it was inaccurate. >> all right. when did you learn it was inaccurate, demonstrably false? >> i'm not sure, but i had concerns about it early enough that, in spite of the expression on february 4, i ordered that investigation on february 28, and it was an evolving process as time went on more and evolving process. as time went on, more intermission became available, and it became more and more clear than that letter contained inaccurate information. >> it strikes me that if a statement that falls were made to a judge, you would have withdrawn that statement, that brief, that memo, that filing the moment you learned it was false. i'm just curious why there is not the same regard for this branch of government that there would be for the judicial branch of government. >> if you look at what happened over the course of months at the time the letter was formally withdrawn, there were numbers of

instances we indicated concerns about what was in the letter, and the testimony that mr. weitz dave, he indicated that there were concerns that in october i indicated there were problems with fast and furious. there were a number of things that happened between february 4 and december, november, whenever it is -- >> let's go back to february 4. there are at least four officials who should have known that letter was false at the time it was delivered. your chief of staff saw a map of mexico, where guns would be recovered. he was debriefed on fast and furious. he knew that cash was being paid for, weapons in arizona. mr. brewer knew there -- knew it

was taking place in therapy of 2011. do you agree? >> no. >> you disagree that he knew that gun walking was taking place by atf? and that we have to be careful here. he said that he knew about the walking in operation wide receiver. >> mr. weitz did not say fast and furious in his letter to senator grassley. >> i just want to be careful. >> did lanny breuer nknow? >> he had engaged in gun walking in the wide receiver operation. >> soviets would be yes, that lanny brewer knew that any state that atf makes any ever to

interdict guns and not allow them to go to mexico, he knew that state and would have been false? >> he said he made a mistake in not connecting that which he knew about wide receiver and did not apply that knowledge to what happened in february. >> what about jason wine stain and james trustee -- jason weinstein? in arizona,t ausa's these are senior doj officials, and i cannot believe that they just learned recently that a demonstrably false letter had been mailed to a member of congress. why not correct it the moment he realized it was wrong? >> they admit that they made mistakes with regard to what the level of knowledge was and what they should have done in the

preparation of the letter. they relied on people who they thought had the best knowledge in arizona and did not bring into their calculation information that they had previously had about the gun walking that had occurred in the prior operation. >> mr. attorney-general, you brought along several law enforcement officials with you today, and i salute their service. it strikes me -- and i am quite confident i will get this? i go back home -- when law enforcement officers -- i am quite confident i will get this question when i go back home -- there is a border patrol agent on his way to federal prison right now on a 1001 conviction. what consequences can we expect to cause a false statement made to congress. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> there is an inspector general

investigation under way. i will look at the results of that investigation, but i will also look to see what happened with regard to the creation of the letter, presenting more information than i can glean on my own as to how people will be held accountable for the mistakes that they make. taking into account and making the determination, what roles will be played in the department, what things they have done. one cannot look at these mistakes in isolation. one has to look at the totality of service to the department and then make an appropriate determination of what the sanction will be. >> i ask for 15 seconds to follow up on one point. >> the gentleman will be recognized for 15 seconds. >> the policy seems to know be that we will get the least knowledgeable person weekend to write the letter. the defense is that mr. weitz

didn't know what he did not know. is that what we can expect from now on? >> what we can expect is that we will -- what you can expect is that we will get the most accurate information that we can. we were rushed. if you look at the emails that we center around, people interacting with one another trying to find information, there was a time pressure there that frankly they should not have allowed in the process. they should have sent a placeholder response or something like that, and if it took two weeks to get a response back to congress, that would have been better than the four or five days that it took. that was certainly one of the problems. there was a lesson learned. >> thank you, mr. gowdy. the gentleman from florida is recognized.

>> thank you for your candid responses. i would note that sometimes in the way of political theatrics, i appreciate your candor and sharing with us today. can you, since we have -- can we back up a second? when did you learn about operation fast and furious? >> sometime at the beginning of the year. it would have been after i got the letters from senator grassley on january 31, and at some point after that, i think sometime in february, i heard about operations fast and furious. >> what did you tell the u.s. attorney's office? what note did you send to them after this? >> after i've ordered the inspector general investigation, in march by sent a letter to the u.s. attorney's office is that gun walking was not an

acceptable technique or tactic, that it was contradictory to doj policy. >> that was after you ordered the investigation? tell me about the investigation you ordered. >> the order of the investigation was 328. i was getting conflicting information from people -- the order of the investigation was february 28. i was getting conflicting information and it seemed to me that i needed to have a mechanism to finally resolve what these conflicting positions were, and as a result i asked the inspector general to engage in this investigation. >> what is the time from of that investigation? >> i am not sure. they are feverishly working on it. when it will be completed, i do not know. >> i appreciate that. there are 64,000 guns in

mexico, and 95% of the weapons were recovered from murders. 95% were traced to the united states. tens of thousands of weapons were traced to the united states. this discussion is vitally important, and it is equally important to broaden the discussion to one of how to address the fact that there are still tens of thousands of weapons winding up in mexico from our borders. can you speak, general, to the actions that congress can take to help stem that flow of guns? >> i think certainly if congress were supportive of our funding requests to help atf with these teams that we would like to send to the border, we tried to send 14 at one point and i think we only send seven or eight because of funding problems -- these atf

teams that have the ability to monitor trafficking of weapons into mexico, that would be helpful. there is a trafficking statute, if congress would consider passing that i think that would help as well. support for that regulation that we put in place that deals with long guns and the sale of them over the course of a five-day period. all of these things i think would be helpful. the more protracted dialogue about what the nature of the problem is, which is a national security threat to the united states -- it is not only the executive branch that has ideas that could be useful. i'm sure there are great ideas in congress as well. to the extent we can identify and work on them and do so in a way that is consistent with the second amendment, i think would be useful. >> i agree. i would also suggest that this is worth -- that it is worth

bringing this debate to within our own borders as well. it is worth noting that 100,000 people a year in america are shot in gun violence. 32,000 died from gun violence last year. children and teens are shot every year involving gun violence. every day in america, 270 people in america, 47 of them children and teens, are shot. every day, 87 people die from gun violence in this country. this is a very important hearing and an important discussion about this operation, the investigation that you have started. unfortunately, the debate we are not having often enough here is one about gun violence in this country, one that acknowledges the fact that law enforcement officers in our country now need to carry assault weapons themselves to match the firepower of the criminals who carry assault weapons. there was a survey done of

police departments by the international association of chiefs of police, that by 2004 all agencies had added assault weapons, replaced existing weapons with military style assault rifles. they're necessary, needed by police officers because assault weapons are flowing within our own borders. while this discussion is important, we live in a country where the assault weapons ban has expired and we see assault weapons flowing through the streets, causing law enforcement to have to carry assault weapons. the loophole continues to exist, and it is about time -- and i say this only rhetorically -- it's about time that we focus as a congress on the steps we need to take to decrease gun violence in this country and to get these assault weapons that are created for the sole purpose of killing people off of our streets once and for all.

i appreciate your being here. i appreciate this exchange, general. thank you for coming. >> the gentleman from florida, mr. ross, is recognized. >> thank you for being here. i know it has been a long day for all of us. i want to clarify your understanding of your being here today because i think there was some confusion at the beginning. is it your understanding that you are under penalty of perjury? >> i'm here to tell the truth, yes. >> so you believe that you are under oath, is that your understanding? >> i am here to tell the truth. >> i hope so. >> yes, i am going to tell the truth. >> i'm going to ask you about your management style. it looks as though you have not really been reading any of the memos that you did on fast and furious.

in fact, your chief of staff, ken olsen, has told the senate judiciary meeting that he did not -- the gannett -- the senate judiciary committee that he did not read the letter. what would that be? it has been going on for a year. the number 1 law enforcement officer in this country, you do not know what is going on. that would make me upset if i were in your position. does it not you? and that you have to understand these memos are weekly reports that -- >> you have to understand that these memos are weekly reports, statements -- if you look at the very things that you submit to congress that are dealt in those weekly reports, they do not indicate anything about the tactics, only about fast and furious --

>> but somewhere in the line of authority, you are not new to this. you're in the office of public integrity for 12 years, deputy attorney-general for three years. none of the structure is new to you, yet there is somebody below you who is reading these memos. why are they not reporting to you? >> because if you read the members -- the memos, these excerpts about fast and furious, all it says is that fast and furious essentially is going fine. >> but did you know what fast and furious was at that time? did you know it was akin to wide receiver but not the same? >> i did not know about that and furious until -- >> but should you have known? >> no, because that the interiors is a regional operation. their operations going on -- no,

because fast and furious is a regional operation. their operations going on right now -- >> what are their names? >> whoever has a portfolio for 80 of with regard to their weekly memos, ndic, making the determination whether or not there was information contained in those reports that should be brought to my attention. >> would you agree that the most fundamental principle of leadership would be that you can delegate authority but you cannot delegate responsibility? >> that sounds about right. >> would you be willing to say that you are responsible for fast and furious operation? >> i am ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the justice department. >> to you have any remorse? >> of course i do. >> have you apologized to the

family? >> i am not going to go into the interaction between me and then. it is between me and then. my staff and me are in constant touch with the family. >> but you are not going to apologize to them? >> i have expressed my feelings to them. >> you are the number 1 officer of law enforcement in this country, and a law enforcement officer has died as a result of a botched operation. have you expressed remorse to the family? >> i am not going to reveal to you the nature of the interaction i have had with the family. i am not going to do this in front of the media and in front of a congressional -- >> but you have not apologized, that is what i want to establish. you stayed here that you used

inflammatory rhetoric about a particular church -- a particular tragedy that occurred. are you trying to score particular point with this incident? >> with the fast and furious incident? >> yes. >> let's just say -- >> you are here with clean hands to say that? in your opening statement, you assert that earlier this year the majority of house members kept house members and the -- kept law enforcement in the dark -- it seems to me you're trying to score as many political points as you assert somebody else has done in this operation, and i find that offensive. >> what i said there is actually accurate. i do not have anybody -- i do not have any problem with anyone criticizing me or the department. i have been in washington for a long time. the concern i have is where things are thrown at the

department generally, and me personally, that are not factually based. that is where i draw the distinction. >> my time is up. i yelled back. >> the gentleman from puerto rico is recognized. >> thank you, general. i'm sorry i have not been able to be here as long as i wished. i had a hearing i could not excuse myself from. the first thing that comes to my mind is that i should commend you because the little time i have been here, i have been watching you, and i keep seeing that you keep saying, as i have said, as i have said, as i have said, and that leads me to believe that you have been asked so many questions, similar questions, and you have had the candor, the demeanor, the patience to deal with them. that is what we should be

expecting, and we expect from the attorney general. so that is why i thank you and i commend you. i state that, though, because this is not finished. i have a couple of questions, a couple of comments. first, i am personally concerned about the gun shows, the purchasers. putting aside this fast and furious operation, which you have already denounced and put a stop to it as soon as you learned of it -- what else are you doing to deal with the straw purchases and the gun shows that seem to be totally unregulated, and so on? >> we have tried to make a priority the fight against gun violence. we tried to approach it in a variety of ways, by being

aggressive in going after those who traffic in firearms, to go after those people who should not have access to weapons. to try to come up with ways in which we keep guns out of the hands of felons. that is important because if you look at the number of police officers who have been shot and died over the last couple of years, the vast majority have been shot by felons who should not have had access to weapons. we do a variety of things to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. >> that is good. one thing that bugs me is that for five and a half years, we have not had a permanent director at atf, yet i see lots of vacancies in puerto rico, my district. 45% of slots are vacant, even though we have a huge crime

issue and illegal gun issue. is that affecting the level of resources that atf has? is this lack of a permanent director affecting its mission, its ability to meet its mission? >> i do think so. i think internally an organization runs better one person is seen -- a person who is seen as the permanent head is in charge. beyond that, at a person who is senate confirmed has a ability -- and ability in the budget process -- has an ability in the budget process to lobby. there is more heft in dealing with congress. because atf has been so long without a confirmed head, it has not had the ability to argue as forcefully or effectively as the

other components within the department for resources. >> going back a bit to this operation, fast and furious, i am the first one who recognizes that congress has every right of oversight on this issue and to investigate, and i know you do, too. but one thing that comes to my mind is that the moment you learned of it and you did not get the right answers from your troops, that is when you said i am referring this to inspector general. as far as i know, the inspector general does not report to you. productivity has not been questioned, -- her objectivity has not been questioned, so this is in the proper hands. another question i have, isn't that your modus operandi? when you have anything irregular

-- our department >> i thought that was the appropriate thing to do. to have an independent inspector general look at this situation, this flawed operation, and share with the rest of the world what her conclusions will be. the inspector general and the justice department has a reputation for independence. there were a lot of it -- a lot of investigations during the bush administration, a lot of attention, that were indicative of the independence that it is capable of doing when making determinations about the justice apartment -- the justice department, and i think the

i.g. will be able to investigate this flawed operation. >> thank you. i ask for 50 -- 15 more seconds. >> the gentleman is recognized for 15 more seconds. >> i have requested that the director, the drug czar, craft what i call a caribbean border initiative, something similar to the southwestern border initiative. the reason is straightforward. we are in a crisis in the caribbean. homicide that the worst possible level, or than half of the homicides in puerto rico are drug-related. the situation merits particular attention, similar to the situation in the southwest. i hope i will count on your support. >> the point you make is a very good one. it ministration has a caribbean

basin security initiative to deal with the island nation's -- with the island nation's. two or three weeks ago i met with heads of state, a variety of attorneys general and interior ministers. i was in the dominican republic and trinidad and i met with those groups of people to deal with the situation they're talking about. mexico is becoming more successful, but drugs are now starting to flow through the caribbean nations both to the united states and to africa and to europe. >> and two two american territories, puerto rico and the virgin islands. >> very true. this is a national security issue that we have to confront. >> thank you. jim dent -- the gentleman from

florida is recognized. >> thank you. are you aware of a 1994 implementation -- >> i am sorry, i cannot hear you too well. >> 1994, the implementation of standards for law enforcement. are you aware of that? >> i'm not sure of the year, but i recognize it -- but i remember it. i am not sure that we operate under them. >> do you have that type of -- you credit other agencies. are you following the same type of the accreditation guidelines as agencies around our nation? >> i assume that we do, yes. >> you assume. so you would agree that supervisor personnel, a total for those people -- so you would

agree that supervisor personnel are accountable for those people, correct? >> yes. >> i am not a lawyer, and i have a husband on the wall in judiciary square. i take issue with you saying that we are trying to make political points on officer tierney's death. for me it is personal. one of our officers was killed with weapons that were allowed to walk. i have worked in under cover. we never would have allowed weapons to walk. i have heard you say that if we get this provision with the long guns, it would help. the problem is, under fast and furious, it would not have helped, would it? those weapons would still have walked, wouldn't that? -- wouldn't they?

>> yes, but one does not necessarily preclude the other. under fast and furious, the flawed operation, about which i have not tried to defend the conduct -- >> i understand that. would they not have walked? >> there is no question that the implementation of the long guns -- >> my question was, under fast and furious, the guns would still have walked, would they not? yes or no? >> weapons went into the flow of commerce because of mistaken decisions made by people in the justice department. >> let's talk about those decisions. we have an operation you get memos on, but no one, not you, not your chief of staff, is reading those memos. somewhere along the line somebody has to know something because this is an operation not just within our borders, it is

crossing international borders. what rises to the level that the attorney general of our united states needs to know? what is it that you need to know about that rises to that level that you have an operation crossing international borders? you now say you did not find out about it until after the fact that after inquiries happened, after officer tierney's death. what would rise to the level that you would have to sign off on? crossing international borders is not one of them. what would be? >> you are referring to the memos, weekly reports. >> is it an operation that would rise to the level that would need your sign off? >> sure, there are things i have to sign off on. >> but not this one, across international borders? >> note. >> with the gentle lady yield

briefly? >> may i answer the question first? i would urge you, if you have not done this, to look at the weekly reports and to look at exactly what -- >> mr. holder, and i understand you that weekly reports and i have a couple more questions. i asked you what would rise to the level for you to sign off on it? you had reports that you did not review and your chief did not review. i am waiting to hear -- while i wait for that answer, let me ask you another question. one of my colleagues asked you about your emails, and you went straight to your work e-mail, hardly anybody has that. you have a personal e-mail at cal. did you at any time e-mail on your personal account with lanny

breuer work or gary grandmother -- or gary gremler -- >> the attorney general is recognized for one minute to respond to the questions. >> i do not know. >> would you check and get back with us? >> with regard to the provision of emails, i thought i made it clear that after february 4 it is not our intention to provide email information consistent in the way in which the justice department has always conducted itself. the exception i made in the hope that the department would be seen as transparent would be to go against that tradition and make available the liberty of material from the february 4 letter -- and make available deliberately if -- deliberat ive material from the for every

four letter. i did not hear the question. >> previously in another committee when you were here earlier, i ask you another question and you said you would not answer that question. now you say you will not provide the emails because it is not consistent with whatever policy is previous. if there are clean hands here, will you provide the emails to this committee? >> i will act in a way that is consistent with all attorneys general before me. >> that is not my question. with due respect, that was not my question. with clean hands, would you supply those emails, whether work-related or personal emails, as they apply to anything having to do with fast and furious to the committee? yes or no? >> with regard to the justice department as a whole -- >> i yelled back, mr. chair.

i'm not going to get -- i yield back, mr. chair. i am not going to get an answer. with regard to the emails -- >> with the way the justice department has always -- >> the answer is no, is that correct, mr. attorney general? >> this is not something that i am making up in terms of new policy. >> you used the word "not," and i take that to be no. >> i said no. >> ms. adams, thank you. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> thank you. i want to go back to the february 4 letters as well. when we were looking over some

of the emails between doj, atf, and the u.s. attorney's office in phoenix, trying to parse the language of -- figure out how to respond properly to senator grassley in the letter, for me, it looked like that group was started to move into not a cover-up mode but one that is more intent on language and providing a straightforward response. at any time, would not have been easier, because the letter was directed to acting director nelson -- would have been easier -- and do you or anyone else know if acting director nelson said why don't i go into senator grassley and brief -- in to senator grassley and brief

him rather than relying on someone who did not have the information to draft the letter that you later had to withdraw? >> a couple of things here. acting director nelson actually did come to the committee held by chairman issa on his own. >> but that was after the letter. >> that is fine. he did that on his own. but with regard to the formation of that letter, atf was intimately involved. you look at the emails, and there were people from atf, from here in washington as well as in the field involved in the interaction, the back-and-forth with that email traffic, trying to get accurate information back for that inquiry.

>> sometimes it is easier to have a short briefing a man -- to have a short briefing rather than -- was he rebuffed and told not to do that? ambac i think what we were doing was responding to a letter that was sent to us and sending the letter back in response. >> i am just curious because that would probably be the most efficient use of time and resources rather than the back and forth of making sure we have the language. >> my guess would be that having the director show up would be the person who would have to be briefed in order to do that exchange of information. it is probably better to have the people lower down and closer to the facts. if you look at the emails, you would see that was the case. >> in talking about that letter, do you know when the last time was that the department of justice had to withdraw a letter

that it sent to congress? >> i don't know. >> so is it a rare thing? >> sure, it is a rare thing. >> i know that mr. gowdy already addressed the issue, but what sorts of policies or structural reforms have you put in place so that something like the grossly factually inaccurate letter sent to congress does not happen again? and if it does, that this department of justice will act more swiftly in withdrawing that letter so that the members of congress can have accurate information? >> i think we have learned lessons here. we have requests for information regarding fast and furious since that time that frankly we have taken more time to respond to. we have sent into responses that indicate we are in the process of looking at information, gathering information to make sure that what we sent is in fact accurate. it is rare, as you said, and it

is something that -- it is something about which i have great regret. i want to make sure that it does not happen again. people who are in the department involved in the process have all been sensitized in a way that perhaps we were not before. which is not to say that people were cavalier, but i think we need to up our game and be more careful than we had been in the past. >> are you putting into place other structural reforms to make sure that something like fast and furious does not happen again? >> if you look at all the things that have been done at atf -- there is now a protocol that has to be followed at atf when gun trafficking is observed, or when

you are doing gun trafficking investigations. you cannot lose sight of guns. you have to make a decision about when an arrest is going to occur. what happened in fast and furious under the new regulations, it could not happen. in addition, i sent out to the deputy attorney-general something that is abundantly clear, that gun walking is not an acceptable practice. >> i just wonder, will you be resigning because of the fallout from fast and furious? >> i have no intention of resigning. i am the attorney general who put an end to these misguided tactics that we used in fast and furious. >> when you found out about them. >> the german's time has

expired. -- the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized for an additional -- >> i am asking for a yes or no. do you think that mr. brewer or mr. -- mr. breuer or mr. grimler should resign? >> from the information i have, no. >> thank you. >> should anyone resign? >> based on the information i have at this point, no. now, there are resignations that have occurred. do not think nothing has happened here since fast and furious was exposed. resignations have occurred. as i indicated in one of my responses, the personal actions i have ordered our initial ones,

and i will be monitoring the situation to see if there are other things i can be doing. >> thank you. the gentleman from arkansas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, attorney general holder, for being here today. i want to talk a little bit about ms. adams' point that she was making. i worked at main justice, i worked in the criminal division with assistant attorney general chertoff. i am stan the paper that comes across your desk and that time -- i understand the paper that comes across your desk and that time is limited and you have to do the best you can to process information. but i think ms. adams raises a good point, and that is, at what point do you believe the

assistant attorney general or someone else had it or has an obligation to, particularly in your case with lanny breuer, because you have a close relationship or a longstanding relationship with him -- at what point is there an obligation for one of these senior officials to raise something like this to your level? i am the stand you cannot read all the briefings -- i understand you cannot read all the briefings. my staff knows that if there is something really urgent, they do not stick it in might in box. they call me, come in my office, get in my face and say this is something really important. this is not just an operation, it is in fact an international operation. if looked at wrongly because of the consequences of the firearms going across the border, and that was the plan. my question would be, at one point is someone expected to

raise something like this, knowing that if it were maybe canada or the u.k. or some other country where we were trying to make guns walk -- to let guns what, i would think we would want to inform them or work with them. help me understand what your perspective is on that. at some level, someone has to walk into your office and say this should not be occurring. i want to give you one more fact on that. mr. breuer indicated that when he learned about gun walking in early 2010, instead of calling the head of the atf or telling you, he just asked two of his deputies to raise concerns with folks at the atf. so, in light of what has happened, who and when should they come to you about something

like this? >> i think that is a very legitimate question. lanny breuer has indicated that the information that he obtained about operation wide receiver and the gun walking that happened there, or the failure of the mission to stop the flow of guns into mexico, that is something that he should have brought to my attention, to the attention of the deputy attorney general. if we had an instance where you had evidence of gun walking, whoever had a position of that information, that is the kind of information that should have been brought to my attention. as mr. brueuer indicated, he regrets not doing that. >> are these set policies now?

>> limited to what is important. >> what other issues might arise at the justice department -- you might want to put the walking in s something that raises flags. i want to go back to what mr. lundgren referred to, a cbs article that talks about using anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales, using a situation created by the government to support a policy argument, folks and the government want to make. your response was that that was somehow unrelated or it was so far back in time that maybe it was not connected. what exactly was your response on that?

>> the statement, the notion that somehow this operation was used to justify the request for that regulation is simply not accurate. it did not happen that way. the operation was conducted separate and apart from any desires that have this long gun regulation. that did not happen. >> mr. chairman, i ask for 30 more seconds. >> the gentleman is recognized for 30 more seconds. >> i looked down at that cbs news article, and it says, "january 4, 2011, as atf prepared a press conference in arresting fast and furious, the next day it was emailed, well done yesterday, this case can be a strong record -- supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales were done

during the course of this case." i just ask you to take another look at that. you may not have intended it. i do not know what was going on over there, but clearly some folks had -- what happened in fast and furious, they had that in mind as something to use to enforce a policy that people in this administration were advocating for. this is an article on the cbs news website yesterday. thank you. >> clearly an attempt to use fast and furious as a way to bolster regulation on long guns would have been foolhardy. >> the gentleman from nevada is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, general holder, for your patience, too. how would you describe your leadership style? >> i am sorry? >> how would you describe your

leadership style? >> i am a person who delegates pretty well. i set goals that i expect people to meet. i'm not a micromanaging. i hire good people. i invest them with the authority to carry out that which i expect them to do, try to give them the resources they need in order to do their jobs. i would think on the basis of what -- i am not being immodest here -- i think i have done a good job in managing the justice department. >> do you lead from the front? >> yes, i think i do. i do not ask anything of the people who work for me that i would not be willing to do myself. i work hard, long hours, as do the day. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i would like to yield the balance of my time to my colleague from south carolina. >> the gentleman from south

carolina, mr. gowdy. >> there were a series of wires to the department justice about fast and furious. do you know how many? >> no. >> several? >> with regard to the discussions of wiretaps, their words -- there is a limited amount of information i can share in this forum. >> i will not ask you anything that will get you in trouble with a federal judge. those applications are voluminous, long, and factual predicates -- there are factual predicate to support a wiretap, correct? >> speaking generally, yes. >> was there no discussion of gun walking in any of those three applications? >> i cannot get into the --

>> have you read them? >> i have not read them. >> whose division is that? would that be the criminal division? is that mr. breuer? >> no, he only approves roving wiretaps. >> but there are several wire taps. a long factual predicate supporting the application. >> i have not seen them, but i make that assumption. >> and you have not read them, so you cannot say whether or not yet another department of justice official -- >> i cannot say that. -- who does he. wh

report to? >> to me. >> your defensive lanny breuer is admirable, but i do not understand it took you a minute for you to admit that guns were being watched, and there are scores of emails where he admitted it. this is someone who owned his own website, close to being one of the best 100 lawyers in america. he knew that guns were being watched, a signed a prosecutor to fast and furious. he forwarded an e-mail to his home computer of a draft of the letter, and he is going to stick around the minister attorney general? >> you are doing what i asked you not to do, and fleeting things. he knew about the walking when it came to -- >> mr. holder, the letter is very specific. atf makes every effort to interdict weapons and -- that are purchased illegally and keep

them from going to mexico . is that true or false? >> he said he did not have anything to do with the information -- >> he forwarded a draft letter to his home computer. he forwarded it to his home computer to read it. >> i am only going by what he testified to, that he did not review the letter, that he reviewed the drafts. >> but you agree with me -- >> the witness should be allowed to -- >> with the gentleman be willing to yield? >> i would be happy to yield to the gentleman from california. >> thank you. mr. attorney general, if there were seven wiretaps approved under the criminal justice committee, the criminal division, certainly we would hope that between now and the time you next appear, you would read them, as would lanny breuer comment in detail, as he

approve them through his minions. one thing i have to ask you -- yesterday we became aware -- mr. attorney general -- i did not ask a question, i said i would like you to be aware -- >> the gentleman from california is granted an additional minute to allow the ag to respond. >> we were aware of an e-mail between lanny breuer and his deputy, jason weinstein, about fast and furious. will you agree to turn over those communications in the march timeframe between lanny breuer and his deputy? >> march of what year? >> 2011. and as i have indicated, we will not be turning over --

>> as i have indicated, we will not be turning over materials after february -- >> are you aware that you are standing in contempt of congress unless you have a valid reason, that you expressed it, that you provide blogs, which you refuse to provide for the other information? otherwise you leave the committee no choice but to seek contempt. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> we will respond in a way that is consistent with the way the justice department has always responded -- >> that is not the question, mr. attorney-general. >> please proceed. >> we will respond in a way that other attorneys general have -- >> john mitchell responded that way, too. >> the gentleman from south carolina has the time, but i will allow the attorney general

to answer. >> whether or not he understood whether or not it was an act of contempt -- but they're refusing to do that in testimony here today. >> do you have a final response, mr. chair -- mr. attorney- general? >> at some point, as they said during the mccarthy hearings, have you no shame? i will say with regard to it, that we have made our point clear. with regard to the question of wiretapping, mr. gowdy knows there is only so much i will be able to say. >> mr. chair?

>> thank you, mr. attorney- general. mr. attorney general, thank you for your testimony today. i ask unanimous consent that the general from colorado, mr. paulus, be assigned to the -- if there is no objection, so ordered. the hearing is adjourned.

>> this morning, homeland security secretary and an apology and now is that the council on foreign relations. she will be interviewed by terry moran of abc news. you can watch it live on c-span2 at 8:30 eastern. on c-span, "washington journal" is next, live with your phone calls. later, how the obama administration manages scandals. and tonight, the final episode of "the contenders" about two- time presidential candidate ross perot. a new report shows increasingly in --