oversight procedures for all significant investigations. today i would like to correct the inaccurate and frankly irresponsible accusations surrounding fast and furious. some overheated rhetoric might lead you to believe this local arizona based operation was somehow the cause of the epidemic of gun violence in mexico. in fact fast and furious with a flawed response to and not cause of the flow of illegal guns from the united states into mexico. as you all know trafficking of firearms across the southwest border has long been a serious problem, one that has controrruted to the 40,000 deats in mexico in the last five years. ..

>> to disrupt the dangerous flow of firearms along our southwest border. i supported a number of aggressive, innovative steps to do so, and our work yielded significant successes. we built crime fighting capacity on both sides of the border by using evidence gathered in mexico to prosecute them in u.s. courts, and by successfully fighting to enhance sentencing guidelines for convicted traffickers and purchasers, and by pursuing multidistricted association of gun trafficking ripings. we led successful investigations into the murders of u.s. citizens in mexico, created new cartel fighting prosecutor unit, and secure the extradition of 104 defendants wanted by u.s.

law enforcement including the head of the tiwauna cartel. this saved lives in the united states and mexico, and i'm committed to reducing the alarming rate of violence by using effective and appropriate tools. like you, i want to know why and how the firearms that should have been under surveillance can wind up in the hands of the cartel, but beyond identifying where errors occurred and ensure they never occur again, we must be careful not to lose sight of the critical problem that this flawed investigation highlighted. we are losing the battle to stop the flow of illegal guns to mexico. this means, i believe, that we have a responsibility to act, and we can start by listening to the agents, the sect -- agents on the front line of the battle who testified here in cock.

-- here in congress. not only did they bring fast and furious to light, but sounded to cock that they need our help. fbi agents to testified this summer explained 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 leaders to work with us to provide atf with the resources and statutory tools is needs to be effective. another would be for congress to fully fund our request for teams of agents to fight gun trafficking. unfortunately, earlier this year the house of representatives voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchased multiple semiautomatic rifles in handguns in shops. this is entirely consistent with the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, and it is critical to addressing the public safety crisis along the

southwest border. as someone who has seen the consequences of gun violence firsthand and promised far too many grieving families i would do everything in my power not only to seek justice on behalf of their loved ones, but also to event other families from experiencing similar tragedies, i am determined to ensure our shared concerns about operation fast and furious lead to more than headline grabbing, wash washington got you games and point scoring. we have sacred responsibilities to fulfill. we must not lose sight of what's at stake here with lives, futures, families, and communities. when we protect them, i hope that we can engage in a responsible dialogue working towards common solutions, and i hope we can begin that

discussion today. >> with that, we'll begin the discussion. we have a number of issues, and besides that one, and i agree with you that if we're going to stop that flow of gun into mexico, and i heard the same from the mexican authorities, we have to take steps here in this country. we can't expect it all to be done across the border. let me tell you a few questions. i joined senator feinstein and others of the committee and the intelligence committee to ask the majority leader to refrain from bringing certain provisions in the defense authorization legislation before the senate, significantly improved. i know the administration expressed serious concerns with the military convention as reported are armed services and

reduce them and let terrorists know what options are all the table including those most successful in bringing about convictions. the heritage foundation argued the bill would deny the president needed flexibility. would you agree that we need to keep our options open in countering terrorists and not start taking options off the table? >> yeah, i totally agree. we have to use all elements of american power in the fight against terrorism, our military power, political power, the power in our judicial system, military conditions, we need flexibility, and we also have to be practical when it comes to the measures that congress that we follow. >> about 100 to 1 or 90-to-1

convictions have been in our courts; is that correct? >> that is correct. there is no question that if one looks at they look at the history, the article three system of courts shows they are fully changing any matter brought before them. >> same in the bush and obama administration? >> that is correct. >> thank you. it was reported anwar al-awlaki was killed in operation conducted by the united states in yes , ma'am mep, and the operation was conducted by secret memorandum issued by the department of justice issuing the targeted killing of citizens abroad. without going into the facts of that particular operation, i have written to you last month asking for a copy of the memorandum. is there any problem providing this committee with a confident memorandum even if it's required

to be be a classified session? >> well, first i want to indicate i will not address -- cannot address whether or not there's an opinion in this area, but i understand, mr. chairman, your interest in the subject, and we're commits to working with you to answer your questions in an appropriate setting and to the extent that we can. >> in february, the department of defense would no longer defend the defense of marriage argument, doma, in two cases. i agree with you and join senator feinstein and others introducing the respective marriage act repealing doma, allow all lawful marriages, provided lairnlg was lawful in the state it occurred with access to equal protections. in july, the president addressed his support for the defense of marriage act. it's considered by our committee to mark up thursday of this week.

do you support the respect for marriage act repealing doma? >> the administration does. it's consistent with the policies the government has taken as a result of the position that we took in court, i guess in the first circuit, so the administration does support the passing of that bill. >> and the violence against women act was to transform the society to be responsive to domestic violence, sexual assault, and focus on prosecuting those. there's been 5 lot of hearings here on that. it's now time to reauthorize it. and it was when vice president biden was chairman of this committee. do you agree with strengthening the act is priority especially in tough economic times with states and local budgets

reducing the resources available to protect the domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stocking? >> yeah, i think that is a priority for the administration, and i hope not only for this committee, but congress as a whole to reauthorize this. it's transformed our nation in a variety of ways, not only with regard to the programs funded, but the way in which we have viewed the subject matter of that act, and nothing, i think, can be -- that is among the top priorities for this administration. >> give you my own rule on time, this is my last question before turning to senator grass lee who indicated he wants to ask you about fast and furious. >> it's been explored in six previous hearings. i just wanted to raise your testimony to the house judiciary committee hearing on mai -- may 3rd when you were asked

about the program, and you responded, i mean, not sure the exact date, but i probably heard it the first time over the last few weeks. now, as you know, there's been a lot of talk about reference in a few weeks, but those critics tend to not put the question along with the answer, and you said in your answer you were not being precise, but giving your recollection. beginning an investigation of fast and furious and you testified about the operation of march 10th to the appropriations committee. let me ask you the question, give you the chance to be precise. when did you first learn the operational tactics being used in operational fast and furious, and what did you do about it? >> i first learned about the tactics and the phrase "operation fast and furious" beginning of this year, i think, when it became a matter of

public controversy. in my testimony before the house committee, i did say a few weeks. i probably could have said a couple of months. i don't think what i said in terms of using a term "a few weeks" was inaccurate based on what happened. i got from senator grassley indicating 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. it referenced operation gun runner. i asked my staff to lock into it, and 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 the staff to get to the bottom of that matter. we received information from atf and the united states attorney's office in phoenix that

contradicted some of the public reports, and it became clear to me the matter had to be resolved, and february the 28th, i asked the department of justice and inspector general to investigate faster and furious and instructing prosecutors throughout the justice department not to engage in flawed tactics we found in operation fast and furious on march 9th, and i also confirmed the investigation on march 10th, testified before i appropriations committee, so 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 distractions doing nothing that concerns us most

which is the flow of weapons across the united states to the southwest border. >> thank you. senator grassley. >> i was going to start with those letters that you just referred to that i gave you on january 31st, so you introduced my question. i'll go immediately to the question. when we met that day, did you know that the gunning connected to an atf operation had been found at the terry murder scene? >> i did not. >> thank you. less than 48 hours after agent terry died, your deputy was informed that guns found at the terry scene traced back to fast and furious, and there's e-mails and briefing papers that went to grindler on september 17th. did he say anything to you in december or january about the connection of the atf and the guns found at terry's murder scene? >> no, he did not, but i think

it's understandable in the sense of the information shared with him did not indicate tactics found in the flawed fast and furious operation were actually mentioned in the e-mail that you referenced. he did not share that information with me. >> okay. documents produced by the market suggest your deputy chief of staff spoke with dennis burke about fast and furious shortly after agent terry's death. did mr. wilkenson say anything to you about the death and the atf operation? >> no, he did not. the conversations that they had were about a variety of things that i looked at the e-mails now, and the possibility of me coming out to at some point 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, and as a result of that,

mr. wilkenson did not share information with me about his contacts and conversations with burke. >> deeply regrets his failure to tell you earlier about gun walking in operation wide receiver, but what about his failure to tell congress and correct false statements in the department's letter on february the 4th? is that acceptable to you he did not tell us about the false statements in the letter dated february 4? >> let me clear something up. the information shared with you on february the 4th in that response, there's information in the letter that's inaccurate. the letter could have been better crafted. we were relying in the crafting of that letter, people were relying on information provided to them by people who were, we thought, in the best position to know what was accurate. people in the u.s. attorney's office, people at atf, people who, themselves, now indicated

in their congressional testimony before the house they were not aware of the tactics employed. as a result of that, the information in the february 4th letter to you was not, in fact, accurate, and that is regretful. i regret that. >> did he offer you his resignation because of that? >> no, he has not. i don't expect an offer from mr. brewer. >> you're refusing to provide drafts of the february 4th letter and e-mails about the drafts even though they are subpoenaed by the house without a valid constitutional privilege that that risks contempt to congress. yo risk contempt of congress to prevent us from reviewing the letter and whether they knew they contained false statements 1234 >> well, we'll try to work with you in providing the relevant information that we can. we will, however, act in a way that's consistent with other attorney's general making determination to what

information can be shared with oversight committees, and these are republican and democratic attorneys, senator, and i'll act in a matter that's consistent with the history of the department. >> if those documents show that mr. brewer reviewed a draft of the letter before it went out and failed to correct the statements he knew was false, is that reason for resignation? >> that's reason for concern, but i think the facts show that the people who were responsible for the drafting of the letter did not know, at that time, that the information con taped in the letter was inaccurate. we now know looking back the information provided to you was inaccurate, and as i said, that is something that i regret. >> mr. brewer's deputy was also aware that atf walked guns. he approved the wiretap application for fast and furious and briefed judiciary committee staff on feb 10th in response to my letters. did he review a draft of the

february 4th letter before it was sent to me? >> i don't know. >> who will be held accountable for allowing a letter to congress with a statement that many people in the justice department knew was false? >> well, again, i have to dispute with do respect. the assertion that people in the justice department knew was false. people in the justice department responsible for the creation of that letter, again, we lied on information provided to them that they thought was accurate. we only know that the information was inaccurate in hindsight. at the time the letter was prepared, the thought, our best thought was the information supplied was, in fact, correct. >> someone in the justice department leaked a document to the press along 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 refused to provide it to congress, but then someone provided it to the press. the name of the criminal suspect in the document was deleted, but

the name of the atf agent was not. this looks like a clear and intentional violation of the privacy act as well as an attempt of whistle-blower retaliation. in a private phone conversation with me, you already told me that someone has been held accountable for this, but your staff refused to provide my staff with any details. who was held accountable and how? >> you know, it's almost pains me, and don't take this, but pains me as you said we had a private conversation -- you sent me a handwritten note that i took seriously, we worked together on a variety things, i looked at the note, took it seriously, referred that letter to opr, the ig, i'm not sure which of the two and asked them to try to find out what happened. i called you to try to indicate to you that i had taken that

matter seriously, that action had been taken, and, you know, in a different time in washington, i'm not sure that what you just said necessarily would have been shared with everyone here, but, you know, so be it. it's a different time i suppose. in response to your question -- >> you understand that i told you over the phone conversation if you wanted me not to ask this question, that i said have your staff inform my staff because i work very closely with my staff, and give the details so that i would know that this would be an inappropriate question to ask at this hearing. >> let the attorney general answer, and then we'll move on. keeping the same rule i applied to myself. >> you went one hour and 40 seconds. >> no, i did not, i finished the question before the time was up. go ahead, you can answer his question even though he asked after his time was up. >> with regard to the question,

the matters under investigation. there were a couple leak, and they are under investigation by the inspector general and office of professional responsibility, and i'm not in a position to comment on ongoing investigations. >> i'd like to thank you for working with us to honor law enforcement officers exhibiting exceptional courage in the line of duty. in 2008, congress passed the law enforcement congressional badge of bravery act. in order to honor these brave men and women, it's no easy task to choose only 21 award recipients from so many qualified nominees all across the country. two weeks ago, i was pleased to first the awards to two deserving officers in wisconsin. james page and lacrosse officer daniel bodick making the community and entire state of wisconsin proud, and i look

forward to continue to work with you to honor these important servants. my holder has been informed with an fbi proposal to close three of the six sins officers. if they go through, the western district of wisconsin loses half of the officers and may work with fewer agents. there's concerns about the remaining two offices to support already underserved rural areas. our chief law enforcement officer in the district strongly opposes these closures. people who live in rural wisconsin have a right to expect the fbi can investigate crime in their communities, i'm sure you would agree. after all, multimillion bank fraud is just as important as a million dollar bank fraud in milwaukee or chicago. according to the agency, this will lead to a stronger fbi presence in wisconsin.

however, how can this be the case when agents are located four hours away from the communities they serve. the final decisions will be made soon so will you commit to working with me right now in order to address the concerns and modify the proposal if necessary in order to ensure that wisconsin is not negatively impacted. >> i'll look at you and the proposed close sures and make sure they don't have a negative impact on the ability to perform the services to which the 1*9ss of wisconsin are -- citizens of wisconsin are entitled. we are trying to make sure that we are con figured in a way where we are most efficient and still most effective, but i have heard the concerns you raised about the closures was offices and i'll work with you in that regard. >> thank you, attorney holderment the chief department recently announce the plans to close four of the seven

anti-trust regional officers in atlanta, cleveland, and philadelphia saving $8 million annually by saving the cost of office leases. we are aware of reports that some career staff in these offices are a -- opposed to the closures and they are responsible for collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for anti-criminal investigations. on october 19th, the "washington post" reported there was a $500 million fine in a case brought against the international viet mines cartel, and the philadelphia office obtained a $134 million fine. a career attorney in the atlanta office stated his office collected about $20 million in fines annually on a budget of just $2 million. i indicated and interested in your response in your reports, are you sure the closures will

really be cost effective, ben will the department have sufficient resources to prosecute anti-trust cases in regions now fully servedded by the four offices you plan to close. >> yeah. that was a tough decision we had to make, but we thought that begin limited budgets that we have, that we could continue to do the work of the anti-trust division in spite of the fact those offices were closed. none of the investigations the offices were handling will be closed. we'll work from the remaining offices in other parts of the country to make sure that we maintain the kind of vigilance and intense anti-trust presence provided in the past. i don't think that the reconfiguring of the field offices has a negative impact in our ability to handle the things you mentioned. the offices have been effective in the past, but we can continue to be effective even under the reconfigured structured

proposed. >> i have any doubts. i just wanted to voice that to you. >> sure. >> we are pleased with the anti-trust lawsuit in august to block the proposed at&t mobile merger. in july 20th recommending this proposal be blocked, this is dangerous for competition and consumers. if allowed to proceed, this would combine two direct competitors and reduce a number of national cell phone companies in an already highly concentrated industry from four to three. millions of consumers across the country will face higher cell phone bills and fewer choices. from commentators that expressed concern that justice department might not be in the case for the long haul, agreed to a settlement to allow the merger to proceed. i don't believe that to be true, but can you reassure us on this point? i understand that you have rescued yourself in this case, but nevertheless, can you confirm doj is committed to pursuing the lawsuit if

necessary through trial? >> yeah, i'm rescued from the matter. james cole is ultimately in charge of this, and i'm sure that jim, the people in the anti-trust division are committed to seeing this through. the justice department does not file matters in court, does not file suits challenging mergers unless we are prepared to follow them all the way through. that's the structure in place. there's a trial team. i know about this just from what i heard, there's a trial team in place, and they are ready and eager to go to court. >> good. finally, i held a hearing on elder abuse and financial exploitation, and we heard stories of physical, emotional, sexual, and financial abuse of elders. according to doj, 40% of the senior citizens living outside of nursing homes or assisted living facilities have been

injured, exploited, or mistreated by intn on whom they depend for care and protection. this goes unreported indicating the true number of victims 1 much higher. in addition to causing the victims of abuse in their families great personal harm, professional exploitation to seniors cost the nation $2.5 million a year. despite the harm it causes, there's a lack of leadership at the federal level stopping elder abuse. that is why i introduced the act which senators are and justice department and centralized a response of elder abuse by coordinating federal, state, and local agencies. can we count on your support for this legislation? >> i want to work with you on that legislation. the justice department has tried to focus on the abuse that those people who are most vulnerable are forced to endure.

.. you made this decision even while lead meeting there was a declination report from career prosecutors in the eastern district of virginia. this decision prompted seven former directors of the cia to write a letter to the president opposing the sanction.

there are reports that almost all of the investigations that have now been closed. do you agree that you should have read those declination reports before deciding to reopen the investigation specially now that you are reaching the same decision as the career prosecutors did? just one last question. what message do you have for those cia employees whose lives have been in limbo last two years because of that failure to look at the declination? >> the decision i made to order that was an appropriate one. i reviewed a series of reports. among them an inspector general report. 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 people, american people working at our behest or people working for our government had

engaged in these interrogation techniques. i expanded the jurisdiction of john durham, very experienced prosecutor appointed to look at the matter by attorney-general mckay c.. his work is continuing. we are close to the end of the work that he has been asked to do. i stand by my decision. the decision i made was a correct one. the results are when they are but going through the process that i asked him to do was the right thing. >> my point is you had the advice of people who really knew what was going on saying you shouldn't do this and you have all seven former directors of the cia who were really offended by this, plus the problem with this is i think 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. i think was something that shouldn't have been done and having them in limbo was the wrong thing to do. it takes me back to the statements of litigation. i haven't seen much in the way of correction for those who did what were really offensive prosecutorial approaches. not only offensive but i think there should have been some real serious corrections done because what they did to a great u.s. senator and frankly to use as an excuse my understanding to use as an excuse that they just plain overlooked some of the most exculpatory evidence that has to be given to defendants would have acquitted him, should have been used to stop prosecution to begin with. something that i have to say

bothers me. i think it has bothered a lot of feet long both sides of the aisle. not necessarily blaming you on that. >> it clearly bothered -- >> i don't see anything being done about it. if we have that kind of prosecution going on in this country i know you share my view on this to a large degree. if we have prosecutors running while ignoring the law something as important as exculpatory evidence has to be given to the defendant in a criminal case, you can see why some people are losing confidence in what goes on. let me change the subject. >> if i could say one thing. i was bothered by what happened. >> you had to be. >> dropped the case. the matter has not been dropped. professional responsibility is looking into this matter. there at the last stages of

their examination of what happened in connection with the stevens case. there is a multi hundred page report just about finalized and we will see what their conclusions are. it is up to the people at 0 p r but we certainly what i indicated was i want to share as much as we can given the public nature of that matter and the public decision i made to dismiss the case so we will be able to share as much of that report as we can. >> i hope you are able to share every aspect of it. six months ago i along with several members of this committee rex pressed the recommendation that alley mcdoc was a senior hezbollah field commander in our custody be tried in the u.s. military tribunal. this terrorist was captured in the battlefield and responsible for kidnapping and execution of five american soldiers. has the decision been made to

put him before a military commission or a civilian trial in the u.s. the decision that will be made or even released to the iraqis? my question is have you prepared for the followup to bring him to the u.s. for a civilian trial had somehow or other find not guilty? five americans were killed by this guy. >> that is a matter still under discussion and decision will be made as to where the trial can occur where he can most effectively be tried but it is something that is still being discussed. >> thank you. the issue of enforcing laws against obscenity and laws pertaining or protecting children is very important to me. you received a letter signed by me and the house judiciary committee chairman lamar smith asking about the law requiring

producers of sexually explicit material to keep records about age and identity -- it has been six months without an answer. are you going to get us an answer on that? >> after this hearing i will speak to people at the department and we will try to get you a response to that. >> i appreciate that. your job is a tough job and i am first to admit it. appreciate it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i should note what senator hatch said. i feel there was serious misconduct by private prosecutors in the stevens matter. >> you are right. i have to say i have looked at that carefully and i have never seen a greater injustice to a member of congress. >> i would note to the senior senator from utah that i understand a pr does not normally make public their

findingss. i was hope that could be made as public as possible. it doesn't write whatever wrongs were done then. i hope it might preclude future problems. i mentioned -- the this is a partisan thing. >> it is not partisan. >> senator stevens, as a republican i stated publicly a number of times i thought that was badly handled. we agree on this. >> thank you. appreciate your confidence. >> i might add the tragedy of the stephens situation is that senator stevens is no longer here to be able to see the results of your examination. i would like to agree, mr attorney general, with what my colleagues have said. it is important whatever happened be made fully public

and never happen again. mr. chairman, if i may, i would like to put in the record the official firearms traced data from the department of justice from 12-1-2006 to 9-30-2,011. this is on guns. >> without objection. >> thank you very much. mr attorney general, welcome. you mentioned that you became aware of fast and furious in 2011. you spoke to us about the grassley letters at an end of january and february. you asked the ig to investigate in april. >> in february. >> february. thank you. my understanding is that the practice of letting guns walk first occurred in 2006 as part of operation wide receiver and

again the next year as part of the hernandez investigation. you review the records of this as i am sure you would, did the attorney generals at that time, i believe there were two of them in 2007, know about this practice and what was done about it than? >> i don't know about the knowledge the attorneys general had at that point in time. i have a report that it was said to mckay c.. when i saw the indications that guns had walked are was bothered by it. are was offended by it and concerned and ordered the inspector general to investigate and issued a directive to the field to make clear that gun walking was not appropriate and in consistent with justice department policy and should not occur. >> do your records indicate that

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 and laid fellow for us until the criminal division and obama justice department decided to try to bring cases that had been lined up there. >> thank you very much. since july of this year the atf has instituted a requirement federal firearms licensees in the four states that border mexico, california, mexico and texas report whenever a single purchaser buys multiple, meaning

two or more assault rifles in a five day period. i pulled the federal register and looked at that. it says that federal firearms licensees must report multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee cells or otherwise dispose of four or more rifles with the following characteristics, semiautomatic, caliber greater than 22, ability to accept detachable magazine to the same person at one time or doing any -- during any five consecutive business days. this requirement will apply only to federal firearms licensees who are dealers and/or pawnbrokers in arizona, california, new mexico and texas. can you tell us a little bit

about how that section has functioned? whether it is being carried out? if there are lapses? or if you believe it could be strengthened in any way? >> i think that regulation requirement is an extremely reasonable one. it has all the features you describe that significantly is totally consistent. it is exactly what we have been doing for years with regard to the sale of handguns and the notion that somehow or other we are in litigation now, being sued trying to do the very same thing we have done with handguns for years with regard to weapons that are far more dangerous, i don't understand how that can be opposed given the fact that this would provide atf, other federal agencies with useful information in trying 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 tried -- has voted to block 270 members of the house voted against what i think is a very reasonable regulation and when that is totally consistent with what we have been doing with handguns for years since the mid 80s. >> hy 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 that 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? >> i think it is. we are at the beginning stage of

it. it has not been in effect for long time but i think it is a tool that over time will prove to be extremely useful and help us in our efforts to stop the flow of weapons from the united states to mexico. >> this, senator, is steadily going to watch it. i would like to extend to through you a real compliment to the fbi, particularly in the saudi case and nazabulli zazi case, i was not sure the fbi had a culture to really develop the intelligence portion to the extent that they have. i follow this in intelligence and believe they have done an excellent job and we should be very proud of those plots that have been stopped. the successful prosecutions that have been brought in federal cases and i want to say thank

you for that. i think the fbi has really achieved -- my time has run out. major, major prosecutions for us. so thank you very much. >> thank you. i will put into the record a letter i sent to the acting inspector general about the operation fast and furious. as i understand the investigating allegations on that and asked whether she also has a connection with that investigation, operation wide receiver, a similar thing involving mexico and arizona. now that we heard former attorney general casey may have been briefed on a similar operation back in 2007. i will put that in the record and you have been waiting

patiently, senator gramm. after senator gramm will be senator schumer and senator cornyn. >> i want to congratulate you and all those risking their lives in the war on terror and fighting crime, very serious and substantial successes against a very vicious enemy and it is appropriate that we acknowledge the hard work that has gone into keeping the country save. from a strategic point of view we are coming to some crossroads as a nation about what we need to be doing in the future. i embrace trying to find a new confinement facility than guantanamo bay. john mccain did when he ran for president. senator obama, president bush but i have come to conclude and may not be the best vote counter in the world but we are not going to close gitmo anytime soon.

in september this year you were in brussels and you stated to the european parliament we have any election coming up in 2012 and we will be pressing for the closure of this facility between now and then. after the election we will try to close it as well. am i wrong in assuming there is not the folks here to close gitmo before november of 2012? >> you certainly count votes better than i can in this body and the house as well. you having served their. but it is administration policy to close guantanamo. we think it would be an appropriate thing to do for a variety of reasons. we have run into opposition. >> if i may just interrupt i understand where you're coming from and i embrace the idea of finding a new confinement facility but certain legal changes had to occur for that to be viable that have occurred. we don't need to blame each

other but going forward we live in a real practical world. do you agree with that? we got to make practical decisions. >> as practical as i like it to be but somewhat practical. >> i buy into the idea of this approach that sometimes the best venue in trying terrorists. i never said the courts don't have a place in this war. i have been very passionate about military commission. i think we see that the same. and all of the above approach and be as flexible as possible. my point is if we don't have a at a jail in the war on terror for future captures, that makes us less safe. where would we put someone if we caught them tomorrow? high-value target, where do we confine them? >> something we are discussing. >> put them in afghanistan? >> there are a number of options we are discussing and trying to work our way through to come up with a proposal that would be

both effective and would generate -- >> i honestly can't see an option that makes sense. the idea of putting them on ships for a limited period of time is not a viable substitute because ships are never meant to be permanent confinement facilities. i don't see afghanistan accepting new war on terror captures that bring 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 are trying to discover. the president has made clear that we are not going to be using the guantanamo facility so we have to come up with options funded and supported by congress. >> i have been as supportive as i know how in supporting flexibility to the executive branch and not micromanage the war but i conclude gitmo is not going to close and there's no viable option other than guantanamo being used that the iraqi legal system is not going

to allow us -- afghanistan is not going to come for a jail and naval ships are the and not the option and we need to embrace reality and the reality is we needed jail. we don't have one and gitmo is the only jail available. this dot.gov guy being held by the 0 iraqis is a hezbollah capture in iraq, and iranian inspired person who is training she a militia and charged with killing five americans. if we don't put him in gitmo where are we going to put him? >> those are options we are discussing, how he will be dealt with our topic of conversation i have engaged in with my counterparts. >> we had a conversation about k khalid sheikh mohammed and how would be ill-advised to put him in that court in new york city.

it would not go over well because it was ill suited case choice. not the fact that you can't use article iii accords. just not for someone like him. if you try to bring this guy back to the united states into civilian court using a military commission inside the united states the whole hill will break out and if we let him go and turn him over to the iraqis is just like letting him go. it would be a huge mistake. he is charged with killing five americans and at the end of the day i tried to be as practical as i know how to be. it would be a national disgrace to allow this guy to escape justice and the only option available to this nation is gitmo because there is bipartisan opposition to creating confinement in the united states and 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. do you believe it is a humanely run prison? >> i have been to guantanamo and

as the facility is now run the men and women there conduct themselves inappropriate way and prisoners are treated in a humane fashion. >> every detainee will have access to our federal courts to make a habeas petition for their release? >> there are a number of cases we're handling in the d.c. court. >> any conviction that comes for a military commission will be automatically appealed to our civilian court system? >> i think that is true. >> so the bottom line is we all agree guantanamo bay is the humane detention facility being well run with civilian oversight of what happens at guantanamo bay. my view is we are less safe if we don't have a prison and please tell me in the next 30 days, submit to this committee or me individually plan because we're running out of time would be reasonable, sound and as

political support to confine future captors and move people out of iraq and afghanistan or too dangerous to let go. could you do that in 30 days? >> i don't know. this is a decision that i will be a part of the decisionmaking process but the decision will be made by people higher up the ladder. >> tell those people we are about to withdraw from iraq and these people in iraq will be let go and we're running out of ability to hold people in afghanistan. time is not on our side. the war is an ongoing enterprise and we needed jail so i urge other senators to find a solution to this problem within 30 days. thank you for your service. >> going back to what you started with. whatever the proposal is and the administration works its way through i hope 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, try people and understand 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 administration's dealings with fast and furious but what has been sort of missing in the house investigation is it didn't start with the obama administration. it started with alberto gonzalez and continued with general mu a mulcas mulcasey. 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 george bush era version of fast and furious was prepared for the attorney general shortly after he took

office in preparation for november 16th meeting with attorney general eduardo maurer of mexico. that is clear that atf agents and line prosecutors in tucson as early as 2006 discussed and atf 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 by straw purchasers and as your production of material continues it is possible we will find out if this was discussed even before 2006. the briefing material from 2007 which was prepared for general mulcasey stated atf worked with mexico on the first-ever attempt to have a controlled delivery of weapons being smuggled into mexico by a major arms

trafficker. the first delivery attempts -- the first attempts at this controlled delivery have not been successful the investigation is ongoing. batf would like to expand the possibility of a joint investigation and controlled disfranchise -- since it will be possible to investigate a smuggling network rather than the rest of the simple smuggler. that is in a memo from the general -- general locates the --mulcasey but the assistant director of enforcement reviewed this language. i want to try to figure out who saw the briefing material so i will ask about the names that are listed at the top of the briefing memo prepared for general mulcasey for the november 16th meeting with mora. what position did matthew friedrich hold?

>> i don't know. >> he was deputy chief of staff and kevin o'connor and the girl he was associate attorney general. you may have recalled that. i think we can infer that mr. friedrich and mr. o'connor were likely to have received the material before or at the meeting with attorney general morales and given that the meeting was with his counterpart in mexico i think we can infer that his highly likely to have attended the november meeting and seen this material. are you aware of whether general mulcasey reviewed the memo? >> i don't know if he did or not. >> i don't want to out for anyone's attendants. obviously you weren't there but i want to be clear about that premise but with that caveat are you currently able to say whether there were any other high-ranking doj officials who attended the meeting? >> i don't know who attended the

meeting. >> it would not be beyond the pale for top officials to be briefed on this in preparation for the meeting or otherwise. >> it is possible. i just don't know. >> another one. do you have any knowledge whether the deputy attorney general craig mortar was briefed? >> i don't know that either. >> knowledge of any other members of other departments with border responsibility? dhs or state briefed on the program on these tactics? >> i don't know how extensively was a brief. >> lanny davis of the criminal division was briefed the press that he was briefed after it was closed, after wide receiver was closed in 2010. do you know if his predecessor was similarly brief tour took part? >> i do not know. >> lanny brewer. lanny brewer. i get those two mixed up.

okay. could you go back and look at the files or have someone do that and get us information with these people were part of briefings or meetings that might have related to that program wide receiver? >> we are as part of the process of responding to requests for information from the hill, we're trying to gather information from the e-mails to get a better sense of what was brief with regard to wide receiver. >> okay. one other thing, in the prepared remarks made by the attorney-general regarding the trip to mexico which he made on january 16th, he said i reiterated for the attorney general as i do now the united states is committed to addressing the flow of illegal guns into mexico and indicated deployed additional resources to arrest and prosecute violent criminals and trace firearms and tools of the trade used by

criminal gangs. this indicates that gun walking might have been discussed at this meeting as well. once again, is there anything you are able to say without out for anybody's attendants about that 2008 trip to mexico? what was discussed? .. >> they are looking at wrong doings on both sides, but that has not happened.

it appears -- it's a pretty good bet that top officials at the bush justice department, perhaps the attorney general himself, learned of this operation in the early stages. we know a memo was prepared, but we don't know what they knew. they let it continued, and for all we know, they endorsed it. it's important to look at both sides, and my suggestion is, mr. chairman, 23 the house doesn't do that, we should. okay? >> i agree. i thank you for the question, and senator and then senator whitehouse. >> i agree with senator schumer we need all the information about the programs and the distinctions, if any, between wide receiver and fast and furious. general holder, i note that fast and furious had a significant spillover effect in my state of texas where 119 of the weapons of the 2,000 weapons walked into the hands of the cartels, 119

showed up in crime scenes in my state. investigations reveal they ordered clerks at houston based business called carter's country to go through with sales of weapons to use as agents of the cartels. i sent you a letter on august 7 asking about the texas connections, and i got a letter back last friday from your so -- so board nants saying they were unable to at this time. we know that the weapons from fast and furious have shown up at 11 different crime scenes in the united states, and is far from, as you stated earlier, law enforcement operation in terms of its impact. many of these weapons, of course, ended up in mexicoment

one, we know at the death of the crime scene where brian terry was murdered by the cartels. let me ask you about the time line. first of all, on february the 4th, assistant attorney general wrote a letter denying gun walking, and it wasn't until november 1st of 2011 when brewer testified that that letter was false, that throughout that whole period from february 4th to november the 1st 2011, your department left the impression on congress that the allegation that the department engaged in gun-walking operations was false when, in fact, mr. brewer said that letter sent to senator grassley in response to his inquiry, that that letter was false. how do you account for the department from february 2011

until november 2011 misled congress about the accuracy of that allegations. >> as i -- your question, i assume you did. february 4, the information contained in that letter was thought to be accurate. it's not until sometime after that that we had a sense that the information was not, in fact, accurate. it was not as if the date upon which we knew the information was inaccurate was on february 4. it comes some time after that. i receive things as late as march of 2011 from people at atf who assured me that gun-walking did not occur. >> your department, you said you learned about fast and furious on ma 3, learned over the last few weeks. today, it's over the last couple months. >> it could be expressed as over

the last couple months. the last few weeks as i said is consistent with the time line that you have up there. >> the fact is the didn't's official response to senator grassley is part of his investigation was that it didn't happen until you came before the house and said that you learned about it over the last few weeks. that was may the 3rd, 2011; 1 that correct? >> i'm not sure i understand the question. >> okay. let me go on to something else. do you still contend this is a local law enforcement operation? >> no, no, it's a federal -- no -- don't misinterpret that. it's a federal -- >> your words. you said it was local law enforcement. >> that's my fault then. it's a federal law enforcement operation that was concerned -- that was of local concern. it was not a national operation. >> well, it was in mexico, to texas, and obviously in arizona, so it was not certainly local in

effect. you would agree with that? >> as i indicateed in my opening statement, effects will be felt in mexico and the united states for years to come. a lot of the guns still have not been accounted for; correct? >> yeah. a number of the guns are in thing thed -- a number of guns are not accounted for, and that's why i'm tried to assure the mistakes that happened there are not repeated. >> this is the organization chart for the department of justice. you would agree with me that the bureau of tobacco, firearms, and explosives is an agency in the department of justice of which you are head; correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> that's your signature right here attesting to this organization chart, april 30, 2010. you're not suggesting, are you, general holder, that it's not your responsibility to have known about this operation, is

it? >> well, there are 115,000 employees in the united states department of justice. there are -- >> and it stops with you. >> i have ultimate responsibility for that which happens in the department, but i cannot be expected to know the details of every operation that is ongoing in the justice department on a day-to-day basis. i did not know about fast and furious as indicated in the charts that you now have up there until, i guess -- well, until it became public. >> you cannot be -- you didn't know despite the fact that we know you received an ndic memo on july 5, 2010, another memo on fast and furious, november 1, 2010, you say you can't be expected to have known about it because of the size of the agency? >> there's problems with the chart, colorful though it is,

they received the memo is up correct, they receive significant recent events memo is incorrect. >> they had your name on it addressed to you referring to the fast and furious operation, or are you just saying you didn't read them. >> i didn't receive them. >> you didn't rave them? >> the weekly reports are prepared with my name on this them, with the general's name on them, reviewed by my staff, and a determination made as to what should be brought to any attention. if you look at the hem moes, there's nothing that indicates any of those inappropriate tactics that is of concern to us now were used, and my staff made the determination there was no reason to share the content of those memos with me, so ag holder receives memo, incorrect, receives recent event memo, also incorrect. >> have you apologized to the family of brian terry? >> i have not apologized to them, but i regret what

happened. >> have you talked to them in >> i have not. >> would you like to apologize today for this program that went so wrong that took the life of a united states law enforcement agent? >> before you answer, now would have to be your last question because you're out of time. >> i certainly regret what happened to agent terry, and i can only imagine the pain his family had to deal with in particular, his mother. i'm the father of three children myself. we are not programmed to bury our kids. it pains me whenever there is the death of a law enforcement official, especially under the circumstances that this occurred. it is not fair, however, to assume the mistakes that happened in fast and furious directly led to the death of agent terry. again, my feelings of sympathy and regret go out to the terry family, and i hope that the steps we have put in place, the

measures i have called for will prevent other federal agents, local, state agents from being the subject of this kind of violence as well as civilians both in the united states and mexico. >> and i would put into the record a letter from the paternal order of please praising attorney general holder to his commitment for law enforcement, ranking file officers especially on the question of the safety of officers and the work he's done with them following the spike in attacks on police officers around our country. senator whitehouse. >> thank you, chairman. welcome, attorney general holder. i spent four years as the united states attorney for the district of rhode island, and while some time has gone by since then, my

recollection is that there was a, i guess you call it a convention in the department of justice that a lot of people got to write memos that were nominally designated to the attorney general. there was some value in that because it kind of made you feel good to be writing a memo to the attorney general of the united states, and it was fairly widely accepted that that was a common practice. that was my recollection, anyway, and that the filtration of that flood of e-mails and memorandum nominally designated for the attorney general was filtered by the deputy attorney general and that office and then

what went through to the attorney general was kind of on what the deputy perceived to be a need to know basis for then attorney general reno, and is any recollection correct, and does that remain the convention within the department that there's a large number of e-mails nominally directed towards the attorney general, but as a matter of standard practice, the attorney general never sees? >> that's correct. there's a number of what i'll call "filters" that exist so we can respond in a timely fashion of things that are raiseed to the attention of the general. there's subject matter responsibility in a variety of areas, the deputy attorney general, assistant attorney general who responds to memos and things that come from members of the hill, so there's a whole variety of things that will say to the deputy attorney

general that we never ultimately see. >> even though it appears to have created misunderstanding in this particular matter ring i urge you not to depart from that because my recollection is that senior staff, u.s. attorneys and others, work very, very hard and that the feeling when you're preparing a document that it's going to be to the attorney general of the united states is an important one, and if that's shut off that mail had to be sent to more junior officials in the department, i think -- other than the confusion this has created, i think that it's a good thing for the 93 u.s. attorneys and others to be able to write memorandum with the feeling this is going to the attorney general, and i think it calls up a higher level of preference and public spiritedness.

i urge you to leave that in place although there's been a misunderstanding. >> sure. my staff, as well as the staff in the deputy attorney general's office reviews a large volume of the material, and so some of the things say to the attorney general make it to my attention if they determine it needs to be brought to my attention opposed to something that's routine or something handled at a lower level. i get a fair amount of information i look at, stay up at night to keep up with it, it's not the things in the chart. those things were not brought to my attention, and my staff, i think, made the correct decision in that regard. >> that's consistent with long standing department practice. let me switch topics to the vulnerability that our country faces to a cyber attack. a lot of the committees of congress have done a lot of work

on this subject, bills, i think, are out of committee and ready to go. there was a long pause while the administration did its work of its upper agency pro-- inner agency process which is now concluded, and many of us believe that it is time for congress to move forward in a bipartisan fashion with meaningful cyber security legislation, and in that vain, i would like to ask you to make your recommendation to us today as to how quickly and with what urgency you believe we should be going forward to pass cyber security legislation, and that's

part one of the question. part two of the question is that sometimes repass legislation around here, and it's not clear whether or when it will have an effect. >> uh-huh. >> the prime area of real national security risk is to privately owned -- >> right. >> national, critical infrastructure. >> right. >> do you have any information that you can give us on how quickly, once we pass meaningful cyber security legislation, the critical infrastructure that is in private hands in this country can have its cyber security level dramatically increased so that the risk to our country to that critical infrastructure is reduced? >> uh-huh. i mean, i think that you are right to focus on this whole question of cyber security. it is something that i think frankly we have waited too long

to act upon. it has military implications. it has civilian infrastructure implications. it has intelligence. our intelligence gathering capability implications. it has, obviously, just criminal fraud problems that can result from our lack of focus on this issue. with regard to the first question, i think this has to be a priority, that there are a variety of things that this committee has to consider, but as we in the executive branch focus on things of most concern to us, we spend a huge amount of time on this cyber issue, and i hope we can work with this committee, members of congress to come up with the necessary legislation to deal with what is a real and present danger to this nation. >> and the effect of getting it done? >> the effect, i think will be seen -- it's interesting because

when you pass bills, frequently, you don't see the results of those bills for, you know, years sometimes. a huge number of months, but with regard to civilian infrastructure, other things talked about in the first part of my answer, i think that you would see the ability to protect that infrastructure in a relatively short period of time. one of the values we have, a unique thing about the cyber area is that the protections that can be raised can be done relatively quickly because of dealing with switches and electronic things i don't totally understand, but that can be changed relatively quickly so the positive impact of this legislation would be something that we would feel relatively soon. >> thank you. >> senator lee? then after senator lee we'll go

to senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. holder, for joining us today. i understand that the house judiciary committee issued a request, i believe this past friday, for documents and issues of justice kagan involved in litigation during her service as solicitor general. will the department of justice comply with that request? >> i'm not familiar with the request. i have to look at it. i'm just not familiar with the request, what's been made, or what materials have been sought in that regard. >> okay. i believe the intent of the question is to get it in the documents or any other indication that justice kagan, while serving as solicitor general, may have participated in discussions related to actual or contemplated anticipated litigation involving constitutionality of the affordable care act.

>> i'll tell you one of the things we did while she was solicitor general was to physically -- physically -- literally move her out of the room whenever a conversation came up was about the health care reform legislation. i can member specific instances in my conference room where when we were going to discuss that topic, we asked justice kagan to leave, and she did. >> that being the case, there shouldn't be a problem complying with the request. >> i don't know the nature of the request, but i'll look at it p 37 >> okay. there were letters. one sent friday from the chairman of the house judiciary committee. >> okay. >> you acknowledged today mistakes were made obviously within the department of justice related to the fast and furious program, but without specifying who made those mistakes. i'm curious, what mistakes have you made that you can identify,

things that you wish you had done differently. any mistake that you personally have made? >> well, i think that, you know, as i look at the information as it was brought to me, i think that i acted in a responsible way by ordering the inspector general to issue the directive to the field. we have an inspector general report that will look at this matter, and i think that we will gleam from that report a better sense of what people did, who should be held accountable, and i want to make clear that on the basis of that report and any other information that is brought to my attention, those people who did make mistakes will be held accountable. >> and you reiterated several times people within the department of justice believed the initial statements, denying knowledge of fast and furious, were accurate. they believed they were accurate. obviously, these were some people and not all people. >> right. >> clearly, some people knew. >> exactly.

>> what can be done to bridge the gap in the future to ensure the some communicate with the others, particularly those at the top? >> well, one of the things that will be that as a result of the directive issued with regard to this whole question of gun walking that people understand that is not accept l, but the inspector general report ultimately answers a question that i don't know the answer to right now. who actually thought this was a good thing to do, and why wasn't -- why didn't people discover sooner than they did that, in fact, what we thought was occurring, in fact, was not, and i think that will be the result of the ig, the inspector general report. >> you know, i've been curious about some statements made recently by lanny brewer, the head of the criminal division, that once indicative of a broader concern, and also, i think, in some ways likely to

imp kate questions related to fast and furious. mr. brewer stated although he and/or his top deputies approved several wiretap applications for operation fast and furious, as is required under federal law and consistent with title 18 of u.s. code section 2518. main justice has only one role in reviewing the sufficiency of wiretap applications, quote, "to ensure there's legal sufficiency to make an application to interrupt communications." that is to ensure the government's position to the federal judge is in his words a credible request. he went on to explain that it's the responsibility of the district offices carrying out the investigation, quote, "to determine tactics used are appropriate and that main justice has to rely on those prosecutors in the field and not to second guess them." i find this interesting in the

sense that here the requirement outlined in section 2518 of title 18 requires an analysis at the department of justice level. it requires an analysis of you or of your deputy or of the assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division, one of those officials essentially, and one of the things they have to do there is rather than simply recourage at a time back out the same facts and say, yeah, they decided to write the statute, they have to undertake an assessment as to such issues as have other up vest gaitive -- investigative tactics proven inadequate, and if so, why is a wiretap -- a pretty invasive remedy, investigative tool, and that's why congress is understandably required that the department of justice at the top levels approve these, so if he, in fact, approved multiple

wiretap applications, then one of two things, i think, is happening. he's not complying with that duty to assess each one independently to ensure that there was this representation made, that the department established the case for a wiretap application or on the other hand, he was doing his job, and was therefore made aware of what was going on with operation fast and furious, but didn't disclose that or when he saw initial denials by the department of justice about fast and furious, failed to raise the flag to say this is a concern. which is it? >> if he would not personally approve the requests, the wiretap requests. >> wouldn't it have been a deputy? >> deputy assistant attorney regime. >> who report directly to him. >> who reports directly to him, but my guess would be begin the

volumes and conversations about those things does not exist. the only thing the assistant attorney general is to approve is a roving wiretaps, and there was none with fast and furious. >> begin they report directly to him, his good name is on the line, wouldn't it have been good to say, hey, the justice department did know about the program, and, in fact, we approved a significant series of wiretap applications on this point. >> i have not seen them. i have not seen them, but i don't know -- i don't have any information that indicates that those wiretap applications in anything in them talking about the tactics that made this such a bone of contention and legitimately raised the concern of members of congress as well as those of us in the justice department. i'd be surprised about the tactics of gun-walking were actually contained in those applications. i have known seen them.

but i would be surprised if that was the case. >> general lee, time's up, and i will note that mark was utah's attorney general and a republican -- [inaudible] asked they put in the record that it's tragic that fast and furious caused our country to abandon mexico to the cartels. the cartels are the enemy, not the atf or the department of justice, and we have to provide the men and women who fight the battle with the tools they need. senator coons. >> thank you, chairman, and i'd like to thank you, attorney, general, for being here in the oversight committee, and thank you for your service and detailed and thorough testimony here today, and before i begin,

i just wanted to highlight those who asked about this, i'm concerned about the real and emerging threat, and to meet the threat, and they happen to have a unique and promising national guard unit, a squaw drant, and the chairman and i sent you a letter asking for your position on whether the national guard would provide a path way for the doj to make uses of the cyber defense resources as they expand their law enforcement resources, and i thank you in advance for your consideration of that, and i look forward to the department's response. in addition to espionage, also addressed, the counter intelligence executive released a fairly alarming report accusing china and russia acapable collections of

sensitive u.s. economic information and technologies through cyberspace. frequently, i.t. software developers know about exploitable bugs in the software month before a security patch is issued and corporations don't apply patches necessary to protect against vulnerabilities. do we have the right incentives in place to encourage the private sector to respond quickly and appropriately to emerging security threats to defend themselves from fraud and promote our nation's security for our i.t. infrastructure? >> i think the issue that you've highlighted is one that should be of great concern to us. i took a trip to china last year, to have a frank conversation with them about the concerns we had about intellectual property, the theft of the property, industrial, stealing of industrial secrets. we are going to have to compete with them in the 21st century, and we should be doing so on a

level playing field, and so that is a big concern that we have. it's one that we have expressed to the chinese. >> one follow-up question i got is about resources for the department. the economic espionage act was passed 15 years ago, and as of october, there's only been eight cases tried under this, and so the last time that you testified before us, i asked whether you thought the doj needed additional resources either financially or statutorily to more successfully criminally prosecute those who steal sensitive i.t.. this report given the real prospect we're losing vast amounts of national treasure, is the doj ramping it up? do you see a need for more statutory or financial resources for the department in light of this report? >> no, i think it is a priority for the department, but i do

think that even in the tough economic times given the nature of the threat and what's at stake both for the safety of the nation and economic well being, that this is an area to focus on, this is an area that will require as i deal with limited numbers of of people, some decisions have to be made by me and others in the department, hopefully with the support of members of congress to ramp up our abilities to deal with these issues. it is not too much to say. it is not an overstatement to say that the future of this nation is really dependent on in part how we resolve the issues that you are raising. >> on a related point, the customs and border patrol in my view has interpreted the trade secrets agent to bar it from sharing it with rights holders either of photos, documents, or samples related to seized goods that could be counterfeit.

there's a hearing, i believe, today on the grave threat posed to the servicemen and women by counterfeit chinese microchips that made their way in u.s. weapons systems in a significant quantity, and many of the counterfits may be examined, but they are not consults with sources that i think could make it possible for them to more rapidly determine what's being intercemented is counterfeit or not. do the doj or ever would prosecute a customs and border patrol agent for sharing information when the intention to see if something seized is or is not counterfeit? >> we have discretion, and it's hard to imagine such a case, but to the extent that impediment exists between the sharing of that information and begin the need for a public-private partnership to deal with these issues that that might be a legislative fix that perhaps we

could discuss and somehow deal with it. we're only going to be successful in this if we have the government working with the private sector to deal with these issues. we can't do it alone. we can't do it alone in government. the private sector can't do it alone as well to the extent there's bear your -- barriers to information sharing, we have to knock them down. >> thank you. i'm happy to work with you on finding a fix, and i think we are hand strung in border enforcement on the vital issues. last, as part of the cr to fund the government of fy11, many programs took deep cuts, especially hard hit in my view designed to support state and local law enforcement. it was cut, i think, by more than $430 million for the cops technology program, and in particular, concerned where it's zeroed out and other programs took double digit cuts. in my home state where i

supervised a law enforcement department, it means less money for youth in criminal diversion programs and less money for officer protection and equipment. in your view, how have the cuts afghanned your ability to provide cost effective support with a multiplier effect for state and local law enforcement, and what's the impact if the house would zero out the program were to actually be enacted. >> let me be very, very clear. those proposed cuts are simply unacceptable and place this nation at risk. though we are enjoying historically low crime rates, we have 30,000 veigh cant law enforcement -- vacant law enforcement positions in the country, lost 12,000 officers in the course of the last year, and we put at risk the possibility that these low rates will not remain there forever. there have been high rights of shootings of police officers, although the rates are coming

down generally in terms of crime, the amount of violence directed towards police officers is up 20% in two years. the number of deaths this year is outpacing that of what we saw last year, and the notion that somehow, some way, we would, at a time when we are trying to create jobs, take people who are sworn to protect the lives of the american people off the line is, to me, illogical, and unaccept l, and dangerous. >> yeah. thank you, mr. attorney general. i look forward to working with you to sustain the cops program and other vital partnerships with state and local law enforcement. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. attorney general, for being here today. i listened to all the questions and all of your answers, and i want to thank you for effectively addressing many of the questions surrounding fast and furious and dispelling any doubt that you are determined to uncover all the facts

surrounding all the regrettable circumstances here, so that we understand a lot of names have been mentioned here, general casey, kevin o'connor, former general attorney in the state of connecticut, and others now, and there's no evidence here before us now that nay knew about any wrong doing, is there? >> i hope my testimony was clear. >> it has been, thank you, and there is an ongoing investigation which eventually will disclose whether or not and who knew about what was going on. i want to thank you for being so candid and straightforward on that point. i want to join my colleague, senator coons in expressing my determination that there should be more assistance and sufficient support for our police on the streets of connecticut, in our neighborhoods, as well as the firefighters and other personnel

that i would regard as law enforcement which are really in more than one sense the cops on the beat who protect us day in and day out despite the very excellent performance of the fbi who do the bulk of law enforcement for our nation, and i appreciate and thank you for your support, and i think perhaps for me, one of the most important aspects of your testimony today is really the vigor and intensity that the department of justice is devoting now to stopping gun trafficking and drug dealing and gang violence on our borders and throughout the country, but most particularly in connection with the mexican gangs that pose such a threat to americans as well as mexicans and as i understand your testimony, there's been

record numbers of arrests, prosecutions, convictions, and extraditions; is that correct? >> that is correct. we have moved a substantial numbers of roirses to the -- resources to the border in an attempt to stop the flow of guns into mexico, to stop the violence along the border. we worked in the interior of mexico with our mexican counterparts in training, and we tried to come up with ways in which we could fight the cartels. they are mexican counterparts that sacrificed a great deal, and even with their lives in this fight, and we have tried to be good partners in that struggle. >> and would it be fair to say that the mexicans are increasingly becoming good partners in this effort? >> yes, i think so. i think through the use of vetted units, through the use of other techniques that we have shared with them, through their growing sophistication with the use of electronic devices, i

think they are becoming more profirst time in this battle -- proficient in this battle. >> there's no question that the department of justice under your leadership will continue to work on disrupting and dismantling these gang-led efforts or other efforts on drug trafficking and gun dealing and so forth? >> yes, this will continue to be a priority. too often, this is dwiebed as a southwest border problem, but it's a national problem. what happens along the southwest border can impact connecticut, impact chicago, and the person who was mentioned a lot, and he deserves credit here, the person leading the effort for department of justice, brewer, who committed a huge amount of time this this fight, established good relationships with his counterparts in mexico, and has been a person who really stood for this country in developing good techniques to

reduce that level of violence and the dangerous that the d danger that the cartels pose to the country. >> i'd like to turn to another subject that i think is equally important, not necessarily at this point a topic of criminal investigation, but the mortgage foreclosure crisis, i know, has been very much on your mind and the department's focus, and i wonder whether we can expect criminal investigations or other investigations that will be aimed at going after fraudulent document that is have been submitted in court with information of homeowners that have sought and sometimes received loan modifications, a series of practices and abuses 245 are under investigation by my former colleague, the state attorney's general with the cooperation of the department of justice and the department of treasury. >> yeah. there's a number of investigations underway. we're working with our

counterparts, the state ig's who have been extremely helpful, and who, i think, have been extremely effective. we'll be looking at these matters to see if criminal cases can be made. if there's other ways in which we can hold accountable organizations or people, perhaps similar remedies as well, but it's our intention to ensure those responsible for the mortgage crisis are, in fact, held accountable. >> and i would like to pursue this area in greater detail, my time is close to expired, and i hope with your staff own yourself i could do so in that regard. >> i'd be glad to. >> and i want to ask on a related topic, i know that so far the department of justice has declined to intervene in a lawsuit that has been brought by

two mortgage brokers in georgia alleging that a number of largest lending institutions in the country have been in effect cheating veterans and taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars by charging them illegal fees in home refinancing loans, and i'm particularly concerned about the effect on veterans and the possibility that they may have been treated illegally, and i wonder whether the department may be reconsidering, which i would urge, along with two of my colleagues, senators brown and tester that it become involved in what i view as a whistle-blower action and intervene to protect the interest of these veterans and other taxpayers. >> okay. that is something i'll have to review. i'm not as familiar with that as obviously you are, but i will check with the appropriate people within the department and

see whether our decision to decide to note become involved is, in fact, an appropriate one, but i will make that pledge to you, and we'll get back to you. >> thank you. i won't give you a 30-day deadline to come back to us, and i join, by the way, with senator grahm more seriously in the concern about the detainee issue as i know you take it seriously as well, but i appreciate you getting back to me on that issue. >> sure. >> and thank you for jr. service. >> we will. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. attorney general. my colleagues mentioned the work done to avert terrorist attacks on our own soil including the recent assassination attempt of the saudi ambassador, and i continue your support of the local law enforcement. i can't tell you the difference

it's made in our state. minneapolis changed in part because of tougher law enforcement, but also because of the help from the cops program, so thank you. i was going to first ask you here about some intellectual property issues recently senator and i introduced a bill that passed through the senate judiciary committee on a bipartisan basis and the bill is designed to go after people who steal other people's works whether it's books or commercial music or movies, incoming foreign pie -- including foreign piracy, and it just includes professional, not personal works people post to the web, but it's from a first time guitarist with their first cd in nashville, and as far as i can see, america's not a country where people with write a song or book just to have someone copy it, sell it, and make money off of it without permission.

members of your department expressed support for this legislation, and, in fact, the idea for it came for the administration when they suggested the u.s. law enforcement agencies to combat imfringement have to be as sophisticated as the crooks breaking the laws. i appreciate your response to the letter from your department in talking about how the provision of the bill regarding streams does nots criminalize caught that's already criminal. right now, it's a misdemeanor, and my only question is if you would commit to work with us to take any necessary steps to make crystal clear the bill does not criminalize new conduct with the streaming issue, that we are not seeking to criminalize youtube or harmless posting of personal videos. >> sure. we'll work with you on that legislation. the issue that you raise is an important one, and we'll do what we can in conjunction with you

so people understand what the aim of the bill is and to put people's minds at ease with regard to what actually is covered and, i guess, most importantly, what is not covered. >> that would be helpful. i appreciate that. another important topic that we've been working on this in committee is the growing problem of sip thetic drug -- synthetic drugs. i'm shocked at the number of calls to the poisen control centers in the last two months at the same time from last year. there's a man who died from a synthetic hallucinogen, and we had bills pass through this committee not just for that drug, but also for bath salts and synthetic marijuana. these bills are stalled. i think there was unanimous support in this committee, but they are stalled because one senator, not senator durbin, put a hold on the bills, and so i just ask for your help in

getting them through, and maybe you can talk a little bit about what we're seeing in terms of a new phenomena with these designer drugs. >> yeah, i think that is of great concern. the dea took emergency action with regard to the regulation of bath salts, and we've seen tragically and unfortunately instances around the country where people, young people in particular, using these substances have had negative health consequences, sometimes even died. i'm not sure exactly -- i'm not familiar with the hold, but i think that the legislation is clearly needed and we'll work with you on that to try to get it passed. i was not aware of the hold. >> yeah. it's a new phenomena, not a new phenomena to hold things in the senate, but on this bill, we're surprised. we are working with the senator who put on the hold, and there's an issue with house bills to work out. i think it's inbly talking to

law enforcement and in our state particularly in smaller communities where they bring in chemists and people to try to prove it's an analog substance, and that's the second point is that one of the things i realized is they keep changing the compounds, and we put them on the list, it's helpful, but not the end all, be all, and i'll look at the an loll statute to see if there's -- analog statutes to see if there's changes we can make to it to make it simpler to explain a drug when there's a simple change in the come popped that there's three or four factors that we have to look at the standard differently, and i'll work with you attorneys and laurel on that issue as well -- law enforcement on that issue as well. anything to say about that? >> it's important. as they are made synthetically, you know, you can change -- i don't know all the terms -- but you can change the elements of these things, and it should not be the case we have to come back

to congress to get a new statute in order to deal with the new compound. there should be discretion to recognize it's a derivative of something that has been previously banned, dealt with, and that we can take emergency action, appropriate action so that we can deal with these things as they come up because we know that the reality is that these chemical compounds, substances can be changed relatively quickly, and we have to have the flex the and the -- flexibility and ability to respond as rapidly as we can. >> thank you. i know when i was a prosecutor, i didn't know about the issue. it was not a big deal, and suddenly a switch where because of people buying it easily, they think maybe it's legal because it's on the computer, it's getting to be a huge problem, so i appreciate that, and i think we need to look at that statute. obviously, it's harder than just adding the drugs to the list, but it makes is simpler so we

can literally fit the crime here because right now it's too tough and has been too hard of a hull to just get these drugs on the list. it's something i hoped would happen automatically. lastly, i introduced a bill with senator bill nelson from florida on guardianship. so many are doing their jobs, but unfortunately, including reports by the gao have shown that some are using their position of power for their own gain, and i heard dozens of heart breaking stories that i held in the judiciary committee as well as meetings i have at home. are you familiar with this issue? we're trying to make changes to the statute. >> not familiar with it, but i'm -- the bill, i've heard about the issue, the problem, and we're more than glad to work with you both in the exploration of the problem and what the solutions to it might be. >> we're looking at, first of all, just some guidelines, which is always helpful, background

check systems, using examples of states where it's actually working to do background checks. it's unbelievable, but there's a number of states that don't require criminal background checks, and we're not having federal law enforcement on this, but looking how to show best practices in some of the states so that we can do a better job of oversight. we'll see a doubling of the senior population by 2030, the baby boom generation, and we need to get ahead of the curve here, so thank you very much. >> okay. >> thank you very much. did you want to say anything to that? >> just an observation that i'll be a member of that baby boom generation that's going to be -- i might already be there at this point. >> i thought of saying that, but i decided to hold that bang [laughter] >> i am trying to show a great deal of sympathy to you. [laughter] knowing the difference in our ages. senator durbin. thank you, mr. chairman i noticed you taked about the efforts to extradite those in

mexico responsible for the killing of americans. i want to take you to another aspect of this issue. recently, the "chicago tribune" did a series relating to the criminal fugitives who fled the country. 129 criminal suspects have fled illinois according to doj data, and many of them have been charged with crimes as serious as murder, rape, and child molestation wha. we found in cases over and over again in the series is reflected in one case in particular. in 1996, it's alleged that pedro gunned down a single mother and restaurant owner, maria rodriguez, for spurning his romantic advances and then fled. within two months, the relatives exposed his where abouts to the chicago police in fex koa and

giving them the name of the street where he was staying with his parents and gave a telephone number where he can be reached. no action was taken. in fact, what has happened sense 1996 is the family of ms. rodriguez, they found there's been no help in trying to locate him. the reporters found him in 48 hours in mexico. unfortunately, in the ensuing 15 years, virtually all the witnesses to the crime are unavailable or income pass at a timed. this raises questions about the community cations between the local law enforcement and department of justice. first, i'd like to ask you, if you would, please, to join me in bringing all agencies of law enforcement at every level together to resolve this break down in communication, and secondly, i'd like to give you a

chance to respond to this. >> yeah, i think the issue you raise is one of concern that extradition relationship we have with mexico is, today, much better than it was. quite frankly, it was not good in the past, but we're in a much better place. our marshall service is the primary agency within the justice department. if has a responsibility of apprehending fugitives, but the point you make is a good one, that the federal government can only do so much. we need to work with our state and local counterparts to get information about people, like the one that you have described, and we probably have to do a better job in interacting with our mexican counterparts about who these people are, where they are, and then try to get them back because what the situation or the fact situation you just laid out is something that's simply unacceptable. >> i might add the series also spoke of a fugitive in syria, which is a different circumstance all together when it comes to extradition, but i thank you for your willingness

to join in that effort. mr. attorney general, how does the department of justice view muslim-americans in the national effort to keep america safe from terrorism? >> we view that community as essential partners in the fight against terrorism. they are an essential part of our counterterrorism fight, proven to be reliable sources of information, a great many of the successes we've had, and that i've talked about, or that the attention brought to us came as a result of leads we got from the members of the muslim-american community. we had extensive outreach efforts in the department and investigative agencies, particularly the fbi, to reach out to the muslim-american community to put at rest the concerns they have, the fears they have about their interaction with law enforcement, and i have to say that i've been very encouraged by the response we get from the community. >> i thank you for the answer

that's consistent with the answers made by the previous administration. after 9/11, i thought president bush ice statements were -- bush's statements were right on, spot on, that our enemy is not those of the muslim faith, but those who corrupt it into violent extremism. the reason i raise the issue is guidelines were established on profiling in the department of justice, and the guidelines are explicit that neither race nor et ethnicity should be used to any degree. it's obviously that using racial profiling to arrest african-americans or those who appear to be hispanic is totally inconsistent with our values in cr country, but notably, religion was excluded from the list, just race and ethnicity were included. we have found that the fbi agents who were given counterterrorism training were unfortunately subjected to many stereotypes of islams and

muslims. for example, fbi agents in training were told, quote, "islam is a highly radical religion, and they are likely to be terrorist sympathizers, and the american mind is taken by ideas more than facts." we found, for example, one public fbi intelligence assessment claims wearing traditional muslim attire, growing facial hair, and frequent attendance to a mosque are indicators of possible extremism. released documents show the fbi's engaged in widespread surveillance of mosques and innocent muslim-americans of no record of wrong doing. can you tie those to your initial statement concerning your view that i share on the role of muslim-americans, and can you comment on how someone who is muslim in america reads of these things and believes that the actual training

underway and the actual surveillance underway are inconsistent? >> the information you read is wrong, and inconsistent with what we try to do here at the department. those views do not reflect the views of the justice department, the fbi. it's regrettable that that information was, in fact, a part of the training program. that person is not being used anymore by the fbi, and we are reviewing all the materials, all of our training materials to ensure that kind of misinformation is not being used because that can really undermind, really undermind the substantial jut reach efforts we have made, and really have a negative impact on our ability to communicate effectively as we have in the past with this community. i almost hesitate to say "this community" because when you talk about muslim-americans, you're talking about american citizens who have