someone accusing atf agents of actually watching suspected gun traffickers just drive away was special agent dotson on cbs. and i didn't believe him and i was very vocal about that. i didn't become aware until it started coming out little by little talking to fellow agents, and then mid-april i saw some documents and that commits me that would special agent dotson was alleging wasn't that correct. >> thank you and the other special agents that are here, mr. gil, mr. subdo in your experience is as the first time you have seen and atf operate this way? >> i recently retired after going on 23 plus years. it is inconceivable and again i didn't believe it even after seeing mr. dodson as well and i still didn't believe it until after i talked to mr. dodson and others that i became convinced that perhaps atf did use. >> has a as i stated in my opening remarks, yes. is the first time i've ever seen it and i was very skeptical. i believe mr. dodson wasn't alone. >> part of my duty is to look at the southwest border cases, all of them and this is the first one i have seen. i would like to add something that the panel was asking earlier. now you asked when we first became aware that mr. acosta was involved as the leader of the straw purchasing ring and some of the other issues as to mr. pitino. that was in 2009. and it was early on. i briefed it to my senior directors january of 2010. and we know this in one of the driving forces behind how we know that these were going to mexico, and there were mexico people involved, is because or other law-enforcement partners provided us with information, specific information that allowed us to know exactly what was going on and to what cartel it was going to. this was not a mystery. we knew this in december of 2009. i briefed it in 2010. january. >> thank you, sir. special agent newell, and mr. mcmahon we will get to you because you are the supervisor. so at some point, based on the ig's report in doj, they said we are going to try something different here. i'm assuming because that is the way things work in government and maybe i'm wrong, if someone says we need to have this operation and we are going to make a determination that for for the first-time atf is going to conduct business this way. we are going to let these guns walk. they maybe didn't say it but in essence that is really what happened. it is a different way of conducting business with atf. where would that plan have come from? i know you sat down with this group mr. noel, but somebody higher up than you made a determination that for the first time atf is going to run this. we have heard from this panel and we have heard from the panel prior today that this is a complete aberration to the way atf has done things. where would that have come from? >> well maam, importing the strategy together for this case the strategy came from several places. the department adjusted originated a draft in january 2010 about how to combat southwest border drug trafficking by mexican drug cartels and one of them dealt with firearms trafficking that said three tzipi located strike forces a mere interdiction is not the answer. you have to go after the structure and the organization of whatever it be, firearms, human drug trafficking to make the biggest impact. >> and who would that memo have come from? >> i do believe that memo came down from the deputy attorney general's office. >> and then, so now we are going to change the strategy. it is going to be a different way to conduct an operation. so you get your directives from them and these groups you talk about, you sat down and it came up with a plan noted that plan come from. >> the plan figured into come or the memo figured into how we were going to address when we first looked at it in november 2009 was already a prolific firearms trafficking organization. in my 23 years we have never seen an organization that was this prolific in buying firearms in such a short terry mac of time so we felt at that time in conjunction with the strike wars for this group seven was located that the best way to attack this organization was through the use of a multiagency conspiratorial type investigation to dismantle the moral organization. >> the b. gentlelady's time is expired and we now go to the gentleman from michigan, mr. ahmad should. >> i'm going to yield my time to mr. gowdy. >> i thank the gentleman from michigan. mr. leadman for those who are perhaps watching and not familiar with the full panoply of investigative techniques surveillance is a tried and true investigative technique, correct? what about consensual encounters where you just walk up to someone and ask them? there is a reason dostoevsky wrote -- and edgar allen poe wrote the telltale heart. >> there are several tools in the toolbox as they say when you are faced with the fact that we know that these weapons are going to be used in such carnage in mexico and the united states. we should have pulled every tool out of the toolbox. not just to make her case. r. k. should not prior to hear. there is a flow of firearms -- it up in the number one priority and we should've reached and that toolbox. we should have conducted interviews and we should have done interviews with surrounding people. we should have tracked these weapons better. we should have followed everything by the letter to stop them. >> have you ever heard of a law enforcement officer stopping someone for speeding when really they may have had another purpose in mind? >> i have heard that it happens. >> crossing the yellow line? >> sooner or later you are going to make a mistake. >> exactly and when you do a lawful non-contextual car stop also opens up the full panoply of other search options like searching the vehicle or a pat-down. how about a proffer? is that in your toolbox to go to a united states attorney and say i would like to proffer this person? i would like to send a grand jury subpoena? it is the same week you conduct every other investigation other than this one, right? from shoplifting to murder. we do it all the same way except this one. >> correct. >> special agent newell, i happen to think this was ill-conceived from it's inception. you have testified repeatedly that purpose was to destroy, dismantle drug cartels. so i'm going to ask you again. how would this ever have succeeded? what was your purpose? how would we have known, hey this was a great investigation? >> surya said the purpose of this investigation was to disrupt and dismantle of firearms trafficking organization. >> in mexico? >> in united states. not only straw purchasers the middlemen and transporters and financiers. >> the guns were going into mexico and you should have known this was an abject failure because that is not what you wanted, right? >> absolutely. >> so when he found out the first and went to mexico why did you not abort the investigation? because we were still putting the facts together. >> when is the very first time you knew or should have known that firearms were going to mexico? >> i believe it when we got the first traces i would advise the first traces which i believe was in november 2009. >> when did you abort the investigation? >> the investigation is ongoing. >> that is my point. you knew the weapons were going to mexico. were you at some point going to bat special agent canino know about it? >> mr. canino knew about a. >> he knew that weapons were going into mexico? >> absolutely, yes. >> when you read going to let their mexican counterparts know about it? >> i am assuming they knew. one of the issues about that is there is only one field of vision in this country come only one that has a pgr representative and it and that is the mexican department of justice. in all my years of working with mexico i spent four years in bogotá colombia representing atf. i am very keen on the fact that we need to share information with their foreign law-enforcement. >> you testified earlier that you are going to turn the information over to mexican prosecutors and let them prosecute because i asked you where you also going to allow u.s. law enforcement officers to be extradited to mexico for breaking their law and he said no. my question to you is this. how in the world are you going to get our brothers and sisters and law enforcement to trust -- why would you trust the prosecution if you don't trust the investigation? >> to answer your question about the drug cartel, the kingpin -- we did not have information until late in this case who that individual was and i abided with mr. canino we invited in december of 2010 as well as january mexican prosecutors to comment. i don't think that is ever been done before and i'm the one that requested it. >> digi debrief them on "fast and furious"? did you tell them the guns were going into mexico? >> well, yes. >> you told them when? >> my pgr representative i had in my office who has been there for two years new about this case. >> when the first gun showed up in mexico that you knew was from phoenix. the first one. did you go interview the. >> no sir murray didn't. >> why not? >> again our strategy was that when going from years of experience you take out one straw purchaser. you are not having an effect on the greater organization. >> heavy over flipped a corporate in windows before? how do you do it without asking them? how do you do without undergoing them? >> it depends on a goal of the investigation. speier goal is to bring down an investigation. [inaudible] why didn't you go, why didn't you approach him? >> approach who? >> the straw purchaser. >> the goelzer in this case was to take out the organization we felt by just trying to flip one straw purchaser if in fact he did flip it would not affect the overall goal. >> the gentleman's time has expired. expired. we will have a second round. we now go to the gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador. >> special agent canino i think i heard special agent newell say that you knew about this gun walking. can you please. >> i want to make it perfectly clear to you and the american people and mexican government, my family and my friends. at no time ever did i know that atf agents were following known, suspected gun traffickers one of which bought 700 guns and we knew about his gun showing up in mexico six weeks after we opened up that investigation. never, ever what i imagine that we were letting that happen. we have 4000 best occasions plus or minus with mexico u.s. nexus. there are guns coming in. that is trafficking. the guns are coming into mexico. i have no clue that we were allowing these guns to go out there like this. like mr. gowdy said, there was no one -- interdiction to start any case. you have a toolbox. we have classes. jose teaches those trafficking classes. i have been to them. it is like building a house. you started the bottom and you try to work your way up. at one point you will only reach so far and then you come in and you have a meeting and you say okay how can we advance this? you meet with the u.s. attorney. from what i see here, none of this was done or if it was, it wasn't very effective. >> so when did you first realize the gun walking allegations which are? >> april. >> this year? >> yes, i mean i was starting to lean that way and then i was that atf your headquarters for mating and i sat down with mr. levin and he convinced me. >> did you come across any specific evidence to prove atf had taken part in these actions? >> one more time? >> did you come across any specific evidence to prove atf had taken part in these actions? >> from the totality of circumstances and speaking with different agents yeah. the guns were showing up in mexico. >> did you review any documents? >> you know, sarah, i visited mr. leadman and i saw, took a look at the management line. if i read it correctly, there were three instances in the first two pages where we walk away from guns. at that point i was so disgusted i didn't want to look at the case filing any more. >> when was that? >> that was in mid-april. of this year. >> why were you so upset with this information? >> because it goes against everything we have taught. like i was explaining earlier, you don't do that. we are not taught to do that. from the first day we walk into the academy all the way until you leave this job, like aron said, it is not a recognized investigative technique. this is not a special case. this just a trafficking case that we do. this is what we do. amongst other things trafficking is what we do especially on the southwest border. this wasn't a one of. this wasn't a whodunit. this was you know, this was the. >> it was a basic case? >> yeah. >> like you do everyday? >> exactly. >> special agent newell, do you know who kevin o'reilly is? >> yes, sir. >> what is the nature of your relationship with him? bif known kevin for probably 10 or 12 years. >> how often do you communicate with him? >> i haven't communicated with him in a while but probably three or four times a year, something like that. may be more with him reaching out to me. >> isn't that a bit unusual having direct e-mail contact with a national security -- of the white house? >> how many times did you talk to him about this case? >> the specifics of this case? .. >> so, mcmahon, you took responsibility this morning here for the actions of and i appreciate that. who at the highest level -- i can't imagine this is something you decided to do on your own. did you communicate with the highest level about this case? >> i communicated to my chin of command within atf. we are all very much aware of the investigation and what was going on. >> who was aware of this investigation was occurring and that the guns were being blocked to mexico if you can answer that question time is expired but go ahead. >> no one was aware guns or walking. my level or above me we are getting caught up in the definition of walking but whatever the definitions are no one from my level of know of any gun walking. >> i thank the gentleman. we go to the gentleman from florida, mr. ross, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mcmahon, i had the opportunity to read your opening statement. i've been out of here and first fully appreciate your service and of her stand your remorse with what is going on here but got to talk to you a little about the interview you had. and i would like to review some if i could get slight six brought up this is a transcript of the interview that you had and when you were asked whether you read the lawyer to applications for the fast and furious and you responded no, i did not; do you recall that question and answer? >> i do. >> when you were asked if it was your job to sign off on the wiretap applications, you stated no, i never signed off on a memo for the wiretap publication; and it was your statement then and still today? >> yes, it is. >> slide seven, if we can show slight seven. okay. this is a memorandum dated february 5th, 2005, that addressed to you from the group supervisor, phoenix group seven. the first line states this memorandum serves to request authorization to initiate a title three cellular telephone intercept. it's addressed to you. do you recall that memorandum? >> i recall seeing it recently, yes. >> you don't recall seeing it before? >> i do not. >> okay. >> slide eight, if we can get that up there and this is a and the e-mail from william newell to you on february, 2010. attached to this e-mail was an e-mail with a memo as we saw them pass the slide and the e-mail states attaches the covered memo requesting authorization to conduct the intercept on the suspect strike force firearm out of the phoenix and tunnell the fast and furious im fedex and that to you. do you recall receiving that? >> i don't recall that i obviously received that, yes. i don't specifically recall receiving this e-mail, nope. >> do you recall seeing the attachment? >> no, i do not, and i think the e-mail records show they were not able to scan the attachment because it was large and they said they were going to fedex it. >> who said that to you? >> it says that in the e-mail. >> it tells you it was too large? >> it says i could not stand the actual affidavit deutsch to its size so i am sending it so scanning it means attaching it to this e-mail. >> this is the request for a wiretap? >> this has the request for a wiretap attached to the e-mail. >> it's actually an affidavit prepared at the u.s. attorney's office. >> okay. this is an affidavit by the special agent mcalister in support of the application for authorization to intercept wired communications and attached for your review. the signature block is for schaefer but there's someone else's signature. do you recognize that? that's my signature. >> so you were aware of this request for the wiretap? >> absolutely. >> having seen these documents now is their anything would you like to clarify in your testimony or interview at all? >> i know that we forwarded the application for the wiretap through the legal counsel process to get their approval before i went back to the oeo and meen justice. >> but you just testified minutes ago that you were not -- don't recall ever requesting authorization for the center said. >> i said i never recalled receiving this request. i did get the actual application for the wiretaps and then they were forwarded. >> in one of those requests did you authorize? >> the last slide you put up from mark, that would transmit the actual application for the wiretap, yes. >> okay. >> in your interview were you asked about this? >> not this specifically, nope. >> did you volunteer? >> nope. >> any reason why not? >> i'm trying to figure out what i need to volunteer. i told the staff i don't recall -- i did recall receiving applications but did not -- >> you don't play to mr. kumar door knowledge about any of this? >> i iran played mr. kumar my knowledge? that's not correct. i told them everything i knew about this. >> was that in march of 2010? >> it was throughout this investigation. >> i see my time is expired. >> i ask the gentleman have an additional 30 seconds. >> with the gentleman yield 30 seconds? >> yes, sir. >> i am one of the mom lawyers appears that's why i introduce the qualified people early on. but as a layperson, it looks like you had an intimate part in the wiretap request. your signature was part of a request process, yet when we ask about your being involved in them, you did not volunteer to tell about this part. you simply relied on you didn't actually sign the affidavit; is that what you're saying? the truth was you didn't sign the affidavit even though you signed this document and all other documents and worse and other documents that you may not remember? >> i signed this document that transmit the application for the wiretap to the counsel's office for that mistake is not doing a faeroe review of the documents that were coming across my desk. i accept full responsibility for that. >> with the gentle lady from new york like to have a round of questions? >> the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you very much. i thank you and the ranking member for holding this hearing and all of you for your service to our country. we appreciate it. we've had a series of hearings and i regret i was also in a hearing we are having in the financial services that i am the ranking member on so i had to be there. so i wasn't here for most of it. but mr. cummings is going to brief me completely on everything that happened. on one of our prior hearings, we had a special agents that basically testified that the enforcement was not strong enough without was one of the problems of the border that there wasn't an expressed wall against trafficking and guns, and that a lot of times were to use the terms of one of the agency called him to phyllis, that you couldn't do anything with it and they said that the penalties even in trafficking guns and serious offenses and straw purchases and all kind of things really ended up in more than probation so therefore they didn't even feel like pursuing the convictions because the penalties were so relaxed, and it was inadequate even to detour for the illegal purchases, and it wasn't strong enough to encourage the cooperation of the facts when they were cooperating they had to have stronger laws. so, i put in a bill with other members of this committee to make trafficking and guns a federal crime, and i'd like to ask special agent mcmahon and newell whether or not you think this would happen in combating violence, drug trafficking, illegal drug trafficking at the border. >> currently we have some laws that are in place that we are using and then forcing to the best of our ability. i think any extra tool is going to be helpful and when it gets more specific as i think some of the legislation is going to present would be more specific and think things obviously easier. >> you think it would disrupt the flow of guns on the border? t think would help in that way? >> i think a tool like that would help, yes. >> newell, would you also like to testify? >> is in a matter of fact i believe the surface in july 2009 published a report which said, i believe the title was drug-trafficking in the southwest border and the talk about the need for a specific statute to address the trafficking of firearms by a group of individuals that would aid will enforcement being able to address the specific activity that is not illegal. so any toole we would have to assist in that we welcome. >> is everyone else on the panel agreed if you disagreed would you like to express why? does everyone agree that this would be told would be helpful? >> i would somewhat disagree as i stated earlier. i think the line in buying the stock purchases by definition itself by any weapon or purchasing or obtaining a weapon for the transfer to some other third-party in and of itself is trafficking. we have some personnel to give outstanding courses throughout my career and the last few years so that we provide the training to state and locals as well as our federal partners. and they are of itself distracting and we as we promoted during the sessions. i would agree with you that by definition a straw purchaser has no criminal history, therefore we have to increase the penalty for those folks that are actually making the initial purchase. >> that's what the bill does, and all i think oftentimes i'll listen to the people that are in the combat on the streets trying to get the job done, which is our special agents and several panels including today. they have said that a strong anti-gun trafficking bill would help them do their job, so i think we should listen to them. one of the testimonies in the last hearing, one of the agents said that they were military type weapons, that it wasn't -- no one wants to inhibit a hunter getting a gun to go hunting with or someone to protect themselves, but these were the type of weapons like the ak-47 used in military combat, and they were training and trading in the deadly guns, and understand the need protective equipment that has to be reinforced for the military tide of guns, and the law the was put in place to report on rifles that are being sold also the testified helpful, and i would like to hear what your view is from the front line, mr. newell and mr. mcmahon. >> we were asked earlier and what degree the demand would be helpful for us, yes. >> is there any other tool that this congress could give the would help you save lives? we are all for the second amendment of a lawful person to own a gun, but for a criminal and a drug cartel to have easy access, i think the number was 40,000 deaths -- >> the time is expired. is there a question? >> i just want to know if there's other tools we can give you that would help you combat on the front line the illegal sale of guns that is leading to the violence from the border. >> i testified before congress and number of times, and it is not my place to ask -- i know we will do what we can with the resources and the laws that this congress provides less. >> with that we now go to the gentleman from pennsylvania. and this is the second round, folks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. newell, i am still sort of struggling to find out who knew what and when in the form of the not only the formulation of the process, but the approvals as well. so it's my understanding that this was conceptualized in november of 09, is that correct, fast and furious? >> no, sir. the investigation began in november, 2009 under the name of j dub chambers who was identified as one of the more prolific straw purchasers. as the case progressed, and i will say that in november, mid november 2009 when the special agent started looking into what appeared obviously to be some connected activity in terms of the straw purchases, she did a phenomenal job of putting a bunch of pieces of the puzzle together and noticed one individual by the name of jacob chambers seemed to be at that time one of the more prolific straw purchasers. at that time when she put all the pieces together she knew it was like 350 guns that had been purchased by this group. as the case progressed through december and in early january, we were working on the strike force i think she realized -- >> why did you begin the process of having this be a strike force case? >> mid january. >> mid january? >> we submitted in november jim laurie, 2010. >> am i correct from your testimony -- i just heard you make a comment with respect to you are an intelligence analyst among other things isn't that correct? one of the things that you do is try to take a global perspective on how they may be moving in the united states and mexico and anywhere? support of this is to follow the flow of guns. your testimony was within six weeks of the beginning of this other law enforcement providers provided us with information in december from nine because you were concerned about guns that were in mexico been found in mexico. so in essence, december 09 prior to the beginning of fast and furious, you as the analyst as identifying for people that guns are being trafficked into mexico that you are concerned coming from phoenix. estimate what kind of explain that a little bit and bring things in perspective. in november 20, of a nine, it was an introduction by the mexican authorities in which there was approximately 41, 42 weapons firearms recovered. the information we got to the assistance advice so forth down there they covered the interviews -- >> was this november of 09? >> yes. >> so they were seized in mexico and you are just beginning this in january which means you're moving up the chain getting approvals from other people beyond you, special agent mcmahon and newell, approvals to pursue this. you know that they have already had left phoenix and have gone into mexico at that point in time. >> you are correct. >> that in january he began this you were aware they were trafficked from phoenix into mexico? >> to be clear on that i think that he has better information. i think it was seven or fast and furious. 37 were just and furious. and we did submit in mid january and approval of the fast and furious plan. >> what was the plan then? unit at this point in time before you testified that there was no part of any plan that guns would be known to be going to mexico. now you're telling me that you are part of bringing this because he believed the guns are going to mexico and guns are going well. so at some point in time, i am trying to get clear when it was that you are now participating in helping to get authority from a prior investigation. as you said that this multiple agencies that are participating in this. >> as i said, in mid january of 2010, we submitted approval the investigation which is eventually was approved by the southwest region of houston i believe the first week of february. >> you testified before right here today including from the doj deputy attorney general. those are your words. at what point in time are you aware that the deputy attorney general became aware of any aspect of this investigation? >> i'm not aware of what time it became aware. islamic when do you believe that he became aware? >> i'm not sure. i believe it was earlier this year. >> but you stated that from the beginning -- these are your words -- this is being conceived commodores testimony today, it was not just -- i asked you where this came from and and your subsequent testimony you identified that this is from doj, the deputy attorney general. this is a conception phase, mr. newell, the conception phase. your word, the deputy attorney general. so, when did he know, what did he know? >> sir, what i mentioned that the deputy attorney general is that in 2009 it died off in 2010 a formalized strategy on the doj strategy combat and southwest border violence mexican drug cartel came out, which highlighted among other things out to attack different levels of criminality by the mexican drug cartels pete firearms, drugs, to be cut. when it came to firearms there was a strategy which said mayor interdiction is not -- is not the only solution. working with the coal located strike force is imperative we attack the interest and command control infrastructure of the organization to have a lasting impact. it's something along those lines. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the former united states attorney. at this point the chair would recognize the distinguished gentleman from maryland, the ranking member of the full committee, mr. cummings. >> special agent newell, i would like to pick up one last question. who -- he testified the advancement period with screen agents and local supervisors and local supervisor gross, haven't you come to you remember saying that? >> yes, sir. >> and so, what did you mean by that? go ahead. because we have a lot of questions. how this came about, and you said that seems to be leading us somewhere and i just want to see where we are going. >> agents in the field, the pursuit of evidence of some investigation, some sort of, of the be that the firearms case, explosives case, will open an investigation with their supervisors into whatever they believe to be some sort of criminality by one or more divisions. that is how the cases initiated and how this case was initiated under the name of j dub chambers special agent, you testified that you are a senior trainer and instructor for the agents but have never heard of them on interdiction and lobbying as an approved tactic. is that just not done? >> no, sir, i've never heard of it. >> mr. mcmahon, did anyone at the atf headquarters instruct group seven to conduct the investigation in the manner that we know ended up being conducted? and to not interdict the weapons for the purchasers. >> no, sir, we did not. >> that's a fact? >> no, sir. >> so this wasn't a new policy. >> no, sir, it was not a new doj policy. i think we have to realize guns to mexico from the u.s. has been a problem an awful long time. we've been trying to make an impact and it's something we are continuing to try to do. >> going back to you, special agent, you know, we listen to all the testimony. this is what it boils down to. you've got -- i listen to your definition of walking and you are basically talking about the commission and it sounds like we have an instance here of omission. in other words, failing to stop the guns and going through. so, but there is something bigger than that. and that is it seems like we need to balance knowing the guns are going into mexico, and this grand plan to try to get to the cartel, and the whole idea if we'll over it and they don't go and in other words they go in, let them go in and stand by and watch them, where these in the up and the harm that when they are in the wrong hands what they will do. was there ever a balancing because that seems like that's what this boils down to. i mean, i think that is why the agents are so upset. they are trying to figure out did anybody say okay, this is going against the policy that we normally do. our number-one goal is to make sure the weapons don't get into the hands of the wrong people. but then they are trying to get their arms around was there some greater cause that was worth it? the risk to see these actually land in the hands of the wrong people? can you comment on that? do you understand the question? >> one of the things i said in my opening statement is i think i readily admit that there should have been more if it was incumbent upon me there should have been more through the case, risk assessment to determine the investigation. because as i have said before, the whole plan was to take up the organization but i realize in retrospect there were times i should have conducted more risk assessment. >> so your fellow agents i think that you would agree that if you lead to the balancing situation you probably would not have gone along with this the way things went, is that right? in other words, the omission you know what bothers me? you've got agents here who are very emotional about this, and i appreciate these are honorable people who put their lives on the line every day, and then they've got you who is more of a supervisor type, and they are using a sort of military-style operation what are you supposed to do? with the folks over top of you tell you but the music looking at the points over top of you and say what is this about? you can comment. >> like i said, congressman, my opening statement was i realize not retrospect there should have been assessment. i acknowledge that and that is one of the mistakes made i should have had for risk assessment throughout the case. >> i thank the gentleman from maryland. a special agent newell, they're has been some talk this morning and this afternoon about tools in the toolbox so to speak. what is the penalty for the naim 24c, first offense? what is the penalty for the second offense? >> i believe it's 15 years. >> the third offense? >> 40. >> and so, you are quickly approaching 60 years with 924c, and this wasn't the case, right? >> what is the de stand for in oside? - 24c is a statute that prescribes the use of a firearm during the commission of a drug-trafficking offense, or the other title 18 offenses, right? so, this had to have a drug connection or it wouldn't have been a case. >> actually, i believe in 2008, 2009 thus osidef issued guidance which said that you can in fact use the osidef program to attack the organizations because the other related crimes. >> these were drug cartels though, right? >> the organization? >> was related to a drug cartel, yes. >> what is the maximum for the lining and buying? >> the statutory maximum i believe is five years. >> what is the minimum for the 924? what is the stitchery maximum for 924e? >> it could be up to life. >> so you could get up to life, you can get over 60 years and pherae for the 924c and you don't think you have enough tools in the toolbox? >> i did not say that, sir. >> do you believe you have enough in the toolbox? >> the laws we have now are the ones we have to use. any additional would be welcome. >> when you began the sentence come you didn't get this from me, what does that mean to you? >> it just means that you didn't get it from me. >> that is kind of a plea, isn't it because you are getting it from them. so it's -- what do you mean by that? you didn't get this from me. i'm referring to your e-mail. >> obviously he was a friend of mine and its -- i shouldn't have been sending that obviously i recognize that. >> what you mean you didn't get this from me, does that mean you should have been talking to him about it? >> not that i shouldn't a been talking about it. he's my friend and asked for information and i provided it to him. >> why wasn't inappropriate to give it to him? why would you preface it by saying you didn't get this from me? was it an improper communication? >> it wasn't improper. >> why would you preface by that? >> he's been a friend of mine for a long time and asked for information to riggins so i gave him information that proper and improper use of the term and phrase. >> okay. i would yield my time to the chairman. >> so, following up on where he was and i apologize, we are trying to keep going during the vote -- yes, you have one minute left. >> actually i have 46 seconds left. the -- use it something to somebody because they were a friend. the work on the white house on the national security team who requested something about a rather esoteric symbol investigation. why do you think that he asked you for that information that you didn't get these from me, why do you think he asked for that information? >> well, sir, the way that i read the e-mail now in my recollection he wasn't asking the but a specific investigation, he was asking about the gun runner in pact team over the summer. >> why do you think he was asking? >> if i recall that e-mail, he was asking for information to brief his boss for preparation for a trip to mexico. in our efforts in our area along what we were doing to conduct the trafficking and other issues >> of cases this is september, 2010. listened is already a field program you had recognized needed to be shut down and there was 30, 60, 90 day shutdown some time ago was in this after you had been frustrated by the u.s. attorney who couldn't seem to end this? >> at this time, sir, i believe our case at the u.s. attorney's now for about probably two to three weeks. >> let me go to another line of questioning because -- i've got these agents who don't see the world the way that you and your other experience see it and i want to understand the difference. as you saw this as necessary, you saw that you had to make your case and use all that 30, 60, 90 days went by even after you recognized an awful lot had walked. you may not have said that he walked them but they walked. they are in mexico distributed probably so 2,000 weapons have gone, and you still think this program was a good program, write? okay. >> so, you would do this program and? >> i said earlier in my opening statement i would do several things differently. >> unit to a program in which you contact the licensed gun sales, organizations, tell them in response to what they believe are suspected straw purchasers to go ahead and install video cameras, watch these people by, and follow them to a location and then wait to see where they turn up. summit would be one of the things in the risk assessment i would seriously consider changing. >> what about the american people? musette risk assessment. that sounds like the doctor telling you that you have non-ha pashtuns lymphoma and there's a 0% chance, but we think we can operate and give you an extra month. risk assessment. mrs. pallone, ms. norton, they are radically against the second amendment. they absolutely positively do not want anyone having any guns. to say straight forward they would respect the second amendment but they've never seen a gun limitation they dealt want. in your case, your agency has a special, special obligation to maintain the second amendment, the law abiding citizens' rights to keep and bear arms, stop the bad people from getting them. you said you need more laws. i'm going to come to the other agents for a moment. mr. canino? >> if the u.s. attorney agreed to prosecute every case, or in the state where there was strong hand on walls, if he or she only gave up that prosecution of the state agreed to prosecute what we dramatically reduce gun violence on both sides of the border if there was 100% prosecution of existing laws? >> eliminate gun violence? >> i said greatly reduced. >> i don't think. >> i don't think federalizing >> of think federalizing street crime is the answer. i think there's plenty of gun laws. some of them better than others, some of them there is no deterrence, there is no significant times people are facing and that is the frustrating part. but, in my opinion the political reality is right now there is no appetite or will for any substantial flecha legislation. and i can't worry about that. i have to worry about catching bad guys and i'm going to do the best i can with life got. >> you happen to be south of the san diego border right now. i'm just north of it. president bush fired carol lamb to a great extent on my request. i don't worry that the of the eight attorneys fired. i helped get her fired because she wouldn't prosecute trafficking human beings or gun crimes. she basically said turn them over to the state and then walked away knowing that in most cases they wouldn't prosecute. does it make a difference if you have the u.s. attorney at each of those border areas who take trafficking the human beings, trafficking drugs and chucking the guns seriously enough to basically not let anyone walk away not being prosecuted just because they might only get six months or a year. >> yes, sir, unequivocally. >> federal agents, police officers on the federal task force, agents in the atf in my opinion we have a tremendous effect on crime. however, cases don't get prosecuted, when they languish as i said in my opening statement, and the cases are either they climb or given the minimal sentence doesn't send the message of people engaged in this type of activity, take for example gun trafficking. when you have individuals that are not prosecuted, however maybe there was a search warrant served and guns were taken from them, all they are going to do is tell the next guy watch out for these guys that do this because this is how i got caught. but there is no deterrent. we need to prosecute people and put them in prison for this and we need to put them there for a while. >> special agent, in your experience, if you have somebody did your right, you've got them with a weapon, let's take our 740 man, if you said we've got you, we know where you've been selling if you don't give a testimony right now, if you don't roll, you are not leaving here and you were going away for a very long time. in your experience is very high likelihood of a are going to be essentially flat the next guy up in return for the minimum charge of buying a plane, is that an effective tool when you had what we had in this case we knew that he had sold to a trafficker and we have hundreds, in the jury is going to consider him part of the trafficking charge you can bring, and we get evidence of exactly who he sought to switch to tell him we already know who you sold to but if you are not willing to testify we are going to put you away with him and by the way, people have died in mexico and we are going to allow you to be extradited to mexico, and i am not asking you for your techniques. i'm giving you the in cis1 because the way we are not getting into sources and methods. but does that work? >> yes, depending each individual is different, but it's done correctly, and respectfully and you treat the person like a human being and to tell them hay these are the choices -- >> so it's really i don't want to hit you with a stick but i will? >> pretty much. >> let me go to mr. leadmon for a second. march 5th, 2010 you did a briefing at atf headquarters on the operation fast and furious. at that time did you brief over a thousand weapons had been sold? >> yes, sir, 1,026. >> did you in that presentation brief and show the link between telstra purchasers and -- the cartel? >> identified the cartel and briefed and showed the links toward the seizure in mexico and how they moved over to the juarez area. >> was it clear that when you gave the briefing that everyone in the room guns were going to gun dealers and arizona and then going into mexico? >> absolutely. >> who was in the room at that time? >> everybody in the senior management field operations except for mr. nelson. >> were their representatives at the department of justice? >> joe hooley. -- of justice was informed that the guns were walking? >> i don't think he was very but he was there. >> did anyone express concern in this meeting that the number of weapons appearing in mexico or the number of weapons brought by the straw purchasers seemed to be too high? >> yes, someone on the of the end of the in the video because we had a videoconference, i believe it was somebody in the dallas field division who voiced that concern and there was some discussion. >> and we also have a memo that says we have to slow this down basically at the same time. so at a thousand it was too many. let me ask the two defenders of this program -- and by sorry but that does appear how your role today has been. did it ever occur that either one of you after mr. leadmon's march 1044 that you could let some of these block and intertek others meaning, quite frankly, when somebody had already bought 100 of them and transported them they were not going to sell to somebody different. you knew it was a straw purchaser, he usually had one customer she made the sale once, twice, 20 times, did it ever occur to you to go ahead and at least stop a few times as you said to make it expensive by intercepting some of them, just blinded by dumb luck they had to figure and this is just me talking but i think that life lived this long enough the cartels have to realize that some point you were helping them buy guns because they were having a good batting averages and that troup lacks the fact that these guys were not interdicting the guns almost had to be conspicuous at some point couldn't you have at least stopped some of these guns to make it look more real? >> as i suddenly opening statement that is one of the things i would do different. >> we are going to take a short recess. there will be little bit of voting. we will come back and i know you've been patient. during the recess restrooms are available to you. i would suggest that on that side there is a restroom you don't have to go out and be accustomed by cameras and so on. but what i would like you to do, special agent newell and special agent mcmahon, but for all of you, i would like each of you if you would agree to give me that the list of the things that you would do differently, and special agent seat -- newell, i would like your list and mr. mcmahon because you over salles and you have said some things. but to the four of you would you be willing to give me what would be done differe