it may be more like, finally, there are going to be people who sent guns -- they're going after the people who sent guns down there. now, you claim with passion that nobody at the senior levels, the department of justice, prior to the death of brian terry knew that guns were walking and i have an e-mail from jason weinstein using the term "guns walking." >> i think we went through this exercise before. that refers to wide receiver, not fast and furious. >> that's not what the february 4th letter that was sent to the united states congress said. it said that atf never uses those tactics. never. that is -- that's not true. >> and we said that that letter was inaccurate. it was ultimately withdrawn. the e-mail you just read -- this is important -- that e-mail referred to wide receiver. it did not refer to fast and furious. that has to be noted for the record. >> it's -- no, it doesn't. it says fast and furious. do you think we should have

lanny participate, when fast and furious and tucson case are unsealed? it's specific to fast and furious. that is not true, mr. attorney general. i'm happy to share it with you. i ask unanimous consent to give you some extra time to review it ? >> the laura tucson case refers to -- >> we'll let the media have it. >> laura duffy was not involved in fast and furious. >> the e-mail says fast and furious. you say it doesn't. i've got it in black and white. did you personally read -- >> i have superior knowledge. >> did you personally read speaker boehner's letter sense to you on may 18th, 2012? >> yes, i got that. >> did you read it? >> yes. >> have you personally responded to the speaker? >> the deputy attorney general responded. >> you delegated that to james cole? >> i didn't delegate it to him.

he thought it was appropriate for him to respond. >> you didn't think it was appropriate for you to respond. >> no, but what i've indicated in my opening statement -- i'm certainly willing to indicate right now -- i'm willing to personally engage with the four people who signed that letter and try to come to an accommodation so we can get you the information you need consistent with what i think is our need to protect ongoing investigations. i want to be as flexible as we can and as you said, get to the end -- >> i have a hard time buying that when you don't sit down with a guy like me tsh. >> gentleman's time has expired. chair recognizes gentleman from puerto rico. >> welcome back, attorney general. and i realize it's been a long hearing. and as you say, the eighth occasion on which you appear before us. as i stated before, first thing i'll say, i have to commend your demeanor, your patience, your decorum in appearing before us. and in subjecting yourself

sometimes to process that i do not believe is fair. if anything, this committee should always try to afford due process. i'm sad to say that sometimes here you were interrupted in a way that is not disserving to the position you're holding. so i for one, i thank you. now, as you probably expected, i want to complain a little bit. the familiar subject of my questioning is the federal government's response to drug-related violence in puerto rico and neighboring u.s. virgin islands. the murder rate in puerto rico and the u.s. v.i. is nearly six times the national average and nearly three times higher than any state. most of these homicides are linked to the cross border trade in illegal drugs which is

primarily a federal responsibility to combat. during your previous testimony, you stated that drug-related violence in our nation's caribbean territories is a national security issue we have to confront. you also stated that puerto ricans are american citizens who deserve the protection of your government. i know you and your team have been working to address this problem. you and the heads of the dojs, component agencies have always made yourselves available to talk to me, despite your busy schedules, and i appreciate that. there have been some major success stories in recent months including yesterday's federal/state operation which resulted in the arrest of dozens of our airline workers in puerto rico were smuggling drugs on flights to the mainland u.s. your men and women in puerto rico are doing terrific and courageouses work. i hope you know i recognize and respect that. it's also clear to me, and to any reasonable observer, that

far more needs to be done. the cjs appropriations bill which we approved recently this year explicitly stated the committee's aware that efforts by federal law enforcement to reduce drug trafficking and associated violence in the southwest border region have affected trafficking routes and crime rates in the caribbean. the committee expects the attorney general to address these trends by allocating necessary resources to areas substantially affected by drug-related violence and reporting back to the committee. i wrote this very same week to the president asking him to direct to prepare and publish a caribbean border counternarcotics strategy which would outline a federal plan of action to address drug trafficking and related violence in puerto rico and the v.i.

already, the southwest border and the northern border. so the first question i have, do you see any reason why we should not do the same for the caribbean border? >> i think that's actually a fair point, and it's consistent with what i testified to i think before your remarks. my remarks that you referenced before. when one looks at the caribbean, puerto rico in particular, i think we need to have a strategy. we have a task force. one in puerto rico that the associate attorney general is one of the co-chairs of. i think to the extent that it is not explicit, that we should develop such a plan. >> thank you. and my second question, and mr. chairman, you know, i would -- i would like to be able to make my question and then get an answer, even if my time expires. quite a few of my fellow members have had that courtesy. i hope you can extend it to me

as well. >> gentleman, just ask the question. >> okay. the second question is, can you explain the concrete steps that doj has taken to strengthen its presence in puerto rico? wouldn't it be appropriate for doj to increase the resources it devotes to the island, even if it is only a temporary surge, just as the federal government did when there was a spike in violence on the u.s. side of the southwest border? i know we're living in an environment of constrained resources but i'm talking about prioritizing. the limited resources you have and making sure they're being allocated to the areas where they're needed the most. by the way, i have the stats, da has increased its manpower, but the fbi and atf have not in recent years. shouldn't you be acting with more of a sense of urgency in this area? please, tell me why i should feel better about this than i

do. the attorney general will be brief. >> okay. the -- we are -- our law enforcement components have really developed recruitment and incentives for agents who are willing to -- who are stationed in puerto rico. retention is a really -- is a unique problem we have in puerto rico but i think the issue that you raise about surges is something that we are starting to embrace because we have seen -- although we've seen historic drops in the crime rate, we've seen hot spots for a lack of a better term around the country. what we are now doing is developing a capacity to surge agents and resources, money at times to help local law enforcement into those hot spots. we have done it in a couple of cities in the united states. we plan on looking at other places. i think puerto rico given the homicide rate, violent crime rate that outstrips what is the

norm, puerto rico would be a candidate for such a surge. >> thank you so much. >> gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the chairman from north carolina, mr. gouwdy for five minutes. >> thank you. i thank you for your great service to the great state of texas as a congressman and judge. mr. attorney general, i want to ask you about a comment attributed to you and a statement issued by the department of justice and a "new york times" interview of december to2011, you said there a desire to, quote, get at you, because you, quote, consistently take progressive stands. shortly after the interview the department issued a statement wherein it said your krcritics, your critics rightly view you as a progressive force. the common theme in both of those statements is an apparent belief that you are targeted because you are, to use your term, progressive. so i want to be really clear with you, mr. attorney general. i'm not a critic of yours because you consider yourself to be progressive. i'm a critic because i don't

think the attorney general for the united states of america should have any political ideology whatsoever. you are the attorney general for the entire country. regardless of your political ideology, or anyone else's political ideology. you're the attorney general for everyone. you're a former judge. you're a former u.s. attorney. you're currently the chief law enforcement official for the united states. i don't know what attracted you to the criminal justice system. i haven't had an opportunity to ask you. i can tell you what attracted me to it was the notion of working solely for a woman who was blindfolded and carries nothing with her except a set of scales and a sword. no political ideology, no agenda, just a set of scales and a sword. and it's important to me that

she doesn't care about anyone's station in life and she doesn't care about their political ideology and doesn't care whether they're black, white, brown, progressive, conservative. it's just about the equal application of the law. and further in that interview with "the new york times," you singled out my colleague from south carolina, senator graham, as someone who had good faith in his criticisms toward you. so my question -- and then you suggested that others are motivated by something more nefarious. bad faith, a desire to get at you, a desire to do damage to the president. so my question to you is this. do you think it's possible to be motivated by good faith and still ask who the senior-most level officials were who knew about the tactic of gun walking prior to brian terry's death. is it possible for me to ask that question and be motivated by good faith? >> sure. i would say, you know, let's ask -- do you think john

ashcroft was a conservative? >> i don't know mr. ashcroft. i tell you who i do know, mr. attorney general, the united states attorney for the district of south carolina. he was appointed by president obama. he is every bit as progressive as you seay you are if not more so. not only have i not been a critic of his, i've been one of his biggest fans. you cannot tell what his political ideology is from the way he discharges his job. so i don't know john ashcroft. i don't know you. i know bill knolls. i know the united states attorney. and you can shake your head when i'll say that, but the truth is, you're the one who said you were being targeted because you're progressive. and my point to you is, i would be asking the exact same questions about fast and furious, whether you were john ashcroft, whether you were dan lungren, whether you were bob goodlatte. i don't care about the political ideology of the u.s. attorney or the attorney general. >> all i will say is this.

the decisions i have been in connections with anything i've done in the justice department don't reflect my political ideology. they reflect my view of the facts, the law and what my responsibility is as attorney general of the united states. >> well, why did your department say that? why did your department in december say that you were a target because you consistently take progressive stands? do you think that's why i'm asking you about fast and furious? because of your political ideology? >> i have -- i will accept that your question to me is one that is based in good faith. i'm not going to say, i'm not going to ignore reality and say that all of the attacks that have been directed at me have been those that are nonpolitical in nature or that have come in good faith. >> can i be motivated by good faith? can i be motivated by good faith and still believe that you ought to have a show an i.d. to vote in south carolina, just like you do to have to enter the federal courthouse? >> absolutely. we can have a disagreement. you can operate in good faith and ask that question, as i can disagree you in good faith and

not have a political motivation behind my position. >> well, mr. attorney general, you have a difficult job. but if you think that you are being singled out because of political ideology or race or any other characteristic or factor, when it comes to fast and furious, you are sorely mistaken. i would be asking the exact same questions regardless of what party was in power. with that, i'll yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentleman's time has expired. chair recognizes gentlewoman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. attorney general holder, before i begin my questions, i'd like to take a moment to commend you for the progress that the department has made on various issues. for instance, on intellectual property rights. you have made that a priority. it's very, very important for our economy and i congratulate the department of justice on the groundbreaking case earlier this year where you charged seven

individuals and two corporations for running an international organized criminal enterprise that was responsible for causing more than half a million dollars in harm to copyright owners. i also want to thank the department for seeking to protect every american's right to vote. during 2011, the civil rights division handled 27 new voting rights cases and with 137 176 bills in congress aimed at suppressing americans' right to vote, you're doing incredibly important work. i also want to applaud you for changing the material that the fbi had been using in their counterterrorism materials. that had many inflammatory statements about islam and offensive stereotypes about muslims and, in fact, the fbi has conducted the review of the counterterrorism training material that indicated factually incorrect information.

and earlier, congress member franks said these were statements that had to do with political correctness, but actually i wanted to name some of the statements that were made in these training materials that were in correct and, in fact, offensive. for instance, this one that was in the fbi manual, never attempt to shake hands with an asian. or how about, never stare at an asian? i must personally take offense of that, i must tell you. and how about this? the arabic mind. or growing facial hair is is an indicator of extremism? i think those are statements that have to be removed from those manuals. and my question has to do with the fact that a generation of fbi agents and joint terrorism task force members have been trained with these biased materials. what is the department doing to make sure that those that have

been trained with those materials don't hold these kinds of stereotypes? >> well, we have certainly removed those materials so that the training does not continue and as people are updated in their training, we make clear to them that that material was inappropriately shared with them before. there are ongoing things that happened in the field offices to make sure that people don't rely on the kinds of things that you have just read to the record in their enforcement efforts. so it's an ongoing thing. we understand that there have been certain agents exposed to this. we understand it's our responsibility to make sure that that information was incorrect. not politically incorrect, but simply factually incorrect that we make sure that they operate only on the basis of factually correct information. >> i truly appreciate that. and actually i also wanted to talk about another issue and that's the nypd and the muslim

community. in august 2011, the "associated press" published an investigative article that described intelligence gathering by the nypd of the muslim community in new york. so 34 members of congress and over 115 community and civil rights groups have requested the department of justice open an investigation on this issue. has the department of justice begun a formal investigation? into this issue? >> we're aware of the allegations. we received, as you indicate, several requests to investigate the nypd. we're in the process of reviewing these requests. we are -- we are very far along in what i will call this preliminary stage. i expect to be getting something, a formal recommendation fairly soon. >> i would appreciate that because we want to make sure that innocent americans aren't spied upon simply for eating at a restaurant or simply practicing their faith. and it is offensive to many.

i always remember the fact that we had 120,000 japanese-americans that were taken off to concentration camps based on allegations of spying and, yet, in the end, not a single case of espionage was even proven. so we want to make sure that the rights of innocent americans is protected. >> yes. that is our objective as well. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. the gentlewoman from florida, miss adams, is recognized for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. hello, attorney general. good to see you again. >> good morning. good afternoon. >> earlier, when you were asked about when you became aware of the tactics of fast and furious, i believe you said it was early part of 2011? >> right. >> and how long after agent terry's death were you made aware of the fact that one of those guns that walked was actually used to kill your agent?

>> i think roughly about the same time. i'm not sure we ever had a ballistic match in that regard. i think i was made aware of facts that guns found on the scene are from fast and furious. i think it's about roughly the same time, some time in february. i'm not sure exactly when. >> would you consider that -- i'm going to go back to your opening statement. you said during your opening statement about how you and your agency are working closely with all the agencies. and that all the issues that apply to whether it's the national security lease, homeland security and all that, you're working very closely, yet you have an agent murdered. there's guns on the scene that come back to fast and furious. and it takes one, two months before you're made aware of the fact that this has happened? >> well, you talk about my personal knowledge. >> yes. >> there were other people -- >> you are the attorney general, are you not? >> i will skip -- >> you are our chief law

enforcement agent. you have an agent. >> no, i'm saying there were people in the justice department who were aware of the fact that those guns found on the scene were from operation fast and furious. i personally did not become aware of that until february. there were people in the department working with our dhs allies and people in local law enforcement and the fbi who were aware of that fact. yes, i thought you were directing questions just at me as opposed to somebody else. >> well, you know, i've heard, i've listened all day long and listened the other day when you were here also, and every time when questions are posed about fast and furious we always get a different timeline or someone similar or we've had a letter called back for inaccuracies. months after it was delivered to us. so now we have -- you sit here and you tell us today, in your opening statement, how well your agencies are working together. yet you have an agent who is murdered and it takes a couple of months before you're made aware, as the attorney general, that the weapons that were left and allowed to gun walk were

used during this homicide. so i go on to, if we have all of this going on, and i keep hearing you go back to, well, in the previous administration, we did this, or they did that. you know, i don't really care what happened in the previous administrations. what i care about is the fact that when i work with agents in the previous administration, as a law enforcement officer, i knew that when they went to get a wiretap, they had to produce the evidence of probable cause to their supervisor who then had to sign off on that. so i listen today, as you said, well, they just signed off on a summary. so are you telling me your supervisors sign off on wiretaps based on summaries without looking at probable cause? >> no, that's not what they do at all. they are satisfied looking at the summaries that are prepared that probable cause does in fact exist, but they do not review these things with an eye toward

understanding the full scope of the underlying operation. they only make sure that when we go to court, there is a sufficient basis for us to say that probable cause exists, that with regard to the telephone number that we want to get the wire on that we can say that that particular phone was involved in the commission of a crime. not the full extent as to what operation fast and furious was all about. >> so you've covered a lot of different areas today. i'm still waiting for an answer as to how so many thousands of guns walked. i've never been involved in an undercover operation that would allow such a thing to happen and it's amazing to me that our own attorney general's office is the one who allowed it to happen. but then you go in to say -- >> i did not allow that to happen. in fact -- >> it was your agency. you have control over that agency, do you not? >> as soon as i heard about it, i instructed that that policy, that practice had to stop. >> after the death of -- >> i was the first attorney

general to do that and i did that. >> you also talk about how your agency is working deliberatively and information asked about immigration then you said, well, you know, we just need a comprehensive solution for immigration issues. wouldn't that solution be that you and your agency actually enforce the laws on the books that we have today? >> we do enforce the laws. we are more effective than any -- >> well, i will just let you know when i ask about, with criminal aliens that are released back into our -- >> regular order. >> -- because what we have is criminal aliens being released back in our communities because home countries will not take them back. and i ask, well, do we ever file 243-d paperwork? and i was told no. none during this administration have been attempted. so i have concerns, when i ask you about our immigration laws being enforced. the other thing, before i go -- >> gentlewoman's time has expired. >> i'll yield back.

>> thank you, police adams. the general woman from california, miss sanchez, is recognized. i'm sorry. the gentleman from florida, mr. deutsche is recognized. >> i knew it wasn't intentional. thank you, mr. chairman. general holder, thank you for joining us here today. as we're all aware, general holder, a statewide, ineligible voters is under way in florida. now, all voters benefit from voter efforts, oversight, accuracy, enough time to rectify mistakes. the purge under way in florida is nothing of the sort. a list of 182,000 suspected noncitizens has been compiled by governor scott's administration. this list is so riddled with mistakes that governor scott's own secretary of state, kurt browning, objected to the list. yet the risk was not reason enough for governor scott to stop. cross checking driver's license data with state voter files was guarant guaranteed to result in mistakes. guaranteed. many illegal immigrants who have become citizens are still classified as noncitizens in the

motor vehicle records. but it doesn't explain how a world war ii veteran and bronze star winner from davie, florida, was listed and doesn't explain how a ft. lauderdale small businessowner was listed. it doesn't explain the staggering rate of ina accuracy in the initial stage of the purge. if the rate of inaccuracy, the initial 2,600 holds up for the remaining 180,000, the nearly 40,000 american citizens' voting rights are at risk. let me be clear about one issue. everyone here agrees we don't want noncitizens on the roll. i don't, general holder, you don't. this purge will remove thousands of legitimate voters. why is there zero concern for those voters? mr. sensenbrenner earlier called this a model of due process. in fact, the letters going to voters say they will be removed if they fail to respond within 30 days. the governor believes failure to respond to a letter within 30 days is reason enough to lose your right to vote even if you're a u.s. citizen. maybe you moved. maybe you don't read your mail. maybe it got lost.

maybe, general holder, you're a different elderly veteran of world war ii who received the letter the week his wife died and threw it out because he didn't have time to deal with the preposterous assertion that he's not a united states citizen. that happened mr. attorney general. i applauded you last friday for requesting florida suspend this unaccountable purge. the doj rightly pointed out federal voter laws prohibit voter purges within 90 days of election. the closer you get to an election the less time you have to correct mistakes. mistakes like disenfranchising voters. now, i'm aware the governor responded to you late last night in a letter that showcases his administration's willingness to make up the laws as they go along. i know, mr. attorney general, your department will respond in detail in the coming days and will do everything necessary to compel florida to comply with the law to prevent thousands of floridians from being disenfranchised. finally, i want to give you a

chance to prespond to a letter sent to you yesterday by a colleague of mine. the letter reads, your department's interference in the purge proves you are, quote, more concerned with protecting the re-election prospects of the president than with upholding justice and enforcing the rule of law. that you are actively working to keep noncitizens who have kmi committed a felony on our state's voter rolls. general holder, with 16 cases of voter fraud found in florida, of over 8 million votes cast in 2008, the assertion that voter fraud is an actual electoral strategy is preposterous and offensive and condescending because voter fraud would be a totally ineffective way to rig an election. it's rare because it's a felony that risks prison time and huge fines and it's totally a logical way to sway an election. you know what isn't an effective wa i to sway elections? thousands of legitimate voters off the rolls, eradicating voter registration drives, disenfranchising millions of seniors and impoverished americans who lack government i.d.s.

that's the tactic governor scott and his ilk are using not just in florida but around the country. maybe i'm wrong, general holder. can you just answer quickly, is my republican colleague right, mr. attorney general? have i missed some grand conspiracy here? >> i haven't seen the letter, but that is not what motivated our action, or will continue to motivate the actions that we may have to take. i've not seen the response from the governor or the secretary of ta state in florida. i will assure you we well make sure the federal law is enforced and that voter purges happen in a way that is consistent with the law. i share your view that we do not want to have people inappropriately voting, that we don't want to have voter rolls that contain people who should not have the right to vote. at the same time, we should engage in a process that does not put off the rolls people who have served their country, as veterans, people who want to exercise that most fundamental of american rights. and so the notion that this is somehow a political ploy is