S. HRG. 112–436 

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 8, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–50 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
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

74–542 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–436 

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 8, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–50 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 2 

prepared statement and attachments ............................................................. 1207 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1265 

WITNESSES 

Holder, Eric H., Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 4 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Eric H. Holder, Jr., to questions submitted by Senator Grassley: 

Jon Corzine, August 24, 2009 .......................................................................... 52 

Pat Quinn, November 9, 2009 ......................................................................... 92 

Robert F. McDonnell, February 10, 2011 ....................................................... 141 

Jack Markell, November 9, 2010 ..................................................................... 162 

Chris Collins, July 15, 2009 ............................................................................ 183 

Ed Emmett, June 4, 2009 ................................................................................ 233 

Pat Quinn, November 9, 2009 ......................................................................... 257 

Mitch Daniels, January 29, 2010 .................................................................... 316 

Michael R. Bloomberg, January 15, 2009 ....................................................... 363 

Roosevelt Allen, Jr., December 7, 2009 .......................................................... 421 

Robert Moore, March 31, 2011 ........................................................................ 455 

Lyndon Bode, January 25, 2011 ...................................................................... 485 

Stephen Nodine and Sam Cochran, January 15, 2009 .................................. 517 

Carlos A. Gimenez, August 24, 2011 .............................................................. 560 

Michael A. Delaney, April 7, 2011 .................................................................. 600 

Index .................................................................................................................. 628 

Sonny Perdue, January 15, 2009 .................................................................... 629 

David A. Paterson, August 14, 2009 ............................................................... 697 

Marlin N. Gusman, September 11, 2009 ........................................................ 729 

Howard R. Bradley, August 26, 2011 ............................................................. 761 

Martin O’Malley, October 7, 2009 ................................................................... 780 

Michel Claudet, January 18, 2011 .................................................................. 836 

Andre J. Spano, November 19, 2009 ............................................................... 862 

Attachment A through E ................................................................................. 904 

Responses of Eric H. Holder Jr. to questions submitted by Senators Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Grassley, Hatch, Kyl, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, and Coburn .......................................................................................... 1090 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Firearms Trace Data, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Dec. 1, 2006 

through September 30, 2011, report ................................................................... 1206 

Holder, Eric H., Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 1253 

October 7, 2011, letter to Senator Leahy and others .................................... 1260 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont: 

March 10, 2011, letter to Eric Holder, Jr. ...................................................... 1268 

June 23, 2011, letter to Eric Holder, Jr. ......................................................... 1269 

November 7, 2011, letter to Cynthia A. Schnedar ......................................... 1270 
Page

IV 

National Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck Canterbury, National President, 

November 2, 2011, letter to Senator Leahy ....................................................... 1271 

Salt Lake City Tribune, November 5, 2011, article .............................................. 1273 

Schnedar, Cynthia A., Acting Inspecter General, Washington, DC, October 

28, 2011 letter to Senator Leahy 1275 

Weich, Ronald, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice: 

April 18, 2011 letter to Senator Leahy ........................................................... 1284 

October 31, 2011 letter to Senator Leahy ....................................................... 1286 
(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Kohl, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, 

Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Coons, Blumenthal, Grassley, 

Hatch, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, and Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. I understand we will have a lot of attendance 

this morning, so I will probably run the clock a little bit more diligently than usual, including for myself. I am glad to have Attorney 

General Holder back with us as we continue our important focus 

on oversight. 

When Attorney General Holder was here in May, details were 

just emerging about the successful military and intelligence operation that killed Osama bin Laden, which did provide a measure 

of justice and closure for Americans resulting from the horrific attacks of September 11th. That was not an isolated success; during 

the last few years, the Obama administration has successfully reinvigorated, retooled, and refocused our National security efforts. 

Now, the Attorney General, as he is in any administration, is a 

key member of that national security team. Under his leadership, 

the Justice Department last month foiled an assassination attempt 

in the United States of the Saudi Ambassador to the United States 

and prevented a major act of terrorism on U.S. soil. Last week, four 

men in Georgia were arrested in a domestic terrorism plot, accused 

of planning to use guns, bombs, and the toxic poison ricin to kill 

Federal and State officials. Earlier this year, the Christmas Day 

bomber, who was convicted in Federal court, pled guilty and faced 

a possible life sentence. 

Now, we have to ensure that we do all we can to assist efforts 

to bring terrorists to justice by providing the administration with 

the full array of authorities and options we need in our counterterrorism efforts. In my view, and a view that I know is shared by 

the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, it 

is, of course, shortsighted for Congress to hamstring those efforts. 

As we proceed, we should remember that between September 11, 
2 

2001, and the end of 2010, 438 suspects were successfully prosecuted by the Bush and Obama administrations on terrorism 

charges in Federal courts. Now, at the same time, six have been 

convicted in military commissions—only six. Five of those were 

from plea bargains. 

Now, the record over the last 3 years with respect to crime has 

also been outstanding. Over the past 3 years, crime rates have fallen rather than risen, which is contrary to normal experience during such difficult economic times. So as we proceed, each one of us 

is going to have questions about matters that concern us, but we 

should not lose sight of the big picture and the fact of what the 

Justice Department is doing to keep us safe and secure. 

This morning there will be more questions about the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ gun-trafficking investigations along our southern border. Attorney General Holder, it 

should be noted, has reiterated and reinforced that longstanding 

Department of Justice policy prohibits the transfer of firearms to 

known criminals without the proper monitoring or controls by law 

enforcement. Administration officials have testified at 17 Congressional hearings about these matters, including six held before this 

Committee. 

I urge that as they engage in important oversight, Senators respect the need for law enforcement and prosecutors to do their jobs 

to address the serious threat of violence posed by these brutal drug 

cartels. I do not think anyone wants to hamper the efforts of law 

enforcement agents against the Mexican cartels, including the ongoing criminal investigation and prosecution related to the tragic 

murder of Agent Brian Terry. 

So I thank the men and women of the Department of Justice who 

work hard every day to keep us safe and uphold the rule of law. 

I thank the Attorney General for returning to the Committee. I 

look forward to his testimony. And I have kept within my time as 

I will fully expect everybody else to. 

Senator Grassley? 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. This is a very important hearing, Mr. Chairman. There are a lot of issues to bring up. However, over the time 

that the Attorney General was last here, I have concentrated my 

oversight on Operation Fast and Furious. Just over 9 months ago, 

Attorney General Holder sat in my office, and I handed him two 

letters I had written to Acting Director Kenneth Melson of ATF. 

My letter mentioned: one, the death of Border Patrol Agent Terry; 

two, the allegations that ATF had sanctioned the sale of hundreds 

of assault weapons to straw buyers; three, the allegations that two 

of those weapons had been found at the scene of Agent Terry’s 

death; and, four, the allegations that the whistleblowers who provided this information were already facing retaliation from the 

agency. 

Just 4 days later, the reply from the Department explicitly stated 

that the whistleblower allegations were false. It also claimed that, 

‘‘ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.’’ 
3 

In the 9 months since then, mounting evidence has put the lie 

to that claim. Documents contradicting the Department’s denials 

came to light. Then six ATF agents testified powerfully at two 

House oversight hearings. They also confirmed that gun walking 

occurred in Operation Fast and Furious. 

Just last week, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer admitted in this room that the Department’s letter to me in February 

was absolutely false. But it gets worse. Mr. Breuer also admitted 

that he knew all along it was false. He could not recall whether he 

helped edit it. However, he knew it was false because he was aware 

of previous a gun-walking operation called Wide Receiver. Yet he 

remained silent for 9 months. He was aware that Congress had 

been misled, yet made no effort to correct the Department’s official 

denial. 

Much has been said recently about guns being walked in Operation Wide Receiver during the Bush era. It does not matter for me 

when it happened. We need answers. Bush era prosecutors refused 

to bring the case; however, under Mr. Breuer’s leadership, headquarters revived it despite the gun-walking issues. It was Mr. 

Breuer’s responsibility to clearly communicate that gun walking 

was unacceptable and to institute oversight and safeguards to ensure that it did not happen again. He did not do that. 

Mr. Breuer admitted before this Committee last week that one 

of his deputies informed him of gun walking in Wide Receiver in 

April of 2010. He also admitted that the same deputy approved at 

least one of the wiretap applications in Operation Fast and Furious. In order to justify tapping the phone of a private citizen, the 

law requires that agencies show they have tried everything else 

first. But the very same facts that would show the need to obtain 

the wiretap would also show that the Department knew these individuals were trafficking in weapons. 

The Government should have stopped the flow of guns to these 

criminals. Anyone reviewing the wiretap affidavits would probably 

know that was not happening. I would also add that this tragedy 

should not be used to call for new gun control. The straw buyers 

in Fast and Furious were already breaking the law. They should 

have been interdicted and arrested nearly a year earlier than they 

were. The faulty statistics cited by some about U.S. guns in Mexico 

include U.S. weapons sold to foreign militaries, weapons that were 

transferred in to Mexico years ago, guns from Fast and Furious, 

stolen weapons, and many other sources. 

As we learn more about the utter failure to enforce our existing 

gun laws in Fast and Furious, I am eager to hear from the Attorney General whom he plans to hold accountable. I also want to 

know how he plans to prevent another tragedy like this in the future. 

But let me be clear. The bottom line is that it does not matter 

how many laws we pass if those responsible for enforcing them 

refuse to do their duty, as was the case in Fast and Furious. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you very much. 

Attorney General Holder, would you please stand and raise your 

right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give 
4 

before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Please go ahead, sir. 

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

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you. Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and distinguished members of this Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. 

Over the last 3 years, I have been privileged to address this 

Committee on numerous occasions—and to partner with many of 

you—in advancing the goals and the priorities that I think we all 

share. I am extremely proud of the Department’s historic achievements over the last 2 years. 

Despite significant financial constraints, we have effectively confronted a range of national security threats and public safety challenges, and I am especially pleased to report that our efforts to 

combat global terrorism have never been stronger. 

Since I last appeared before this Committee in May—just 3 days 

after the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden came to a successful end—the Department has achieved several additional milestones. For example, last month, we secured a conviction against 

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab for his role in the attempted bombing 

of an airplane traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas 

Day 2009. We also worked closely with our domestic and international partners to thwart an attempted plot—allegedly involving 

elements of the Iranian Government—to assassinate the Saudi 

Arabian ambassador to the United States on American soil. We 

have also disrupted numerous alleged plots by homegrown violent 

extremists, including one targeting a military recruiting center in 

Washington State and another targeting U.S. soldiers in Texas. 

Meanwhile, in one of the most complex counterintelligence operations in history, we brought down a ring involving ten Russian 

spies. And just last week, a Federal jury in Manhattan convicted 

Viktor Bout, one of the world’s most prolific arms dealers, for his 

efforts to sell millions of dollars’ worth of weapons—including 800 

surface-to-air missiles and 30,000 AK–47s—for use in killing Americans. 

On other fronts, the Department has made extraordinary 

progress in protecting civil rights, combating financial fraud, safeguarding our environment, and advancing our fight against violent 

crime. We have filed a record number of criminal civil rights cases. 

And in the last fiscal year, our Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section opened more investigations, participated in more cases, and resolved more matters than in any other similar time period in the 

last dozen years. This section is also immersed in reviewing over 

5,500 submissions for review under Section 5 of the Voting Rights 

Act, including redistricting plans and other proposed State and 

local election law changes that would impact the access that some 

Americans would have to the ballot box. 

We have also worked to ensure that States do not institute an 

unconstitutional patchwork of immigration laws. In recent months, 

the Department has challenged immigration-related laws in several 
5 

States that directly conflict with the enforcement of Federal immigration policies. Not only would these laws divert critical law enforcement resources from the most serious public safety threats, 

they can lead to potentially discriminatory practices and undermine the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities that they serve. 

The Department has also focused its efforts on the fight against 

financial fraud over the last 2 years by spearheading the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force and successfully 

executing the largest financial and health care fraud takedowns in 

history. In addition, we secured a conviction in the biggest bank 

fraud prosecution in a generation, taking down a nearly $3 billion 

fraud scheme. And through our aggressive enforcement of the False 

Claims Act, a law significantly strengthened in recent years by this 

Committee, we have secured record-setting recoveries that have exceeded $8 billion since January of 2009. 

Now, I am proud of these and many other achievements, and I 

am committed to building on this progress. Although I hope to 

spend much of our time together discussing the work that is ongoing throughout the Department, I would like to take a moment to 

address the public safety crisis of guns flowing across our border 

into Mexico and the local law enforcement operation known as 

‘‘Fast and Furious’’ that has brought renewed public attention to 

this shared national security threat. 

Now, I want to be very clear: Any instance of so-called gun walking is simply unacceptable. Regrettably, this tactic was used as 

part of Fast and Furious, which was launched to combat gun trafficking and violence on our Southwest Border. This operation was 

flawed in its concept and flawed in its execution. And, unfortunately, we will feel the effects for years to come as guns that were 

lost during this operation continue to show up at crimes scenes 

both here and in Mexico. This should never have happened. And 

it must never happen again. 

To ensure that it will not, after learning about the allegations 

raised by ATF agents involved with Fast and Furious, I took action. I asked the Department’s Inspector General to investigate this 

matter, and I ordered that a directive be sent to the Department’s 

law enforcement agents and prosecutors stating that such tactics 

violate Department policy and will not be tolerated. More recently, 

the new leadership at ATF has implemented reforms to prevent 

such tactics from being used in the future, including stricter oversight procedures for all significant investigations. 

Now, today I would like to correct some of the inaccurate and, 

frankly, some of the irresponsible accusations surrounding Fast 

and Furious. Some of the overheated rhetoric might lead you to believe that this local, Arizona-based operation was somehow the 

cause of the epidemic of gun violence in Mexico. In fact, Fast and 

Furious was a flawed response to and not the cause of the flow of 

illegal guns from the United States into Mexico. 

As you all know, the trafficking of firearms across our Southwest 

Border has long been a serious problem—one that has contributed 

to the approximately 40,000 deaths in Mexico in the last 5 years. 

As Senator Feinstein highlighted last week, of the nearly 94,000 

guns that have been recovered and traced in Mexico in recent 
6 

years, over 64,000 of those guns were sourced to the United States 

of America-–64,000 of 94,000 guns sourced to this country. 

The mistakes of Operation Fast and Furious, serious though they 

were, should not deter or distract us from our critical mission to 

disrupt the dangerous flow of firearms along our Southwest Border. 

I have supported a number of aggressive, innovative steps to do so, 

and our work has yielded significant successes. 

We have built crime-fighting capacity on both sides of the border 

by developing new procedures for using evidence gathered in Mexico to prosecute gun traffickers in U.S. courts; by training thousands of Mexican prosecutors and investigators; by successfully 

fighting to enhance sentencing guidelines for convicted traffickers 

and straw purchasers; and by pursuing coordinated, multi-district 

investigations of gun-trafficking rings. 

This year alone, we have led successful investigations into the 

murders of U.S. citizens in Mexico, created new cartel-fighting 

prosecutorial units, and secured the extradition of 104 defendants 

wanted by U.S. law enforcement—including the former head of the 

Tijuana Cartel. 

Now, this work has undoubtedly saved and improved lives in the 

United States as well as in Mexico, and I am personally committed 

to combating gun trafficking and reducing the alarming rate of violence along the Southwest Border by using effective and appropriate tools. 

Now, like each of you, I want to know why and how firearms 

that should have been under surveillance could wind up in the 

hands of the Mexican drug cartels. But beyond identifying where 

errors occurred and ensuring that they never occur again, we must 

be careful not to lose sight of the critical problem that this flawed 

investigation has highlighted: We are losing the battle to stop the 

flow of illegal guns to Mexico. This means, I believe, that we have 

a responsibility to act. And we can start by listening to the agents, 

the very agents who serve on the front lines of this battle and who 

testified here in Congress. Not only did they bring the inappropriate and misguided tactics of Operation Fast and Furious to 

light, they also sounded the alarm to Congress that they need our 

help. 

ATF agents who testified before a House Committee this summer 

explained that the agency’s ability to stem the flow of guns from 

the United States into Mexico suffers from a lack of effective enforcement tools. One critical first step should be for Congressional 

leaders to work with us to provide ATF with the resources and the 

statutory tools it needs to be effective. Another would be for Congress to fully fund our request for teams of agents to fight gun trafficking. 

Unfortunately, earlier this year the House of Representatives actually voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals 

purchase multiple semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in Southwest 

Border gun shops. Providing law enforcement with the tools to detect and to disrupt illegal gun trafficking is entirely consistent with 

the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, and it is critical to 

addressing the public safety crisis along the Southwest Border. 

As someone who has seen the consequences of gun violence firsthand—and who has promised far too many grieving families that 
7 

I would do everything in my power not only to seek justice on behalf of their loved ones, but also to prevent other families from experiencing similar tragedies—I am determined to ensure that our 

shared concerns about Operation Fast and Furious lead to more 

than headline-grabbing Washington ‘‘gotcha’’ games and cynical political point scoring. 

We have serious problems to address, and we have sacred responsibilities to fulfill. We must not lose sight of what is really at 

stake here: lives, futures, families, and communities. When it 

comes to protecting our fellow citizens—and stopping illegal gun 

trafficking across the Southwest Border—I hope that we can engage in a responsible dialog and work toward common solutions. 

And I hope that we can begin that discussion today. 

[The prepared statement of Attorney General Holder appears as 

a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. With that, I think we will begin the discussion. We have a number of issues besides that one, and I agree 

with you that if we are going to stop that flow of guns into Mexico—and I have heard the same thing from the Mexican authorities—we are going to have to take some steps here in this country. 

We cannot expect it all to be done across the border. 

Let me take up a few questions. I joined with Senator Feinstein 

and some other members of this Committee in the Intelligence 

Committee to ask the Majority Leader to refrain from bringing certain provisions in the defense authorization legislation before the 

Senate until significantly improved. I know the administration expressed serious concerns with the military detention and intervention provisions of the bill as reported from Armed Services. The 

way it was reported, it would significantly reduce the options for 

investigating terrorist threats. It actually lets all terrorists know 

which options are off the table, including those that have been 

most successful in bringing about convictions. Even the Heritage 

Foundation has argued the bill would deny the President needed 

flexibility. 

Would you agree that we need to keep our options open in countering terrorists and not start taking options off the table? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I would totally agree. We need 

to use all elements of American power in the fight against terrorism—our military power, our political power, the power that we 

have in our judicial system, military commissions. We need maximum amounts of flexibility, and we also have to be practical when 

it comes to the measures that Congress asks us in the executive 

branch to follow. 

Chairman LEAHY. And the vast majority of our, almost by 100:1, 

certainly by 90:1, convictions have been in our courts, not before 

military tribunals. Is that correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is correct. There is no question 

that if one looks dispassionately at the history, our Article III system of courts has shown that they are fully capable of handling any 

matter that is brought before them. 

Chairman LEAHY. And that was the same in both the Bush administration and the Obama administration. 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is correct. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 
8 

On September 30, 2011, it was reported that Anwar al-Awlaki 

was killed in an operation conducted by the United States in 

Yemen, and according to media accounts, the operation was conducted following the issuance of a secret memorandum issued by 

the Department of Justice which authorized the targeted killing of 

a U.S. citizen abroad. Without going into the facts of that particular operation, I had written to you last month asking for a copy 

of that memorandum. Is there any problem with providing this 

Committee with a copy of that memorandum even if it is required 

to be in a classified session? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I first want to indicate that I 

will not address, cannot address whether or not there is an opinion 

in this area, but I understand, Mr. Chairman, your interest in this 

subject, and we are committed to working with you to answer your 

questions in an appropriate setting and to the extent that we can. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

In February, you notified Congress that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, 

DOMA, in legal circumstances in two cases. I had agreed with you, 

and I joined Senator Feinstein and others when she introduced the 

Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA. This would 

allow all lawful marriages, provided the marriage was lawful in the 

State where it occurred, with equal access to Federal protections. 

In July, the President expressed his support for our Respect for 

Marriage Act. It is going to be considered by our Committee in a 

markup on Thursday of this week. 

Do you support the Respect for Marriage Act which would repeal 

DOMA? 

Attorney General HOLDER. The administration does. It is consistent with the policy that the Government has taken as a result 

of the position that we took in court, I guess in the Fourth Circuit, 

so the administration does support the passage of that bill. 

Chairman LEAHY. And the Violence Against Women Act, which 

helped to transform our society and be more responsive to domestic 

violence and sexual assaults, focused on criminal justice system on 

more effectively investigating and prosecuting those serious crimes. 

We have had a lot of hearings in this Committee on that. It is now 

time to reauthorize it. Actually, this legislation began when Vice 

President Biden was Chair of this Committee. 

Do you agree that reauthorizing and strengthening the Violence 

Against Women Act is a top priority, especially in tough economic 

times with State and local budgets reducing the resources that are 

available to protect victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, 

dating violence, and stalking? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I think that is a priority for this 

administration. I would hope that this would be a priority for not 

only this Committee but for Congress as a whole to reauthorize 

VAWA. It has transformed our Nation in a variety of ways, not 

only with regard to programs that are funded but the way in which 

we have viewed the subject matter of that act. That is among the 

top priorities for this administration. 

Chairman LEAHY. And then in keeping with my own rule on 

time, this will be my last question before turning to Senator Grassley, who has already indicated he wants to ask you about Oper-
9 

ation Fast and Furious. The subject has been explored during six 

previous Judiciary Committee hearings. I just want to raise with 

you your testimony at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on 

May 3rd. When Congressman Issa asked you then when you first 

knew about the Fast and Furious program, you responded, ‘‘I am 

not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.’’ 

Now, as you know, there has been a lot of talk about your reference to a few weeks, but those critics tend to not put the question 

in there along with your answer, and the fact you said in your answer you were not being precise, you were basically giving your 

recollection. 

I recall that by February 28th you had asked the Inspector General to begin an investigation of Fast and Furious. You also testified about the operation on March 10th at the Senate Appropriations Committee. 

So let me ask you a fundamental question and give you a chance 

to be more precise. When did you first learn of the operational tactics being used in Operation Fast and Furious? And what did you 

do about it? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I first learned about the tactics and 

the phrase Operation Fast and Furious at the beginning of this 

year, I think, when it became a matter of public controversy. In my 

testimony before the House Committee, I did say ‘‘a few weeks.’’ I 

probably could have said ‘‘a couple of months.’’ I do not think that 

what I said in terms of using the term ‘‘a few weeks’’ was inaccurate based on what happened. I got, as Senator Grassley indicated, a couple of letters from him at the end of January. I believe 

it was January 31st. These letters talked about a connection between an operation and the death of Agent Terry and did not mention Fast and Furious. It referenced Operation Gunrunner. I asked 

my staff to look into this, and during the month of February, I became aware of Fast and Furious from press reports and other letters that I received from Senator Grassley. I asked my staff to get 

to the bottom of that matter. 

We received information from the ATF and from the United 

States Attorney’s Office in Phoenix that contradicted some of these 

public reports, and it became clear to me that the matter needed 

to somehow be resolved. And so as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, 

on February 28th, I asked the Department of Justice Inspector 

General to investigate Fast and Furious. On March 9th, I directed 

the Deputy Attorney General to instruct all prosecutors and agents 

throughout the Justice Department not to engage in these flawed 

tactics that we found in Operation Fast and Furious. On March 

9th, I also confirmed the existence of the IG investigation. On 

March 10th, I testified about this matter before the Senate Appropriations Committee. 

So, clearly, by the time I testified in May before the House Committee, I had known about Fast and Furious for several weeks, as 

I indicated, a couple of months. But the focus on which day of 

which month I think in some ways is a bit of a distraction that 

does nothing to address what I think ought to concern us most, and 

that is, the flow of weapons from the United States across the 

Southwest Border. 
10 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I was going to start with those letters that 

you just referred to that I gave you on January 31st. You have introduced my question, so I will go immediately to the question. 

When we met that day, did you know that the guns connected 

to an ATF operation had been found at the Terry murder scene? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I did not. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. Less than 48 hours after Agent 

Terry died, your deputy was informed that guns found at the Terry 

scene traced back to Fast and Furious. We have e-mails and detailed briefing papers that went to Grindler on December 17th. Did 

Mr. Grindler ever say anything to you in December or January 

about the connection between the ATF and the guns found at Terry’s murder scene? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, he did not, but I think it is understandable in the sense that the information that was shared with 

him did not indicate that any of the tactics that we find in the 

flawed Operation Fast and Furious operation were actually mentioned in the e-mail that you reference. So he did not share that 

information with me. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Documents produced by the Department 

suggests that your deputy chief of staff spoke with U.S. Attorney 

Dennis Burke about Fast and Furious shortly after Agent Terry’s 

death. Did Mr. Wilkinson say anything to you about the connection 

between Agent Terry’s death and the ATF operation? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, he did not. The conversations 

that they had were about a variety of things. I have looked at the 

e-mails now: the possibility of me coming out at some point to engage in a press conference, other matters, but there was no discussion between them of the tactics that are of concern with regard 

to Fast and Furious, and as a result of that, Mr. Wilkinson did not 

share information with me about his contacts with former U.S. Attorney Burke. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Last week, the head of the Criminal Division, 

Lanny Breuer, said that he deeply regrets his failure to tell you 

earlier about gun walking in Operation Wide Receiver. But what 

about his failure to tell Congress and correct false statements in 

the Department’s letter to me on February 4th? Is that acceptable 

to you that he did not tell us about those false statements in the 

letter of February 4th? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, let me clear something up. The 

information that was shared with you on February 4th in that response, there was information in that letter that was inaccurate. 

The letter could have been better crafted. In the crafting of that 

letter, people were relying on information provided to them by people who were, we thought, in the best position to know what was 

accurate, people in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, people at ATF, people who themselves have now indicated in their congressional testimony before the House that they were not aware of the tactics that 

were employed. 

As a result of that, the information that is contained in that February 4th letter to you was not, in fact, accurate, and I regret that. 
11 

Senator GRASSLEY. Did he offer you his resignation because of 

that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, he has not, and I do not expect 

to hear a resignation offer from Mr. Breuer. 

Senator GRASSLEY. You are refusing to provide drafts of that 

February 4th letter and e-mails about the drafts even though they 

have been subpoenaed by the House. Without a valid constitutional 

privilege, that, of course, risks contempt of Congress. Why would 

you risk contempt of Congress to prevent us from finding out who 

reviewed the drafts of that letter and whether they knew that they 

contained false statements? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I will certainly try to work with 

you in providing you all the relevant information that we can. We 

will, however, act in a way that is consistent with what other Attorneys General have made determinations as to what information 

can be shared with Congressional oversight committees, and these 

are Republican as well as Democratic Attorneys General, and I will 

act in a manner that is consistent with the history and the tradition of the Department. 

Senator GRASSLEY. If those documents show that Mr. Breuer reviewed a draft of the letter before it went out and failed to correct 

the statement that he knew was false, would that be a reason for 

his resignation? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That would be a reason for a concern, 

but I think the facts show that the people who were responsible for 

the drafting of the letter did not know at that time that the information that was contained in that letter was inaccurate. We do 

now know, looking back, that the information provided to you was 

inaccurate, and as I said, that is something that I regret. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Breuer’s deputy, Jason Weinstein, was 

also aware that ATF walked guns. He approved the wiretap application for Fast and Furious, and he briefed Judiciary Committee 

staff on February 10th in response to my letters. Did Mr. 

Weinstein review a draft of the February 4th letter before it was 

sent to me? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not know. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Who will be held accountable for allowing a 

letter to Congress with a statement that many people in the Justice Department knew was false? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, again, I have to dispute with 

due respect the assertion that people in the Justice Department 

knew it was false. People in the Justice Department who were responsible for the creation of that letter, again, relied on information 

provided to them that they thought was accurate. We only know 

that the information was inaccurate in hindsight. At the time the 

letter was prepared, our best thought was that the information 

supplied was, in fact, correct. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Someone in the Justice Department leaked a 

document to the press along with talking points in an attempt to 

smear one of the ATF whistleblowers who testified before the 

House. This document was supposed to be so sensitive that you refused to provide it to Congress, but then someone provided it to the 

press. The name of the criminal suspect in the document was deleted, but the name of the ATF agent was not. This looks like a 
12 

clear and intentional violation of the Privacy Act as well as an attempt at whistleblower retaliation. 

In a private phone conversation with me, you already told me 

that someone has been held accountable for this, but your staff refused to provide my staff with any details. Who was held accountable and how? 

Attorney General HOLDER. You know, it almost pains me—and 

please do not take this away from Senator Grassley’s time. As you 

said, we had a private conversation. You sent me a handwritten 

note that I took very seriously. You and I have worked together on 

a variety of things. I think I have a good relationship with you. You 

sent me a handwritten note that I looked at, took seriously, referred that letter to OPR or the IG—I am not sure which of the 

two—and asked them to try to find out what happened. 

I called you to try to indicate to you that I had taken that matter 

seriously, that action had been taken. You know, in a different time 

in Washington, I am not sure that what you just said necessarily 

would have been shared with everyone here, but, you know, so be 

it. It is a different time, I suppose. 

In response to your question—— 

Senator GRASSLEY. You understand that I told you over the 

phone conversation if you wanted me not to ask this question, that 

I said, ‘‘Have your staff inform my staff,’’ because I work very closely with my staff, and give the details so that I would know that 

this would be an inappropriate question to ask at this hearing. 

Chairman LEAHY. We will let the Attorney General answer, and 

then we will go to Senator Kohl, keeping the same rule that I applied to myself. 

Senator GRASSLEY. You went 1 minute and 40—— 

Chairman LEAHY. No, I did not on my questions. 

Senator GRASSLEY. You asked a question, but he answered 1 

minute and 40 seconds—— 

Chairman LEAHY. I finished my question before my time was up. 

Go ahead. You can answer his question even though he asked it 

after his time was up. 

Attorney General HOLDER. With regard to the question, the matter is under investigation. There were a couple of leaks, and those 

leaks are under investigation by the Inspector General, by the Office of Professional Responsibility, and I am not in a position to 

comment on ongoing investigations. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Kohl. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General Holder, before I turn to my questions, I would 

like to thank you for working with us on our law enforcement officers who exhibit exceptional courage in the line of duty. In 2008, 

Congress passed the Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of 

Bravery Act in order to honor these brave men and women. I am 

sure that it was no easy task to choose only 21 award recipients 

from so many qualified nominees all across the country. 

So 2 weeks ago, I was pleased to present the first of these 

awards to two deserving officers in Wisconsin: Onalaska Police Officer James Page and La Crosse County Deputy Sheriff Daniel 

Baudek. These officers made their community and the entire State 
13 

of Wisconsin proud, and I look forward to continuing to work with 

you to honor these deserving public servants. 

Attorney General Holder, my office has been informed of an FBI 

proposal to close three of its six Wisconsin satellite offices. If these 

closures go through, the Western District of Wisconsin will lose 

half of its FBI offices, and they have to work with fewer agents. 

I have serious concerns about the ability of the remaining two offices to adequately support already underserved rural areas. Our 

chief law enforcement officer in the Western District, U.S. Attorney 

John Vaudreuil, strongly opposes these closures. People who live in 

rural Wisconsin have a right to expect that the FBI will be able 

to investigate crime in their communities. I am sure you would 

agree. After all, a multimillion-dollar bank fraud in Wausau is at 

least as important as a million-dollar bank fraud in Milwaukee or 

Chicago. 

According to the agency, these closures will lead to a ‘‘stronger 

and more effective FBI presence in Wisconsin.’’ However, how can 

this be the case when agents will be located 4 hours away by car 

from the communities that they serve. I understand that the final 

decisions will be made soon, so will you commit to working with me 

right now in order to address these concerns and modify the proposal if necessary in order to ensure that Wisconsin is not negatively impacted? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I will certainly work with you and 

look at the proposed closures and make sure that they do not have 

a negative impact on the ability of the FBI to perform the services 

to which the citizens of Wisconsin are entitled. We are dealing with 

tough budgetary times. We are trying to make sure that we are 

configured in a way where we can be most efficient and still be 

most effective. But I have heard the concerns you have raised 

about the closure of those three offices, and I will work with you 

in that regard. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Holder. 

Attorney General, the Justice Department recently announced 

plans to close four of its seven antitrust regional offices: the offices 

of Atlanta, Cleveland, Dallas, and Philadelphia. The Justice Department asserts that this will save $8 million annually mainly by 

saving the cost of office leases. We are aware of reports that some 

career staff in these offices are opposed to these closures. They 

argue that these offices are responsible for collecting hundreds of 

millions of dollars in fines for criminal antitrust violations, far outweighing the savings from the office closures. 

On October 19th, the Washington Post reported that the Dallas 

regional office won a $500 million fine in a case brought against 

an international vitamins cartel, and the Philadelphia office obtained a $134 million fine. A career attorney in the Atlanta office 

stated that his office collected about $20 million in fines annually 

on a budget of just $2 million. 

So I am interested in your response to these reports. Are you 

sure that these office closures will really be cost-effective? And will 

the Department have sufficient resources to prosecute antitrust 

cases in regions not fully served by the four offices that you plan 

to close? 
14 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, that was a tough decision that 

we had to make, but we thought, given limited budgets that we 

have, that we could continue to do the work of the Antitrust Division in spite of the fact that those offices would close. None of the 

investigations that those offices were handling will be closed. We 

will work from the remaining offices in other parts of the country 

to make sure that we maintain the kind of vigilance and intense 

antitrust presence that has been provided in the past. 

So I do not think that the reconfiguring of the Antitrust Division 

and these field offices will have a negative impact on our ability to 

handle the very things that you have mentioned. These offices have 

been effective in the past, but I think that we can continue to be 

effective even under the reconfigured structure that we have proposed. 

Senator KOHL. I have my doubts. I thought I would voice them 

to you. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Attorney General, we were pleased when the 

Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit in August to block 

the proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger. As I stated to you in my letter of July 20th recommending this merger be blocked, I believe 

this would be a dangerous merger for competition and for consumers. If allowed to proceed, this merger would combine two direct competitors and reduce the number of national cell phone companies in an already highly concentrated industry from four to 

three. Millions of consumers across the country would likely face 

higher cell phone bills and fewer choices. 

Some commentators have expressed concern that the Justice Department might not be in this case for the long haul and agree to 

a settlement that will allow the merger to proceed. I do not believe 

that to be true, but can you reassure us on this point? I understand 

that you have recused yourself in this case, but, nevertheless, can 

you confirm that DOJ is committed to pursuing its lawsuit, if necessary through trial? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I am recused from this matter. 

James Cole, who is the Deputy Attorney General, is the person who 

is ultimately in charge of this, and I am sure that Jim and the people in the Antitrust Division are committed to seeing this through. 

The Justice Department does not file matters in court, does not 

file suits challenging proposed mergers unless we are prepared to 

follow them all the way through, and that is the structure that has 

been put in place. There is a trial team—I know about this just 

from what I have heard. There is a trial team that is in place, and 

they are ready and eager to go to court. 

Senator KOHL. Good. Finally, as Chair of the Special Committee 

on Aging, I held a hearing earlier this year on elder abuse and neglect and financial exploitation. In that hearing we heard heartwrenching stories of physical, emotional, sexual, and financial 

abuse of elders. 

According to GAO, over 14 percent of our senior citizens living 

outside of nursing homes or assisted living facilities have been injured, exploited, or otherwise mistreated by someone on whom they 

depend for care and protection. Sadly, elder abuse often goes unreported, indicating the true number of victims is much higher. In 
15 

addition to causing the victims of elder abuse and their families 

great personal harm, the financial exploitation of seniors costs the 

Nation an estimated $2.5 billion a year. 

Despite the terrible harm it causes, there is a lack of leadership 

at the Federal level when it comes to stopping elder abuse. That 

is why I introduced the Elder Abuse Victims Act with Senators 

Leahy, Blumenthal, and Whitehouse. Our bill would create the Office of Elder Justice within the Justice Department. The office 

would centralize the response to elder abuse by coordinating Federal, State, and local agencies. Can we count on your support for 

this legislation? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I certainly want to work with you 

with regard to that legislation. The Justice Department has tried 

to focus on the abuse that those people who are most vulnerable 

are forced to endure: those at the beginning of their lives, children, 

and those toward the end of their lives, our seniors. And the bill 

that you have introduced I think probably goes a long way to helping us in that regard, so I would be glad to work with you in looking at that legislation because this is a concern that I have and 

those of us in the Justice Department do have. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Hatch. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. 

Attorney General. We appreciate you testifying here today. 

Two years ago, you made a very controversial decision to reopen 

criminal investigations of CIA interrogations that took place following the September 11th attacks. Now, you made this decision 

even while admitting that you had not read the declination report 

from career prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia. This decision prompted seven former Directors of the CIA to write a letter 

to the President opposing this action. Now, there are reports that 

almost all of the reinvestigations that have now been closed. 

Now, do you agree that you should have read those declination 

reports before deciding to reopen the investigations, especially now 

that you are reaching the same decision as the career prosecutors 

did? And just one last question. What message do you have for 

those CIA employees whose lives have been in limbo for the past 

2 years because of that failure to look at the declination report? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think the decision that I made to 

order that investigation was an appropriate one. I reviewed a series of reports, among them an Inspector General report and other 

matters that are classified, and came to the conclusion that there 

was a basis for a re-examination of the incidents. I was concerned 

about the way in which people, American people working either at 

our behest or people working for our Government, had engaged in 

these interrogation techniques. I appointed—or I expanded the jurisdiction of John Durham, a very experienced prosecutor who had 

been appointed to look at the tapes matter by Attorney General 

Mukasey. His work is continuing. I think we are pretty close to the 

end of the work that he has been asked to do. 

But I stand by my decision. I think the decision that I made was 

a correct one. The results are what they are, but I think going 
16 

through the process that I asked him to do was, in fact, the right 

thing to do. 

Senator HATCH. My point is that you had the advice of people 

who really knew what was going on saying you should not do this, 

and then you have seven former Directors of the CIA who really 

were offended by this. Plus the problem with this is that I think 

it hampers the work that they do in many areas if they are going 

to be brought into court years later. 

So, you know, it is a decision you made. I just disagree with it. 

And I think it was something that should not have been done, and 

to have these people in limbo for 2 years is a wrong thing, too. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, we did—— 

Senator HATCH. It kind of takes me back to the Ted Stevens litigation. I have not seen much in the way of correction for those who 

did what were really offensive prosecutorial approaches—not only 

offensive, but I think there should have been some real serious corrections done because of what they did to a great U.S. Senator. 

Frankly, the way I understand it, to use as an excuse that they had 

just plain overlooked some of the most exculpatory evidence that 

has to be given to defendants that would have acquitted him, that 

should have been used to stop any prosecution to begin with, is 

something that really—I have to say it. It really bothers me, and 

I think it has bothered an awful lot of people on both sides of the 

aisle. I am not necessarily blaming you on that, but I am saying—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, it clearly bothered—— 

Senator HATCH. I do not see anything being done about it, to be 

honest with you, and, frankly, if we have that kind of prosecution 

going on in this country—and I know you share my view on this 

to a large degree. If we have prosecutors running wild like that and 

ignoring the law itself, something as important as exculpatory evidence that has to be given to the defendant in a criminal case, you 

can see why some people are losing confidence in what goes on. 

Let me change the subject. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, if I could just say one thing. 

Senator HATCH. Sure, go ahead. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I was bothered by what happened 

there, and I made the decision—— 

Senator HATCH. You had to be. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I made the decision to drop the case. 

The matter has not, however, been dropped. OPR, the Office of Professional Responsibility, is looking into this matter. They are at the 

last stages of their examination of what happened in connection 

with the Stevens case. There is a multi-hundred-page report that 

is just about finalized, and I think we will see what their conclusions are—— 

Senator HATCH. Will you share that with us? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is up to the people at OPR. 

What I have indicated was that I want to share as much of that 

as we possibly can given the very public nature of that matter and 

the very public decision that I made to dismiss the case. So my 

hope is that we will be able to share as much of that report as we 

possibly can. 
17 

Senator HATCH. I hope so. I hope you are able to share every aspect of it. 

Six months ago, I, along with several members of this Committee, wrote to you expressing a recommendation that Ali Musa 

Daqduq, who is a senior Hezbollah field commander currently in 

our custody, be tried in the U.S. military tribunal. Now, remember, 

this terrorist was captured on the battlefield and was responsible 

for the kidnapping and execution of five American soldiers. 

Now, has the decision been made to put him before a military 

commission or a civilian trial in the U.S.—the decision is going to 

be made—or even a release to the Iraqis? Is that even possible? 

And my only question is this: Have you prepared for the fallout in 

the event you bring him to the U.S. for a civilian trial and if somehow or other he is found not guilty? Five Americans were killed by 

this guy. 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is a matter that is still under 

discussion, and a decision will be made as to where the trial can 

occur or where he can most effectively be tried. But it is something 

that is still being discussed. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, sir. As you know, the issue of 

enforcing the laws against obscenity and laws protecting children 

is very important to me. In April, you received a letter signed by 

me and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith. It 

asked specific questions about the Department’s efforts to enforce 

both the obscenity laws and the law requiring producers of sexually 

explicit material to keep records about the age and identity of performers. It has been more than 6 months without an answer. Are 

you going to get us an answer on that? I hope we receive it soon. 

Attorney General HOLDER. After this hearing, I will speak to the 

people at the Department, and we will try to get you a response 

to that letter. 

Senator HATCH. I would appreciate it, General. Your job is a 

tough job, and I am the first to admit it. I appreciate your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you. And I just should note, in 

connection with what Senator Hatch said, I, too, feel that there is 

some serious misconduct on the part of the prosecutors in the Stevens matter, and I—— 

Senator HATCH. You are right, Mr. Chairman. I have to say I 

have looked at that pretty carefully, and I have never seen a greater injustice to a Member of Congress. 

Chairman LEAHY. I would note to the senior Senator from Utah 

that while I understand OPR normally does not make public their 

findings, I would hope that as much of that could be made public 

as possible. It does not right whatever wrongs were done then, but 

let us hope that it might preclude future wrongs. 

Now, I mention this just so nobody would think this is a partisan 

thing. 

Senator HATCH. It is not partisan. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Stevens was a Republican. I have 

stated publicly a number of times I felt that was badly handled, 

and I want you to know that both of us agree on this. 
18 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

your comments. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

might add the tragedy of the Stevens situation is that Senator Stevens is no longer here to be able to see the result of your examination. So I would just like to agree, Mr. Attorney General, with what 

my colleagues have said. I think this is very important that whatever happened be made fully public and never, ever happen again. 

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to put in the record the 

official firearms trace data from the Department of Justice from 12/ 

1/2006 to 9/30/2011. This is on guns to Mexico. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Attorney General, welcome. You mentioned that you became aware of Fast and Furious in 2011. You 

spoke to us about the Grassley letters in the end of January and 

February. You asked the IG to investigate in April. My—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. In February. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Oh, February. Thank you. My understanding 

is that the practice of letting guns walk first occurred in 2006 as 

part of Operation Wide Receiver and again the next year as part 

of the Hernandez investigation. 

As you reviewed the records of this, as I am sure you would, did 

the Attorneys General at that time—I believe there were two of 

them—in 2007 know about this practice? And what was done about 

it then? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not know about the knowledge 

that the Attorneys General had at that point. I have read reports 

that a memo was sent to Attorney General Mukasey. I do not know 

what action they took, but I do know that when I saw the indications that guns had walked, I was bothered by it, offended by it, 

concerned about it, and ordered the Inspector General to investigate it, and also issued a directive to the field to make clear that 

gun walking was not appropriate, was inconsistent with Justice 

Department policy, and should not occur. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Do your records indicate that this operation 

began in 2006 and continued virtually unabated since that time? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Operation Fast and Furious began in 

2009, I believe. Wide Receiver began in 2006 or 2007. I am not 

sure. That matter was investigated and lay fallow for some time 

until the Criminal Division and the Obama Justice Department 

looked at it and decided to try to bring the cases that had been just 

lying there. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Since July of this year, the ATF has instituted a requirement 

that Federal firearms licensees in the four States that border Mexico—California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas—report whenever 

a single purchaser buys multiple, meaning two or more, assault rifles within a 5-day period. I pulled the Federal Register and looked 

at that, and it says that Federal firearms licensees must report 

multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or 
19 

otherwise disposes of two or more rifles with the following characteristics: A, semi-automatic; B, a caliber greater than 22; C, the 

ability to accept a detachable magazine to the same person at one 

time; or during any five consecutive business days. This requirement will apply only to Federal firearm licensees who are dealers 

and/or pawnbrokers in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. 

Can you tell us a little bit about how that section has functioned, 

whether it is being carried out, if there are lapses, or if you believe 

it can be strengthened in any way? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that that regulation or requirement is an extremely reasonable one. It has all of the features 

that you have described, and I think significantly exactly what we 

have been doing for years with regard to the sale of handguns. And 

the notion that somehow or other we are in litigation now, being 

sued trying to do the very same thing that we have done with 

handguns for years with regard to weapons that are far more dangerous is really beyond me. I do not understand how that can be 

opposed given the fact that this would provide ATF and other Federal agencies with useful information in trying to stop the problem 

that has been the subject of so much discussion. 

Some of the harshest critics of ATF have voted against this very, 

very sensible regulation. The House has voted to block it. I guess 

over 270 Members of the House voted against what I think, as I 

said, is a very reasonable regulation and one that is totally consistent, exactly consistent with what we have been doing with 

handguns for years, I think since the mid-1980s. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I feel, as you probably know, very 

strongly about this, and the tens of thousands, I guess, at least 

30,000 people that have been killed by guns in Mexico, we know 

these guns go into the hands of the cartels, and we know how they 

are used. 

So the question that I have is: Do you believe this is being carried out today in an acceptable manner—let me change that—in an 

effective manner to stop the flow of guns to Mexico? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I think it is. We are only at the 

beginning stages of it. It has not been in effect for an extremely 

long period of time, but I think it is the tool that over time will 

prove to be extremely useful and help us in our efforts to stop the 

flow of weapons from the United States to Mexico. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, this Senator is certainly going to watch 

it. I would like to extend through you a real compliment to the FBI, 

particularly in the Saudi case, in the Abdulmutallab case, in the 

Najibullah Zazi case. I was one who was not quite sure that the 

FBI had the culture to really develop the intelligence portion to the 

extent that they have, and I follow this in Intelligence and believe 

they have really done an excellent job and that we all should be 

very proud of those plots that have been stopped, the successful 

prosecutions that have been brought in Federal cases. And I just 

want to say thank you for that. I think the FBI really has 

achieved—my time has run out—major, major prosecutions for us, 

and so thank you very much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 
20 

I will also put into the record a letter I sent to the Acting Inspector General about Operation Fast and Furious, the fact that I understand she is investigating allegations on that, and asked whether she also has with that in connection with that an investigation 

of Operation Wide Receiver, a similar thing involving Mexico and 

Arizona, now that we have heard that former Attorney General 

Mukasey may have been briefed on this similar operation back in 

2007. I will put that in the record. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Graham, you have been waiting patiently. You are next. And just so people will know the order, after 

Senator Graham would be Senator Schumer, then Senator Cornyn. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Attorney General, I want to congratulate you and all those 

who are risking their lives in the war on terror and fighting crime 

for very serious and substantial tactical successes against a very vicious enemy, and I think it is appropriate that we all acknowledge 

the hard work that has gone into keeping the country safe. 

Now, from a strategic point of view, I think we are coming to 

some crossroads here as a Nation about what we need to be doing 

in the future. Now, I embrace trying to find a new confinement facility other than Guantanamo Bay. Senator McCain did when he 

ran for President, and Senator Obama and President Bush. But I 

have come to conclude—and I may not be the best vote counter in 

the world—that we are not going to close Gitmo anytime soon. 

In September of this year, you were in Brussels, and I think you 

stated to the European Parliament, ‘‘We have an election that is 

coming up in 2012, in November 2012. We will be pressing for the 

closure of the facility between now and then,’’ being Gitmo. ‘‘Then 

after the election we will try to close it as well.’’ 

Am I wrong in assuming that there is not the votes here to close 

Gitmo before November of 2012? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, you can certainly count votes 

better than I can in this body and probably in the House as well, 

you having served there. But it is the administration policy to try 

to close Guantanamo. We think it would be an appropriate thing 

to do for a whole variety of reasons. We have certainly run into opposition, but—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Let me, if I may, just interrupt. I understand 

where you are coming from, and I have embraced the idea of trying 

to find a new confinement facility. But certain legal changes had 

to occur for that to be viable that have not occurred. We do not 

need to blame each other, but from now going forward, we do live 

in a real practical world. Do you agree with that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. A real practical world. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, we have got to make practical decisions 

here. 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is not as practical as I would like 

it to be all the time, but it is somewhat practical. 

Senator GRAHAM. But I buy into the idea of all-of-the-above approach that sometimes Article III courts may be the best venue in 

trying terrorists. I have never said that Article III courts do not 

have a place in this war. And I have been very passionate about 

military commissions, and I think we see that the same, that we 
21 

should have an all-of-the-above approach and be as flexible as possible. 

But I guess my point, Mr. Attorney General, is that we do not 

have a jail in the war on terror for future captures, and I think 

that makes us less safe. Where would we put someone if we caught 

them tomorrow, a high-value target? Where do we confine them? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is something that we are discussing. 

Senator GRAHAM. Would you put them in Afghanistan? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, there are a number of options 

that we are discussing and we are trying to work our way through 

to come up with a proposal that would be both effective and that 

would generate the necessary—— 

Senator GRAHAM. I just honestly cannot see an option that makes 

sense. The idea of putting them on ships for a limited period of 

time is not a viable substitute because ships were never meant to 

be permanent confinement facilities. I do not see Afghanistan accepting new war on terror captures that would bring the Afghan 

Government down. Certainly the Iraqis are not going to do it. So 

if we do not use Gitmo, what are we going to do? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, as I said, those are the options 

that we are trying to discover. The President has made clear, the 

administration has made clear that we are not going to be using 

the Guantanamo facility, so we have to come up with options that 

can be funded and support the—— 

Senator GRAHAM. OK. Mr. Attorney General, I have tried to be 

as supportive as I know how to be in creating flexibility for the executive branch and not micromanage the war. But I have come to 

conclude Gitmo is not going to close, and there is no viable option 

other than Guantanamo being used, that the Iraqi legal system is 

not going to allow us—they are not going to become the jailer for 

the United States. Afghanistan is not going to become the jailer for 

the United States. Naval ships are not a good option. So I just really believe that we need to embrace reality, and the reality is we 

need a jail, we do not have one, and Gitmo is the only jail available. 

Now, this Daqduq guy who is being held by the Iraqis, he is a 

Hezbollah capture in Iraq, an Iranian basically inspired person 

who was training Shiite militias and is charged with killing five 

Americans. If we do not put him in Gitmo, where are we going to 

put him? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, those are options we have been 

discussing. How he will be dealt with are topics of conversation 

that I have engaged in with my counterparts on the National Security—— 

Senator GRAHAM. We had a conversation about Khalid Sheikh 

Mohammed and how I thought it would be ill advised to put him 

in New York City civilian court, Federal court, because he was an 

enemy combatant who would be—and I think that did not go over 

well simply because it was an ill-suited case choice, not the fact 

that we cannot use Article III courts, just not for somebody like 

him. 

Mr. Attorney General, if you try to bring this guy back to the 

United States and put him in civilian court or use a military com-
22 

mission inside the United States, holy hell is going to break out. 

And if we let him go and turn him over to the Iraqis, that is just 

like letting him go. I think this would be a huge mistake. He is 

charged with killing five Americans, and at the end of the day— 

I try to be as practical as I know how to be—it would be a national 

disgrace to allow this guy to escape justice. And the only option 

available to this Nation is Gitmo because there is bipartisan opposition to creating a confinement facility in the United States, and 

I just beg and plead with this administration to create an option 

that is viable, and the only viable option is to use Guantanamo 

Bay. 

Now, let us talk about Guantanamo Bay. Do you believe it is a 

humanely run prison? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I have been to Guantanamo, and as 

the facility is now run, I believe that the men and women down 

there conduct themselves in an appropriate way and that prisoners 

are treated in a humane fashion. 

Senator GRAHAM. Isn’t it true that every detainee at Guantanamo Bay will have access to our Federal courts to make a habeas 

petition for their release? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Right, there are a number of cases 

that we, in fact, are handling here in the D.C. courts. 

Senator GRAHAM. Isn’t it true that any conviction that comes 

from a military commission will be automatically appealed to our 

civilian court system? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that that is true. I am not 

sure, but I think that is true. 

Senator GRAHAM. I think that is true. So the bottom line is that 

we all agree that Guantanamo Bay is a humane detention facility 

being well run and that we have civilian oversight of what happens 

at Guantanamo Bay. So my view is that we are less safe if we do 

not have a prison, and please tell me in the next 30 days, submit 

to this Committee or me individually a plan, because we are running out of time, that would be reasonable, sound, and has political 

support to confine future captures and to move people out of Iraq 

and Afghanistan who are too dangerous to let go. Could you do that 

in 30 days? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not know. This is a decision that 

will be made by—I will be a part of the decisionmaking process, 

but the decision itself will be made by, I think, people higher up 

the ladder. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, could you tell those people higher up that 

we are about to withdraw from Iraq—and these people in Iraq are 

going to be let go, and we are running out of the ability to hold 

people in Afghanistan—that time is not on our side, the war is an 

ongoing enterprise, and we need a jail. So I urge and will have 

other Senators urge you to find a solution to this problem within 

30 days. 

Thank you very much for your service. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure. The one thing I would say is— 

and I go back to what you started with. Whatever the proposal is, 

whatever the administration works its way through, I hope that it 

will be viewed in a practical manner by Members of Congress and 

take into account the history that we have with regard to our abil-
23 

ity to safely detain people, to try people, and understand that 

whatever is the proposal that we make—— 

Senator GRAHAM. I try to be practical, sometimes to my own detriment, but I promise you I will be practical. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Schumer. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to go back to the Fast and Furious issue, and there 

has been, of course, a lot of focus on the present administration’s 

dealings with Fast and Furious, but what has been sort of missing 

certainly in the House investigation is that it did not start with the 

Obama administration. It started with Alberto Gonzales and then 

continued with General Mukasey. And if we want to get to the bottom of it and find out what went wrong, I think we have to look 

at the whole things. So my questions are somewhat related to that. 

Mr. Attorney General—and thank you for being here—as we 

learned last week, some briefing material on Operation Wide Receiver, the Bush era version of Fast and Furious, was prepared for 

Attorney General Mukasey shortly after he took office in preparation for a November 16th meeting with Attorney General Eduardo 

Medina Mora of Mexico. That was not the beginning. It is clear 

now that ATF agents and line prosecutors in Tucson as early as 

2006 discussed an ATF proposal to provide guns to criminals ‘‘without any further ability by the U.S. Government to control their 

movement or future use.’’ We know this operation was likely part 

of Operation Wide Receiver in which 350 guns were purchased by 

straw purchasers, and as your production of material continues, it 

is plausible we will find out that this strategy was discussed maybe 

even before 2006. 

The briefing material from 2007 which was prepared for General 

Mukasey stated that, ‘‘ATF has recently worked jointly with Mexico 

on the first-ever attempt to have a controlled delivery of weapons 

being smuggled into Mexico by a major arms trafficker. While the 

first attempts at this controlled delivery have not been successful, 

the investigation is ongoing. The ATF would like to expand the possibility of such joint investigations and controlled deliveries since 

only then it will be possible to investigate an entire smuggling network rather than arresting a single smuggler.’’ That is in the memo 

from General Mukasey, which I think was made public Friday. 

Then e-mails indicate that ATF’s Assistant Director for Enforcement reviewed this briefing language. So I want to try and figure 

out who saw the briefing material, so I am going to ask you about 

some of the names there that are listed. These are listed at the top 

of the briefing memo prepared for General Mukasey for the November 16th meeting with Mora. 

My first question is a simple one. What position did Matthew 

Friedrich hold on the date that is on the meeting memo? Do you 

recall that? You may not. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not know, Senator. 

Senator SCHUMER. He was deputy chief of staff to Attorney General Mukasey. And Kevin O’Connor, I will not ask you that one, he 

was Associate Attorney General. You may have recalled that. 

So I think we can infer that both Mr. Friedrich and Mr. O’Connor were likely to have received the material either before or at the 
24 

meeting with Attorney General Mora, and given that, as well as 

the fact that the meeting was with General Mukasey’s counterpart 

in Mexico, I think we can infer that General Mukasey is highly 

likely to have attended the November meeting and seen this material. 

Are you aware of whether General Mukasey reviewed the memo? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not know if he did or not. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. And I do not want to vouch for anyone’s 

attendance at the meeting. Obviously, you were not there. I want 

to be clear about that premise. But with that caveat, are you currently able to say whether there were any other high-ranking DOJ 

officials who attended the November 7, 2007, meeting? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I just do not know, Senator, who attended the meeting. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. But it would not have been beyond the 

pale for other top officials to have been briefed on this, either in 

preparation for the meeting or otherwise. Is that correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is certainly possible. I just do not 

know. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. OK. Another one: Do you have any 

knowledge whether Deputy Attorney General Craig Morford was 

briefed on the program or tactics? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not know that either. 

Senator SCHUMER. Knowledge of any other members of other departments with border responsibility, DHS or State, briefed on the 

program or these tactics? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not know how extensively it was 

briefed. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. Lanny Davis, the current Criminal Division head, testified he was briefed after it was closed, after Wide 

Receiver was closed in 2010. Do you think if his predecessor, Alice 

Fisher, was similarly briefed or took part in meetings? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not know. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. Here is what—yes, Lanny Breuer, right. 

What did I say? I get those two mixed up, the two Lannys I read 

about. 

OK. Here is what I would ask: Could you go back and look at 

the files or have someone do that and get us information on whether these people were part of briefings, part of meetings that might 

have related to that program, Wide Receiver? 

Attorney General HOLDER. As part of the process in responding 

to requests for information from the Hill, we are trying to gather 

information, and we may be able to gather from the e-mails and 

other materials that we are gathering some better sense of who 

was actually briefed with regard to Wide Receiver. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. And one other thing. In the prepared remarks made by Attorney General Mukasey regarding the trip to 

Mexico which he made on January 16th, he said, ‘‘I reiterated for 

the Attorney General, as I do now, the United States is committed 

to addressing the flow of illegal guns into Mexico. . . . I indicated 

we would also be deploying additional resources to arrest and prosecute violent criminals, to trace the firearms—the ‘tools of the 

trade’—used by criminal gangs.’’ This indicates that gun walking 

might have been discussed at this meeting as well. 
25 

So once again, is there anything you are able to say without 

vouching for anybody’s attendance about that 2008 trip to Mexico, 

what was discussed, who might have attended? And if not, can you 

get us that information? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We will attempt to obtain that information. I simply do not have that information right now. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. What I am getting at here and why I 

think it is important to have answers to this question is because 

there has been a selective way in which this investigation has been 

pursued so far. It is sort of one-sided outrage about the whole issue 

when we know now that it began—or its progenitor began before 

you took office, before President Obama took office. And the House 

Committee Chair has said he would look at both sides, wrongdoing 

on both sides. That has not happened. 

It appears—it is a pretty good bet that top officials at the Bush 

Justice Department, perhaps the Attorney General himself, learned 

of this operation in its early stages. We know a memo was prepared for him. We do not know what he knew. At the very least, 

they let it continue. For all we know, they have endorsed it. And 

so I think it is important that we look at both sides, and my suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is if the House will not do that, we should. 

Chairman LEAHY. I agree, and I thank you for the questions. 

Senator Cornyn, and then we will go to Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Chairman, for what it is worth, I agree 

with Senator Schumer that we need all the information about these 

programs and the distinctions, if any, between Wide Receiver and 

Fast and Furious. 

General Holder, I note that Fast and Furious has had a significant spillover effect in my State of Texas where 119 of these weapons of the 2,000 weapons that were walked into the hands of the 

cartels, 119 of them have shown up at crime scenes in my State. 

Investigations by Senator Grassley have also revealed that the 

ATF agents have ordered clerks at a Houston-based business called 

Carter’s Country to go through with sales of weapons to suspicious 

purchasers, some of which may have been working as agents of the 

cartels. 

On August 7th, I sent you a letter asking you about the Texas 

connections, and I got a letter back last Friday from your subordinates saying that you were unable to provide more information at 

this time. 

I am hopeful you will be able to provide more information because we know that the weapons from Fast and Furious have 

shown up at 11 different crime scenes in the United States, and 

this is far from, as you stated earlier, local law enforcement operation in terms of its impact. Many of these weapons, of course, 

ended up in Mexico, one we know at the crime scene where Brian 

Terry was murdered by the cartels. So let me ask you a little bit 

about some of this timeline. 

First of all, on February 4th, Assistant Attorney General Weich 

wrote a letter denying gun walking, and it was not until November 

1st of 2011 when Lanny Breuer testified that that letter was false, 

that throughout that whole period, from February 4, 2011, and November 1, 2011, your Department left the impression on Congress 

that the allegation that the Department had engaged in gun-walk-
26 

ing operations was false, when, in fact, Mr. Breuer came in on November 1, 2011, and said that that letter sent to Senator Grassley 

in response to his inquiry was false. 

How do you account for the fact that the Department had for the 

period of time from February 2011 until November 2011 had misled Congress about the accuracy of that allegation? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think there is some validity in the 

concern that you raise. As I indicated before, with regard—— 

Senator CORNYN. I do, too. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I hope so. It is your question, 

so I assume you did. February 4th, the information that was contained in that letter was thought to be accurate. It was not until 

some time after that that we had a sense that the information was 

not, in fact, accurate. So it was not as if the data upon which we 

knew the information was inaccurate was on February 4th. It 

comes some time after that. 

I received things as late as March of 2011 from people at ATF 

who assured me that gun walking did not occur. 

Senator CORNYN. But your Department—you said you learned 

about Fast and Furious—on May 3rd, you said you learned probably over the last few weeks, today you say it was over the last 

couple of months. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I said over the last few weeks 

or it could be expressed as over the last couple of months. I think 

the last few weeks I said is consistent with the timeline that you 

have out there. 

Senator CORNYN. But the fact is the Department’s official response to Senator Grassley as part of his investigation was that it 

did not happen until you came before the House and said that you 

had learned about it over the last few weeks. That was May 3, 

2011. Is that correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure I understand that question. 

Senator CORNYN. OK. Well, let me go on to something else. 

Do you still contend this was a local law enforcement operation? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is a Federal—no, do not misinterpret that. It is a Federal law—— 

Senator CORNYN. Those are your words. You said it was a local 

law enforcement operation—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, then, that is my fault. 

Senator CORNYN [continuing]. In your opening testimony. 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, that is my fault. It is a Federal 

law enforcement operation that was concerned—that was of local 

concern. It was not a national operation. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, it metastasized, didn’t it, to Mexico, it 

metastasized to Texas, and obviously in Arizona, so it was not certainly local in effect. You would agree with that. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, as I indicated in my opening 

statement, the impact of the mistakes made in Fast and Furious 

are going to be felt in Mexico, in the United States, and probably 

for years to come. 

Senator CORNYN. A lot of those guns have still not been accounted for, correct? 
27 

Attorney General HOLDER. A number of those guns have not 

been accounted for, and that is why it is incumbent upon us and 

why I have taken the steps that I have taken to try to ensure that 

the mistakes that happened there are not repeated. 

Senator CORNYN. This is the organization chart for the Department of Justice. You would agree with me that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is an agency in the Department of Justice of which you are head. Correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator CORNYN. And that is your signature right here attesting 

to this organization chart, April 30, 2010. So you are not suggesting, are you, General Holder, that it is not your responsibility 

to have known about this operation, is it? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, there are 115,000 employees in 

the United States Department of Justice. There are—— 

Senator CORNYN. And the buck stops with you. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I have ultimate responsibility for that 

which happens in the Department. But I cannot be expected to 

know the details of every operation that is ongoing in the Justice 

Department on a day-to-day basis. I did not know about Fast and 

Furious, as is indicated in the chart that you now have up there, 

until it became public. 

Senator CORNYN. You cannot be expected to have known about 

the operation known as Fast and Furious, despite the fact that we 

know that you received an NDIC memo on July 5, 2010? You received another memo on Fast and Furious November 1, 2010, and 

you say you cannot be expected to have known about it because of 

the size of your agency? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, there are a couple problems with 

that chart, colorful though it is. The ‘‘AG Holder receives NDIC 

memo,’’ incorrect. ‘‘AG Holder receives significant recent events 

memo,’’ that is incorrect. 

Senator CORNYN. Those are memos with your name on it addressed to you, referring to the Fast and Furious operation. Are 

you just saying you did not read them? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I did not receive them. 

Senator CORNYN. You did not receive them. 

Attorney General HOLDER. What happens is that these reports 

are prepared, these weekly reports or whatever, they are prepared 

with my name on them, with the Deputy Attorney General’s name 

on them. They are reviewed by my staff and a determination made 

as to what ought to be brought to my attention. If you look at those 

memos, there is nothing in any of those memos that indicates any 

of those inappropriate tactics that was of concern to us were actually used, and my staff made the determination that there was no 

reason to share the content of those memos with me. So ‘‘AG Holder receives memo,’’ incorrect. ‘‘AG Holder receives significant recent 

events memo on Fast and Furious,’’ also incorrect. 

Senator CORNYN. Have you apologized to the family of Brian 

Terry? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I have not apologized to them, but I 

certainly regret what happened. 

Senator CORNYN. Have you even talked to them? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I have not. 
28 

Senator CORNYN. Would you like to apologize today for this program that went so wrong that took the life of a United States law 

enforcement agent? 

Chairman LEAHY. Just before you answer, that will have to be 

your last question, keeping to the time. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I certainly regret what happened to 

Agent Brian Terry. I can only imagine the pain that his family has 

had to deal with, in particular his mother. I am the father of three 

children myself. We are not programmed to bury our kids. It pains 

me whenever there is the death of a law enforcement official, especially under the circumstances that this occurred. 

It is not fair, however, to assume that the mistakes that happened in Fast and Furious directly led to the death of Agent Terry. 

Again, my feelings of sympathy and regret go out to the Terry family, and I hope that the steps that we have put in place, the measures that I have called for, will prevent other Federal agents, local 

and State agents from being the subject of this kind of violence, as 

well as civilians, both in the United States and in Mexico. 

Chairman LEAHY. And I would put into the record a letter from 

the Fraternal Order of Police praising Attorney General Holder for 

his commitment to law enforcement rank-and-file officers, especially on the question of the safety of officers, and the work he has 

done following the spike in attacks on police officers around our 

country. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. Welcome, Attorney 

General Holder. 

I spent 4 years as the United States Attorney for the District of 

Rhode Island, and while some time has gone by since then, my 

recollection is that there was, I guess you would call it, kind of a 

convention in the Department of Justice that a lot of people got to 

write memos that were nominally designated to the Attorney General. And there was some value in that because it kind of made you 

feel good to be writing a memo to the Attorney General of the 

United States, and it was fairly widely accepted that that was a 

common practice—that was my recollection, anyway—and that the 

filtration of that flood of e-mails and memoranda nominally designated for the Attorney General was filtered by the Deputy Attorney General and that office, and that then what went actually 

through to the Attorney General was kind of on what the deputy 

perceived to be a need-to-know basis for then-Attorney General 

Reno. And I am wondering, is my recollection correct? And does 

that remain the convention within the Department that there is a 

large number of e-mails that are nominally directed toward the Attorney General that, as a matter of standard Department practice, 

the Attorney General never actually sees? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is correct. There are a number 

of what I will call filters that exist so that we can respond in a 

timely fashion to things that are raised to the attention, nominally 

to the attention of the Attorney General. You have Assistant Attorneys General who have subject matter responsibility in a variety 

of areas. You have the Deputy Attorney General. We have an Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs who responds to 

memos and things that come from members of the Hill. So there 
29 

are a whole variety of things that will say, ‘‘To the Deputy Attorney General,’’ ‘‘To the Attorney General,’’ that neither of us would 

ultimately see. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, I guess I would only -even though it 

appears to have created some misunderstanding in this particular 

matter, I would urge you not to depart from that, because my recollection is that the senior staff that U.S. Attorneys and others work 

very, very hard and that the feeling when you are preparing a document that it is going to the Attorney General of the United States 

is an important one. And if that got shut off so that, you know, 

mail had to be sent to more junior officials in the Department, I 

think it—other than the confusion that this has created, I think 

that it is a good thing for the 93 U.S. Attorneys and others to be 

able to write memoranda with the feeling that this is going to the 

Attorney General, and I think it calls up a higher level of performance and public spiritedness. So I would urge you to leave that in 

place even though there has been this misunderstanding. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure, and I think one thing let me 

make clear. My staff as well as the staff in the Deputy Attorney 

General’s office reviews a large volume of this material, and some 

of the things that do say ‘‘To the Attorney General’’ actually do get 

brought to my attention if they make the determination that it is 

something that needs to be brought to my attention as opposed to 

something that is more routine or something that can be handled 

at a lower level. 

I get a fair amount of information that I have to look at. I have 

to stay up at night to try to keep up with it. It is just not the 

things that were in the chart, I guess, that Senator Cornyn had. 

Those things were not brought to my attention, and my staff I 

think made the correct decision in that regard. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And that is consistent with longstanding 

Department practice. 

Let me switch topics to the vulnerability that our country faces 

to a cyber attack. A lot of the committees of Congress have done 

a lot of work on this subject. Bills I think are out of Committee and 

ready to go. There was a long pause while the administration did 

its work of its interagency process, which has now concluded, and 

many of us believe that it is time for Congress to move forward in 

a bipartisan fashion with meaningful cybersecurity legislation. And 

in that vein, I would like to ask you to make your recommendation 

to us today as to how quickly and with what urgency you believe 

we should be going forward to pass cybersecurity legislation. That 

is going to be part one of the question. 

Part two of the question is that sometimes we pass legislation 

around here, and it is not clear whether or when it will have an 

effect. The prime area of real national security risk is to privately 

owned national critical infrastructure. Do you have any information that you can give us on how quickly, once we pass meaningful 

cybersecurity legislation, the critical infrastructure that is in private hands in this country can have its cybersecurity level dramatically increased so that the risk to our country to that critical infrastructure is commensurately reduced? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that you are right to focus on 

this whole question of cybersecurity. It is something that I think, 
30 

frankly, we have waited too long to act upon. It has military implications. It has civilian infrastructure implications. It has intelligence-gathering capability implications. It has obviously just 

criminal fraud problems that can result from our lack of focus on 

this issue. 

With regard to that first question, I think this has to be a priority, that there are a variety of things that this Committee has 

to consider. But as we in the executive branch focus on those 

things that are of most concern to us, we spend a huge amount of 

time focusing on this cyber issue, and I would hope that we can 

work with this Committee and Members of Congress to come up 

with the necessary legislation to deal with what is a real and 

present danger to this Nation. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And the effect of getting it done? 

Attorney General HOLDER. The effect, I think, will be seen—it is 

interesting because I think when you pass bills, frequently you do 

not see the results of those bills for years sometimes, a huge number of months. But with regard to civilian infrastructure and other 

things that I talked about in the first part of my answer, I think 

that you would see the ability to protect that infrastructure in a 

relatively short period of time. 

One of the values that we have, one of the kind of unique things 

about the cyber area is that the protections that can be raised can 

be done relatively quickly because you are dealing with switches 

and electronic stuff that I do not totally understand, but that can 

be changed relatively quickly. So the impact, the positive impact of 

this legislation would be something that we would feel relatively 

soon. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

The list from Senator Grassley has Senator Coburn next, but he 

is not here. Senator Lee. And then after Senator Lee, we will go 

to Senator Franken or, if he is not here, Senator Coons. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Holder, 

for joining us today. 

I understand that the House Judiciary Committee has issued a 

request—I believe it was this past Friday—for documents and with 

interviews related to Justice Kagan’s involvement in the health 

care legislation and related litigation during her service as Solicitor 

General. Will the Department of Justice comply with that request? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not familiar with that request. 

I would have to look at it. I am just not familiar with the request 

that has been made or what materials have been sought in that regard. 

Senator LEE. OK. I believe the intent of the request is to get any 

documents or any other indication that Justice Kagan while serving as Solicitor General may have participated in discussions related to actual or contemplated anticipated litigation involving the 

constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I can tell you that certainly one of the 

things that we did while she was Solicitor General was to physically, literally, move her out of the room whenever a conversation 

came up about the health care reform legislation. I can remember 

specific instances in my conference room where, when we were 
31 

going to discuss that topic, we asked Justice Kagan to leave, and 

she did. 

Senator LEE. So that being the case, there should not be a problem responding, complying with this request? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Again, I do not know what the nature 

of the request is. I will certainly look at it. 

Senator LEE. OK. There were letters. One was sent on Friday 

from the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. 

Attorney General HOLDER. OK. 

Senator LEE. You have acknowledged today that mistakes were 

made, obviously, within the Department of Justice related to the 

Fast and Furious program but without specifying who made those 

mistakes. I would be curious. What mistakes have you made that 

you can identify, things that you wish you had done differently, 

any mistake that you personally have made. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think that as I look at the information as it was brought to me, I think that I acted in a responsible way by ordering the Inspector General investigation, by 

issuing the directive to the field. We have an Inspector General report that will look at this matter, and I think that we will glean 

from that report a better sense of what people did, who should be 

held accountable. And I want to make clear that on the basis of 

that report and any other information that is brought to my attention, those people who did make mistakes will be held accountable. 

Senator LEE. And you have reiterated several times that people 

within the Department of Justice believed that the initial statements denying knowledge of Fast and Furious were accurate. They 

believed they were accurate. Obviously, these were some people 

and not all people. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Right. 

Senator LEE. Because clearly some people knew. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Exactly. 

Senator LEE. What can be done, then, to bridge this gap in the 

future to make sure that the some communicate with the others, 

particularly those at the top? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, one of the things I hope will be 

as a result of the directive that I issued with regard to this whole 

question of gun walking, that people understand that is simply not 

acceptable. But the Inspector General report—I think you make a 

good point. The Inspector General report I think will ultimately answer a question that I do not know the answer to right now: Who 

actually thought this was a good thing to do? And why didn’t people discover sooner than they did that, in fact, what we thought 

was occurring, in fact, was not? I think that will be the result of 

the Inspector General report. 

Senator LEE. You know, I have been curious about some statements made recently by Lanny Breuer, the head of the Criminal 

Division, that are at once indicative of a broader concern and also 

I think in some ways likely to implicate some questions related to 

Fast and Furious. 

Mr. Breuer has stated that although he and/or his top deputies 

approved several ATF wiretap applications for Operation Fast and 

Furious, as is required under Federal law consistent with Title 18 

U.S. Code, Section 2518, et seq., Main Justice has only one role in 
32 

reviewing the sufficiency of wiretap applications: to ensure that 

there is legal sufficiency to make an application to interrupt communications, that is, to ensure that the Government’s petition to 

the Federal judge is, in his words, a credible request. 

He went on to explain that it is the responsibility of the district 

offices carrying out the investigation ‘‘to determine that the tactics 

that are used are appropriate and that Main Justice has to rely on 

those prosecutors in the field and not to second-guess them.’’ 

I find this interesting in the sense that here the requirement outlined in Section 2518 of Title 18 requires an analysis at the Department of Justice level. It requires an analysis of you or of your deputy or of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal 

Division, one of those officials essentially. And one of the things 

that they have to do there is rather than simply regurgitate, back 

out the same facts and say, well, yes, it looks like they cite the 

right statute, they have to undertaken an assessment as to such 

issues as: Have other investigative tactics proven inadequate? And 

if so, why is a wiretap—which is a pretty extraordinary remedy, it 

is a pretty invasive investigative tool, and that is why Congress 

has, understandably, required that the Department of Justice at 

the top levels approve these. 

So if he, in fact, approved multiple wiretap applications, then one 

of two things I think is happening: he is either not complying with 

that duty to assess each one independently to make sure that there 

was this representation made that the Department established the 

case for a wiretap application; or, on the other hand, he was doing 

his job and was, therefore, made aware of what was going on with 

Operation Fast and Furious, but did not disclose that. Or when he 

saw initial denials by the DOJ about Fast and Furious, failed to 

raise the flag that said, hey, this is a concern. So which is it? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, first off, Lanny Breuer would 

not have approved, he would not personally approve these requests, 

these wiretap requests. 

Senator LEE. Would it have been one of his deputies? 

Attorney General HOLDER. One of the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General. 

Senator LEE. Who report directly to him. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Who report directly to him, but my 

guess would be that given the volume of these things, the conversations about those kinds of things, it probably does not exist. The 

only one that the Assistant Attorney General is required to approve 

personally is if it is for a roving wiretap. There were no roving 

wiretaps in connection with Fast and Furious. 

Senator LEE. But given that they report directly to him, wouldn’t 

they be in a position, once they saw that the Department of Justice 

and its good name were on the line, to have said, hey, you know, 

the Department of Justice did, in fact, know about this program; 

in fact, we have approved a significant series of wiretap applications on this point? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I do not think the wiretap applications—I have not seen them. I have not seen them. But I do not 

have any information that indicates that those wiretap applications 

had anything in them that talked about the tactics that have made 

this such a bone of contention and have legitimately raised the con-
33 

cern of Members of Congress as well as those of us in the Justice 

Department. I would be surprised if the tactics themselves about 

gun walking were actually contained in those applications. I have 

not seen them, but I would be surprised if that were the case. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator, your time is up, and I will note that 

Mark Shurtleff, who is Utah’s Attorney General and a Republican, 

and Terry Goddard, former Arizona Attorney General, a Democrat, 

in an op-ed published in Sunday’s Salt Lake Tribune—and I would 

ask that be put in the record. They conclude that, ‘‘It would be 

tragic if the furor over Fast and Furious causes our country to 

abandon Mexico to the cartels. The cartels are our enemy, not the 

ATF or Department of Justice. We need to provide the men and 

women fighting this...battle with the tools they need.’’ 

[The op-ed appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, and I would like 

to thank you, Attorney General Holder, for being here today. The 

oversight function of this Committee is one of the most important 

roles we have, and I thank you for your service but also for your 

detailed and thorough testimony here today. And before I begin my 

questioning, I just wanted to highlight that, like Chairman Leahy 

and Senator Whitehouse who have asked about this previously, I 

am keenly concerned about the very real and emerging threat of 

cyber criminals. And to meet this threat, I think we need to use 

all of our resources at our disposal. My home State of Delaware 

happens to have a unique or, I believe, a promising National Guard 

unit in network warfare, a squadron, and last Friday, the Chairman and I sent you a letter asking for your position on whether 

the National Guard might in the future provide a pathway for the 

DOJ to make some use of their sophisticated cyber defense resources as the DOJ expands its law enforcement resources. And I 

just want to thank you in advance for your consideration of that, 

and I look forward to the Department’s response. 

On the topic of industrial espionage, which was also previously 

addressed, last week the Office of the National Counterintelligence 

Executive released a fairly alarming report accusing China and 

Russia of aggressive and capable collections of sensitive U.S. economic information and technologies through cyberspace. Frequently, IT software developers know about exploitable bugs in 

their software months before a security patch is issued, and corporations running software often do not apply patches that are necessary to protect against vulnerabilities. 

Do we have the right incentives in place to encourage the private 

sector to respond quickly and appropriately to emerging security 

threats to defend themselves from fraud and to promote our Nation’s security for our IP infrastructure? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think the issue that you highlighted 

is one that, again, should be of great concern to us. I took a trip 

to China, last year I believe it was, to have a very frank conversation with them about the concerns we had about intellectual property, the theft of intellectual property, the stealing of industrial secrets. We are going to have to compete with them in the 21st century, and we should be doing so on a level playing field. And so 
34 

that is a big concern that we have. It is one that we have expressed 

to the Chinese. 

Senator COONS. One follow-on question I have got is about resources for the Department. The Economic Espionage Act was 

passed 15 years ago, and as of October, there have only been eight 

cases tried under this. And so the last time that you testified before 

us, I asked whether you thought the DOJ needed additional resources, either financially or statutorily, to more successfully criminally prosecute those who steal sensitive IP. 

Given this report, and given the very real prospect that we are 

losing vast amounts of national treasure, is the DOJ ramping up 

its efforts to enforce the Economic Espionage Act? Do you see a 

need for more statutory or financial resources for the Department 

in light of this report? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think it is a priority for the Department, but I do think that even in these tough economic times, and 

given the nature of the threat and what is at stake, both for the 

safety of this Nation and for its economic well-being, this is an area 

that we have to focus on. This is an area that will require—as I 

deal with limited numbers of people, some decisions have to be 

made by me and by others in the Department, hopefully with the 

support of Members of Congress, to ramp up our abilities to deal 

with these issues. 

It is not too much to say, it is not an overstatement, it is not hyperbolic to say that the future of this Nation is really dependent 

on, in part, how we resolve the issues that you are raising. 

Senator COONS. On a related point, the Customs and Border Patrol, at least in my view, has interpreted the Trade Secrets Act to 

bar it from sharing with trademark rights holders either photos or 

documents or samples related to seized goods that could be counterfeit. There is a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, I believe today, on the grave threat posed to our servicemen and 

-women by counterfeit Chinese microchips that have made their 

way into United States weapons systems in apparently significant 

quantity, and many of the counterfeits may be examined by CBP, 

but they are not consulting with sources that I think could make 

it possible for them to more rapidly determine whether what is 

being intercepted in counterfeit or not. 

Has the DOJ ever or do you believe it would ever prosecute a 

Customs and Border Patrol agent for sharing information where 

the intention is to simply certify whether something that has been 

seized is or is not counterfeit? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We have something that is called, as 

you know, prosecutorial discretion. It would be hard for me to 

imagine that we would bring such a case. But I also think that, to 

the extent that that impediment exists between the sharing of that 

kind of information and given the need for a public-private partnership to deal with these issues, that that might be a legislative fix 

that perhaps we could discuss and somehow deal with. 

We are only going to be successful in this if we have the public 

sector working with the private sector to deal with these issues. We 

cannot do it alone. We cannot do it alone in Government. The private sector cannot do it alone as well. And to the extent there are 
35 

barriers to information sharing, I think we have to try to knock 

those down. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, and I would be happy to work with 

you and your office on finding a legislative fix. I do think that we 

are hamstrung in border enforcement around these vital issues. 

Last, as part of the CR to fund the Government for the remainder fiscal year 2011, many programs at DOJ took fairly deep cuts. 

Especially hard hit in my view were those designed to support 

State and local law enforcement. It was cut I think by more than 

$430 million. The COPS technology program in particular I was 

concerned was zeroed out, where many other programs took double-digit cuts. For my home State, where I previously supervised a 

county police department, it means less money for regional information sharing, less money for youth and criminal diversion programs, less money for officer protection and protective equipment. 

In your view, how are the cuts to OJP affecting your ability to 

provide cost-effective support that has a multiplier effect for State 

and local law enforcement? And what will the impact be if the 

House 2012 appropriations bill, which zeroes out the entire COPS 

hiring program, were to actually be enacted? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Let me be very, very clear. Those proposed cuts are simply unacceptable and place this Nation at risk. 

Though we are enjoying historically low crime rates, we have 

30,000 vacant law enforcement positions in this country. We have 

lost 12,000 officers over the course of the last year, and we put at 

risk the possibility that these historically low rates will not remain 

there forever. 

There have been high rates of shootings of police officers. Although the rates have been coming down generally in terms of 

crime, the amount of violence directed at police officers is up over 

20 percent over the last 2 years. The number of deaths this year 

is outpacing that which we saw last year. And the notion that 

somehow, some way we would, at a time when we are trying to create jobs, take people who are sworn to protect the lives of the 

American people off the line is to me illogical and unacceptable and 

dangerous. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. I look forward 

to working with you to sustain the COPS program and other vital 

partnerships with State and local law enforcement. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Mr. Attorney General, for being here today. I have listened to all 

the questions and all of your answers, and I want to thank you for 

effectively addressing many of the questions surrounding Fast and 

Furious and dispelling any doubt that you are determined to uncover all the facts surrounding some of the very regrettable circumstances here. And just so we understand, a lot of names have 

been mentioned here: Attorney General Mukasey; Kevin O’Connor, 

who happens to be a former United States Attorney in Connecticut; 

and others in the Department now. There is no evidence before us 

here that they knew or participated in any wrongdoing, is there? 
36 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I hope my testimony was clear. 

I do not know. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And it has been. Thank you. And also that 

there is an ongoing investigation which eventually will disclose 

whether or not and who knew about what was going on. And I 

want to thank you for being so candid and straightforward on that 

point. 

I want to join my colleague Senator Coons in expressing my determination that there should be more assistance and sufficient 

support for our police on the streets of Connecticut, in our neighborhoods, as well as the firefighters and other personnel that I 

would regard as law enforcement, which are really in more than 

one sense the cops on the beat who protect us day in and day out. 

Despite the very excellent performance of the FBI, they are the 

ones who do the bulk of law enforcement for our Nation, and I appreciate and thank you for your support. 

I think perhaps for me one of the most important aspects of your 

testimony today is really the vigor and intensity that the Department of Justice is devoting now to stopping gun trafficking and 

drug dealing and gang violence on our borders and throughout the 

country, but most particularly in connection with the Mexican 

gangs that pose such a threat to Americans as well as Mexicans. 

And as I understand your testimony, there have been record numbers of seizures, arrests, prosecutions, convictions, and extraditions. Is that correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is correct. We have moved substantial numbers of resources to the border in an attempt to stop 

the flow of guns into Mexico, to stop the violence along the border. 

We have worked in the interior of Mexico with our Mexican counterparts in training and trying to come up with ways in which we 

could fight the cartels. Our Mexican counterparts have sacrificed a 

great deal, and even with their lives, in this fight, and we have 

tried to be good partners in that struggle. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And would it be fair to say that the Mexicans are increasingly becoming good partners in this effort? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I think so. I think through the 

use of vetted units, through the use of other techniques that we 

have shared with them, through their growing sophistication with 

the use of electronic devices, I think they are becoming more proficient in this battle. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And there is no question that the Department of Justice under your leadership will continue to work on disrupting and dismantling these gang-led efforts or other efforts on 

drug trafficking and gun dealing and so forth? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, this will continue to be a priority. Too often we describe this as a Southwest Border problem, 

when the reality is it is a national problem. What happens along 

the Southwest Border can have an impact in Connecticut, can have 

an impact in Chicago. And the person whose name has been mentioned a lot—and I think he deserves a little bit of credit here. The 

person who has been leading the effort for the Department of Justice is Lanny Breuer, the head of our Criminal Division, who has 

devoted an inordinate, a huge amount of time to this fight, has established good relationships with his counterparts in Mexico, and 
37 

has been a person who has really stood for this country in developing good techniques to reduce that level of violence and the danger that the cartels pose to this country. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I would like to turn to another subject 

that I think is equally important, not necessarily at this point a 

topic of criminal investigation, but the mortgage foreclosure crisis 

I know has been very much on your mind and the Department’s 

focus. I wonder whether we can expect criminal investigations or 

other investigations that will be aimed at going after fraudulent 

documents that have been submitted in court, inconsistent and contradictory information of homeowners that have sought and sometimes received loan modifications, a series of practices and abuses 

that I know have been under investigation by my former colleagues, the State Attorneys General, with the cooperation of the 

Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, there are a number of investigations that are underway. We are working with our counterparts, 

with State AGS, who have been extremely helpful and who have 

been, I think, extremely effective. And so we will be looking at 

these matters to see if criminal cases can be made, if there are 

other ways in which we can hold accountable organizations or people, perhaps using civil remedies as well. But it is our intention to 

make sure that those who are responsible for this mortgage crisis 

are, in fact, held accountable. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I would like to pursue this area in 

greater detail. My time is close to expired, but I hope that perhaps 

with your staff or yourself I can do so in that regard. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I would be glad to. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I want to ask on a related topic, I 

know that so far the Department of Justice has declined to intervene in a lawsuit that has been brought by two mortgage brokers 

in Georgia alleging that a number of the largest lending institutions in the country have been in effect cheating veterans and taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars by charging them illegal fees in home refinancing loans. I am particularly concerned 

about the effect on veterans and the possibility that they may have 

been treated illegally. And I wonder whether the Department may 

be reconsidering, which I would urge, along with two of my colleagues, Senators Brown and Tester, that it become involved in 

what I view as a whistleblower action and intervene to protect the 

interests of these veterans and other taxpayers. 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is something that I will have to 

review. I am not as familiar with that as, obviously, you are, but 

I will check with the appropriate people within the Department 

and see whether our decision to decide to not become involved is, 

in fact, an appropriate one. But I will take that pledge to you, and 

we will get something back to you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I appreciate it. I am not going to give you 

a 30-day deadline to come back to us, and I join, by the way, with 

Senator Graham more seriously in the concern about the detainee 

issues. I know you take it seriously as well, but I very much appreciate your getting back to me on that issue, and thank you for your 

service. 

Attorney General HOLDER. We will. Thank you. 
38 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you, Mr. Attorney General. Again, many of my colleagues 

have mentioned the work that the Justice Department and FBI 

have done to avert terrorist attacks on our own soil, including the 

recent assassination attempt with the Saudi Ambassador. I want 

to thank you for that and urge you also to continue to support our 

local law enforcement. I cannot tell you the difference the COPS 

program has made in our State. Minneapolis was once known as 

‘‘Murder-apolis’’ in the New York Times. That all changed around 

in part because of some tougher law enforcement, but also because 

of the help from the COPS program, so thank you. 

I was going to first ask you here about some intellectual property 

issues. Recently, Senator Cornyn and I introduced a bill that 

passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan 

basis. The bill is designed to go after people who steal other people’s works, whether it is books or commercial music or movies, including foreign piracy. It only covers intentional commercial theft, 

not people posting their own personal work on the Web. It is about 

protecting everyone’s rights, from a children’s writer in Minneapolis to a first-time guitarist with their first CD in Nashville. 

And as far as I can see, America is not a country where people can 

write a song or a book only to have someone copy it and sell it and 

make money off it without permission. 

And so that is what this is about. I know that members of your 

Department have expressed their support for this legislation, and, 

in fact, the idea for it came from the administration when they suggested the U.S. law enforcement agencies to combat infringement 

have to be able to be as sophisticated as the crooks that are breaking the laws. 

I appreciate the recent letter we got from your Department in 

which you talked about how the provision of the bill regarding 

streaming does not criminalize conduct that is not already criminal, because right now it is a misdemeanor. And my only question 

is if you would commit to work with us to take any necessary steps 

to make crystal clear that the bill does not criminalize any new 

conduct with the streaming issue, that we are not seeking to criminalize YouTube or harmless posting of personal videos. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure, we will work with you on that 

legislation. The issue that you raise is an important one, and we 

will do what we can in conjunction with you to make sure that people understand what the aim of the bill is and to put people’s 

minds at ease with regard to what actually is covered and, I guess 

most importantly, what is not covered. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That would be very helpful, some kind of 

guidelines. I appreciate that. 

Another important topic that we have been working on in this 

Committee is the growing problem of synthetic drugs. I have been 

shocked at the doubling and tripling of calls to the poison control 

centers in just the last 6 months compared to the same time a year 

ago with these drugs. We had a young man die in Blaine, Minnesota, from 2C-E, which is a synthetic hallucinogen, and we have 

also had bills passed through this Committee not just for that drug 
39 

but also for bath salts, Senator Schumer’s bill, and synthetic marijuana, Senator Grassley’s bill. These bills are unfortunately stalled. 

I think there was unanimous support in this Committee, but they 

are stalled, Senator Durbin, because one Senator—not Senator 

Durbin—has put a hold on these bills. And so I just ask for your 

help in getting them through, and maybe you could talk a little bit 

about what we are seeing in terms of a whole new phenomenon 

with these designer drugs. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I think that is something that is 

of great concern. The DEA has taken emergency action with regard 

to the regulation of bath salts, and we have seen, tragically and 

unfortunately, instances around the country where people, young 

people in particular, using these substances have had negative 

health consequences, sometimes even died. 

I am not familiar with the hold, but I think that the legislation 

is clearly needed, and we will work with you on that to try to get 

it passed. I was not aware of the hold. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes, it is a new phenomenon. Not a new 

phenomenon to hold things in the Senate, but on this bill we were 

surprised, and so we are trying to work with the Senator who has 

put on the hold. And then we also have an issue with some of the 

House bills that we need to work out. I just think it is incredibly 

important talking to law enforcement in our State, particularly in 

smaller communities where they are having to bring in chemists 

and people to try to prove that it is an analog substance. 

That actually gets me to the second point. One of the things I 

have realized is they keep changing the compounds, and while we 

will put these on the list and it will be helpful, it is not the endall, be-all. And one of the things I am going to start doing, just so 

you know, is looking at that analog statute to see if there are some 

changes that we can make to it to make it simpler to explain that 

a drug, when you have a simple change in a compound, there are 

three factors or four factors that maybe we need to look at the 

standard differently. And so I will be working with your attorneys 

and law enforcement on that issue as well. 

Do you have any views on the analog statute? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that is actually very important because as these things are made synthetically, I do not know 

all the terms, but you can change the elements in these things, and 

it should not be the case that we have to come back to Congress 

to get a new statute in order to deal with this new compound. 

There ought to be some discretion, I would hope, perhaps within 

the executive branch, to recognize that something is maybe a derivative of something that has been previously banned, dealt with, 

and that we can take emergency action, appropriate action, so that 

we can deal with these things as they come up, because we know 

that the reality is that these chemical compounds, substances, can 

be changed relatively quickly, and we have to have the flexibility 

and the ability to respond as rapidly as we can. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you, and I still think there are 

a lot of people in America—I know when I was a prosecutor, I did 

not even know about this issue. It was not a big deal. And suddenly this switch where, because of people buying it easily, they 

think maybe it is legal because it is on the computer, it is getting 
40 

to be a huge problem. So I appreciate that, and I think we need 

to look at that statute. Obviously, it is a harder haul than just adding the drugs to the list, but I think it will make it simpler so we 

can literally fit the crime here, because right now it is just too 

tough and has been too hard of a haul simply to even get these 

drugs on the list. It is something that I had hoped would happen 

automatically. 

The last thing, last month I introduced a bill with Senator Bill 

Nelson of Florida on guardianship. So many good guardians in our 

country are doing their jobs, but, unfortunately, including several 

reports by the GAO have shown that some of them are using their 

positions of power for their own gain. And I heard dozens of heartbreaking stories at a hearing that I held on the Judiciary Committee as well as meetings I had at home. Are you familiar with 

this issue? We are trying to make some changes to the statute. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not familiar with the bill. I have 

heard about this issue, this problem, and we would be more than 

glad to work with you both on the exploration of the problem and 

what the solutions to it might be. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes, we are looking at, first of all, just some 

guidelines, which is always helpful, background check systems 

using examples of States where it is actually working to do background checks. It is unbelievable, but there are a number of States 

that do not even require criminal background checks. And so while 

we are not swooping in with Federal law enforcement on this, we 

are looking at how can we show best practices in some of the 

States so that we can do a better job of oversight. We are going to 

see a doubling of the senior population by 2030, the baby-boom 

generation, and we need to get ahead of the curve here. So thank 

you very much. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Senator Klobuchar. 

Did you want to say anything to that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Just an observation. I will be a member of that baby-boom generation that is going to be getting—I 

guess I might already be there at this point. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I thought of saying that, but I decided to 

hold off. 

Chairman LEAHY. I am trying to show a great deal of sympathy 

for you, knowing the difference in our ages. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Attorney General. I noticed in your opening testimony you talked 

about the efforts to extradite those in Mexico responsible for the 

killing of Americans. I would like to take you to another aspect of 

this issue. 

Recently, the Chicago Tribune did a series relating to those fugitives, criminal fugitives, who fled the country; 129 criminal suspects have fled Illinois, according to DOJ data, and many of them 

have been charged with crimes as serious as murder and rape and 

child molestation. And what we found in cases over and over 

again—and this Tribune series has reflected on one case in particular. In 1996, it is alleged that Pedro Aguilar gunned down a 

single mother and restaurant owner, Maria Rodriguez, in Chicago 
41 

for spurning his romantic advances and then fled. Within 2 

months, the relatives disclosed his whereabouts to Chicago police, 

his whereabouts in Mexico, even giving local detectives the name 

of the street where he was staying with his parents in Mexico and 

supplying a telephone number where he could be reached. No action was taken. 

In fact, what has happened since 1996 is the family of Ms. Rodriguez, her daughter, has found that there has been no help in trying 

to locate him. The Chicago Tribune reporters found him in 48 

hours in Mexico. Unfortunately, in the ensuing 15 years, virtually 

all of the witnesses to the crime are either unavailable or incapacitated. 

This is repeated over and over again in this series, and it raises 

serious questions about the level of communications between local 

law enforcement and the Department of Justice and efforts at extradition. 

First, I would like to ask you, if you would, please, to join me 

in trying to bring all agencies of law enforcement at every level together to resolve this breakdown in communication. And, second, 

I would like to give you a chance to respond to this. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I think the issue that you have 

raised is one of concern. The extradition relationship that we have 

with Mexico is today much better than it was. Quite frankly, it was 

not good in the past, but we are in a much better place. Our Marshals Service is the primary agency within the Justice Department 

that has a responsibility of apprehending fugitives, but I think the 

point you make is a good one, that the Federal Government can 

only do so much. We need to work with our State and local counterparts to get information about people like the one that you have 

described, and we probably have to do a better job in interacting 

with our Mexican counterparts about who these people are, where 

they are, and then try to get them back, because the fact situation 

you have just laid out is something that is simply unacceptable. 

Senator DURBIN. I might add that the series also spoke of a fugitive in Syria, which is a different circumstance altogether when it 

comes to extradition, but I thank you for your willingness to join 

in that effort. 

Mr. Attorney General, how does the Department of Justice view 

Muslim Americans in our National effort to keep America safe from 

terrorism? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We view that community as essential 

partners in the fight against terrorism. They are an essential part 

of our counterterrorism fight, have proven to be reliable sources of 

information. A great many of the successes that we have had and 

that I have talked about or that attention has been brought to 

came as a result of leads that we got from members of the Muslim 

American community. We have had extensive outreach efforts in 

the Department and the investigative agencies within the Department, particularly the FBI, to reach out to the Muslim American 

community to put at rest the concerns they have, the fears they 

have about their interaction with law enforcement. And I have to 

say that I have been very encouraged by the response we have generally gotten from that community. 
42 

Senator DURBIN. I thank you for your answer. It is consistent 

with the statements made by the previous administration. After 9/ 

11, I thought President Bush’s statements were right on, spot on, 

in reminding people that our enemy is not those of the Muslim 

faith but those who would corrupt it into violent extremism. 

The reason I raise this issue is that guidelines were established 

on profiling in the Department of Justice, and the guidelines are 

explicit that neither race nor ethnicity shall be used to any degree. 

And, of course, that is obvious. Using racial profiling to arrest African-Americans or using ethnic profiling to arrest those who appear 

to be Hispanic is totally inconsistent with our values in this country. But, notably, religion was excluded from that list; only race 

and ethnicity were included. And we have found that the FBI 

agents who were given counterterrorism training were, unfortunately, subjected to many stereotypes of Islam and Muslims. 

For example, FBI agents in training were told that, ‘‘Islam is a 

highly violent, radical religion.’’ ‘‘Mainstream American Muslims 

are likely to be terrorist sympathizers.’’ And, ‘‘The Arabic mind is 

swayed more by ideas than facts.’’ 

We also found, for example, one public FBI intelligence assessment claims that wearing traditional Muslim attire, growing facial 

hair, and frequent attendance at a mosque or prayer group are all 

indicators of possible extremism. 

Recently released documents show the FBI is engaged in widespread surveillance of mosques and innocent American Muslims 

with no suspicion of wrongdoing. Can you reconcile that activity 

and those training guides with your initial statement concerning 

your view that I share on the role of Muslim Americans? And can 

you comment on how someone who is Muslim in America reads of 

these things and believes that the actual training under way and 

the actual surveillance under way are inconsistent with the stated 

principles? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, the information that you have 

just read is flat out wrong and is inconsistent with what we have 

been trying to do here at the Department. Those views do not reflect the views of the Justice Department, the FBI. It is regrettable 

that that information was, in fact, a part of a training program. 

That person is not being used anymore by the FBI, and we are reviewing all of the materials, all of our training materials to ensure 

that that kind of misinformation is not being used, because that 

can really undermine—can really undermine—the very substantial 

outreach efforts that we have made and really have a negative impact on our ability to communicate effectively as we have in the 

past with this community. 

I almost hesitate to say ‘‘this community’’ because the reality is 

when we say Muslim Americans, we are talking about Americans, 

American citizens who have the same desires that we all have, who 

want their kids to be safe, who want the opportunities that this 

great country has to offer them. And that kind of information, that 

kind of training sets back those efforts, and so we have distanced 

ourselves from that person, those statements, and have a process 

under way to review the materials to make sure that that mistake 

does not happen in the future. 
43 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, could I prevail for 30 seconds? 

Thank you very much, and thanks to the other Senators who are 

here. 

The last question I would like to ask I know you cannot answer, 

but there are several States, including the State of Florida, which 

have recently changed their State voting laws to restrict opportunities and access to vote relative to presenting photo identification 

cards, limiting the early voting in the States, and making it more 

difficult, including penalizing those who are engaged in the voter 

registration process, to the point where the League of Women Voters for the first time has pulled out of the State of Florida and is 

not engaging in voter registration because of their new law and the 

penalties associated with it. 

I know that under the Voting Rights Act in two different articles 

the Department of Justice has the authority to review these State 

laws to determine whether they have, in fact, or would, in fact, disenfranchise voters. Can you tell me whether this is under way or 

whether or not it will be reviewed in a timely manner? 

Attorney General HOLDER. You are correct in two instances. I 

cannot answer that question specifically, but I can say that with 

regard to Section 5 and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, this Department of Justice will be aggressive in looking at those jurisdictions that have attempted for whatever reason to restrict the ability of people to get to the polls. 

I think a fundamental question is really raised: Who are we as 

a Nation? Shouldn’t we be coming up with ways in which we encourage more people to get to the polls to express their views? And 

I am not talking about any one particular State effort, but more 

generally, I think for those who would consider trying to use methods, techniques to discourage people from coming to the polls, that 

is inconsistent with what we say we are as a Nation. And I would 

hope that those kinds of efforts would not be engaged in. Again, 

that is separate and apart from what we have to do as the enforcers with regard to Section 5 and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Attorney General. I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. I would note that Senator Grassley 

and others have asked for a second round. We have a second round 

of 5 minutes for questions. Senator Coons—there is a vote on right 

now. I will ask mine, and Senator Coons is coming back to chair. 

If Senator Grassley is here, he will be recognized next after me, 

otherwise Senator Cornyn. 

Mr. Attorney General, I remain very concerned that the Senate 

Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill considered by the 

Senate last week completely eliminates funding for the Second 

Chance Act programs, but the Bureau of Prisons’ budget was increased by $300 million. Now, I know prisons are overpopulated. I 

understand funding is vital to keep prison guards and surrounding 

communities safe. But I think we have to focus on re-entry and rehabilitation. Unless somebody has a real life sentence, which are 

very, very rare, at some time they are going to come back out. And 

when you consider the fact it costs $35,000 or more a year to keep 

them there, the idea of spending a tiny fraction of that to keep 

them from going back makes a lot of sense. We want to make sure 
44 

that we have a re-entry and rehabilitation program when prisoners 

rejoin society and stay out. I think Second Chance Acts allow that. 

It is a tiny fraction of what we spend in our prisons. Sometimes 

it is a far better investment than just sending people back to prison. 

Will you support restoration of Second Chance Act funding as 

Congress finishes its work this year on appropriations bills? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. The investment of money in that 

way is ultimately financially smart. It will save money down the 

road. But also I think there is a moral component to this, and that 

is that we have to try as best we can to rehabilitate people. And 

it is only through the techniques, the support that the Second 

Chance Act provides, that we can be effective, I think, in that regard. So I think that the decision not to fund that effort does not 

make a lot of sense. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. The Violence Against Women Act 

gave the Department of Justice some important tools to improve 

the response to the complex issue of domestic and dating violence, 

sexual assault, and stalking. One of these shows that the U-visa 

makes it easier for law enforcement to apprehend violent criminals. 

Now, law enforcement is requesting more of these visas than are 

allowed under the law. I am considering, as are some others, proposing an increase in the number of U-visas that might be available. Would that help law enforcement? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think it could. We certainly want to 

work with you in that regard and look at all the ways in which we 

can deal with this issue, but I think that is certainly one of the 

things we ought to be considering. 

Chairman LEAHY. And, last, Senator Grassley and I worked together this Congress on the Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers 

Act. It is an important measure to give the Department of Justice 

additional resources to fight fraud at no cost to taxpayers. We 

joined a bipartisan effort, got the bill out, and it is now stalled in 

the Senate. Of course, it asked for an increased number of investigators and prosecutors that would be paid for by fines and reimbursements, and the Department of Justice could hire them if we 

pass the Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers Act. Would the 

American people benefit by that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think obviously, Mr. Chairman, and 

that is something that we want to work with you on and would 

support. That clearly is a benefit to the American people. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Grassley and I will keep on pushing 

on that. 

Lastly, I keep reading, even after the facts came out, or keep seeing on some of the TV programs about $16 muffins. Now, the Inspector General issued a corrected version of that report, which apparently some of the media never saw, even though everybody else 

did. We want to make sure what money you have is spent correctly. 

I know you do. I know Deputy Attorney General Cole will. I will 

ask that a copy of the cover letter to the corrected report, which 

pointed out that the first one of $16 muffins was incorrect. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. What steps have you taken to make sure that 

in conferences money is spent appropriately? 
45 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, first I want to say that we have 

a very good Inspector General, and I think that they are to be 

lauded for the fact that they did admit that they made an error in 

that calculation, that the $16 muffin, in fact, does not exist. We are 

in the process of reviewing all requests for conferences to make 

sure that they adhere to the guidelines that we have set out, that 

they are done efficiently in a cost-effective way. 

But I also want to point out that conferences serve a useful purpose. It is a way in which teaching occurs. It is a way in which 

thoughts are shared, ideas are shared, policy is developed, and we 

should not simply cast a wide net and think that conferences are 

not a good use of our resources. But we are committed to doing it 

in an appropriate way. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. I yield to Senator 

Grassley for his 5 minutes. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Attorney General, for your patience. I have a couple statements I want to make before I ask a 

question. 

Before the Justice Department produced documents on Wide Receiver, my staff asked for additional information on previous cases 

of gun walking. However, on September 30th the Department declined to provide a briefing on such cases, so I have not limited my 

questions to Obama era operations, and it is hard to get straight 

answers, though, if you do not get these briefings. Now that the 

majority is interested in gun walking after 9 months and they are 

in the majority, they will probably help us get our questions answered. But that is one reason that I do not want the inference to 

be left that I am only interested in overseeing Democrat Presidents 

on gun walking. 

I want to speak to something Senator Schumer brought up, and 

I think his facts are entirely accurate, but he referred to Wide Receiver where I think he was—well, he referred to Wide Receiver, 

but all the facts are in regard to the Hernandez case. I just wanted 

to make clear something that has been widely misunderstood. The 

memo to Attorney General Mukasey referred to what is known as 

a ‘‘controlled delivery’’ in the case called Hernandez, not gun walking. The U.S. coordinated with the Mexican law enforcement, which 

was supposed to be waiting on the other side of the border to interdict these weapons. And so this is distinct from Fast and Furious 

and Operation Wide Receiver in which no effort was made to work 

with Mexico and guns were clearly walked. 

The first question to you: Your Justice Department stood by its 

February 4th denial to me even after I sent the first set of documents that showed otherwise. So the question for you, General 

Holder: You say that you were relying on others to correct the 

misstatements in the February 4th letter, yet Mr. Breuer himself 

admitted that he first knew firsthand that those misstatements 

were false at the time that they were made. Shouldn’t he then have 

notified either you and/or Congress at that time? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think that is one of the things 

that he admitted, as I remember his testimony. He said he made 

a mistake in not bringing to my attention the fact of his prior 

knowledge. And, you know, he admits that he made a mistake in 

that regard. 
46 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Your deputy received a lot of details 

about Fast and Furious in March 2010 briefing details that I believe should have raised red flags. For example, he was informed 

that just three straw buyers bought 670 guns. He was informed 

that the ATF followed them to stash houses, and he was informed 

that the guns ended up in Mexico. So you can look at the charts 

with Grindler’s own handwriting on these things here. Yet you said 

in a recent letter that Acting Deputy Attorney General Grindler 

was not told of the unacceptable tactics employed in Operation 

Fast and Furious during that briefing. If by unacceptable tactics 

you mean watching straw buyers illegally buy guns without seizing 

them before they get to Mexico, isn’t that exactly what he was told? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not know exactly what he was 

told, but as I understand what he was told, it is that he got this 

briefing as part of a monthly interaction that he had with ATF. 

The person who did the briefing was Ken Melson, the Acting Director of ATF, who at that point indicated that he did not know about 

these inappropriate tactics. Melson was also the person who briefed 

Chairman Issa and, as I understand it, gave him pretty much the 

same briefing. 

So I am not sure I would draw the conclusions that you do on 

the basis of that from what I understand about what the nature 

of the interaction was. One of the things that I have been told is 

that during the course of that briefing, the question of guns walking was not briefed to then-Acting Deputy Attorney General 

Grindler. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, one of the ATF briefing papers explicitly says that the strategy was ‘‘to allow the transfer of firearms 

to continue,’’ and one of the e-mails forwarding that paper says 

that it is ‘‘likely to go to DAG,’’ which I assume is Deputy Attorney 

General. You cannot know for sure that no one informed of that 

strategy, can you? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, as I have understood it, he was 

not told of the tactics, the gun-walking tactics. As I have also been 

told, the picture that you have up there is of guns that were recovered in the United States. This is what, again, I have—that were 

delivered in the United States. This is, again, what I have been 

told. I am not as intimately familiar with that interaction as perhaps you are, but what I have been told is that the fact is that Acting Deputy Attorney General Grindler was not told about guns 

walking. He got the same briefing that Congressman Issa got from 

the same person—that is, Ken Melson—and Ken Melson has indicated that at the time that he did that briefing, he was not aware 

of the gun-walking techniques. In fact, he did not know about it, 

as best I can remember, I think until March of 2011, when he talks 

about his stomach turning. 

Senator GRASSLEY. My time is up. 

Senator COONS [presiding.] Thank you, Senator Grassley. 

Chairman Leahy has gone to a vote, which many of the members 

of the Committee are currently at, so in his stead, if I might, I am 

going to begin a second round of questions from me, and then we 

have other Senators who will be returning to ask additional questions. 
47 

One of the central issues you spoke about in previous questions 

was aid to State and local law enforcement, and one of the things 

that is of great concern to me is officer safety. You had spoken earlier about how we are seeing significant reductions in crime overall, 

yet increases in violence directed against officers—obviously, as has 

been discussed at length here, tragic losses in the line of duty of 

officers. 

I wondered if you might comment on what sorts of programs the 

Department is currently funding, what sorts of funding challenges 

these programs face. I am particularly personally familiar with the 

vest program, the officer vest program, but I would be interested 

in other comments you would care to make about officer safety programs and grants available through the Department to State and 

local law enforcement. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, it is something that we have 

tried to focus on. I had what we have come to call a summit meeting after there were a number of deaths of local law enforcement 

officers in shootings. And as a result of that, we developed something we called the Officer Safety Initiative where we are trying to 

channel information to our State and local counterparts so that 

they have ways in which they can receive training in how to handle 

themselves in violent situations. As you indicated, we have supported the bulletproof vest program to get these vests out there. 

And we also have something called the valor program that deals, 

again, with this whole notion of how officers can protect themselves 

in these situations. We try to educate them, try to make them familiar with ways in which they can protect themselves, and also 

try to isolate what are the things that tend to result in these kinds 

of officer shootings. 

One of the things we have found is that when officers are trying 

to break into houses, that is oftentimes when you see shootings 

occur. So by sharing this kind of information, getting information 

from our State and local counterparts, and then sharing that with 

them, we hope that we will have an impact on what I think is a 

very disturbing trend of officer shootings. 

Senator COONS. We recently had the first ever loss of life by the 

county police department I used to be intimately connected with 

through an assault on an officer by an individual who was reported 

in our local newspaper—it has not been finalized through toxicology reports, but was reported to be on these bath salts that were 

discussed previously. Can you speak to the path forward we might 

take federally to ensure that legislation that a number of us are 

cosponsoring actually proceeds that would criminalize these allegedly but I think realistically dangerous substances? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, we certainly want to work with 

you in that regard, and not the least reason, which is that, you 

know, it puts, as you have indicated, tragically, potentially, law enforcement officers at risk. The people who use these substances obviously are putting themselves at risk. And we do not want to have 

a situation where we are being effective with regard to the more 

traditional drugs, and then we have these new ones, these new 

synthetic drugs popping up that have the same impact or the same 

possibility of devastating communities in a way that the more traditional drugs have. 
48 

So we want to work with you to identify what the current problems are. I think we always have to be mindful of new situations, 

new trends. We have to be flexible. We have to be responsive. And 

I think one of the ways in which we can do that is to interact with 

certainly members of this Committee, but our State and local counterparts to get a sense of what is going on out there and how can 

we in the Federal Government assist. 

Senator COONS. Well, our Governor in Delaware has taken decisive action to deal with this, and I would be happy to share with 

you and your Department what results we have seen. 

Let me last ask, in the Hernandez case that Senator Grassley 

was just asking about or referring to in regards to the 2007 

Mukasey memo that has been discussed here, do you know if the 

ATF actually lost track of weapons that got to Mexico in that instance? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not know. I have focused on Fast 

and Furious and that which happened while I was Attorney General. I am just not as familiar with the Hernandez case. I am just 

not as familiar. 

Senator COONS. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Holder, let me just try to tie up some loose ends. You agree 

that on February 4th, the letter that was written to Senator Grassley with the allegation that ATF sanctioned or otherwise knowingly 

allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who then 

transported them into Mexico was false. That letter dated February 

4, 2011, is itself false we now know. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Actually what I said is it contains inaccurate information. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, isn’t that false? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, false, I do not want to quibble 

with you, but false I think implies people making a decision to deceive, and that was not what was going on there. People were in 

good faith giving what they thought was correct information to 

Senator Grassley. We now know that that information was not correct. 

Senator CORNYN. If you will not agree with me it was false, it 

is not true. You agree with that, right? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is not accurate. 

Senator CORNYN. It is not accurate. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. 

Senator CORNYN. Did the person who wrote this letter on February 4, 2011, have they ever been disciplined or otherwise been 

held accountable for providing false information to a United States 

Senator? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, as I indicated, the people who 

wrote the letter acted in good faith, thought that what they were 

sending was, in fact, accurate information. The people who were 

supplying the information thought that it was accurate. At some 

point somebody in that chain did not give good information, and 

that is one of the things that the Inspector General I hope will be 

able to determine. 
49 

Senator CORNYN. Did Lanny Breuer know better than what was 

represented in the February 4th letter? Was he privy to either of 

these two memos, the July 5, 2010—you said he was briefed April 

2010. By the way, what office does Lanny Breuer hold in the Department of Justice? 

Attorney General HOLDER. He is the Assistant Attorney General 

for the Criminal Division. 

Senator CORNYN. And why would Lanny Breuer, knowing as he 

did back in April 2010 about Operation Fast and Furious, allow a 

letter that went out on the Department’s stationery February 4, 

2011, why would he let a letter that was false represent the position of the Department of Justice? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, first off, the briefing, the AAG 

Breuer brief, that was about Wide Receiver. That was not about 

Fast and Furious. 

Senator CORNYN. By the way, do you know the differences between Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious? 

Attorney General HOLDER. They are different operations. 

Senator CORNYN. Right. And so do you know the differences, the 

factual differences between Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, there are a number of differences both, I think, in scope, both in terms of time. The Bush 

administration was the one that started Wide Receiver. The Obama 

administration is where Fast and Furious began. 

Senator CORNYN. Are you winging this or do you actually know? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I know this. 

Senator CORNYN. You know this? Do you know that Wide Receiver was done in conjunction with the Government of Mexico and 

the intention of the plan was to follow the weapons, and neither 

was there the intention to follow the weapons on Fast and Furious 

nor did Mexico know that the U.S. Government was allowing guns 

to walk into the hands of the cartels? Did you know that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Senator, I have not tried to equate 

the two—I have not tried to equate Wide Receiver with Fast and 

Furious. 

Senator CORNYN. I am just asking you if you know the differences between the two. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure. What I know about Wide Receiver, what you have said is, in fact, correct. There are memos 

that talk about gun walking that are related to Wide Receiver, but, 

again, I am not trying to equate the two. 

Senator CORNYN. When you got Senator Grassley’s letter on January 30, 2011, why didn’t you investigate? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I did. I asked people on my staff to 

look into the materials or the concerns that were raised in the letters. There was a January 27th letter, I believe, and a January 

30th letter. They are the two letters that he gave me on, I think, 

the 30th or 31st, something like that. I asked people on my staff 

to look into that, and they did, and they started asking questions 

within the Department about the matters, the material that was 

contained in the Senator Grassley letter. 

Senator CORNYN. And, of course, that was just shortly after—the 

letter that Senator Grassley gave you was shortly after the well- 
50 

publicized murder of Brian Terry, the United States law enforcement agent. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Right. And to be clear, the letters 

were addressed to the acting head of ATF, Ken Melson, but he gave 

them to me—— 

Senator CORNYN. Who works for you. 

Attorney General HOLDER. He gave them to me on January 31st. 

Senator CORNYN. Right. And so I believe that you told Senator 

Whitehouse that you thought your staff made the right decision in 

not bringing Fast and Furious tactics to your attention. Is that correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, that is not correct. 

Senator CORNYN. OK. 

Attorney General HOLDER. What I said was that there was no indication in the materials that they reviewed that contained anything about the tactics that were used in Fast and Furious, and as 

a result, there was no need for them to bring to my attention the 

reports. If, in fact, there was in those reports indications of gun 

walking or something like that, I think they should have brought 

that to my attention, but that was not contained in the reports. 

And that is what Assistant Attorney General Breuer said was the 

mistake that he made. When he heard about gun walking, he 

should have brought that to my attention or to the attention of the 

Deputy Attorney General. 

Senator CORNYN. Can you name me one person who has been 

held accountable for this Fast and Furious operation, just one in 

the Department of Justice? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, we have made a number of 

changes with regard to personnel both in the Phoenix U.S. Attorney’s Office, also at the ATF headquarters here, and I will certainly 

await the report that comes out of the Inspector General, and I will 

assure you and the American people that people will be held accountable for any mistakes that were made in connection with Fast 

and Furious. 

Chairman LEAHY. [presiding.] Thank you. Thank you, Senator 

Cornyn. Thank you for coming back. 

Senator Franken, do you have any questions? 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, I do, and I am sorry I have not been 

here. We had a HELP Committee meeting, so I missed the last 21⁄2

hours. I trust it has been going well. 

Before I begin, I just want to take a moment to align myself with 

what I heard Senator Kohl’s comments were on the AT&T and TMobile merger. The Antitrust Division sat largely dormant under 

the previous administration, and I am very pleased that under 

your leadership the Department was willing to send the message 

that antitrust law is still relevant and should be applied to block 

large anti-competitive mergers, so thank you. 

I know you have had a long day, so I will just have one question. 

As you know, there is an epidemic of bullying against lesbian, gay, 

bisexual, and transgendered students in our Nation’s schools. Nine 

out of ten LGBT kids are bullied in school. A third skipped school 

in the last month because they felt unsafe. These kids are missing 

school. They are going as far as committing suicide because of this, 

and they are literally being bullied to death. Yet our Nation does 
51 

not have a law that explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis 

of sexual orientation or gender identity in our public schools. 

General Holder, I have a bill, the Student Non-Discrimination 

Act, that would fix this. It has been cosponsored by 34 Senators, 

including the Chairman and almost all of the Democratic members 

of this Committee and the HELP Committee. In its past appearances before this Committee, the Department of Justice has lauded 

the goals of this act, the Student Non-Discrimination Act. In fact, 

it even acknowledged that LGBT bullying was the greatest growth 

area in the civil rights docket. 

But even though this administration has publicly and formally 

supported other LGBT rights bills like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Respect for Marriage Act, it has not yet 

publicly supported the Student Non-Discrimination Act. 

General Holder, does this administration support this bill or does 

it not? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think the operative word that you 

used is ‘‘yet.’’ I will go back and try to see where we stand and why 

we are not in a place where I think we ought to be formally, because I think you are right. As you look at the steps that this administration has taken with regard to similar issues, we have been, 

I think, in an appropriate place, in the right place. And with regard 

to the bill that you are talking about, I hope that we can get to 

that appropriate place relatively soon. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, thank you very much, and I hope that 

is before we get to the floor with it on the ESEA bill. Thank you 

very much, General Holder. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Attorney General Holder, I want to thank you 

for being here. I know we have gone a long time, but everybody has 

had a chance to ask their questions. Everything has been said, 

sometimes more than once, or twice or three times, but I appreciate 

you being here. As I said at the beginning of my statement, you 

are part of the President’s national security team, and I will let you 

go so you can get back to those issues that really affect us. Thank 

you very much. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 
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 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 
462 
463 
464 
465 
466 
467 
468 
469 
470 
471 
472 
473 
474 
475 
476 
477 
478 
479 
480 
481 
482 
483 
484 
485 
486 
487 
488 
489 
490 
491 
492 
493 
494 
495 
496 
497 
498 
499 
500 
501 
502 
503 
504 
505 
506 
507 
508 
509 
510 
511 
512 
513 
514 
515 
516 
517 
518 
519 
520 
521 
522 
523 
524 
525 
526 
527 
528 
529 
530 
531 
532 
533 
534 
535 
536 
537 
538 
539 
540 
541 
542 
543 
544 
545 
546 
547 
548 
549 
550 
551 
552 
553 
554 
555 
556 
557 
558 
559 
560 
561 
562 
563 
564 
565 
566 
567 
568 
569 
570 
571 
572 
573 
574 
575 
576 
577 
578 
579 
580 
581 
582 
583 
584 
585 
586 
587 
588 
589 
590 
591 
592 
593 
594 
595 
596 
597 
598 
599 
600 
601 
602 
603 
604 
605 
606 
607 
608 
609 
610 
611 
612 
613 
614 
615 
616 
617 
618 
619 
620 
621 
622 
623 
624 
625 
626 
627 
628 
629 
630 
631 
632 
633 
634 
635 
636 
637 
638 
639 
640 
641 
642 
643 
644 
645 
646 
647 
648 
649 
650 
651 
652 
653 
654 
655 
656 
657 
658 
659 
660 
661 
662 
663 
664 
665 
666 
667 
668 
669 
670 
671 
672 
673 
674 
675 
676 
677 
678 
679 
680 
681 
682 
683 
684 
685 
686 
687 
688 
689 
690 
691 
692 
693 
694 
695 
696 
697 
698 
699 
700 
701 
702 
703 
704 
705 
706 
707 
708 
709 
710 
711 
712 
713 
714 
715 
716 
717 
718 
719 
720 
721 
722 
723 
724 
725 
726 
727 
728 
729 
730 
731 
732 
733 
734 
735 
736 
737 
738 
739 
740 
741 
742 
743 
744 
745 
746 
747 
748 
749 
750 
751 
752 
753 
754 
755 
756 
757 
758 
759 
760 
761 
762 
763 
764 
765 
766 
767 
768 
769 
770 
771 
772 
773 
774 
775 
776 
777 
778 
779 
780 
781 
782 
783 
784 
785 
786 
787 
788 
789 
790 
791 
792 
793 
794 
795 
796 
797 
798 
799 
800 
801 
802 
803 
804 
805 
806 
807 
808 
809 
810 
811 
812 
813 
814 
815 
816 
817 
818 
819 
820 
821 
822 
823 
824 
825 
826 
827 
828 
829 
830 
831 
832 
833 
834 
835 
836 
837 
838 
839 
840 
841 
842 
843 
844 
845 
846 
847 
848 
849 
850 
851 
852 
853 
854 
855 
856 
857 
858 
859 
860 
861 
862 
863 
864 
865 
866 
867 
868 
869 
870 
871 
872 
873 
874 
875 
876 
877 
878 
879 
880 
881 
882 
883 
884 
885 
886 
887 
888 
889 
890 
891 
892 
893 
894 
895 
896 
897 
898 
899 
900 
901 
902 
903 
904 
905 
906 
907 
908 
909 
910 
911 
912 
913 
914 
915 
916 
917 
918 
919 
920 
921 
922 
923 
924 
925 
926 
927 
928 
929 
930 
931 
932 
933 
934 
935 
936 
937 
938 
939 
940 
941 
942 
943 
944 
945 
946 
947 
948 
949 
950 
951 
952 
953 
954 
955 
956 
957 
958 
959 
960 
961 
962 
963 
964 
965 
966 
967 
968 
969 
970 
971 
972 
973 
974 
975 
976 
977 
978 
979 
980 
981 
982 
983 
984 
985 
986 
987 
988 
989 
990 
991 
992 
993 
994 
995 
996 
997 
998 
999 
1000 
1001 
1002 
1003 
1004 
1005 
1006 
1007 
1008 
1009 
1010 
1011 
1012 
1013 
1014 
1015 
1016 
1017 
1018 
1019 
1020 
1021 
1022 
1023 
1024 
1025 
1026 
1027 
1028 
1029 
1030 
1031 
1032 
1033 
1034 
1035 
1036 
1037 
1038 
1039 
1040 
1041 
1042 
1043 
1044 
1045 
1046 
1047 
1048 
1049 
1050 
1051 
1052 
1053 
1054 
1055 
1056 
1057 
1058 
1059 
1060 
1061 
1062 
1063 
1064 
1065 
1066 
1067 
1068 
1069 
1070 
1071 
1072 
1073 
1074 
1075 
1076 
1077 
1078 
1079 
1080 
1081 
1082 
1083 
1084 
1085 
1086 
1087 
1088 
1089 
1090 
1091 
1092 
1093 
1094 
1095 
1096 
1097 
1098 
1099 
1100 
1101 
1102 
1103 
1104 
1105 
1106 
1107 
1108 
1109 
1110 
1111 
1112 
1113 
1114 
1115 
1116 
1117 
1118 
1119 
1120 
1121 
1122 
1123 
1124 
1125 
1126 
1127 
1128 
1129 
1130 
1131 
1132 
1133 
1134 
1135 
1136 
1137 
1138 
1139 
1140 
1141 
1142 
1143 
1144 
1145 
1146 
1147 
1148 
1149 
1150 
1151 
1152 
1153 
1154 
1155 
1156 
1157 
1158 
1159 
1160 
1161 
1162 
1163 
1164 
1165 
1166 
1167 
1168 
1169 
1170 
1171 
1172 
1173 
1174 
1175 
1176 
1177 
1178 
1179 
1180 
1181 
1182 
1183 
1184 
1185 
1186 
1187 
1188 
1189 
1190 
1191 
1192 
1193 
1194 
1195 
1196 
1197 
1198 
1199 
1200 
1201 
1202 
1203 
1204 
1205 
1206 
1207 
1208 
1209 
1210 
1211 
1212 
1213 
1214 
1215 
1216 
1217 
1218 
1219 
1220 
1221 
1222 
1223 
1224 
1225 
1226 
1227 
1228 
1229 
1230 
1231 
1232 
1233 
1234 
1235 
1236 
1237 
1238 
1239 
1240 
1241 
1242 
1243 
1244 
1245 
1246 
1247 
1248 
1249 
1250 
1251 
1252 
1253 
1254 
1255 
1256 
1257 
1258 
1259 
1260 
1261 
1262 
1263 
1264 
1265 
1266 
1267 
1268 
1269 
1270 
1271 
1272 
1273 
1274 
1275 
1276 
1277 
1278 
1279 
1280 
1281 
1282 
1283 
1284 
1285 
1286 
1287 
1288 
1289 
1290 
1291 

Æ