stupid thing, but short of that, the case by case breakdown of what would have to be different if this would be done because this is the committee on oversight and reform. the minority suggested that we have a bunch more gun laws and maybe that will have been someday, but i am looking for answers we can do to get effective work that you need to do, effective prosecution and defense legislation we are happy to look at it and put it into the mix by looking at that kind of reform that doesn't just assume a stronger gun law collectively enforced by the u.s. attorney's to lose interest in these cases is necessary the and the only answer. with that, we stand in recess until ab

>> okay. we are now recognizing the chairman for his >> okay, the hearing comes back to order, we now recognize the chairman emeritus for a question. first of all, i want to start by saying the atf, the fbi, the cia, all of our intelligence agencies -- we have high regard for all of you and some of your colleagues say we're beating you over the ahead. we're not. we're investigating the issue and we're investigating some of the things you've been do. some of your colleagues have been killed, and injured we know you lay your lives on the line for us and so you have our respect and admiration for what you do. now, let me just say to mr. mcmahon and mr. newell, you

know that you're under oath. >> absolutely, sir. >> okay. both of you know. what i want to know is, do you know who was involved in the decision-making process to start this whole program? >> again, i think this was not a program but a criminal investigation. >> well, a criminal investigation. do you know who started this criminal investigation. >> the agents on the street are the ones -- >> someone said, this is what we're going to do. who started it? where did you get the instructions to do this? >> we don't give our agents instructions to do things. they go out and produce cases on their own. >> so what you're telling me now is that this investigation that we're talking about -- what's the name of it again? fast and fewer just it came from

an agent in the field. you didn't gate letter of instruction or anything like that? >> absolutely not. >> what about -- you say all together memo. there was a memo from a deputy attorney general about this. what was isn't that >> i believe bill newell a memo the deputy put out -- >> who was -- who was the deputy attorney general? >> i believe that one came from general ogden. >> general ogden. when did it have to do with. >> it didn't have to do with the fast and the furious. >> did it have anything to do with the weapons? >> absolutely. >> it did have something to do with what we're talking about? >> yes, it did. >> okay. and his name was what? >> i believe it's david ogden. >> okay. now, you also said earlier in testimony that there were a number of other agencies that were involved in this whole investigation process. you mentioned irs, customs, dea,

fbi and so forth. do you remember isn't that what were the names of the people involved in it. >> i think bill newel -- >> what i want is the names of the people that were involved in the investigation from each agency. >> i don't know the agency -- >> well, somebody does. do you know, mr. newell? >> i know a couple of the names, yes, sir. >> okay. we want those names and the reason we want those names is i'm going to ask the chairman to talk to them about continuing this investigation to find out how involved everybody was and why it went on as long as it did when we knew in 2009 that this thing was going on and if there were irs agents, fbi agents, dea agents, customs or others, we want to know who was involved so we can question them as well. so i want their names. do you have any of their names right now? >> no, sir. i don't. >> and you don't remember any of their names. >> i remember one of his name.

>> what was his name. >> a young man by the name of lane france. >> lane french? >> france. >> okay. you got that. how about the other agencies? do you remember any of the names? there were other people involved? >> yes, sir, but i don't know their names. >> did you find their names is in our >> yes, sir. >> okay. can you get those names for us? >> absolutely, sir. >> will you get those names for us? >> absolutely. >> and every single one of those names from those various agencies that were involved in the whole thing, we'd like to have their names and their titles and the agencies they worked for. >> okay, yes, sir. >> and you will get those for us? >> i will do my best, yes, sir. >> no, no. i don't want you to do your best. i want the names. can you get us the names. >> yes, sir, i will. >> and you do know who they are and you know how to get their names. >> i will find out who they are and i will get their names. >> would you also include the dates that they were read into

this program with sufficient specificity that they would understand the details of how the gun following -- that you say is not gun-walking occurred? we don't want to have names on lists we want to have names of people who were read into the program. >> and the date that they were involved. >> yes, sir. and if i can clarify points, sir. >> before you go clarifying, i want to make sure i get all of this as -- mr. chairman, i want to make absolutely sure we have their names, dates, times, places that they were involved in this investigation so that we can trace it all the way back to its origin and see where we went, see who was involved and all these 2,000 weapons got down in there in mexico and whether or not somebody up, higher up in the justice department or the food chain might have been involved. and the only way we can get that information is from you two or the other people who were involved in the investigation

from these other agencies. so i just want to say one time, this is very important that you understand that you're telling us right now that you'll get us this information. you can get us the names, times, dates and places that we need and you'll do that? >> yes, sir. yes, sir. >> very good. i just want to make under that you're under oath. r. kucinich. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. newell, june 15th, 2011, 3 agents under durkan and testified before this committee and the outlined very serious allegations that prompted this investigation. the line agents told us that as part of operation fast and furious one, they were instructed to cut surveillance of suspected straw purchasers. to, they were ordered to forgo the arrests of straw purchasers, and number three, they were

prohibited from seizing or interdicting weapons from the straw purchasers on several occasions when they believed they have the lawful authority to do so. mr. newell come these are serious allegations. but in your transcribed interview with the committee, you said you never heard these complaints before they became public in february this year. is that right? here's what you said. to the best of my recollection i don't remember any time ever being advised there were discords among the agents. i became aware of that when the documents were released that i saw and what was probably early february something like that of this year. is that information what you expected or received earlier? >> i would have hoped to have received that, yes. >> as we are responsible for bringing these agents concerned to your attention? >> the fall of the chain of command i would hope that

information had gotten to me, yes. >> who specifically would have been responsible? there are people in your chain of command -- >> if they had voiced those concerns to their supervisor, i would hope -- and they did not get response the felt that reprieve from the supervisor then obviously they have the right to go over his or her head and go to the second line and then so on from there. >> obviously the committee has names of people in those line of command so special agent mcmahon, in your interview you said the same thing, you didn't hear about the allegations until they were reported in the press, is that right? >> that's correct. islamic is the information you would have expected to receive sooner? did you feel we should have received it sooner? >> i would hope if the concerns expressed this fleet on were out early on i would hope there was such urgency it should of been brought to our attention

earlier. >> the line agents testified they made their concerns knowing ticker supervisor that they would vote. yet, he too, told the committee that he knew nothing about the allegations. he said, quote, i don't recall people coming to me with those concerns, and of quote. mr. mcmahon, as the line agent supervisor, should he know about the allegations? >> i'm assuming if they were expressed they should have known about them, yes. >> if the committee has apparently identified a conflict in the testimony it is the line agents who are having difficulty being able to communicate the truth or their supervisors having that difficulty. what steps, mr. mcmahon committed the atf's management take to make sure the headquarters were aware of the concerns the direct supervisors are not responsive to and can they do that without an effect bringing upon themselves some sanctions for going over the

head of the line supervisor? >> i believe they can. the process we have said that in the headquarters allowed. we have an ombudsman program, we have obviously the chain of command anywhere in there. i think the director every time he's actually been out to visit offices he's told people about his open door line of communications. he receives e-mails from the line agents. i try to do the same thing. my visits to the field divisions that i oversee make yourself as open as possible to everyone within the bureau. >> i thank the gentleman and just want to say we appreciate it very difficult and challenging work that every one of the agents has to carry out, so i'm sure that you can understand the questions that have been raised about the conduct of this particular observation that things don't fit and when they fit it makes it difficult for those in the congress to be liable to defend

the kind of support that they want to maintain for the bureau so i want to thank you for being here and i yield back >> i thank the gentleman from ohio at this point in time i will give myself five minutes for further questioning. when we last left your talking about law enforcement partners providing you information in december of 09 that had given you concern about guns that had actually showed up in mexico; is that correct? >> they didn't provide it to me. they provided it to the agency and was routed to me putative >> when using other law enforcement partners is this outside of the atf? can you identify with other

partners at this point in time in december of 09 were part of this investigation? >> they were not part to my knowledge, but they were running parallel. >> i don't want to get into their investigation even though they wrapped up the investigation. i want to say february or so is 2010. >> they became a part of the case isn't that right? in the dea? >> there were several investigations that mr. levin is talking about is the information on the seizure came from the dea to us and then it was routed. speaking to you. islamic up that point in time while you were in the field doing this, were you aware of any other agency that had information pertinent to this that you believed was not being shared with you?

>> the only other agency that we worked with and we actually used them to a certain extent to conduct interviews with us or on our behalf. >> for clarification that investigation was not originating out of mexico. that was a u.s. investigation. the dea was doing out of the phoenix area. >> thank you. a special agent, i want to go back again our special agent mcmahon, you just responded partially to the question and unfortunately you were not allowed to give the full answer but i was intrigued by what you were beginning to say, when again, there was a once more question about the genesis of the case and you began to talk about the agents in the field the agents were the ones that began to make the cases. can you explain what you mean by that? >> the way that it works as our agents are the one that conduct the investigation and generate the investigations and should get approval from the first line

of the supervisor of which investigations to open or not. >> what were the investigating? straub purchasing and general? >> when you have a division group, the division usually breaks down the group's into specific types of cases. you might have an explosives group or firearms trafficking group. if you were out in the field we only have one group -- >> the agents working on this case -- >> they were assigned to a gun runner group assigned to -- >> at what point did they take it up higher to the chain as part of this, do they include the assistance in the united states attorney was their insistence appointed to that group? >> i'm not sure if it was appointed to that group but we try to get into the case as early as possible. >> do you recollect it that he was assigned to this case? from the very beginning. did that attorney to your

knowledge communicate with the united states attorney about this case? >> to my knowledge i don't know. >> but the case began somewhere in november of 09 and we have testimony that by december 09 there was already concern about scores of weapons being recovered in mexico. what was the response of the united states attorney to that of the legion? >> as outlined in the january briefing they felt there wasn't enough evidence at that time to secure the urgency or the prosecution to continue monitoring. >> the continue monitoring but were they aware and did they believe the guns ultimately thousands continue to be trafficked with the approval of the assistant united states attorney? >> i'm not sure exactly what they were aware of but i know they were informed -- >> any point in time did you get a visit from anybody and who was

the highest person that visited you from the department of justice with respect to this matter? >> to a certain extent, it would have been dead doj contingent during the summer or spring and i believe there was kevin carlisle. lenni brewer visited -- >> the head of the criminal division is that not right? >> when did he visit you in mexico with respect to this case? >> i would have to check -- >> what is your recollection? the summer would be after we already know the thousands of gun has been trafficked. >> yes. >> was that communicated to him? >> by mechem and no. islamic by anybody to your knowledge? >> no, sir. >> my time is past.

>> at this point in time the chair would recognize the gentlelady, mrs. maloney. >> i think you for recognizing me, and i am deeply concerned that while i was on the floor voting that the chairman, for whom i have tremendous respect, made derogatory remarks about mrs. norton and myself, and as i hear i would like to quote what was said, they are radically against the second amendment. they absolutely positively do not want anyone having a gun. they are pretty straightforward about it. they say these respect the second amendment but they've never seen a gun limitation the amount like. i would like to say that i support the second amendment. and i support legal guns or spokesman for hunters, for

self-defense. just recently one of our colleagues, leonard boswell, was literally someone broke into his home and he saw that his life was in danger, his grandson took a legal registered gun and got the intruder out of the home. i respect the right to go and legal guns for self-defense. for other reasons, but i do not support illegal guns that are fueling the drug war and putting life at risk. in testimony before this committee, the -- is told that 40,000 people have died in the last five years on the border of mexico. and it's -- we've put forth a simple statute that would prohibit gun trafficking in illegal guns to people who want to use them for each illegal purposes. i think that is respecting law

enforcement, helping small enforcement, and protecting the lives on the both sides of the border. and i must also say that the agents who testified and were called by the majority to testify, they indicated that this would help them do their job and help them protect innocent people in mexico and in the united states of america. and i just really wanted to clarify that since i feel that mrs. norton and myself were attacked unfairly, and i do not think that a legitimate debate or ideas or legislation should be attacked in this unfair way. so i just would like to clarify that. would the gentlelady yield?

i stand corrected if you are in the second amendment, and i will not consider the same with ms. norton who said my entire side of the ogle was owned by the nra and some of hers or somebody in the district of columbia continues to support basically this being a gun-free zone in violation of the second amendment, but i teach you at your word and by sorry that i exaggerated to include you. >> i want to thank the chairman for his apology. i can attest to the fact, mr. chairman, that when the gentlelady and i introduced our recent bill, she basically said what she just said, that she had no problem, and i think that there is a lot of confusion with guns and those of us who have seen over and over again the result of gun violence, those of us who go to the funerals and listened to the agents' who big

to make sure that we help them because they are fighting weapons of war, and that is what we are concerned about. the agent came and said some of them said it today. so i yield backend i want to thank the chair. >> i want to add i think that we both agree on both sides of the aisle that mistakes were made in the handling of the operation fast and furious and we are legitimately trying to get answers and look at this. but the larger issue that i feel is in danger of possibly being overlooked is the flow of illegal weapons. we are not talking about regular guns. in the testimony from the agents, they call them military-style weapons. they were ak-47s, very special devotee rifles. so these are not normal guns, these are military guns, and this is a even larger issue the

fast and furious is to stop the flow of illegal guns and i believe on both sides of the ogle we can agree that illegal guns going into america or mexico is something we need to address and stop as quickly as possible. >> we now go to the gentleman from texas for his round. >> thank you very much i want to bring this back to where we were going with the investigating operation fast and furious as opposed to discussing the merits of any proposed new gun regulations oregon loss. let me ask some of the gentleman from atf, if you remember the lessons we learned from 9/11, we found we probably would have had a better chance to stop the attacks on the world trade center had the various organizations within the government had been communicating with each other

better. we spent millions of dollars on the fusion centers for information sharing among agencies and then on troubled i am troubled to find you are running an investigation covering some of the same suspects basically parallel investigations of the drug enforcement administration and there was an unwillingness or a failure to coordinate among other agencies. would that be a fair assessment of what happened? there are multiple investigations and the dea didn't know what you were up to and vice versa. >> as far as i'm concerned that is the complete opposite of that. when we received the funding to get a gun runner groups up and running one of the first things we did is assigned and the strike force groups so they could work hand-in-hand with the theater agencies coming and i think this case is an example of how that was one of the positive things. the dea had some information that they shared with us that

helped us and our investigation and helped foster it even more so. >> why weren't we coordinating of the different investigations? at the very least that seems wasteful of the taxpayers' money. >> i don't think from what i've seen there were different investigations, the parallel investigation the dea is going to focus on the narcotics and we focus on the firearms. >> i have a couple other questions going off on things that struck me as odd. mr. mcmahon, during the tendency of operation just and furious did you ever get the chance to go down to mexico and visit with any folks in mexico? did you speak to mr. canino? >> i did. >> did he raise concerns about the guns tracing back to phoenix? >> not that i recall, nope. >> mr. canino, did you discuss that? do you recall? >> it wasn't anything specific.

it was and passing. like i said earlier, when mr. mcmahon has been supportive of our office in mexico and me personally, but like i said earlier, when this case was going on, and when he asked me what you think is going on, like i said earlier, i thought the u.s. attorney's office in phoenix is reluctant to let our guys make any arrests. our guys have stumbled onto a gun range and due diligence and that is why so many guns have turned up in the database so quickly and number three, i thought that our guys would just losing them on surveillance, not able to get to the gun store in

time. that's what i thought at that time. i didn't know that we had, operators and a couple of the stores. so our concern, and i just said how come there's so many guns turning out so quickly. >> you didn't share with me what was going on. >> we have a gun trafficking case in phoenix and they are doing a good job. >> did he ever raised concern over the number of weapons being recovered in the crime scenes in mexico? >> i think it's important to realize they are being covered for quite a while and we are all concerned about that. coming from phoenix, coming from texas, that's what we did. that was our main focus in mexico and along the southwest border. it's for the past four years it is where all of our resources have gone.

this -- guns being recovered in mexico from the u.s. is something that atf has been putting everything that we have into for the past quite a few years as long as i have been in the headquarters. >> i see that once again i'm running out of time and i see that we are getting late so i will yield back. >> thank the gentleman. >> no more questions. >> azzaoui wind this hearing down, just sitting here thinking that you know, this agency is very important, and we've heard now from two sets of agents and all of whom and dedicated to their jobs, and i think one of mine greatest concerns as we go forward special agent newell and

mcmahon since you are in supervisory positions, i just hope it does not hurt the morale of the organization. when i look at the emotions of special agent canino and others, i mean, some kind of way we've got to make sure that we get back on track. i just think it's so important because the job you do, there's 1800 a few of? that many. and small agencies. we can't afford to have the provision in this agency, would you agree, special agent? >> i totally agree, sir, that's the highest priority right now to get people back contract. mahlon all of us can have your show the passion that carlos pass, but i guarantee we all have that. we might keep it inside more

than carlos, but this is a passionate thing for all of us. when we talk about the second amendment, and i believe that we are the defenders of the second amendment, and we have to follow that very fine line of what is part of the legal commerce and the legal commerce and that is a part of the challenge that we fully accept and that's something that we drill in to us early in the academy something we fully accept and we do every day. as i sit in my statement i am very proud of the people out there now and to have been in the past and the work they are doing. >> i want to go back to july 12, 2011 to the attorney general. the chairman eyesight and senator grassley wrote these words and they said there has been public speculation that gun control may have been a motivating factor behind proving of risky strategy used in the operation and fast and furious and in other words, by allowing the straw purchasers to continue

to operate. and by encouraging the gun dealers to go through with what were obviously suspicious sales the atf should be able to justify the additional regulatory authority. the letter notes that the committee has seen no evidence to support the speculation that goes on to ask the department of justice to respond anyway. mr. newell comedy were the special agent in charge of who oversaw this operation and to do work to do the last year what was your reaction to the speculation when you were engaged in the operation just and furious i asked you for the record were you deliberately attempting and do you know others that were delivering or attempting to send guns to mexico to justify additional firearms regulations? >> in response to your question

i don't recall saying that. estimate i didn't say that you did. i'm just saying do you believe that based on everything you know? a, i don't. >> absolutely not, sir. >> did you see any evidence that acted out of anything but a sincere desire to combat a major trafficking network in this case? >> not at all, sir. >> the was begole and a very dedicated agents on the field doing that every day. in this case and many other cases. >> while it is fair to question the judgment in the case, and i certainly question it and again, we are trying to get to the bottom of all of this is asking the conspiracy to harm others of those beyond, and i just -- i just want to make sure that the

american people are that we have an atf which is operating in the doing what it is supposed to do. obviously some mistakes have been made. very unfortunate mistakes, and i think the one thing we have to do is learn from those mistakes and let them happen again because they can have very, very tragic consequences. and so, of with that, mr. chairman, i yield that. >> i will try to be brief on a couple last questions. first of all i'm asked to include some additional documents that were shared and reducted with justice so that we can keep them in the record and potentially ask questions afterwards. but all of you be willing to answer additional questions based on what is in the record afterwards if we have follow-ups. >> yes, sir. >> in january 2010 he produced a

memo that line 13 says 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 the identification of additional co-conspirators who would continue to operate illegally, trafficking firearms to mexico. >> if i will read that correctly in addition to leader where it says the dea has specifically requested that the level continue the investigation. if i read this memo of yours correctly at least by january january 10th or january, 2010, and you knew that these weapons were going to specifically weapons that you are allowing to be sold were going to the drug cartels and mexico and then you lobbied for in this memo is a

continuation partially because of the request is their anything in planning which i don't understand here? >> i think that sentence about the part of the sentence would is who would continue is based on the fact that we believe that if we did take the necessary steps to disrupt the holding, this group would continue to have large firearms. >> we are not disagreeing that these are determined incredibly rich billions of dollars of drug money groups that have the power to corrupt the mexican government at times, but u.s. officials to buy a anything they want anywhere in the world in vast quantities. we are not -- certainly i don't think that anyone on the day as fails to understand that we have a marco state almost being formed in mexico the way that we have in colombia and a day and we are fighting to push back on

a terrible tragedy that has occurred in mexico, but the question here is as of january 8th, i find this document to be irrefutable evidence that you knew weapons to continue to sell, albeit at a slower pace, also backed away the evidence is it didn't slow down right away but eventually it did, were in fact going to mexico you knew it. you knew that when you sold particularly some of the individuals whose weapons had already been found, you knew that the straw buyer was buying it, you knew who they were transporting it to, i was paying for it and where it was in the gap. isn't that true as of january, 2010? >> we didn't sell firearms, sir. >> you can close. you told the dealer to go ahead and sell it. you knew who the buyer was and that there was a repeat by year end to the intermediary was and the supplier of money coming and you knew where they were ending

up. isn't that true? >> we believe -- we were working on the organization -- >> no, no, wait a second. we aren't talking about what you had to prove to the jury of 12th. i will go over these agents and they are going to make you look like a fool if you don't answer this honestly. you knew that a was going to be and he was going to the cartel. you knew that outright and so did the dea as of january and that the briefing says, doesn't it? answer me honestly just clearly and simply. >> with all due respect when it comes to the dea portion of that it was the fact that dea had an ongoing investigation from which we gathered the information was led to the initiation of the case so that sentence discusses the fact that they said what ever you don't do anything to compromise the case which we did respect. and in response to the of their question is absolutely. the group that we are working with, we knew that that was

their intention of funneled tons -- >> with a second come intention to read it was in detention. it was a pass that occurred for a year isn't that true? you had watched the repeated straw buyers make purchases, deliver them, and those weapons have shown consistently in the hands of specific cartels. and as you know, you knew who was paying for them, isn't that true? >> when the memo was written in january, we were probably i would say two months in the investigation at that point. >> three months earlier, i apologize. the previous year. >> so three months into the program about a thousand weapons or less. you knew the weapons you're telling the gun dealers to go ahead and sell to the same straw buyers again and again, you already have 20. the number is here so i'm kind of going well, you've invited 20.

19 of whom were the straw strong buyer coming and you knew the repeat kept coming after you knew starting points bad man or moneyman and endpoint, isn't that true? >> what we believe and suspected is shorter of what we could prove. >> finally you've given me the answer i wanted. you knew everything you needed to know to understand everything that led to the charges. you didn't have enough to make the case said he went on month after month for the weapons to make the case we didn't know them. we had a large group of straw purchasers and would continue to build the case throughout but with the u.s. attorney's office needed the evidence to prove -- >> they wanted this

investigation to go on past january, 2010. >> who? >> mr. brewer, was debriefed by 2010? >> i don't know if he was. estimate but his office approved the wiretap under his authority. you said you didn't read the wiretap, i guess neither one of you read the requirements. but, somebody had to be brief to cite this on his behalf. did either of you ever briefed him or anyone else that could sign on his behalf? >> i did not, no, sir. >> so, i guess we are just going to figure you knew on january 8th you had the same people buying weapons repeatedly leading to the same cartel and you didn't quit because you haven't made your case, so we continued selling until we have a dead federal agent and a scandal. that's pretty much what i've heard here today. many of the agents that work in the field if he would see something different than this kept going after -- everything

was known except if you keep doing it long enough we will get better cases for the u.s. attorney and then it began falling apart after brian terrie was murdered. has anyone in the first seen anything different? correct me if i have missed something. >> i'm still sitting here listening to the conversation and it's still unbelievable to me and to be honest with you i still don't know what to believe why this investigation was initiated and why it continued for so long. i just don't know. >> words escapes me to try to do any better than you don't know why and i don't know why either. the gentle lady from new york for an additional round. >> thank you. i would like to follow-up on the line of questioning of the congressman when he was talking about the lack of communication, which after 9/11 we had many commissions and studies and what

came out of the commission was our intelligence wasn't working and we were not communicating and we've been overhauled the government to the most major overhaul of the intelligence since 1948. and it seems to be a little bit of the same thing of what i'm hearing about these hearings because people are saying they didn't know anything. and saying they told people and it's not getting through. so the communication isn't taking place. when you mentioned 9/11, the mayor of new york, and we are about to come upon thee in the lead to attend the anniversary of that day, has been airing tv ads and new york where they use the words of an al qaeda leader who is talking to his followers saying go to america. it's so easy to go get a gun. get all the guns you need.

and a hour fight for the al qaeda. so this is an ad about how illegal people who want to hurt americans are being instructed literally to come to america and get guns in order to combat democracy, and so i think this hearing is very, very serious about it was a part of the legal guns. earlier we had a hearing and we had several agencies, very brave, very frustrated and very. and they testified that they were concerned about the cellar of the guns to destroy all agents. they were concerned about not having their breasts about being ordered not to make arrests and not to conduct surveillance. and i understand that you were asked, mr. newell and mr. mcmahon, and you didn't hear any of their frustrations. they testified that they

reported this to their supervisors and nothing happened data that is why they were so frustrated. so i think we've got to figure out what happens when someone reports something they feel is illegal, wrong, dangerous or harmful to life. and i'm not just talking about what happened in fast and furious. i'm talking about going forward. agents on the ground who think someone should be arrested and they are being told not to make an arrest or when they're being told not to make a surveillance and the supervisor says don't do it and they say we should do it and they are complaining to someone else, that information has got to go up the line in order to have the proper law enforcement and proper protection for our citizens. so i ask anyone on the panel to comment, but i think this is a very serious, very serious blockade or serious problem if people who feel something wrong

and harmful to the safety of americans or to mexicans is taking place, then someone should be listening. and it is a chain of command is not listening, then maybe there should be an alternative chain of command put in place or something because this type of concern has got to get to the proper authority in order to make proper decisions to make arrests, continue the surveillance and do the proper things to stop the illegal like to be. so i just would ask any of you to comment on what we have been hearing people say they ask for help, and other people say they've never heard anything. so what's going on? is there some, you know, black hole to fall into? why didn't the complaints or concerns of the on the line defenders of justice, why didn't their concerns about what they

thought would be illegal and dangerous get to the proper authority? .. >> my access to people in the field, sitting down what can you tell me? what's going on. i'm actually going to do be going into a new position soon and it's going to be talking overseeing the review of our office and the effectiveness and -- >> what happened now are you trying to find out why the agents on the street didn't get to the property authorities. >> i believe the attorney general is conducting the investigation and we look for

the results of that. >> when do you expect that to come back? >> i don't know. >> i thank the gentlelady and i'll recognize recognize for another round. i'm going to go down the road as we often do and pose a simple question for each one of you to answer, special agent nual already answered it. if it were january 9th you knew what special agent knew and special agent mcmahon knew what was happening. you knew about the dea's request but you also knew where those guns were ending up, mr. gil we'll start with you if we start with the phoenix field office on that day, what would you do? >> mr. chairman, that investigation would have been closed. come to a conclusion >> in 30, 60, 90 days? >> no, sir. immediately. these -- that part of an investigation on the trapping

is -- it's not -- you have the trafficker and you have them there. you have the problem caused. you have the intelligence. you have everything you need to make the arrest and as the discussion occurred earlier, the other tools in the toolbox are there, interviews, phone records, interviews of cohorts and so forth, investigation, you know, with these guns, they're not a disposable product. these weapons, you know, they're going to be out there for years, decades. they're a durable good. they're a marketable item and that's why historically, atf, my career, my training officer educated us on us and i trained my young agents on it it's inconceivable that you would let weapons walk. >> agent wall? >> same thing, chairman. letting one gun walk is a huge risk. again, a gun can last 10, 20, 30 years.

a gun in the hands of criminals, it's a virtually -- it's a loaded weapon that's out there. that's uncontrollable. we in atf typically -- i just -- i'm dumbfounded by just the number of weapons and how it got to that point. and really just supporting what mr. gil said. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as, you know, mentioned a couple times you can see i'm kind of passionate what i do. i don't want to give you the impression or the ranking member or the committee the impression that i never made mistakes. i was a street agent for 15 years. very active street agent. anybody who mexico me my reputation. they know i've made mistakes.

you know, i respect, you know, them. i consider them friends. i know it's not easy for them to be here today. but hopefully this won't happen again and hopefully when the committee finally issues their report, our agency will be the better for it and we can move on down the line. i agree. i think the first order of business for our agency right now is to build the morale, close ranks and move forward and support each other. >> thank you. >> yes. i'd like to expand and say i think congressman maloney kind of touched on what the underlying problem is for our agency in these major investigations. she talked about 9/11, the lessons we learned, the lack of share of information, the intel, well, from my perspective in my law enforcement career involved in major case investigations in the district of columbia, i

learned some things with my task forcing with other agencies, fbi, dea and atf and one of the things that i see in atf that we're lacking, we're lacking on the intel-led investigative side of the house. our intel structure within the atf is very limited. our field fix need resources. our headquarters, entities need resources also. now, to put this in perspective, atf now, with the the battle calderon is waging against the drug cartels in mexico we need to meet the challenge. the challenge is they're going off and they're seeing these guns and these seizure events but we have to stop the flow but they can't win if they keep getting replenish. we have to take some of the best practices of some of our other agencies, i.e. under an intel-led investigation -- i'm not just talking about single

investigations. in atf we have silo systems. we have divisions that work out of their division. everything comes out of their division. this has to stop. there has to be headquarters, not oversight and get out of their business but do like other agencies like exchanges the information freely. partners up with outside agencies at all levels not just in the divisions but all the way up into headquarters and to do that we have to build a structure, an intelligence structure to support not only our agents in the field but our partners in mexico and our other federal agencies. >> i'm going to cut you off only because of time eliminationtations and we have a subcommittee coming in. you're singing, i think, on a bipartisan basis on what we need to do and we'll probably have you back as we get in the corrective phase, the reorganization if appropriate. let me just ask one closing

question. jaime avilla patino i'm sure, chambers and stewart, they're all on the street today. they have not been convicted of a crime as straw buyers. if they walked into a gun shop today, just because they've been arrested does that mean they can't buy? would they be able to buy a weapon today. >> they wouldn't be able to buy the weapon 'cause they're under indictment but i'm not sure if the system in phoenix would capture that if they did have time to buy the weapon. >> so today you know that they shouldn't be able to buy, they shouldn't be on the street but 20 straw buyers are on the street and you're not sure if all 20 are, in fact, presently in the system where any federally licensed gun store would stop them immediately; is that correct? >> well, that's not our system, sir. the nic system is run by another agency. >> no, i understand that. right now you don't have full

confidence that that he is people aren't doing straw purchases again? >> no, sir, they were granted bail as everyone is entitled to. >> they're also granted a speedy trial that i understand is delayed at least until february of next year so they continue to be out there. >> that he recollects. the trial was scheduled for june and then it's been postponed until february. >> okay. with that i'm afraid we have to adjourn. thank you all. we're adjourned. >> mr. chairman, a point of personal privilege. >> yes, a point of privilege. >> in this hearing i have come back to state my true position and i wonder if i may be given a few minutes to do it. >> if you want to state your true position bearing in mind that you told us all of us were owned by nra, if i could state my position. i was here for some time, general and i note the note that i didn't hear anyone speak up

then, i can understand -- >> actually the glaad left before -- >> yeah, i was here for 15 or 20 minutes it's the right of any member to speak up. i can only be grateful, mr. chairman, that you didn't say i was vile or words of the kind that were uttered when another member was outraged that in his absence his position was characterized. yes, as i heard pontificating before law enforcement officers who risk their lives, i was moved to indicate that we had not given atf agents the tools that they deserve. and indeed i indicated that the issues spread even into our

cities. as for the district of columbia, laws which apparently were raised, the district of columbia barred guns in light of carnage over the decades. those laws had been found to be constitutional. and for decades, every appellate court had so found for the district's laws and for the laws of other decades when the supreme court and other laws overturned the findings of the supreme court for the first time. the district of columbia proceeded to obey the new law. and enacted a set of gun laws which have since been found constitutional and yet, members of this body have filed bills seeking to overturn the laws of

a local jurisdiction, not their own, simply because they disagreed with the way they approached gun control. you can approach gun control any way you'd like in arizona or california. but you are not at liberty to tell the people of the district of columbia who have to live with the carnage especially when the laws have been declared constitutional. yes, i stand by the notion that the reason that the atf agents don't have the laws they need is because the republicans have over and over again introduced laws that would, in fact, keep them from getting those laws and have stood in the way of their -- of their acquiring those laws. and i have been bipartisan because there have been some in my own party who have stood with them. mr. chairman, having taken the

agents to the woodshed, it does seem to me then the congress -- they're entitled to something from us so i would like to ask you in light of the fact that they have all testified that -- that they need more tools in order their job, whether you would cosponsor the bill that has been introduced that would, in fact, give them a trafficking tool so that this would not happen again to them or to us and would you be willing to sponsor that bill, mr. chairman. >> no, ma'am. >> enough said. >> with that, gentlemen, you bear witness to the other side of the aisle at work. with that, we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]