>> number one, verify whether or not the individual is an enrolled member of the tribe before we proceed with a collection action. if they are enrolled member with the tribe, then we do go ahead and utilize the tribal court system for all collection actions. if we are dealing with the trust property issue, that is a piece where you know up front that the

individual is a native american within the reservation. you have to go through a fairly detailed application process, and approval by the dia or their delegated authority before you can perfect a mortgage on trust property. fortunately we have not had to look at any collection actions on trust property or any real estate at this point, so we feel fairly good about that. but if we do come into a point that we have to look at a collection action on trust property, that will go through the tribal court system. >> senator cochran. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. olsson, thank you for the work that your bank has done in the community to assist tribal

members whose needs were not being met by traditional institutions. in addition to the program that eagle bank runs, you also observe that the programs that are available for the first time homebuyers and students can be effective. so my question to you is, how could you expand your coaching services into a more formal program of financial literacy? and what would the benefits being? >> senator, one of the premises when eagle bank was chartered was to develop financial letters he and work closely with the under bank within our market, whether they are tribal members or not. unfortunately, in the current economic environment our resources are extremely limited, as is our staff time.

what we would hope to be able to do is either, through increased revenues and retained income, or perhaps if there may be some type of grant programs available, we would like to be able to offer dedicated staff to the financial literacy and training. we just are not able to do that at the moment. so, if you've got some good ideas, on how we can increase staff that would be greatly appreciated. >> thank you very much for that. we certainly want, would tell you, try to work on it. >> thank you. >> ms. fiddler, can you describe for us the four bands youth entrepreneurship program, and

the benefits you have found by bringing students into this program? >> thank you for the question, senator. so, back in the day, about 2005, 2006 when these magic savings programs are coming about, our tribe, one of our tribal programs, property alleviation, wanted to invest in youth individuals development account. but the problem is that the kids need to earn the money somewhere in order for them to be eligible for matching monies. meanwhile, our business community being low profit area can't afford the employees and kinds of things that they need, and the wonderful thing about our native business community is that they're always giving back whether they can or not. they are just a generous place. so we matched up businesses with these young people that were needing to earn some money for higher education, for the most part, they do 100 hours of internship with a local

business. we pay them a stipend. they save half of the stipend, and many of these kids are saving all their stipend to go on to college. and then there's the teachable moments that includes financial education as part of their internship that they have to do your they have to complete an asset training, so if it's higher education we do have some young single mothers that are looking to get into homeownership, to our habitat to humanity office. said their complete homebuyer turn. whatever the asset they identify in the internship, they say for and would match. the businesses are getting the benefit. many of the businesses, because they are not knowing what the workforce looks like, many of our local businesses have actually picked the kids up after. so we got nearly 100 kids that have completed the program, most of them made their goals, on to college, now we are studying how to see if there completing it,

and the majority of kids are still working on their higher education. our young lady is to working on getting a home for her and her new baby, that kind of thing. so it was an innovative way to address all the shortcomings that we had with lack of jobs, you know, lack of experience, and our business is not being able to afford to take on the employees that they need. they jump up and volunteer to help us out in that way. that in a nutshell is the youth entrepreneurship. >> thank you very much. mr. tilsen, your success in creating food products that promote a native american way of wellness that feeds mind, body and spirit is impressive and inspiring. but the difficulties you've had in securing support to keep your company alive and growing is

sobering. the number of agencies in fact you've had to visit is daunting. if you were to give advice to a native american whose interests is in starting a business in indian country, what are important lessons you could provide based on your experiences? >> focus and flexibility. you know, we started out with a model of, we launched a natural food company in the middle of a food deserts on an isolated indian reservation because we wanted to figure out how we could create a product that would impact our growing rate of diabetes in the community. our original business model that we could distribute it nationally and make enough money to subsidize it, make it available and affordable rate within our school system. that business model has not

succeeded at that goal. we still have this, we got a lot of young people involved and a lot of young people love to talk of brand. we face the reality of not making it affordable. so we have to be flexible in that, and we have to try to, there's a lot of talk about food deserts right now and a lot of talk about the diabetes. but again try to connect those dots and making those resources available to make the product, to get the product into the schools, we are all over the country but we're not in high school across the street from office, except for maybe on a special occasion. so that's a real challenge. and i guess that's why it takes a lot of focus and a huge amount of networking. and you have to stay focused on your mission and your goal. we go back to our mission every day with every decision, and

it's the support of the entire network, within the committee, within the social community, within the local community where so many people want you to succeed, you know. right now there are 50,000 people that interact with the tonka brand that are listing on the internet right now. people all over the country and all over the reservation through this web broadcast. that's the encouraging part, but how do you connect those dots to make it work, that's the challenge. and i think it takes a lot of focus and it takes the flexibility to try to connect these dots all the time. that's why it's a great honor to be here, because we are able to tell the story. >> well, thank you very much. i want to thank our witnesses very much or your responses. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you all for your testimony, and for being here with us today. i'm grateful to all of you for

the important work you do to make economic developments of reality in indian country. as chairman of this committee, i will continue to work to improve the lives of all the american indians, and we need to continue supporting your efforts. this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> for our defense department, are we still doing business with these people of? >> the parts that we have been purchasing as a part of this ongoing investigation are rare, hard to find and obsolete parts that are still being utilized in major weapons systems. and the internet purchasing platforms demonstrate that contractors or subcontractors that are in need of these hard to find, rare obsolete parts have an outlet through these purchasing platforms to acquire these parts. our concern though is that the intent to deceive certainly exists. >> are we still purchasing? i just asked a very simple question. is the united states government still purchasing from these

counterfeiters who are putting out inferior products? >> the internet trading platforms, 40 million, 60 million line item parts that are purchased on a regular basis, yes or. >> watch more from this hearing on counterfeit parts from china online at the c-span video library. with every program we've erred since 1987, archived and searchable. it's washington your way. >> attorney general eric holder told senators this week that the tactics used during operation fast and furious will never be used again by the justice department. the operation allowed guns to be smuggled across the u.s.-mexico border in order to establish links between arms dealers and drug cartels. this hearing is a little less than three hours.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning, everyone. i understand we will have a lot of attendance this morning, so i will probably run the clock a little bit more diligently than usual, including for myself. and i'm glad to have the attorney general holder back with us. as we complete this important, continue are important focus on oversight. the attorney general was here in may, details are just emerging about the successful military intelligence operation that killed osama bin laden. which did provide a major justice and closure for americans resulting from the horrific attacks of september 11.

that was not an isolated success. during the last few years the obama administration has successfully reinvigorated, we told, refocused our national security efforts. the attorney general as is than any administration, is a key member of the national security team. under his leadership the justice department last month foiled an assassination attempt in the united states of a saudi ambassador of the united states, prevented a major act of terrorism on u.s. soil. last week forming in georgia were arrested in a domestic terrorism plot, accused of planning to use guns, bombs, and toxic poison ricin to kill federal and state officials. earlier this year, and the christmas day bomber was convicted in federal court, pled guilty, and received license.

we have to ensure we do all we can to assist efforts to bring terrorists to justice by providing the administration with a full array of authorities and options in the counterterrorism efforts. in my view and in the few shared by the director of national intelligence, and the attorney general, it is of course shortsighted by congress to hamstring those efforts. as we proceed, we should remember that between september 11, 2001, and the end of 2010, 450 suspects were successfully prosecuted by the bush and obama administrations on terrorism charges in federal courts. 438. now, during that same time five have been, or six have been convicted in military commissions. only six. five of those were from plea bargains. now, the record over the last

three years with respect to crime has also been outstanding over the past three years crime rates have fallen rather than reason, which is contrary to normal and experienced in such difficult economic times. so as we proceed, each one of us will have questions about matters that concern us, but we should not lose sight of the big picture and the fact that what the justice department is doing to keep us safe and secure. this morning there'll be more questions about the bureau of on-call tobacco and firearms and explosives gun trafficking. investigations on our southern border. attorney general holder should be known, lasting department of justice policy prohibits the transfer of firearms the known criminals. and administration officials

have testified incenting congressional hearings about this matter including six held before this committee. i urge that as they engage important oversight, centers respect prosecutors to address their job the threat of violence posed by these criminal and drug cartels. we do not want to hamper anyone's efforts against the mexican cartels. including the ongoing criminal investigation and prosecution related to the tragic murder of age in brian terry. so i thank the men and women of the department of justice that work hard everyday to keep us safe, uphold the rule of law, and i think the attorney general returning to the committee. i look forward to his testimony, and i have kept within my time as i fully expect everybody else to. senator grassley. >> this is a very important

hearing, mr. president, or mr. chairman. there's a lot of issues to bring up. however, over the time that the attorney general was last year, i concentrate my oversight on operation fast and furious. just over nine months ago a attorney general holder sat in my office and i handed him two letters. i had written the acting director kenneth melson of atf. my letter mentioned one, the death of border patrol agent terry, too, the allegations the 80th had sanctioned the sale of hundreds of assault weapons to straw buyers, three, the allegations of two of those weapons had been found at the scene of agent terry's death, and four, the allegations of the whistleblower who provided this information were being, we're already facing retaliation from the agency. just four days later the reply from the department explicitly stated that the whistleblower allegations were false burkett also claimed that goal, atf

makes every effort to interdict weapons had been purchased legally and prevent their transportation to mexico, end of quota. in the nine months since then mounting evidence has put the lie of that claim, documents contradicting the department's denials came to light. then six atf agents testified powerfully that dual house oversight hearings. they also confirm that gun walking occurred in operation fast and furious. just last week assistant attorney general lanny breuer admitted in this room that the department letters to me in february was absolutely false. but it gets worse. mr. breuer also admitted that he knew all along it was false. he could not recall whether he helped edit it. however, he knew it was false because he was aware of previous gun walking operations called wide receiver. yet he remained silent for nine months. he was aware that congress had

been misled, yet made no effort to correct the department's officials denial. much has been said recently about guns being walked in operation wide receiver during the bush era. it doesn't matter for me when it happen. we need answers. bush era prosecutors refuse to bring the case. however, under mr. breuer's leadership, headquarters revived it despite the gun walking issues. it was mr. breuer's responsibility to clearly communicate that gun walking was unacceptable, and to institute oversight safeguards to ensure it did not happen again. he did not do that. mr. breuer admitted before this committee last week that one of his deputies informed him of gun walking in wide receiver, april 2010. he also admitted that the same deputy approved at least one of the wiretap applications in operation fast and furious.

in order to justify tapping the phone of a private citizen, the law requires agencies to show they have tried everything else first, but the very same facts that would show the need to obtain the wiretap would also showed that the department knew these individuals were trafficking in weapons. the government should have stopped the flow of guns to these criminals. anyone reviewing the wiretap affidavits would probably know that was not happening. i would also add that this tragedy should not be used to call for new gun control. the straw buyers in passengers were already breaking the law. they should have been interdicted and arrested a year earlier than they were. the faulty statistics cited by some about u.s. guns in mexico include u.s. weapons sold to foreign militaries, weapons that were transferred into mexico years ago, guns for fast and furious, stole weapons and many other sources. as we learn more about the utter

failure to enforce our existing gun laws in fast and furious, i'm eager to hear from the attorney general who he plans to hold accountable. i also want to know how he plans to prevent another tragedy like this in the future. but let me be clear. the bottom line is that it doesn't matter how many laws we pass if those responsible for enforcing them refuse to do their duty as was the case in fast and furious. thank you, mr. chairman. >> well, thank you very much, and attorney general holder, would you please stand, raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you're about to give before this committee be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> please go ahead, sir. >> chairman leahy, ranking memberankingmember grassley, and establishments of this committee i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. over the last three years i have

been privileged to address this committee on numerous occasions and to partner with many of you in advancing the goals and priorities that i think we all share. i am extremely proud of the department historic achievements over the last two years. despite significant financial constraints, we have effectively confronted our range of national security threats and public safety challenges. i'm especially pleased to report that our efforts to combat global terrorism have never been stronger. since i last appeared before this committee in may, just three days after a decade-long manhunt for osama bin laden came to a successful end, the department has achieved several additional milestones. for example, last month, we secured a conviction against umar farouk abdulmutallab for his role in the attempted bombing of an airplane traveling from amsterdam to detroit on christmas day 2009. we also worked closely with our domestic and international partners to thwart an attempt to plot, allegedly involving

elements of the iranian government, to assassinate the saudi arabian -- saudi arabian ambassador to the united states on american soil. we have disrupted numerous alleged plots by homegrown violent extremists, including one targeting a military recruiting center in washington state and another targeting u.s. soldiers in texas. meanwhile, in one of the most complex counterintelligence operations in history, we brought down a ring involving 10 russian spies. just last week a federal grand jury in manhattan convicted viktor bout, one of the world's most prolific arms dealer for his efforts to some minds of dollars worth of weapons, including 800 surface-to-air missiles and 30,000 ak-47s for use in killing americans. on other fronts the department has made extraordinary progress in protecting civil rights, combating civil fraud, safeguarding our environment, and enhancing our fight against violent crime. we have filed a record number of criminal civil rights cases.

and in the last fiscal year, our civil rights division's voting section opened fire -- more investigation, participated in more cases, and resolve more batters than any other similar time period in the last dozen years. this section is also immersed in with an over 4500 submissions for review under section five, including redistricting plans and other proposed state and local election law changes that would impact access some americans would have to the ballot box. we've also worked to ensure that states do not institute an unconstitutional patchwork of immigration laws. in recent months, the department has challenge immigration related laws in several states that directly conflict with the enforcement of federal immigration policies. not only would these laws divert critical law enforcement resources from the most serious public safety threats, they can lead to potentially discriminatory practices and undermine the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities that they serve.

the department has also focused its efforts on the fight against financial fraud over the last two years i spearheading the interagency financial fraud enforcement task force, and successfully executing the largest financial and health care fraud takedowns in history. in addition we secured a conviction in the biggest bank fraud prosecution in a generation, taking down a nearly $3 billion fraud scheme. through our aggressive enforcement of the false claims act, a law significant strengthen increasing despite this committee, we've secured record-setting recoveries that have exceeded $8 billion since january 2009. i am proud of these and many other achievements. i am committed to building on this progress. although i hope to spend much of our time together discussing the work that is ongoing throughout the department, but i'd like to take a moment to address the public safety crisis of guns flowing across our border into mexico, and local law

enforcement operation known as fast and furious that is brought renewed public attention to the shared national security threat. i want to be very clear. any instance of so-called gun walking is simply unacceptable. regrettably, this tactic was used as part of fast and furious, which was launched to combat gun trafficking and violence on our southwest border your this operation was flawed in its concept and flawed in its execution. and, unfortunately, we will feel the effects were used to come as guns that were lost during this operation continued to show up at crime scenes both here and in mexico. this should never have happened. and it must never happen again. to ensure that it will not, and after learning about the allegation raised by atf agents involved with fast and furious, i took action. i asked the department's inspector general to investigate

the matter, and i ordered that he directed be sent to the department's law enforcement agents and prosecutors stating that such tactics violated department policy and will not be tolerated. more recently, the new leadership at atf has implemented reforms to prevent such tactics from being used in the future, including stricter oversight procedures for all significant investigations. today, i would like to crack some of the in accurate, frankly, some of the irresponsible accusations surrounding fast and furious. some of the overheated rhetoric might lead you to believe that this local, arizona-based operation was somehow the cause of the epidemic of gun violence in mexico. in fact, fast and furious was a flawed respond to, and not the cause of, the flow of illegal guns from the united states into mexico. as you all know, the trafficking of firearms across our southwest border has long been a serious problem, one that has

contributed to the approximately 40,000 deaths in mexico in the last five years. as senator feinstein highlighted last week, of the nearly 94,000 guns that have been recovered and traced in mexico in recent years, over 64,000 of those guns were source in the united states of america. 64,000 of 94,000 guns sourced to this country. the mistakes of operation fast and furious, serious though they were, should not deter or detract us from our critical mission to disrupt the dangers will of firearms along our southwest border. i have supported a number of aggressive, innovative steps to do so and our work has yielded significant successes. successes. we've built crime-fighting capacity of both sides of the border by developing new procedures were using evidence gathered in mexico to prosecute gun traffickers in u.s. courts, by training thousands of mexican prosecutors and investigators, by successfully fighting to

enhance sentencing guidelines for convicted traffickers and straw purchasers, and by pursuing coordinated, multidisciplinary the geisha's gun trafficking rings. this year alone we have led successful investigations into the murders of u.s. citizens in mexico, created new cartel targeting prosecutorial units, and secure the extradition of 104 defendants wanted by u.s. law enforcement, including the former head of the tijuana cartel. this work has undoubtedly saved and improved lives in the mistakes as well as mexico. i am personally committed to combating gun trafficking and reducing the alarming rate of violence along the southwest border by using effective and appropriate tools. like each of you i want to know why and how firearms that should been under surveillance could wind up in the hands of mexican drug cartels. but beyond identifying where ayres occurred in ensuring that they never occur again, we must be careful not to lose sight of the critical problem that is

flawed investigation has highlighted. we are losing the battle to stop the flow of illegal guns to mexico. this means i believe that we have a responsibility to act. we can start by listening to the agent, the very agency serve on the frontlines of this this battle and testified here in congress. not only did they bring the inappropriate and misguided tactics of operation fast and furious to light, they also sounded the alarm to congress that they need our help. atf agent who testified before a house committee this summer explained that the agency's ability to stem the flow of guns from the united states into mexico suffers from a lack of effective enforcement tools. one critical first step should be for congressional leaders to work with us to provide atf with the resources and statutory tools it needs to be effective. another would be for congress to fully fund our request for teams of agents to fight gun trafficking.

fortunately, earlier this year the house of representatives actually voted to give law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase multiple semi automatic rifles and shotguns in southwest border gun shops. providing law enforcement with the tools to detect and disrupt illegal gun trafficking is entirely consistent with the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and it is critical to addressing the public safety crisis along the southwest border. someone who has seen the consequences of gun violence firsthand, and who has promised are too many grieving families that i would do everything in my power not only to seek justice on the half of their loved ones, but also to prevent other families from experiencing similar tragedies, i have determined to ensure that our shared concerns about operation fast and furious lead to more than headline grabbing washington gotcha games and cynical political point scoring. we have serious problems to address and we have sacred responsibilities to fulfill.

we must not lose sight of what's really at stake here, lives, futures, families, and communities. when it comes to protecting our fellow citizens and stopping illegal gun trafficking across the southwest border, i hope that we can engage in a responsible dialogue and work toward common solutions. and i hope that we begin -- and i hope that we can begin that discussion today. >> with that, we'll begin, we have a number of issues besides that one. i agree with you that we're going to stop that flow of guns into mexico, and i've heard the same thing with mexican authorities. we've got to take steps to in this country. we can't expect it all to be done across the border. i joined senator feinstein and other members of this committee, and the intelligence committee to ask the majority leader to refrain from being certain

provisions in defense authorization legislation before the senate, significantly improved. i know the administration expressed serious concerns with the military detention intervention provision as reported by armed services. the way it's reported, it's significant we reduced the options for investigating terrorist threats that actually the terrorists know which options are off the table, including those that have been most successful in bringing about convictions. and even the heritage foundation has argued the bill would deny the president needed flexibility. would you agree that we need to keep our options open in encountering terrorists and not taking options off the table? >> i would totally agree we need to use all the months of american data america's best power in the fight against terrorism to our military power,

political power, the power we have in our judicial system, military commissions. we need maximum amount of flexibility, and we also have to be practical when it comes to the measures that congress asks us in the executive branch to follow. >> and the vast majority of our, almost by 100 to one, 90 to one, convictions have been in our courts, not before military tribunals is that craig? >> that's correct. there's no question if one looks at the history, article iii system will report they are fully capable of handling any manner that is brought before them. >> that was the same in both the bush administration and the obama administration? >> that is correct. >> september 30, 2011, reported on the al-awlaki was killed in operation conducted by the united states in yemen. and according to media accounts the operation was conducted following the issuance of a secret memoranda by the

department of justice which authorized the targeted killing of a u.s. citizen abroad without going into the facts of the particular operation, asking for a copy of that memorandum, is there any problem with providing this committee with a copy of that memorandum, even if it is recorded in a classified section? >> well, i first want to indicate that i will not address, cannot it is whether there is anything in this area but i understand your interest in the subject. we are committed to working with you to answer your questions and appropriate setting. and to the extent that we can. >> and in february you notified congress the department of justice would no longer defend the so-called defense of marriage act, don't. and legal circumstance to cases. i agreed with you and to join senator feinstein and others when she introduced the respect for marriage act which repealed

the doma. this would allow all lawful marriages, provide the marriage was lawful in the state it occurred, with equal access to federal protections. in july the president expressed his support for her respect for marriage act. it's going to be considered by our committee in a markup of thursday this week. do you support the respect for marriage act that repealed the doma? >> the administration does. it is consistent with the policy that the government has taken as a result of the busiest that we took in court, i guess in the first circuit, so the administration does support the passage of that bill. >> and the violence against women act be more responsive to domestic violence, focus our criminal justice system on more effectively investigating and prosecuting those crimes. without a lot of hearings on that. it's now time to reauthorize it.

actually legislation began when vice president biden was chair of this committee. do you agree that reauthorizing and strengthening the violence against women act is a top priority, especially in tough economic times, state and local budgets reducing the resources to be able to protect victims of domestic violence, dating violence and stocking? >> yeah, i think that that is a priority for this administration did i would hope this would be a priority for not doing this committee but from congress as a whole to be authorized while it has transformed our nation and its right of ways, not only from programs that are funded by the way in which we have viewed the subject matter of that act. nothing i think that is among the top priorities for this administration. >> and give you my own rule on time, this will be my last

question, before turning to senator grassley. he has indicated he is want to ask about operation fast and furious, subject has been explored during six hearings. i just want to raise your testimony, house judiciary committee hearing on may 3 when congressman issa asked you when you first about the facet of this responded, i'm not sure of the exact date, but i probably heard about fast and furious for the first time over the last few weeks. as you know, there's been a lot of talk about a reference to a few weeks, but critics attention not put the question in there along with your answer. and the fact you said in your answer your not being precise, you are basically giving your recollection. i recall by february 28 you asked the inspector general to begin an investigation of fast and furious. you also testified about the appropriations committee.

so let me ask you the fundamental question, did you a chance to be more precise. when did you first learned of the operation of tactics being used in operation fast and furious and what did you do about it? >> i first learned about the tactics and the phrase fast and furious the beginning of this year i think when it became a matter of i guess public controversy. in my testimony before the house committee, i did say a few weeks. i probably could have said a couple of months. i don't think that what i said in terms of using the term a few weeks was an accurate based on what happened. i got from as senator grassley indicated a couple letters from him at the end of january, i believe it was january the 31st. these letters talked about a connection between an operation and the death of agent terry, did not mention fast and

furious. that reference operation gunrunner. i asked my staff to look into this. during the month of february i became aware of fast and furious from press reports and other letters i received from senator grassley. i asked my staff to get to the bottom of that matter. we received information from atf and united states attorneys attorney's office in phoenix that contradicted some of these public reports. and it became clear to me that the matter needed some out to be resolve. as you indicated, try to on february 28 i asked the department of justice inspector general to investigate the operation and five on march the ninth. i directed the deputy attorney general, instruct all prosecutors and agents throughout the justice department not to engage in these flawed tactics that without an operation of fast and furious. on march 9, i also confirmed the existence of the ig investigation. on march 10, i testified about this matter before the city --

senate appropriations committee. clearly by the time i testified in may before the house committee i had known about fast and furious for several weeks, as i indicated, a couple of months. but the focus on which day of which month i think in some ways is a bit of a distraction that does nothing to address what i think what concerns us most which is the flow of weapons from the mistakes across the southwest border. >> thank you. senator grassley. ..

reaching papers on december 17th. did mr. griller say anything to you about the connection between the atf and guns found at terry's murder scene? >> he did not but it is understandable in that the information shared with him did not indicate any of the tactics could be in the flawed fast and furious operation were actually mentioned in the e-mail you referenced. so he did not share that information. >> document produced by the department suggest your deputy chief of staff spoke with dennis burke about fast and furious shortly after agent terry's death. did mr. wilkinson's say anything about the connection between agent terry's death and the atf operation?

>> he did not. the conversation they had for about a variety of things. the possibility of coming out at some point to talk about engaging in a press conference. other matters. but there was no discussion between them of the tactics that are of concern with fast and furious. as a result of that mr. wilkinson did not share information about his contact with former u.s. attorney. >> last week the head of criminal division said that he deeply regrets his fell your to tell you earlier about gun walking in operation wide receiver. what about his failure to tell congress and correct false statements in the department's letter on february 4th? is that acceptable to you that he did not tell us about those false statements in a letter feb. fourth? >> let me clear something up. the information shared with you

on february 4th there was information that was inaccurate. the letter could have been better crafted. we were relying in the crafting of that letter, people relying on information provided to them by people we thought were in the best position in the attorney's office and people who themselves indicated in their congressional testimony that they were not aware of the tactics that were employed. as a result of the information contained in the february 4th letter to was not accurate and i regret that. >> did he offer you his resignation? >> he has not and i don't expect to hear a resignation offer from him. >> you are refusing to provide drafts of that february 4th letter and e-mails about the draft even though they have been subpoenaeded without a

constitutional privilege that risks contempt of congress? why risk contempt of congress to prevent finding out or reviewed drafts of that letter and whether they knew they contained false statements? >> we will try to work with you in providing all the relevant information we can. we will act in a way that is consistent with other attorneys general have made the terminations to what information can be shared with congressional oversight committees and these are republican as well as democratic attorneys general and on last consistent with the history of the department. >> if those documents show that mr. brewer review draft of the letter and failed to correct the statements he knew was false would that be a reason for his resignation? >> it would be a reason for concern but the facts showed that the people who were responsible for the drafting of the letter did not know at that time the information that was contained in that letter was inaccurate. we do now no looking back that

the information provided to you was inaccurate and that is something i regret. >> deputy jason wine scene was aware of the wiretap application for fast and furious and briefed judiciary committee staff on february 10th in response to my letters. did mr. wine scene review a draft before it was sent to me? >> i don't know. >> it will be held a terrible for allowing a letter to congress with a statement that many in the justice department knew was false? >> i dispute with due respect the assertion that people in the justice department knew it was false. people in the justice department were responsible for the creation of that letter relied on information provided to them but they thought was accurate. we only know the information was inaccurate in hindsight. at the time the letter was prepared our best thought was

the information supply was in fact correct. >> someone in the justice department leaked document to the press with talking points in an attempt to smear one of the whistle-blowers who testified before the house. this document was supposed to be so sensitive that you refuse to provide it to congress but someone provided it to the press. the name of a criminal suspect in the document was deleted by the name of the atf agent was not. this looks like a clear and intentional violation of the privacy act as well as an attempt at whistle-blower retaliation. a private conversation with me you told me that someone has been held accountable for this but your staff refused to provide my staff with any details. who was held accountable and how? >> almost pains me. please don't take this away from senator grassley.

we had a -- you send me a hand written note that i took very seriously. you and i worked together on a number of things. i think i have a good relationship with you. you sent the handwritten note that i looked at, seriously referred that letter to 0 p r and piety and asked to find out what happened. i called you to indicate to you are had taken that matter seriously, that actions had been taken. in different time in washington i am not sure what you just said would have been shared with everyone here. it is a different time i suppose. response to your question -- >> you understand i told you over the phone conversation if you wanted me not to ask this question i said have your staff in form of staff because i worked closely with my staff. give the details so that i would know that this would be an

inappropriate question to ask at this hearing. >> let the attorney general answer. i applied to myself. >> you went one minute and 40 minutes -- he answered -- [talking over each other] >> before my time was up. you can answer his question even though he asked after his time was up. >> with regard to the question, the matter under investigation, there were couple of weeks and those leaks are an investigation by the inspector general and the office of professional responsibility and i am not in a position to comment on investigations. >> mr. chairman, attorney-general holder, i would like to thank you for working with us on our law enforcement officers and courage in the line of duty. in 2008 congress passed a law forcing congressional badge of bravery act. i am sure the and asked to

choose 21 award recipients out of so many qualified nominees across the country so two weeks ago i was pleased to present the first of these awards to two deserving officers in wisconsin. james page and county deputy sheriff daniel dowdick. they made the state of wisconsin proud and i look forward to working with you to honor these deserving public servants. attorney-general holder, my office has been informed of a proposal that three of six satellite offices. if these go through the district of wisconsin, half of its officers have to work with fewer agents. serious concerns about the ability of the remaining two offices who are underserve rural areas. along chief law-enforcement officer u.s. attorney strongly

opposes these closures. in rural wisconsin are right to expect the fbi will be able to investigate communities. i am sure you will agree. multimillion-dollar bank at least as important as the $1 million bank fraud in milwaukee or chicago. according to the agency this will lead to a, quote, stronger and more effective fbi presence in wisconsin. how could this be the case when agents will be located four hours away by car from the communities they serve? understand the final decisions will be made soon so will you commit to working with me right now in order to address these concerns and modify the proposal if necessary in order to assure wisconsin is not negative impacted? >> i will work with you, look at the proposed closures and make sure they don't have negative impact on the ability of the fbi to perform services to which the citizens of wisconsin are

entitled. we are dealing with tough budgetary times and make sure that we are configured in a way to the most efficient and most effective. i have heard the concerns you raised about the closure of those offices and i will work with you in that regard. >> the attorney-general of the justice department announced plans for four of seven antitrust regional offices. dallas and philadelphia and rhode island. the justice department says this will save $8 million annually by saving the cost -- we are aware of reports that some career staff of the offices are opposed to these closures. these officers are responsible for collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for criminal antitrust violations. the savings for the regional from the office closures. on october 19th washington post reported dallas regional office, $500 million fine in the case by

the international vitamin cartel and ability of philadelphia office of $134 million fine. a career attorney in the atlanta office stated his office collected $20 million annually on a budget of $2 million. i am interested in your response to these reports. are you sureties office closures were cost-effective? will the department have sufficient resources to prosecute antitrust cases in regions not fully served by the offices you planned to close? >> that was a tough decision we had to make but we thought given limited budgets that we have that we could continue to do the work of the antitrust division in spite of the fact those offices were closed. none of the investigation and those offices were handling will be closed. we will work from the remaining offices in other parts of the country to make sure that we

maintain the kind of vigilance and intense antitrust presence that has been provided in the past. i don't think reconfiguring the antitrust division and these offices will have a negative impact on our ability to handle the very things you mentioned. these offices have been effective in the past but we can continue to be effective under the reconfigured structure we have proposed. >> i have my doubts. i thought i would voice them to you. we are pleased with the justice department filing an antitrust lawsuit for 80 at&t t mobile merger. recommended this merger be blocked. i believe it would be dangerous for competition and consumers. of allowed to proceed it would combine two direct competitors and reduce the number of national phone companies in highly concentrated industry from four to three. consumers would face higher cellphone bills and fewer

choices. from commentators expressing concern justice department might not be in this case for the long haul and agreed to a settlement that would allow a merger to proceed. i don't believe that to be true. can you reassure us at this point? i understand you have recused yourself in this case that can you assure the o.j. is pursuing its lawsuit if necessary to trial? >> i am recused from this matter. james cole, deputy general is the person in charge of this and i am sure that people in the antitrust division are committed to seeing it through. justice department has not filed matters in court. this not file suits challenging mergers unless we are prepared to follow them all away through and that is the structure in place. there was a trial team. i know about this from what i heard. there's the trial team in place and they are ready and eager to

go to court. >> finally, the share of the special committee on aging held a hearing on colder abuse and exploitation. in that hearing we heard stories of physical and emotional and sexual and financial abuse. over 14% of senior citizens living outside nursing-home sources did living facilities have been injured, exploited or mistreated by someone on whom they depend for care and protection. elder abuse often goes unreported indicating the true number of victims is much higher. in addition, personal harm, financial importation of seniors cost the nation $2.5 billion a year. despite the harm it causes and lack of leadership that the federal level when it comes to stopping elder abuse that is why i introduced the victims act with blue one fall -- blumenthal

and whitehouse it creates the office of central response of elder abuse by coordinating federal, state and local agencies. can we count on your support for this legislation? >> i certainly want to work with you on regard to that legislation. the justice department has tried to focus on the abuse that those people who are most vulnerable are forced to and dorr. those at the beginning of their lives, children, and those were the end of their lives, our seniors. the bill you have introduced goes a long way to helping us in that regard. i would be glad to work with you in looking at that legislation because this is a concern that i have and those of us in the justice department do have. >> thank you. >> welcome, mr attorney-general. we appreciate you testifying today. two years ago you matter controversial decision to reopen criminal investigations of c r a and irrigations following the

september 11th attacks. you made this decision even while a bidding you did not read the reports from career prosecutors in the eastern district of virginia. this decision prompted seven former directors of the cia to write a letter to the president opposing sanctions. army ports in almost all of the investigations that have been closed. do you agree that you should have read those reports before deciding to reopen the investigations especially now that you are reaching the same decision as the career prosecutors did? one last question. what message do you have for those cia employees whose lives have been in limbo the last two years because of that failure? >> i think the decision i made to order that investigation was an appropriate one. review a series of reports.

among them inspector general report and other matters that are classified and came to the conclusion there was basis for re-examination of the incidents. i was concerned about the way in which american people working at our behest or our government engage in these interrogation techniques. i appointed or expanded the jurisdiction of john durham, and experienced prosecutor appointed to look at the matter, his work is continuing. we are close to the end of the work that he has been asked to do but i stand by my position. i think the decision i made was the correct one. the results are what they are. i think the process and asked him to do was the right thing. >> my point is the advice of people who knew what was going on saying you shouldn't do this

and all seven former directors of the cia who were offended by this. plus the problem with this hampers the work that they do in many areas if they are going to be brought into court years later. it is a decision you made. i just disagree with it. and i think it is something that shouldn't have been done. having these people in limbo is the wrong thing too. it takes me back to the statements of litigation. a haven't seen much in a way of correction for those who did what were really offensive prosecutorial approaches. not only offensive but there should have been some real serious corrections done because what they did to a great u.s. senator and frankly to use as an

excuse as i understand it to use as an excuse that they just plain overlooked some of the most exculpatory evidence that has to be given, would have acquitted him that should have been used to stop prosecution to begin with for something i have to say really bothers me. i think it has bothered lot of people on both sides of the aisle. not necessarily blaming you. >> it clearly -- >> i don't see anything being done about it. if we had that kind of prosecution going on in this country and know you share my view to a large degree. if we have prosecutors running wild like that and ignoring the law something as important as exculpatory evidence that has to be given the defendant in a criminal case you can see why some people are losing

confidence in what goes on. >> if i could say one thing. i was bothered by what happened. [talking over each other] >> the matter has not been dropped. professional responsibility is looking into this matter. they are at the last stages of their examination of what is happening with the case. there is a multi hundred page report that is just about finalized and i think will proceed to weather conclusions are. >> will you share that with us? >> that is up to the people but i indicated on want to share as much of that as we can given the public nature of that matter and the public decision i made to dismiss the case. my hope is we will share as much of that as we can. >> i hope you are able to share every aspect of it. six months ago i along with several members of the committee

recommended mossa daduk the use the senior al qaeda commander in our custody. he was tried in a military friday will the this tribunal. user responsible for kidnapping and execution of five american soldiers. has the decision to put him before in military commission or as the civilian trial in the u.s. be made or even released to the iraqis? is that possible? have you prepared to bring him to the u.s. for a civilian trial and if somehow or other -- five americans were killed by this guy. >> that is under discussion and a decision will be made as to where the trial can occur. where he can most effectively be tried but it is something still

being discussed. >> the issue of enforcing laws against obscenity and laws protecting children is important to me. you received a letter signed by me and house judiciary committee chairman lamar smith asking questions about the department's efforts to support the obscenity laws and the law requiring producers of sexually explicit material to keep records about the age and identity of performers. it has been six months without an answer. you going to get a chance? >> after this hearing i'm will speak to people that the department and try to get you a response. >> i appreciate it. yours is a tough job and i am first to admit it. appreciate it. >> just to note, i too feel there is serious misconduct in this matter.

>> you are right. are have to say i have looked at that carefully and never seen a greater injustice to a member of congress. >> i would have gone to the senior senator from utah that normally does not make public -- i would hope as much of that can be made public as possible. it doesn't write whatever wrongs were done. it might preclude future wrongs now. to think this is a partisan thing -- senator stevens is a republican. i stated publicly i thought that was badly handled and both of us agree on this. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate your comments. >> i might add to the tragedy of

the stephens situation is senator stevens is no longer here to be able to see the results of your examinations so i would like to agree, mr attorney general with what my colleagues said. it is important that whatever happens be made fully public and never happen again. mr. chairman, if i may, i would like to put in the record the official firearms trace data from the department of justice from 12-1-2006 to 9-30-2011. this is on guns. thank you very much. mr attorney-general, welcome. you mentioned you became aware of fast and furious in 2011. you spoke to us about the grassley letters at the end of

january and february. you asked the ig to investigate in april. >> in february. >> february, thank you. my understanding is the practice of letting guns walk first occurred in 2006 as part of operation wide receiver and the next year as part of the hernandez investigation. as you review the records of this as i am sure you would, did the attorney general's at that time, i believe there were two of them in 2007 know about this practice and what was done about it then? >> i don't know robin all of the attorneys general had. i read reports the memo was sent to the attorney-general casey. i don't know what action they took. when i thought the indications that guns -- was bothered by it

and offended by it and concerned about it and ordered the inspector general to investigate and issue a directive to the field to make clear that gun walking was not appropriate and should not occur. >> the records indicate this operation began in 2006 and continued virtually unabated since that time? >> operation fast and furious began in 2009. wide receiver began in 2006-2007. i am not sure. that matter was investigated some time until the criminal division and obama justice department looked at it and decided to bring the case that had been just lying there. >> thank you very much. since july of this year the atf

has instituted a requirement that federal firearms licensees in the four states that border mexico, california -- report with a purchaser buys multiple meanings two or more assault rifles with anna five day period. i pulled the federal register and looked at that and it says that federal firearms licensees must report multiple fails -- sales or other distribution whenever the licensee cells or disposes of two or more rifles with the following characteristics, semiautomatic, caliber greater than 22, the ability to accept detachable magazine to the same person at one time or doing -- during any

five consecutive business days. this requirement will apply only to federal firearms licensees who are dealers and/or pawnbrokers in arizona, california, now mexico and texas. can you tell us a little bit about how that section has functioned, whether it is being carried out, if there are lapses or if you believe it can be strengthened in any way? >> i think that regulation requirement is an extremely reasonable one. have all the features you describe and significantly is totally consistent. is exactly what we have been doing for years with regard to the sale of handguns. the notion that somehow or other we are in litigation, being sued tried to do the same thing we have done with handguns for years with regards to weapons that are far more dangerous is

beyond -- i don't understand how that can be opposed given that this would provide atf or other federal agencies with useful information in tried to stop the problem that has been the subject of so much discussion. there have been the harshest critics of atf voted against this very sensible regulation. the house voted to block it, 270 members of the house voted against what i think is a very reasonable regulation and one that is totally consistent with what we have been doing with handguns for years since the mid 80s. >> i feel as you probably know very strongly about this. the tens of thousands, 30,000 people that have been killed by guns in mexico, we know these guns go into the hands of the cartels and we know how they are

used so the question that i have is do you believe this is being carried out today in an acceptable manner? let me change that. in an effective manner to stop the flow of guns to mexico? >> we are only at the beginning stages of it. it has not been in effect for long time but over time will prove to be extremely useful and help us in our efforts to stop the flow of weapons from the united states to mexico. >> this is going to watch it. i would like to extend to through you a real compliment to the fbi particularly in the saudi case, in the naxagul inazi

case, we did not develop the intelligence portion to the extent they have. and follow this in intelligence and believe they have done an excellent job and we all should be very proud of those plots that have been stopped. successful prosecutions that have been brought in federal cases. i want to say thank you for that. i think the fbi has achieved -- my time has run out. major, major prosecutions for us. thank you very much. >> thank you. i will also put into the record a letter i sent to the acting inspector general about operation fast and furious. investigating allegations on that and asked whether she has

in connection with that investigation operation wide receiver. a similar thing involving mexico and arizona that we have heard former attorney general casey may have been briefed on a similar operation back in 2007. i will put that in the record. and senator gramm, you have been waiting patiently. so people know the order, after senator graham would be senator schumer, then senator cornyn 11. >> i want to congratulate you and all those risking their lives in the war on terror and fighting crime. very serious and substantial tactical success against a very vicious enemy and it is appropriate that we acknowledge the hard work that has gone into keeping the country's eighth. from a strategic point of view we're coming to some crossroads about what we need to be doing

in the future. i embrace a new consignment facility in guantanamo bay. john mccain did when he ran for president. senator obama, president bush. i have come to conclude we are not going to close gitmo any time soon. in september of 2000, you stated to the european parliament we have an election coming drebin 2012. we will be pressing for the closure of the facility between now and -- after the election we will try to close it as well. , wrong in assuming there is not the votes here to close gitmo before november of 2012? >> you can count the votes better than i can in this body and in the house as well. having served their, the administration policy to try to close guantanamo, we think it would be an appropriate thing to

do for a variety of reasons. we have certainly run into opposition. >> if i may interrupt. i have embraced finding new facility a certain changes had to occur for that to be viable. we don't need to blame each other but not going forward with live in a practical world. do you agree with that? we got to make practical decisions. >> not as practical as i would like to be. >> the idea of this approach, the best venue -- i have never said courts don't have a place in this war and i have been passionate about military commissions. we should have these approaches be as flexible as possible. my point is we don't have a jail in the war on terror for future captors and i think that makes us less safe.

what is -- where would we put someone if we caught them tomorrow, high-value target. where do we confine them? >> something we are discussing. >> would you put them in afghanistan? >> there are a number of options we are discussing to come up with a proposal that would be both effective -- >> i honestly can't see an option that makes sense. the idea of putting them on ships for a limited period is not viable because ships are never meant to be permanent confinement facilities. i don't see afghanistan accepting new war on terror captures bringing the afghan government down. the iraqis are not going to do it. if we don't use gitmo what are we going to do? >> those are the options we're trying to discover. the president has made clear that we are not going to be using guantanamo facility so we have to come up with options

that are funded and supported -- >> i have tried to be supportive as i know how to be in creating flexibility for the executive branch by conclude that gitmo is not going to close and there is no viable option other than guantanamo being used. the iraqi legal system will not allow -- afghanistan is not going to be the jailer of the united states. naval ships are not a good option. i really believe we need to embrace reality and reality is we need a jail. we don't have one and gitmo is the only dale available. the guy being held by the iraqis is a hezbollah captured in iraq. iranian basically inspired person training shi'ah militias charged with killing five americans. if we don't put him in gitmo where will we put him? >> those are options we have

been discussing. how he will be dealt with, topics of conversation and have engaged with my counterparts -- >> we had a conversation about k khalid sheikh mohammed. he was an enemy combatants who would be -- simply because it was ill suited case choice. not affect the weekend use article iii courts for someone like him. if you tried to bring this guy back to the united states and put him in civilian court and a military commission inside the united states, hell is going to break out. if we let him go and turn him to the iraqis it is like letting him go. this would be a huge mistake. he is charged with killing five americans and at the end of the day i try to be as practical as i know how to be. it would be a national disgrace to allow this car to escape justice. the only option available to

this nation is gitmo because there is bipartisan opposition to creating confinement facilities in the united states. i beg and plead with this administration to create an option that is viable and the only viable option is to use guantanamo bay. let's talk about guantanamo bay. the you believe it is a humanely run prison? >> i have been to guantanamo as the facility is now run. i believe the men and women conduct themselves in an upper broadway and prisoners are treated in a humane fashion. >> isn't it true every guantanamo bay detainee will have access to federal courts to make habeas petition for their release? >> there are a number of cases we are handling. >> isn't it true any condition that comes from a military commission will be appealed? >> i think that is true. i am not sure. >> the bottom line is we all agree guantanamo bay is a few main detention facility being well run and we have civilian oversight of what happened in

guantanamo bay. my view is we are less safe if we don't have the prison. please tell me in the next 30 days, submit to this committee or me individually a plan because we're running out of time that would be reasonable, sound and has political support to confine future captors and move people out of iraq and afghanistan who are too dangerous to let go. could you do that in 30 days? >> i don't know. this decision will be made -- i will be part of the decisionmaking process but the decision will be made by people higher up. >> tell those people that we are about to withdraw from iraq and these people will be let go and we're running out of the ability to hold people in afghanistan. time is not on our side. the war is an ongoing enterprise and we needed they also i urge other senators to urge you to find a solution to this problem in 30 days.

thank you for your service. >> i go back to what you started with. whatever the proposal is and the administration works its way through it will be viewed in a practical matter by members of congress. and take into account the history we have with regard to our ability to safely detain people to try people and understand that whatever it is the proposal we make -- >> i try to be practical to my own detriment but i will try to be practical. >> i am going to go back to the fast and furious issue. there has been a lot of focus on the present the administration's dealings with fast and furious but what has been missing in the house investigation is that it didn't start with the obama administration. it started with alberto gonzalez and continued with general casey. if we want to find out what is

wrong we have to look at all thing. my questions are related to that. mr attorney-general, thank you for being here. as we learned last week some briefing material on operation wide receiver, the bush your aversion a fast and furious was prepared after the attorney-general took office in preparation for november 16th meeting with attorney general eduardo medina morra of mexico. atf agents in tucson as early as 2006 discuss the proposal to provide guns to criminals, quote, without any further ability by the u.s. government to control their movement for future use. we know this operation was likely part of operation wide receiver in which 350 guns were purchased and as your production of material continues it is possible we will find this

strategy was discussed before 2006. the briefing material from 2007 which was prepared for general mackay's the stated atf worked jointly with mexico to have controlled delivery of weapons being smuggled into mexico by a major arms trafficker. the first delivery attempts -- the first attempt at this control delivery have not been successful the investigation is ongoing, the atf would like to expand the possibility of joint investigations and controlled delivery. since only that it will be possible to investigate an entire smuggling network rather than arresting a simple smuggler. that is in the memo which was made public friday. then e-mails indicate atf's assistant director for enforcement reviewed this so i want to figure out who's of the briefing material.

i will ask about the names that are listed. these are listed at the top of the briefing memo prepared for general mulcasey for the november 16th meeting. what position did matthew frederick hold on the date on the meeting memo? do you recall that? >> i don't know. >> deputy chief of staff to general mulcasey and kevin o'connor when he was associate attorney general may have recalled that. i think we can infer that mr. frederick and mr. o'connor were likely to receive the material before or after meeting with attorney-general murrah and given that the meeting was with general mulcasey's counterpart in mexico we can infer that general mulcasey is likely to have attended the november meeting and see this material. are you aware whether general mulcasey reviewed the memo? >> i don't know if he did or

not. >> i don't want to vouch for anyone's attendance at the meeting but i want to be clear about that premise. with that caveat are you currently able to say whether if there were any high-ranking officials who attended the november 7th meeting in 2007? >> i don't know who attended the meeting. >> but it wouldn't have been beyond the pale for other officials in preparation for the meeting or otherwise. >> it is possible. i just don't know. >> another one. do you have any knowledge whether deputy attorney general craig moreford was briefed? >> i don't know. >> knowledge of other members of other departments who bore the responsibility briefed on the program? >> i don't know how extensively was briefed. >> many davis, current criminal division head testified he was briefed after it was closed.

after wide receiver was closed in 2010. do you know of his predecessor, similarly brief tour took part? >> i do not know. >> let me brewer. i get those two mix the. mixed up. can you go back and look at the files or have someone do that and get information weathered these people were part of briefings or meetings that might have related to wide receiver to that program? >> as part of the process in responding to requests for information from -- we're trying to gather information and we may be able to gather from e-mails and other materials better sense of who was briefed with regard to what receiver. >> one other thing. in the prepared remarks made by

attorney-general mulcasey regarding the trip to mexico which he made on january 16th, he said i reiterate for the attorney-general as i do now the united states is committed to addressing the flow of illegal guns into mexico and indicated we deployed additional resources to arrest and prosecute violent criminals, trace firearms and full of the trade use by criminal gangs. this indicates gun walking may have been discussed at this meeting as well. once again is there anything you are able to say without founding for anybody's attendance about that 2008 trip to mexico? can you get us that information? >> we will attempt to obtain that information. i don't have that information right now. >> what i am getting at here and why i think it is important to have answers to this question is because there has been a selective way in which this investigation has been pursued

so far. 1-sided outrage about the issue. when we know now that it began work its progenitor began before you took office. before president obama took office. the house committee chair has said he would look at both sides. wrongdoing on both sides. that hasn't happened. appears -- pretty good bet that top officials at the bush justice department, the attorney-general himself learned of this operation in its early stages. a memo was prepared but we don't know what he knew. at the least they let it continue and have endorsed it. so i think it is important we look at both sides. my suggestion is if the house won't do that we should. >> i agree. thank you for the question. senator cornyn and then senator whitehouse. >> i agree with senator schumer

that we need information about these programs and a distinction between wide receiver and fast and furious. i know that fast and furious has had a significant spillover effect in my state, texas, where 119 of these weapons were locked into the hands of cartels. 119 of them have shown up at crime scenes in my state. investigation by senator grassley revealed clerks at houston-based business called carter's country to go through with sales of weapons to suspicious purchasers some of which may have been working as agents of cartels. on august 7th i sent you a letter asking about the texas connections and got a letter back last friday from your subordinates saying you were unable to provide more

information at this time. i am hopeful you will be able to provide more information because we know that the weapons from fast and furious have shown up in 11 different crime scenes in the united states and this is far from as you stated earlier a local law enforcement operation in terms of its impact. many of these weapons ended up in mexico. we know of the crime scene where brian kerri was murdered by the cartels. let me ask about the timeline. first of all on february 4th, assistant attorney general wise wrote a letter -- wasn't until november 1st of 2011 when lenny brewer testified that letter was false. route that hole period in 2011 and november of 2011 if your department left the impression

on congress that the allegation the department had engaged in gun walking operations was false when mr. brewer came in on november 1st, 2011, and said that letter sent to senator grassley in response to this inquiry was false. how do you account for the fact the department for the period of time from february of 2011 until november of 2011 had misled congress about the accuracy of that allocation? >> there is validity in the concern you raised. as i indicated before -- >> i do too. >> i hope so. it is your questions or assume you did. february 4th the information contained in that letter was thought to be accurate. wasn't until after that that we had a sense that the information was not accurate. wasn't as if the date upon which we knew the information was inaccurate was february 4th. it comes sometime after that.

i receive things as late as march of 2011 from people who assured me that gun walking did not occur. >> you said you learned about fast and furious on may 3rd and over the last few weeks. today you say it was over the last couple months. >> the last few weeks or could be expressed over the last couple months. the last few weeks is consistent with the timeline. >> the fact is the department's official response to senator grassley is the investigation was it didn't happen until you came to the house and said you learned about it over the last few weeks. that was may 3rd, 2011. is that correct? >> not sure i understand the question. >> let me go on to something else. do you still contend this is a local law enforcement operation?

>> don't misinterpret that. >> your words. a local law enforcement operation opening testimony. >> it is a federal law enforcement operation that was concerned -- of local concern. it was not a national operation. >> to mexico it metastasized to texas and arizona so it certainly wasn't local. you agree with that. >> i indicated in my opening statement the impact of the mistakes made in fast and furious will be felt in mexico and the united states in four years to come beach. >> a lot of those have not been accounted for. >> a number have not been accounted for and that is why it is incumbent upon us and i have taken the steps i have taken to assure that mistakes that happened there are not repeated. >> this is an organization chart for the department of justice.

the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms and explosives, this agency in the department of justice of which you are head. >> that is correct. >> that is your signature attesting to this organization chart april 30, 2010. so you are not suggesting that it is not your responsibility to have known about this operation. is it? >> there are 115,000 employees in the department of justice. >> it stops with you. >> hi have ultimate responsibility for that which happens in the department but i cannot be expected to know the details of every operation that is ongoing in the justice department on a day to day basis. i did not know about fast and furious as indicated in the charts you have up there until it became public. >> you cannot be expected to have known about fast and

furious despite the fact that we know you received a memo on july 5th, 2010, and another memo on fast and furious november 1st, 2010, and you say you cannot be expected to have known about it because of the size of your agency? >> there are couple problems with that chart, colorful though it is. the a.d. holder received a memo. incorrect. ac holder received recent events memo. that is incorrect. >> memos with your name on it addressed to you referring to the fast and furious operation. are you saying you didn't read them? >> i didn't receive them. what happened is these reports are prepared, weekly reports are prepared with my name on them and the deputy attorney general's name on them. their reviewed by my staff and a determination made what is brought to my attention. if you look at those memos there's nothing in any of those memos that indicate any of those

inappropriate tactics of concern to us now were actually used and my staff made the determination there was no reason to share the contents of those memos. ag holding receive significant defense memo? incorrect. >> have you apologize to the family of brian kerri? >> i have not apologized but i certainly regret what happened. >> have you talked to them? >> i have not. >> would you like to apologize today for this program that went so wrong that took the life of the united states law enforcement agent? >> before you answer it has to be a last question. out of time. >> i certainly regret what happened to agent brian kerri. i can only imagine the pain his family had to deal with. i'm a father of three children. we are not programmed to bury our kids. it pains me whenever there is the death of a law-enforcement

official especially under the circumstances that this occurred. it is not fair to assume the mistake that happened in fast and furious directly led to the death of agent terry. my feelings of sympathy and regret go out to the kerri family and i hope the steps we have put in place, the measures i have called for will prevent other federal agents and local state agents from being the subject of this violence as well as civilians in the united states and in mexico. >> i would put into the record a letter from the fraternal order of police embracing attorney-general holder for his embracing of rank-and-file officers especially on the question of safety officers and the work he has done with them following the spike and attacks on police officers around our

country. senator whitehouse. >> welcome, attorney-general holder. i spent four years as united states attorney for the district of rhode island. and while some time has gone by since then, my recollection is that there was -- i guess you call it kind of a convention in the department of justice. the lot of people got to write memos that were nominally designated to the attorney-general. there was value in that because it made you feel good to be writing a memo to the attorney-general of the united states and it was fairly widely

accepted that that with a common practice. that was my recollection, anyway. and the filtration of that flood of e-mails and memoranda nominally designated for the attorney general was filtered by the deputy attorney general and that then went through to the attorney general was kind of what the deputy perceived a need to know basis for then attorney-general janet reno. is my recollection correct and those that remain the convention within the department? that there is a large number of e-mails that are nominally directed towards the attorney general that is a matter of standard department practice that the attorney-general never sees? >> that is correct. there are a number of folders that exists so that we responded a timely fashion to things that

are raised to the attention nominally to the attention of the attorney general. you have assistant attorneys general with subject matter responsibility in a variety of areas and the deputy attorney general. we have an assistant attorney general for legislative affairs who responds to memos and things that come from members of the hill. there are a variety of things we say to the attorney-general that neither of us will ultimately see. >> i will even though it appears to have created some misunderstanding in this particular matter i would urge you not to depart from that because my recollection is the senior staff people and u.s. attorney's work very hard and the feeling when you're preparing a document that is going to be attorney general of the united states is an important one and it got shut off so that male had to be sent

to more junior officials in the department. other than the confusion is created i think it is a good thing for the u.s. attorneys and others to be able to write memoranda with the feeling this is going to the attorney general and calls up a higher level of performance and public spiritedness. i urge you to leave that in place even know there's a misunderstanding. >> let me make clear my staff as well as the staff in the deputy attorney general's office review large volumes of this material and some things do get brought to my attention if they make the determination that it is something that needs to be brought to my attention as opposed to something that is more routine or something that can be handled at a lower level. i get a fair amount of information i have to look at and would like to keep up with. it is not the things that were in the chart that senator cornyn had that were not brought to my

attention and my staff made the correct decision in regard. >> that is consistent with longstanding department practice. let me switch topics to the vulnerability that our country faces to a cyberattack. a lot of the committees of congress have done a lot of work on this subject. bills are out of committee and ready to go. there was a long pause while the administration did its work, of its interagency process which has now concluded and many of us believe that it is time for congress to move forward in a bipartisan fashion with meaningful cybersecurity

legislation. and in that vein, i would like to ask you to make your recommendation to us today as to how quickly and with what her urgency you believe we should be going forward to pass cybersecurity legislation and that is part i of the question. part ii of the question is sometimes we pass legislation around here and it is not clear whether or when it will have an effect. the prime area of national security risk is to national infrastructure. do you have any information you can give us on how quickly once we pass meaningful cybersecurity

legislation the critical infrastructure that is in private hands in this country can have it cybersecurity level dramatically increased so that the risk to our country through that critical infrastructure is the measure early reduced? >> you are right to focus on cybersecurity. it is something frankly we have waited too long. it has military applications. it has civilian infrastructure implications. it has intelligence gathering capability implications. it has criminal fraud problems that can result from lack of focus on this issue. with regard to the first question this has to be a priority. there are a variety of things this committee has to consider but as we in the executive branch focus on those things of most concern to as we spend the

huge amount of time focusing on this cyberissue. i hope we can work with this committee, members of congress, necessary legislation to deal with a real and present danger to this nation. >> the effect of getting it done? >> the effect will be seen. when you pass bills you frequently don't see the results of those bills for years sometimes. it will take a huge number of months but with regard to civilian infrastructure and other things we talk about in the first part of my answer, you see the ability to protect that infrastructure in a short period of time. one of the values we have a leader in the unique things about the cyberarea is protections that can be raised can be done relatively quickly because you're dealing with

electronic stuff that i don't totally understand but that can be changed relatively quickly so the impact, positive impact of this legislation is something we will feel relatively soon. >> this from senator grassley and senator coburn is not here. senator lee and after senator lee we will go to senator franken. >> thank you for joining us today. i understand the house judiciary committee has issued a request. i believe it was this past friday for documents and witness interviews related to justice keeton's servers as solicitor general. will the department of justice comply with that request? >> i am not familiar with that request. i would have to look at it.

i am not familiar with the request or what materials have been sought in that regard. >> our believe the intent is to get it in documents or other indication that justice kagan may have participated in discussions related to actual or contemplated litigation involving constitutionality of the affordable care act. >> one thing we did when she was solicitor general was moved her out of the room whenever conversation came up about the health care reform legislation. i can remember specific instances in my conference room where when we were going to discuss that topic we asked justice kagan to leave. >> there should not be a problem responding. >> i don't know what the nature of the request is. i can look at it. >> there were letters. one was sent on friday to the

house judiciary committee. you have acknowledged mistakes were made within the department of justice related to the fast and furious program. but without specifying who made those mistakes. i would be curious what mistakes you made you can identify and things you wish you had done differently. any mistakes he personally made? >> as i look in the information that was brought to me i think i acted in a responsible way by ordering the inspector general investigation and issuing a directive to the field. we have inspector general report that will look at this matter and i think we will clean from that report a better sense of what people did and who should be held accountable. i want to make clear on the basis of that report and any other information that is brought to my attention those

people who did make mistakes will be held accountable. >> you have reiterated several times people within the justice department believed to the initial statements denying knowledge of fast and furious were accurate. they believe they were accurate. obviously these were some people and not all people. some people do. what can be done to bridge this gap in the future to make sure the summit communique with the others particularly those at the top? >> one thing i hope as a result of the directive that are issued with regard to this whole question of gun walking that people understand that is not acceptable. the inspector general report makes a good point. the inspector general report will answer a question i don't know the answer to. who actually thought this was a good thing to do and why didn't people discover sooner than they did that what we thought was

occurring was not and there will be the result of the inspector general report. >> i have been curious about statements made recently by lenny bruce were, head of the criminal division that are indicative of a broader concern and likely implicate some questions related to fast and furious. mr. brewer has stated that although he and/or his top deputies approved several wiretap applications for operation fast and furious as required under federal law consistent with title agencies of the u.s. code, section 2518. just one role in reviewing wiretap applications, quote, to ensure there is legal sufficiency to make an application to interrupt communications to ensure the

government's petition to the federal judge is in his words a credible request. he went on to explain the responsibility of the district office carrying out the investigation, quote, to determine the tactics that are used are appropriate and justice has to rely on prosecutors in the field and not to second-guess them. >> i find this interesting in the sense that the requirements outlined in section 2518 of title 18 requires an analysis that the department of justice level. requires an analysis of you or your deputy or the assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division. one of those officials essentially. one of the things they have to do is rather than simply regurgitate back out the same facts and say this looks like the right statute they have to

undertake an assessment to such issues as have other investigative tactics proven inadequate and if so -- it is an extraordinary remedy and invasive investigative tool which is why congress requires the department of justice approved this. if he approved multiple wiretaps applications, one of two things is happening. he is not complying to assess each independently to make sure there was a representation made that the department established a case for wiretap application or on the other hand he was doing his job and was therefore made aware of what was going on with operation fast and furious. but didn't disclose that. or when he saw initial denials about fast and furious failed to

raise a flag that said this is a concern. so which is it? >> if lenny brewer had not approved, personally approve these requests, wiretap request. >> would it have been one of his deputies? >> a this is -- [talking over each other] >> report directly to him. my guess would be given the volume of these things and conversations about those kind of things probably does not exist. the only one is the assistant attorney general required to approve personally if it were a roving wiretaps. there were no broken wiretaps in connection with fast and furious. >> given the report directly to him wouldn't they be in a position once they saw the department of justice and it's a good neighbor on the line to have said the department of justice knew about this and we have approved significant series of wiretap applications. >> i don't think -- i have not

seen them. i don't have any information that indicates those wiretap application can anything in them that talked about the tactics that made this a bone of contention and legitimately raised the concern of members of congress as well as those of us in the justice department. i would be surprised if the tactics themselves contain in those applications. i have not seen them but would be surprised if that were the case. >> mark chertoff who is a huge cut general and republican, former arizona attorney general, democrat -- sounds trivial. put in the record that it concludes that it would be tragic for fast and furious caused our country to abandon mexico to the cartel's.