U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–915 PDF 2012

OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS: MANAGEMENT

FAILURES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 2, 2012

Serial No. 112–103

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

http://www.house.gov/reform
(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

CONNIE MACK, Florida

TIM WALBERG, Michigan

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee

JOE WALSH, Illinois

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking

Minority Member

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

PETER WELCH, Vermont

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JACKIE SPEIER, California

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on February 2, 2012 ......................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Holder, Eric H., Jr., Attorney General of the United States ........................ 124

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 213

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, letter dated January 30, 2012 ............................................... 5

Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Arizona, prepared statement of ................................................................... 214

Holder, Eric H., Jr., Attorney General of the United States, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 128

Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the State of

California:

Discovery documents ..................................................................... 187, 191, 195

Memo dated February 1, 2012 ................................................................. 102

Speier, Hon. Jackie, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, memo dated November 16, 2007 ............................................... 183

(1)

OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS: MANAGEMENT FAILURES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:13 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Issa, Burton, Platts, McHenry, Jordan,

Chaffetz, Walberg, Lankford, Amash, Buerkle, Gosar, Labrador,

Meehan, DesJarlais, Walsh, Gowdy, Ross, Guinta, Farenthold,

Kelly, Cummings, Towns, Maloney, Norton, Kucinich, Tierney,

Clay, Lynch, Cooper, Connolly, Quigley, Davis, Welch, Yarmuth,

Murphy, and Speier.

Staff present: Ali Ahmad, communications advisor; Michael R.

Bebeau, assistant clerk; Robert Borden, general counsel; Molly

Boyl, parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady, staff director; Sharon

Casey, senior assistant clerk; Steve Castor, chief counsel, investigations; John Cuaderes, deputy staff director; Carlton Davis, Jessica

L. Donlon, and Mitchell S. Kominsky, counsels; Kate Dunbar, legislative assistant; Adam P. Fromm, director of Member services and

committee operations; Linda Good, chief clerk; Christopher Hixon,

deputy chief counsel, oversight; Henry J. Kerner, senior counsel for

investigations; Justin LoFranco, deputy director of digital strategy;

Mark D. Marin, director of oversight; Ashok M. Pinto, deputy chief

counsel, investigations; Laura L. Rush, deputy chief clerk; Rebecca

Watkins, press secretary; Jeff Wease, deputy CIO; Beverly Britton

Fraser, Peter Kenny, and Carlos Uriarte, minority counsels; Kevin

Corbin, minority deputy clerk; Ashley Etienne, minority director of

communications; Susanne Sachsman Grooms, minority chief counsel; Devon Hill, minority staff assistant; Jennifer Hoffman, minority press secretary; Carla Hultberg, minority chief clerk; Adam

Koshkin, minority staff assistant; Lucinda Lessley, minority policy

director; Scott Lindsay, minority senior counsel; and Dave Rapallo,

minority staff director.

Chairman ISSA. The committee will come to order.

The Oversight Committee’s mission statement is that we exist to

secure two fundamental principles: First, Americans have a right

to know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent;

and, second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government

that works for them.
2

Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee

is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right

to know what they get from their government. Our job is to work

tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts

to the American people and bring genuine reform to the bureaucracy.

I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

Today, we are joined by the Attorney General of the United

States over a matter that this committee has invested more than

a year in research.

In November 2009, Fast and Furious opens.

In December 2009, DEA meets with the ATF and gives them info

on Fast and Furious targets, info that could have well ended the

operation.

On January 6, 2010, Fast and Furious becomes, in fact, a joint

exercise.

On March 15, 2010, the first Federal wiretaps are issued in this

case.

On December 15, 2010, December 15, 2010, Brian Terry is murdered with weapons found at the scene that came from Fast and

Furious.

On January 27th, Senator Grassley first asked the Department

of Justice about Fast and Furious; and within days we are given

a false statement of facts, denying that guns were ever allowed to

walk. Within days of that, we began to know that Fast and Furious

was going to be difficult.

That was more or less Groundhog Day a year ago. Today is

Groundhog Day again. This committee has lost its patience to wait

longer. We will not wait until next Groundhog Day to get answers

for the American people, for Brian Terry, and for others.

On March 3, 2011, John Dodson goes public. Agent Dodson is

here today. He, too, deserves to have this nightmare of uncertainty,

of having a temporary assignment, of not being allowed to do the

job for which he has dedicated his career put behind him.

On October 11th, after months and months and months of this

committee trying to get further voluntary cooperation, we issued

subpoenas for documents. To date, we have been told two things.

First of all, they are difficult and time-consuming to give us, and

yet 10 times as many documents were provided to the Inspector

General. More than three times as many people have been able to

be interviewed by the Attorney—I’m sorry, by the IG, the Inspector

General—sorry, Mr. Attorney General—by your Inspector General.

During that period of time, whistleblowers have consistently

brought us additional information. That information allows us to

glean more than most of the documents we have received through

discovery.

The minority can say what they want and issue the opinions they

want, the memos they want. They have been absent from this, and

I am disappointed for that. This is a legitimate requirement of this

committee to get to the bottom of it and to get genuine change so

this cannot happen again—and I repeat—the genuine change, the

safeguards, the protections that were not there apparently before

so this cannot happen again.
3

Mr. Attorney General, as we go through questioning, my question

will be when is the primary investigative committee of Congress,

of the U.S. House, going to be allowed to have the same access that

your own essentially self-appointed Inspector General has?

The IG, if you will, the 12,000 people of the Inspector General’s

Office throughout the government are important, and we expect

them to be respected, and we expect them to receive information.

But the 70 men and women that work for the majority and the 30

or so that work for the minority are a very small fraction of that.

We ask very little of government by comparison to what the internal controls historically and always will ask for. Our budget is

less than 1/20th of what the Inspector General’s Office is. We are

not an agency that can ask for vast amounts of documents. We

have asked you for documents, and if you look at the totality of

government, we have asked for very little compared to the IG’s offices.

We believe—and I think the ranking member will join me in

this—that we deserve those answers in at least as timely a fashion

as your own IG gets. It is our opinion that we haven’t gotten that,

that the need for overmanaging and redacting and careful looking

by teams of lawyers have gotten in the way of the legitimate speed

with which we should get that.

We are going to ask you many things today. Hopefully, you came

prepared to know a great deal about Fast and Furious. The important things that I am going to ask today are: What can you do to

bring this to a close? What can you do before the IG completes her

investigation to allow the American people to see change that tells

them this is no longer going on and it won’t go on in the future?

Last, before I recognize the ranking member, it is this majority

at least committee’s belief that this is an operation that included

reckless behavior at ATF; failure to push harder and inform more

by DEA and the FBI; a U.S. attorney who clearly didn’t do his job

in a way that anyone should be proud of. We now have a Justice

Department official who has taken the Fifth. We have moved up

a ways, and all of those people should be ashamed that Brian Terry

is dead because they didn’t do as good a job as they should. Kenneth Melson has said that publicly and privately, that he bears a

great deal of that blame.

The point here today is we want to know how Justice will oversee every local operation, every State, every one of the various

agencies that are either under your authority or in a joint task

force become under your authority, how you will ensure for the

American people that this will not happen again, or at least the

systems are in place to give us the confidence that it is much more

unlikely to happen.

Those are the items that I come here today, asked you to come

here today for, and I appreciate your being here voluntarily to answer. It is the committee’s responsibility to ask. I hope we will get

the answers and the commitments today that we ask for.

I recognize the ranking member for his opening statement.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I

want to welcome the Attorney General today.

Mr. Chairman, when the committee started this investigation almost a year ago, you and I made pledges to the family of Agent
4

Brian Terry to find out what led to the release of hundreds of firearms to criminal networks on both sides of the border. We pledged

to follow the facts wherever they may lead and provide the public

with answers.

Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge your efforts here. Over the

past year, we devoted incredible amounts of time, money, and energy to investigating this issue. We interviewed 22 witnesses, including senior officials at the Department of Justice and ATF. We

also reviewed thousands of pages of documents, and we held four

full committee hearings on this very topic.

Because of our extensive work, we have had concrete results. The

committee has exposed a 5-year—5-year pattern of gun-walking operations run by the Phoenix division of ATF and the Arizona U.S.

Attorney’s Office. More importantly, we have put a stop to it. This

is a significant accomplishment, and I commend you for it.

In addition, we can now explain to the public how this series of

reckless operations originated and evolved over the past 5 years. I

ask unanimous consent to place into the record a report I sent to

Members earlier this week.

Chairman ISSA. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The information referred to follows:]
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

Mr. CUMMINGS. This 95-page report, called Fatally Flawed: Five

Years of Gun-Walking in Arizona, provides a detailed and comprehensive account of what we learned in our investigation. It documents how suspects in 2006 and 2007 trafficked more than 450

firearms during Operation Wide Receiver as ATF agents, who knew

they had probable cause, chose not to make arrests in order to

build bigger cases. As one field agent said at the time, ‘‘We want

it all.’’

It documents the Hernandez case in 2007 in which suspects purchased 200 firearms as ATF failed repeatedly to coordinate interdiction with Mexican officials. Despite alerting then Attorney General Mukasey about these failed operations, they continued.

It documents the Medrano case in 2008 in which ATF agents

watched in real time as suspects who were part of a trafficking

ring that bought more than 100 firearms packed weapons into the

back seat of a car and drove them across the border.

It documents operation Fast and Furious, during which the same

ATF Special Agent in charge of the Phoenix field division in all

three previous operations chafed against an order from the Deputy

Director of ATF to shut down the operation. As the agent stated,

‘‘I don’t like headquarters driving our cases.’’ Instead, field agents

continued to encourage gun dealers to sell firearms to suspects for

months.

There are several things that our investigation did not find. We

found no evidence that agents or prosecutors in Arizona acted in

bad faith. They sincerely wanted to put away gun traffickers and

higher-level targets. In pursuit of that goal, however, they lost

sight of predictable collateral damage of letting guns walk.

In addition, contrary to many unsubstantiated allegations, the

committee obtained no evidence indicating that the Attorney General authorized gun-walking. None of the 22 witnesses we interviewed claimed to have spoken with the Attorney General about

the tactics used in Operation Fast and Furious before this controversy broke.

Mr. Chairman, although you deserve credit for exposing these operations over the last 5 years, we part ways in what we should do

next. You now appear intent on escalating controversy and promoting unsubstantiated allegations in a campaign that looks more

like an election year witch hunt than even-handed investigation.

This is the sixth time—the sixth time the Attorney General has

testified on these issues. In contrast, you have never once called

the former head of the ATF to testify at a public hearing, even

though ATF was the agency responsible for these reckless programs. And although Attorney General Holder has answered questions repeatedly, you refuse to even interview former Attorney General Mukasey.

When I was just starting as a lawyer some 30-some years ago,

the senior partner in the law firm said to me, young man, you have

to take the facts as you find them. You cannot manufacture them.

Now that we have the facts, I hope that we can put aside the

politics and the rhetoric and focus on concrete reforms to ensure

that this never, ever, never, ever happens again.

With that, I yield back.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.
101

Now I ask unanimous consent that the majority memo and related materials be entered in the record.

Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124

Chairman ISSA. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes—oh,

I am sorry. I am a little off on that. To be honest, I just thought

I would respond to a few of your things, but that will wait.

Mr. Attorney General, we are pleased to have you here. As the

highest-ranking law official in the land, we appreciate your commitment to the time, both here and in the Senate, that you have

given.

Contrary to the ranking member, I believe that today will be one

of the first times in which you are fully briefed and prepared to answer in detail questions exclusively about Fast and Furious; and I

would caution both sides of the aisle to stick to the subject. We are

not—and I repeat—we are not the Judiciary Committee. The Attorney General is not here to answer a plethora of questions we may

have about the conduct of his office. He is not here to generally tell

us about law enforcement. I will assert the gavel if someone goes

on a broad expedition beyond Fast and Furious and, as the ranking

member said, related activities, including Wide Receiver and others. I think respect for the Attorney General’s time and the legitimate portion of the jurisdiction that our committee has taken requires that I ask all of you to please stick to that, particularly since

the Attorney General’s time is valuable.

Mr. Attorney General, pursuant to the rules of the committee, I

would ask that you rise and take the oath.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman ISSA. Let the record represent an affirmative answer.

Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.

In order to allow time for discussion, the committee, like all committees, will tell you to stay within 5 minutes. I in fact have no

intention on picking up the gavel as long as you present what you

have here today.

I would ask that to the greatest extent possible that you realize

that your opening statement in its written form is completely in

the record and that you certainly have our permission to include

material not in the record in order to further delineate your prepared testimony today.

With that, Mr. Attorney General, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF THE UNITED STATES

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you.

I am here today because I understand and appreciate the importance of congressional oversight and because I am committed to ensuring the highest standards of integrity and professionalism at the

U.S. Department of Justice. That is precisely what I pledged to do

exactly 3 years ago tomorrow when I was sworn in as Attorney

General, and it is exactly what I have done over the last 3 years.

My dedication to the Department’s mission is shared by an extraordinary group of colleagues, over 117,000 employees, who each

day in offices all around the world work tirelessly to protect the

American people from a range of urgent and unprecedented

threats—from global terrorism and financial fraud, violent crime,

human trafficking, civil rights abuses, and more.

Over the last 3 years, we have made a number of significant improvements, including policy and personnel changes that address
125

many of the concerns that are the subject of this hearing today.

Today, I would like to discuss some of these improvements in specific terms and outline the steps that we have taken to ensure that

the flawed tactics in Operation Fast and Furious and in earlier operations under the prior administration are never used again.

Now, in some of my comments today, if they sound familiar, it

is because this marks the sixth time that I have answered questions about this operation before a congressional committee in the

last year. Let me start, however, with something that cannot be

said enough: Allowing guns to ‘‘walk’’, whether in this administration or the prior one, is wholly unacceptable. I have been consistent

on this. I have said this from day one. The tactic of not interdicting

weapons, despite having the ability and legal authority to do so,

appears to have been adopted in a misguided effort to stem the

alarming number of illegal firearms that are trafficked each year

from the United States to Mexico. Now, to be sure, stopping this

dangerous flow of weapons is a laudable and critical goal, but attempting to achieve it by using such inappropriate tactics is neither acceptable nor excusable.

That is why, when I learned early last year about the allegations

raised by ATF agents involved with Fast and Furious, I took action. In addition to requesting an Inspector General investigation

last February, I ordered that a directive be sent prohibiting the use

of such tactics. There have also been important personnel changes

in the Department, and vital reforms reflecting the lessons that we

have learned from Operation Fast and Furious have been implemented.

Today, I want to reaffirm my commitment to ensuring that these

flawed tactics are never used again, and I reiterate my willingness

to work with Congress generally and with this committee more specifically to address the public safety and national security crisis

along our Southwest border that has taken far too many lives.

Congress has legitimately sought answers to questions about law

enforcement Operations Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious, and

my colleagues and at the Department of Justice have worked diligently to provide those answers. In addition to my frequent testimony before Congress, I have answered and am continuing to answer questions that have been submitted for the record during previous hearings. The Department has also responded to more than

three dozen letters from Members of Congress and facilitated numerous witness interviews. We have also submitted or made available for review some 6,400 pages of documents to congressional investigators. This has been a significant undertaking for Justice Department employees, and our efforts in this regard remain ongoing.

We have also provided Congress with virtually unprecedented access to internal deliberative documents to show how inaccurate information was initially conveyed in a letter sent to Senator Grassley on February 4, 2011. These documents show that Department

officials relied on information provided by supervisors from the relevant components in the best position to know the facts. We now

know that some of the information that they provided was, in fact,

inaccurate. We also understand that in subsequent interviews with

congressional investigators these supervisors stated that they did
126

not know at the time that the information that they provided was

inaccurate.

In producing internal communications regarding the drafting of

the February 4th letter, the Department made a rare, limited exception to longstanding executive branch policy. This decision reflected unusual circumstances and allowed us to respond, in the

most comprehensive way possible, to congressional concerns where

the Department itself concluded that information in the letter was

inaccurate. The documents we produced have answered the question of how that letter came to be drafted and put to rest questions

of any intentional effort to mislead. All of our communications to

Congress should be accurate, and that is the standard that I expect

the Department to meet. At my direction, the Deputy Attorney

General has instituted new procedures to increase safeguards in

this area.

As I testified in a previous hearing, the Department does not intend to produce additional deliberative materials—I want to emphasize deliberative materials—about the response to congressional

oversight or media requests that post-date the commencement of

congressional review. This decision is consistent with the longstanding approach taken by the Department, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, and reflects concerns for the

constitutionally protected separation of powers.

Prior administrations have recognized that robust internal communications would be chilled and the executive branch’s ability to

respond to oversight requests thereby impeded if our internal communications concerning our responses to congressional oversight

were disclosed to Congress. For both branches, this would be an

undesirable outcome. The appropriate functioning of the separation

of powers requires that executive branch officials have the ability

to communicate confidentially as they discuss how to respond to inquiries from Congress.

Now, I want to note that the separation of powers concerns are

particularly acute here, because the committee has sought information about open criminal investigations and prosecutions. This has

required Department officials to confer on how to accommodate

congressional oversight interests while also ensuring that critical

ongoing law enforcement decisionmaking is never compromised and

is free from even the appearance of political influence. Such candid

internal deliberations are necessary to preserve the independence,

the integrity, and the effectiveness of the Department’s law enforcement activities and would be chilled by disclosure of such materials. Just as we have worked to accommodate the committee’s legitimate oversight needs, I trust that the committee will equally

recognize the executive branch’s constitutional interests and will

work with us to avoid further conflict on this matter.

I know the committee is also keenly interested in the policy

changes that the Department has undertaken in the wake of Operation Fast and Furious. The ATF, which is now under the leadership of Acting Director Todd Jones, has implemented a number of

key reforms and critical oversight procedures to prevent such a

flawed operation from occurring again. These reforms are numerous and include a number of things.
127

I am also pleased to report that, under the leadership of the Department’s Criminal Division, we have bolstered crime-fighting capacity on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border; and we have done

this by doing a number of important things as well.

This is an important start, but we have to do a lot more. And

no one knows this better than the members of our Nation’s law enforcement community, including—and I want to emphasize this—

including the ATF agents who testified before this committee last

summer. Not only did these brave agents bring the inappropriate

and misguided tactics of Operation Fast and Furious to light, they

also sounded the alarm for more effective laws to combat gun trafficking and to improve public safety.

These courageous agents explained that ATF’s ability to stem the

flow of guns from the United States into Mexico suffers from a lack

of effective enforcement tools. Unfortunately, in 2011, a majority of

House Members, including all the members of the majority on this

committee, voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase multiple semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and long

guns—like AK–47s—in gun shops along our Southwest border

states.

In this new year, I hope that we can work together to provide

law enforcement agents with the tools that they say they desperately need and that they have requested to protect our citizens

and to ensure their own safety. Indeed, incidents of violence

against law enforcement officers are approaching the highest level

that we have seen in nearly two decades, even though violent crime

is down overall.

That is simply unacceptable, and the Justice Department is committed to turning back this rising tide and to protecting those who

serve on the front lines. We have designed and implemented a comprehensive new training initiative to provide law enforcement leaders with the information, analysis, and tools they need to respond

to a range of threats.

Let me be clear: Nothing is more important than ensuring the

safety of the brave law enforcement professionals who put their

lives at risk for us each and every day, but we can’t make the

progress we need and that the law enforcement partners deserve

without your assistance and without your leadership.

As I said before, I am determined to ensure that our shared concerns about these flawed law enforcement operations lead to more

than worn-out Washington ‘‘gotcha’’ games and cynical finger pointing. The Department of Justice stands ready to work with you not

only to correct the mistakes of the past but also to strengthen our

law enforcement capacity in the future.

Thank you.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

[The prepared statement of Attorney General Holder follows:]
128
129
130
131
132

Chairman ISSA. Before I begin my questioning, Mr. Attorney

General, would you agree to release to us legal opinions on the constitutionality of the material that you have thus far refused to supply the committee?

Attorney General HOLDER. To the extent that there are legal

opinions, I will look at them; and to the extent that they can be

provided, I have no objection to that. I don’t know if these are OLC

opinions that OLC would have an objection to providing. But to the

extent that I can, I will make those available to you.

Chairman ISSA. Okay.

I will begin my questioning I guess by following up.

Mr. Attorney General, you have—the executive branch has executive privilege. It is narrow. It is well defined. There is case law.

If you do not find a legitimate basis to deny us the material we

have asked for, we will seek the remedies necessary to compel.

Having said that, I appreciate your being here today; and I don’t

want to waste any of your or my time on this at this point.

Let’s go through a couple of items here.

First of all, it is reported through discovery that we have received that Mr. Monty Wilkinson may have informed you of Agent

Terry’s murder in a timely fashion. Is that true?

Attorney General HOLDER. He may have. I know the murder occurred December 14th. I heard about it I think probably within 24

hours. I don’t know if it came from Monty Wilkinson or from some

other member of my staff, but I knew about the murder within 24

hours of its occurrence.

Chairman ISSA. When you were informed about that within 24

hours, did anyone inform you or allude to the fact that the weapons

found at the scene were from Fast and Furious?

Attorney General HOLDER. No. I didn’t know about Operation

Fast and Furious until the beginning parts of 2011 after I received

that letter from Senator Grassley I guess at the end of January,

and then that was about Operation Gunrunner. I actually learned

about the Fast and Furious operation in February of that year.

Chairman ISSA. Would you make available to us through whatever records you can find the name of the person who informed you

so that we can ascertain why that individual would not or did not

tell you what was widely known almost immediately, that in fact

law enforcement allowed weapons walked—basically, that these

were Fast and Furious weapons? The emails that we have received

through whistleblowers show us extensively that law enforcement

was aware and concerned about it. We would like to know why

someone kept that from you.

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure that anybody kept it

from me. I mean, I found out about it, as I said, I think in January-February 2011, and I am not even sure how I found out about

it. It might have been either through a letter I received from Senator Grassley on February 9th—I am not sure if it was contained

in there. There were certainly media reports about it in February.

Again, I am not sure exactly how I found out about the term ‘‘Fast

and Furious.’’

Chairman ISSA. Would it be fair from your own knowledge to say

that neither Lanny Breuer as head of the Criminal Division nor
133

Jason Weinstein did anything to stop the program after they

learned of what it was about?

Attorney General HOLDER. Stop the program——

Chairman ISSA. Fast and Furious, prior to Brian Terry’s death.

Attorney General HOLDER. I mean, they both admitted that they

were aware of Operation Wide Receiver and never connected the

techniques that were used in Wide Receiver to Operation Fast and

Furious and, as a result, did not take any action in that regard;

and both have admitted that that was a mistake.

Chairman ISSA. Let’s go through this. I think in my limited time

I want to make sure that we do deal with Wide Receiver versus

Fast and Furious.

As of today, do your law enforcement authorities such as the

ATF have the ability to see a straw purchase—believed straw purchase—and, rather than arrest them at the door with no evidence,

follow them to the next location?

Attorney General HOLDER. See them——

Chairman ISSA. In other words, does law enforcement have the

ability to follow suspected gun traffickers with the weapons in their

car from location to location?

Attorney General HOLDER. And keep them under constant surveillance?

Chairman ISSA. Yes.

Attorney General HOLDER. They certainly have that capacity.

Chairman ISSA. Okay. So as far as we have been reported, every

piece of evidence shows that in Wide Receiver every effort was

made, unsuccessfully in many cases, which is one of the things that

concerns us, to follow the weapons. To your knowledge, was there

ever an order under Wide Receiver to abandon following the weapons and let them walk?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I would say, you know, during

the early—as I have seen more on Wide Receiver as we have provided materials——

Chairman ISSA. A yes or no would be a good start, Mr. Attorney

General. Do you know of any time in which people were ordered

to peel off and let the guns walk under Wide Receiver?

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure about whether they

were ordered to or not, but I do know that in the early phases of

the investigation observations were made of people buying guns

and decisions made not to surveil them after those purchases were

made. And, as a result, 100, 400—I am not sure exactly what the

number is—of guns walked; and there were complaints raised by

people connected to the investigation about the fact that guns were

walking in Operation Wide Receiver.

Chairman ISSA. Since it was never allowed to simply let known

straw buyers, known guns fall into illicit criminals’ hands, have

you taken any action to fire anyone or discipline anyone from Operation Wide Receiver?

Attorney General HOLDER. Operation Wide Receiver occurred in

the prior administration. I don’t think that——

Chairman ISSA. We are not talking about political appointees.

We were talking about people who would transcend the transition.

Have you, to your knowledge, disciplined anyone from Wide Receiver?
134

Attorney General HOLDER. No, I have not.

Chairman ISSA. Have you disciplined anyone from Fast and Furious?

Attorney General HOLDER. No, I have not, as yet. As yet. There

have been personnel changes made at ATF. We obviously have a

new U.S. attorney in Arizona. We have made personnel switches at

ATF. People have been moved out of positions.

I am certainly going to wait and see what I get from the Inspector General, the report that we have from the majority. I don’t

know if the minority is going to produce—from the minority. I don’t

know if the majority is going to produce a report. And I will be taking all that into consideration, in addition to all these things I am

able to find out on my own, and make personnel changes as I think

they are appropriate.

Chairman ISSA. My time has expired. I will say that I don’t think

the minority report is going to do you a whole lot of good since it

seems to say more or less nothing happened.

With that, I recognize the author of the minority report, Mr.

Cummings, for his round of questions.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I respectfully disagree with what you just said. Our staff worked very

hard on that report. And, by the way, it is based upon the evidence

that the majority presented, that the majority presented. You all

heard the same evidence that we heard, and we basically looked at

the facts and presented them.

Mr. Attorney General, I want to thank you again; and I am sorry

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made completely

unsubstantiated allegations against dedicated and hardworking

FBI agents, DEA, officials and others. And I want to thank all of

them for what they do every day to protect the American public.

I face a real challenge today. I have to ignore the political sideshow and keep my focus on the very real problems that led to these

flawed operations.

As our report explains, we have no evidence that you approved

gun-walking. We have no evidence that you knew about it. The

same can probably be said of former Attorney General Mukasey. I

assume that if either of you actually heard that gun-walking was

taking place, you would have put a stop to it.

As I review this report from my staff, however, I get a little bit

upset. First I get upset that this happened. Hundreds of weapons

went to criminal networks on both sides of the border because

agents did not arrest suspects when they could have.

I also get upset that this went on for so long. We identified four

different operations in Phoenix over 5 years across two administrations involving hundreds of weapons, and these weapons put law

enforcement agents in danger.

In your written statement you noted that 177 officers lost their

lives in the line of duty last year, and 70 of those deaths involved

firearms. As the country’s chief law enforcement officer, what is

your reaction to the fact that these operations continued for so

long?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, it bothers me a great deal when

one sees the death toll that we have seen in Mexico, 40–50,000 people have been killed over the last 5 years, 64,000 guns traced from
135

the United States into Mexico, and that is traced, which means

there are probably substantially greater numbers of guns that have

gone from the United States into Mexico. And the concern I have

is that with these guns going into Mexico and cartel activities that

reach into the United States that at some point these guns will be

trained on law enforcement officers.

Though we have seen an historic drop in the crime rate to 40-

and 50-year lows, we have seen a rise over the last 2 years in the

number of police officers, Federal enforcement agents, who have

been killed. I have been to far too many funerals, I have had to

write far too many letters, talk to far too many widows about the

death of brave people who have died in service to their country,

and we have to do something about it. We have to.

Mr. CUMMINGS. The ATF Deputy Director William Hoover, an experienced career ATF officer, became concerned in 2010 about the

number of weapons involved in Fast and Furious. He told us he did

not know about gun-walking, but he ordered an exit strategy based

on his overall concerns. He told the Phoenix office to end this operation within 90 days and bring indictments, but they didn’t do it.

They did not like ATF headquarters running their cases, and they

continued for months to encourage gun dealers to sell to straw purchasers without arrest.

During his interview, Mr. Hoover also told us that he never told

anyone at the Department of Justice about his general concerns

with the operation or his order for an exit strategy, and our interviews with Justice Department officials confirm that.

So I have two questions. I understand that field agents don’t like

bureaucrats in Washington looking over their shoulder, but how

can a field office effectively ignore the directives of ATF headquarters in this way? And, second, what specific reforms are now

in place or should we consider to ensure better coordination and

oversight?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, there is a tension between the

field and headquarters. I have been in the field, I have been in

headquarters, and depending on where I sit, I think greater wisdom exists in that place. We have to come up with ways in which

we make clear what the policies are.

After I heard about gun-walking—I don’t know about Attorney

General Mukasey, but after I heard about gun-walking, I was very

firm. I had a directive sent out by the Deputy Attorney General to

the field that indicated that those kind of techniques were simply

unacceptable, were not to be used by the Department of Justice.

Now, Todd Jones, the Acting Director at ATF, has instituted a

number of reforms. I want to say that the report that you have put

out contains at the back a number of suggestions with regard to

reforms, and I think—I don’t remember what the number is, but

a substantial number of those have been instituted by Todd, among

them coming up with ways in which we ensure that the trafficking

of guns, the gun-walking, does not occur, that more levels of review

have to occur.

I think also significant, given the fact that Agent Dodson is here,

is that we have to have ways in which at ATF people who have

concerns about ATF operations have a greater ability, don’t have

any concerns for their careers about surfacing things within ATF,
136

so that the leadership at ATF and ultimately back at headquarters

can take the necessary corrective actions. But I would salute the

minority report for the management changes and policy changes

that are included in that report.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time

is up.

Chairman ISSA. Thank you.

We now go to the former chairman of the full committee, Mr.

Burton, for 5 minutes.

Mr. BURTON. Nice seeing you again.

Attorney General HOLDER. It has been a while.

Mr. BURTON. Yes, it sure has.

You know, it is very interesting, Mr. Attorney General, for 6

years I remember when you were with Janet Reno and the Deputy

Attorney General, and we fought to get documents, and we had a

difficult time. You have said here today that there are certain documents that you will not give us because of the separation of powers. Now, we have been down that road before and we got them,

but we had to threaten that we would have a contempt citation in

Congress. This is not just during the Reno administration but during Gonzales as well. And we got the documents. So I think you

are hiding behind something here that will not stand up. So you

ought to give us the documents.

Now, we received 6,000 documents with redactions. And I know

that is an old school policy, you know. Send them up here and cross

out everything of relevance and let us try to figure out what it is.

And you dump them on us on Friday night so that the staff here

can’t do anything with them unless they stay over the weekend and

work 10, 12, 14 hours. I have been down that road, too.

Now, there are 93,000 documents—93,000 documents that you

are not giving this committee; and you are saying, well, the separation of powers prohibits you from doing that. That is baloney. That

is just baloney. And I have worked with you for 6 years—well, I

wouldn’t say ‘‘with’’ you. I have worked for 6 years when you were

the Deputy Attorney General.

So why don’t you give us those documents? The conclusion that

I come to is there are some things in there that are being hidden

that you don’t want us to see. I don’t know if it involves you or

some other ATF agents or some other members of the Justice Department. But this committee is the Oversight Committee, and we

have every right under the Constitution to check on what you are

doing. We are supposed to oversee the executive branch, and you

are part of that branch.

So for you to deny this committee anything like that is just dead

wrong, and I don’t think you are going to find any way that you

can do it, and I would urge the chairman to move a contempt citation against you if you don’t give them to us.

Now, let me just ask you a couple of questions.

Why won’t you let Patrick Cunningham, the head of the Criminal

Division in Phoenix, and Emory Hurley, a line prosecutor, why

won’t you let them come and talk to the committee? If you can’t

let them do it publicly, you ought to let them do it in a private setting. Why won’t you let them do that?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, a couple of things.
137

Just for the record, I was only a Deputy Attorney General for 4

years. It seemed like 6.

Mr. BURTON. Okay. Well, 4 years. It seemed like longer than that

for me.

Attorney General HOLDER. All right, longer than 6 for me as well

then.

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON. I would be happy to yield.

Chairman ISSA. Since Mr. Cunningham has now taken the Fifth,

I would say none of us have that direct authority.

But to add to the gentleman’s question, would you make all testimony and information on Mr. Cunningham immediately available

to us unredacted so we may evaluate to a great extent what you

know about why he took the Fifth?

Go ahead. I yield back.

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, in terms of making available—

I am not sure where you get the number of 93,000 documents.

Those redactions that have occurred are only because there are

things that are either not relevant or are protected by grand jury

secrecy rules, court orders that have sealed material. We have provided to this committee material that is relevant and only redacted

that which is necessary, and there is a key that tells you why

something was redacted.

With regard to the two people you have talked about, Hurley—

Mr. Hurley is a line prosecutor, and we never make line prosecutors available. That is every Attorney General that I know has followed that policy. Mr. Cunningham no longer works in the Justice

Department, and so I don’t have the ability to compel him to testify. He left the Justice Department I think this past Monday or

last Friday.

Mr. BURTON. You asked him to leave, I guess, didn’t you?

Attorney General HOLDER. No.

Mr. BURTON. You didn’t?

Attorney General HOLDER. No.

Mr. BURTON. He left on his own after he took the Fifth Amendment?

Attorney General HOLDER. He had planned to leave well before

he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege to take a job in private

practice—or at a company.

Mr. BURTON. As I understand it, the IG has 80,000 documents,

and you have given us 6,000. So whether we are talking about 93

documents or 80,000, this committee has asked for those and has

not gotten them, and it appears as though we are being

stonewalled and there is something that is being hidden.

Let me ask you another question: Have you apologized personally

to the whistleblowers who were in effect called liars by those within your own agency, when we now know they were telling the truth

and we wouldn’t know any of this today if they hadn’t come forward? I am talking about people like John Dodson, who is here

today, and Peter Forcelli. Have you apologized to them personally?

Attorney General HOLDER. I have not apologized to them.

I spoke to Mr. Dodson, Agent Dodson, at the beginning of the

hearing when the chairman was kind enough to bring him by. I
138

gave him my telephone number and told him to give me a call if

he wants to talk about the way——

Mr. BURTON. Give you a call?

Attorney General HOLDER. Give me a call.

Mr. BURTON. Why don’t you call him and apologize? Because you

are the Attorney General of the United States, and you are in

charge of these people, and they were in effect called liars, and

they were telling the truth. And I think, as the head of that agency, it should be your responsibility to say hey, guys, I am sorry that

you were called liars when you did tell the truth.

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not aware of them being called

liars.

But, beyond that, what we have tried to do is treat them with

respect. I don’t think any adverse action has been taken against

any of the people who came here and testified before this committee.

To the extent that there are concerns that Mr. Dodson has, I will

be more than glad to talk to him about them. I will note, however,

that he has had a meeting with the Acting Director of ATF and I

think he has expressed whatever his thoughts were, at least at

that time. If that has not been sufficient, as I said, I am more than

glad to have a conversation with him.

Mr. BURTON. I wish you would call him.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Did you want to answer on the Cunningham question of materials in your possession now that he has left under this cloud?

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. I wouldn’t say it was ‘‘under a

cloud’’. But, anyway——

Chairman ISSA. Taking the Fifth is not a cloud?

Attorney General HOLDER. I don’t know why he took the Fifth.

There are a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that apparently there was a report issued by this committee or a statement by this committee that he had acted inappropriately. I don’t

know why he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege. That is certainly his right as an American citizen.

We have provided already 153 documents with regard to Mr.

Cunningham that entails about 387 pages of material. We will continue to look at that material; and to the extent there is information that is relevant, we will provide it to the committee.

Chairman ISSA. I thank you.

We now recognize the other former chairman of the committee,

Mr. Towns, for 5 minutes.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

This committee has not obtained one shred of evidence that

would contradict your testimony, Mr. Attorney General, not one

witness, not one document, not one email; and still some continue

to suggest that you did personally authorize gun-walking and the

tactics in Operation Fast and Furious. I hope this will be the last

time you have to answer this question: Did you, Mr. Attorney General, ever authorize gun-walking?

Attorney General HOLDER. I did not, and I will say it that way.

I am from New York, and I would say it in a different way, but
139

I am going to have great respect for this committee and simply say

I did not.

Mr. TOWNS. I am from New York, so I would understand your

answer. And, of course, my colleague next to me would, also.

Did you ever authorize the controversial tactics employed in Operation Fast and Furious, the non-interdiction of illegal firearms,

in order to build a bigger case?

Attorney General HOLDER. Not only did I not authorize those tactics, when I found out about them I told the field and everybody

in the U.S. Department of Justice that those tactics had to stop,

that they were not acceptable, and that gun-walking was to stop.

That was what my reaction to my finding out about the use of that

technique was.

Mr. TOWNS. To your knowledge, did Deputy Attorney General

Gary Grindler or Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer ever

authorize gun-walking or the tactics employed in Fast and Furious?

Attorney General HOLDER. To my knowledge, they did not.

Mr. TOWNS. Let me ask this: If you had been asked to approve

of gun-walking, what would you have done or said?

Attorney General HOLDER. No. Simple.

You know, there are questions that you have in public corruption

cases when you are trying to decide are you going to let the money

walk. There are questions that you have in narcotics cases if you

are going to let the drugs walk so that you can make a case. You

have spirited conversations about that, and I can understand how

there will be differing opinions.

The notion that you would let guns walk in a firearms case is

for me absurd, absurd, and it was the reason why I said it cannot

happen. While we stopped it, it is not DOJ policy, and anybody who

does it now is breaking a direct directive from the Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. TOWNS. So if you had been asked or told by ATF or the U.S.

Attorney’s Office about the tactics in Operation Fast and Furious,

how would you have acted or responded?

Attorney General HOLDER. In the same way that I did I think

in early March 2011, by telling everybody in the Justice Department, don’t do this. It is unacceptable, it is stupid, it is dangerous,

and not something that this Department of Justice can ever do.

Mr. TOWNS. You know, I want to thank you for coming up and,

of course, thank you for your testimony. I think it is pretty clear

that the attempts to tarnish your reputation with these unsubstantiated allegations is pure politics and this definitely has a political

flavor, and that is unfortunate.

So, on that note, I will yield back.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

We now go to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. McHenry,

for 5 minutes.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Attorney General Holder, for being here.

Listening to the answer you had from the former chairman, it

seems to me when you see that folks did not follow policy, did not

follow your directives, and we are here 13 months after you found

out that an agent was murdered for policies that you did not support, and we find out you have not fired a single individual, we find
140

out that you have not rebuked any staff members—heck, you

haven’t even put a letter in people’s personnel files saying that

they on their watch acted and an agent was murdered. That is absolutely absurd from this side of the dais. So I ask you, why have

you not taken steps to make sure this doesn’t happen again?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I have taken steps. Certainly

with regard——

Mr. MCHENRY. Yes, you told people you were mad, you were

upset. That to me is silly. You have not taken action. You have not

fired anybody. You haven’t changed policy. Because it is clear you

didn’t enforce the policy before. You didn’t know—you are saying

you didn’t even know about it. So it strikes me as incompetence in

terms of management.

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I am not sure you understand

how the Justice Department works. I didn’t express the fact that

I was mad or that I thought it was silly. I issued a directive that

said that the Attorney General of the United States that says this

policy, this kind of technique, is inappropriate and should not be

followed.

We are still in the process of trying to determine, the Inspector

General is trying to determine, where this policy originated. We

know that it started probably in the ATF office in Phoenix. It was

approved by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Phoenix. Now, exactly

who the people were who actually approved the technique we are

still in the process of trying to work through.

But that is not all that I have done. I have made personnel

changes with regard to leadership positions. We have moved people

around. We have instituted a series of policies now that I think are

designed to make sure that that doesn’t happen again.

Mr. MCHENRY. So an agent was murdered, and your action is to

move people around. That seems to me to simply inconvenience

people, not to rid them of Federal employment.

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, to the extent that we find out

who precisely was involved in this or who gave that order, I can

assure you that, unless there is some truly compelling circumstance, that person, those people will be removed from Federal

service.

But that is not all we have done with regard to the murder. We

are in the process of investigating that murder, and the people who

are responsible for it will be held accountable, and I expect that

you will hear something about that relatively soon.

Mr. MCHENRY. Relatively soon. Thirteen months later.

Attorney General HOLDER. No. Well, these matters——

Mr. MCHENRY. It is 13 months after the fact, sir. That is what

I am saying. At what point are you going to take action?

Attorney General HOLDER. As soon as we are in a position to

make arrests and hold people accountable, put them in a court of

law and try them with maximum charges. These are not cases——

Mr. MCHENRY. Is that likely this year?

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that is likely this year.

Mr. MCHENRY. Is it likely in the next 6 months?

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I think it is likely in the next 6

months.

Mr. MCHENRY. Could you see this happening this quarter?
141

Attorney General HOLDER. When does this quarter end? I don’t

know.

Chairman ISSA. March 31st.

Attorney General HOLDER. It is possible.

Mr. MCHENRY. It is possible. Okay, 13 months later we have the

possibility of somebody actually being punished for an agent being

killed. This is absolutely absurd.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time.

Attorney General HOLDER. No, it is not absurd. It takes time to

build a case that you are going to be able to take before a jury with

a high standard of proof, convict somebody, hold them accountable.

You don’t want to go into court and put yourself on a time limit

and at 3 months say let’s take whatever we have and get into court

and, because some critics are going to say we are not acting fast

enough, end up losing the case and then the people who are responsible for this heinous act are not held accountable.

We go into court when we think we have cases that are ready

to go. I am not putting any pressure on people in that regard, other

than to do it as quickly as they can but to do it as thoroughly as

we can so that we bring the best possible case that we can.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Quickly following up—no, it isn’t—Mr. Lanny Breuer is not going

to be criminally indicted or anything else, but when Mr. McHenry

was asking about holding people accountable, he was really asking

about people that work for you. Now, is your management style a

hands-off or is it a hands-on? Do you want to know what is going

on or do you want others to handle it and brief you at relatively

high level?

Attorney General HOLDER. I think I have a hands-on style.

Chairman ISSA. If you have a hands-on style, have you read any

of or been fully briefed on any of the wiretaps, including the March

10th wiretap in this case?

Attorney General HOLDER. These wiretaps are very voluminous,

read well kind of things. I have not read them.

Chairman ISSA. Okay. Kenneth Melson told us—and this has

been publicly reported—that in fact he was sick to his stomach

when he discovered it. This was approved by Lanny Breuer’s office.

Indications are that your chief deputy knew about this. I mean, it

comes through Criminal Division at some point.

The question is, will you or isn’t it appropriate that you know

about these wiretaps so that you could know what former ATF, acting ATF Director knew, which was these wiretaps are reasonably

believed to be sufficient in what they disclosed, that many parts of

this operation should have stopped, should have stopped sooner,

and that people were saying that at DEA and other places, and

that the Office of Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer’s division, if you

will, knew or should have known that?

That is the kind of thing Mr. McHenry was asking about, is holding people accountable, whether they are career professionals or political appointees. Are you prepared to do any of that prior to the

Attorney General’s final report? Because you haven’t done any so

far, as far as we can tell.

Attorney General HOLDER. I think you mean the Inspector General’s report.
142

Chairman ISSA. I am sorry, the Inspector General’s. I am sorry,

Mr. General. I keep confusing the two generals.

But, yes, I very much note your Inspector General’s report, which

seems to be the reason for the delay in executing on disciplinary

actions.

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I mean, you have packed a lot

into that question.

I think, first off, there is no indication that Mr. Breuer or my

former deputy were aware of the tactics that were employed in this

matter until everybody I think became aware of them, which is like

January-February of last year. The information—I am not at this

point aware that any of those tactics were contained in any of the

wiretap applications.

I will say this: To the extent that those wiretap applications have

been shared, that is in direct violation of court orders, and if I

find—if I find that somebody in the U.S. Department of Justice has

shared the contents of a wiretap application, that will be something

that will have to be looked at.

There is a wide variety of things, information that we can share,

but I am not going to go against sealing orders by a court with regard to a wiretap application, and anybody who leaks that material

or submits that material for people to examine does so at their

peril.

Chairman ISSA. I appreciate that. For the record, Members of

Congress are not covered by that prohibition. Members of Congress

are not in any way under that order. In fact, if we receive the information from whistleblowers, just like the press, it is in fact legitimate for us to know it and to act on it in our investigation. We are

not covered by that Federal Court order.

Your law enforcement people related—before I yield, did you

want to respond after you got a note on that?

Attorney General HOLDER. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman,

I think that direction that you just said about the media and Congress and court orders is really incorrect, and I think you act at

your peril if you think that is the truth.

Chairman ISSA. Well, certainly we would say that the release of

information from our testimony of Kenneth Melson that appears to

have been leaked to your people also would be inappropriate, but

we will get to that at another time.

With that, we recognize the gentlelady from New York for 5 minutes, Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. I would like to respond to my good

friend and colleague, Mr. McHenry’s statement that the AG had

not responded to Agent Terry’s death. He responded immediately,

and has expressed his concern for the other agents that are being

killed at a higher rate than ever in our history.

Mr. MCHENRY. If the gentlelady will yield.

Mrs. MALONEY. No, I will not yield. I will not yield.

And not only did he do that, he immediately took swift action to

stop gun walking, which did not happen in the prior administration, and established reforms to prevent this type of flawed operation from ever happening again. He further called for—and we

could all help him do this, particularly the Republican majority—

to confirm a permanent ATF director. That would help more than
143

anything. He also called for a Federal firearms trafficking statute.

He called for appropriate funding, for the ATF to do its job and increase penalties for straw purchasing. So these are some of the concrete actions that he has taken in response to that tragic death.

And once again today, this investigation continues on its vast

and curious mission to fix the symptoms rather than the cause of

so much deadly gun violence on the southern border. And this committee has unfortunately refused time and again to examine the serious underlying problem that so heavily contributed to a series of

ill-conceived, fatally flawed programs, such as Fast and Furious.

And as this committee well knows, and everyone should know in

America, Fast and Furious was not the first, but the fourth investigation to use gun walking as a tactic to go after bigger fish. And

the gun walking strategy dates back to 2006, the prior administration. And just to underscore how vast and curious this investigation is, let’s review that——

Is this the sixth occasion, Mr. Attorney General, that you have

been before Congress on this issue?

Attorney General HOLDER. It’s the sixth time I have testified

about Fast and Furious.

Mrs. MALONEY. This is the sixth time he has testified on Fast

and Furious. And he handed out a list of what his responsibilities

are, which I would like him to be able to do. And I want to add

to that one that I’m grateful for, and that is implementing the 9/

11 health and compensation bill, on which your whole unit is doing

such a brilliant job. Thank you so much. We appreciate it.

Also, over 6,400 papers and ongoing IG review, all of this is taking place. But in your testimony today, I appreciated your tribute

to the courageous agents that work in the ATF. And you spoke

about the whistleblowers and how courageous they are. And I

wanted to point out the testimony of Special Agent Peter Forcelli,

who called the current laws against gun trafficking ‘‘absolutely

toothless.’’ And he went on to testify that there was no enforcement

and he went on and said all kinds of things.

Do you agree that there’s no enforcement, that law enforcement

really doesn’t have the tools to do the job to crack down on gun

trafficking?

Attorney General HOLDER. I really agree with Agent Forcelli. I

mean, there’s really a need, I believe, for a Federal firearms trafficking statute. We need increased penalties for straw purchasers

who engage in that kind of inappropriate activity. And I think that

we would like to work with Congress so that we can put in place

these measures that will ultimately help ATF and the Federal Government be more effective in the fight that we all say we want to

have, which is to stop the flow of guns into Mexico.

Mrs. MALONEY. After that hearing with Special Agent Forcelli, I

worked with Ranking Member Cummings and also with Congressman Towns and Congresswoman Norton, and we drafted a bill

which is to crack down on illegal trafficking conduct, not law-abiding gun owners, but would go after those illegal activities. And we

should get busy working on helping to give them the tools. We

know that we do things that are far more helpful than going on a

politically motivated fishing trip, which I feel this is what we are

doing today. And the real agenda of this investigation does not aid
144

or honor those who risk their lives every day, working to keep

Americans safe from gun violence.

And I must say that this is getting out of hand. The AG’s testimony that over 60,000 guns, I believe you said, have been traced

in Mexico that are directly tied to having been gotten there from

America. And I must say that one chilling example was an ad that

al Qaeda put on their Web site saying, Go to America. Get guns.

It’s so easy to do. Get guns for your illegal activities.

So I want to congratulate you for your vision and mission of

wanting to give law enforcement the tools to get the job done, to

have a Federal statute banning gun trafficking with increased penalties.

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentlelady yield?

Mrs. MALONEY. Yes. I most certainly will.

Chairman ISSA. I join with you in believing that Andrew Traver

who, I believe, is the November 2010 designate should in fact be

given an up-or-down vote, should, in fact, be given an opportunity

to be confirmed. I would note that he wasn’t put up. No one was

put up for the first 2 years of the Obama administration. And it’s

sad that they didn’t have somebody in the queue earlier.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mrs. MALONEY. I want to thank the chairman for supporting the

confirmation, and you certainly can help us make that happen.

Chairman ISSA. We’ll do what we can.

Mrs. MALONEY. I appreciate that.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentlelady.

I now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, for 5

minutes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for being here. I had an opportunity on the Judiciary

Committee to ask you questions on December 8, 2011. I had asked

you if you had spoken to President Obama, Secretary Clinton, or

Secretary Napolitano. You said that you had not spoken to either

of those three about Fast and Furious. Is that still true today?

Attorney General HOLDER. With regard to Secretary Napolitano,

yes. Secretary Clinton, yes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I’m sorry. Secretary Clinton, you have spoken

with her about Fast and Furious?

Attorney General HOLDER. No. Well, I should say no. Secretary

Napolitano, no. Secretary Clinton, no. And I’ve had passing conversations with the President just about the fact of my testifying

in connection with Fast and Furious.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. On Wednesday, February 16th, you issued a press

release along with Secretary Napolitano saying that you had met

together. This is on the heels of Jaime Zapata. He had just been

killed in Mexico. There were questions as to whether or not there

were ties to Fast and Furious. You say that you didn’t have any

interaction with Janet Napolitano about Fast and Furious. My

question is about Secretary Clinton. What sort of interaction did

you have with the State Department?

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m not sure at what lower levels, if

there was interaction between the Justice Department and people

at the State Department. I know that I have not interacted with

Secretary Clinton with regard to Fast and Furious.
145

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I was questioning whether or not you had actually had some interaction, or the words Fast and Furious came up.

You had some interaction. You said, ‘‘You have to understand

something about the way Washington works.’’ Explain that to me

and the interactions that your department or agency has had with

the State Department.

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, one of the things that I was saying—I was trying to say and I got cut off, was that when people

know that I’m going to be the subject of these kinds of hearings—

you know, six times and all that—nobody necessarily wants to get

involved in these kinds of things or get dragged into it and then

have some interaction, conversation that I had with them be made

more than it is. And I understand when people don’t necessarily

want to talk to me about Fast and Furious, knowing that at lower

levels——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You know that they’re withholding information

from you.

Attorney General HOLDER. No, they’re not.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, you just said that they’re not going to provide you the information because they don’t want to drag you into

it.

Attorney General HOLDER. I said they didn’t want to have conversations with me.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Isn’t that withholding information? If you can’t

tell the boss what’s really going on, you are going to be oblivious

to what’s going on.

Attorney General HOLDER. We are talking about cabinet-level

people. And I’m saying that the people who work under them, either DHS, State other executive branch agencies, are certainly providing information to the Justice Department so that we have access to whatever information——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And is the Justice Department providing that information to, say, the State Department or Homeland Security?

You may say, we’re not having face-to-face discussion which troubles me—I don’t care whether you are a Democrat or a Republican,

the idea that you are not being informed and not having conversations because you are afraid of coming to Congress is troublesome,

at the least.

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m not afraid to come to Congress. I

have been here six times.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I know. But if you are not being informed so you

purposely can claim ignorance on the issue, that’s a problem. My

question is, at the lower level, is there an expectation on your part

that there is interaction between these departments and agencies?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well there is not only an expectation.

I know that, in fact, there is that kind of interaction because with

regard for instance to the death of Agent Terry, I know that DHS

is working with the FBI, State Department and Justice.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What about the State Department?

Attorney General HOLDER. State, you know, doesn’t have as direct a role. Obviously we interact with our counterparts in Mexico,

and we talk to the State Department, inform them of contacts that

I have. In fact, I will be speaking to the attorney general from Mexico in the latter part of—well, I guess, early this afternoon.
146

Mr. CHAFFETZ. In paragraph five of your testimony today, you

talk about the national security crisis along the border. I guess my

concern, Mr. Attorney General, is, you have an expectation that

there’s interaction between the Department of Justice and the

State Department, correct?

Attorney General HOLDER. Oh, there certainly is, through the

Merida Initiative, if nothing else. And through other ways in which

our law enforcement components talk to one other——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I am sorry. My time is so short.

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman suspend? Do you have a

point of order?

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I think that if he is asks a question,

he should have an opportunity to answer it. I am trying to follow

it. But the point is that without him being able to respond, what

are we really doing?

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s point is valid, and I appreciate

that both under your leadership and hopefully under mine, we

make sure that all witnesses get to answer.

Mr. MCHENRY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask for 1 additional minute

for the gentleman?

Chairman ISSA. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. Attorney General, at the end of any round of questioning

within a reasonable period of time by yourself, if you feel you have

been unable to answer a question—and I would like you to be succinct—we will give you the additional time at the end so you may

answer. I do respect the fact that a Member may want to go on to

a next question. So you may have to wait until the end to sort of

revise and extend briefly. And with that, I mean no disrespect. The

gentleman was fully within his rights. But I wanted to make that

clear because the past chairman and my policy are to make sure

that people get to make full answers, even if it’s not during the 5

minutes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that without the

starting of the clock—again, if he wants to fully answer that. With

concern to Mr. Towns, I just want to be able to do the followup

question.

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman is absolutely right. The gentleman will continue.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. If you want to more completely answer that,

please.

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m not sure where I was.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. The interaction between you—the Department of

Justice and the State Department on Fast and Furious, and that’s

the concern here is Fast and Furious.

Attorney General HOLDER. Right. We work together with our

State Department counterparts on a number of things in connection with Mexico. There is the Merida Initiative that really kind of

is the umbrella way in which we operate in Mexico in a law enforcement way. So there is a lot of contact at the lower levels and

not so lower levels. I know our Deputy Attorney General speaks a

great deal with his counterpart at the State Department.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. My question, Mr. Attorney General, is the testimony from October 27th of this year that Secretary Clinton gave

over in the Senate where she said, ‘‘I can tell you that based on
147

the information on the part of the State Department that would

deal with this kind of issue, we have no record of any request for

coordination. We have no record of any kind of notice or heads up.’’

How is it that the Secretary of State is saying, we’ve never been

involved in any way, shape, or form in Fast and Furious and you

are testifying that it’s happening on a regular basis?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, you have to put this in the appropriate context. What I’m saying is that we interact with them

in a number of ways. Now Fast and Furious might not be a primary thing that we are talking about with the State Department.

We are certainly working more closely with DHS when it comes to

Fast and Furious. But those kinds of things are discussed. It might

not be, you know, a primary thing that exists between a topic of

conversation between State and——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And I guess that’s the concern, Mr. Attorney General. We have 1,500 weapons. We’ve got 300 dead people in Mexico.

We have a dead U.S. agent. We’ve had an untold number of hearings and discussions and press reports. And yet, you had the people

at the highest level of the government saying, well, we don’t talk

to each other because our people don’t tell us information because

we’ve got to remain ignorant because we’re going to have to testify

and they don’t want to get me involved. And at the same time,

you’re telling me that they are interacting with the State Department on a regular basis, and the State Department, the Secretary,

is telling us, it isn’t happening. And Janet Napolitano is saying

very similar things at the Department of Homeland Security. If

we’re going to solve this problem and make sure it never happens

again, we have to solve these challenges. And I have no confidence

that you’ve addressed it or offered anything to actually solve it.

I yield back.

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired. Did the gentleman want to follow up?

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m not sure about the context in

which that remark was made by Secretary Clinton, but I can tell

you that when it comes to the issue of violence in Mexico, the problem of guns going to Mexico, we are joined with our partners at the

State Department——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, can I read the

question?

Chairman ISSA. Does the gentleman want the question read

back?

Mr. CHAFFETZ. No. The question that Secretary Clinton got. You

asked a legitimate question. I don’t know what context Secretary

Clinton asked——

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman will suspend. If you make that

question available to the Attorney General’s staff so they can brief

him, we will return to that out of order to get an answer. But I

think, in fairness, we’ve given sufficient time. If you will make it

available to staff, we’ll make sure we get to it before the end of the

hearing.

With that, we go to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia,

Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I don’t

know if conversations with the Secretary of State, with Secretary
148

Clinton, or Secretary Napolitano are of major importance here. But

I do know this, that after calling the Attorney General of the

United States six times before the Congress, I think the public

would have expected that we would have begun to talk about remedy by this time; and yet there has been no remedy to give the Justice Department the tools it needs to prosecute straw purchasers or

gun trafficking. But here we go again with the sixth hearing.

Mr. Attorney General, I want to commend you for the changes

you have made, the multiple changes you have made while this

matter was unfolding and the facts were coming forward, recognizing full well that until you get the inspector general’s report,

particularly considering that this is the Justice Department, to proceed without due process would be fairly unseemly. You have to

understand that when there’s an issue like this and it was very important because of the death of an agent, there is an incentive for

the committee, if it can get a hold of a highly placed government

official, to call on as much as you can because with him comes the

press and the public.

My concern, I must say, for the Attorney General today, who has

foreign and domestic matters of great moment on his plate, that at

least a remedy come out. And we certainly haven’t seen anything

even approaching that.

I would like to go through the 5 years of gun walking because

they all get merged. We have 3 years of gun walking, or so-called

gun walking in the Bush administration, 5 years total, two in this

administration, beginning with the Arizona U.S. attorney Paul

Charlton. Now we haven’t had the opportunity to have him before

us. But the problem emerged out of his office, and with warnings,

apparently, in his office at that time, that there were real issues

that the ATF—at least his legal counsel raised issues, including

what he called moral objections.

Now Mr. Charlton, we do know—even though we haven’t had the

opportunity to speak with him—was briefed and continued to allow

hundreds of guns to walk across the border to Mexico. The notorious Hernandez case arose during the Bush administration when

the effort of coordination failed and yet the gun walking continued.

Now we come to this administration. When you became Attorney

General in 2009, were you aware that ATF had this long history

of gun walking in its Phoenix office?

Attorney General HOLDER. No. I didn’t become aware of gun

walking at all until the beginning of 2011.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Attorney General, if every attempt at coordination—and remember, Mr. Hernandez was never arrested. Those authorities were never—no one was ever taken into custody. But if

every attempt at coordinating fails, do you think the agent should

have stopped authorizing further attempts to coordinate between

Mexico and the United States and allow the gun walking to proceed?

Attorney General HOLDER. Do I think they should have allowed

that?

Ms. NORTON. Do you think that given the repeated attempts of

failed coordination that the agents should have stopped authorizing

it or simply continued to allow further attempts, even as they saw
149

the attempts of coordination fail with no arrests being made on the

Mexican side?

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah. I think both experientially,

based on what you have noted, I think there was no basis for a continuation of gun walking. But then even conceptually, as I think

I testified before, the notion that you would let guns walk is simply

not something that I think is a sound law enforcement technique.

Ms. NORTON. So when does it become gun walking, Mr. Attorney

General?

Attorney General HOLDER. When you have the ability to arrest

somebody for some firearm transaction that they have engaged in

and you make the determination not to make the arrest, and then

they proceed from that site, and you don’t surveil them, you don’t

take any kind of affirmative action, and you allow that person who

has committed a firearms offense to simply walk away with the

firearm. That, from my perspective, is gun walking. And conceptually, experientially, it is simply not a good thing to do.

Ms. NORTON. That should have stopped even before even this administration took office.

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure. I think so.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentlelady. I would note for the

record that the Attorney General has testified as to Fast and Furious on November 8th before the Senate, on December 8th before

the House. The other previous testimonies were not on the subject

of Fast and Furious. And he was not briefed and able to answer

it properly during those times. I just wanted to make sure. This is

also the first time before our committee. So Judiciary, quite frankly—and particularly in the House—has not taken the lead the way

this committee has on both sides of the aisle.

Attorney General HOLDER. If I could just maybe correct the

record——

Chairman ISSA. Of course.

Attorney General HOLDER [continuing]. I certainly did speak in

those—the number five or six is, in fact, correct.

Chairman ISSA. The times that you were asked, not the times

you were brought to answer questions that were prepared.

Attorney General HOLDER. Whether it was Senate Appropriations, Senate Judiciary, I was asked questions about Fast and Furious and answered those questions.

Chairman ISSA. With that, the next gentleman will be the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes.

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you Mr. Attorney General, for being here today.

I’m tempted to ask your opinion on former Penn State coach Joe

Paterno. It might be an interesting conversation, but we don’t have

time for that in the questioning. But I would state that Joe Paterno

reported allegations of child molestation to his superiors but did

nothing else because he didn’t want to jeopardize university procedure. Jason Weinstein, a senior official in the criminal division,

knew about gun walking as early as April 2010. After a single

meeting with ATF about it, he then failed to follow up or take action. Joe Paterno, a legend in his sport, and yet he was

unceremoniously fired. Weinstein continues on in his current position even though Fast and Furious has held deadly consequences,
150

most importantly, to Agent Brian Terry, a proud son of Michigan,

my State.

My question for you is, what’s the difference between the case of

Joe Paterno at Penn State and the Justice Department under your

leadership?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I’m not going to get into the

Paterno case. I will talk about Jason Weinstein. He knew about

wide receiver and he told Mr. Breuer about it. He met with ATF.

He has indicated that he did not know about the tactics, the inappropriate tactics, the gun walking tactics involved in Fast and Furious until later on and didn’t connect those tactics with the ones

that were used in wide receiver and has admitted that what he did

was a mistake and has indicated that he was, you know, that he

failed in not making that connection.

Mr. WALBERG. And so he continues on, as do other senior officials

moved around as chessmen on a board with no consequences of a

significant nature at this point in time, no admission, other than

now when brought on the carpet and brought into the public life

that this thing has gone wrong, was set up to go wrong and, frankly, I believe was set up to go wrong in order to deal with Second

Amendment liberties of law-abiding citizens and pushing into a

perception that it was a problem of the Second Amendment as opposed to law enforcement. And more importantly, Mr. Attorney

General, your oversight of an agency, of a department, of individual

leaders in that department that have not been held accountable.

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, with all due respect—and I

mean this with great respect—the notion that this was an operation set up to do something to impinge upon the Second Amendment rights of my fellow citizens is absurd. The operation that was

put together here was an attempt to stop the flow of guns from the

United States into Mexico, something I think we should all agree

upon.

Mr. WALBERG. And it wasn’t effective, was it?

Attorney General HOLDER. It was not effective. In fact it was

flawed, fundamentally flawed.

Mr. WALBERG. Very flawed.

Attorney General HOLDER. I have said that from day one. But

the notion that somehow or another this was a setup to come up

with measures that would impinge upon Second Amendment rights

is simply not substantiated by the facts. And I think in some

ways—again, with all due respect, I think that’s almost irresponsible.

Mr. WALBERG. Well with all due respect, I would concur that

your mention today of the necessity for impinging upon Second

Amendment liberties of law-abiding citizens still further brought

that question up. Let me move on here. An article yesterday by

former CIA director Michael Hayden noted that you ‘‘launched a

reckoning of CIA renditions detentions and interrogations of terrorists by directing the Justice Department to reopen investigations

closed years before by career prosecutors.’’ This decision was opposed by Leon Panetta and his seven predecessors. The article

notes that you reportedly made the decision without reading detailed memos prepared by those career prosecutors, declining to

pursue further proceedings.
151

And further, Mr. Attorney General, you are well known in this

town for not reading memos. You admitted you failed to read

memos addressed to you in Fast and Furious; you failed to read

memos before the Mark Rich pardon. You failed to read memos or

even the law related to the Arizona immigration law. What does

that say about your leadership and management that you consistently fail to read extremely important papers placed on your desk?

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman will suspend.

As I previously said—although you can certainly talk about your

management style—this hearing is limited to Fast and Furious, so

I would ask that you limit your answers to the management style

as it may relate to Fast and Furious and not to any other cases

unrelated to our investigation.

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I disagree with that. Given the

decision to almost engage in character assassination, I will respond

to at least some of that.

I’m the Attorney General of the United States, okay? And when

it comes to deciding what I’m going to investigate, how I’m going

to investigate, I take into account a wide variety of things. The decision I made to open up those CIA matters—and I was an aware

that this was something that was opposed by a great many people.

I read a great deal before I made that determination. I had access

to material that other people who criticized that decision have

never had access to.

Now I have great respect for the people, the men and women of

the CIA who put their lives on the line and who protect this Nation

in a way that many of you don’t, because I see a briefing every day

at 8:30 about the great work that they do. But there were things

done, things that were done during the course of those interrogations that were antithetical to American values, that resulted in

the deaths of certain people and that justified my decision to order

an investigation. That investigation has run its course. We are at

a point where we are about to close those investigations. It would

have been irresponsible for me, given the new information that I

had a chance to review, not to order that investigation.

With regard to your more general point about me reading or not

reading memos, I read those things that are brought to my attention or things that I think I need to read in order to make appropriate decisions. I’m confident that the management style that I

have, the involvement that I have is adequate to allow me to make

appropriate decisions based on facts, based on interpretations of

the law. And I have a good staff that brings to my attention those

things that I need to read.

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired. Before I go to

Mr. Tierney, I would like to make—and we are sort of speaking to

your staff to a certain extent—the staff aware of the CRS report

that on numerous occasions, Congress has interviewed line attorneys, including in the Rocky Flats investigation, the early 1990’s

under obviously a Republican administration. So I would ask that

your staff review that so that you may correct your statement, that

it never happens.

With that, we go to the gentleman from Massachusetts next, Mr.

Tierney.
152

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General,

indulge me, if you will, on this for a second. This committee’s obligation is to the family of the deceased, to the other law enforcement officers involved, to the citizens of this country. And this committee is charged with first finding out what happened; and then

once we determine that, making sure we can work on practices so

that it never happens again in a flawed situation like this. Members of both parties—and our staff did a great deal of work in determining the facts, and I think the ranking member has already

gone on a great deal about the number of interviews that staffs of

both parties and the number of documents that they reviewed went

on, and also laid out a number of actions that were recommended

for the future. And I know that you have taken some actions and

the new ATF director has set out some actions as well.

So at this stage, it seems to me we have a couple of alternatives.

We could further explore on how the program of gun walking began

back in 2006; it repeated itself in 2007; it repeated itself again in

2008 and 2009; and it repeated itself again in Fast and Furious.

But to do that, we would need to talk to Mr. Mukasey, I should

think, and the majority is not willing to bring Mr. Mukasey forward.

As far as I know, he is the only Attorney General that had documents in front of him that even mentioned the programs, or some

of those programs, although that doesn’t indicate that he authorized it or even condoned it. But certainly if that alternative of trying to find out more facts about what happened, he would be somebody I think would be worth talking to, and we have not been

given that opportunity. We could explore reforms, necessarily beyond those that you’ve implemented and the ATF director’s implemented and what statutory changes about gun trafficking and

things might be involved. But the committee doesn’t seem—at least

the majority doesn’t seem interested in doing that. Or unfortunately, as we seem intent on doing here at this hearing put by the

majority we could continue to chase what seems to be a political

agenda of trying to find out that somebody in the administration—

you, in particular, somehow had knowledge or authorized or condoned this operation.

If that were the case it would seem to me that a good witness

for us to talk to would be Mr. Melson, who was the then-acting

ATF director. Mr. Cummings has asked the chairman to bring Kenneth Melson as a witness. Mr. Melson indicated he is willing to

come as a witness. In fact, he even testified or talked, was interviewed in a closed interview with staff from both parties. They

asked him if he had ever approved gun walking. He said he had

not. They asked if he had ever been briefed about gun walking. He

said no. They asked if he was aware if the senior Justice Department officials had ever authorized gun walking. He said no.

Surely if the details of Operation Fast and Furious were approved at the highest levels of the Department of Justice, as has

been accused, then Mr. Melson, the director of the ATF presumably

would have known about it. This is however, what he said in that

interview, ‘‘I don’t believe I had knowledge of the specific tactics

used in Fast and Furious until the facts began to be disclosed in

the media.’’
153

So Mr. Melson told the committee he never authorized gun walking, the Justice Department never authorized it. He wasn’t aware

of it in the Fast and Furious operation, and he never briefed the

Attorney General or anyone else at the Department of Justice

about it. I think that’s pretty valuable information if the focus of

this inquiry is going to be who knew what when and where.

This interview with Mr. Melson took place 7 months ago. Chairman Issa has refused to let him answer those questions in public

before our Members. We can draw some conclusions of our own as

to why that case’s testimony directly contradicts the assertions that

the operation was approved at the highest levels of the Justice Department.

So that leaves us with only, I guess, to find out whether or not

there were any bad actions by people at higher levels of asking you

yet again, Mr. Attorney General, did Mr. Melson, the director of

ATF, ever raise any issues to your attention about gun walking or

the conduct of Operation Fast and Furious?

Attorney General HOLDER. No he didn’t.

Mr. TIERNEY. Do you rely on your component heads to bring significant issues within their agencies to your attention?

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure. That’s one of the responsibilities that they have. And I hope I have the kind of relationship

with them so that they feel free to bring to my attention issues like

that.

Mr. TIERNEY. Are you disappointed that neither Mr. Melson nor

anyone else at ATF raised concerns about Fast and Furious to your

attention or to anyone else at the Department’s headquarters?

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah. I am disappointed not only in

Mr. Melson, but other people within the Department who were

seized with this knowledge and who did not bring it to my attention and who have admitted they made mistake in not bringing it

to my attention or to the Deputy Attorney General’s attention the

fact that gun walking existed in at least some of these operations.

Mr. TIERNEY. And have you or has anybody held Mr. Melson accountable for not bringing these issues to your attention?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, Mr. Melson made the determination and we agreed that it would be better for him to leave

ATF to allow ATF to get a fresh start and to allow him to get a

fresh start as well.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the transcript of the interview by Republican and Democratic staff.

Chairman ISSA. I object. You know that’s grossly inappropriate.

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, it’s grossly inappropriate to have a pertinent witness who is not allowed to come before this committee and testify. And I thought, since you don’t seem

willing to do that, then maybe we’d go to the next best thing where

both parties had an opportunity to interview Mr. Melson and talk

about issues that seemed to be right at the core of what you are

alleging over and over again.

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s unanimous consent is not—

okay, I will be even kinder. I reserve.

Now speaking on my reservation, does the gentleman really believe that that is the right thing to do, to make public an ongoing
154

investigation that includes a number of officials, includes a situation in which an official has taken the Fifth and left the Justice

Department to make any of those documents publicly available at

this time when, in fact, it is pursuant to our investigation? Does

the gentleman actually believe that?

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request at this point

in time. But I hope we’ve made the point here that what is important is for you to change your mind hopefully and allow Mr. Melson

to come here and testify in public and answer the questions which

have been the core of the matter there and the allegations that you

continuously make apparently erroneously but refuse to acknowledge.

Chairman ISSA. I appreciate the gentleman’s comments. I would

note for the record I have not called for the Attorney General’s resignation. I have not said the Attorney General knew. I certainly

have—and I think many of us are making the point that people

didn’t know that should have known things that, in fact, we are

trying to find out where the failures were made other than the

local level, which we have begun describing in the case of the acting—and it’s in his testimony, obviously, which will not in its entirety made available today. But the acting director, in fact, is culpable for not knowing more of what a director should know or ensure that people know that make stoppage.

So I join with the gentleman in saying that, in fact, it does concern me that someone who is supposed to direct over 1,800 individuals did not know that this, in fact, involved gun walking. But remember, on February 4—well after many of these events—the Attorney General’s office prepared a document, gave it to us which

said we never let guns walk. That is of concern too. And the committee is not shy about having additional hearings. The Attorney

General made himself available at this date pursuant to a request.

We did not and are not saying this is the culmination or we are

taking him in lieu of less significant——

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Melson’s interview was some 7 months ago.

And a direct quote from you, Mr. Chairman, on a television show,

the Roger Hedgecock Show—there was a radio back there—you

said, ‘‘ATF people and Justice people are telling us, this goes all

the way to the very top. It goes all the way to the ATF Office of

the Director and obviously goes to the Office of the Attorney General. This is the approved plan that you know is basically at the

highest levels of the Obama appointees.’’

If those are allegations that you are going to make, then it would

be important to have Mr. Melson come in here and testify as part

of that instead of blocking his testimony and continuing to make

those assertions which now apparently are obviously not correct.

Chairman ISSA. I appreciate the gentleman giving Roger

Hedgecock a plug. The fact is that those allegations were made

with a number of other false allegations. I might note for the

record that we were given statements, allegations that the ATF director was viewing on closed circuit Internet connection the actual

purchases being made. After receiving testimony and multiple

checks, we discovered that although he inquired about the capability of viewing these surveillance as they occurred, that no such

event occurred. This often happens in investigations.
155

Mr. TIERNEY. Well Mr. Chairman I am glad that you recognized

that those comments that you were amplifying at the very least are

false and now maybe we can move on to the business of determining what we can do as a government——

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on what you just

said. I know you are reserving, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ISSA. Actually the gentleman withdrew.

Mr. TIERNEY. I withdrew.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I was just wondering if there was a way that we

could have a portion of that document that goes to Mr. Melson’s

testimony where he clearly states that he never told the Attorney

General about these tactics in Fast and Furious where he says that

he did not—he, himself, did not know. I mean, the staff worked

together——

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman from Massachusetts has done a

very good job of making that available, and I certainly——

Mr. CUMMINGS. I just want to make sure that the record is complete. The Attorney General has been accused of—some very unkind things have been said about him. His reputation hangs in the

balance, and I think that we’ve got Mr. Melson, the former ATF director, who clearly stated that he never said anything about these

tactics to the Attorney General. And he even said that he didn’t

even know about them himself. I was just wondering if we could

just have that portion of the transcript as a part of the record. I’m

not trying to——

Chairman ISSA. I will work with the ranking member to find appropriate portions that seek your concerns that can be made available. I might note that my side has quoted repeatedly—and this is

why I want to make sure we are fair on both such quotes. My side

has quoted where he said he was sick to his stomach when he read

the wiretaps and discovered what he didn’t know. So although I

think it is inappropriate to release the entire transcript, I will work

with the gentleman. We will hold the record open to make appropriate statements that you believe are necessary to make the

record complete. And I will be glad to do that.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just 30 seconds. What you just said is one of the

reasons why I want to make sure it’s a part of the record. When

Mr. Melson said as he sat at his kitchen table—and I read it 50

million times. And he said his stomach got in knots when he found

out about it, basically his point was that he didn’t know about it

before then.

So if he didn’t know about it, it was impossible for him to tell

the Attorney General about it. And that’s all.

Attorney General HOLDER. If I could——

Chairman ISSA. Well, I’m not going to allow—and I apologize Mr.

Attorney General. I’m not going to allow this to turn into a sequence of those because I think both sides could get into various

testimonies. I will work with the gentleman. He has a valid point.

We will now return to regular order.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ISSA. You’re very welcome.

Attorney General HOLDER. Could I just say one thing?

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman is recognized.
156

Attorney General HOLDER. When Mr. Melson indicated that he

became sick to his stomach, he did not—it was not when he was

reading the wiretap applications. He was reading reports of investigations. And I think that’s an important distinction.

Chairman ISSA. I appreciate that.

We now go to the gentlelady who has been waiting patiently from

New York, Ms. Buerkle for 5 minutes.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you Mr.

Holder for being here this morning. I just want to make a couple

of comments to start out because we’ve heard it from the other side

of the aisle and even yourself with regards to this being a Democratic or a Republican issue, whether this is a, you know, political

game, if this is an election year charade.

I think it’s very important to recognize that you, as the Attorney

General, with all due respect, need to be held accountable, or someone does, as to what happened.

Now I’m amazed that of all the issues that face this country, this

is the issue that I hear from my district so frequently about. And,

in fact, today—and I will enter them into the record—I have no

fewer than 30 questions from folks in my district who want to

know what happened, why it happened, and who is going to be

held accountable to us. And I was taken aback just a little bit with

your response to my colleague, Mr. Walberg, when you sort of declared that I am the Attorney General.

Well, with all due respect, sir, yes, you are, but you are also accountable to not only the folks in my district, but the American

people. And I just want to—if you would indulge me—just play a

recording because most importantly—and as you are well aware of,

we had a hearing here in June with Brian Terry’s family. And in

that hearing, I specifically asked his mother—and we’ll play that

hearing, if you would, please.

[Video shown.]

Ms. BUERKLE. So Mr. Attorney General, on behalf of Mr. Heyer,

who is Brian Terry’s cousin and actually the spokesperson for his

mother and his sister, I would ask you, to what lengths has your

investigation into Operation Fast and Furious gone? And will everyone in that operation that had to deal with those specific weapons be brought up on charges facilitating the murder of Brian

Terry?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, we are certainly working now

to—I mean this is an ongoing investigation. It’s actually a very sensitive time. I’m not sure I can talk an awful lot about where the

investigation is. I have indicated that I think we are pretty close

to making some announcements. And we will hold accountable,

seek to hold accountable those people who are responsible for

Agent Terry’s death. With regard to people who were involved in

Operation Fast and Furious, we are endeavoring to find out who

made the determinations to allow guns to walk. I’m not really at

liberty to talk about the weapons that we used in the actual incident. That goes to ballistics reports, and I don’t think I can comment on that here. That will obviously come out during the course

of the trial. But we will hold accountable people who were involved

in—as I have described, this flawed investigation.
157

And one other thing. I did not mean to imply the comments that

I made there that I should not be held accountable. But I also

think that there’s a certain fairness component to this as well. And

I ought to be held accountable for those things that are within my

area of responsibility. I should be held accountable for things that

are factually correct as opposed to those things that are politically

desired. And I’m more than willing to admit mistakes when I have

made them. But I also think that if we are going to really get

ahead here, if we are really going to make some progress, we need

to put aside the political gotcha games in an election year and

focus on matters that are extremely serious. When one looks at the

death toll in Mexico, when we look at the guns——

Ms. BUERKLE. Excuse me, sir. My time is ticking away. I just

have one more question. Unlike the chairman, I was one of the

Members of Congress who called for your resignation. I feel that

the Department of Justice—that you are responsible for all of the

activities that fall under your umbrella. And I think that you have

denied knowledge of the program and that accordingly, you should

not be held accountable.

My question to you today is, what more could have possibly gone

wrong that you would have been held accountable? And before you

answer that, I would suggest that the President has been eerily

quiet about coming to your defense. So let me ask it this way: How

many more Border Patrol agents would have had to die as a part

of Operation Fast and Furious for you to take responsibility?

Chairman ISSA. The gentlady’s time has expired. The gentleman

may answer, or not.

Attorney General HOLDER. You know, that’s the kind of thing,

you know, you wonder why you are getting those calls. I mean, people will focus on a question as much as an answer. And as a Member of Congress, I mean, really—is that the way in which you want

to be seen, you want to be known?

You know, I should be held accountable for—certainly my role in

whatever I did or didn’t do in connection with the supervision of

Fast and Furious. But, yeah, I’m Attorney General of the United

States, and I should also be held accountable and perhaps even

given some credit—imagine that—given some credit for the things

that this Justice Department has done under my leadership,

whether it deals with national security, revitalize antitrust, revitalize civil rights enforcement efforts. And so one has to balance all

of these things.

I’m not claiming to be a perfect person or a perfect attorney general. I get up every day and try to do the best job that I can. I have

great faith in the people who work in the Department. And you

know, that kind of question I think is, frankly—and again, with respect—I think that’s beneath a Member of Congress.

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman has concluded I think. We now

go to the other gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, for 5

minutes.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the

Attorney General for helping the committee with its work. I know

this is your sixth time.

If I could, I would like to try to put the political part of this aside

and really out of respect for Agent Brian Terry and his family and
158

the other 117,000 people who work for you, try to look at some reforms that actually might go to the core of what went wrong here.

Now I know you have referred repeatedly to a tactic, the tactic

of gun walking. But really, when you drill down on that, what we

are allowing here—in this case, in Fast and Furious at least, and

in the earlier cases under the Bush administration, basically what

the Department of Justice did was authorize criminal activity to

allow folks that they knew—they knew these 20 dealers were buying hundreds of guns—heavy arms, shipping them into Mexico.

In my city, in Boston, through the Office of the FBI, through the

confidential informant program, we had folks that were allowed to

commit 19 murders under the care and protection of the FBI. I’ve

got a situation right now that’s in court where another individual,

a confidential informant, has killed at least—alleged to have killed

at least a half dozen people. The problem here is that this tactic

actually authorized—it puts the law enforcement, Federal law enforcement in a position of authorizing criminal activity. They become complicit in it. That’s very troubling, especially when it results in the death of a very brave, courageous agent or to innocent

American civilian citizens.

And what is especially troubling is that I believe that you didn’t

know about it. I believe that you didn’t know about it. But that’s

not a comfort to me. It is unbelievable that either the Phoenix field

office or the Boston office of the FBI can authorize criminal activity, not just a mere tactic, but a whole strategy of using that outside the law, and then having innocent civilians killed.

So I actually think one of the solutions might be for Congress to

pass a law that says, if there are those limited occasions where we

are going to authorize criminal activity to go on in our society

under the cover of law enforcement’s authority, then either yourself, as the Attorney General, or the director of the FBI or the head

of the ATF has to sign off on it because here, everyone escaped responsibility because of plausible deniability. They can say, I didn’t

know about it.

Well, that’s troubling. That scares the hell out of me when I

think that there’s just a local office of the ATF or the FBI that is

authorizing criminals to engage in this typed of activity, taking

AK–47s and letting them get smuggled into Mexico, or, you know,

southern California on our side of the border.

What are you prepared to do? Look, I know that’s a blunt instrument, saying that you have to sign off on any of these clandestine

operations where we are allowing people to engage in criminal activity that puts the public at risk. What do you propose to do to

make sure we don’t have this ‘‘I didn’t know about it’’ approach or

the ‘‘I know nothing’’ Sergeant Schultz defense for law enforcement’s ‘‘I didn’t know about it?’’ What do you propose, sir?

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that’s a legitimate question.

I think we don’t want to go too far in this sense in that law enforcement will engage in illegal activity in an attempt to solve

crimes. We engage in illegal activity when we are—when we buy

drugs from people who are selling drugs. We engage in illegal activity when we pay corrupt public officials money, when we go into

undercover operations. But we have to have that ability. It is an

extremely important law enforcement technique. But I think the
159

point that you raise is a good one, and that is, that the approval

to do these kinds of activities can’t rest at the line level. There has

to be supervisory responsibility. And the question is, where do you

draw that line?

It is not realistic for the Attorney General to sign off on every

one of those things. We have mechanisms within the Department

when it comes to undercover operations that rise to a certain level

where an undercover review committee actually has to approve

them. There’s a committee that does that. The reforms that have

been put in place by Todd Jones at the ATF requires greater supervisory responsibility for approving those things.

But even with all those approvals—as I said before, you know,

letting drugs walk, letting money walk, that’s one thing. But letting guns walk, I simply don’t see—I just don’t see how that’s an

appropriate law enforcement technique. If you balance the potential gain against the potential harm, the harm is too great to justify the use of gun walking.

Chairman ISSA. I would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman have an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman. Where do we draw that line

though? There has to be some accountability here. There has to be.

And again, I go back to the very nature of this tactic. It is putting

law enforcement—and the confidential informant arrangements are

especially troubling. These folks operated for years. We are taking

taxpayer money to pay confidential informants at a very generous

lifestyle, and it seems to be all clandestine. At least in the Boston

office, the higher-ups didn’t know anything about it.

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. LYNCH. Sure.

Chairman ISSA. I agree with the gentleman that we need to do

more oversight over the FBI and other entities that have this authority. I also agree with the gentleman that there has to be a congressionally stated level that we are comfortable with that can approve this, particularly in light of Fast and Furious, recognizing

that cartel members are unindicted and in fact, were part of this

operation that led to Brian Terry’s death. So I join with the gentleman in support of Congress doing oversight and taking that role.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance

of my time. Thank you, sir.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.

We now go to the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar.

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Attorney General, for coming today.

There is no secret about how I feel, absolutely no secret. And I am

appalled, absolutely appalled. And I am appalled even further

about the discussion today, because if this same thing had occurred

on the east coast, how much more of a ruckus we would have

heard. How much more we would have actually taken into consideration.

I am the only member on this committee that is from Arizona.

Yes, we lost a border agent. But we are further impugned because

these guns are going to show up at crime scenes, particularly in Arizona, from here to whenever, as well as the Mexican government,

and the Mexican people who have lost over 300 people.
160

And I think that I am very taken aback by when you said, you

know, we shouldn’t be doing this. We shouldn’t be gun walking.

And everybody knows that that is inappropriate. Well, I tell you

what. That shows me exactly why I am so appalled, because if

there was a doctrine out there that said listen, if you walk guns,

you are going to do time, that is the penalty that should be placed

here, because that is what we are going to have to endure. And I

am finding it very upsetting that Arizona is taking this on the face

and we trivialize what is going on here.

I think we should be able to share all information to find exactly

who exactly authorized this. We talked about in-line, people that

have been moved from Arizona up the line to DOJ, having that discussion to find out how this came about, because this is in our

backyard. Don’t you agree?

Attorney General HOLDER. Agree—you have said a lot.

Mr. GOSAR. Don’t you agree that we shouldn’t trivialize this.

Attorney General HOLDER. No, and it has not been trivialized.

This is obviously—at least not by me.

Mr. GOSAR. Do you think it is appropriate that we just say don’t

do it. You shouldn’t be doing gun walking. Or do you say it

shouldn’t be done, and if it is done and you are found culpable and

you are a participant in this, that you should be held to the same

standards as the rest of us are?

Attorney General HOLDER. What I did after I found out about

gun walking was to issue a directive that said this is unacceptable,

don’t do it, and you will be held accountable if, in fact, you do do

it.

Mr. GOSAR. So you will agree with me that if they do this, and

they are put before a jury of their peers, that they would do criminal time?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I don’t know about criminal

time. I mean, one has to look at the facts of a particular case, and

if somebody did something with criminal intent, sure, that would

be appropriate. But if somebody did something with criminal intent. I mean, you have to get past, you know, beyond a reasonable

doubt. There is a whole variety of things——

Mr. GOSAR. You just can’t slap somebody’s hand on this and just

say don’t do it again. What I am seeing here is it is something inappropriate, and that is in Main Street America, we don’t get these

same kind of privileges to make mistakes. And we are dealing with

people’s lives.

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, you know, we actually do have

a situation in which people who engage in straw purchasing and

in some forms of gun trafficking actually do get slaps on the wrist

and that is why we need a stronger gun trafficking law and we

need greater penalties when it comes to straw purchasing. Because

we have as I think Agent Forcelli described people who essentially

are being charged as if they were speeding. That is unacceptable.

Mr. GOSAR. So straw purchasing, so let me ask you with the

FFLs, the Federal firearms licensees, no new regulations on them?

They did everything that they were told to do and then some. They

kept even pounding people saying, this is ungodly. This same guy

is coming in here and we got ATF saying sell guns. Sell the guns.

Something is wrong here. So putting additional restrictions on
161

FFLs is not the protocol. It is further disseminating what is going

on and than having a higher cognizance, won’t you say?

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure what additional restrictions you are talking about when it comes to FFLs.

Mr. GOSAR. Obviously right now, down in Arizona we have further paperwork to fill out if you are selling long guns. How did that

come about?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, four States, the border States

have been asked if you sell long guns, like AK–47s, more than two

guns in a 5-day period, that ought to be reported to ATF, which

is what is consistent with what they have to do now when it comes

to the sale of handguns. That is all we have asked. And that is a

nationwide thing that has been in effect, the handgun restriction,

since the 1980’s, I think probably since the Reagan administration.

All we have said is the four States, the four States along with

the border where the greatest amount of trafficking occurs into

Mexico, that you have this additional requirement, and a Federal

judge here in Washington has said that that is appropriate.

Mr. GOSAR. I find it interesting that back here on the east coast

dictating west coast. But you know, a hypothetical. So what do you

think the penalty should be for a cabinet member, a sworn officer

of the law, who comes to testify before Congress and knowingly

lies?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, hypothetically, there is a perjury statute. There is a false statement statute. I don’t know what

the penalty is. It is 10 years. I am not sure. Whatever. We have

something in Title 18 that already answers that question.

Mr. GOSAR. Well, I am one of those people that I find it disdainful about how we have conducted business over this. If it were any

other State than Arizona, I think we would have seen different results and different penalties and different critical people and manpower put toward this to find this and being much more cooperative, and I am very disturbed by that.

Attorney General HOLDER. We have talked an awful lot about

during the Republican primary——

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired. Is there a

pending question you are answering, Mr. Attorney General?

Attorney General HOLDER. I think I was.

Chairman ISSA. Okay, feel free to answer the question.

Attorney General HOLDER. I was just saying that, you know, the

notion that we are somehow looking at this in a regional way and

that a particular region of the country is not getting the attention

that it deserves or it is not being taken as seriously as it might if

something happened back on the east coast, your reference to a

judge here in Washington, this is an American problem. This is an

American problem. And what I have tried to say is that, you know,

we too often think about these things as border problems, when the

reality is what happens in Arizona, what happens in New Mexico,

California, Texas, will have a direct impact in Chicago, New York,

other parts of California, Washington State, here in Washington,

DC.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the Attorney General. I don’t think there

really is a pending question that that is responsive too. But I appreciate your comment.
162

We now go to the gentleman from Virginia for 5 minutes, Mr.

Connolly.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr. Attorney General, and thank you for being here and showing such

dignity and honor in the face of some attempts to suggest you are

other than a dignified and honorable Attorney General serving his

country well. And I just think for the record, welcome on Groundhog Day. We heard that Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow, so we

have 6 more weeks, and it is fitting you are here for the sixth time

before Congress with repeated attempts to try to pin something on

you and this President that cannot be pinned, and it is my firm

hope that at some point the majority would actually acquiesce to

the request to have your predecessor Mukasey come here and talk

about Wide Receiver and his knowledge of that program and gun

running.

Mr. Holder, I assume there is a law that specifically forbids the

trafficking of firearms, particularly if that trafficking ends up arming drug cartels, or if the weapons are subsequently found at crime

scenes. Is that not the case?

Attorney General HOLDER. We don’t have a Federal trafficking

statute, and that is one of the things that we are working for.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I am sorry. Forgive me for interrupting. We don’t

have such a law?

Attorney General HOLDER. No. And that is one of the things that

we have been trying to get Congress to consider and to pass.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, now, you have appeared before Congress

many times, six on this subject. Has any of the congressional committees summoning you to testify had a hearing on that law, the

need for such a law?

Attorney General HOLDER. No.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Despite our concern about deaths and violence

and an operation gone bad, we haven’t had a hearing on trying to

forbid the trafficking of firearms and making it a Federal penalty?

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would prefer not to, Mr. Chairman.

Please, Mr. Holder, answer the question.

Attorney General HOLDER. No, we have not had that hearing. I

have tried to raise it as part of one of the reasons—part the things

that I think we ought to be considering as a means to deal with

this issue, to deal with this problem. There is clearly a need for a

Federal trafficking, a firearms trafficking statute.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Isn’t that interesting that in the majority in this

Congress we haven’t had a hearing on that subject. Well, if there

isn’t a strong penalty for firearms trafficking, surely there is some

kind of harsh penalty for straw purchasers of guns?

Attorney General HOLDER. I would like to be able to say the answer to that question is yes, but, unfortunately, the answer to that

question is also no. As I indicated before, I go back to him only because he has great—more experience than I do, Agent Forcelli who

testified previously before this committee, likened the Federal

straw purchasing penalties to a speeding ticket.

Mr. CONNOLLY. At this very committee?

Attorney General HOLDER. Right. Yes. At this committee, and

that I think is obviously unacceptable.
163

Mr. CONNOLLY. And the testimony of that agent called by this

committee, by the majority in this committee, was actually interrupted and chastised for the nature of his answer because it actually dared to talk about the need for stricter gun enforcement and

tougher penalties. Is that your recollection, Mr. Attorney General?

Attorney General HOLDER. I believe Ms. Maloney was asking a

question in that regard, and I don’t know what the technical term

was, but it was ruled out of order or something.

Mr. CONNOLLY. When I was in Mexico on a bipartisan leadership

trip to talk about this and some other difficult topics with the Attorney General of Mexico at the time, we asked the Attorney General, if there was one thing the United States could do to help you

in your battle against drug cartels in the north of your country, violence that has gotten unbelievably, unspeakably out of control,

what would it be? And his answer was, reinstate the assault weapons ban as American law. Your view on that?

Attorney General HOLDER. This administration has consistently

favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we have seen in crime, and certainly would have a

positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, surely we have had a hearing on that

though. I mean, you have been up here six times. This is all about

trying to protect that border with Mexico and to try to help Mexico

as well as protect U.S. security of U.S. citizens. Surely, we have at

least had a hearing on that subject, have we not?

Attorney General HOLDER. Not to my knowledge. Not a hearing

that I participated in.

Mr. CONYERS. Really? It makes one wonder what this hearing is

actually all about. I yield back.

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONNOLLY. I certainly would, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ISSA. By the way, we are happen to entertain all suggestions for hearings. I will note that you keep saying six——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Reclaiming my time just for a second there, Mr.

Chairman. I am delighted to hear that you are happy to entertain

such requests. I would then formally request that the former Attorney General, Mr. Mukasey, be invited to the committee to testify

about what he knew and when he knew it about the program analogous to Fast and Furious in the Bush administration.

Chairman ISSA. We will attempt to glean that information. I

don’t know if it will be by personally having somebody come, but

we do intend to glean information from prior administrations as to

the level of coverage, and I will work with the gentleman on that.

I might, though, note that of the six times the Attorney General

has appeared, for example, to the Appropriations Committee, he

may have been asked a question related to Fast and Furious, but

that wasn’t the purpose for which he came.

And I would only note that as far as I can tell, the Department

of Justice has not submitted a request for a Federal firearms law

to Congress. So I know that the gentleman is very concerned about

these laws. Asking Congress to sua sponte come up with ideas for

laws is actually seldom the way the administration would like it.
164

And I might mention to the gentleman that if the Attorney General

and Justice came up with a proposed firearms law, that might be

a good start to answering your concerns.

I yield back.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, if you would just indulge, because

I would like to follow up on that, that is a very good point.

Chairman ISSA. I ask unanimous consent the gentleman have an

additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would just take our joint question then if you

would, Mr. Chairman, and ask the Attorney General to comment.

Why hasn’t the administration, in fact, made the request the chairman just referred to with respect to toughening gun laws?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, we have certainly requested it

in the past. I will be more than glad to submit something for consideration. We would love to work with this committee, the Judiciary Committees in both Houses in that regard. I believe that Mrs.

Maloney actually has a bill that I think would be a good starting

point for us. There is something that exists there that would be the

basis for that conversation.

Chairman ISSA. Does the President support Mrs. Maloney’s bill?

Attorney General HOLDER. We would certainly want to work

with her on that bill. I mean, obviously there are going to be some

things we want to work on, but I think that is certainly a good

starting place.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Would the gentleman yield? I know we are out

of time. But I just want to make sure that is my bill and Mrs.

Maloney’s bill.

Attorney General HOLDER. I am sorry.

Chairman ISSA. That will probably help the President like it even

more.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And we welcome your support.

Chairman ISSA. All right. I thank all of the gentlemen and lady.

With that, we go to one of the most experienced members of the

committee, although a freshman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Meehan, for 5 minutes.

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Attorney General. I know I sent you a letter some time ago and I appreciate your coming to our committee. Look, I am going to try to

do my best to work as we try to do with the facts that are before

us, as limited as they are based on the discovery. But what I have

been able to glean, as everybody agrees, is the tactics of the ATF

are not to be supported or condoned.

But if you heard testimony that was given from the U.S. attorney

in Arizona, Paul Charlton, in 2007, that he disagreed and approved

of those tactics and declined the request to prosecute the cases of

Wide Receiver, would you dispute that at all?

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not aware of Mr. Meehan’s—Mr.

Charlton’s testimony.

Mr. MEEHAN. It is his testimony that he declined to prosecute

those cases. And just so you know, the other facts that I have been

able to glean is that Kevin Carvell, who is a DOJ Criminal Division

gang unit supervisor in September 2009 called it a semi-dormant

investigation, gun trafficking investigation by ATF. And in 2012,
165

Jason Weinstein called it a case from years earlier, which, in my

mind, suggested it was not something which was current.

Attorney General HOLDER. But Wide Receiver was dormant and

then was brought back to life.

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, I want to know why. That is a pretty good

question, because—who is Laura Gwinn?

Attorney General HOLDER. I don’t—I am not sure. I don’t know.

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, let me tell you who Laura Gwinn is again,

going back. Apparently Laura Gwinn was an attorney from main

Justice who was sent by Lanny Breuer to prosecute gun cases, and

around 2009, September 2009, she was sent to Arizona to prosecute

gun cases. In her e-mail, September 2, 2009, she sends an e-mail

to Jim Trusty in the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington and

it says ‘‘it is my understanding a lot of those guns walked.’’

So we had an attorney from your Department sent to Washington who sends a communication back to mid-level or senior level

people in the criminal department saying it is my understanding,

I am on the scene, guns walked. And I want to know why, when

a former U.S. attorney based on those opinions, declines to prosecute cases because he does not like the procedures of the ATF, and

an attorney who goes and identifies gun walking, why would a subsequent administration send down attorneys and resurrect these

cases for prosecution?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I mean, we want to try to hold

accountable the people who were responsible for crimes that were

committed, and I would guess that people took into account the

techniques that were used in making the determination as to which

cases would, in fact, be prosecuted.

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, I sure do think that that is correct. And who

do you think the people are who sit there and take into account the

techniques that were used? Those people in ATF that are looking

for the determinations from the Department about what tactics are

appropriate. And what signal does that send when the prior previous U.S. attorney declines and says those aren’t appropriate tactics, but the new one comes down and says no, we believe that we

are going to prosecute these cases in which those tactics were used.

But this was simultaneous as well, I know, to an effort in 2009

when Lanny Breuer actually went down and discussed the idea of

traveling to Arizona to meet and plan ways to coordinate gun trafficking. So I just wanted to know why that determination was

made.

Let me switch to one other thing, because again, it comes back

to the idea of who knew what and when. Was Fast and Furious an

OSADEF case?

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I think it received an OSADEF

designation.

Mr. MEEHAN. And, you know, I am holding in hand the U.S. attorney manual, and we have all lived with this, and I know you

know it——

Attorney General HOLDER. You have, certainly.

Mr. MEEHAN. We have spent our time. I look and it says, I am

talking about the places, authority of the U.S. attorney and what

needs to be approved by the Department of Justice. Approval is required for organized crime strike force cases, of which Fast and Fu-
166

rious was. Every significant action in the investigation and prosecution from case initiation, court-authorized electronic surveillance, witness immunity, witness protection, and other important

events must be approved in advance by the organized crime and

racketeering section, which is in Washington, DC, the last I looked,

correct?

Attorney General HOLDER. That is correct.

Mr. MEEHAN. So we have the Department in Washington who is

actually making determinations about the sufficiency of the new investigations that are taking place, the OSADEF investigations that

are taking place, correct, which became Fast and Furious.

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I am not sure exactly—it is one

of the things we have to try to, again, figure out, who exactly——

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, Mr. Holder, I am figuring it out. I am watching the documents. I am giving you that route.

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, there is clearly—I understand

the regulation that you have read. Now the question is who actually made the necessary approvals, who was involved, why did they

do something that might have been contrary, as you say, I don’t

know, to what the previous U.S. attorney did. These are the kinds

of things that I think we are going to find out from the Inspector

General. I have not done a top-to-bottom review yet. I haven’t been

allowed to do that. I can’t do that.

Mr. MEEHAN. One of the things we know is there are approvals

as well for wiretaps, and in the conclusion of approval for a wiretap, we know that we have to put together a document which is

an affidavit from law enforcement, an affidavit in which to be approved, it has to suggest that all other law enforcement options

with respect to investigative techniques have been exhausted and

are not—so I don’t have access. I would ask, but I suspect you are

not going to let former Federal prosecutor and myself, Mr. Gowdy,

have access to the seven separate affidavits that were included as

part of the wiretap authorizations that were approved by your Department. Would we be allowed to have access to them?

Attorney General HOLDER. You know, I am not sure what the

history is in that regard——

Mr. MEEHAN. They are sealed. I know they are sealed.

Attorney General HOLDER. They are sealed. And I don’t know

whether or not as part of our interaction with Congress historically, the Department has sought unsealing orders in that regard.

I just don’t know.

Mr. MEEHAN. I would like to know what was in those wiretap affidavits with respect to which we know there needs to be the articulation of the investigative steps that were taken. And if I

am——

Attorney General HOLDER. I am sorry, go ahead.

Mr. MEEHAN. I would like to know if we would have the ability

to be able to review those, and even in some context in which we

could negotiate. The only thing we want to see is the extent to

which there may be references to tactics that were used by ATF

with respect to gun walking.

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, as you and Mr. Gowdy will

know maybe better than anybody else on the committee, these
167

kinds of applications don’t always go into all of the techniques that

are used in a particular investigation.

Mr. MEEHAN. But I don’t know that, and I would like to know

that.

Attorney General HOLDER. I am just saying generally. So that

there is the possibility that a review of the material submitted by

the field in Washington would not contain something that would

say guns were allowed to walk, or however it might be described.

Mr. MEEHAN. But there is also the possibility that it would, and

what I want to know, because I do know that your authorities

would have from OEO, and it would actually go up higher to Mr.

Weinstein, if I am correct, who would have to review that affidavit.

So it would be for a pretty serious high level guy in the criminal

division that would have in his hands that affidavit if he so choose

to read it.

Attorney General HOLDER. A Deputy Assistant Attorney General

has to ultimately approve a wiretap before it goes—a wiretap application before it goes before a court, and we have tried to put in

place some new measures with regard to OEO and how these

things are handled. But I will, you know, I will look and see what

we have done historically with regard to these wiretap applications

and see how we will proceed, given the request that you have

made.

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you. My time has expired.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. We now go to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, as someone who has gone through about 200

trials myself, I know there are a lot of experienced trial attorneys

in this courtroom. I appreciated the novel, Bonfire of the Vanities.

The best line I have read——

Chairman ISSA. Say that again, Bonfire——

Mr. QUIGLEY. Bonfire of the Vanities.

Chairman ISSA. I would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman have 15 more seconds to educate us as to that.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, there is a wonderful scene in which Judge

White talks to the district attorney about prosecuting defendants

for opportunistic reasons. He concludes wonderfully by saying, so

go tell your boss, the district attorney, Captain Ahab Weiss, that

I know he is out there looking for the great white defendant, who

Mr. Williams over there is not it.

Much the same is today. We come to the conclusion after nearly

six hearings that I note there are those looking for the perfect case

to embarrass the Attorney General and the President, but after six

hearings, this is not it. I say so respecting and understanding that

this is a great tragedy, a great loss that requires change and accountability. But if it is done in a way with a Hollywood-type persona, it is opportunistic.

Frankly, it took the minority staff to write a pretty good detailed

analysis of what happened and what needs to change. And now,

Mr. Attorney General, it is incumbent upon all of us to make sure

that happens, and as you suggested there is accountability.

But if it is just deflection, we fall into the other movie trap of

the day, which, Mr. Chairman, you referenced, and that is Ground-
168

hog Day. Let’s remember what happened in that movie. The character Bill Murray lives the same day over and over again until he

reaches his own reality and comes to terms with it.

We do as well. We have to come to terms with the reality that

in this country we let something that is dastardly take place and

it wasn’t corrected fast enough. And we need to make changes. And

while they are started, we still need accountability. But it can’t be

a deflection.

Now, Mr. Attorney General, you mentioned some of the issues,

the lack of a firearms trafficking statute. We talked about the long

arm reporting requirement to a certain extent. You mentioned testimony at a previous hearing from agent Peter Forcelli. His exact

quote, by the way, was ‘‘Some people view this as being no more

consequential than doing 65 in a 55.’’ That was his testimony about

punishment for straw purchases. He also said something else that

is related to this issue and where we go from now on. He said, ‘‘I

have less than 100 agents assigned to the entire State of Arizona.

That is 114,000 square miles. So do we have enough resources? So

do we have the resources? No, we don’t. We desperately need

them.’’

I also would note toward that end that appropriate funds for additional ATF personnel in this fiscal 2012 year, Congress’ appropriations for ATF was $57 million below the agency’s modest request, resulting in increased layoffs and early retirement for critical personnel. ATF plans to reduce its work force by about 5 percent to comply with these budget constraints, leaving fewer agents

to pursue traffickers and inspect the small handful of dealers who

repeatedly violate these gun laws.

Mr. Attorney General, if you could briefly comment on the resources needed to do this job?

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. I think that if we are serious, as

we all say we are about dealing with this problem of guns going

to Mexico, we have to have an ATF agency that is staffed well, that

has the appropriate leadership and that has sufficient resources.

We have asked for, with regard to these teams that ATF puts on

the border funding for 14 of them. We only got funding for nine.

We need more people than we have now in ATF in order for them

to do the job in the way they want. We need a permanent head of

ATF. There is something that comes with a Senate-confirmed head

that is different from somebody who acts in an acting capacity,

even though Todd Jones, I think, is doing a great job.

We need all of these things in order for ATF to be as good as it

can be with regard to the work that it does along the border, and

the decision by whoever to keep this agency not as strong as it possibly might be is something that I think does a great disservice to

the American people, and certainly to the law enforcement effort

that we all think is important.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. We now go to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais. Would the gentleman yield

for 5 seconds?

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Yes, sir.

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Attorney General, I would like to make sure

we make clear, for 2 years, the President didn’t put up a nominee
169

for that position nor did he take advantage of recess appointment.

So I know the gentleman was well-meaning, but perhaps ill-informed as to the facts related to the director.

Mr. DesJarlais.

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Mr. Attorney General, thank you for being here.

If we resolve nothing else here today, we made it painfully clear

that you have been here at least six times. I don’t think there is

any question about that. But why, why have we been here six

times and why is it taking so long to get the answers that we need,

and how could we have made this process more simple?

If you will indulge me for a minute, let’s just take a hypothetical

that I come home from work 1 day and my kitchen window is broken out and my boys are there all day playing baseball and I know

it. Well, you know, I ask them how the window is broken. They

don’t know. There is a bat laying in the driveway, there are gloves

laying on the table, but they are just not going to fess up. So I kind

of think I know what is going on, but we can’t be sure, because

they are not being straight with me.

So maybe my wife is a little uncomfortable and she says, well,

someone could have tried to break in. Maybe we should call the police and have them come out and investigate to make sure someone

didn’t try to break in. So this process goes on and on, even though

we know that something isn’t right. So, at any rate, I just use that

loose parallel, and I think you know where I am going.

So you are here multiple times, and you opened your statement

with that you are the Attorney General and that you operate under

the highest standards of integrity and professionalism, and that is

exactly what you have done and what you are doing, and I really

have no reason to question that. But when we started asking for

information, and if they could put up the slide about the Stonewall

City, if we look at this, these are some of the things we have asked

for to expedite this process, some of the evidence, if you will, the

number of documents that we have asked be turned over and what

we have, the number of witnesses that we have asked to talk to

and what we have actually gotten.

These are the kind of things that I guess are frustrating for us

as we try to get to the bottom of this for Agent Terry’s family, and

so that these kind of things don’t happen again. Now, you said that

you were notified probably within 24 hours of Agent Terry’s death,

was that what I heard you say? Sir?

Attorney General HOLDER. I am sorry?

Mr. DESJARLAIS. You were notified——

Attorney General HOLDER. I was looking at Fortress Holder

there. I was kind of interested. That is not my house, by the way.

Chairman ISSA. Actually, I think it is closer to Disneyland. We

are a little concerned that it looks a little too grand for anything

in our government.

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Did you say that you were notified about 24

hours after Agent Terry’s death?

Attorney General HOLDER. I am sorry, yes.

Mr. DESJARLAIS. And when you were notified, did they mention

the Phoenix project to you?

Attorney General HOLDER. No.
170

Mr. DESJARLAIS. You had no knowledge that that death was, in

any way, linked to what went on in Phoenix. There was no mention

made of that?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, Phoenix, I am sure there was

some kind of geographic reference. But with regard to Fast and Furious, I didn’t know about Fast and Furious until later, January,

early February.

Mr. DESJARLAIS. So there were no bells going off or any concern

about the gun running or anything at that point?

Attorney General HOLDER. No. None of the people who were told

of the murder were made aware of the tactics.

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Let me reference a letter that was dated

February 4th, and I think the author is sitting behind you today,

Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich.

Attorney General HOLDER. Maybe he ought to sit here.

Chairman ISSA. With all due respect, he has had this hot seat

for real more than you have, Mr. Attorney General.

Mr. DESJARLAIS. He submitted a letter to the committee that denied that ATF sanctioned or knowingly allowed the sale of assault

weapons and allowed them to be walked, and I think your Department had this letter withdrawn, is that correct?

Attorney General HOLDER. That is correct.

Mr. DESJARLAIS. How long did it take to withdraw the letter?

Attorney General HOLDER. It was formally withdrawn in December, December 2nd. Prior to that, there were a number of indications by me, by Mr. Weich, by Mr. Breuer, that we were not satisfied with the assertions that were contained in that February 2nd

letter. But it was formally withdrawn on December 2nd.

Mr. DESJARLAIS. It wasn’t a deliberate attempt to deceive Congress? The letter?

Attorney General HOLDER. No. I mean, if you look at the materials that we made available, the deliberative materials that we

made available, you can see how people were, I think, really struggling to try to get the best information they could to Congress as

quickly as they could, but I think they made a couple of mistakes.

They needed to take more time and they needed to drill down further.

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Inaccurate information.

Attorney General HOLDER. They didn’t go down to talk to the

line people. They stopped at the supervisory level.

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Well, it is amazing how quickly 5 minutes goes.

But I guess as a parent, I want my kids to do the right thing, and

I am sure as the Attorney General, you want the people who work

under you to do the right thing. So I guess moving forward, how

do you feel that you can regain the trust of the American people

in light of all that has happened with Fast and Furious?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I will take issue with you again,

respectfully. I am not sure I have lost trust of the American people

with regard to this issue. This has become a political thing. I get

that. That is fine. So there is a certain segment of the American

people, certainly a certain segment of this Congress that has lost

faith in my abilities as a result of what has happened in Fast and

Furious. But I think the way in which to the extent that there are

people who are willing to be persuaded and who have a contrary
171

view now, I think they need to look at the way in which I reacted

to this, the steps that I have taken, the procedures that I have put

in place, the personnel changes I have made, and ultimately what

I am going to do when I have the ability to look at the minority

report, I assume there will be a majority report, the Inspector General’s report, and judge at that point whether or not I have reacted

appropriately to what was a flawed investigation, both in concept

and in execution.

Mr. DESJARLAIS. And with all due respect, sir——

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired, so please be

brief.

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. With all due respect, with what we see

here on your house, not your house, but the letter that was sent

in, what may appear as political appears now somewhat as a coverup——

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. DESJARLAIS. And a lot of information here doesn’t seem to

be accurate and I think that is why the number of hearings continue to go on us, because I don’t think we are getting the full information. I apologize.

Attorney General HOLDER. Wait a minute.

Chairman ISSA. If you want to react to something very quickly,

please.

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I have heard the magic word

here, ‘‘cover-up,’’ and I want to make clear that there is no attempt

at any sort of cover-up. We have shared huge amounts of information. We will continue to share huge amounts of information.

There is a misperception as I think was indicated in the Deputy

Attorney General’s letter that maybe I can clear up now, that we

are not going to be hiding behind any kind of privileges or anything

to not provide this committee with information that it wants. We

are talking about not providing deliberative material, and that is

consistent with what executive branch agencies beyond the Justice

Department always do.

But with regard to things post-February 5th, February 4th, if

there is a relevant request, we will respond to that request. The

only thing we are not talking about responding to is with regard

to deliberative material. That was a great little diagram that you

had up there, inaccurate in some pretty glaring ways, but it is not

up there now.

Mr. DESJARLAIS. And that is what my boys with the baseball implied as well.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman, and we can have a later

discussion on how many witnesses and how much information and

so on.

For the Attorney General’s edification, and I know Mr. Ron

Weich will help you, we have published two majority interim reports, and hopefully he can bring those to your attention. Additionally, this committee is investigating a number of things post-February 4th including related to the false response, and we hope that

that will be cleared up once you give us or fail to give us a constitutional basis for withholding.

With that, we now go to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis

is next in order.
172

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I notice that

we have heard the terminology ‘‘cover-up’’ a great deal, not only

during this discussion, but prior to now, and I think there is no

doubt that there is not a single member of this committee who does

not recognize the need for some serious change.

At the outset of this inquiry, Justice Department officials sent a

letter to Senator Grassley denying that gun walking occurred in

Fast and Furious. However, the Department has, since then, said

that the letter contained inaccurate information and that senior

Department officials relied on adamant denials by ATF and the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Mr. Attorney General, to your knowledge, did anyone at the Department of Justice headquarters intend to mislead Congress in responding to Senator Grassley’s inquiry?

Attorney General HOLDER. No, I don’t believe that. We submitted

inaccurate information, but it was based on attempts to get that

which was accurate, and people simply did not have access to it.

People who we relied on and who we thought were in possession

of the most accurate information were, in fact, not. There was no

intention to deceive, but the information provided was regrettably

inaccurate, and that is why we withdrew the letter.

Mr. DAVIS. And you have taken action to hold the personnel

within ATF and the U.S. Attorney’s Office accountable for conveying inaccurate information to the Department?

Attorney General HOLDER. We have certainly looked at those

places where personnel changes could be made. Some have been

made. It is possible that others will have to be made. There are reports that are going on. I will wait for those and see what happens,

although I have an independent responsibility, separate and apart

from whatever the Inspector General generates, to make up my

own mind about what kinds of personnel decisions we need to

make, I need to make.

Mr. DAVIS. The committee has also interviewed a number of—numerous witnesses, involved in compiling and reviewing the response to Congress. The Department has also produced more than

1,300 pages of correspondence relating just to the issue of how the

original letter to Senator Grassley came to be drafted. These documents support the account of senior Department of Justice officials

that they relied on factual assertions from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Phoenix and from ATF. Within 2 months of the February

4, 2011 letter to the Senator, Department officials told committee

staff that the letter was unintentionally inaccurate and stated that

the Department would cooperate with the committee’s investigation. The Department has now produced over 6,000 pages of documents and made 18 witnesses available for transcribed interviews,

and, of course, you have testified on matters relating to this issue

six times. Is the Department cooperating with Congress?

Attorney General HOLDER. I think we are. I think that we are

trying to meet the legitimate requests that have been made by this

committee. This is a legitimate hearing. This is a legitimate concern that Congress is raising and I think what we have tried to do

is respond as best we can to the requests that we have made as

quickly as we can while, at the same time, making sure that we

don’t do things that will have a negative impact on our ability to
173

do our jobs, and that is with regard to that small amount of information that deals with deliberative materials.

Mr. DAVIS. What categories of information are being held and

why?

Attorney General HOLDER. The material being held and I think

things that we are going to have to try to work our ways through

are, as I have described, deliberative materials, where we have

eight people within the Justice Department talking to one another

about how we are going to respond to a congressional request or

a media request. That kind of—that is the kind of material that we

are talking about. We have made available huge amounts of other

material. We are still in the process of processing other things that

we will make available. We are acting in a way that executive

branch agencies have always acted.

Now, you know, again, we can continue to have conversations

about even this deliberative material and see if there are ways in

which we can share it. One of the things I think that we have to

take into account, and I am not sure anybody has ever done this,

we made deliberative material, wholesale deliberative material

available with regard to that February 4th letter, as you say about

1,300 pages of material. I am not sure I know any Attorney General who has ever done that before to that degree, and I thought

it was the appropriate thing, given the inaccuracies that were contained in that letter.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman,

that we are dealing with Fast and Furious, but I also think we got

to make sure that we are fast and accurate, as accurate as we can

possibly be. I yield back.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. I might note for the

record that the delivery of the February 4th related material occurred only after I threatened a criminal referral for its inaccuracy.

It was at that point that we began getting some cooperation, and

not before. With that, we recognize the gentleman——

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, Mr. Chairman, our view is that

we can disagree on this. We think that the provision of that February 4th material was done voluntarily, not under coercion.

Chairman ISSA. All right. My threat of criminal prosecution isn’t

coercion. It is a fact that we were given false information and it

was subject already to a subpoena. Cooperation subject to a subpoena—by this committee’s standards, we asked for things long before we issued a subpoena. We were told no. We issued a subpoena

and we were at the level of going next before we got there. So I

appreciate that everyone on both sides of the aisle has a different

opinion, but the timeline is undeniable that we have never received

voluntary cooperation until we had elevated it considerably in any

case here. And certainly Senator Grassley would say the same

thing when, in fact, he was told he didn’t have subpoena authority,

he wasn’t the chairman. That is the reason he originally came to

this committee, so we could begin the process of getting what he

was denied in the Senate.

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I can say this. I was the one

who made the determination that we were going to release that

February 4th material, the deliberative material, and it was never

brought to my attention that we had the things that you have just
174

said. The decision that I made was based solely on what I felt was

the right thing to do and without any notion in my mind that there

was coercion or—I don’t mean coercion in a negative way—that

there was the threat of criminal prosecution or anything like that.

My determination was made only on what I thought was right,

given the provision, the regrettable provision of inaccurate information. Others might have known about that. I did not. And I was

the one who made the call.

Chairman ISSA. I don’t want to belabor this point, but I do want

to make a point. I signed a subpoena October 12th. It was to you.

So the cooperation came after your office in your name as you as

the recipient received a subpoena. I hope that you read the subpoenas that come with your name on it.

Attorney General HOLDER. But the subpoena, we would not have

replied in response to that subpoena, we would not have given you

the deliberative information. That would not have been something

that we would have provided.

Chairman ISSA. We are entitled to it and we are not going to debate that any further. Case law is on our side.

With that, we go to the gentleman from South Carolina, another

constitutional officer in this branch of government, for 5 minutes.

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Holder, it is provable beyond a reasonable doubt in my judgment that main Justice had actual or constructive knowledge of

gun walking, both in Fast and Furious and beforehand, and I am

going to prove it to you.

March 2010, DOJ, not U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona, DOJ assigned a prosecutor to Fast and Furious. March 2010, Gary

Grindler, who I believe is your chief of staff, knew about straw purchases in Fast and Furious and seizures in Mexico, and it doesn’t

take a very good prosecutor to ask how weapons got from Phoenix

to Mexico.

July 2010, a memo to you through the acting deputy AG, that

memo specifically mentioned Fast and Furious. It specifically mentioned straw purchasers. It specifically mentioned 1,500 firearms

supplied to Mexican drug dealers. That is July 2010, 1,500 firearms.

April 30, 2010, a memo from main Justice employee Weinstein

to Lanny Breuer, ‘‘ATF let a bunch of guns walk.’’ Then the rest

of the email is worrying about the negative press connotations that

may have come from that. Not how to fix the policy, but how to

mitigate negative press consequences.

October 2010, Jason Weinstein and James Trusty swapped

emails, and specifically mentioned gun walking. And, Mr. Attorney

General, that email is so illustrative of our frustration with the notion that main Justice did not know about this. I am assuming that

James Trusty is a main Justice employee, am I correct?

Attorney General HOLDER. I believe that is correct.

Mr. GOWDY. All right. This is the email, and they are specifically

talking about Fast and Furious, and in fairness, they also mention

Laura’s Tucson case. They say it is a tricky case given the number

of guns that have walked, but it is a significant set of prosecutions.

The email back to that is I am not sure how much grief we are

going to get from gun walking. It may be more like people are fi-
175

nally going to say we went after the people who sent guns down

there.

Now, lay aside the merits of that argument. How can you deny

that people in main Justice knew gun walking was going on before

that February 4th letter was sent to a Member of Congress? That

doesn’t even get into the wiretap applications. That doesn’t get to

the factual predicate that a member of main Justice would have

had to have read—all of this is before February 4th. That whole

series of evidence predates Mr. Weich sending a letter to Congress

denying the tactic.

So my question to you is this: Who participated in the drafting

of the letter?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, first, again, you know, this is

going to be one of those rare instances, you are right. There was

knowledge within the Justice Department of gun walking. It was

related to Wide Receiver.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Attorney, with respect, I don’t like interrupting

people, but with respect, several of these emails specifically mention Fast and Furious. I am not talking about Wide Receiver. I

would love to have that conversation some other time. These emails

and memos specifically mention Fast and Furious.

Attorney General HOLDER. They mention Fast and Furious, but

do they mention gun walking and Fast and Furious.

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, they do. That is my point.

Attorney General HOLDER. I would like to see those. Those I

would like to see.

Mr. GOWDY. We got them from you. I mean, we got them from

main Justice.

Attorney General HOLDER. Let’s do this: I promised to give you

all some information. I would really like to see a memo that says

gun walking and Fast and Furious. I would like to see that.

Mr. GOWDY. Well, if you are looking for a videotaped confession,

I probably can’t give you that. But what I can give you is an email

from two main Justice employees back and forth specifically mentioning Fast and Furious. ‘‘It is a tricky case, given the number of

guns that have walked.’’ I don’t know how it can be any clearer

than that, Mr. Attorney General. And my point is this: The February 4th letter——

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman will suspend. In order to get to

the truth, we are going to take a 5-minute recess and have the documents given to the Attorney General. I have too many people behind him trying to give him instructions on what it was and what

it wasn’t. Nobody leave. Please get the documents to the Attorney

General. Take what time you need. Use my conference room if you

need it.

Attorney General HOLDER. I can stay here.

Chairman ISSA. A short recess for 5 minutes.

[Recess.]

Chairman ISSA. Would everyone take their seats. We are going

to reconvene as soon as the ranking member is back.

As we reconvene, I understand that the Attorney General’s people are comfortable with what the document is and the source. I

would ask for an additional 1 minute for the gentleman to go

through, restate the document, the source and so on. This is impor-
176

tant, that all sides know what is being asked, whether there are

assumptions of validity, truth and so on, and testimony that may

accompany it. So, with that, the gentleman from South Carolina

may resume.

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And in keeping with my

open file discovery policy, I gave him my documents. They have my

notes on them. I will go back through the list again. And I would

also point out, Mr. Attorney General, there are several memos and

emails I did not include because reasonably, it could be argued that

they dealt with something other than Fast and Furious. Although

keep in mind, my question, what I said I was going to prove is that

DOJ knew Fast and Furious, and beforehand, that gun walking

was a tactic, because the letter Mr. Weich wrote was not specific

with respect to gun walking.

True or false: DOJ assigned a prosecutor to Fast and Furious.

Attorney General HOLDER. I believe that’s right. There were people that went down—one or two, I’m not sure.

Chairman ISSA. The microphone.

Attorney General HOLDER. I believe that that is right, that there

were people who went down, one or two, I am not sure, who went

down to help with regard to that prosecution, that matter.

Mr. GOWDY. True or false that Mr. Grindler attended a debriefing on Fast and Furious where his own notes indicate the seizure

of weapons in Mexico.

Attorney General HOLDER. That—if you are talking about debriefing, if you are talking about the meeting he had with the folks

from ATF, I guess, in March 2010, 2010——

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir, it is March, and there is a note in cursive

handwriting, ‘‘Fast and Furious,’’ and there was a map attached to

that of the seizure of weapons in Mexico. And my point was, it

doesn’t take a very good prosecutor to ask how the guns got from

Phoenix to Mexico.

Attorney General HOLDER. Mr. Grindler has testified and indicated that what happened in that meeting was that he was briefed

on the operation and was told that it was essentially a successful

operation, and no mention of tactics came out of that meeting.

Mr. GOWDY. All right. There was a memo to you through the acting deputy AG from the National Drug Intelligence, I can’t recall

his name because I don’t have my copy of it. Fast and Furious is

mentioned specifically, straw purchasers are mentioned specifically,

and 1,500 firearms are mentioned specifically.

Attorney General HOLDER. This is what we call a weekly report,

and I have testified about this I don’t know how many times. There

are a number of these that coming from NDIC. And for the record

it is from Michael Walther, who is the Director of the National

Drug Intelligence Center, and these things just talk about what is

going on with regard to operations. Again, there is no mention of

tactics in any of these. There is no indication that inappropriate

tactics are being used in connection with the underlying investigation, and that is why these things were not brought to my attention

by my staff.

Mr. GOWDY. Well, it mentions 1,500 firearms and it mentioning

straw purchasers. And, Mr. Holder, despite the protestations of

some of your staff behind you that you are being treated unfairly,
177

I never once said that you were aware of it. I said that main Justice was aware of it. I suspect you didn’t draft the letter on February 4th. My question is, who participated in the drafting of it?

And I’m out of time, so I will go ahead and ask the second question. After that, I would hope perhaps at some point, Mr. Chairman, I could ask the rest of the questions I have.

But here of my two questions. Who participated in the drafting

of it? Because the criminal chief head, Lanny Breuer, was in Mexico contemporaneous with the drafting of the February 4th letter

advocating gun walking. Get that image, that visual image of a letter being drafted denying gun walking while the criminal chief at

main Justice is in Mexico advocating for gun walking.

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Attorney

General may answer.

Attorney General HOLDER. In terms of who drafted the February

4th letter, that is obvious from the materials we shared from with

you, those 1,300 pages or so. I mean, I don’t—I can’t recall all their

names, but you will really see, I think, virtually everybody, if not

everybody, who was involved at the Justice Department in the creation of the February 4th letter, so you could review that.

I don’t think it is correct to say that while the letter was being

drafted that Mr. Breuer was in Mexico advocating for gun walking.

He was in Mexico. And I think you are talking about a February

2nd email or report, I guess, from the State Department that indicated that what he was talking about was the possibility of a

surveilled delivery of weapons to people who would take them to

the border and an arrest made at the border, and interestingly, on

the Mexican side of the border, because the penalties that exist in

Mexico for gun trafficking, for straw purchasing, are higher than

they are here in the United States.

That is what he was proposing. Not gun walking, but something

very, very different. It was something that was raised, ultimately

never carried out.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. I apologize. There is no

additional time at this time. We now go to the gentleman from

Vermont, Mr. Welch, for 5 minutes.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Two things. Number one, I want to express appreciation for the

hard work of the people of the ATF. This is an incredible challenge

that they have. We lost a revered officer, Officer Terry, in the service of his country, and it is because there is a huge problem with

guns going from the southwest into Mexico. In the past 5 years,

94,000 guns recovered in Mexico, over 64,000 are traced to the

United States, and every year, thousands are transported across

the border. You have very few tools at Justice to try to deal with

that. You have spoken about that so I won’t ask you.

But I think it is important for us to ask the question whether

the point of this hearing is to try to do something that is going to

help the men and women of law enforcement deal with the major

problem, or it is going to be something that is going to run into one

dead end after another without any good outcome.

Second, we get in our own way a little bit here with the investigation because it goes off into many different directions, largely

because we make some allegations that as we investigate them and
178

take up staff time, they don’t go anywhere. And I have great affection for my chairman, who is a hard-charging man, but in my experience, sometimes you get ahead of yourself on some of the allegations you make. I will just mention a few.

You had indicated, let me get it, one of your allegations was that,

and I quote, you said that folks made a crisis and they are using

this crisis to somehow take away or limit people’s Second Amendment rights. That this hearing has nothing to do with that, this

whole investigation has nothing to do with that.

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELCH. I would be glad to yield.

Chairman ISSA. I will be very brief. When the ATF began asking

and the Justice began asking for additional directly related enforcement, including the idea that every two-rifle purchase in fact build

to a data base that Congress has repeatedly limited in statute on

request, it did seem and does still seem to this Member as though

a crisis created by gun walking and Brian Terry’s death was, in

fact, being partially justified by this new requirement at a very inappropriate time, at least the optics of it.

Mr. WELCH. I will reclaim my time, but thank you. I would disagree. But some of the unsubstantiated allegations though were,

for instance, the allegations that your office and you made—accused Mr. Holder of ‘‘authorizing every aspect of this.’’ There is no

shred of evidence to back that up.

Last October, an allegation was made that there was a third gun

because there was an item of evidence marked number 2 and number 3. Those were two guns. It turned out item of evidence was

number one was not a gun, it was I think a blood sample. So every

time any one of us makes an allegation that is theory and conjecture but not based on any solid foundation, it creates a lot of consternation among the public, takes staff time and ends us into a

blind alley.

Now, the real question has always been what did the Attorney

General know and when did he know it. In the six investigations

that we have had or the six that have been ongoing, the answer

to that is the Attorney General was unaware of this activity at

ATF.

Now, Mr. Gowdy has raised a good question here, and I want to

give you a good chance to answer that. But my understanding

about Mr. Weinstein is that the discussion there was about activities that were taking place during the Bush administration, not

during this administration, and the fact that this tactic may have

been used in the Bush administration doesn’t mean that you knew

that it was an ongoing tactic that was used in Fast and Furious.

So I want to just give you an opportunity to try to elaborate

whatever answer you want to give to the question that’s been

raised by Mr. Gowdy.

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah. The email that I had I guess

from Mr. Gowdy, and I gave it back, is from Jason Weinstein, and

he has indicated that the reference that he makes in there is not

to Fast and Furious but it is to Wide Receiver. He testified that

it is his email.

You know, I think in some ways he’s the best person to determine what his own words meant. I mean, I’ve looked at it, and I
179

appreciate the chairman giving us the opportunity to look at it over

the course of that couple of minutes. But the email is, as I said,

Jason’s email—Jason Weinstein’s email where he indicated that he

was talking about Wide Receiver and not Fast and Furious.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Holder.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

If you will yield, I would like to explain something.

Mr. WELCH. I’m out of time. But the chairman, as I understand

it, has some prerogatives.

Chairman ISSA. Well, I think in the case of an accusation of a

false statement, I will, briefly.

Brian Terry’s mother and father were told by a law enforcement

official that they believed there was a third gun. The missing number that was later explained seemed to corroborate it. Ultimately,

though, three people have reported that they were told there was

a third weapon.

Now we don’t know there was or wasn’t. Justice has not confirmed whether or not there’s a ballistic match on the two Fast and

Furious weapons there, nor have they confirmed they’re looking for

an additional weapon or an additional shooter.

I take very seriously getting the facts right. The fact is, we report

in a limited basis things which in this case the press was way

ahead of and we said, yes, we’re looking into it. We did—and I will

admit, we did and do get things wrong during an investigation. We

do go down blind alleys regularly. Certainly that’s the case. Today’s

hearing and the 1,300 pages out of 6,000 that were directly related

to a response to a false statement made to us in writing on February 4th is an example where a lot of time has been spent going

down a false thing.

The gentleman, though, is correct, and this chairman will admit,

during this investigation, for more than a year, there have been

times in which we did not get the information right. So, while correcting you, I’m not going to say we get it all right. Our goal is to

get it all right before we publish; and, hopefully, each of our publications, majority and minority, is where we make sure we only

state that which we can substantiate with footnotes.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ISSA. Thank you.

We now go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Ross.

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Attorney General, I want to make sure I understand your

testimony today and the facts as well. You’ve indicated today that

you were not aware of any gun-walking at all until you were

briefed in, it looks like, 2011. That would have been January or

February 2011?

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah, January, February 2011.

Mr. ROSS. And you are specifically speaking of gun-walking, not

just Fast and Furious?

Attorney General HOLDER. No, I didn’t become aware of Fast and

Furious until about the same time period.

Mr. ROSS. So you were not aware of any gun-walking, including

Wide Receiver, prior to the end of January 2011?
180

Attorney General HOLDER. No. I learned of Wide Receiver, actually, later on. I became aware of Wide Receiver as we were preparing documents to be submitted to this committee.

Mr. ROSS. And without regard to Mr. Weinstein’s memo, which

you were not aware of, so you did not know anything about Wide

Receiver? I just want to make sure that that’s clear.

Attorney General HOLDER. No.

Mr. ROSS. So when you said earlier that you were not aware of

the term Fast and Furious being used, were you aware at the time

of Mr. Terry’s death of any investigation or program that was going

on as a result of his death?

Attorney General HOLDER. As a result of his death. I certainly

was aware of the fact that there was an investigation into who

killed him. There was a criminal investigation that started December—right at the time of his death, December 14th, 15th. I was

aware of that.

Mr. ROSS. And in fact you testified today that you were notified

the date of his death, is that correct?

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes.

Mr. ROSS. And was that by Mr. Wilkinson?

Attorney General HOLDER. I don’t know. I’m not sure who told

me.

Mr. ROSS. If I might refresh your recollection, because, pursuant

to some of the documents that we received Friday evening, we did

receive some emails; and one of which was an email sent on December 15th. It was an email exchange that began from somebody

to Dennis Burke, your U.S. attorney in Arizona at the time, saying,

our agent has passed away. Dennis Burke then forwarded that to

Monty Wilkinson, who was acting as your deputy chief of staff I believe at the time.

Attorney General HOLDER. Deputy chief of staff.

Mr. ROSS. On December 15th, at 9:41 a.m., Mr. Burke said: Not

good, 18 miles within. Thereafter, at 10:04 that morning, your deputy chief of staff, Monty Wilkinson, then said in an email to Mr.

Burke: Tragic. I have alerted the AG, the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.

Would it then be correct to assume that the way you learned of

Brian Terry’s death was from Mr. Wilkinson himself as a result of

his statement that he notified you?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, he notified me, but I’m saying

it’s entirely possibly that I knew about it before Monty told me.

Mr. ROSS. You have no reason to dispute that Monty told you

about it?

Attorney General HOLDER. I suppose he did. But I’m just saying

that when it comes to that—when a law enforcement death, especially involving a Federal law enforcement officer, that’s the kind

of information that gets to me very, very quickly.

Mr. ROSS. And it should.

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, and from a variety of places.

Mr. ROSS. In fact, to follow up on that, in the email exchange

later at 11:15 a.m. That morning, there was another email from

Mr. Wilkinson to Dennis Burke saying, please provide any additional details as they become available to you, asking the U.S. attorney in Arizona, please tell us, Mr. U.S. Attorney, we want to

know more.
181

Later that day, in an email from Mr. Burke, the U.S. attorney

in Arizona, to Mr. Wilkinson, your deputy chief: The guns found in

the desert near the murdered BP officer connect back to the investigation we were going to talk about. They were AK–47s purchased

at a Phoenix gun store.

My question to you, Mr. Attorney General, were you aware of

this email exchange? Were you aware of an investigation ongoing

that involved a Phoenix gun store and specifically AK–47s at the

time?

Attorney General HOLDER. No, I wasn’t. But what’s interesting—

listen to what you just said. He said that we were going to talk

about, we were going to talk about, which implies that they did not

talk about.

Mr. ROSS. Not prior to but subsequent to. Subsequent to the

death. Mr. Wilkinson has already told you about Brian Terry’s

death. Now he’s being informed about an investigation involving

the slain officer, involving a gun store in Phoenix. Did that not

raise any sense of awareness? Did it not raise any sense of intrigue—if not from Mr. Wilkinson, at least from you—to say, what

investigation then is ongoing?

Attorney General HOLDER. I was not told about this. I was unaware of this. And unless there was some indication that——

Mr. ROSS. I appreciate that. But you’ve testified today that you

are a hands-on manager.

Attorney General HOLDER. What I was saying was that, unless

there’s some indication that the tactics that we are so against were

employed there, all we know is that this was something—this was

a tragic event connected to an ongoing investigation.

Mr. ROSS. Involving a gun store and an AK–47. What else do we

have to say, involving a cartel?

I mean, come on. From December 15th until the end of January,

you don’t learn about a gun-walking operation ongoing in your Department? And I’m supposed to go home and tell my constituency

that that’s the facts? Mr. Attorney General, I have a hard time believing that.

And if you are, if you are responsible for those underneath your

direction, I would assume that those underneath your direction

would make sure you are fully informed of all incidents of significance, including an ongoing investigation subsequent to an agent’s

death.

Attorney General HOLDER. What I would say is that, in the absence of an indication that these inappropriate tactics were used,

you have here a tragic death connected to an ongoing Federal matter, an ongoing investigation. You know, unfortunately, that happens all the time, too many times.

What makes this case, this situation unique are the inappropriate tactics. And I don’t think there’s any indication that Mr.

Wilkinson or anybody else was aware of these tactics until the January, February timeframe—late January, early February timeframe.

Mr. ROSS. So you made no inquiry as to whether this investigation involved gun-walking?

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m sorry?
182

Mr. ROSS. You made no inquiry as to the investigation involving

Brian Terry’s death involved gun-walking?

Attorney General HOLDER. That information was not brought to

my attention, so I would not have——

Mr. ROSS. But you made no inquiry.

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. ROSS. I’m not asking if it was brought to your attention. You

yourself made no inquiry with regard to that.

Attorney General HOLDER. There was no indication. There was

no basis for us to believe that gun-walking was at all a part of any

of this stuff. I didn’t know anything about gun-walking or the use

of that technique until February. And by February the 28th, in

early March, I said, guess what, we’re not doing gun-walking. It

took me a month—or less than a month—to say the gun-walking

was inappropriate. Brought to my attention, fairly rapid response

to say, don’t ever do this again.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

We now go to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Speier, for 5

minutes.

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Over here, Attorney General. Last person on the totem pole, so

to speak.

Chairman ISSA. She will be moving up in future years.

Ms. SPEIER. Don’t count on it.

In any case, first of all, let me say that I think we can stipulate

for the record that this hideous chapter in the Attorney General’s

Office dating back to 2006 is one that we never want to see repeated. But I think it’s important for us to recognize that this has

been going on for a long time; and, but for the death of Agent

Terry, would it still be going on today? And that’s one of the things

that continues to trouble me.

For the record, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous

consent to put into the record a memo provided to then Attorney

General Mukasey in November 2007 in which it specified to him,

of particular importance ATF has recently worked jointly with

Mexico on the first-ever attempts to have controlled delivery of

weapons being smuggled into Mexico by a major arms trafficker.

While the first attempts at the controlled delivery have not been

successful, the investigation is ongoing and ATF would like to expand the possibility of such joint investigations and controlled delivery.

Chairman ISSA. I’m more than happy to have that piece of discovery placed in the record. No objection.

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you.

[The information referred to follows:]
183
184
185

Ms. SPEIER. Attorney General, were you ever told about General

Mukasey’s briefing regarding controlled deliveries, another word

for gun-walking?

Attorney General HOLDER. I didn’t find out about that until late

in this process as we were developing documents to submit to this

committee with regard to operation Wide Receiver. I didn’t know

before that.

Ms. SPEIER. All right.

This committee is Government Oversight and Reform, so I would

like to spend a couple of minutes on the reform side. Hopefully, we

are not just having these hearings to continue to beat up on what

is an atrocious chapter in our history, but how do we make sure

that it doesn’t happen again? So speak to me about the fact that

we do not have a Federal statute on gun trafficking.

Attorney General HOLDER. We don’t have a tool that we really

need. We need to have an ability to say that gun trafficking is inappropriate, it’s wrong, and there’s a Federal criminal penalty for

it. And a statute can be drawn in such a way that it is respectful

of the Second Amendment rights that all American enjoy. What I’m

talking about are people who are doing things for criminal, illicit

purposes that put the American people at risk and put at risk our

colleagues, our neighbors south of the border, in Mexico.

Ms. SPEIER. What other things do we need in place to avoid this

kind of activity? From your own testimony, you said that you could

trace 60,000 weapons, but that’s just a small percentage of what’s

really being trafficked from the United States into Mexico.

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think that’s right. Sixty-four

thousand weapons have been traced from the United States to

Mexico. But those are the ones that have been traced. There are

substantially a greater number of guns that have not been traced.

We need to have a statute that will make meaningful what I think

as a crime straw purchasing and make meaningful a penalty for

people who engage in straw purchasing to get around the rules

that this Congress enacted and that I am charged with enforcing.

We need to have an ATF head who is confirmed. I’m glad to hear

the chairman say that he would support that.

There are other management changes that we have made and,

as I said before, that are consistent with the minority report; and

I think that you all have done a really good job in making that

list—there are actually a couple that we didn’t think of that I am

looking at that I think we will try to implement as well.

There are a whole variety of things that can be done in a way

that, if we are truly going to put partisan concerns aside, put lobbying concerns aside, and have some courage—because it will take

some courage, because this will not be universally approved—we

can really make a difference in the lives of the American people

and protect the lives of law enforcement officers.

Ms. SPEIER. Have you developed a statute that you could provide

to the committee around penalizing straw purchasers and gun trafficking?

Attorney General HOLDER. I can check with our legislative affairs folks and see exactly what it is that we have there.

As I indicated before, Congresswoman Maloney and Congressman Cummings have actually put something on paper that I think
186

is a good place for us to start, but I can also check and see what

it is that we have and that we can share with this committee.

Ms. SPEIER. All right. I would appreciate that.

My time has expired.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentlelady.

I now ask unanimous consent that discovery documents HOGR

DOJ 005752, 53, and 54 be placed in the record along with the

gentlelady’s documents from earlier, just immediately before. These

show Lanny Breuer lobbying for gun-walking in a coordinated fashion across the border for people to be arrested in Mexico on February 4.

Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]
187
188
189
190

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I would just reserve because I

don’t think that accurately describes that document.

Chairman ISSA. Well, the document speaks for itself.

Mr. CUMMINGS. He’s not talking about gun-walking. I thought he

was talking about a coordinated effort with the Mexican Government to follow those guns and then make a cooperative effort——

Chairman ISSA. Which is what——

Mr. CUMMINGS. Not letting it just walk but——

Chairman ISSA. Right. But the definition of gun-walking which

the minority has chosen to put on Wide Receiver—Wide Receiver

was a coordinated effort where they followed to the border the

guns. The problem with Wide Receiver and the reason it had to be

abandoned is that they found that, as it crossed the border, repeatedly they lost control of the guns.

The program described here in the email related to Mr. Breuer

is exactly the same program. Now maybe if you do something

enough times you might get it different in the outcome. But the

program, the attempt to follow from the store to the border and

then pass off to Mexican authorities is, in fact, Wide Receiver. That

was that program which differs from Fast and Furious, where in

Fast and Furious, they told people to peel away and they’d find the

guns later.

There is a distinct difference, but there is no difference between

what this document shows and the stated Wide Receiver. The fact

is Lanny Breuer in this document was clearly trying to say, let’s

do Wide Receiver again, but let’s get it right this time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve. I would like to see the

document.

Chairman ISSA. You have the document. This is DOJ 0057–54.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Go ahead.

Chairman ISSA. No. You have reserved. I will wait.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, again, I think we have a differing

opinions of what gun-walking is. I will withdraw my reservation.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

And you are right. We can disagree as to what the document

means. My discussion was what I believe it means. But you are absolutely right. Ms. Speier and myself could both be wrong about

what the document means, but I appreciate your allowing it to be

placed in the record.

I’m going to ask unanimous consent that DOJ 0058–11 and 12

be placed in the record, but I will reserve myself until the minority

has a chance to see it and be comfortable with it.

[The information referred to follows:]
191
192
193

Chairman ISSA. And, with that, we now go to the gentleman from

Texas who has patiently been waiting down in the cheap seats, Mr.

Farenthold.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Chairman Issa.

Mr. Attorney General, I want to follow up on something Mr. Ross

said, because I think we’re looking at management and how the

DOJ is managed. I think you told him that you were informed

about Agent Terry’s death but never heard anything back about it

being associated with the guns that walked.

I’m the kind of person—maybe our management styles are different—that if an employee under my charge was killed in the line

of duty, I would want to be briefed almost on a daily basis as to

how that investigation is going. I’m asking again, you didn’t hear

for quite some time that the Fast and Furious guns were involved

in this?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, no. That’s correct. I didn’t hear

about that for a while.

I mean, you know, to draw a distinction here—and I’m almost

hesitant to do this—we are talking about a brave law enforcement

officer. Well, it wasn’t a part—that doesn’t matter.

I was brought up to date about, you know, the ongoing investigation, what we were doing at the Justice Department but did not

hear anything about the connection between that death and the

gun-walking tactics until, as I said, February 2011.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Well, we’ve been investigating Fast

and Furious for some time. Y’all have been looking at it internally.

You’ve constantly blamed the ATF or the U.S. Attorney’s Office in

Arizona, I think. Mr. Gowdy’s made it clear through some of his

questions that it actually has gone up to Main Justice. But I just

don’t see y’all doing anything.

There were several questions earlier about what you’ve done.

And nobody’s been disciplined. Nobody’s been fired. There hasn’t

even been a letter put in. I don’t think that’s good management,

and I think that’s the reason that many of my colleagues—myself

included—have suggested it might be time for you to resign.

My question is that, knowing what you know about the handling

of Operation Fast and Furious, do you believe you’re capable of

running the top law enforcement agency in this country? And can

you tell the taxpayers that you’re the most qualified person to manage the Department of Justice?

Attorney General HOLDER. First off, let me just say we have not

blamed—I have not blamed the people in Phoenix, either ATF or

the U.S. Attorney’s Office there. I mean, they’re good people down

there. They work hard. And I’m not going to allow that to stand

in the record. I’m not blaming anybody. We want to find out who

in those offices might have been responsible as well as who at Main

Justice is responsible.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Don’t you think 13 months is a little long to

run that investigation?

Attorney General HOLDER. You have to understand something. I

don’t have the ability to do a top-to-bottom investigation here because of the Inspector General’s investigation, and I have to respect

that.
194

Now with regard to my capacities to run this Department, you

know, I’ll let the record speak for itself. People have differing views

in this room about Fast and Furious and my role in it.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I just have a limited amount of time.

You’ve indicated——

Attorney General HOLDER. You asked a question, I mean, questioning whether or not I should resign. And I don’t have a chance

to respond to that?

Mr. FARENTHOLD. That’s fine.

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you.

So if you are going to judge me and ask me to resign, as you

have and as have some of your colleagues, you know, you’ve asked

a broad question. And how you judge that, well, you look at everything that I’ve done in this Department for the past 3 years and

you look at the Department and the state that it was in when I

got here—a dispirited Department that had gone through scandals,

that had the traditions of the Department turned on its head. It

had been politicized.

I will stand on what I’ve done with regard to the Criminal Division, the Antitrust Division, with regard to the Civil Division and

the fraud money that we’ve brought in, the great work we’ve done

on national security. And if you want to say that I am a person not

qualified to be Attorney General you take that into account as well.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, then why are we withholding some of the

deliberative documents, too? That’s another one of my concerns.

Really, a lot of times here in Washington it’s not what actually

happens that you get hung on. It’s the cover-ups. So I’m concerned

that some of those documents are going to show some of the theories that have been floated around that maybe some delays were

put on stopping Fast and Furious based on some of the things that

the people on the other side of the aisle are calling for now in additional and more stricter laws.

I mean, if there was a political purpose to that, I think the American people have a right to know about that. So I would urge you

to release those documents. Let us look at them and let the American people make that decision.

But I’m almost out of time, and I’ve learned from the testimony

here that things tend not to bubble up to your desk very often. I

did want to make sure that you were aware of an operation with

the DEA that has two Houston, Texas, based pilots being detained

in Panama over money laundering. I realize that’s out of the scope

of this investigation. You can choose to comment on it or not. But

I did want to make sure it bubbled up to your level.

And my time has expired.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Yes.

Chairman ISSA. Just quickly, the minority’s not objecting to the

Cole document from March 10, 2011. So that is placed in the

record.

I thank the gentleman.

[The information referred to follows:]
195
196
197

Chairman ISSA. And with that, we go——

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Excuse me. Did you wish to answer? You are

welcome to or not.

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman may respond.

Attorney General HOLDER. There is a limited amount of information I can talk about that.

The DEA leadership has told my staff that the incident you described in your letter was not a DEA operation. I can’t respond

much more than that. But DEA can provide your staff a briefing

with regard to that outside of this setting.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. That’s fine. I’m just worried about the pilots.

Attorney General HOLDER. That’s fine. Sure.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the Attorney General. On December 5th,

we actually asked for a briefing on that. We appreciate your commitment to that briefing in an appropriate setting.

Now we go to the very patient gentleman from Missouri, Mr.

Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Attorney

General Holder, for, once again, coming before the committee.

Our job on this committee is oversight. It is to examine the facts

and come to conclusions. People of good faith may disagree. Reasonable people can look at the same evidence and come to differing

conclusions.

In this case, we’re not looking at evidence and then coming to

conclusions. Rather, the majority is not looking at evidence and

coming to conclusions. The majority came to a conclusion before

any facts were examined, before any evidence was produced, before

any witnesses were given the opportunity to testify. And that conclusion was that there was a scandal, a scandal that the majority

could exploit for political gain, an Obama administration scandal

that could garner the majority the splashy headlines they promised

when they took control of this committee.

Remember now, this is when the chairman of this committee

promised the American people that he would hold seven hearings

a week times 40 weeks. These plans weren’t reflective of actual evidence, of actual facts already gathered that would determine the

number and pace of hearings. This was at a time when, flush with

victory, the majority began to display the hubris that would be

their hallmark for the last 13 months.

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. CLAY. Not yet. This was at a time when the incoming chairman on the committee said that President Obama has been one of

the most corrupt Presidents in modern time. Since then, we have

sat through politicized hearing after politicized hearing and we

have seen the majority level wild accusations against the administration with absolutely no basis in fact. We have watched the majority berate witnesses. We have heard the majority accuse witnesses of lying. We have seen the majority attempt to deny us the

right to call our own witnesses, and we have seen what we see here

once again today.

The majority has been and is accusing the administration, the

Justice Department, the Attorney General of participating in a vast

conspiracy. The chairman has compared the Fast and Furious operation with Iran-Contra. This was a completely irresponsible com-
198

parison. Iran-Contra was, indeed, a vast conspiracy, one that

reached directly to the Oval Office, and evidence proved that.

It is irresponsible to take that gavel to assume the grave responsibility of leading this committee and to wield the power to subpoena, the power to call and examine witnesses, the power to investigate like a political instrument, solely like a political instrument, to accuse the AG of—no, I won’t repeat the irresponsible

wholly manufactured accusation, but to do so without evidence is

irresponsible.

Now there is evidence Fast and Furious was a fatally flawed operation. We know that from the evidence. We also know from the

evidence that an Attorney General knew about flawed failed gunwalking operations. We know this from the documents produced by

the Justice Department. However, that was Attorney General

Mukasey in President Bush’s administration.

So we have evidence of knowledge at the highest level of the Justice Department about a bad, flawed policy. Does the majority call

former Attorney General Mukasey to testify? Does the majority examine the full history of these operations in a fair and responsible

manner? Does the majority even attempt to avoid the appearance

that this is a politically motivated attack?

I think from the evidence we know the answer to those questions; and, Mr. Chairman, I will now yield the balance of my time

to the ranking member.

Chairman ISSA. The ranking member has 5 seconds.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman in light of the latitude that you’ve

given on your side, I would ask for 2 minutes. Unanimous consent.

Chairman ISSA. Any objections?

Without objection, the gentleman from Missouri has an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

I’m going to look at this organizational chart, Attorney General,

and I see every single person with immediate supervisory responsibility of Operation Fast and Furious has been removed or reassigned.

Let’s look at ATF. Here are the people that have been removed

from their management positions and from any operational roles:

the director, the deputy director, the assistant director, the deputy

assistant director, the special agent in charge, the assistant special

agent in charge, and the group’s supervisor. Is that right?

Attorney General HOLDER. I can’t see the bottom of the chart,

but I think that’s all accurate.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Similarly, at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona, all of the key personnel involved in Fast and Furious have

resigned, been removed, or been reassigned: the U.S. attorney, the

criminal chief, the section head, and line prosecutor. Is that right?

Attorney General HOLDER. I believe that’s all correct as well.

Mr. CUMMINGS. One of the criticisms is that no one has been actually fired. Can you explain why you are waiting to take final personnel actions against some of these employees?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I don’t want to single those people out, because the universe is actually larger than that. But certainly one of the things that I’m going to take into consideration

is what we find from the Inspector General report and what factual
199

findings that she makes in addition to the material that I have just

gotten I guess over the past couple of days, the minority report.

I think the chairman’s right. There are a couple of majority reports I should look at as well before I make final determinations.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Would a confirmed director of ATF be able to improve management supervision?

Attorney General HOLDER. Oh, I don’t think there’s any question

about that.

Again, Todd Jones has done a great job, and he has put in place

great number of reforms and has done a lot of the things that you

are pointing up to there on the ATF side. But I think you need to

have a person with the prestige of a Senate confirmation to really

run an agency in the way that we would like it to be run.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman, and I thank you for making my point that no one in Washington has been held accountable.

And, with that, we go to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.

Kelly.

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ISSA. Another cheap seat, I’m afraid. You will move

up, though.

Mr. KELLY. I hope so.

The real reason we’re here today—and I appreciate your being

here. I know you’ve gone through a lot of questioning. And the fact

that it’s not a political hearing, I understand that. But I’m getting

a little bit confused, because we keep going back to the political

side of it.

To me, this is about trust. And you’re the highest-ranking law

enforcement official in the country. And when the people lose trust

in an agency, that’s a very difficult thing to recover, if you can recover it at all.

And I go back to a couple of quotes, and these are ones that you

will recognize.

One is: ‘‘Transparency is the best thing.’’ That’s from you, by the

way, in January 2009. ‘‘For a long time now, there’s been too much

secrecy in this city. Let me say it as simply as I can, transparency

and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.’’

So we always hear this talk about we’re going to be transparent,

we’re going to be clear. And then the only thing that I hear that

I’m clear on is that you were never onboard with any of these

things. No matter what it was, you know what, I never was informed.

And I’m not questioning your management style. I come from an

industry that if you lose somebody’s confidence, it’s very hard to get

it back.

Now we can keep talking about this for a long time. But what

I’m amazed about is that since 2009, 2010, 2011, there is very little

information about what happened. When we go back to 2006 in a

previous administration, we can very clearly demonstrate what

they did and what they did not do.

And what I’m really bothered by is a letter from the Department

of Justice—and we’ve already made reference to it. And this is to

Senator Grassley. This responds to your letters dated January 27,

2011, and January 31, 2011, to Acting Director Kenneth Melson of
200

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, regarding Project Gunrunner: We appreciate your strong support for

the Department’s law enforcement. At the outset, the allegation described in your January 27th letter that ATF sanctioned or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who then transported them into Mexico is false. ATF makes

every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally.

And then on that very same day: Below is a synopsis of Assistant

Attorney General Lanny Breuer’s meetings with the Mexican Attorney General’s Office, Mexican Federal Police, and the Secretary of

Foreign Relations.

Now who else was there? AAG Breuer, Deputy Chief of Mission

John Feeley from the State Department, DAAG Blanco, Kevin

Sundwall. All these folks are here, and at the end of it here’s what

they come up with:

AAG Breuer told Ventura that there had been a proposed increase in U.S. sentencings or guidelines for straw purchasers. AAG

Breuer suggests that a letter from the SRE or PGR in support of

increased sentencing guidelines for straw purchasers may be useful. The proposed cross-border operation AAG Breuer suggested allowing straw purchasers cross into Mexico so SSB can arrest and

PGR can convict and prosecute these folks. Such coordinated operations between the United States and Mexico may send a strong

message to arms traffickers.

And now it is preposterous for me to sit here and listen thatyou,

as the highest law enforcement officer in the country, say, but I

didn’t know. I didn’t know. See, that’s the problem. I just didn’t

know. Had I known, I would have changed it. And had I known

earlier, I wouldn’t have waited until December 2nd of this year to

pull the message that Breuer had sent. I wouldn’t have allowed the

February 4, 2011, letter to be entered into it.

Don’t you see where the problem is, Mr. Attorney General? It

isn’t that you say I didn’t know or I wasn’t quite aware of it. The

problem is the American public relies on you, sir, to follow all those

guidelines. You are the chief officer.

And then to come before this body and for us then to be accused

of some type of a political agenda, this isn’t a Republican issue or

a Democrat issue. This is a United States of America issue.

So you have your AAG down in Mexico saying, yeah, it’s a good

idea. We’re going to keep doing it. And then you have people back

home saying, you know what, we never did that, and we don’t want

it to go on.

Is there any wonder then the American people have lost trust

and lost faith in this system? Absolutely not. The fact that they

still hang on to a thread of it goes back to what they know the

country was to be in the beginning and what it still can be.

But when you continue to find out that those who are responsible

don’t do their work and at the end of the day they don’t say, you

know, it happened on my watch; it’s my fault. What they say is,

it happened in the previous administration and, doggone it, the

people who were supposed to brief me never briefed me.

I can’t believe that the transition from the last administration to

this administration, there was no briefing? I mean, there may have
201

been—the AGs may have turned, but I betcha the same people

were still on. So to say that we really didn’t know about it to me

is absolutely preposterous, and that’s something that I can’t accept.

If you go back to northwest Pennsylvania, you know what integrity is? It’s saying what you mean and meaning what you say. And

don’t run around the outsides of it. Go right to the middle and tell

people what happened.

You know what I would appreciate you saying? You know what?

I didn’t have the foggiest idea what was going on. I went after the

people that handled it and handled it poorly, and they are no

longer involved.

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired.

We go to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Attorney General, we’re going to get you close to 1. We’re

down to about six people left.

Go ahead, Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members

of the committee.

I want you to know, Attorney General—I’m sorry I’m late to this

hearing, but my wife and I were at the prayer breakfast this morning. And I knew this meeting started at 9, and we were still at the

prayer breakfast, and we were praying for you.

Attorney General HOLDER. I can’t complain about that.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, let me tell you, based on what I’ve seen, I

think my prayers have been answered. Because, frankly, I haven’t

seen anyone make a case about you not performing your duties in

the way that you should, and I want to go over that right now.

You and senior Justice Department officials have repeatedly been

accused of authorizing the gun-walking tactics used in Fast and

Furious. We already have the record about what my chairman has

said. He said, ‘‘there’s no question that high-ranking officials at

Justice were briefed and rebriefed, and many of them had direct

contacts in authorizing the program. They now call it a failed program when in fact the very concept, the very way they wanted it

to be executed was deadly and dangerous.’’

Now none of the 22 witnesses that this committee has interviewed supported that claim. And I want to look at, for the moment, the Department of Justice organizational chart, which is relevant here.

Of course, you know, the DOJ, you are at the top. ATF reports

to you through the Deputy Attorney General.

The former head of the ATF—and I emphasize the word

‘‘former’’—Kenneth Melson told us that the controversial tactics

were never raised to my level. He said he was not aware of gunwalking and never brought it to the attention of senior DOJ officials.

Now Mr. Melson’s second in command, William Hoover, also told

the committee staff he did not know of the gun-walking tactics in

Fast and Furious. He said it was his ‘‘firm belief that the strategic

and tactical decisions made in this decision were born and raised

in Phoenix.’’

Now, Mr. Attorney General, can you corroborate their statements

to the committee? And did the head of ATF or his deputy ever

warn you that gun-walking was occurring?
202

Attorney General HOLDER. No, I never got that from either Mr.

Melson or from Mr. Hoover.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, I want to go back over this chart again, because it’s really important for Members to have an understanding

here.

You’ve got the U.S. attorney in Arizona, the ATF—the ATF, Mr.

Hoover, Mr. Melson. ATF didn’t report anything to the Deputy Attorney General. The U.S. attorney for the district of Arizona didn’t

put any information through to the Deputy Attorney General. So

what I want to know is, all of this talk about resignation, we’re

really devaluing the whole concept of asking a top-level official to

resign when you haven’t reached the level of proof that something

was right on his desk. No one’s proved that at all. But we keep

talking about resignation.

If we cheapen this whole idea of just—you don’t like someone,

you ask them to resign. You don’t like an administration, you ask

people to quit. You cheapen that idea. It makes this whole committee process less significant.

And I want this committee to be important. I chose to be on this

committee when I first came to Congress because government oversight is a very important function. I want to support my chair’s call

for this hearing, even though it’s the sixth hearing. You must feel

like Tom Hanks in the movie Groundhog Day because we keep

coming to the same point. But you know what? You have an obligation to come to us, nevertheless.

So look at that chart. Hold that up again, please. All this information, all these assertions, they never got to the Attorney General. Now why? Whether you like him or not, you’ve got to be able

to make the case, and the case has not been made here that the

Attorney General, Eric Holder, was in any way derelict in his duties. And those on the other side of the aisle know me well enough

that if I thought that he was I wouldn’t hesitate to say it.

So I think that we’ve got to be very careful here with people’s

reputations, because reputations take a lifetime to build. They can’t

just be trashed in a minute without facts. After a while, this is

starting to sound like Alice in Wonderland or Through the Looking

Glass, where you’ve got the queen saying, sentence first, verdict

afterwards.

The sentence is resignation, resign. But we haven’t made a fact

pattern that would suggest that we should have that conclusion

raised to the level of the President having to take the action because you serve at the pleasure of the President.

So I just want to say, whatever disagreements that we may have

on certain policies, I don’t see anything that’s been produced here

today that should cause you to have to stop serving the people of

the United States of America. And I just want that on the record,

haven’t seen the facts that would show otherwise.

Thank you.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

We now go to the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador, for 5

minutes.

Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
203

I’m glad that the minority has made a point that I’ve been trying

to make for a long time: Government is too big and has too many

layers of bureaucracy.

But I’m one of the first people who asked for your resignation,

and I did it after thinking about it for a long time. And in my

statement when I asked for your resignation I said that, in your

testimony before Congress, you either lied or you were grossly incompetent in your actions when it came to finding out about Fast

and Furious and your handling of this matter.

The reason we keep bringing you back to Congress is because we

want to know what you knew and when you knew it. It’s a simple

question. But the problem is that, even though you have testified

six times up here on this matter on differing occasions, your story

continues to evolve and continues to change. In fact, today your

story changed a little bit.

So let’s talk about the facts. Everybody wants the facts. So let’s

talk about the facts here.

On May 2011, you said in the Senate Judiciary that you first

heard about Fast and Furious a few weeks ago. In November 2011,

you said that a few weeks was inaccurate and that you should have

said a couple of months. Emails released on January 28th show

that you were informed by your deputy chief of staff of Agent Terry’s death; and you just testified today that, yes, that is correct, on

December 15, 2011.

And this is what I am trying to get to right here. On that same

day—and it’s already been shown—your deputy chief of staff

learned that the guns used to kill Agent Terry were from Fast and

Furious. So what you want us to believe is that you were told about

the death of Agent Terry but you chose not to ask any followup

questions on that same day about what caused the death of Agent

Terry and that, in fact, you didn’t learn about the connection between the death of Agent Terry and Fast and Furious until a couple of months later.

That’s what you want us to believe. And that’s fine. That may

be the truth. But you can continue to come to Congress—that may

be the truth. That’s fine. I don’t have a problem with it. You continue to come to Congress unprepared. Don’t you agree that this is

a pattern that you have of dealing with difficult questions and embarrassing issues in your office, continuing to come to Congress unprepared?

Attorney General HOLDER. I think it’s very interesting what you

just said: That may be the truth. What I said may be the truth.

Mr. LABRADOR. Yeah, it may be the truth. I’m not disputing it.

I’m saying, but you continue to come to Congress unprepared.

Wouldn’t you admit that you continue to come to Congress unprepared when you have to testify? Where you have to change your

statements, you have to withdraw memos from your office, isn’t

that a fact?

Attorney General HOLDER. No.

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. Let’s look at that. Let’s look at the facts.

If we could go to the slides, please.

When you came to Congress on February 14, 2001, you were

being asked about Mr. Mark Rich’s pardon. It says, ‘‘Mr. Rich’s
204

name was unfamiliar to me. I had gained only a passing familiarity

with the underlying facts of the Rich case.’’

Go to the next slide. ‘‘I did not acquaint myself with his record.’’

Let’s go to the next slide. ‘‘I never actually saw that letter.’’

There’s a pattern here that we continue to hear in your testimony.

Let’s go to the next slide. ‘‘You’re right.’’

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, you said at the beginning that

this would be limited to Fast and Furious; and here we are—I’m

seeing something up there from 2001.

Mr. LABRADOR. I’m just showing a pattern of behavior.

Mr. CUMMINGS. We’ve honored that. And I have been very strict

with my people on this side to stay within the parameters that the

chairman set. And, as a matter of fact, I thought we’ve done a pretty good job so far.

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman will suspend.

I’m going to limit what he can do to anything that he wants to

say related to management style. And the Attorney General does

not have to answer any questions. I don’t actually see a question

here.

I have heard time and time again people talking about gun control and the need for it and a number of other items. Expressing

an opinion within the 5 minutes by a Member of Congress is something I have limited authority. The gentleman has only 5 minutes.

I do not expect the Attorney General to answer, although in defending himself in this case he may choose to. And I would caution

the gentleman from Idaho to get to the management question

quickly because this is about Fast and Furious.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay.

Next slide. ‘‘You’re right. I didn’t have the ability to look at all

the materials.’’

Next slide, please. ‘‘I have not had a chance—’’ on May 13, 2010,

when you were testifying about Fast and Furious, ‘‘I’ve not had a

chance to. I have glanced at it. I have not read it.’’

Next slide, please. ‘‘I have no recollection of knowing about Fast

and Furious’’—on October 7, 2011.

Next slide, please. On October 7, 2011: ‘‘On a weekly basis, my

office typically receives over 100 pages and weekly reports that are

provided.’’

Next slide, please. ‘‘I certainly never knew about the tactics employed in the operation.’’

Next slide, please—and this is on February 14, 2001: ‘‘And I

think the one thing that would have changed this whole thing is

if I had said to the person on my staff, what’s the status of the

Rich matter?’’

I believe that’s what would have changed, and we would have

avoided the six hearings that we have had about this matter, is if

you would have just asked a simple question of your staff before

you came to testify in Congress: What did we know about Fast and

Furious, and when did we know it?

You failed to do that. You failed to do that under the Mark Rich

investigation, and you failed to do it on this case, and this is why

we continue to have these hearings.
205

Mr. Attorney General, I believe the American people deserve better. I believe that the American people deserve to have an Attorney

General that they can trust. And for that reason, I have asked for

your resignation. And I believe that, because you have been grossly

incompetent in the way that you have prepared before coming to

Congress, I think you should resign.

Thank you very much.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to note for the record,

this gentleman could have had a whole pattern that begins with

Fast and Furious, but he insisted——

Chairman ISSA. Does the gentlelady state a point of order?

Ms. NORTON. It was a violation of the rules you yourself, Mr.

Chairman, set——

Chairman ISSA. Madam Norton, the rules of the House severely

limit my ability to impede your 5 minutes of opinion or his 5 minutes of opinion. I have cautioned Members. I have made it very

clear the witness will not be expected to answer any questions that

are not on the narrow subject of Fast and Furious.

Staff will show you the rules that limit how much I can stop——

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, if I may say, it seems to me that

that interpretation of the rule was clearly not before us before. And

I am going to have to ask, sure, if it’s the right—it has been my

view all along that a Member may ask about what time it is on

the Moon in her 5 minutes. I never had a chairman before try to

keep me from using my First Amendment rights. But since that

had been your rule and this isn’t the first time you have invoked

it, I tried to honor it.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentlelady for her comment.

I have the ability to limit the scope of a hearing. I’ve tried to protect the Attorney General from answering questions which were

not within the scope of his preparation. I respect the gentlelady’s

right to use her 5 minutes to state opinions, and I have never

stopped somebody from it, although I have cautioned.

It is the intent of this committee to keep this from being anything other than a legitimate investigation as to Fast and Furious

and conditions that occurred around the investigation of a number

of committees. So I appreciate the gentlelady’s comment and would

recognize for 10 seconds the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. KUCINICH. I just want to correct the record. It was suggesting that it was Bill Murray, not Tom Hanks, in Groundhog

Day. So I just want to make sure that, you know, I thought that

you may have felt like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, not Tom

Hanks.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. And, for the record, it

was 38 days in a row in which that repeated itself for Groundhog

Day.

Attorney General HOLDER. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say one

thing in response to Mr. Labrador.

Chairman ISSA. Of course.

Attorney General HOLDER. That was among the worst things I

think I’ve ever seen in Congress. You took a whole series of statements out of context, with no context——

Mr. LABRADOR. With all due respect, the worst thing I’ve ever

seen——
206

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Attorney General HOLDER. And, you know, the Mark Rich thing

was considered in my confirmation. We talked about it then. There

are a whole bunch of things that I could say about what you just

did. And maybe this is the way you do things in Idaho—or wherever you are from.

But understand something. I’m proud of the work I’ve done as

Attorney General of the United States. And looked at fairly I think

that I’ve done a pretty good job. Have I been perfect? No. Have I

made mistakes? Yes. Do I treat the members of this committee

with respect? I always hope that I do.

And what you have just done is, if nothing else, disrespectful.

And if you don’t like me, that’s one thing. But you should respect

the fact that I hold an office that is deserving of respect.

And, you know, maybe you are new to this committee. I don’t

know. I don’t know how long you have been here. But my hope

would be that, you know, we can get beyond that kind of interaction, that kind of treatment of a witness, whether it’s me or

somebody else. Because I think in some ways what you did was

fundamentally unfair, just not right.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

We now go to the senior member of the committee from Pennsylvania, Mr. Platts.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate

your efforts on this important issue.

Mr. Attorney General, I guess first I’d just comment, most of my

line of questions or questions have been addressed, asked, and answered, and I am not going to repeat what others have already addressed.

To the last exchanges, I guess I have two comments:

For the most part, I agree with what you just said and consider

the gentleman from Idaho a friend and don’t share the approach

in this instance that he took. And I think your points of a reminder

of civility are important.

Along with that, I also share the frustration I think that’s coming through in his presentation or others on both sides of the aisle

that what this is all about is a courageous American who died in

the line of service to this country and that the actions of others in

service to this country may have played a role because of mismanagement of a program or outrageous conduct relating to gun

trafficking and that we stay focused on that.

The frustration is that, apparently, the Inspector General has

thousands of pages of documents that this committee, in trying to

do legitimate oversight, has not been privy to; and the sooner this

committee on both sides of the aisle have access to the same information, the sooner the efforts of this committee can be achieved in

a nonpartisan, just good government fashion.

So I think we all need to keep the focus. This is about how do

we make sure that the death of a servant of this Nation never is

repeated in the circumstances that we see in here.

So with my questions being asked and answered, I’m going to

yield. I know the gentleman from South Carolina has something he

didn’t get to finish up. So I am going to yield him the balance of

my time.
207

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I just want to circle back, Mr. Attorney General, with respect to

the October 12, 2010, email, Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Trusty. And

I am happy to provide you a copy if you do not have one.

You would agree with me that Fast and Furious is mentioned

specifically in that email exchange?

Could I ask that the clock be tolled, Mr. Chairman, while——

Chairman ISSA. We will suspend, and we’ll give him back the

document again.

Attorney General HOLDER. I have it in front of me. This is October 14th, October 17th, and October 18th.

Mr. GOWDY. That’s correct. If you need time to familiarize yourself with it, take all the time you want.

Attorney General HOLDER. That’s fine. No, I’m okay.

Mr. GOWDY. Would you agree with me that Fast and Furious is

mentioned specifically in that email exchange?

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah. I guess this is the October 17th

from Jason Weinstein to James Trusty.

Mr. GOWDY. And both of those gentlemen are Main Justice employees, correct?

Attorney General HOLDER. That’s right.

Mr. GOWDY. And you would agree with me that gun-walking is

mentioned specifically, correct?

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. In the second line. Number of

guns that have walked.

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, sir. And it is actually mentioned in both the exchanges, guns that have walked and then somebody says gun-walking. So that’s two references to it.

Now can you find the phrase ‘‘Wide Receiver’’ anywhere in that

email?

Attorney General HOLDER. I can’t see this very well, but I’m just

going to assume that, given the tenor of your question, that the

term Wide Receiver does not appear in here. But Mr. Weinstein

testified that when he was talking about a tricky case he was referring to Wide Receiver in the Sunday, October 17th, email.

Mr. GOWDY. And I can’t speak to that, Mr. Attorney General. My

point is this: Leading up to February 4th, a letter was being drafted—and I’m much more concerned with the name at the top of that

letter than I am the name at the bottom. The name Department

of Justice means something to me. The name at the bottom of it,

not so much.

While that letter was being drafted, there are people in Main

Justice who knew the body of that letter was incorrect, factually incorrect. And while that letter was being drafted, the criminal chief

Lanny Breuer was in Mexico talking about gun-walking.

Do you know whether or not he alerted our Mexican counterparts

that Fast and Furious was something that they needed to be prepared to deal with because of the number of weapons? Did he at

least mention to them, be alerted; a lot of weapons went down

there; a lot of your civilians are going to be killed?

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, first I would say yes, there were

people at main Justice who did have that knowledge of Wide Receiver and who admitted they did not make the connection between

Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious, and that should have hap-
208

pened, and that could changed the February 4th letter. Lanny

Breuer was not down there talking about gun walking as we have

used that term during the course of these last 4 hours or so when

he was dealing with the people in Mexico.

And I don’t remember the third question——

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I actually don’t like interrupting witnesses,

but I am almost out of time. I am going to read a summary. And

this isn’t my summary. This is from a DOJ attache named Tony

Garcia. The summary reads, ‘‘Mr. Breuer suggested allowing straw

purchasers crossing into Mexico so Mexican police can arrest and

Mexican prosecutors can prosecute and convict.’’ Mr. Garcia then

wrote a summary saying what a horrible idea that was for the very

reasons we have been talking about for the last hours, that people

were going to die and weapons were going to get away from us.

So my time is out. I just want to ask one more question.

Chairman ISSA. Very, very briefly.

Mr. GOWDY. Very briefly. Has there been discussion at main Justice of either a grant of immunity to Mr. Cunningham so we can

know what it is that he feels the need to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to not say? Have you discussed granting him immunity,

and has there been a conversation by calling for a special prosecutor who may want to issue that grant of immunity?

Attorney General HOLDER. We have not discussed immunity or

a special prosecutor. I think that would be for you-all to ask us, if

that is something you want to have considered. I will say I don’t

know exactly why he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege, but

I can say that in the preparation of that February 4th letter that

he was involved in, I don’t have any basis to believe that he knowingly provided with us any false information. But, again, I don’t

know why he invoked his privilege. He has a lawyer from a very

good law firm here in D.C., and I am not sure why he did that.

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, just 5 seconds. I just want to say

to Mr. Gowdy, we have answered all your questions that you asked

about Weinstein in our report, and it comes from documents that

were during the testimony and before our staffs.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. We now go to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Attorney General, thank you for being here,

your testimony. It is a long day and you dealt with this topic a lot.

I know you also did not want to see the death of Brian Terry. None

of us did. This was a horrible incident that we are dealing with a

lot of consequences of over time because we want to make sure it

never happens again. We have heard loud and clear from you, you

want to make sure this never happens again, and I appreciate that.

What I want to do is talk briefly about ATF and the structure

there. Obviously this was an acting director. You have to have concerns, have extra there, you have extra attention to it in the management based on an acting director and the transitions and all

that has happened with ATF on it.

The structure with the FBI, and if they are going to go for an

undercover operation, they have a field office proposal that goes

through the supervisor in charge, it goes through headquarters, it

goes through legal. Then legal has to determine is this entrapment,
209

is this fully within the bounds of that. A U.S. attorney may get involved in it at some point, and then it goes up to headquarters if

it involves a certain amount of money and a length of time and

such. So it has a very lengthy process getting all the way up to the

Department of Justice on that.

Is that a similar process to what ATF also does to be able to approve an operation like this undercover?

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure that it is as robust as

what you have just described with regard to the FBI, but it is

certainly——

Mr. LANKFORD. But that is consistent with the FBI process, is

that correct?

Attorney General HOLDER. I am sorry?

Mr. LANKFORD. Is that the right process for FBI that they go

through?

Attorney General HOLDER. I think the FBI process is a good one,

and I think that what we need to do is have, not only with regard

to ATF but all the other investigative agencies within the Justice

Department, make sure that we have similar procedures in place.

That is one of the things that I have talked about with Todd Jones,

the Acting Director who is in the process of making changes at

ATF.

Mr. LANKFORD. Because that is the concern obviously, to put in

a system and structure to make sure this never, ever happens

again. It is one thing to talk about it after the fact. It is another

thing to try to fix it so it doesn’t become such a bureaucratic maze

that nothing happens, but it also makes sure there are some checks

and balances, that we are not doing entrapment, that someone else

is checking it, that it is getting up to your office. If it wasn’t getting

to your office or something like this before, let’s try to make sure

it does in the future day get up to DOJ. So that is something in

process.

What is the timeframe on that for a decision and a shift on that

that is occurring?

Attorney General HOLDER. You know, I mean, I would hope this

is something we can do over a matter of a relatively short number

of months. I think to do this right, we need to have buy-in from

people who are at ATF headquarters, people who are in the field,

so they have an ability to express their views and so that they will

accept—these are things that are probably going to be changes in

the way in which they have operated. So I think we are talking

about a matter of months before we have those kinds of things in

place.

Again, Todd has really made significant changes. He is working

real hard at this. But I think the concern that you have expressed

is one that I agree with. We should make sure that we have processes in place to minimize the possibility that what we are talking

about today, and legitimately talking about today, never happens

again.

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. The last thing I want to say to the Terry

family at some point is this occurred and nothing has happened to

make sure it never occurs again, that there is some way to be able

to say this is never going to occur again as long as it is on any of

our watch on it.
210

Let me make a quick side statement and then I am going to yield

back to the chairman as well. This is not something that I expect

you to answer on it. It is a comment that I want to be able to

make. It is off topic on it, so I am going to tell you that.

Yesterday this committee had a hearing dealing with the constitutional issues and the repercussions of the President’s appointments to the NLRB and CFPB in January. Obviously your Department is very involved in that in the constitutional statement.

In 2010, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal was before the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Roberts asked him specifically, can

the NLRB, a question, be resolved with a recess appointment? Neal

Katyal at that time——

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, it looks like there is another violation of your rule coming up.

Chairman ISSA. The gentlelady is out of order.

Mr. LANKFORD. I already prefaced this by saying I do not anticipate this—I am making a statement. I do not expect the Attorney

General to respond to this.

So Neal Katyal made this statement to the Supreme Court saying that a recess appointment could not be done if it is less than

3 days. So there was an opinion by him on that before the Supreme

Court dealing specifically with the NLRB. Two years later, Justice

came back out and came out with a statement saying no, that is

legal, so there was a transition.

Mr. Chairman, what I would hope for at some point is to be able

to have some conversation to say what changed between 2010 and

2012 in Justice, that at one point they considered it not legal and

2 years later considered it legal and appropriate at that point. So

obviously I am not expecting—that is not in your preparation on

that, but that is something we just dealt with as a committee yesterday, and I would hope at some future day we would deal with.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. There is no question

there.

Attorney General HOLDER. If I could just——

Chairman ISSA. Are you yielding to me?

Mr. LANKFORD. I do yield back.

Chairman ISSA. I will give you time for a quick close.

The evidence that you have given us through discovery that on

February 4th, Lanny Breuer was, in fact, talking about a program

that included guns passing over the border in the hopes that they

would be intercepted, well, in fact, on March 10th in the Cole email

there is a statement I will read verbatim here. ‘‘As I said on the

call, to avoid any potential confusions I want to reiterate the Department’s policy as though existing. We should not design or conduct undercover operations which include guns crossing the border.

If we have knowledge that guns are about to cross the border, we

must take immediate action to stop firearms from crossing the border, even if that permanently terminates or otherwise jeopardizes

an investigation.’’ That is a complete paragraph.

Can you, in fact, answer for this committee how you have counseled or changed Lanny Breuer from a man who flew to Mexico and

said I want to have guns crossing the border to this, which says

there is a policy and it is wrong, and we have only got a month

in between them?
211

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, clearly what was proposed in, I

guess, February by Lanny Brewer was in contravention of the policy that I had the Deputy Attorney General make clear to everybody at main Justice and to the field. And to the extent that there

is a tension, the policy that Mr. Cole has laid out is the policy of

the Justice Department and is the thing that I support.

Chairman ISSA. I want to thank you. I am not going to ask any

more questions. You have been very generous with your time.

I want to reiterate just one thing. We can’t undo everything that

was said here. The effort was made for this to be narrowly about

Fast and Furious. I believe that two other committees, Senate Judiciary, House Judiciary, had each one time in which the primary

reason for you being called was not normal oversight, but in fact,

related to Fast and Furious and the letter that followed. We believe

we have had one crack at it also, and we appreciate your coming

three times to three separate committees. And that we appreciate.

In closing, I do believe there are people at Main Justice who ultimately do need to go. If you are a political appointee, you should

not be reassigned if you are in some way culpable in something like

Fast and Furious. I have never accused you of having personal

knowledge. This committee has never accused you of having personal knowledge. One of our Members went on quite a bit about

the alternative of either you knew or should have known. I share

that, that, in fact, Justice has to have a bubble-up system that

holds specific people accountable for specific levels of action.

This committee would hope, under our reorganization and organizational side, not our investigation side, that we can continue

working with Justice so that we can have a comfort level, along

with the Judiciary Committees, that those systems are put into

place so that in the future, if something like this happens, we know

that, for example, a person signing a wiretap would also be a person who would understand the level of the operation being described in great detail, and you described it as this thick a document, and it often is.

So I appreciate what you came here to do. This committee is obviously widely divided on details of Fast and Furious and the letter

that followed.

I said I would let you have the last word. So, Mr. Attorney General, you have the last word.

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just

say——

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman suspend.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just 30 seconds.

Chairman ISSA. Thirty seconds of, course.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I just wanted to go back very quickly, Mr. Chairman, to something that Mr. Gowdy was asking about with regard

to Mr. Weinstein, and just wanted to make it part of the record,

this transcript page 121, where he says, ‘‘Okay, first of all, let me

clear up the confusion that you noted about the pronouns. When

I say it is a tricky case given the number of guns that have walked,

I am talking exclusively about Wide Receiver.’’ I just wanted to say

that.

Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
212

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. As we said, you have the last word,

Mr. Attorney General.

Attorney General HOLDER. Well——

Chairman ISSA. Briefly.

Attorney General HOLDER. As I said, you and I talked before the

hearing began, and I just want to say that you, the ranking member, the members of this committee have treated me fairly, with

one exception, one glaring exception, and I have talked about that.

The questions you have asked have been tough, they have been

fair, and I share what was indicated, a desire to make sure that

we have in place mechanisms so that the thing that brings us here

today is something we will never have to discuss again.

I think there are a variety of things that we can work on as people who are dedicated to the safety of the American people, and I

look forward to working with the members of this committee across

party lines to try to reach those kinds of—successfully reach those

kinds of solutions.

Chairman ISSA. I thank you, General Holder. We stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statements of Hon. Dan Burton and Hon. Paul A.

Gosar follow:]
213
214
215

Æ