not aware of the multiple sales. unless we have a cooperative gun dealer one of thee weapons is found dead a crime scene and trace back then o we pull the paper work manually from the gun dealer. >> any reason you can think of why we would not want to have that information reported? >> i can only give you myrep personal opinion as a good indicator or a good starting point* like handguns. >> no reason and not to have one? it would not interfere if it was reported. >> it would help in my opinion. >> your time is expired. >> i would like to express my condolences to the terry family my district represents where the specialnt

agent resided as well and w they arehe going through some pain similar to what you are going through. very possibly as a result of ill-conceived policies by the atf. . . questions for the gentleman here from the agency, and appreciate your courage in testifying and want to assure you that i think i speak for the bulk of this committee that we really appreciate your courage in coming out. certainly it would be a bad thing if there were to be any repercussions. my question, in your testimony you were talking about you had followed that straw buyer from the gun store and it would stop. did you all ever go beyond the firsthandoff of that weapon to trace them to where they were

going? >> not really, no. many a times what we would do is we would have the information beforehand where they would call the ffl and say hey, we are coming by to pick up 10 or 15 of these rifles, then they would notify the case agent and we would begin surveillance. we would often go to the straw purchaser's house, catch him before he leaves there, catch him as he meets an individual at a car wash or whatever to get money. >> you didn't follow that individual, move it up the chain. if you were out to make a case against people higher in the chain, wouldn't the next logical step have been following the gun? >> that would be very logical. after he purchased firearms and delivered to another parking lot, and special agent cox and i took pictures of them going from one vehicle to another, we had to follow the straw purchaser back to his house while we knew the other guns were going the other way on the highway. i can't tell you the logic. >> we were given direction by the case agent or group

supervisor. we were literally pulled off surveillances. we would make requests after a straw purchase exchange had taken place, we requested hey, this is a good opportunity to seize the firearms from unknown person, plus identify the unknown person, plus might be able to move up the chain. we were told point blank time and time again, absolutely not, no. >> i apologize for going fast, i have limited time. you said you built a tracking device from stuff you bought at radio shack and you had one out of thousands of weapons, one that the agency provided for you that ran out of battery, is that correct? >> to my knowledge there was just the one, yes, sir. >> if you were trying to track guns, wouldn't a logical way be to embed a tracking device in the gun or packaging. >> when the statement was made we were trying to track firearms, we were trying to track where they were used. >> this is going to the mexican drug cartel involved in multiple

murders, potentially bringing bigger charges against straw men for a bigger conspiracy, you would want to see everybody involved in that conspiracy. >> most definitely, sir. what i would have done, i would have landed on straw purchasers and before long i would have had that information for you. >> all right. so let me ask you this. the policy we have just following them and quitting, do you see any rationale behind that? could you come up with any reason we were stopping when we were stopping? any theory at all? >> sir, i'll say this. for years when i first got to phoenix, i was supervising firearm trafficking investigations and we utilized trackers and did what you pointed out. we would make a car stop at the hand to hand exchange or we would seize the weapon if it got to a reasonable point we thought it might go to mexico. to answer your question, i sat on many times trying to figure out what the logic would be to let the firearms go to mexico and i can't think of a single logical reason why this strategy would work. >> and you're not aware of any

cooperation with the mexican authorities or any of our intelligence agencies that might be tracking these beyond mexico or anything. >> i think if we were tracking them, we wouldn't see the tragic results we see when the guns are traced back from murder scenes. >> were you doing anything to identify the weapons other than recording serial numbers, test firing them, gathering ballistics information or anything else? >> no. the firearms were being sold and like i said in most instances taken out of the country. i know once mexican government takes possession, assets in mexico examine them and i am not exactly sure. >> you work on the border. you realize mexico takes bringing guns into their country pretty seriously, taking a shotgun to go bird hunting there is an experience. >> yes, sir. >> this is something our friends, allies and neighbors would be very concerned about and we didn't bother to inform

them. >> we did not. >> thank you very much. >> we now go to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the special agents for appearing. we admire your courage and patriotism for doing that. my questions really are to the terry family. sorry, i know how difficult it was for opening statement. i will tell you now as i am in the autumn of my life, i think unintended consequences of poor policies and procedures and failed strategies at some point somebody has to be held accountable for these things, and as difficult as it may be for yourself and the terry family, if the person responsible were in the room now for operation fast and furious, what might you want to say to them. and please, i think it is so important for the public to understand the purpose of these hearings. while we are upset with the

policies, it is important for people to understand there is a loss of human life here. so it is more than just a strategy that failed, more than a failed policy and procedure, it is the loss of someone so near and dear to you. so your opportunity to do that. i would appreciate. >> well, it is tough. brian was an amazing kid. an amazingly brave kid that was willing to put his life on the line. if that person were in the room, obviously we'd want him or her to accept responsibility. right now, looking back at this operation, it appears that it has cost the life of our brian. we hope and pray it's not going to result in any additional

lives of u.s. law enforcement, but i don't know if we can truly -- if that's truly going to happen. those guns are out there. so beyond accepting responsibility for these decisions and we would be curious why did you feel this was within that risk. i've heard from the atf agents here that even a mockup weapon normally would not have been allowed to walk during these operations, and an awful lot of weapons walked and we would be curious to find out why. >> anything to add?

i don't know what i would say to them, but i would like to know what they would say to me. that's all i would say. >> well, it is difficult. i don't want to put you through any of this, but i think it is incredibly important because the fabric of your family has been torn and can't be put back together again. the purpose of these hearings really is to make sure nobody else has to go through the same thing you have gone through. so i appreciate you being here. with that, mr. chairman -- >> you yield? >> the gentleman yields. thank you. >> i am going to follow a line of questioning i think i have been seeing develop here with law enforcement experts. you have two points, the old expression, you connect the dots. first point is the straw buyer, last point is the scene of the crime. you said each of you special agents as soon as you got to the

next point of connect the dots, you were sent the other direction. you weren't allowed to go the next direction or to the next point even when they headed north with the weapons. now, if an operation like fast and furious seems to have a pattern, a consistent pattern, that you're only looking for two points, the beginning and the end, it is not a criminal prosecution, it is not an effective one, plus, of course, if you take the logic you can't prosecute a straw purchaser of guns in mexico if you take that point, then that part of it was frivolous from the start, even though today every one of those straw purchasers has been charged oddly enough with the evidence that was available before the gun ever walked beyond the first step. let me just ask a question for your accept sigs, but i think it is a well indicated one. if you only look at the dot, isn't it true guns go to mexico, could that be a political decision?

could that be a decision that basically we want to substantiate guns in america go to mexico, something we all knew, but would have considerable political impact as mexico began to say yeah, we were even rolling up straw purchasers. it wouldn't change the fact mexicans were dying at the bequest of the united states, but wouldn't it ultimately meet a political goal? >> i imagine, sir, that it's possible. in this instance, i think it is more as i said earlier, a case agent that had a bad idea, a group supervisor who failed to reign her in, and the chain of command all the way up failed. >> but you would agree it doesn't meet any criminal goal, goal of prosecuting the way it was handled? >> no, because you can't show the chain of how pieces of evidence went from point a to point b which you need to prove at trial. >> i hope it was just a terrible mistake. mr. clay recognized for five

minutes. >> mr. chairman, at this time i have no questions for this panel in the interest, i yield to mr. cummings. >> it seems to me that we do have -- something, some serious disconnect, and why that is, you know, i cannot imagine. i am going to say to you all that your testimony has been abundantly clear. but i want to for a moment go back to mrs. terry. you know, i often say right now i am preparing to do a eulogy saturday, one of the things i am thinking about as i sat here, i do believe part of life is death, but also part of death is

life. and what i mean by that is that, you know, we can't fully understand why somebody would leave us so young. particularly somebody like your son, your relative, who was so full of courage and the fact that he was willing to basically die for his country. we cannot always understand it. and i think we all struggle with it, particularly when it is a young person. but i can say this, that i believe deep in my heart that some kind of way out of his death will come life. in other words, the mere fact that we're here right now,

mr. hell yard, talking about this, the mere fact that this was not something that just shoved under the rug and moving on, the mere fact that there are probably already changes being made to this program, and i think it was you that said you wished you could -- you wished you could say this was the end of it, but there are guns still out there. but at least -- and to the agents i say this, too, at least now we are moving in a direction where hopefully we reverse this and save some lives. that's why i said, miss terry, sometimes out of death comes life, and it's nothing, nothing, nothing can -- i'm not trying to -- nothing can bring a person back, but you know, because i wrestle with the question. i wrestle with it all the time of why do so many of our best

die young. that's why i said to you before, chairman issa asked a question a moment ago about cooperation in the justice department. i want to make it clear that i fought all my adult life trying to take guns, illegal guns out of hands of folks, period. it was you, mr. pa sell ee, all of your testimony was brilliant. it was straightforward, no frills, just straight testimony. and that's why i appreciate so much. but what you said, i don't want us to lose sight of it. and even the chairman talked about it. these guns don't just end up in mexico, they end up in the

united states, too, you know, and they are not just killing people, used to kill people in mexico, it is happening everywhere in our streets. and some kind of way, some kind of way, i listen to senator grassley, he is right, we need to leave the political piece at the door and try to figure out how do we address this problem. we have to keep in mind, too, mexico is right next door. so basically in a sense if these guns are flowing to mexico, basically what we're doing is turning the gun on ourselves or guns on ourselves. and this case is a prime example of that. you know, i just believe that we have to take this moment and make it bring life, bring life out of this very horrific and

terrible death, and with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments. go to the gentleman from florida, mr. ross for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and to the terry family, i cannot imagine the emotional roller coaster you have gone through and what today's testimony does to you. i appreciate that you are here and i am grateful to that. to the agents that are here, you know, this investigation as you well know relies intensely on your testimony, not only in whole but in hope we find an answer at the end of this investigation to see this never happens again. to that end, i want to ask a couple of questions, specifically to you, mr. cost a. i was here for the beginning and missed for a couple of votes. to have the surveillance without interdiction and arrest, did that get the gist of it?

>> for this investigation, yes. >> you stated in your testimony it has become common practice for atf supervisors to retaliate against employees that don't blindly tow the company line no matter the consequences. can you describe what any of that retaliation would be. >> i say refer back to investigations over the countless years, all the attorneys represented atf employees for all types of retaliation for whistle blowing, repudtive actions whether they deserved that. >> you mention the e-mail you received you thought was threatening. >> oh, yeah. >> were you personally threatened by mccallister or english or anyone else? >> no, they are my equal. but my supervisor would put tlin if you don't like what we do, go work for march cope a county sheriff's department. first of all, that was horrible taste. there are brave men and women fighting with us fighting crime

in the phoenix area. >> what happened to that supervisor since thep? >> i have no idea. >> were there any repercussions as a result of his actions? >> not of yet. >> still in the same position, supervisory capacity? >> i understand is a group supervisor, i believe in minneapolis, st. paul, still a group 14 supervisor. >> you said they would stop you from arresting straw purchasers and interdicting weapons. were there other occasions when the case agent told you to stand down, not make such arrests? >> in this investigation? >> in this investigation. >> again, it was common, more than one occasion. it was a few occasions. >> was there one where you watched them come out with a bag of guns? >> yes. one specific occasion, wish i had more time, i will try to be as brief as possible. we observed, i was with special agent dodson, we individual a straw purchase, ten fn pistols which by the way they penetrate law enforcement vests, called

cop killers. >> that had to be particularly painful. >> yes. >> you saw that and ordered to stand down. >> saw them transfer to unknown individual, unknown. i said i called this since i was shift supervisor, called the case agent and said we need to interdict these firearms. >> who was that supervisor. >> mccallister. >> i was told stand down, do not interdict, wasn't told why. he is street savvy, he makes a ten person surveillance, each car over and over to the point he stops in the middle of a small subdivision in front of special agent dodson and he is higher up in a jacked up pickup, we know he has at least ten fn pistols, and i said we need to engage. i called back in. the group supervisor who should have been there during the operation or case agent who should have been there in the operation were off for the day, they left, and no way to get in touch with them.

i was told point of contact them was probationary employee was english, and i had to take instruction, told me fall back. resur veil. >> that fall back, resurveillance, isn't that contrary to what atf policy should be? shouldn't the policy be make the arrest in the interdiction? >> yes, sir, most definitely. furthermore, it created an officer safety issue. the guy knew he was being followed but didn't know by whom. for all he knew, we could have been cartel members trying to rob the ten guns or could have been law enforcement. we didn't know. but it caused a serious officer safety issue. >> by the grace of god, could have been more than brian terry lost because of this. >> yes, sir. >> just briefly, i have a couple of seconds. is there anything you think your brother would want this committee to know about his life and service? >> brian was about making a difference and justice and i just feel that this country owes

it to him because he spent his whole life fighting this country some way or another. >> i agree and he is a hero. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. go to the gentleman from arizona. >> mrs. terry and family, i am deeply sorry. as a father, i don't know, i can just feel that pain. and i hope what i say next does not aggravate that in advance. okay? for the law enforcement folks, when you first heard about the shootings of congressman gabrielle giffords, was there a level of anxiety from atf that one of the weapons might trace back to operations of fast and furious? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> where did this anxiety come from and from whom specifically? >> sir, i received a phone call from my public information officer who was a friend of mine who said that there was concern from chain of command that the

gun was hopefully not a fast and furious gun. >> i would like to add every time there's a shooting, whether mrs. giffords or anybody, any time there was a shooting in the general phoenix area or even arizona, we are fearful it might be one of these firearms. >> this happened time and time again when there was u.s. embassy personnel killed in juarez, mexico. fear spread through the division. >> i am feeling like i am a dentist, i didn't participate in the military, but i understand there's a chain of command, and i feel like i'm watching the movie a few good men. and you know, this wasn't done, you know, from what i'm gathering, we talked about special art forcell, getting jurisdiction in new york, we are talking about the drug cartels. we are not talking about something simple.

if an issue is this great, typically before this one, if you have been involved, how far did it go up that people knew about something like that? >> sir, i know i had discussions with zack william who was the special agent in charge, former special agent in charge of phoenix division, the assistant special agent in charge who was involved in this case when it first started was george gillette. he and i had discussions where he pretty much rolled his eyes when you voiced opposition to this. david vault and i hadn't conversed much, he is in a different building. from a briefing pair from knew to gillette this was briefed at the highest levels of atf. i heard the director was involved. and nobody stepped up and had a statement beyond the phoenix field division. i mean, there were tragic errors made here, and nobody has shown the decency and leadership to step up and say hey, we made a

mistake and should have done something more. that's what i find as appalling as anything else in this case, short of, of course, the tragedy to the terry family. >> absolutely right, sir. no one in atf up to acting director nelson has shown any significant leadership in this matter. and i can tell you i know that our former group supervisor had to come to d.c. to brief our headquarters dea special operations division in virginia, and he briefed ethics on it and we secured the funding for most of that. i recall march of 2010 when acting director nelson came to phoenix division, spoke about the case. the case agent by name, the supervisor by name, and even the defendants or would be defendants in the case. >> well, boy, this is going in the right way here. you know i am from arizona. >> yes, sir. >> you are currently aware and have for some time that department of justice has had

lawsuits against arizona. were you aware of any biases within your scope at atf or comments versus arizona by the atf or by doj in regards to them? >> no, sir. >> you're sure? >> i don't recall. >> seems like this whole lacks attitude from jurisdiction from timely and aggressive law enforcement that would create this. i am getting this opinion because you said you couldn't get a jurisdictional aspect of oversite in arizona and you took it to new york, did you not, sir? >> yes, i did. >> seems like continued dismissal of acting charges and we have a problem in arizona. we have seen a concerted effort that we have called out law enforcement on the border. i think specifically sheriff devers. i see a lack of cooperation all the way across, so does arizona.

we see a very defunct uniform -- from arizona, we see an organized, orchestrated plan or lack of plan from doj, particularly with arizona. >> interesting, sir, what i will add, one thing i will say emphatically is i have had limited dealings with tucson office of u.s. attorney's office, extensive dealings with phoenix. in phoenix, there are some good people, i apologize for speaking ill of that office, but there is distinct difference in attitude between tucson and phoenix office. u.s. attorney's office in tucson seems tore more amenable to working on cases with atf, amenable to finding justice than the u.s. attorney's office in phoenix and it is ironic because the u.s. attorney himself and chain of command are based in phoenix. that's all i can tell you. >> thank you.

>> recognize the gentle lady from new york for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to say to the mother of brian terry, i have six children and my heart is broken for you because your life is irrepairably changed and i want you to know that what mr. hire said about having someone step up and accept responsibility, that will be the charge of this committee and that's what we will do for you because of the loss that you all sustained. you have my deepest sympathy. to the agents, thank you. thanks for your courage for being here today and for your forthrightness and standing up, doing the right thing. we appreciate that very much. i want to begin with miss terry. can you, is there a question you want us to ask and find out, can you share with us if there's something nagging you that you

would like answer to? >> well, most of my questions and answers are done by my nephew. if i had anything to ask, i ask him and he gets me my right answers. >> then i would ask mr. hire, is there a question that you would like us to ask? >> i think we'd want to know if the dragnet that is set to find everyone involved in brian's murder will be set deep enough and wide enough to encompass anyone involved in operation fast and furious. if the guns used in brian's murder were part of this operation, then we'd want to know will everyone in that operation that had to deal with those specific weapons be

brought up on charges facilitating the murder of brian terry. >> thank you. we will ask that question on your behalf. there was a press conference held shortly after agent terry's murder, and during that press conference special agent william newell veemtly denied guns were walked. this question is for mr. pore which he ee. were you at that press conference? >> i was not, but i watched it on tv. >> and did you hear him when he was asked regarding guns walking, did you hear his response to that? >> the hell no response? >> yes. >> i did, ma'am. >> and what was your reaction to that? >> i was appalled because it was a blatant lie. >> he was aware guns were being walked? >> yes, ma'am. as i stated earlier, there was a

briefing paper that went to headquarters, mr. knew if not the author would have had asac prepare it and mr. newell two months ago stated the agent in this case should get an award. still thinks it is an outstanding investigation. i find it personally appalling. >> my colleague, dr. gosar, brought up, made analogy between "a few good men" and this situation. but with "a few good men" there was an order in place. there was a this is what everyone followed, this was the policy. but my sense is and i would like to ask the three agents today, what happened in this situation was not the ordinary course of business, and so if you could each comment. >> i can tell you as recently as three weeks ago we had intradiks of a gun dealer. that individual showed up to pick up the rifle with cash, probably drug money.

he was not a resident of the united states but had false id. we had three trackers, two on the gun, one on the package, and air support, the whole nine yards. once we got to a point where we realized we could not safely monitor that weapon, that individual was stopped and the weapon seized and he was arrested. that's how we normally do business. i can tell you as a supervisor, no agents under my watch would have let a gun walk. i wouldn't have allowed it. >> special agent cosa? >> thank you. i would back up exactly what pete said. working a number of investigations, what we are going through now, i would never let one firearm walk. i am working a number of cases with other agencies and i have to assure them, and they know who i am, we will not let one firearm walk. we will stop that at all cost. one firearm on the street is one

too many. that's all i have to say. >> special agent dodson? >> yes, ma'am. prior to my involvement with phoenix, in all my atf experience and my experience in local law enforcement, ma'am, i can tell you that we've never let a gun walk. i've never seen it authorized or allowed to let a gun walk. and if one even got away from us, like i stated earlier, nobody went home until we found it. >> thank you all very much. again, thank you for your service, for being here today, and to brian's family again, our deepest sympathy. i yield back. >> i thank the gentle lady and the witnesses for their testimony. it is not a normal practice to have government witnesses along with family or what sometimes are called civilians, but in this case i thought it was appropriate you all be there together. i appreciate all that you have done for us today to have us better understand the situation,

and mrs. terry, although i can never guarantee the outcome, about two years ago we were able to name a border patrol station after three fallen border patrol agents several decades after they were killed. i instructed my staff to work with the boarder patrol to find a mutually acceptable to you and the family location to name after brian and i will author that bill as soon as location is determined by the family. you have my promise we will do the other things you asked for here today, that we will keep this from being little plil until we get to the full truth of everything s

panel.weich is assistant attorney general, u.s. department of justice, pursuant to the rules would you please rise and take the oath? do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? let the record indicate that the witness answered in the affirmative.

i note that you sat patiently through all of the previous testimony so not only do you understand the red light/green light but you will be the final witness and i appreciate your patience and your being here to hear everything that came before. you're now recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would ask that my full statement be included in the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> mr. chairman, ranking member cummings, members of the committee, i'm very pleased to be here today to discuss the justice department's continuing efforts to respond to the committee's subpoena concerning ongoing criminal investigations on the southwest border and pending indictments in the u.s. district court for the district of arizona. i want to say at the outset that the department is fully committed to working with you in good faith to accommodate the committee's legitimate oversight interests. we hope the committee will similarly engage in good faith with the department in a manner that recognizes the important

confidentiality interests presented when congressional oversight involves open criminal investigations. it's difficult when the interests and principled exercise of the prerogatives of the legislative and executive branches come into potential conflict. the constitution envisions that the branches will engage in a process of cooperation and accommodation to avoid such conflicts, and we look forward to engaging in that process with you. as the committee is aware, many of the subpoenaed documents concern an open criminal investigation conducted by the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms known as operation fast and furious. other subpoenaed documents concern the open investigation and pending prosecution regarding the shooting death of agent brian terry. let me just say here that the death of agent terry was a tragic loss and the justice department extends its deepest sympathies to his family. they testified courageously here a moment ago.

we were very pleased to hear on monday of the committee's commitment not to compromise the investigation into agent terry's murder or the broader gun trafficking investigation, and we are fully committed to bringing to justice those who are responsible for agent terry's death. the department recognizes the important role of congressional oversight. including oversight of the department's activities. it's the policy of the executive branch at the instruction of the president to comply with congressional requests for information to the fullest extent, consistent with the constitutional and statutory obligations of the executive branch. at the same time, attempts to conduct congressional oversight of ongoing criminal investigations are highly unusual and present serious issues. as the department's office of legal counsel under president reagan explained in 1986, the policy of the executive branch throughout our nation's history has generally been to decline to provide committees of congress with access to or copies of open

law enforcement files except in extraordinary circumstances. the policy is designed to fulfill the department's obligations to preserve the independence, integrity and effectiveness of law enforcement investigations in the criminal justice process generally, and i want to say, this policy is completely nonpartisan. it has been relied on by administrations of both parties for decades. so in response to your subpoena, this department has been striving to reconcile the two principles by accommodating the committee's oversight interests while protecting our confidentiality interests. striking this balance can take time and effort. it is not the case that the department is refusing to comply with the department's subpoena. in fact, we are working diligently to satisfy the committee's core oversight interests without compromising the important purposes underlying the department's policy that i have described. the starting point for our approach is an agreement by the department that this committee

has a legitimate oversight interest in information shedding light on the genesis and strategy of the fast and furious operation. we have focused on identifying documents responsive to those needs. we have already made a good deal of information available. in total, the department has physically produced more than 675 pages of documents to the committee, made available more than 900 additional pages for review. in addition, we have made one atf official available for interview with the committee staff and we hope we will be able to schedule more interviews in the upcoming weeks. the committee has requested briefings on specific topics and we have agreed to provide those. the department has taken the extraordinary step of retaining an outside consultant, contractor, at substantial cost to assist us in building a data base of e-mails of the 19 individuals at atf whom the committee has indicated a primary interest in. we have engaged in a search of great magnitude to ensure that

we get the documents that you have asked for to the best of our ability. the individuals that are 19 selected user accounts you have focused on contain over 724,000 e-mails and attachments. in addition, the department has collected thousands of documents flagged to us by atf as potentially responsive. over two dozen lawyers at atf and the department are reviewing those documents and we have been able to provide documents to the committee, each of the last three working days. yesterday, monday and the friday before. the department will not be able to make available all of the documents encompassed by the subpoena because of the law enforcement confidentiality interests that i have already identified. we cannot provide certain core investigative and prosecutorial documents but we will work with the committee to identify and make available documents responsive to your core request. let me conclude by emphasizing

that the department recognizes that congressional oversight is an important part of our system of government. at the same time, congressional oversight that implicates ongoing congressional investigations presents sensitivities not raised in ordinary cases. despite the unique challenges posed by oversight of open criminal matters, we remain optimistic that the department will be able to satisfy the committee's core oversight interests while safeguarding the integrity, independence and effectiveness of the department's ongoing criminal investigation. thank you for inviting me to testify. i would be pleased to answer your questions. >> i certainly hope so. i recognize myself. sir, if you're going to count pages like this as discovery, you should be ashamed of yourself. the only thing that this says is internal use only, not for dissemination outside the atf. that's not discovery. that is saying that nothing within the document requested

under any circumstances are we going to be shown. it doesn't take so long if you don't spend your life redacting. the pages go on like this forever. you've given us black paper instead of white paper. you might as well have given us a ream still in its original binder. how dare you make an opening statement, how dare you make an opening statement of cooperation. we have had to subpoena again and again. your representatives of your organization, of the executive branch, have discouraged witnesses from coming forward. it has only been the courage of whistleblowers like the ones you saw here today that have caused us to have more documents on this case than you have ever suggested turning over, and how dare you talk about 900 pages, all of which were available on the internet. your first discovery that you ever turned over, you gave us already available on a google search documents only.

so sir, what executive privilege are you claiming? sensitivity is not envisioned. on monday, we held a hearing here, and i hope you had plenty of people watching it and if you didn't, get it on youtube. not one witness, not on direct or on cross, talked in terms of the kind of unique sensitivity. instead, they gave us case law and cases involving justice that say just the opposite of what you're saying. sir, you heard from the family and you heard from the whistleblowers. they have concerns about whether you're charging everybody in brian terry's murder and yes, i'm deeply concerned. we've promised to get to the bottom of it. if somebody wants to call that political interference, so be it. you should be held to a standard of why everybody, including the people who lied and buy those weapons, why they're not being charged if there's any chance they can be properly linked to his murder. but let's move on.

understand that's for the family. for this committee, we're investigating you, your organization, the executive branch above the phoenix office is who we're investigating. we want to know what felony stupid bad judgment led to allowing this program at the highest levels. when you've got the head of alcohol, tobacco and fire on basically his computer screen watching these things, don't tell me you didn't know what it was doing. it appears to us on this side of the aisle and i believe on the other side that you thought this was a good idea. today, are you prepared to tell us that this program was, in fact, necessary and a good idea and are you prepared to tell us who authorized it? who was the greatest, highest ranking person who authorized any part of it? >> mr. chairman, you have raised a number of issues. let me try -- >> do the last ones first. who authorized this program that

was so felony stupid that it got people killed? >> the attorney general has said that he wants to get to the bottom of this. he has directed the office of the inspector general at the justice department to review this matter in order to answer questions like the ones -- >> if that's the case, then why are we any burden at all? isn't every one of our requests consistent with what the inspector general and the attorney general should be looking at in this case? >> i don't know for a fact that everything you've asked for is what they're looking at. >> i hope you came here to answer questions like that. we're asking for things related to the above the field level almost exclusively. our questions are about who authorized this, why did it happen, why did it continue. our question to you today is the president said he didn't authorize it. he said the attorney general didn't authorize it. he didn't say he didn't know about it. he said he didn't authorize it. who at justice authorized this program? >> as i've said, mr. chairman,

the office of the inspector general -- >> who at justice and if you know, i ask you to answer who do you know was involved in the authorization of this today? do you know? do you know? >> well, mr. chairman, if you will permit me to answer the question, we sent a letter to chairman smith, who asked a question like that. we pointed out that this operation as with other law enforcement operations, originated in the atf's phoenix office. >> that's not authorization. who authorized it at the highest level? >> again, mr. chairman, please -- >> do you know who authorized it at the highest level? don't answer phoenix or tucson or any part of arizona, if you please. >> well, mr. chairman, it's difficult to answer your questions if you won't permit me to answer them. >> i want the answer to my question, which was who here in washington authorized it. we know who looked at it on video. we know who authorized it effectively at least by acquiescence. who authorized this at justice? >> mr. chairman, i do not know

the answer to that question. the inspector general is reviewing the matter. >> then we will have somebody back who does. the ranking member is recognized. >> mr. weich, let me apologize for that. you don't deserve that. perhaps somebody else in the department does. what is your role? what's your job? >> i'm the assistant attorney general for the office of legislative affairs, congressman. >> and these are not decisions that you make, are they, the questions that he was just asking about, the chairman was asking about? >> that's correct. >> and as i've said many times, there's a certain level of integrity that we must maintain in this committee. i see this committee as just lower than a court, and i know and i've said it to the chairman and i'll say it over and over again, you've got to go home to your family. you've got colleagues who are watching this and for you to be hollered at and treated that way, i just think is unfair.

so on behalf of the committee, i apologize. >> would the gentleman yield? >> no, i will not yield. i'm trying to talk to the witness. i didn't interrupt you. >> no. you didn't -- >> i'll yield as long as i get the time. >> hold the time. would the gentleman please note, you may apologize on behalf of something you say. i am not apologetic. you may not apologize on behalf of the committee. the gentleman may resume. >> let me say this. i apologize. because we're better than that. we're better than that. and i do hope that we bring the appropriate people who can answer those questions and even when they come, they should not be treated that way. on april 13th, you wrote to the committee to explain the extreme sensitivity of some of the documents covered by your committee's subpoena of open law enforcement files. you explained that the subpoena quote encompasses records that

would identify individuals who are assisting in the investigation and squashes investigative techniques that have not yet been disclosed. but this is not all of the records, right? i assume it is just a small subset of subpoenaed documents and that you can redact such sensitive information, isn't that correct? >> that's correct, congressman. that's what we're trying to do. >> now, i can understand the chairman being upset because i would be upset but i wouldn't treat you like that, about somebody submitting to me some black pages. can you explain that to me? >> one thing i want to make clear, congressman, is that the number of pages that i cited in my testimony as having been produced or made available does not include such pages. where those pages are redacted, it's part of a document showing where there was law enforcement sensitive information that we were unable to provide, but that is not included in the total. >> what were the total pages that you submitted? >> i will get you the exact

numbers. >> while your staff is assisting you on that, let me go on. >> i have it. >> okay. >> we have physically produced more than 675 pages of documents and made available more than 900 additional pages for review. i should say, this production is ongoing. we have made documents available and physically produced documents in each of the last three business days and i expect the document production to continue. >> the purpose of our investigation is to understand what occurred and who is responsible. do you think that you will be able to provide sufficient documents to answer those core questions without disclosing highly sensitive records? >> i'm sorry, congressman -- >> in other words, you said there's some confidentiality issues. i'm trying to get to and you said this spans certain policy spans over certain administrations, wasn't just democratic administrations, republican administrations. i'm just asking you, is there a way that we can get -- what i've often said, i said it before the hearing that the chairman

referred to the other day, i said we need to do two things. we've got two things going on here. we're trying to look to see how far this thing went up but at the same time, we've got these criminal prosecutions. i'm saying is there a way that we can resolve those issues? is that within your purview? >> yes, it is. and i believe that we can do so. we are doing that by providing documents, by briefing the committee, by making documents available, and by facilitating witness interviews. we share the committee's goal in getting to the bottom of these questions, and we are assisting the committee at the same time that the department itself has a review by the office of the inspector general. >> you further explain that it is the public release of this information that presents the most risk to ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions. you stated and i quote, disclosure of these types of information may present risk to individuals' safety in the violent environment of firearms trafficking activities. disclosure may also prematurely

inform subjects and targets about our investigation in a manner that permits them to evade and obstruct our prosecutorial efforts. even if we're not so upset about, and i am always concerned about prosecutions, the fact that somebody's life might be in danger gives me great concern because i see it living where i live almost every day. so tell me something, what is the -- can you give me a response to that? >> yes, congressman. some of these documents identify cooperating witnesses. they identify confidential informants. they describe a strategy as to specific cases, ongoing cases, and revealing that strategy could inform potential targets of the investigation of law enforcement activities and it seems unwise. you yourself, ranking member cummings, highlighted a number of ways in which the committee investigation has already inadvertently overstepped the

line and for example, made public a sealed document. so we're concerned about this. we really think if we work cooperatively, we can help the committee avoid such missteps, help satisfy the committee's oversight interests and get to the bottom of these questions. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. would you yield to me for 30 seconds? >> absolutely. >> did you provide those documents you say were released, that were sealed? the documents you say were prematurely released, were they provided by you under any kind of request? >> i'm not certain. if you will permit me to consult with my staff, i will be able to answer the question. >> go ahead. >> i got the answer, mr. chairman. the answer is no, those were not documents we provided. those were documents that your investigators obtained and then made public in spite of the court order that they not be made public. >> so you're saying that if we get documents that we have no idea, because you're not providing documents, that we're responsible? >> yes, mr. chairman, seems to

me that you should ask the justice department whether sensitive documents should be made public. that particular document related to a wiretap which is always a sensitive law enforcement step, and if the committee would consult with us, we would help the committee avoid -- >> if you had given us those documents with appropriate guidance, that obviously wouldn't have happened. you didn't do it. you had plenty of time to do it. yield back to the gentleman. >> thank you. as i try to follow this whole day and try to process what's been going on, february the 4th, there's a letter senator grassley, back and forth with you, stating the allegation of atf sanctioned or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to straw purchasers who transported them to mexico is false. may 2nd. you wrote again to senator grassley, reiterating it remains our understanding that atf's operation fast and furious did not knowingly permit straw buyers to take guns into mexico yet i just asked some agents

about that and their statement was they think about 1500 weapons are still out there and probably in mexico. would you like to change your statement at all on that or have anything you would want to shift on your previous statements from february or may? >> thank you, congressman. the statements that you refer to are -- let me say this. every time the justice department sends a letter to congress, it is true to the best of our knowledge at the time that we send it. those particular statements remain true for the technical reason that the committee's report issued last night described the straw purchasers don't take guns to mexico and in any event, atf doesn't sanction or approve of the transfer of weapons to mexico. that's obvious. >> but atf did permit those knowingly understanding they're headed towards the border and that was well known apparently among the phoenix office and as we can tell going up the food chain, that these purchases were not being purchased by someone

out as was stated, bear hunting. these were straw purchasers buying in large quantities and headed towards mexico. how can we make a statement, we're not sanctioning that but we're also not interdicting or trying to stop it, either. >> obviously allegations from the atf agents you've heard from today and from others have given rise to serious questions about how atf conducted this operation and that's why the attorney general instituted an investigation and it's why we're cooperating in this committee's investigation. >> was there any communication with leadership in mexico so that if these weapons showed up in mexico, we were actually doing a law enforcement process here to make sure they were both aware that these guns might be headed that way or that we had a working relationship when arrests were made, we would cooperate with them dealing with these arrests? >> congressman, i can't -- from my position in the office of legislative affairs, i don't have personal knowledge of the kind of communication. my understanding is that in general, there are close ties between u.s. law enforcement and

mexican law enforcement, including on gun investigations. so as a general matter, the answer to your question is yes. as to specific cases, i'm not in a position to say. >> are you saying you were aware this fast and furious was going on and guns were headed their direction, and they were involved in that process, or it's just we know their phone numbers and occasionally call each other. this specific program, i'm talking about. >> congressman, i'm not in a position to answer that question with specificity. >> do you know who might be a good person we can contact to get that kind of information? >> the committee has already interviewed one atf agent and we are prepared to make other agents available. these include high ranking atf officials. i would think those individuals can speak with specificity to the question that you're asking. >> terrific. what other office besides the phoenix office was doing this type of program? >> congressman, i'm not in a position to answer. i don't know the answer to that question. >> okay. do you know how many offices that doj has a relationship with that were informed about this operation as it was ongoing that

might be engaged, at least have not necessarily approval but at least acknowledgment this is going on, just be aware, the phoenix office is tracking straw buyers and they are out there, there may be as many as 1500 guns, just be aware of that? do we know how many other offices or agencies are aware of that? >> are you saying offices or agencies of the justice department? >> within justice that it has relationship with. >> i don't know. there is close communication among the various u.s. attorneys' offices and the law enforcement components. there are cross-cutting meetings and task forces and so forth. but i can't speak with spea specificity as to this operation. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. the gentleman from missouri. mr. clay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. weich, from what i can see, the department of justice has worked hard to comply with the committee's very large document request. not only have you gone to

considerable lengths and cost, you have worked with majority committee staff to prioritize documents of great interest. you have briefed the committee not only on your ongoing processing of documents but on a case itself. on top of delivering many documents, you have made the most sensitive documents available for review by committee staff in ways that protect the documents' integrity. it seems to me that the department is cooperating with the committee's extraordinary request and i say extraordinary because not only is the scope of the request very large, but because of its timing. during ongoing criminal investigations as well as an ongoing i.g. investigation. flashing back to when the committee was investigating blackwater, during the previous

administration, a member of this committee now in the majority said that quote, we are supposed to allow the administration to do its investigation and then we do oversight, end of quote. now, i believe we have a legitimate interest in conducting oversight of the administration but we should not jeopardize ongoing criminal cases or i.g. investigation just because a different party now holds the white house. mr. weich, in your statement, you explain that the department has made certain documents available to committee staff for their review, but without providing copies. this is because the documents contain sensitive law enforcement material and the department needs to prevent their public disclosure.

>> that's absolutely right. >> is this a common practice? >> yes. it's a very common practice, as i detail in my written statement. for many years, the department has used this process of making documents available in order to maximize the number of documents that a committee can have access to. chairmen for many years have accepted this practice and we do it because the rules of the house do not easily permit a committee to keep documents confidential and indeed, this committee has declined to provide any such assurances, so this is what we do. we make documents publicly or make documents available physically that we are prepared to see be made public, and those that are not, we make available to the committee investigators. >> and it's obvious that it's very disturbing to you and to the department that -- to the fact that despite your procedures and clear warnings, the majority and senator

grassley has inappropriately released sensitive documents. >> let me say this, congressman. i have as the chairman noted, i have been here all morning and listened to senator grassley as well as to the terry family and to the atf agents who testified, the common view of all the witnesses and the members of the committee is that it is vital that these prosecutions, most notably the prosecution of agent terry's alleged killers be successful. that we not do anything to harm those prosecutions. our effort to preserve confidentiality of certain law enforcement sensitive documents is in furtherance of that goal. >> and you wrote on monday that you heard during the hearing on monday that the committee is committed to not compromising the murder investigation or the broader gun trafficking investigation through its oversight activities, given what we found out about improper

disclosures, and improper contact with witnesses and the way these hearings have been structured and conducted. i'm not sure i agree with your assessment. i think that the majority's actions have come very close to compromising investigations and prosecution if they already have not done so. do you still believe in the majority's commitment to not compromising these investigations? >> congressman clay, we want to work with the committee. we have an ongoing relationship with the committee staff. i think it's important for us to flag these warnings and maintain appropriate brouound ris but we share the committee's interest in getting to the bottom of these investigations. >> thank you. we recognize the gentleman from utah. >> when did you first talk to attorney general holder about this issue? >> as best as i can recall, it

came up in preparation for his oversight hearings in may. he was asked about it by chairman issa -- >> do you still hold tight -- you're suggesting that the letters that you sent on february 4th, 2011 to senator grassley and again, another letter on may 2nd, 2011 to senator grassley, that the content of those two letters is complete and accurate as best you know? >> congressman, i have said -- >> that's a yes or no question. is it complete, accurate? >> congressman -- >> yes or no? >> well, respectfully, that's not susceptible to a yes/no answer. >> go ahead. >> thank you. as the committee's report pointed out, there is a technical explanation for why the allegation that atf sanctioned the sale of guns to straw purchasers who then transported them to mexico is not an accurate statement, so we said that was false. however, serious allegations have come to light, including the testimony of the agents

today, that cause attorney general holder to want there to be an independent review of this matter and he's initiated that review. so we're not clinging to the statements in those letters. we're saying -- >> so if i said that i think somebody knowingly and willfully actually misled and lied to congress, would i be off base? >> respectfully, congressman, you would be in that we make every effort to provide truthful information to congress. i know that's something that -- >> i would like to highlight january 8th, remember, these letters came out in february 4th and may 2nd, but on january 8th, i will quote from this internal document here from the phoenix field division that indicated on page 4, quote, currently our strategy is to allow the transfer of firearms to continue to take place, albeit at a much slower pace, in order to further the investigation and allow for the identification of co-conspirators who would continue to operate and illegally traffic firearms to

mexican drug trafficking organizations and it goes on there. the administration knew in january, before these letters came out, that it was on purpose, it would continue to operate and illegally traffic firearms to mexico. how can that stand? how can you and the department of justice and people who take responsibility for this allow the lies to continue to come to congress? why did this obama administration purposely allow the illegal transfer of more than 2,000 weapons that they knew, according to this memo, were going to go to mexico? >> congressman, you have asked questions that the office of the inspector general is looking at, that this committee is looking at -- >> i want answers from you. that's why you're here. you have this document. you know that this is true. this memo goes on to continue to say again in january, to date, there have been five notable seizure events connected with the group. approximately 53 firearms originally purchased by this group have been recovered. three of these seizures have

been in the country of mexico. we knew that this was -- these were going south. yet in your letter, that you state quote, it remains the understanding -- our understanding that atf's operation fast and furious did not knowingly permit straw purchase buyers to take guns into mexico. that is patently and totally false. how do you do that? how do you -- when this comes out in january and again in may, you write, you tell this congress that they did not knowingly permit straw purchasers to take guns into mexico, in total contradiction of the memo of january 8th. how does that happen? >> congressman, i have explained to you that we do our best to provide the information to congress as we know it. as allegations have come to light, we have initiated an investigation and cooperating with this committee's investigation. >> is fast and furious still ongoing? >> i don't believe so, congressman. >> at what point did the attorney general order that it be taken down, did we stop doing it? at what point did they actually

say all right, enough is enough? >> the attorney general made very clear as this matter came to light that guns should never be walked to mexico. >> i want to know when the attorney general actually got engaged in this. why didn't he know about it? when did he know about it? or is he just oblivious to it? >> congressman, he answered chairman issa's question on the house judiciary committee. the question was -- >> but i questioned him also on the house judiciary committee, if you remember. you were sitting in the row right behind him. he said he didn't know when he first knew about it. i'm trying to figure out when did he know about it and what did he do about it. >> he told congressman issa that he first learned about it several weeks before the hearing in connection with -- >> what i don't understand is when you go back and look at the record, president obama knew about it back in march. if the president knew about it, why didn't the attorney general know about it, and why are you issuing a memo in may when the president of the united states in an interview with i believe univision, is saying we know there were some mistakes made. how does that happen? the president makes this comment, then still months

later, you have the gall to issue a memo to this congress saying that's just false, it's not true. that does not add up. that's what this investigation's going to continue to pursue. yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. if i may grant myself time for a colloquy because the gentleman does seem to be rather upset, i have read the statement and if you were to parse words and determine the meaning of "is" then you probably could say that because the straw purchasers, the originally buyers, did not take them to mexico but rather transferred them to intermediaries, that in fact they did not knowingly take them into mexico. w i would not call it the whole truth but i certainly understand why if someone is trying to deceive and mislead that they could in fact write a letter like that and think that they technically didn't lie and they would be correct. with that, we recognize next the gentleman -- you haven't done

yours? recognize the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sir, i know that you were here this morning while the members of the committee were -- i will say this with all the civility that i can muster. i think it is bitterly ironic that you would refer to committee missteps before you refer to atf or doj missteps in response to questioning from mr. issa, you used the phrase committee missteps. i think the purpose of this hearing is not so much our missteps, real or perceived, but the missteps of atf and doj. so let me start by asking when did anyone at doj know that firearms in connection with this investigation were going to mexico? >> congressman, that's not a question that i'm equipped to answer. as i've said, the inspector general is looking at it and we're cooperating in this committee's investigation. may i just say, congressman, i didn't start out my testimony by talking about committee

missteps. i didn't talk about it in my opening statement. >> no, sir, you did not. but it is bitterly ironic that the first criticism you would have or the first use of the word overstep would be of this committee and not of atf and not of the united states attorney's office in arizona and i frankly am shocked at the relationship between atf and that particular united states attorney's office. it is untenable and unworkable and i would hope that someone at doj would ask some questions of u.s. attorney's office in arizona. i cannot imagine that kind of working relationship where proffers are not allowed and subpoenas take six weeks to be approved. i would be hopeful that you would ask that. so you do not know when doj knew that firearms were going to mexico? >> no, sir. i personally do not. >> what is doj's policy on guns walking? >> the attorney general has made very clear that guns cannot walk to mexico. that is to say, guns, it is a violation of law for guns to be

transported across the border to mexico. >> what is your definition of walking? >> that, as the committee's report made clear, is the subject of much discussion within atf and -- >> i'm asking about doj. >> i'm afraid i'm not in position to answer that question. i will say that it is -- >> but you would agree that saying that me physically handing someone who is a prohibited person a gun, that cannot be the only definition of walking. having knowledge that a gun is leaving your area of surveillance or jurisdiction is walking, correct? >> i can't define walking. what i can say, congressman, is that it is -- this is a challenging enforcement environment as i think you know as a former federal prosecutor. >> i do. but i also got to tell you as a former federal prosecutor, this is unprecedented. i have never heard -- would you ever allow or sanction controlled substances if it were

controlled substances and not firearms, would you ever have allowed or sanctioned or permitted them to walk? >> first of all, there's a big difference. drugs are per se illegal and guns are not. the sale of a firearm or multiple firearms to an individual who is not a prohibited person is not illegal, of course. >> i'm aware of that. would you have allowed controlled substances to skip surveillance and go to mexico? >> that's a question that's well beyond my area of responsibility or expertise. i will note that of course, there are controlled buys in narcotics cases in order to pursue a drug conspiracy and pursue the highest levels of a drug spears. i know that from my personal experience as a prosecutor. >> who can we ask, who can we invite before this committee who can tell us definitively when the department of justice knew that guns were going into mexico?

who would you invite us to invite? >> i think you're pursuing the right track, if i can be so presumptuous. you're obtaining documents, interviewing witnesses, you interviewed agent newell, one of the individuals mentioned in the testimony today as having been very involved in this. there were other agents and atf officials who we are ready to provide for interviews. >> what about the united states attorney in arizona? when did the u.s. attorney know that guns that were part -- this was an investigation that it was impossible to deny he was part of it. when did the u.s. attorney in arizona know the firearms were leaving the united states and going to mexico? >> i don't know the answer to that, congressman, but can i say i know dennis burke, the u.s. attorney there. he is a very hard-working, dedicated public servant and what obviously happened here is there was a serious profound

disagreement about strategy but the common goal of the united states attorney's office and all of the atf agents is to interdict guns, to stop the gun trafficking to mexico. so mr. burke, i'm sure, was dedicated to that purpose. >> sir, with respect, given the fact that you know mr. burke and i do not, would you share with him what was said this morning about the dissatisfaction with federal law enforcement in arizona and the relationship that they have with the united states attorney's office? >> yes. >> because that has not been my experience, certainly not in south carolina, not in other jurisdictions. the level of animosity and the fighting between law enforcement and federal prosecutors over something as simple as a proffer -- are you aware of any united states attorney's office that doesn't allow the use of proffers? >> it's obviously a common technique. >> of course it is. there's no way to build a historical case without proffers. since you know mr. burke and i do not, would you ask him to do

what he can to repair his relationship with law enforcement, because it appears to be fractured from this vantage point. >> i would be happy to talk to him but i'm sure he's monitoring this hearing closely. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just briefly, following up on that point, it would seem that the approach of at least the deputy or assistant u.s. attorney down there was to require corpus delicti, body of the crime, to actually have the guns in order to proceed with the prosecution. that will, if that's the case, i believe it's an improper application of the law and since this committee is involved in overseeing that our laws once passed by congress are indeed enforced, it would serve us all i think if we review that, the application of the law, if that indeed is the approach of the

office down there. >> congressman lynch, if i may, one thing that's been brought to my attention is that the united states attorney's office has brought cases involving large numbers of guns to our purchasers, individuals alleged to have trafficked guns without a license, and those prosecutions have sometimes resulted in hung juries or directed verdicts of acquittal because of their high standard of proof, especially in the ninth circuit. so there may be something for congress to look at in its legislative arena as well. >> okay. with that, i will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i want to submit our letter for the record requesting the minority day of hearings. it's dated june 15th, today. >> thank you. i'm in receipt of your request. >> i'm asking that it be admitted into the record, mr. chairman. signed by members of -- >> certainly. without objection, so ordered.

>> thank you very much. i want to say this to you, mr. weich. i'm sitting here listening to all this and i want you to take a message back. some kind of way, we've got to establish the majority has some concerns and i think many of them probably quite legitimate, and there has to be a balance here. i'm always concerned about people possibly dying as a result of something we might do in this committee. i'm concerned about murderers getting off. i spent a phenomenal amount of time trying to protect witnesses. i submitted legislation that has been held up in the senate side by the other side trying to protect witnesses. i believe in ultimate

cooperation between law enforcement and public. i have a record of it for years. you know why? because i go to the funerals. i see the deaths. i hear the cries and i experience the pain. in some kind of way, we've got to make sure that we strike the balance that i was just talking about and i'm not sure, i'm just not sure whether that balance has been struck the way it ought to be. this committee has a job to do. the justice department has a job to do. in some kind of way, we've got to find a way as the adults in all of this to make that happen. and make it work. i'm very serious about that. you got to, you know, life is short. i tell my staff that every day i look in the mirror and i face my own mortality, and the question is, how can i be most effective and efficient. when we go do this ring around

the rosy stuff, what happens is that none of us are effective. you heard me make a commitment to that lady, miss terry. i shall not rest until everybody involved in this process and i mean that, i shall not rest, until all of that is addressed. now, the chairman said something that was very interesting. he a moment ago spoke about all this transparency and we need to read the whole document. i appreciate that. but the one thing he did not say about this memo on january 5th, he didn't read this piece. you remember mr. chaffetz mentioned this memo. they read a piece of the memo but didn't read all of it. let me just read this line so that the record will be clear. it says investigative, talking about this january -- on january 5th, 2010, it says investigative and prosecution, i quote, investigative and prosecution

strategies were discussed and a determination was made that there was minimal evidence at this time to support any type of prosecution. i just wanted to finish that. because i think it's important, particularly in light of the chairman saying that we needed to have the whole statement. with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentle lady from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. weich, for being here today. i have a couple questions. you keep alluding to the inquiry and the investigation that i.g. is going to conduct at the request of -- >> that office is currently conducting that investigation. >> okay. are you concerned that their investigation is going to conflict or interfere with doj's investigation? >> you mean the criminal investigation? >> yes. >> the inspector general has a good deal of experience in avoiding those kinds of conflicts and of course, their work is strictly confidential.

any report that they would issue publicly would be carefully vetted to avoid those kinds of concerns. >> so you're not concerned that will interfere with the doj's investigation, to be clear? >> we are not concerned. >> why are you concerned that our investigation, there is an ongoing investigation so we feel we are not getting the answers we need, because you are concerned about compromising this other investigation. i would like you to differentiate for this committee. >> first of all, we're not saying this committee should not investigate. to the contrary. we recognize the legitimate oversight interests and we are cooperating with the committee as it pursues this. we're not in any way saying don't do this. >> but if i could interrupt for a minute, there's a de facto, if you don't provide what's being asked, or you provide what we see here, all those redacted sheets, whether or not you agree we have legitimate oversight, the fact that you're not complying with our requests is a de facto well, you're not going to comply.

>> we have provided almost 2,000 documents in different forms. the redacted documents that the chairman showed, it's a little bit of a red herring, i say with respect, because those were multi-subject documents, i'm informed, and where the subject wasn't subject, that portion of the memo wasn't responsive to the subpoena, it was blacked out because we're obviously not producing nonresponsive material. we are not redacting heavily the material that the committee is seeking and that is within its core oversight arena. >> with all due respect, i think this committee would disagree with your assessment that we feel like we've been stone-walled and not gotten the information we have requested from doj but i don't want to take up all my time on that line of questioning. you sat here this morning during the second panel with the three special agents. did you hear them say that this was the first time and perhaps the only time they had seen such

an operation as this one exist? >> i did hear them say that. >> is that of any concern to you, that out of nowhere, there's this fast and furious program that results in the death of brian terry? >> it is obviously some of the testimony that was provided today is of great concern to the justice department and that is why we are investigating it through the office of the inspector general and cooperating with this committee's investigation. >> is this the first time you've heard any of that testimony? >> i've been generally aware of it, in my role as head of the office of legislative affairs, i have obviously been aware of this for a number of months. >> when you say you're generally aware, what does that mean? >> i've been involved in producing responses to letters. i've been in discussions about how to comply with the committee's subpoena. so i have been aware. i must say, i was very pleased to be here today to hear personally all of the testimony that was provided. >> and before i get on to my

last question, did you hear the issue they raised regarding retaliation? >> i did. i thank you, congresswoman. i want to assure the committee, i think a number of members raised this, that the department of justice will not, would never retaliate against whistleblowers. >> lastly, my question, and i ask the family of brian terry what, if they had the ability to ask a question, what they would like to know. so i'm going to read the question that we were given to ask you. i would like, to the best of your ability, you to answer this question. i think that we would want to know if the dragnet that is set to find everyone involved in brian's murder will be set deep enough and wide enough to encompass anyone involved in operation fast and furious. >> the answer to that question is unequivocally yes. there is a firm commitment in the department of justice to bring everyone responsible for agent terry's death to justice. >> and the second part of his

question, if the guns used in brian's murder were a part of this operation, then we would want to know will everyone in the operation that had to deal with those specific weapons be brought up on charges of facilitating the murder of brian terry? >> obviously, the whole purpose of the investigations that are ongoing, both in the office of the inspector general and here is to ensure there is accountability for decisions that have been made, and most importantly to improve, to strengthen law enforcement efforts. if there were flawed strategies, if there's insufficient surveillance, weapons, obviously that's something justice department wants to rectify. >> thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> we recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i assume y'all are investigating various crimes that were

associated with these guns, that aside from the tragic murder of agent terry, are there any other american law enforcement officers or citizens who have died as a result of this program? >> congressman, i can't accept the premise of the question, i don't know that any particular murder could be attributed to this program. i think that assumes a lot of facts, and i'm not equipped to deal with that. so i can't answer the question. >> you heard the testimony of the agents saying that there was some sort of strategy that we would allow guns to move up chain of command with the rather nebulous goal of snaring a drug cartel. are you aware, is this the strategy, and if so, can you tell me in any rational basis

how the means we used justified the ends when we quit following the guns when they changed hands the first time. there was no cooperation with the mexican authorities, and it just seems like once they did the first talk, they went away. >> one thing i heard loud and clear from the agents' testimony today was that the people with whom they disagreed on the strategic questions told them and believed they were engaged in a strategy to topple a significant transnational gun trafficking operation. if the strategy was flawed, then individuals should be held to account and the strategies should be improved, but i did hear that everybody had the goal of stopping illegal drug trafficking to mexico. >> to me it seems like the next step is you follow the guns all the way. the actions that appear to have been taken don't seem to make

any relationship to the strategy at all. but i have a couple of other questions, so we're going to leave that. you have been reluctant to provide information and answer questions, citing on-going criminal investigations, and not wanting criminals to go free or jeopardize these investigations, but my understanding, i'm a lawyer. my understanding of our justice system is that the defendant is entitled to all exculpatory evidence. so if we've got something that will help the defense, we are obliged to hand it over. seems like y'all ought to turn it over to us to finish the investigation and meet the legal obligation to any defendants for full disclosure. >> we are going to meet constitutional obligation to the defendants. i would note when the committee interviews potential trial witnesses, you're creating material that wouldn't otherwise exist, that may be used to

impeach witnesses at trial. >> we're after the truth, and regardless whether it comes out in front of this committee or comes out in front of a trial, shouldn't matter. let me go on. you also say there's some concerns with releasing information to us that would jeopardize other investigations and other strategies and programs, is that correct? >> yes. >> would you be willing to provide a briefing to all or some of this committee in a classified basis about those? i think you sense a lot of anger, i would say anger from the committee that our government is engaged in what we perceive to be a reckless operation. even if in a classified manner you could assure us you aren't so far off the reservation there's a problem, i think it would go a long way to stemming some of the for lack of a better word adversarial conversations going on here. >> i hear you, congressman.

first of all, we would be pleased to brief the committee, we have briefed the committee and will continue to do so. it should not be adversarial. i want to emphasize this. we share the committee's concern about the matters you heard about this morning. we are not adversarial to you in this. we are trying to get to the bottom of this ourselves. >> i yield my remaining 30 seconds to the chair. >> thank you. you made a statement in that letter that you signed on the 4th that said atf makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to mexico. who prepared that line in your letter? >> chairman issa. >> you signed it, who prepared it. was it you? >> these letters are the product of the justice department. >> so your signature on that letter doesn't mean you know it to be true, is that correct? >> i take ultimate responsibility. >> isn't that statement false now with what you know?

>> obviously there have been allegations that call into serious question that particular sentence. >> were there documents that have been provided and made public that let you know that statement was false? >> and that's why you're investigating and that's why we're investigating. >> just take your agreement that those documents indicate that statement that you signed that someone prepared for your signature were false? >> congressman, i am not prepared to say that at this time. everything that we say is true to the best of our knowledge at the time we say it. as more facts come out, obviously our understanding of the situation is enhanced. >> just for the record, we will be posting online the 20 some pages that were made available since out of the 20 some pages, the only thing that's not redacted other than internal use only statements is kevin simpson, acting division operations officer, u.s. department of justice, atf, 201, east washington street, suite 940, phoenix, arizona, and the zip. the phone numbers are redacted.

that's 100% of what you call discovery. would the ranking member like a second round? >> i just have one question. >> this is following up on what you just were talking about. let me ask you this, mr. weich. i want to go back to being effective and efficient. again, we -- i am tired of when we are put in a position where we're wasting time. you know, we may be dead next week, so i'm just being very frank with you, i'm tired. i don't want to waste time. life is short. this is the question. if you guys are -- if the department got assurances we would not be disclosing

documents that are extremely sensitive, and agrees to, you know, to try to make sure that -- and we would commit to working out accommodations where we could go through, i mean, you submit the documents, we go through them, making sure that -- sort of together, would you be willing to come up with a schedule whereby we can get what we want, and you can be assured that we're not doing something that interferes with the kinds of things you just talked about? >> we will work with you, congressman. we strongly favor that kind of cooperative accommodation process, it is traditional, and in this instance where we recognize the committee's legitimate oversight needs, we want to re-enter that process and do as much as we can to

provide information. >> would you all be willing to commit to a schedule, document production schedule? see, this is what i'm getting to. we can do this all day. and a new congress will be in, and that's why i'm talking the way i'm talking. we got to get stuff done. and i can't -- we cannot keep our commitment to miss terry by doing this back and forth thing. it is a waste of time. it is a waste of effort. and life is short. >> i hear you, congressman. >> so i'm trying to get you to to help us. and hopefully help yourself at the same time. if we can work something out, can we move past this? >> yes. >> because obviously the majority feel like we're not moving fast enough, and i can understand that, but you're not moving fast enough. i know you have all kinds of --

you said like 700,000 pages or something like that. >> more than that. >> what would you suggest? let me put it another way. what kind of arrangements would you suggest so that we don't keep running into this wall? >> i don't think we have hit a wall. i don't think we are at an impass. i think we are now on track, it may have been a bumpy start, but we have produced documents in each of the last three working days. we made a witness available for interview and we have a list of others who are ready to facilitate interviews. we are doing what i think you're asking, congressman, this is trying to accommodate the committee's needs, consistent with our confidentiality interests. >> would you after this try to sit down with us and try to see if we can't -- it is up to chairman, he is the chairman of the committee, but see if we can work out something where we can get our documents and set up a schedule to get these documents?

the last three days was wonderful, but we need to see if we can move the process along. >> i would be pleased to do that, i would welcome that. one thing i would say, we devoted attorneys, resources for this, we hired a contractor to put them in a form they can be efficiently reviewed. we are rolling here. >> one of the problems here is something i talk about a lot, it is -- and i recommend this book to you called the speed of trust by cubby, and he talks about when people don't trust each other, it slows down everything. when they trust each other, it speeds it up. and i think maybe we need to -- i know you all are worried about documents being released, seems like we're worried about not getting all the documents timely. somehow we have to break through that so we can do the work of the american people. with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman.

and i will close more patiently than i opened. would you agree to voluntarily provide a list of doj and or other personnel that prepared or participated in the preparing of the february 4th letter that we had so much discussion about? >> congressman, i'm not prepared to make that commitment at this time. these letters are the product of substantial deliberation within the executive branch. as i said. >> would you agree to make available a list of personnel who worked on and may have in some way been responsible specifically for the misstatement in the letter that says atf makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent the transportation in mexico. >> i'm not prepared to make that commitment at this time. what i am prepared to commit to is an on-going effort to help the committee get to the underlying questions here about atf's law enforcement activities. >> now, just for the record,

your job, the reason you're paid and basically have the title you have is to answer congress's questions. >> that's a big part of my job. >> roughly five months ago, senator grassley was told by your office in writing he wasn't going to get answers because he wasn't a chairman. you're aware of that, right? >> i am. and that's not an accurate statement. if i may respectfully -- >> more specifically, that chairman leahy would have to request them. >> we answered senator grassley's letters, we have great respect for senator grassley, worked on many products over the years quite productively. it is the long time position of the executive branch through administration of both parties that they speak through committees as to oversight, so you are exercising the power of the house, no senate chairman has made a parallel request. >> i am well aware for two years in this administration there were no republicans able to make the requests and have them granted, and the requests generally were not made at all.

that is, in fact, the position of the majority here, that it wasn't valid oversight for those two years. it is my personal position and i'll go on the record today since people were kind enough to read things from the past that we need to have legitimate minority rights and that at some future time in congress and each time the rules are produced, i'm going to try to have a party of the opposite party of the president, even if they're a minority, have rights, because i think it's wrong that in fact the majority ultimately often finds itself asked and encouraged to protect the administration. i was here for the bush administration. i was more junior, but i certainly saw people in your position constantly cajoling us to protect the president. i don't approve of it. i now appreciate just how wrong that was. having said that, i will on behalf of the committee suggest something that you may take back to doj. if you're willing to do in

camera review, 100%, unredacted, i repeat, 100% unredacted, please don't say it is unacceptable because it is obviously above your pay grade, you prepare, we come over, we being the staff. they look at the unredacted material. to the extent we can't agree on mutual redactions and the materials are sent over. to the extent we disagree, then we can talk in terms of documents that have been seen, but are not available, are not releasable, do not fall within your concerns, because i share your concerns that our rules are such that once something comes over here with the exception of the select intelligence committee, it becomes more problematic as far as review or release. i want to get around that. i want to work with justice on

it. i cannot from this side accept responsibility for documents leaked by third parties who get them, and i cannot enter into a negotiation where you tell us you're going to redact what we got around you, while you don't let us see unredacted versions in camera. there's never been a time in which i was more animated than when my staff came back from that break through meeting to find out that they had mostly black pages as your response in camera. so please take back on behalf of this member and i hope the minority that we should be trusted to send over career professional staff to look at unredacted documents, understanding we're not taking them with us, until or unless there is an agreement how they would be appropriately redacted. that is the extension i am putting on the record. until that occurs, we will continue to expect discovery, and we will continue to object to getting virtually all black pages. with that, i think the ranking member has a question. >> yield for a second.

>> of course. >> i'm assuming the message you send to higher-ups would include both sides, staff from both sides. >> that's exactly the intention. it is a simultaneous. our policies, and for those that may want to be aware of it, our policies are that in fact anything that is received is a document production is received to both sides, as you know, mr. weich, normally we ask you to send copies to both sides simultaneously. in the case of in camera, we would expect staff would be detailed from both sides to go over and review it. but we will only come back for in camera review if in fact, and we will send cleared personnel preagreed to from both sides if that becomes an issue, but we have to look at the source material if in camera review will be appropriate. no judge will look at redacted material as in camera, certainly you wouldn't expect us to see part of a document that does us

very little good, then say yes, we had production. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate your recognition, but i can't sort of negotiate this kind of thing at the witness table, but i can assure you, we will work with you on these process concerns. that's the mode that we're in, trying to help the committee address its oversight needs. >> we look forward to that. this has been difficult. i will go again last on the record that we believe there has been some break through in the last week or so. we are thankful for the breakthrough, it has been awhile in coming, hopefully the last time we will have the log jam with that. with that, this hearing stands adjourned.