yes, but unfortunately the answer to that question is also no. as i indicated before, i go back to him only because he's got great more experience than i do, agent vicelli who testified previously before this committee likened the federal straw purchasing penalties to a speeding ticket. >> at this very committee? >> right. this committee. that, i think, is obviously unacceptable. >> and the testimony of that agent called by this committee, by the majority in this committee, was actually interrupted and chastised for the nature of his answer because it actually dared to talk about the need for stricter gun enforcement and tougher penalties. is that your recollection, mr. attorney general? >> i believe ms. maloney was asking a question in that regard, and i don't know what the technical term was, but it was ruled out of order or something. >> hmm. when i was in mexico on a bipartisan leadership trip to talk about this and some other difficult topics with the attorney general of mexico at

the time, we asked the attorney general if there was one thing the united states could do to help you in your battle against drug cartels in the north of your country, violence that's gotten unbelievably, unspeakably out of control, what would it be? and his answer was, reinstate the assault weapons ban as american law. your view on that? >> this administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. it is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we've seen in crime and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in mexico. >> well, surely we've had a hearing on that, though? i mean, you've been up here six years -- six times. this is all about trying to protect that border with mexico and to try to help mexico as well as protect the u.s. security of u.s. citizens. surely we've at least had a hearing on that subject, have we not? >> not to my knowledge. not a hearing that i

participated in. >> really? hmm. makes one wonder what this hearing is actually all about. i yield back. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i certainly would, mr. chairman. >> by the way, we're happy to entertain all suggestions for hearings. i will note that you keep saying six. >> reclaiming my time just for a second there, mr. chairman? >> yes. >> i'm delighted to hear you're happy to entertain such requests. i would then formally request that the former attorney general, mr. mccasey, be invited to the committee to testify about what he knew and when he knew it about the program analogous to the fast and furious in the bush administration. >> we will attempt to glean that information. i don't know if it will be by personally having somebody come. we do intend to glean information from prior administrations as to the level of coverage. i'll work with the gentleman on that. i might, though, note that of the six times the attorney general has appeared, for example, through the appropriations committee, he may have been asked a question

related to fast and but that wasn't the purpose for which he came. i would only note that as far as i can tell, the department of justice has not submitted a request for a federal firearms law to congress. and so i know that the gentleman is very concerned about these laws. asking congress to come up with ideas for laws is actually seldom the way the administration would like it. i might mention to the gentleman that if the attorney general and justice came wup with a propose firearm law that might be a good start to answering your concerns. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, if you would just indulge. i would like to follow up on that. that's a very good point. >> can the gentleman have an additional 30 seconds? >> i'd just take our joint question and ask the attorney general to comment that. why hasn't the administration, in fact, made the request the chairman just referred to with respect to toughening gun laws? >> we have certainly requested it in the past. i'll be more than glad to submit

something for consideration, would love to work with this committee, the judiciary committees in both houses in that regard. i believe that ms. maloney actually has a bill that, i think, would be a good starting point for us to submit. there is something that exists there that would be the basis for that conversation. >> does the president support ms. maloney's bill? >> we'd certainly want to work with her on that bill. obviously, there are going to be some things we're going to want to work on. but i think that's certainly a good starting place. >> would the gentleman yield? i know we're out of time. i just want to make sure it's my bill and ms. maloney's bill. >> sorry. >> that will probably help the president like it even more. >> and we welcome your support. >> i thank all of the gentlemen and lady. with that, we go to one of the most experienced members of the committee, although a freshman, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. attorney general. i know i sent you a letter some time ago and i appreciate your coming to our committee. look, i'm going to try to do my

best to work as we try to do with the facts that are before us, as limited as they are based on the discovery. but what i have been able to glean is everybody agrees that the tactics of the atf are not to be supported or condoned. but if you heard testimony that was given from the u.s. attorney in arizona, paul charlton, in 2007, that he disagreed and approved of those tactics and declined the request to prosecute the faces of wide receiver, would you dispute that at all? >> i'm not aware of mr. meehan's -- mr. charlton's testimony. >> it's his testimony that he declined to prosecute those case. just so you know, the other facts i've been able to glean is that the kevin carvel, a doj criminal division gang unit supervisor in september 2009 called it a semidormant investigation. gun traffic investigation by atf. and in 2012 jason moinsteen called it a case from years

earlier. which in my mind suggests that it was not something which was current. >> wide receiver was dormant and then was brought back to life -- >> i want to know why. that's a pretty good question. because do you know -- who's laura gwynn? >> i'm not sure. i don't know. >> let me tell you who laura gwynn is going back. apparently laura gwynn was an attorney from maine justice who was sent by lonny brewer to prosecute gun cases. and around 2009, september of 2009, she was sent to arizona to prosecute gun cases. in her e-mail of september 2nd, 2009, she talks -- she sends an e-mail to jim trusty in the united states department of justice in washington. it says, it's my understanding a lot of those guns walked. so we had an attorney from your department sent to washington who sends a communication back to mid-level or senior level people in the criminal department saying, it's my

understanding, i'm on the scene, guns walked. and i want to know why when a former u.s. attorney, based on those opinions, declines to prosecute cases because he does not like the procedures of atf and an attorney who goes and identifies gun walking, why would a subsequent administration send down attorneys and resurrect these cases for prosecution? >> well, i mean, we want to try to hold accountable the people who were responsible for crimes that were committed. and i would guess that people took into account the techniques that were used in making the determination as to which cases would, in fact, be prosecuted. >> well, i sure do think that that's correct. who do you think the people are that sit there and take into account the techniques that were used? those people in atf that are looking for the determinations from the department about what tactics are appropriate. and what signal did that send when the prior -- previous u.s. attorney declines and says, those aren't appropriate tactics, but the new one comes

down and says, no, we believe that we're going to prosecute these cases in which those tactics were used. but this was simultaneous as well, i know, to a -- an effort in 2009 when lonny brewer actually went down and discussed the idea of traveling to arizona to meet and plan ways to coordinate gun trafficking. so i just wanted to know why that determination was made. but let me just switch to one other thing. again, it comes back to the idea of who knew what and when. was fast and furious a death case? >> yes. i think it received -- >> i'm holding -- in my hand. we've all lived with it. >> you have, certainly. >> we've spent our time. i've looked and it says i'm talking about the places, authority of the united states attorney and what needs to be approved by the department of justice. approval is required for organized crime strike force cases of which fast and furious every significant action in the investigation and prosecution

from case initiation, court authorized electronic surveillance, witness immunities, witness protection and other important events must be approved in advance by the organized crime and racketeering section, which is in washington, d.c., the last i looked. correct? >> that's correct. >> we have the department in washington who's actually making determinations about the sufficient fishsy of the new investigations that are taking place. the ocidef investigations that are taking place. correct? which became fast and furious? >> well, i'm not -- i'm not sure exactly -- it's one of the things we have to try to, again, figure out. who exactly -- >> well, mr. holder, i'm figuring it out. i'm watching the documents. i'm giving you that route. >> there's clearly -- i understand the regulation that you've read. the question is, who actually made the necessary approvals, who was involved, why did they do something that might have been contrary, as you say, i don't know, to what the previous u.s. attorney did. these are the kinds of things that i think we're going to find

out from the inspector general. i haven't done a top to bottom review yet. i've not been allowed to do that. i can't do that. >> one of the things we know is there's approvals as well for wiretaps. in the conclusion of approval for a wiretap, we know that we have to put together a document which is an affidavit from law enforcement. an affidavit in which to be approved that has to suggest that all other law enforcement options with respect to investigative techniques have been exhausted and are not -- so i don't have access. i would ask, but i suspect you're not going to let former federal prosecutor and myself, mr. gowdy, have access to the seven separate affidavits that were included as part of the -- of the wiretap authorizations that were approved by your department. would we be allowed to have access to them? >> you know, i'm not sure what the history is in that regard. >> they're sealed. i know they're sealed. >> they're sealed. i don't know whether or not as part of our interaction with congress historically the department has sought unsealing

orders in that regard. i just don't know. >> i would like to know what was in those wiretap affidavits with respect to which we know there needs to be the -- the articulation of the investigative steps that were taken. >> yeah. >> and if i'm -- >> i'm sorry. go ahead. >> i'd like to know if we would have the ability to be able to review those. even in some contexts in which we could negotiate, the only thing we want to see is the extent to which there may be references to tactics that were used by atf with respect to gun walking. >> well, as you and mr. gowdy will know maybe better than anybody else on the committee, these kinds of applications don't always go into all of the techniques that are used in -- in a particular investigation. >> but i don't know that. i'd like to know that. >> i'm just saying generally. there is the possibility that the review of the materials submitted by the field in washington would not contain something that would say guns were allowed to walk or however it might be.

>> but there's also a possibility that it would. what i want to know, because i do know that your authorities would have from oeo and it would actually go up higher to mr. wi winestein, if i'm correct, who would have to review that affidavit. so it was before a pretty serious high-level guy in the criminal division who would have in his hands that affidavit if he so chose to read it. >> yeah. deputy assistant attorney general has to ultimately approve the wiretap before it goes -- wiretap application before it goes before a court. and we have tried to put in place some new measures with regard to oeo and how these things are handled. but i will, you know, i will look and see what we have done historically with regard to these wiretap applications and see how we'll proceed given the request that you've made. >> thank you. my time's up. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman, i think, from illinois, mr. quigley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, mr. chairman, as someone who's gone through about 200 trials myself, i know there's a lot of experienced

trial attorneys in this courtroom, i appreciated the novel "bonfire of the vanities." best line i've read -- >> say that again. >> "bonfire of the vanities." >> i asked unanimous the gentleman have 15 more seconds to educate us to that. >> there's a wonderful scene which judge white talks to the district attorney about prosecuting defendants for opportunistic reasons. he concludes wonderfully by saying, so go tell your boss the district attorney captain ahas been weiss that i know he's out there looking for the great white defendant. mr. williams over there is not it. much the same as today we come to the conclusion after nearly six hearings that i know that there are those looking for the perfect case to embarrass the attorney general and the president. but after six hearings, this is not it. i say so respecting and understanding that this is a

great tragedy, a great loss that requires change and accountability. but if it's done in a way with a hollywood-type persona, it's n opportunistic. frankly it took the minority staff to write a pretty good detailed analysis of what happened and what needs to change. now mr. attorney general, it's incumbent upon all of us to make sure that happens. and as you suggested, there's accountability. but if it's just deflection, we fall into the other movie trap of the day, which is, mr. chairman, your reference, and that's groundhog day. let's remember what happened in that movie. the character bill murray lives the same day over and over again until he reaches his own reality and comes to terms with it. we do as well. we have to come to terms with the reality that in this country, we let something this

dastardly take place. and it wasn't corrected fast enough. and we need to make changes. and while they're started, we still need accountability. but it can't be a deflection. now, mr. attorney general, you mentioned some of the issues, the lack of a firearms trafficking statute. we talked about the long arm reporting requirement to a certain extent. you mentioned testimony in a previous hearing from agent peter forcelli. the exact quote, by the way, was some people view this as no more consequential that doing 65 in a 55. that was his testimony about punishment for straw purchases. but he also said something else that's related to this issue and where we go from now on. he said, i have less than 100 agents assigned to the entire state of arizona. that's 114,000miles.

so do we have enough resources? so do we have the resources? no, we don't. we desperately need i also would note toward that end that appropriate funds for additional atf personnel in this fiscal 2012 year, congress's appropriations for atf was $57 million below the agency's modest request. resulting in increased layoffs and early retirement for critical personnel. atf plans to reduce its workforce by about 5% to comply with these budget constrains, leaving fewer agents to pursue traffickers and inspect the small handful of dealers who repeatedly violate these gun laws. mr. attorney general, if you could briefly comment on the resources needed to do this job. >> yeah. i think that if we're serious as we all say we are about dealing with this problem of guns going to mexico, we have to have an atf agency that is staffed well,

that has the appropriate leadership and that has sufficient resources. we have -- we've asked for with regard to these teams that atf puts on the border funding for 14 of them. we only got funding for nine. we need more people than we have now in atf in order for them to do the job in the way they want. we need a permanent head of atf. there is something that comes with a senate confirmed head that is different from somebody who acts in an acting capacity, even though todd jones, i think, is doing a great job. we need all of these things in order for atf to be as good as it can be with regard to the work that it tdoes along the border and the decision by whoever to keep this agency not as strong as it possibly might be is something that i think does a great disservice to the american people and certainly to the law enforcement effort that we all think is important.

>> mr. chairman, my time has expired. >> i thank the gentleman. and we now go to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. dasholay. will the gentleman yield for five seconds? >> yes, sir. >> attorney general, i would like to make sure we're clear, for two years the president didn't put up a nominee for that position, nor did he take advantage of recess appointments. so i know the gentleman was well meaning, but perhaps ill informed as to the facts related to the director. mr. dayjolay. >> mr. attorney general, thank you for being here. if we resolve nothing else here today, we've made it painfully clear that you've been here at least six times. and i don't think there's any question about that. but why, why have we been here six times and why is it taking so long to get the answers that we need? how could we have made this process more simple? if you'll indulge me for a

minute, let's just take a hoip thet cal that i come home from work one day and my window's broken out. and my boys are there all day playing baseball, and i know it. well, you know, i ask them how the window's broken. they don't know. there's a bat laying in the driveway. there's gloves laying on the table. but they're just not going to fess up. so, you know, i know what's going on. but we can't be sure, because they're not being straight with me. so maybe my wife's a little uncomfortable and she says, well, someone could have tried to break in. maybe we should call the police and have them come out and investigate, make sure someone didn't try to break in. this process goes on and on and on, even though we know that something isn't right. at any rate, i just use that loose parallel. i think you know where i'm going. so you're here multiple times, and you opened your statement

with that you are the attorney general. and that you operate under the highest standards of integrity and professionalism. and, you know, that's exactly what you've done and what you're doing. and i really have no reason to question that. but when we start asking for information, and if they could put up the slide about the stonewall city? can we do that? if we look at this, these are some of the things we've asked for to expedite these process. some of the evidence, if you will. the number of documents that we've asked to be turned over and what we've got. the number of wnitnesses that we've asked to talk to and what we've actually gotten. these are the kind of things that i guess are frustrating for us as we try to get to the bottom of this for agent terry's family and so that these kind of things don't happen again. now, you said that you were notified probably within 24 hours of agent terry's death. was that what i heard you say?

sir? >> i'm sorry. >> you were notified -- >> i was looking at fortress holders. that was kind of interesting. that's not my house, by the way. >> actually, i think it's closer to disney land. we're a little concerned it looks a little too grand for anything in our government. >> did you say you were notified about 24 hours after agent terry's death? >> i'm sorry, yes. >> when you were notified did they mention the phoenix project to you? >> no. >> you had no knowledge that that death was any way linked to what went on in phoenix? there was no mention made of that? >> well, phoenix, i'm sure there was some kind of geographic reference. but with regard to fast and furious, i didn't know about fast and furious until later january, early february. >> there were no bells going off or any concern about the gun running or anything at that point? >> no. none of the people of the murder were made aware of the tactics. >> okay. let me reference a letter that was dated february 4th, and i

think the author is sitting behind you today. assistant attorney general ronald weiss. >> maybe he ought to sit here. >> he said he wanted -- >> with all due respect, he's had this hot seat for real more than you have, mr. attorney general. >> he submitted a letter to the committee that denied that atf sanctioned or knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons and allowed them to be walked. and i think your department had this letter withdrawn, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> okay. how long did it take to withdraw the letter? >> it was formally withdrawn in december -- december 2nd. prior to that, there were a number of indications by me, by mr. wish, by mr. brewer that we were not satisfied with the assertions that were contained in that february 2nd letter. but it was formally withdrawn -- >> it wasn't a deliberate attempt to deceive congress, the letter was not? >> no. if you look at the materials we made available, the deliberate materials we made available, you can see how people were, i

think, really struggling to try to get the best information they could to congress as quickly as they could. but i thunk they made a couple mistakes. their needed to take more time and they needed to drill down further. >> inaccurate information? >> yeah. they didn't go down to talk to the line people. they stopped at the supervisory level. >> okay. amazing how quickly five minutes goes. i guess as a parent, i want my kids to do the right thing. and i'm sure as the attorney general you want the people who work under you to do the right thing. and so i guess moving forward, how do you feel that you can regain the trust of the american people in light of all that's happened with fast and furious? >> well, you know, i'll take issue with you again respectfully. i'm not sure i've lost the trust of the american people with regard to this issue. this has become a political thing. i get that. that's fine. so there is a certain segment of the american people, certainly a certain segment of this congress that has lost faith in my abilities as a result of what's happened in fast and furious.

but i think the way in which -- to the extent there are people willing to be persuaded who have a contrary view now, i think they need to look at the way in which i reacted to this, the steps that i have taken, the procedures i've put in place, personnel changes i've made. ultimately what i'm going to do when i've had the ability to look at the minority report. i assume there'll be a majority report. the inspector general's report and judge at that point whether or not i have reacted appropriately to what was a flawed investigation, both in concept and in execution. >> and with all due respect, sir -- >> the gentleman's time is expired, so please be brief. >> with all due respect, with what we see here on your house -- not your house, but the letter that was sent in, what may appear as political appears now somewhat as a cover-up. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> a lot of information here doesn't seem to be accurate. i think that's why the number of hearings continue to go on. because i don't think we're getting the full information.

>> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. >> if you want to react to something very quickly, please. >> i've heard the magic word here. cover-up. i want to make clear that there's no attempt at any kind of cover-up. we have shared huge amounts of information. we will continue to share huge amounts of information. there is a misperception, as i think was indicated in the deputy attorney general's letter, that maybe i can clear up now. we're not going to be hiding behind any kind of privileges or anything to not provide this committee with information that it wants. we are talking about not providing deliberative material. and that's consistent with what executive branch agencies beyond the justice department always do. but with regard to things post-february 5th, february 4th, if there is a relevant request, we will respond to that request. the only thing we're not talking about responding to is deliberative material -- that was a great little diagram that you had up there. inaccurate in some pretty

glaring ways. it's not up there now. >> that's what my boys with the baseball implied as well. >> i thank the gentleman. we can have a later discussion on how many witnesses and how much information and so on. for the attorney general's edification, and i know mr. ron wishe will help you, we have published two majority interim reports and hopefully he can bring those to your attention. additionally, this committee is investigating a number of things post-february 4th, including related to the false response. and we hope that that will be cleared up once you give us -- give us or fail to give us a constitutional basis for withholding. and with that, we now go to the gentleman from illinois. mr. toedavis is next in order. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i noticed that we've heard the terminology "cover-up" a great deal not only during this discussion, but prior to now.

and i think there's no doubt that there's not a single member of this committee who do not recognize the need for some serious change. at the outset of this inquiry, justice department officials sent a letter to senator grandsly denying that gun walking occurred in fast and furious. however, the department has since said that the letter contained inaccurate information and that senior department officials relied on adamant denials by atf and the arizona u.s. attorney's office. mr. attorney general, to your knowledge, did anyone at the department of justice headquarters intend to mislead congress in responding to senator grassley's inquiry? >> no.

i don't believe that. we submitted inaccurate information, but it was based on attempts to get that which was accurate, and people simply did not have access to it. people who we relied on and who we thought were in possession of the most accurate information, were, in fact, not. there was no -- no intention to deceive, but the information provided was regrettably inaccurate. that's why we withdrew the letter. >> and you have taken action to hold the personnel in atf and the u.s. attorney's office accountable for conveying inaccurate information to the department? >> we've certainly looked at those places where personnel changes could be made. some have been made. it's possible that others will have to be made. there is -- there are reports that are going on. i will wait for those and see what happens. although, i have an independent responsibility separate and apart from whatever the

inspector general generates to make up my own mind about what kinds of personnel decisions we need to make or i need to make. >> the committee has also interviewed a number of numerous witnesses involved in compiling and reviewing the response to congress. the department has also produced more than 1,300 pages of correspondence relating just to the issue of how the original letter to senator grassley came to be drafted. these documents support the account of senior department of justice officials that they relied on factual assertions from the u.s. attorney's office in phoenix and from atf. within two months of the february 4th, 2011, letter to the senator, dmt officials told committee staff that the letter was unintentionally inaccurate