banning gun trafficking. >> would the gentle lady yield? >> yes, i most certainly will. >> i join with you in believing that andrew trader, the 2010, november 2010 dez signant shoul be confirmed. no one was put up for the first two years of the obama administration. it's sad they didn't have somebody in the cue earlier. i thank the gentle lady for yielding. >> i want to thank the chairman for supporting the confirmation. you certainly can help us make that happen. >> we now recognize the gentleman from utah. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. attorney general for being here. i had an opportunity in the judiciary committee to ask you questions on december 8 of 2011. i asked if you spoke to president clinton -- or president obama, secretary

clinton or napolitano. you said you didn't talk about fast and furious. is that still true today? >> with regard to secretary i a napolitain napolita napolitano, yes. >> secretary clinton, you have spoken with her about fast and furious? >> no, i'm -- no. i should say no. secretary napolitano know, secretary clinton no and passing conversations about the president just about the fact of me testifying in connection with fast and furious. >> you issued a press release saying you met together. this was on the heels of the agent sopada. there were questions whether there were ties to fast and furious. you said you didn't have any interaction with janet napolitano about fast and furious. my question is about secretary clinton. what sort of interaction did you have at the state department?

>> he with had low levels at the state department. i have not interacted with secretary clinton with regard to fast and furious. >> i was questioning whether or not you actually had interaction and words fast and furious came up. you said, and i quote, you have to understand something about the way washington works. explain that to me and the interaction that your department or agency has had with the state department. >> one of the things i was saying or trying to say and i got cut off was that when people know that i'm going to be the subject of these kinds of hearing and six times and all that, nobody necessarily wants to get involved in these kinds of things or get dragged into it and then have some interaction conversation that i have with them be made more than it is. and i understand when people don't necessarily want to talk to me about fast and furious knowing that at lower levels -- >> so you know they're

withholding information from you? >> no they're not. >> you just said that they're not going to provide you the information because they don't want to drag you into it. >> i said they don't want to have conversations with me. information -- >> isn't that withholding information? you can't tell the boss what's really going on, you're going to be oblivious to what's going on. >> we're talking about cabinet level people. and i'm saying that people who work under them, either dhs, state, other executive branch agencies are certainly providing information to the justice department so we have access to whatever information. >> and is the justice department providing that information to, say, the state department or the homeland security? that's -- you may say you're not having face-to-face discussions, which trunls me. i don't care whether you're a democrat or republican, the idea that you're being not being informed and not having conversation because you're afraid to come to the congress is troublesome at the least. >> i'm not afraid to come to congress. i've been here six times. >> i know. but if you're not being informed, you personally can claim ignorance on an issue that, is a problem. my question is, at the lower

levels, is there an expectation on your part that there is interaction between these departments and agencies? >> there is not only an expectation, i know that there is that kind of interaction because with regard to, for instance, the death of agent terry, i know that dhs is working with the fbi. >> what about the state department? what about the state department? >> state -- you know, state doesn't have as direct a role. obviously we interact with our counterparts in mexico. and we talk to the state department and inform them of contacts that i have. i'll be speaking to the attorney general from mexico in the latter part of -- i guess early this afternoon. >> paragraph five you is talk about the national security crisis along the border. i guess my concern, mr. attorney general, is you have an expectation that there is interaction between the department of justice and state department, kregt? >> there certainly is. and through other ways in which our law enforcement components talk to one another. we are -- >> then why is -- >> sorry. my time is so short.

>> will the gentleman suspend the question. do you have a point of order? >> yes, mr. chairman. if you ask a question, he should have an opportunity to answer it. i'm trying to follow it. but the point is that without him being able to respond, i mean what are we really doing? >> the gentleman's point is valid. i appreciate that both under your leadership and hopefully under mine we make sure all witnesses get to answer. >> mr. chairman, i ask -- >> wait a second. >> one additional minute for the gentleman. >> without objection so ordered. mr. attorney general, at the end of any round of questioning, within reasonable period of time by yourself, if you feel you have been unable to answer a question, and i'd like you to be succinct, you can -- we'll give you the additional time at the end so you may answer. i do respect the fact that a member may want to go on to a next quek so you may have to wait until the end to sort of revise an extend briefly. with that, i mean no disrespect.

the gentleman was within his rights. but i want to make that clear because the past chairman and my policy are to make sure that people get to make full answers even if it's not during the five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i would ask that without starting at the clock again, if we can -- if he wants to fully answer that, in concern to mr. towns, i just want to do the follow up question. >> the gentleman is absolutely right. the gentleman will continue. >> if you want to more completely answer that question, please. >> i'm not sure where i was. >> the interaction between you and theartmept. >> right. there is -- >> and fast and furious. that is the concern here is fast and furious. with our state department counterparts in a number of ways with mexico and there is the initiative that is really is the umbrella way in which we operate in mexico in a law enforcement way. and so there is a lot of contact at the lower levels. and not so lower levels. i know our deputy attorney

general speaks a great deal with his counterpart at the state department. >> my question, mr. attorney general, is the testimony from october 27th of this dwreer that secretary clinton gave over in the senate. where she said, "i can tell you based on the information from the state department that would deal with this kind of issue, we have no record of any request for coordination. we have no record of any kind of notice or heads up." how is it that the secretary of state is saying we never been involved in any way, shape or form in fast and furious and you're testifying that it's happening on a regular basis? >> well, you context. what i'm saying is we interact with them in a number of ways. now fast and furious may not be a primary thing that we're talking about with the state department. we're working closely with dhs when it comes to fast and furious. but those kinds of things are discussed. it might not be -- you know, a primary thing that exists between topic of conversation between state and -- >> i guess that is the concern, mr. attorney general.

we have 1500 weapons. we have 300 dead people in mexico. we have a dead u.s. agent, untold number of hearings and discussions and press reports. and, yet, you have the people at the highest level of the government saying we don't talk each other because we have to remain ignorant because we're going to testify and they don't want to get involved. at the same time, you're telling me that they're interacting with the state department on a regular basis. and the state department, the secretary is telling us it isn't happening. and janet napolitano is saying very similar things in the department of homeland security f we're going to solve this problem and make sure it never happens again swreshgs to solve the challenges. i've no confidence that you can solve it. >> i'm not sure about the context in which that remark was made by secretary clinton. i can tell that you when it comes to the issue of violence in mexico, the problem with guns going to mexico, we are joined with our partners. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? can i read the question? can i read the question?

>> does the gentleman want the question read back? >> no. the question that secretary clinton got. you asked a legitimate question. i don't know what context secretary clinton was asked. >> the gentleman will suspend. if you'll make that question available to the attorney general staff so they can brief him. we will return to that out of order to get an answer. but i think in fairness, we've given sufficient time. if you'll make it available to staff. we'll make sure we get to it before the end of the hearing. and with that, we go to the gentle lady from the district of columbia, miss norton, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't know if conversations with theed secretary of state and secretary clinton or secretary napolitano are of major importance here. but i do know this. after calling the attorney general of the united states six times before the congress, i think the public would have expected that we would have

begun to talk about remedy by this time. and, yet, there has been no remedy to give the justice department the tools it needs to prosecute, store purchases or gun trafficking. so here we go again for sixth hearing, mr. attorney general. i want to commend you for the changes you have made. the multiple changes you have made while this matter was unfog coming forward, recognizing full well that until you get the inspector general's report, particularly considering this is the justice department to proceed without due process would be fairly unseemly. you have to understand that when there's an issue like this and it was very important because of the death of an agent, there is an incentive for a committee if you can get ahold of a highly

placed government official to call as much as you can because with it comes the press and public. my concern, i must say, for the attorney general today who has foreign and domestic matters of great moment on his plate that at least a remedy come out and we certainly haven't seen anything even approaching that. i like to go through the five years of gunmerged. we have three years of gun walking or so-called gun walking in the bush administration. five year total. two in this administration beginning with thezona u.s. attorney paul charleston. we haven't had the opportunity to have him before us. but the problem emerged at his office and with warnings parentally in his office at that time that there were real issues

that the atf, at least legal counsel raised issues including what he considered moral objections. mr. charleston continued to allow hundreds of guns to walk across the border to mexico. the effort of i could ordination failed and yet the gun walking continued. now we come to this administration. when you became attorney general in 2009, were you aware that atf had this long history of gun walking in its phoenix office?

if every attempt at coordination, remember, no one was ever taken into custody, but if every attempt at coordinating fails, do you think they should have authorized further attempts to coordinate between mexico and the united states and allowed the gun walking to proceed? given the repeated attempts of failed coordination that the agents should have stopped

authorizing it or simply continued to allow further attempts even as they saw the attempts of coordination tag nor arrests being made on the mexican side? >> yes, i think there was no basis for a continuation of gun walking. but then even conceptually as i testified before, the notion that you would let guns walk is simply not something that i think is a sound law enforcement technique. >> so when does it become gun walking, mr. attorney general? >> when you have the ability to arrest somebody for it, some fire arm transaction that they have engaged in. and you don't make the determination not to make the arrest.

engaged in at that point, i think that there might be an issue of that sort. >> i note that attorney general has testified as to fast and furious on november 8th before the senate, on december 8th before the house. the other previous testimonies were not on the subject of fast and furious and he was not briefed and able to answer properly during those times. i just want to make sure this is also the first time before our committee. so judiciary, quite frankly, particularly in the house has not taken the lead the way this committee has on both sides of the aisle. >> if i could just correct the record. >> of course. >> i certainly did speak in those other -- the number five and six is, in fact, correct. >> the times you were askeou w answer questions. >> whether it was senate

appropriation, senate judiciary, i was asked questions about fast and furious and answered those questions. with that, the next gentleman will be the gentleman from michigan for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. attorney for being here today. i would -- i'm tempted to ask your opinion on former penn state coach joe paterno. he didn't want to jeopardize university procedure. jason weinstein, a senior official in the criminal division knew about gun walking as early as 2010. after single meeting with atf about it, he then failed to paterno, a legend in his

sport, and yet he was unceremoniously fired. weinstein continues on in his current position even though fast and furious has had -- has held deadly consequences. most importantly to agent brian terry, a proud son of michigan, my state. myue what's the difference between the case of joe paterno at penn state and the justice department under your leadership? >> i'm not going to get into the paterno case. i'll talk about jason weinstein. he knew about wide receiver. he told mr. brewer about it. he met with a fchtf.

did he not know about the tactics, the inappropriate tactics, the gun walking tactics involved in fast and furious until later on and didn't connect those tactics with the ones that we used in wide receiver and admitted what he did was a mistake and indicate ed and did he fail in making that connection? >> and so he continues on, as do other senior officials. moved around as chessmen on a significant nature at this point in time. no admission other than brought on the carpet and brought into the public light that this thing has gone wrong, was set up to go wrong. and, frankly, i believe it was set up to go wrong in order to deal with second amendment liberties of law abiding citizens and pushing into a perception that it was the problem of the second amendment as opposed to law enforcement.

and more importantly, mr. attorney general, your oversight of an agency of a department, of individual leaders in that department that have not been held accountable. >> well, with all due respect and i mean this with great respect, the notion this was an operation set up to do something to impinge upon the second amendment rights my fellow citizens is absurd. the operation that was put stop the flow of guns from the united states into mexico, something i think we should all agree upon. >> and it wasn't effective, was it? >> it was not effective. in fact, it was flawed. i have said that from day one. but the notion that somehow or other this was a setup to come up with measures that would impinge upon second amendment rights is simply not substantiated by the facts anani think that is irresponsible.

>> i concur that your mention today of a necessity for impinging upon second amendment liberties of law abiding citizens brought that question up. an article yesterday by former cia director noted that you "launched the reckonning of cia renditions detentions and interrogations of terrorists by directsing the justice department to reopen investigations closed years before by career prosecutors". this decision was oed panetta a predecessors. the article notes that you reportedly made the decision without reading detailed memos prepared by those career prosecutors declining to pursue further proceedings. and further, mr. attorney general, you're well known in this town for not reading memos. you admitted you failed to read memos addressed to you in fast and furious. you failed to read memos before mark rich hardin. you failed to read memos or even the law related to the arizona

immigration law. what does that say about your leadership and management that you consistently fail to read extremely important papers placed on your desk? >> if the gentlemen will suspend? as i previously said, although you certainly can talk about your management style, this hearing is limited to fast and furious. i ask that you limit your answers to management stim as i and not to any other cases unrelated to our investigation. >> thank you. >> the gentleman may continue. >> well, i disagree with that given the decision to almost engage in character assassination, i'm going to respond to at least some of that. i'm the attorney general of the united states. okay? and whether it comes to deciding what i'm going to investigate, how i'm going to investigate, i take into account a wide variety of things. the decision i made to open up those cia matters, i was aware that this was something that was opposed by a great many people.

i read a great deal before i made that determination. i had access to material that other people, who criticized that decision, have never had access to. now i have great respect for the people, men and women of the cia who put their lives on the line and protect this nation in a way that many of you don't because i see a briefing every day at 8:30 about the great work that they do. but there were things done, things that were done during the course of those interrogations that were antithetical to american values, that resulted in the deaths of certain people and that justified my decision to order an investigation. that investigation has run its course. we are at a point where we are about to close those investigations. it would have been irresponsible for me given the new information that i had a chance to review not to order that investigation. with regard to your more general point about me reading or not reading memos, i read those things that are brought to my attention or things that i think i need to read in order to make

appropriate decisions. i'm confident that management style that i have, the involvement that i have is adequate to allo mak appropriate decisions based on facts, based on interpretations of the law. i have a good staff that brings to my attention those things that i nee >> the gentleman's time expired. before i go to mr. tyranny, i would like to make -- since we're speaking to your staff to a certain extent, the staff aware of the crs report that on numerous occasions congress has interviewed line attorneys including in the rocky flats investigation, the eearly 1990s obviously under republican administration. i would ask that your staff review that so that you may correct your statement that it never happens. with that, we go to the gentleman from massachusetts next, mr. tyranny. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, indulge me if you will on this for a

second. this committee's obligation is to the other law enforcement officers involved and to the citizens of this country. and this committee is charged with first finding out what happened. once we determine that, making sure we can work on practices so that it never happens again in a flawed situation like this. both members of both parties and our staff did a great dof deter. i think the ranking member has gone on a great deal about the number of interviews that staffs in both parties and the numbers of documents reviewed and also laid out a number of actions that were recommended for the future. and i know that you have taken some actions in the new atf director set up some actions as well. so at this stage, it seems to me we have a couple of alternatives. we can further how the program of gun walking began and repeated itself in 2007 and repeated itself again in '08 aefand '09 and then in fast and furious. we need to talk to mr. mukasey.

the majority is not willing to bring him forward. he's the only attorney general that had documents in front of him that even mentioned some of those programs although that doesn't indicate that he authorized it or condoned it. certainly if they're trying to find out more facts about what happened, he would be somebody worth talking to and would not be given that opportunity. we could explore reforms that are necessary beyond those that you implemented in the atf and look at statutory changes and the committee doesn't seem -- at least the majority doesn't seem interested in doing that. or unfortunately as we seem intent on doing at this hearing, we can continue to chase what seems to be a political agenda or trying to find out somebody in the administration, new particular somehow had knowledge or authorized or condoned this operation. if that were the case, it would seem to me that a good witness to talk to is mr. melmer.

mr. nelson, i should say, the then acting atf director. mr. cummings asked the chairman to bring kenneth nelson as a witness. he said he is willing to come as a witness. in fact, he even testified or talked and interviewed with staff for both parties. they asked him if he ever approved gun walking. he said he had not. they asked if he was ever briefed about gun walking, he said no. he was aware if the senior justice department officials were ever thorsed gun walking. he said no. surely if the details of operation fast and furious were approved at the highest levels of justice as has been judged -- or accused. then mr. nelson would have known about it. this, is however, what he said in that interview. i quote, i don't believe i had knowledge of the specific tactics used in fast and furious until the facts started to be disclosed in the media. so mr. melson said he never justified gun walking. he wasn't aware of it in the

fast and furious operation. and he never briefed the attorney general or anybody else about it. i think that is pretty dire information. this interview took place seven months ago. chairman issa refused to let him answer the questions. we can draw conclusions dwr twht is the case. so that leaves with us only i guess to find out whether or not there were any bad actions by people of higher levels of asking you yet again. mr. attorney general, did mr. melson, the director of atf ever raise the issues of gun walking or the conduct of fast and furious? >> no. >> do you think he should bring significant issues to your attention? >> sure. that's one of the responsibilities they have. i hope they feel free to bring

to my attention issues like that. >> you are surprised that mr. nelson or anyone else at atf raised concerns about fast and furious to your attention? >> i'm disappointed in not only mr. nelson but other people within the department who were seized with this knowledge and who did not bring it to my attention and who have admitted they made mistakes in not bringing to my attention or the dpu it you attorney general's attention that the fact that these existed in these operations. >> you have held or has anybody hels mr. nelson accountable for not bringing those to your attention? >> he made the dermenttion. we agreed it would be better for him to leave atf for -- allow t allow him to get a fresh start as well. >> thank you. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the transcript of the interview by republican and a democratic -- >> i object. you know that is grossly inappropriate. >> well, i think why i do it is

it is grossly inappropriate to have a pertinent witness who is not allowed to come before this committee and testify. i thought since you don't seem well to do that, maybe we go to the next best thing where both parties have an opportunity to interview him and talk about an issue that seems to be at the core of what you're alleging over and over again. >> the gentleman, unanimous consent, okay, i'll be even kinder. i reserve. now speck on my reservation. does the gentleman really believe that is the right thing to do, to make public an on going investigation that includes a number of officials, includes a situation in which an official has taken the fifth and left the justice department to make any of those documents publicly available at this time when, in fact, it is pursuant to our investigation? does the gentleman actually believe that? >> i withdraw my request. but i hope we made the point that what is important here is for you to change your mind hopefully and allow m