earlier. the leader david 2012 to senator grassley from the acting attorney general and what was apparently retracted was the insertion that attorney general mukasey had been briefed on fast and furious and the question he had been briefed on one of the earlier programs hernandez. i would ask unanimous consent -- >> without objection related to -- >> just to clarify the earlier program was also involved in gun walking. so, i stand by my statement. he was informed about the earlier program. it happened during the bush administration. it happened to michael mukasey, but we don't want to ask him about what went on at that point and we don't want to bring back ken nelson who actually led to the false information supplied to senator crassly. that's my point. >> we now recognize the gentleman from ohio who seeks recognition. >> would you yield to me for 30 seconds before. as the mccuish conducted 24 interviews in putting today's with the former u.s. attorney general and today's with kenneth nilsson. those interviews are exhausted both majority and minority represented, so aditionally we have interviewed allf the people wer made available to us of the local levelinterview. 24 of them are appropriate ntei. i appreciate the gentleman statement but ultimately if you've taken or will take the time to read those interviews of those two and other individuals you'll discover we left no stone unturned and additionally the 600 documents that we've om tived a big part of them are fr wide receir and in the record. >> i thank the chairman for his work on the committee and this you igne fact isu when you don't get the facts, at is what this is all bout by the oversight we have already reached a conclusion. how can you reach a conclusion when you can't get the information you need to make a conclusion or a decision and that is what this is all about. and look, i'm not one that has called for the attorney general's resignation. i just want to get the information. we want the documents requested eight months ago. now today we get an executive privilege assorted by the white house. my interest in and of it is a get the privilege this is communication between senior staff and the president himself and yet we had the attorney general in front of the judiciary when the congresan questioned him connecticut to the president about this issue he said he had not. something's got to give. either with the attorney general said wasn't the case or if it was the case, something's got to give. either we now know that fast and furious wasn't just confined to the department of justice but now goes to the white house come or if the attorney general was telling us the truth when he answered the question continue to get stonewalled and we don't get to those facts that we need to make a decision and reach a conclusion that's what's going on. i appreciate what you're doing. i think we are right on target rate we want the information so we have the facts so we can make a decision and reach a conclusion on this important matter. with that i would be happy to yield to my colleague from utah. >> i want to make colleague that's been brought up here if you go to page 16 of this contempt citation and look through kuhl certainly items number one and number two, number four and number five it is not specific to just fast and furious all documents and command occasions relating to get the bureau of alcohol and explosives failed to interdict weapons that have been a legally purchased a transferred. the number five, the same thing. we have asked for that. we've done this in a bipartisan way and i will yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for veinutes. >> it's fair to ask these questions but it's also fair to motivation when we are doing some historical precedents like this. you're curious, but you're curiosity seems to end at the beginning breyer to the beginning of the obama administration, which is curious to me. these are fair questions that should have been brought up before this committee. let's have the former attorney general here, the head of the atf and ask those questions. this isn't a small thing that you are doing here where you may be angry and want this stuff. this is something this country has never done. so it's fair to mask what happened prior to this. who knew what under the previous administrations? was anyone else killed or injured, where are the guns now that took place in the previous administration, and that doesn't bring back anyone but it lets us know the reasons for doing this or to sort out what is truth and what we cared about here. second, wide receiver and fast and furious can't be understated. both operations were wildly misguided and independent investigations must continue and have to to read those responsible must be held accounbl but today's have notho do with the investigations. thetaic he jusandsic andcountabity but this vote has nothing to do with that process. worse yet the committee's actions redefine hypocrisy the safety of agents and people who live on both sides of the border. it's about a gun safety and i will meet you any time and talk abouthe agents and people oned both side with remaember few facts. in izona today, you can buy as many ak-47s as you want, not handguns or guns needed to go hunting or to protect your home or business you can buy as many ak-47s else you want and pass them on to the cartel's through a straw purchases as it occurs to thousands of times a year putting agents and residents at risk. we know this. it's documented. the vast majority of the guns used by the cartel's comes from the united states. the punishment for some such transactions, the straw purchasers as described here by an agent as equivalent to a moving violation. so we have two types of them walking. both of them horribly long and dangerous. they are the 2,000 occurred under these fast and furious and wide receiver. that led to extraordinary tragedy that should never be peatedagain. >> let's keep perspective. we a talking about hundreds of thousands of guns. ak-47, which run today on if you don't want this to be repeated are happening now as we speak. in addition in many states there is a gun show the poll people witut a background check. itast majority ofamericans and an hour remembers think that everybody should have a background check. ople have been adjudicated dangerously mentally ill, terrorists, by whatever they want and include people who use those guns and make a hundred% proftit s trugh strapurchasers to the crtel's what is especially troubling is you all ha fout empts to end tat rocess. if thi s about agent terry come if this is aoutsafety defending heir honor and prevng this from ever happening again, hundreds of thousands that have already taken place and hundreds of thousands that will continue to take place putting all of those people what risks. it's fair when we bring that up to recognize that. what is our motivation today? there can't be anything worse that they've done than the fast and furious and the wide receiver, and we need to get to the bottom of it. but don't try to argue and make the point that you are not there to protect the agent safety if the vast numbers were on the other side and continuing to go on and we do nothing to do this. someone mentioned we need the guts to do the right thing. i hope we have it to do the right thing. in chicago a young man on his way home from school couple years ago stepped in front of a bullet to protect his friend. he had more guts than we do. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from arizona. >> first of all, thank you mr. chairman. being the only member from arizona on the committee, i find many of the comments to our national the justification against the citation, distasteful and utterly disdainful to the citizens of this country and more particularly those of arizona. in particular also those in northern mexico who will be living with the consequences of these egregious actions from here and forward. if it was my way, i hope we would have had a vote on each of the facts and findings so that each one of us would have had to put down what we actually instead of abandoning we had to vote on what we find within the judicial system. finding the attorney general eric holder jr interactive, was long overdue but welcomed news for the american people and especially for arizona. as i explained in my statement mr. holder show contempt for human rights, the border, arizona and all americans. we should put him in contempt of congress. 150 members of the congress agree that americans lack confidence and his department. the people of arizona katella for the common in mexico and texas who deal with on secure borders and mexican are cartels on a regular basis must now also live in fear of these firearms. these citizens deserve content charges to begin because it is with contempt for their safety that this operation was carried out. what is perhaps most discouraging is that people whose job is to protect and promote justice field the american people so badly. we are dealing with that part of justice, the lawyers that work there took an oath to uphold the constitution, yet from sending congress a false letter to continue stonewalling these lawyers have brought a great change to the profession. i'm convinced holding the attorney general contend is the only way to send a strong message to this administration and future ones that no one is above block including the nation's top law enforcement officer. i continue to believe attorney-general harry calder fought this upon himself by refusing to cooperate in the congress and i believe the contempt charges are the appropriate way to go forward. i suppose german ice and applaud his efforts in moving this forward. we all deserve better and i would yield back the balance of my time. >> i would announce to all members it is the intent of the chair to take a recess upon the conclusion of all striking last word. with that does anyone seek recognition? the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you just delete the mr. chairman. >> i think it is most unfortunate that the deliberations of this committee have reached such a partisan and rancorous level. i've always been told that where there is righteousness in the heart that there is beauty in the character. i've also been led to believe that the constitution requires the executive branch and congress to accommodate the interest of the other to avoid unnecessary conflict. the framers of the constitutional democracy are expected, and i quote, but where the conflict and scope of authority a rose between the court in the trenches, the spirit of dynamic compromise would promote the resolution of the dispute in the manner most likely to result in that the efficient functioning of the government will system. attorney general william smith who served under president ronald reagan of serve, and i quote, the accommodation required is not simply an exchange of concessions or a test of political strength to read it is an obligation of each branch to make principal efforts to acknowledge and if possible to meet the legitimate needs of the other branch. our committee has failed its constitutional duty to accommodate throughout this investigation. for more than a year the committee has been holding the attorney general to an impossible standard by demanding documents he has prohibited law from producing such as documents involved in federal wiretaps and a grand jury materials. additionally, the committee is continuously been demanding documents pertaining to ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions which the department explained what in danger of the lives of confidential informants and jeopardize active criminal cases. former assistant attorney general ted olson explained that these to commence have been steadfast protected by democratic and republican administrations alike since the 19th century. late last friday night the german finally made his first step at accommodation by to drop these demands. in the slate of for the chairman shifted the focus of his command to ask for documents that show whether the department's initial inaccurate denials' about gun walking were part of a effort by the department to obstruct a congressional investigation. in contrast, during the course of the investigation, the the part of justice has repeatedly made significant efforts to accommodate this committee's legitimate oversight interest. it is made the 26 individuals available for interviews and hearings and provided the committee with thousands of documents. the attorney general has testified before congress regarding fast and furious a total of nine times. as the investigation progressed, the department leadership realized the their initial denials that the mocking occurred was based on faulty information in the u.s. attorney's office. at that point the department nominee acknowledged the inaccuracies that drew the letter but provided 1300 pages of internal delivery of documents that show how the initially inaccurate letter to congress was drafted. those documents clearly show that the officials in the department's headquarters had no intent to mislead congress. despite this evidence, the trend continues to accuse the the part of officials of obstructing the committee's investigations and seek additional internal lubber to documents as part of a expedition to support this unsubstantiated allegation. these allegations that continue without regard to what evidence or information is provided by the justice to permit i hope that the american people will see this as a witch hunt, as political the activity, and not the legitimate interests of getting to the truth. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> does anyone else seek recognition? >> the gentleman from tennessee. >> thank you mr. chairman and think you for bringing us here today. and for your diligence pursuing this extremely important matter, i truly regret that this has gotten to this point, but the actions of the justice department have left us with no other choice. this is far from political theater. it is a legitimate investigation into an operation fast and furious the was so flawed that it flew right into the face of common sense. there are many people in this room on both sides of the of what would agree that one person, any person in the chain of command in the federal barack corsi should have stopped the gun walking operation that put the lives of law enforcement officials and innocent citizens in harm's way. certainly the attorney general was not above the law today we were originally told that this decision was made by local officials. it didn't take long that we learned that in fact there was a significant information owned by officials in washington about the conception and execution of this operation and with the recent executive privilege letter, it appears that it may go into the white house. this is what attorney general holders seen in my part of the evolving truth that is a troublesome comment. the obama administration the justice department cannot continue to stonewall the committee any longer. the american people want answers. agent terrie's family deserves answers. the gentlelady engender earlier this is occurring because it is an election year. i don't think that family cares it's an election year or 200 slain mexican citizens cares this is an election year. it's past time for the attorney general to produce the documents. i made clear in a recent statement that we've given the attorney general opportunity to come forth and present the facts for fast and furious, yet the department has refused to cooperate. malae a freshman in congress, and when i came here i didn't know that you started to draft the bill and want to get it passed it had to be done during the want of congress, so if it isn't done by the end of this year it goes away and we start over. the same holds true for what we are trying to bring to life here and i don't think that is lost on the attorney general's office. it starts to feel like they're trying to run out the clock. the content before us is inaccurate. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the efforts to hold the justice to for accountable. thank you. of i yield back. >> who seeks recognition, the gentleman from vermont is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman kid a couple things to begin with. number one, the attorney general or any other subject of a subpoena cannot demand to have an agreement in exchange for a little of that request from the committee. so, i think all of us agree on that two different versions of what was discussed or how the meeting went. mr. cummings has a different understanding of its. >> i have today gotten from the attorney general's office all he is referring to this trying to have a good faith effort to resolve the subpoena. >> it would seem fair to me but i would respect the german for standing up for the committee proud of. second, i agree with the trim and we owe it to the family to get the bottom of this. but the third point this is the challenge we always have in congress. everything we do when it ends up on a partisan vote leaves the american public with a view that essentially it's a political deal going down in washington once again to read and the hope i would have is that a member of the committee and over sent to the covert side with a vigorous oversight of the congress should have to all the information to in order to make a determination about de accountability and how haven't is that we lay that foundation in this committee the would justify in the minds of most of us in putting on both sides of the of that content of major power is appropriate at this time and with the questions that troubled me that we haven't reached that foundation as least as far as i am concerned is the elements in the investigation that would include things and fast and furious or the operation wide receiver was being started what happened in the bush and administration with the then attorney general and the then atf head it would seem to me very reasonable in pursuit of the full investigation that we would want to have those folks into ask them what happened and get the complete picture. allowing them to have that as part of our investigation. we are not doing that at least to my satisfaction and i think many on our side of the nile. the second thing is the initial subpoena that has been revised since friday does demonstrate that what i would say was a little over a broad approach to try to get information out. when we started asking for things that the awclerly prohits the atrn general, the grand jury transcripts from the deral rules of the procedure says that that can't be turned over. wiretaping information cannot by the u.s. code be turned over. the subpoena was a just on friday that fri is only a couple days ago. so, we are in a situation now where no matter how we vote on this, there are those that when we strongly support oversight and strongly support the necessity of this committee having access to the information broadly that it needs, many of us feel the foundation for the content hasn't been laid because of my view the an adequate investigation the would go to when this process began. and second, a somewhat very over broad subpoena that was just restrained last friday the was literally asking them to turnover documents that he is not able to do. saddam that's where i'm coming from. there's a lot of us on this side effect both onhe content against any public official who is a legitimate the withholding information. i certainly would be. but we need that foundation in order for this to have in my view credibility among the public that it's not the usual road show in washington and here we go again. >> the gentleman will yield. i might make a note that nothing stops the administration from giving us as they have the jalabert of information and other information from the previous administration a large amount of the 7600 dhaka and are about wide receiver comes of this administration, the attorney general has attorney general mukasey and gonzalez record the have the e-mail, the operational plans and they've given a great many of them and we take note that the genesis for the field fast and furious albeit smaller and different appear to come from the same unit with the same bad ideas early on and i think there is no argument on either side and in fact i think that the attorney general any of the previous attorney general's came in here they would agree that several of the cases they pour the executed on what would otherwise be for all the guns. the reason that we have narrowed or move the goal post easier for the attorney general to get a few local is in fact that we've had discovery and we've limited it on may 18th when the speaker took the extraordinary measure of narrowing the request. what we did as a result of our becoming aware of the ranking member inside the seven wiretaps is that we felt that from a standpoint of content although we need additional information about people in the chain that it really didn't need to be included in contant swedes narrowed the content. we have not narrowed the need to get this information i'm not trying to lecture anyone because i'm not a lawyer but the vast majority of the material that we haven't gotten we believe because of some compromising of ongoing criminal investigations. but of course come to know that we would need a privileged wall which we haven't received even an offer on. >> there has been some narrowing and you adjusted the subpoena after friday, so the request you couldn't give was withdrawn then i think it is reasonable if there is going to be withholding of information because of the claim of privilege to give a privileged wall. ausley agree with that. but the sense that i have right now is that we may be able to resolve this if we just take a half step back because there is a little bit of disagreement between you and the ranking member as to how you heard what the attorney general said. and if it were your version i will support you by the way. but, i think that the way that mr. cummings heard it makes it sound like the attorney general is trying to see if he can make some progress. so i would support a privileged wall if he's turning over these other items that there would be progress for us i don't know if the committee to have some discussions about us doing our work bringing some of these people in the bush administration where it would at least give many of us the peace of mind we are doing our jobs. at some point we may need to but don't feel like we need to do it today. we need to get to the bottom of it and not take no for an answer when it comes to getting documents we are entitled to have to respect the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> the department of justice isn't just another agency and the federal government, the department of justice is responsible for safeguarding the foundation of this republic which is respectful of the role of law. nothing more than a blind foldable holding a set of skills and sword. she doesn't care about the political agendas, she doesn't care about whether her decisions help or hurt people's reelection bids. she doesn't care about race, gender, social economic status, just to equal the application of the fall so all citizens can have confidence in the decisions that she makes so the facts surrounding the investigation fast and furious was fundamentally flawed in its conception and its execution. it's the administration mantra and the investigation, senior level officials within the department of justice in washington knew about us and furious well before special agent brian terry was murdered. senior level dot officials were briefed they discussed press conference opportunities, they discussed the on the ceiling of the guidance and the status of the case, and the wiretap applications and most actively discuss the tactic ofe the gun walking well in advance of special agent brian terry's murder and well in advance of a demonstrably false letter being written to a committee of congress to mislead and here's the proof. in the justice of washington of arizona but washington knew about the tactic of them walking well before brian terry was murdered. we have a dead border patrol agent, we get hundreds of dead mexican citizens, thousands of weapons with america's finger prints on both sides of the border and accounted for and a demonstrably false letter being written to the committee of congress and yet we are being asked for more time. if congress has time to look into major league baseball and invite steven colbert to come to a committee hearing, surely to goodness we have time to get answers on a fundamentally flawed legal investigation like fast and furious, thus we have mr. jarman embarked on an investigation to get answers to some pretty fundamental questions that i still cannot answer. when i'm asked back in south carolina can't give them an answer. when asked who knew about gun walking and did nothing to stop it i can give them this but this is a part of the answer because it is part of the documents. how did the false letter get written on the part of justice letterhead and delivered to a united states senator. i can't tell you how the letter got drafted. why was it withdrawn after ten months? why did it take to months to withdraw the letter. why was the criminal to my friend pat me him's .1 was the criminal chief on that part of justice advocating from walking on exactly the same day that is demonstrably false letter was delivered to the committee of congress. can anyone answer that question? can you tell me why brewer was in mexico at the king to the tactic that we all acknowledge asphalt on the very same day the department of justice was denying the tactic to senator chuck grassley? not only does the congress of the right to ask these duty to ask these questions.ntal powerful citizens, the ones we are supposed to work for, when they get a jury seven comegys think the of the trees on whether or not to comply? and get a subpoena from a law enforcement agency do you think our fellow citizens get to offer in extraordinary accommodation and providing the documents? either the congress has the authority to send the subpoena and require full compliance or what we have been doing for the past 12 months as a fool's errand. and we never should have discussed the content of congress either we have the right for the documents and we should get all of them and we have no business here. with respect to executive privilege, mr. chairman, i'm going to resist the temptation to contrast senator obama's position on executive privilege with president obama's as isham executive privilege but the juxtaposition is stark. if he wasn't a part of the drafting of the fed to worry fourth letter if he didn't know before brian terrie was murdered the what in the world as the asserting executive privilege for. he's either a part of it or he's not. if he is part of it, then we have had a series of witnesses that have misled this committee. if he's not a part of it, then he has no business asserting executive privilege. >> leader in the day the house oversight committee voted to hold the attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress. the vote was along party lines. the full house is scheduled to vote on the measure next week. this was something owls under the rug and kept from not only the american people but the mexican people as well. there are hundreds of innocent mexican citizens that have been murdered as a result of this but the only thing that we knew outside of the government program was that guns from american gun dealers were going into mexico and causing all these problems with cartels when the government was sanctioning these bills sending them into mexico. the federal reserve today lowered its expectations for the economy this year. we will continue at a slow pace and unemployment will remain at 8%. according to the fed share ben bernanke. he spoke to reporters this afternoon following the federal reserve meeting. this is 45 minutes. >> before we get to questions i will summarize today's policy action by the federal marketing committee and then place the committee's decision in the context of our economic outlook and collective judgment about the appropriate path of monetary policy as indicated in the stigma this afternoon, the committee is maintaining a highly accommodative policy for if we of the target range for the federal fund rate at zero a quarter%. we continue to anticipate that economic conditions are likely to warrant an exceptionally low levels of the federal fund rate at least through lead 14. in addition the committee decided to continue through the end of the year our program in lengthening the security holdings out of and completing the program this month as previously scheduled the committee intends to purchase treasury security for the securities six years to 30 years as the current pace to redeem an equal amount of treasury securities with approximately three years or less with the securities purchases and sales were described in an accompanying statement released today. the continuation of the extension program should do more pressure and make a broad financial conditions more accommodative than they would otherwise be thereby supporting economic recovery. in conjunction with today's meetings, participants from the seven board members and 12 reserve bank presidents submitted their individual economic projections and policy assessment for years 2012, 2014 and over the longer run. these projections are important inputs to the committee's deliberations. incoming information suggests the economy continues to expand at a moderate pace in the head winds generated by the situation in europe, the still depressed housing market, tight credit for some of the borrowers and fiscal restraint at federal, state and local levels. business and household spending are increasing at rates consistent with moderate growth of the household spending appears to be rising at a slower pace than earlier this year. employment gains have been smaller in recent months and the unemployment rate of 8.2% remains elevated. in light of these developments the community purchase prints of marked on the projections for economic growth but most still see the economy is expanding at a moderate pace over the coming quarters and then picking up gradually. based on the projections for economic growth, the participants receive a slower progress in reducing unemployment than the debt in april. kennedy participants projections to the unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of this year have a tendency of 8.0 to 8.2% decline to 7.0% to 7.7% in the fourth quarter of 2014. levels that would remain above purchase of the estimates of the longer run normal rates of unemployment. in addition to protecting and slow progress in bringing down unemployment, most participants see the rest of the altbach manly towards slower growth and higher unemployment. in particular, period sapinska to the strains in global financial markets associated principally with the situation of europe continue to pose significant risks to the recovery and further improvement in labor market conditions. meanwhile high inflation has declined recently in the lower prices of approval of gasoline. longer term inflation expectations have remained stable in the committee anticipates that inflation over the medium run will run at or below the 2% rate that judge most consistent with its statutory mandate for the maximum unemployment and stability. more specifically, participants rejections have a central tendency of 1.2 to 1.7% for 2012 and 1.5 to 2.0% for 2014. the economic projections submitted by the fomc participants are conditioned on the individual assessments of the appropriate path of monetary policy. as you can see from the chart, the committee participants have a range of views about when the initial increase in the federal fund rate is likely to be warranted. after a thorough discussion of those views and of the ongoing uncertainty and risk surrounding the outlook, the fomc, as i mentioned, maintained its collective judgment of the economic conditions likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal fund rate at least through late 2014 and the degree to provide for their support to the economy by continuing the extension program. the committee is prepared to take further action as appropriate to promote a stronger economic recovery of sustained improvement in the labor market conditions in the context of the price stability. thank you. i will be glad to take your questions. >> looking back on the last four years of the policy i think it is fair to say that it's been bold and get at the same time halting. you did the operation twist and now you've extended it. how would you respond to several years from now a young graduate student came forward and said you know what the problem with that was during the period, it was to incremental and the reason why the economy underperformed was because of that incrementalism and what do you think the dangers are right now that today's action is also too incremental? >> of course because the federal fund rate in the continuous fashion until the summer of 2008 and since then we've been operating with nonstandard monitoring tools and putting asset purchases and extension of maturities. by the nature, these tend to be lumpy. we haven't done in a continuous way. what our view of the effect 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 the economy is receiving. in that respect it wouldn't be a start and stop rather whenever we have stopped purchasing bill of accommodation that was already in the system remains there until the conditions weren't for their actions. underlining this is the of the exchange like many other forecasters the federal reserve was too mad optimistic early in the recovery of the pace of recovery and we've had to add additional accommodations going forward as we have seen in fact the headwinds have kept the recovery from being as strong as we would like. but again, by the nature of these and conventional tools more discreet in their size and to the continue to have the accommodative effect even after the purchase has ended. >> we've taken this step today which is a substantive step which will provide additional accommodation for the economy, and moreover, we stated we are prepared to take further steps if necessary to promote sustainable growth and recovery in the labour market. so we are prepared to do what is necessary. we are prepared to provide support for the economy. >> mr. chairman many analysts of been characterized as some of modest. you're own outlook has a much lower gdp. the unemployment rate in the outlook shows possibly no improvement at all and the unemployment rate through the end of this year. the program itself is smaller and shorter duration of the original operation twist. given this week out look, why such a modest program and when you say you are prepared to take further action which is a stronger characterization than the last meeting does that mean that you are prepared to do a full on a new asset purchase program? >> there's been a great deal of economic news since our last meeting. the incoming data somewhat disappointing but not clear how to read them. we had issues with whether its seasonal adjustment or other factors. meanwhile, europe has had additional problems. we've seen some of those effects in the financial markets. so i think there is a case to be made for making additional judgments about where the economy is going. that being said, the step we took, the extension of the majority program i think is a substantive steps and will provide some additional support and guess, additional asset purchases would be among the things we would consider if we need to take additional measures to strengthen the economy. >> mr. chairman, i would like to ask you to respond to a different set of criticisms. this criticism you hear from couple hill and wall street and different places the fed has already pushed interest rates to an extraordinarily low level, historically low level and that there isn't anything more the fed can do to help the recovery. the criticism is that the fed at this point should stand down and let congress or the white house attend to the economy or let market forces it tend to the economy's ailments. what do you think of those arguments and how would you respond to them? >> as i have said many times it is not a fantasy of monetary policy by itself is not going to solve our economic problems. we welcome support from any other part of the government from economic policy makers. so, collaboration would be great. i wouldn't accept the proposition so that the fed has no more ammunition. i do think that our tools, while they are nonstandard still can create more accommodative financial conditions and still provide support for the economy and still help us return to a more normal economic situation. that being said, again, any other support that is forthcoming, any other policies that were undertaken that are helpful in terms of making our economy stronger are welcomed, but i do think that the monetary policy still does have some capacity to strengthen the economy by easing the financial conditions. >> mitt romney originally said that qe to have a relatively little impact on the economy. he said that was in part because of the president's policies coming and he said that it was unwarranted and could have negative effects. >> do you agree that it had little effect on the economy and do you think the president's policies have had an affect on the effectiveness of the monetary policy and do you think it is appropriate for a presidential candidate to comment on the future path of monetary policy? >> first, we think that both of the asset purchase programs come so-called qe1 and qe to have significant effects on asset prices and financial conditions and although there were certain problems of transmission flexible the housing market hasn't been as responsive as it's been sometimes in the past we do think that they were both effective in providing support for the economy and in particular the so-called qe to look to be an inflation problem when we first introduced it to the use of those have been an effective and as i've said these programs can still provide additional support. with respect to the rest of your questions the federal reserve as non-partisan and we are very serious and not taking our decisions based on purely economic grounds without political considerations and we will continue to do that. >> long-term interest rates, mortgage rates are already at historical lows. how much help him an extension of operations twist do to lower interest rates? >> the interest rates are quite low and they are being pushed down more by the safe havens and other factors. that being said, i think we can lower interest rates more but beyond that, the operation twist and asset purchases were also through other channels and in particular, by acquiring securities in the market bringing the want the fed balance sheet we essentially induced investors to move into substantive securities comes principal, an investor that sells a treasury security to the fed may end up being a corporate bond instead so the effect will be to lower the corporate bond rates and spreads and a bank in accordance with treasury securities may decide to make a loan instead. so it's not just the effect on the long term interest rate, there's a broad set of the fact that feed through the other prices and interest rates and other spreads the provide a broad easing in the financial conditions which is supportive to the economy. .. >> it is hard our intention to make sure we do everything we can. now the unemployment is going down, but it is going down, our sense is that people are finding jobs, but just not at the rate we would like to see. as i said, and as the statement says come if we don't see continued improvement in the labor market, we will be prepared to take additional steps as appropriate. >> [inaudible question] and looking at the projections of a showing that unemployment will be between 8% and 8.2% by the end of the year fred the deciding factor about doing more, whether unemployment was coming down, that is fairly a decrease from and i guess i am struggling to understand why come in that context you are not doing more now, particularly when he said he can do more and would do more if it wasn't happening. >> first of all, then, we did take a substantive to step today . i think that is a meaningful stat. it depends on each individual who has their own path of optimal policy. we will provide more information about penniman unction minutes to come. we are prepared to do more. we need further information about where things are going, where things are happening in your head i guess i would answer that. with respect to financial stability and the exit process comments i don't think they should be launched lightly. i think that there should be some conviction that they are needed, but if we do come to that conviction, we will take those additional steps. >> christina peterson, the dow jones. on of you said that european policymakers or the forefront of the defense of the european debt crisis, but under what circumstances would the fed get directly involved and coordinate action with central banks? >> well, as you say, europeans are the first line. europe is a wealthy area. they have adequate resources to address these problems. they are very committed to addressing these problems, because keeping the euro zone together, keeping that eurozone trading block together is very important. we leave to them the leadership. the federal reserve is very much involved in talking with and consulting with european leaders. i talk frequently to central bankers in europe, including [inaudible name] and others. we try to provide whatever help and support that we can we did, of course, ordinate earlier on the provision of the dollar swaps to other central banks, which have been useful in allowing european banks to continue lending in dollars, including two u.s. borrowers. at this point, we are consulting frequently, we are prepared to work together effectively done constructively. at this point, we are mostly just and consultation mode. >> peter barnes, fox news. so you talk about getting a little help from some of the other riches of government, that leads to the questions of 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 right now. is it slowing economic growth, job creation as we saw last year during this very same debate? and if you're not seeing it coming if you haven't seen it yet, when might we start to see it hit the economy and hurt the economy? >> i think it's a bit early, but as we move forward in the year we do anticipate that the uncertainty associated with the fiscal cliff will have some economic effects. we heard anecdotes in the meeting today about firms that might be government contractors that were not sure about whether the contracts would be in place in january, and making employment decisions based on that. more generally, financial markets don't like uncertainty. particularly, uncertainty of this magnitude. that will be a negative. that uncertainty is there that is going to be an issue. most importantly is that congress get the policy right. i have talked about three elements for fiscal policy. the first is to do no harm as far as recovery is concerned to try to avoid a fiscal cliff that would significantly damage the recovery. second, to maintain the effort to achieve a sustainable fiscal path over the longer term. third, to use fiscal policy effectively, to have a better tax code to make good use of government spending programs and make them efficient and effective and so on. i think if congress does all of those things come of the ultimate benefits would be substantial. >> if i could follow-up on the peter barnes question regarding the fiscal cliff. how beneficial would be for the u.s. economy right now, given some of the talk on capitol hill, that lawmakers deal with official unction fiscal cliff issues, kick the can down the road, sooner rather than later -- well that and some of the insurgency given the state of the economy at this present moment? >> that is a difficult question. i'm not entirely sure. on the one hand, clarity would be helpful for the reasons that i described because people are uncertain about what is going to happen. on the other hand, i would like to see congress take action to put us on a long-term, fiscal path. certainly kicking the can down the road without any other indication of what might be done, what kinds of policies might be enacted. it could be a negative% of it because it might induce people the serious factor of addressing the fiscal issues. >> i am with "the financial times." mr. chairman, one of the combats of actions over the last few years is to [inaudible] while the fed's impact on those, the cash-strapped and middle income households is muted. i was hoping that you could perhaps address this criticism, particularly with a focus on access to credit it. >> sure. access to credit as a major issue. no questions about it. mortgage access has been much higher than it has been for a long time. even credit card access is more restricted than it has been in the past. what that does is come up to some extent, it needs the impact of the fed's actions. that being said, don't think it is at all accurate to say that federal reserve policy is not helping the broad public. first of all, many americans are able to take advantage of lower interest rates, many people have refinanced or bob holmes. others have taken out loans to buy cars, auto loans are cheap and broadly available. there has been impact through lower interest rates. i think more broadly is the indirect effects. if they affirm a low cost of capital, and we have seen a lot of corporate borrowing the last few years, they are more likely to expand to add capital and add products and consequently, they are more likely to hire. again, the extent to which the payrolls have increased over the past few years -- and the unemployment rate has come down by two percentage points. some of that comes from the broad impact of policy on spending -- the broad public indirectly by promoting hiring and promoting demand for products that people are producing. >> [inaudible question] >> hello, mcclatchy newspapers. a little bit more detail about where you think this chokepoint is in the economy. yesterday they had their midyear outlook conference which they blamed for a percentage point of the fiscal cliff and more importantly europe. much bigger than anyone anticipated today. this is roundtable today said that clearly we are already trimming jobs. we are already coming back and everyone else is doing the same. what are you hearing? are you on the phone with people? what is your sense of where the choke points are that continue to import hiring? >> sure, i give a list of some of the headwinds and some of my opening remarks. i do think that the european situation is slowing economic growth. first of all, europe and certainly many countries are in recession, and that affects our trade with europe and the demand for our products. more broadly, the effects of european concerns on financial markets, volatility, it brought down stock prices, increased credit spreads, and have been a negative for economic growth. that has been an issue, and more broadly, we have seen some slowing in global economic growth more generally. looting in asia. it has reduced our ability to export. that is one set of concerns that is important. one concern is housing. housing usually plays a very important role in economic recovery. also because higher house prices increased consumer wealth and promote consumer spending. housing does seem to be doing somewhat better. there are some good signs and housing. nevertheless, we cannot boost the size and help we would get from a housing recovery. the other area is fiscal. that happens at all different levels. federal, state, and local. notwithstanding programs earlier on in the last year or two and going forward, we have been seeing fiscal consolidation, particularly at the state and local level, tight budgets have led to a lot of layoffs and cancellation of products and so on. i understand that these are necessary steps from the perspective of individual states and localities. i am not criticizing that. it is just a fact contractions are affecting the pace of growth in the broader economy. i think those would be the main things i would point to. and putting them all together, you have an economy which is growing less quickly than it normally would, following a recession of the magnitude that we saw. >> thank you. marcy gordon with the ap. given the environment that you have sketched out and the fact that interest rates are at historically low points, would it make sense, would it be an option for the government to issue more long-term debt at this point, and take advantage of that. >> it is a bit of an issue which is they announce that we are taking longer-term debt off the market. in order to induce investors to move into other assets and lower, longer-term interest rates, to the extent that the treasury actively sought to lengthen the duration of its growing, to some extent offset the benefits of those policies. so my understanding of what the treasury is doing is that they have a plan. the fed's actions can be felt. >> you clearly seem to be waiting on the labor market. can you be specific? what exactly are you looking for? is there a rate of job growth that you need to look to see, and also the unemployment rate comes down. is that enough for you can also look at your participation and the whole thing just stalled. >> i can't give you specific numbers because this is ultimately a committee decision. but the committee is going to do a review of all labor market indicators, including unemployment and including participation and all measures of labor market activity. and they will try to make sense of whether the labor market is improving in a sustainable way. it is not a month-to-month proposition. this year, already, we have seen two months of gains, two months of weaker gains. a month-to-month, there's going to be statistical noise and weather and factors a lot of things that can cause job gains to vary. so the question is, is the improvement sustainable? is a long-lasting. is that the kind of thing that we will see. i can't be too more specific than that. >> market news international. when you speak of the fiscal cliff, you don't differentiate between the automatic tax hike aspect of that and automatic spending cuts which leaves the impression that you giving equal weight to both sides. someone to contend that this would give more tax hikes to the owners. how do you talk about those aspects, and if i may be permitted, i am curious to know how that is going to -- how the fed will conduct operations, if the new york fed says that by the end of the year, they will essentially have no short-term securities dues. >> well, on the fiscal cliff, the dollar amount associated with the tax-cut expiration from including the payroll tax cuts and so on, the point is, all putting these things together, you have a very substantial withdrawal of income from the economy that will affect spending. and it will affect the ability of the economy to recover in the short run. it will impact decisions on how to modify the automatic changes, congress also has to look at the long run. what is the most efficient tax structure and what is the best way to spend resources? these are tough decisions that congress has made. in terms of the fiscal cliff, in terms of what is going to happen in january, it is really the total of both spending cuts and tax increases, which has the impact, which not only weak, but others in the congressional budget office have identified as being a concern. we will still be able to operate with our securities, even if the amount of short-term debt is very low. indeed, for some overtime, as securities come close to maturation, we have other securities that are of short duration. >> there have been a lot of questions raised as to whether the transport rule would have helped the loss at jpmorgan. given that regulators are at the middle of the rule writing process, and examining what went wrong, as a supervisor committee think to get this moment it is the right time to perhaps pump the brakes and slow down the rule writing process, or has this reach in episode reached the transport rule expeditiously. and also, surpassing the july 21 deadline, could you perhaps give us a target on when regulators are looking to release the rule? thank you. >> on the second question, it is a five agency rule, i believe. a lot of coordination and cooperation is needed. we had something like 18,000 comment letters. a lot of poor nation has to be done somehow. i don't have a date for you. i think there is a silver lining to the events he referred to, it may be that there are some things we can do in terms of writing rule and how it would work. one aspect of the rule that would've been important in the loss, is that in the rule, event would be required to provide a plan in advance, explaining how the hedge was going to be done, how it was going to work, it would be necessary to have an auditing process to make sure that, in fact, that was being followed, risk management and governance rules to oversee the process. and it would be necessary that compensation for the executives involved in the management of the position would not be such that it would be incentivized and proprietary positions. the aspects of the government might have potentially change the outcome. >> mark gregory, bbc. how much worse will the situation in your path to get before it starts seriously dent in the prospects for recovery in the american economy and thus really changing the direction of the fed's policymaking. it. >> well, we hope it is not going to get worse. it is only one of the factors that has been a drag on u.s. recovery. even the only factor that we've talked about, and the many others. it has been having an effect on other countries as well, countries that export year. it is a significant issue. we are hopeful that europe will take additional measures and do all that is necessary to stabilize the situation and to provide the basis for an ongoing stable structure, in which banks and sirens are both stabilized, in which there is a program for growth, and again, we have one. we think that policy makers in europe have very strong incentives to get this right and we are hopeful to get this right, and we are in close contact with them as they work on these issues. it is also important for us to be prepared for any further problems that might emerge from europe and we have been doing that. for example, we recently did the stress tests of the large bank companies, making sure they have enough capital, even in the face of a severe financial crisis or a european crisis. we have been monitoring the exposures of banks and other financial institutions of europe. of course, monitoring the situation, then we are hoping for the best and we are hoping that european policymakers are taking the additional steps that they need to stabilize the situation. we are prepared in case things get worse to protect the u.s. economy and u.s. financial system. >> i just want to get back to lending and credit. the uk has started a program where the bank of england is going to make lending to banks only if they land to households and companies. you said something that the fed is under consideration for something? >> we are very interested in certainly going to follow it. the details are not yet available. i think it should be noted that it is not just the bank of england program, but also join with the british treasury. is there some sort of fiscal subsidy in being included there. we are looking for, as we know, throughout the crisis we have looked for new programs and ways to help the economy. and this will be a type of thing that will be on the list of programs that we look at. >> your projections show inflation below 2%. can you explain why. to me, you said that the vet is prepared to do more if necessary. can you comment on what additional action might take and what are the relative costs and benefits of doing qe rather than regular extension? >> i think we talk about uncertainty of economic projections. it should not take a false sense of precision from that and the numbers. that being said, there is an issue about whether or not there is sufficient stimulus in the economy. as i mentioned earlier, one problem is that we are at the zero balance, and that the types of unconventional programs that are available we know less about them, they have various costs and risks, and for that reason, you may get a different amount of the financial accommodation in this kind of regime than you wanted in one where short interest rates could be buried. now come i think that is a critical issue and in terms of the costs, i would list briefly a large asset purchase, it increases the size of the balance sheet and will make a more extended process. large asset purchases, which means that the fed owns a larger share of a particular type of asset in terms of market functioning, which has stimulative effects on the economy. there are some financial stability issues we are monitoring and have to be taken into account. any kind of assessment of appropriate policy, but that the outlook of the economy and at the costs and risks associated with new measures and steps that might be taken. that being said, again, i think at this point, we still do have considerable scope to do more, and we are prepared to do more. we will continue to monitor the economy and we are looking primarily at the labor market in this respect if we are not seeing a sustained improvement, that will require additional action. in terms of balance sheet actions, we are taking that as far as we can. so we would have to take other types of steps in order to add to the amount of stimulus in the economy. >> i hear a lot of conversations on liquidity in the u.s. the u.s. economy liquidity, is in threat? [inaudible] >> well, the u.s. economy is in a situation where short term interest rates are close to zero. so what that means is that the federal reserve cannot add monetary accommodation by cutting short-term interest rates. the usual approach. it has been one of the themes of my own work for a long time coming including some of the work that i did on the bank of japan. central banks are not out of tools once the short-term interest rate hits zero, there are additional rates that can be taken, through both communications techniques, guidance about future policy, which is something that the japanese have done as well, by the way. and through asset purchases, also something that the bank of japan has done. central banks to have some availability to provide this financial accommodation, support the recovery, even when short-term interest rates are close to zero. that being said, as i mentioned, these nonstandard policies are less well understood and they do have some costs and risks, but i do think at the same time, they can be effective in helping the economy is. >> are you concerned that "operation twist" undercuts your ability to increase credit to consumers? >> credit to consumers? well, no, i don't think so. take for example, what we are lowering is the safe interest rate, the treasury rate. that should make it even more attractive for it to bring in 10 banks rather than the whole security is to look for borrowers. and to earn the spread between the safe rate and what they can earn by lending to households and businesses. so i think that the macro policy and monetary policy -- now the question arises in some contexts, whether there are other various demanding that exist exists in some parts of the mortgage market. the lower interest rates on securities and other types of assets would induce banks to look for higher-yielding returns from a high yielding assets in the forms of loans to households and businesses. >> defected seven by buying european sovereign debt poor countries. are there any countries he would rule out by such a strategy? >> the federal reserve isn't going to be buying sovereign debt. we have an amount of european sovereign debt that comes primarily from a small number of countries. that is not something that we would be engaged in. >> you have to fed governors aboard. that changed the tenor of the discussion this week, ended jeremy stein and jay powell pushing any particular policy direction? >> they are two terrific people with great experience. i have no jeremy for longtime and he's an outstanding academic and knows a lot about finance. jay has both market experience and a lot of experience in government. they both bring a lot to the table. this was their first meeting, so i think to some extent they were in listening mode. they do have an awful lot to offer, and i really do look forward to working with them because i think that they are exceptional people, and i'm glad, for the first time, i believe this is the first time that we had seven governors at the meetings since 2005. it is great that we have people and it will help us to our work and monetary policy work more effectively. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> still had on c-span 2 tonight, a house judiciary subcommittee hearing with the head of the drug enforcement administration. after that, the house armed services subcommittee hearing on the military transition in afghanistan. then, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke's news conference from earlier today. later, from national journal, a look at the presidential and congressional elections. >> tomorrow on booktv.org, people everman, author of so rich support from a book about income inequality in the u.s., he was assistant in 1996 when he resigned to protest, president clinton's welfare reform legislation. mr. edelman will be speaking in washington dc bookstore. you can see light at 6:30 p.m. -- you can see it at 6:30 p.m. eastern. >> the civil war and the movement and slavery. it is one of the aspects of abolitionism or abolitionists -- when lincoln gives his inaugural speech, the self described abolitionists are still a tiny minority and they are still common despite what transforms abolitionists of respective critics of fort sumter. >> more on political figures that ran for president and lost. the contenders, and five-time socialist candidate for president. american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. >> the head of the drug enforcement administration testified before a house judiciary subcommittee today. she answered questions on mexican drug cartels, the das involvement in the "fast and furious" gunrunning operation and allegations that federal agents hired prostitutes in colombia. congressman sensenbrenner chaired the hearing. >> the meeting will come to order. i would like to welcome administrative michelle leonhart and thinker for testifying before the subcommittee this morning. we all appreciate the das efforts and great strides it has made to combat the increasingly dangerous drug trade did the administrators testimony comes at a timely moment as the war on drugs approaches a potential crossroads. on july 1, mexico will elect a new president. by all accounts, the institutional revolutionary policy is leading the field. the pri government has governed until 2000. while in power, they turned a blind eye to the cartels. the current president, felipe calderon, has changed that strategy and aggressively confronted organized crime. as mentioned in your testimony, the key to the dea success along the southwest border is her relationship with the government of mexico. you have characterized that relationship is at an all-time high. but are worried that our relationship could be a high water mark with the impending change in the office of the president. he recently told "the new york times" that while mexico would continue to work with the united states, that subordinate -- not subordinate the strategies of other countries. he further emphasized that his priority would be a reduction in violence, not a dismantling of criminal organizations. by all accounts, this sounds like a reversion to the pre-policies of old. we, of course, have no vote in the upcoming mexican election, and our only hope for the outcome is that it is free and fair. but we do have a deep-seated interest in minimizing drug trafficking and organizing -- in organized crime south of the border. i believe that these goals are also in mexico's long-term interest, and i urge you to press this truth with the incoming mexican president and his administration, regardless of who it is. i would also like to raise a few troubling incidents within the dea. the dea has long been a model of the law enforcement community. but today, this subcommittee will need answers about a few recent incidents that are both troubling and unacceptable. if not addressed swiftly and effectively, i fear these events will become a stain on the das reputation, and ultimately undermine this law enforcement mission. the secret service has been the focal point of the cartagena prostitution scandal. i understand that at least three dea agents have also hired prostitutes during the preparation for the president's visit to colombia. i further understand that this was not an isolated event for the dea. the secret service has moved quickly to address the scandal and has already removed eight of the 12 employees that have been implicated in this incident from their jobs. they are in the process of losing security grants. similarly, while the atf was a major factor in "fast and furious", the da was also involved. tony paulson, said that many dea field agents knew that atf was walking guns to mexico, but supervisors said to the agents to back up when they objected. he was up under one of the first public officials about this botched operations. he claims that he raised objections to elizabeth capshaw, and was told it was taking care of. after attending a meeting with the atf agent, he said that he knew "fast and furious" was not some sort of benign pie in the sky publicity stunt. guns were actually getting in the hands of criminals. as with the colombian prostitution incidents, i am not aware of any investigation or disciplines from within the dea. most recently, this last april, the dea officer in san diego forgot about a 23-year-old in a holding cell. dea agents arrested daniel cheong on a raid of that party in the san diego area where there were illegal drugs. after questioning him, the agents told mr. daniel cheong that he would not be charged before they place him back in a holding cell. the agents then forgot he was there. mr. daniel cheong remained locked in a cell for five days with no access to food, water, or a toilet. he said he heard voices and yelled for help, but no one heard him. after 48 hours, he started hallucinating and to survive, drink his own urine. at this point he broke his glasses and attempted to kill himself. it goes without saying that this incident is extremely unacceptable, and i look forward to hearing what steps the dea is taking to address each of the incidents discussed and to ensure that nothing similar happens in the future. i hope that these events are anomalies in the dea's record and not an indication of things to come. i now yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i am pleased to convene in this oversight hearing with the drug enforcement agency and i think director leonhart port dedicated service and appearing before us today. we are also mindful that there are thousands of dedicated dea employees that enforce drug laws everyday, many of whom put their lives on the line to do so. therefore, i consider it our responsibility in supporting directing their efforts to ensure their dedication are put to the most effective as was productive use. the dea is involved in drug enforcement activities all of the over the world, however, it is not clear at all of these activities are as effective or important as others, in stopping or reducing the discouragement of drug use. in general, there are strategies to reduce drug abuse. research indicates demand reduction to prevention, education, and improvement is much more effective than interdiction and law enforcement efforts. one study showed that the cost of reducing cocaine consumption in the united states by 1%. reducing cocaine consumption in the united states by 1%, the cost is $783 million. the source controlled -- source country controlled $366 million for general interdiction activities, about $250 million for domestic law enforcement, only $34 million of heavy users. it cost over seven times as much as treatment to achieve the same consumption reduction. other studies show that drug treatment saves an average of $7 for every dollar spent on treatment. one of the big problems that we have in this country would illegal drugs as well as with illegal prescriptive drugs is that there is a huge demand. the history on the war of drugs shows us that there is a demand -- when there is a demand for the product, suppliers will find a way to provide it. no matter what the cost. history also shows that no matter how many tons of drugs we interdict or capture, it represents only a small fraction of drugs being trafficked. therefore, the evidence suggests that our efforts to reduce drug abuse has intensified, while the evidence suggests that our efforts to reduce drug abuse have intensified in this country, the street price for some of the most dangerous drugs is actually going down while the quality has gone up and drug use has increased and stayed the same during that time. other evidence suggests that the massive drug enforcement efforts in this country has resulted in legions of users in in street-level dealers being imprisoned for long periods of uptime with notable impact on the drug trade. it is as high among white americans is among the black and hispanic americans, and the vast majority are black and hispanic in prison. for example, drug use data indicate that some 60% of crack cocaine users are white, 94% are black. black americans make up about 12% of the population, but almost 50% of those incarcerated for illegal drugs, moreover, drug penalties for check on him, many order on 10% of venoms when we consider the drug abuse being heaped upon african-americans, the harshness and the life consequences for drug convictions, such as loss and voting rights and subjection to employment discrimination, drastically lowers employment prospects. we can see why michelle alexander considers the war on drugs to have ushered in a new era of jim crow as she outlined in her book, the new jim crow mass incarceration. when we consider the effectiveness of and higher cost of supply reduction strategies compared to many other times more effective and much cheaper demand reduction strategies, such as treatment, it is not hard to wonder whether there is a motor beyond drug abuse reduction and our strategy choices. recently i found a news article of a young drug offender in their 20s in virginia, two of whom got sentences of 50 and 35 years respectively. no one seemed concerned about the average cost of 30,000 dollars a year that this represented $2.5 million to warehouse for drug abusers and has left us to wonder $2.5 million should have been spent on boys and girls clubs were there were spending cuts in that area. mr. chairman, i look forward to hearing your views on public policy implications the agency's operations with respect to these grave concerns. >> thank you. the chairman, mr. conyers for an opening statement. >> thank you, chairman sensenbrunner. my first comment is to congratulate bobby scott, ranking member, on an excellent opening statement. it tracks what a bunch i have been doing in preparing for this. i think at the beginning of this discussion on the part of the subcommittee on crime can be one of the most important contributions that the house judiciary committee can make on the subject of the american criminal justice system. but before i go any further, chairman sensenbrunner, i noted 14 issues that you raised with our distinguished witness, and i stopped counting after that. the question i have, sir, is are we going to have an additional hearing to give her an opportunity to respond to each and every one of those? >> gentlemen, with pleasure. that depends upon how responsive she is to the issues that i have raised. i think we all would like to get this wrapped up in one hearing, including ms. dea -- ms. michelle leonhart. it is my impression that we could devote the rest of the next couple hours to a discussion between you and her about what you raised in your opening statement. i don't understand -- [talking over each other] >> yes, sir. >> the chair knows from years and years that the current chair enforces the five-minute rule on himself as well as on everybody else. >> well, that is what makes it more difficult. i mean, that is the problem that i am raising. the problem i am raising with six members here and probably more to come under the five-minute rule. there is no way she can ever get to any kind of response to the issues that were raised, some of which are very serious. i will leave that to discuss further as we go on. >> i am very interested in the subject. because i started off my career on the subcommittee on crime when i first was able to get on the house judiciary committee. the subject about drugs is extremely, extremely critical, and i'm looking forward to a discussion, and i have no problem with having as many hearings as necessary. we don't get any brownie points for having one hearing and no more. the question is how deeply and thoroughly and accurately do we go in to these very important social and criminal justice questions? i would say to my colleagues and to our distinguished witness, but the cost of the war on drugs is more than $1 trillion. it is astronomical, and yet, the same proportion of drug usage, illegal drug usage, continues at the same rate. what i am looking for is the distinguished witness giving us a review of what goes on at the dea in what they are doing about it, it is what kind of changes or what kind of creative, even imaginative ideas can we come up with truly do something about this. it seems to me, that there are policies that reduce consumption and may not have been tried yet. i am hopeful that we can examine that. another issue that we may or may not get to today. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> can i finish the sentence? certainly, without objection. >> it is important that we minimize this criminalization and punishment concept by replacing it with help and treatment services. if this is only lock them up and throw away the key, it doesn't, i don't think, share much information -- or work in a substantially important way, that this hearing could bring to the subject. i thank the chairman for the additional time. two without objection. all members opening statements will appear in the record. before introducing miss leonhart, i'm going to get into a lock them up and throw away the key and decided not to charge them the situation during the questions and answers. that will hopefully address some of your concerns. it is now my pleasure to introduce today's witness. michelle leonhart was confirmed as the administration administrator of the dea in december. she has been acting administrator since november 2007 comment served as the dea deputy administered since 2004. prior to becoming the dea administrator and deputy demonstrator, she held several positions within the senior executive service. she was the special agent in charge of the dea steel division from 1998 through 2003. she previously held the position of special agent of dea of san francisco field division in 1997 and 1998. as a special agent, she held several key positions as she moved through the ranks of the dea. in 1995, she was promoted to the position of assistant special agent in charge of the l.a. field division. between 1993 and 1995, she held management position within dea headquarters to include office of professional responsibility, inspector, and staff coordinator and operation division. she has spent more than 30 years in law enforcement, beginning her career as a baltimore city police officer after graduating from college in minnesota, with a bachelor of science in criminal justice in 1978. without objection, ms. leonhart, your witness statement will be entered into the record in its entirety. i ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes commend you know all about the green, yellow and red lights in front of you. ms. leonhart. >> could you pull the microphone a little bit closer to. >> chairman sensenbrunner, ranking member scott, and members of the subcommittee. good morning, and thank you for inviting me to testify regarding the oversight of the drug enforcement administration. i'm honored to be appearing before you once again and i'm proud to be doing so in my official capacity as the dea ministered to. i want to thank you for your continued support of our essential law enforcement mission. your partnership is especially appreciated in light of the ever-changing challenges that we face. today, a hallmark of our many drug traffic organizations has been increasingly global in the nature of their operations. chapters are using the latest technology to conduct daily business with sophisticated communication devices and services, laundering money through electronic money transfers. and they use innovative transportation methods. from everything from planes to tunnels to wooden canoes and summaries. we cannot let up or we will never catch up. the dea in our partners are successfully disrupting him at dismantling, and destroyindestroyin g major drug trafficking networks. our enforcement actions are reducing the availability of drugs and the honda -- harm they cause, and the traffic drug control strategy. one of the highest priorities for the dea is stopping the diversion of prescription drugs and precursor chemicals from legitimate use. today, more people abuse prescription drugs than those who abuse heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine is combined. in response, the dea has dedicated more agents to investigate criminal prosecution of prescription drug diversion than ever before. and the regulatory arm is dedicated to ensuring compliance with the law for those who manufacture, distribute, prescribe, or sell controlled substances. we have also helped the public help us reduce the supply of prescription drugs through a national prescription drug takeback event, with assistance from more than 3000 law-enforcement partners in all 50 states. the takeback events have taken back 4000 tons of medication that would have been wished in medicine cabinets were they could've been diverted. soon, we will be implementing a secure and responsible drug disposal act, which passed into law. through this act, the dea will be providing the nation with a permanent solution to the problem of proper prescription drugs and their disposal. the dea is also at the forefront of another emerging trend. synthetic drugs. i also want to thank you for the committee's leadership in scheduling 26 substances used in products like k2 and spice from doing more damage. unlike prescription drug diversion, which is principally a domestic drug challenge, but the majority of the organization is responsible for other drug threats from operating internationally. the most immediate of these threats comes from mexico bay's criminal organization and drug cartels. they are responsible for the vast majority of violence there, and increasingly common in many countries, including central america. operations there and elsewhere, the dea relies on ties with our brave international partners. these relationships extend beyond on the ground operations and involve training and intelligence and sharing. the dea has deep ties with mexico, the relationship that will have an impact in what is a threat to the national security and rule of law into a law enforcement challenge. indeed, our cooperation of the government of mexico is at an all-time high. in addition to training, operational and intelligence wants, the dea and department of justice has a partnership with the government of mexico which has resulted in 250 extraditions since 2010. this includes high-ranking members from all the mexico-based cartels, such as josé antonio kostas fernandez who was sentenced after his role in 1500 murders since 2008, including the triple homicide of u.s. consulate employee and two confluent worker's family members. we share mexico's responsibility and commitment to confront these drug trafficking organizations to take away the drug money, power and freedom of leaders. the dea is also working with the government of afghanistan to counter the drug trafficking threat there. for example, just last week, a notorious afghan drug trafficker with ties to the taliban and was sentenced to life in prison. it is estimated that he supplied about 20% of the world heroin supply. the support of you ensures he will never be free. ..

Related Keywords

Vermont ,United States ,Minnesota ,Mexico City ,Distrito Federal ,Mexico ,San Diego ,California ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Connecticut ,San Francisco ,Arizona ,Cartagena ,Bolír ,Colombia ,South Carolina ,Massachusetts ,Dhaka ,Bangladesh ,Chicago ,Illinois ,New York ,Japan ,Germany ,Afghanistan ,Texas ,Missouri ,Florida ,Virginia ,Michigan ,United Kingdom ,Oklahoma ,Tennessee ,Phoenix ,Sweden ,Pennsylvania ,Ohio ,Capitol Hill ,Utah ,Mexico Bay ,Colombian ,Americans ,Mexicans ,America ,Mexican ,Swedes ,Afghan ,German ,British ,Japanese ,American ,Harriet Myers ,Christina Peterson ,Peter Barnes Fox ,Ronald Reagan ,Ben Bernanke ,Peter Barnes ,Kenneth Nelson ,Brian Terry ,Terry Petraeus Mike ,Chuck Grassley ,Bryan Terry ,Barack Corsi ,Daniel Cheong ,Ken Nelson ,Felipe Calderon ,Kenneth Nilsson ,Bobby Scott ,Brian Terrie ,Steven Colbert ,Michelle Alexander ,Jay Powell ,Ted Olson ,James Cole ,Harry Calder ,Michael Mukasey ,Tony Paulson ,Elizabeth Capshaw ,Janet Reno ,Jos Antonio Kostas Fernandez ,Marcy Gordon ,William Smith ,Jeremy Stein ,Michelle Leonhart ,Bob Holmes ,