former attorney general mukasey. i assume if you heard gun walking had taken place, you would put a stop to it. as i review a report from my staff, i get a little upset. first i get upset that this happened. hundreds of weapons went to criminal networks on both sides of the border because agents did not arrest suspects when they could. i also get upset this went on for so long. we identified four different operations in phoenix over five years across two administrations involving hundreds of weapons. these weapons put law enforcement agents in danger. in your written statement you noted 177 officers lost their lives in the line of duty last year and 70 of those deaths involved firearms. as a country's chief law enforcement officer, what is your reaction to the fact these

operations continued for so long. >> it bothers me a great deal when one sees the death toll we have seen in mexico, 40, 50,000 people have been killed over the last five years. 64,000 guns traced from the united states into mexico. that's traced, which means probably substantially greater number of guns have gone from the united states into the state of mexico of the concern i have with these guns going into the mexico with cartel activities that reach into the united states, at some point these guns will be trained on law enforcement officers. though we've seen a historic drop in the crime rate to 40, 50-year lows, we have seen a rise in the last two years in the number of police officers, federal enforcement agents who have been kichltd i've been to far too many funerals, had to write far too many letters, talked to far too many widows about the deaths of brave people who died for their country. we have to do something about

it. we have to. >> atf deputy became concerned in 2010 about the number of weapons involved in fast and furious, he told us he did not know about gun walking but ordered an exit strategy based on his overall concerns. he told a phoenix office to end this office within 90 days and bring indictments. but they didn't do it. they did not like atf headquarters running their cases and they continued for months straw purchases without arrests. during his interview mr. hoover also told us he never told anyone at the department of justice about his general concerns with the operation or his order for an exit strategy. in our interview with justice department officials confirmed that. i have two questions. i understand field agents don't like bureaucrats in washington

looking over their shoulder. how can a field officer effectively ignore directors of affirm tf headquarters in this way? second, what specific reforms are now in place or should we consider for better coordination and oversight? >> well, there is attention between the field and headquarters. i have been in the field and headquarters. depending where i sit, greater wisdom is in that place. we have to come up with ways in which we may clear what the policies are. after i heard about gun walking, i sent out a memo these techniques were unacceptable, not to be used by the department of justice. todd jones has instituted a number of reforms. i want to say the report you put

out contains at the back a number of suggestion with regard to reforms. i think, i don't know what the number is, but a substantial number of those have been instituted by todd, among them coming up with ways in which we ensure the trafficking of guns, the gun walking does not occur. more levels of review have to occur. i think also given the fact agent dotson is here we have to find ways people at atf, people who have concerns about atf don't have concern for their careers about surfacing things at atf, so the leadership at atf and ultimately back at headquarters can take necessary corrective actions. but i would salute the minority report for the management changes and policy changes that are included in that report. >> thank you. my time is up. >> thank you. we go to former chair of the committee for five minutes. >> nice seeing you again.

>> it's been a while. >> it sure has. it's very interesting, mr. attorney general, for six years i remember when you were with janet reno and deputy attorney general. we fought to get documents. we had a difficult time. you said here today that there's certain documents that you will not give us because of the separation of powers. now, we've been down that road before, and we got them. but we had to threaten that we would have a contempt citation in congress. this is not just during the reno administration but gonzalez as well. we got the documents. i think you're hiding behind something here that won't stand up. you ought to give us the documents. we received 6,000 documents with redactio redactions.

i know that's an old school policy, send them up here and cross out everything of relevance and let us try to figure out what it is. you dump them on us friday night so the staff can't do anything with them unless they stay over the weekend 10, 12, 14 hours. i've been down that road, too. there's 93,000 documents, 93,000 documents that you're not giving this committee and saying, well, the separation of powers prohibit you from doing that. that's bologna. that is just bologna. i worked with you for six years. i wouldn't say with you. i worked for six years when you were the deputy attorney general. why don't you give us those documents? the conclusion i come to is there's some things in there that's being hidden that you don't want us to see. i don't know if it involves you or other atf agents or other members of the justice department but this committee is the oversight committee and we have every right under the constitution to check on what you're doing. we're supposed to oversee the

executive branch and you are part of this branch. for you to deny this committee anything like that is dead wrong and i don't think you are going to find any way to do it. i would urge the chairman to move a contempt citation against you if you don't give them to us. now, let me ask you a couple of questions. why won't you let patrick cunningham, head of the criminal division in phoenix and emory hurley come -- a prosecutor, why don't you let them come and talk to the committee. if you won't let them do it publicly, you ought to let them do it in a private setting. why won't you let them do that? >> first, for the record, i was only a deputy attorney for four years. seemed like six. >> seemed like longer than that for me. >> all right. longer than six for me as well.

>> would the gentleman yield? >> i'll be happy to yield. >> since mr. cunningham has taken the fifth, i would say none of us have that direct authority. to add to that would you make all information on mr. cunningham unredacted so we may evaluate to a great extent what you know about why he took the fifth? go ahead. i yield back. >> in terms of making available, i'm not sure where you get the number of 93,000 documents. the redactions that occurred are only because there are things that are either not relevant or are protected by grand jury secrecy rules, court orders that have sealed material. we have provided to this committee material that is relevant and only redacted that that is necessary. there's a key that tells you why something was redacted. with regard to the two people you talked about, mr. hurley is a line prosecutor.

we never make line prosecutors available. that is every attorney general i know has followed that policy. mr. cunningham no longer works in the justice department, so i don't have the ability to compel him to testify. he left the justice department this past monday or friday. >> you asked him to leave, i guess, didn't you? >> no. >> you didn't? >> no. >> he left on his own after he took the fifth amendment? >> he had planned to leave well before he invoked his fifth amendment privilege to take a job in private practice or at a private company. >> i understand the ig has 80,000 documents and you've given us 6,000. whether we're talking about 93 or 80,000, this committee has asked for those and has not gotten them. it appears as though we're being stonewalled and there's something that's being hidden. let me ask you another question, have you apologized personally to the whistleblowers who were, in effect, called liars by those within your own agency when we

now know they were telling the truth? we wouldn't know any of this today if they hadn't come forward. i'm talking about john dotson and peter fasseli. have you apologized to them? >> i spoke to agent dotson at the beginning of the hearing when the agent brought him by, gave him my telephone number if he wants to give me a call -- >> give you a call? why don't you call him and apologize. you're the attorney general of the united states. you're in charge of these people. they were, in effect, called liars and they were telling the truth. i think as head of that agency it should be your responsibility to say, hey, guys i'm sorry you were called liars when you did tell the truth. >> i'm not aware of them being called liars. we tried to treat them with respect. i don't think any adverse action has been taken against anybody that came and testified before this committee. to the extent there are concerns mr. dotson has, i will be glad

to talk to him. i will note he had a meeting with the director of atf and expressed whatever his thoughts were @. if that's not been sufficient, i'm more than glad to have a conversation with him. >> i wish you would call him. thank you, mr. chairman. >> did you wan to answer on the cunningham question on materials now that he has left under this cloud? >> yeah. i wouldn't say it was under a cloud. >> taking the fifth is not a cloud. >> i don't know why he took the fifth. there are a variety of reasons, not the least of which apparently there was a report issued by this committee or statement by this committee that he acted inappropriately. i don't know why he invoked his fifth amendment privilege. that is certainly his right as an person citizen. we have provided already 153 documents with regard to mr. cunning home, details 387 pages of material. we'll continue to look at that material to the extent there is information that is relevant, we'll provide it to the committee.

>> i thank you. we now recognize the other former chairman of the committee for five minutes. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, this committee has not obtained one shred of evidence that would contradetective your testimony, mr. attorney general. not one witness, not one document, not one e-mail. and still some continue to suggest that you did personally authorize gun walking and the tactics in operation fast and furious. i hope this will be the last time you have to answer this question. did you, mr. attorney general, ever authorize gun walking? >> i did not. i'll say it that way. i'm from new york. i would say it in a different way but i'm going to have great respect for this committee and simply say i did not. >> i'm from new york, so i would

understand your answer. of course my colleague next to me would also. did you ever authorize the controversial tactics employed in operation fast and furious, noninterdiction of illegal forms to build a case. >> not only did i not authorize those tactics. when i found about them, i told everybody in the field and everybody in the department of justice those tactics had to stop. they were not acceptable. they had to stop. that was my reaction to finding out about the use of that technique. >> to your knowledge, did deputy attorney general gary gwindler or assistant attorney general lanny brewer authorize gun walking or tactics employed in fast and furious. >> to my knowledge they did not.

>> let me ask this. if you have been asked to approve of gun walking, what would you have said? >> no, simple. there's questions in corruption cases when you decide are you going to let the money walk. there are questions in narcotics cases, are you going to let the drugs walk so you can make a case. have you spirited conversations about that. i can understand how there can be different opinions. the notion you would let guns walk in a firearms case is for me absurd. absurd. it was the reason why i said it cannot happen, why we stopped it. it is not doj policy and anybody that does it now is breaking a directive from the attorney general of the united states. >> if you were asked or told by the atf or united nations attorneys office about the tactics in operation fast and

furious, how would you have acted or responded? >> in the same way he did in early march 2011 by telling everybody in the justice department don't do this. it's unacceptable. it's stupid. it's dangerous and not something this department of justice can ever do. >> i want to thank you for coming up. of course, thank you for your testimony. i think it is pretty clear the attempts to tarnish your reputation with these unsubstantiated allegations is pure politics and definitely has a political flavor and that is unfortunate. so on that note i will yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from north carolina mr. henry for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, attorney general holder for being here. listening to the answer you had from the former chairman, it

seems to me when you saw folks did not follow policy, did not follow your directives, and we're here 13 months after you found out that an agent was murdered for policies that you did not support. and we find out you have not fired a single individual. we find out that you have not rebuked any staff members. heck, you haven't even put a letter in people's personnel file saying they, on their watch, acted and an agent was murdered. that is absolutely absurd from this side of the dais. i ask you, why haven't you taken steps to make sure this doesn't happen again. >> i have taken steps. >> you told people you're mad,

upset. that to me is silly. you've not taken action. you haven't fired anybody, changed policy. it's clear you didn't enforce a policy before. you're saying you didn't even know about it. so it strikes me as incompetence in terms of management? >> i'm not sure you understand how the justice department works. i didn't express the fact i was mad or it was silly, i issued a directive. when the attorney general of the united states says this kind of technique is not appropriate and should not be followed. we're still in the process of trying to determine, the inspector general is trying to determine whether wr this policy originat originated. we know it started in the atf office in phoenix. it was approved by u.s. attorney's office in phoenix, exactly who the people were who approved the technique we're still in the process of doing this too. that's not all i've done. i've made personnel changes with

regard to leadership positions. i've moved people around. we've instituted a series of policies now designed to make sure that doesn't happen again. >> an agent was murdered and your action is to move people around. that seems to me to simply inconvenience people, not to rid them of federal employment. >> well, to the extent that we find out who precisely was involved in this or gave that order, i can assure you unless there's a truly compelling circumstance those people will be removed from federal service. that's not all we've done. we're in the process of investigating that murder and the people who are responsible for it will be held accountable. i expect you'll hear about that relatively soon. >> relatively soon. thirteen months later. >> no. these matters -- >> it's 13 months after the fact, sir. that's what i'm saying. at what point are you going to take action? >> as soon as we're in a position to make arrests and

hold people accountable, put them in a court of law and try them with maximum charges. >> is that likely this year? >> it's likely this year. >> is it likely in the next six months? >> yes, i think it's likely in the next six months. >> could you see that happening this quarter? >> when does this quarter end? i don't know. >> march 31st. >> possible. >> possible. okay. thirteen months later we have the possibility of somebody actually being punished for an agent being killed. this is absolutely absurd. >> no, it's not absurd. it takes time to build a case that you're going to be able to take before a jury with a high standard of proof, convict somebody, hold them accountable. you don't want to go into court and put yourself on a time limit and say at three mondays let's take whatever we've got and put it in court because critics say we're not acting fast enough and lose the case. the people responsible for this

heinous act are not held accountable. we go into court when we think we have cases ready to go. i'm not putting quickly as they can, but to do i as thoroughly as we can so that we bring the best possible case that we can. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. quickly following up, i -- mr. brewer is not going to be criminally indicted or anything else. now is your management a hands off or hands on? do you want to know what's going on? or do you want others to handle it and brief you relatively high level? >> i think i've got a hands on style. >> if you have a hands on style, you have read any of or been fully briefed on any of the wiretaps including the march 10th wiretap in this case? >> these wiretaps are very

voluminous. i have not read them. >> this has been publicly reported that he was sick to his stomach when he discovered this was approved by lanny brewer's office. indications are that your chief deputy knew about this. i mean it comes through criminal division at some point. the question is, will you or isn't it appropriate that you know about these wiretaps so that can you know what former atf acting aft director knew which was these wiretaps are reasonably believed to be sufficient in what they disclosed that many parts of this operation should have stopped, should have stopped sooner and that people were saying that at dea and other places and that the office of criminal division, lanny brewer's division if, you will, knew or should have known that. that's the kind of thing that mchenry was asking about is holding people accountable whether they're career professionals or political appointees. are you prepared to do any of that prior to the attorney

general's final report? you haven't done anything so far as far as we can tell. >> i think you mean the inspector general's report. >> yes, i'm sorry, mr. general. i keep confusing the two generals. yes, i very much know you're the inspector general's report which seems to be the reason for the delay in executing on disciplinary actions. >> well, i mean, you packed a lot into that question. i think first off, there's no indication that mr. brewer or my former deputy were aware of the tactics that were employed in this matter until everybody, i think became aware of this which is january or february of last -- of last year. the information -- i'm not all -- at this point aware that any of the tactics were contained in any of the wiretap applications. i will say this. to the extent that those wiretap applications have been shared, that is in direct violation of court orders. and if i find -- if i find that somebody in the united states department of justice has shared contents of a wiretap

application, that will be something that we'll have to be looked at. there is a wide variety of things, information that we can share. i'm not going to go against ceiling orders by a court with regard to a wiretap application. and anybody that bleeds that material or submitts that material for people to examine does so at their peril. >> i appreciate. that for the record, members of congress are not covered by that prohibition. members of congress are not in any way under that order. in fact, if we receive the information from whistle blowers, just like the press, it is in fact legitimate for us to know it and to act on it in our investigation. we are not covered by that federal court order. your law enforcement people related before i yield -- did you want to respond after you got a note on that? >> with all due respect, mr. chairman, i think that direction that you just said about the media and congress and court orders is really incorrect. i think you act at your peril if you think that's the truth.

>> well, certainly we would say that the release of information from our testimony of ken ti nelson, ate pears to have been leaked to your people also is inappropriate. but we'll get to that at another time. we recognize the gentle lady from new york for five minutes. >> thank you. i'd like to respond to my good friend and colleague mr. mchenry's statement that the a.g. had not responded to agent terry's death. he responded immediately. and has expressed his concern for the other agents that are being killed at a higher rate than ever in our history. >> if the gentle lady will yield. i will not yield. i will not yield. and not only did he do that, he immediately took swift action to stop gun walking which did not happen in the prior administration. and establish reforms to prevent this type of flawed operation from ever happening again. he further called for and we can all help him do this,

particularly the republican majority, to confirm a permanent atf director. that would help moranhe also ca fire arms trafficking statute. he called for appropriate fundfo do its job. and increase penalties for straw purchasing. so these are some of the concrete actions that he's taken in response to that tragic death. and once again today, this investigation continues on its vast and curious mission to fix the symptoms rather than the cause of so much deadly gun violence on the southern border. and this committee has unfortunately refused time and again to examine the serious underlying problems that so heavily contributed to a series of ill conceived, fatally flawed

programs such as fast and furious. as this committee well knows and everyone should know in america, fast and furious is not the first but the fourth investigation to use gun walking as a tactic to go after bigger fish. and the gun walking vat ji dates back to 2006. the prior administration and just to underscore how vast and curious this investigation is, let's review that is this the sixth occasion, mr. attorney general, that you have been before congress on this issue? >> it's the sixth time i've testified about fast and furious. >> this is the sixth time he testified on fast and furious. and he handed out a list of what his responsibilities are which i would like him to be able to do. and i want to add to that one that i'm grateful for and that is implementing the 9/11 health and compensation bill which your

whole unit is doing such a brilliant job. thank you so much. we appreciate it. also over 6,400 papers and on going ig review, all of this is taking place. but in your testimony today, i appreciated your really tribute to the courageous agents that work in the atf and you spoke about the whistle blowers and how courageous they are. and i wanted to point out the testimony of special agent peter faselli who called the current laws against gun trafficking absolutely toothless. and he went on to testify that there was no enforcement. and he went on and said all kinds of things. do you agree that there is no enforcement that law enforcement doesn't have the tools to track down on gun trafficking? >> i agree with the agent. there is a need for a federal

firearms trafficking statute. we need increased penalties for straw purchases who engage in that kind of inappropriate activity. i think that we would like to work with congress so that we can put in place these measures that ultimately help atf and the federal government be more effective in the fight that we all want to have which is to stop the flow of guns into mexico. >> okay. after that hearing with special agent faselli, i worked with ranking member cummings and congressman townsend and we drafted a bill which is to crack down on illegal trafficking conduct and would go after those illegal activities. and we should get busy working on helping to give them the tools. we know that we do things that are far more helpful than going on a politically motivated fishing trip which i feel this is what we're doing today.

and the real agenda of this investigation does not aid or honor those who risk their lives every day working to keep americans safe from gun violence. and i must say that this is getting out of hand. the a.g.'s testimony that over 60,000 guns, i believe you said, have been traced in mexico that are directly tied to having been gotten there from america. and i must say that one chilling example was an ad that the al qaeda put on their website saying go to america. get guns. it's so easy to do. get your guns for your illegal activities. so i want to congratulate you for your vision and mission of wanting to give law enforcement the tools to get the job done. to have a