[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 187 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8390-S8392]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ATF'S LANNY BREUER

  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms is a division of the 
Justice Department. I have been investigating Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms' Operation Fast and Furious for almost 11 months now. It is 
past time for accountability at the senior levels of the Justice 
Department. That accountability needs to start with the head of the 
criminal division, Lanny Breuer. I believe it is time for him to go, 
and I wish to explain why I have come to that conclusion.
  The Justice Department denied, in a letter to me on February 4, 2011, 
that ATF had ever walked guns. Mr. Breuer had been consulted in the 
drafting of that erroneous letter of February 4, this year.
  On May 2, 2011, rather than acknowledging the increasingly obvious 
facts and apologizing for its February letter, the Justice Department 
reiterated its denial on May 2, this year, the same denial of February 
4th.
  Thus, when the Justice Department revealed on October 31 of this year 
that

[[Page S8391]]

Breuer had known as far back as April 2010 about gunwalking at ATF, I 
was astounded. That was a shocking revelation.
  The controversy about gunwalking in Fast and Furious has been 
escalating steadily for 10 months now. The Justice Department had 
publicly denied to Congress that ATF would ever walk guns. Yet, the 
head of the criminal division, Mr. Breuer, knew otherwise and said 
nothing. He knew the same field division was responsible for walking 
guns in a 2006-2007 case, and that case was called Wide Receiver.
  But the real shock was how Mr. Breuer had responded within his own 
department when that earlier gunwalking was first brought to his 
attention in April 2010. He didn't tell the Attorney General. He didn't 
tell the Attorney General's Chief of Staff. He didn't tell the Deputy 
Attorney General. He didn't tell the inspector general. Instead, he 
simply told his deputies to meet with ATF leadership and inform them of 
the gunwalking:

       . . . so they know the bad stuff that could come out.

  Later, his deputy outlined a strategy to:

       . . . announce the case without highlighting the negative 
     part of the story and risking embarrassing ATF.

  Think about that. In that case, saving face was more important than 
the bad policy.
  For 18 months, the embarrassing truth about ATF gunwalking in Wide 
Receiver and Breuer's knowledge of it was successfully hidden. It only 
came out because of the congressional investigation into gunwalking in 
Fast and Furious.
  The public outrage over Fast and Furious comes from the average 
American who cannot understand why their very own government would 
intentionally allow criminals to illegally buy weapons for trafficking 
into Mexico.
  Next week, it will be 1 year since Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry 
was murdered by bandits armed with guns as a direct result of this 
policy of letting guns walk. The Terry family, and all Americans who 
sympathize with their loss, are rightfully outraged and astonished at 
their very own government doing such a thing. Yet, when Mr. Breuer 
learned of a case where ATF walked guns in a very similar way, all he 
did was give ATF a heads up. There seems to be a vast gulf between what 
outrages the American people and what outrages Lanny Breuer.
  Mr. Breuer showed a complete lack of judgment by failing to object to 
the gunwalking that he knew about in April 2010, 9 months before I was 
ever aware of Fast and Furious. If Mr. Breuer had reacted to gunwalking 
in Wide Receiver the way most Americans reacted to gunwalking in Fast 
and Furious, he would have taken steps to stop it and hold accountable 
everyone involved. Consequently, Fast and Furious might have been 
stopped in its tracks and Brian Terry might be alive.
  When Mr. Breuer came before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on 
Crime and Terrorism the day after those revelations, I gave him a 
chance to explain himself. I listened to what he had to say. He told us 
that he:

       . . . thought that . . . dealing with the leadership of ATF 
     was sufficient and reasonable.

  Clearly, it was not sufficient. Mr. Breuer even admitted as much, 
saying:

       I regret that I did not alert others within the leadership 
     of the Department of Justice to the tactics used in Operation 
     Wide Receiver when they first came to my attention.

  He regrets not bringing gunwalking in Wide Receiver to the attention 
of the Attorney General. But what about bringing it to the attention of 
Congress? He didn't even step forward to express his regret until e-
mails that detailed his knowledge were about to be produced under 
congressional subpoena.
  It is astounding then that it took the public controversy over Fast 
and Furious to help the chief of the criminal division realize that 
walking guns is unacceptable. Yet he had had 9 months after the 
February 4 letter to step forward, correct the record, and come clean 
with the American public. He had 18 months, after learning of 
gunwalking in Wide Receiver, to put a stop to it and hold people 
accountable. He failed to do so.

  During his testimony, I asked him pointblank if he reviewed that 
letter of February 4 before it was sent to me. His misleading answers 
to these questions formed the basis for my second reason for calling on 
Mr. Breuer to resign. He responded that he could not say for sure but 
suggested that he did not review the letter. He said, ``[A]t that time, 
I was in Mexico dealing with the very real issues that we are all so 
committed to.''
  Last Friday, the Justice Department withdrew their February 4 letter 
to me because of its inaccuracies--and the word ``inaccuracy'' is their 
word. The Department also turned over documents under subpoena about 
who participated in the drafting and the reviewing of the letter. One 
can imagine my surprise when I discovered from documents provided 
Friday night that Mr. Breuer was far more informed during the drafting 
of that letter than he admitted before the Judiciary Committee. In 
fact, Mr. Breuer got frequent updates on the status of the letter while 
he was in Mexico.
  He was sent versions of the letter four times. Two versions were e-
mailed to Mr. Breuer on February 4, after he returned from Mexico, 
including the version of the letter that was ultimately sent to me that 
day. At that time, he forwarded the letter to his personal e-mail 
account. Mr. Breuer's Deputy also sent him two drafts of the letter 
while he was in Mexico, and he also forwarded one of those to his 
personal e-mail account. We do not know whether he did that in order to 
access it on a larger screen than the Government-issued BlackBerry or 
whether he engaged in any further discussion about the letter in his 
nongovernment e-mail account. However, we do know, in response to the 
draft received in Mexico, he wrote to one of the main drafters of the 
letter: ``As usual, great work.''
  The Justice Department excluded Breuer's compliment about the context 
of the draft from the set of e-mails it released to the press on 
Friday, before they released those documents to this Senator.
  That evening, Mr. Breuer submitted answers to written questions. He 
wrote:

       I have no recollection of having [seen the letter] and, 
     given that I was on official travel that week and given the 
     scope of my duties as Assistant Attorney General, I think it 
     is exceedingly unlikely that I did so.

  So as late as last Friday night, Mr. Breuer was still trying to 
minimize his role in reviewing the letter, despite all the evidence to 
the contrary. Why would Mr. Breuer say ``great work'' to a staffer 
about a letter he claimed he had not read?
  It is not credible that someone such as Mr. Breuer would forget about 
his involvement in a matter such as this. Mr. Breuer's failure to be 
candid and forthcoming before this body irreparably harms his 
credibility. His complete lack of judgment and failure to deal with 
gunwalking when he first learned of it in April 2010 was bad enough, 
but this is the final straw. Mr. Breuer has lost my confidence in his 
ability to effectively serve the Justice Department. If he cannot be 
straight with the Congress, he doesn't need to be running the Criminal 
Division. It is time to stop spinning and start taking responsibility.
  I have long said the highest ranking individual who knew about 
gunwalking and Operation Fast and Furious needs to be held accountable. 
That standard applies no less to officials who knew about gunwalking in 
Operation Wide Receiver. Gunwalking is unacceptable no matter when it 
occurred. Documents made clear that Assistant Attorney General Breuer 
was the highest ranking official in the Justice Department who knew 
about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver. He did nothing to correct 
the problem, alert others to the issue, take responsibility or even 
admit what he knew until he was forced to do so by the evidence. 
Therefore, I believe the Attorney General needs to ask for Mr. Breuer's 
resignation or remove him from office if he refuses. If Mr. Breuer 
wants to do the honorable thing, he would resign.
  I am not somebody who flippantly calls for resignations. I have done 
oversight for many years, and in all that time I don't ever remember 
coming across a government official who so blatantly placed sparing the 
agency embarrassment over protecting the lives of citizens. He has 
failed to do his job of ensuring that the government operates properly, 
including holding people accountable.

[[Page S8392]]

  Because of that, Mr. Breuer needs to go immediately. Anything less 
will show the American people the Justice Department is not serious 
about being honest with Congress in our attempt to get to the bottom of 
this.
  In regard to my attempt to get to the bottom, just last night the 
Justice Department sent a letter refusing to provide several Justice 
Department staff for transcribed interviews. The letter explicitly goes 
back on the assurances I received when I consented to proceed with the 
confirmation of three senior Justice Department officials, which I had 
held up to get an agreement to get the information Congress is entitled 
to.
  One of my conditions for agreeing to proceed with those nominations 
was that officials who agreed to voluntary interviews in this 
investigation would have either a personal lawyer present or a 
Department lawyer present but not both. I personally met with the 
Attorney General, and he had the conditions listed on a piece of paper 
in front of him. It looked as if he had read it and was familiar with 
it. Yet he never objected to that condition.
  Dozens of witness interviews have been conducted under that 
understanding with no problem. The only difference is that instead of 
ATF witnesses, we are now seeking to interview Justice Department 
witnesses. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. There is 
no reason to change the rules in the middle of the game. I was relying 
on the Attorney General and other officials at the Department to honor 
their agreement. Apparently, that is not going to happen.
  Fortunately, Chairman Issa has the ability to require the witnesses 
to appear via subpoena if they refuse to appear voluntarily under 
conditions that the Department previously agreed to with me. I am 
confident he will do that if it becomes necessary, and I will take 
whatever steps I have to take in the Senate to encourage the Department 
to reconsider and stick to its original agreement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.

                          ____________________