consistent to what we'd do right now and how for the last 30 years with regard to the sale of multiple handguns. >> and by the way, i think we repeal the assault weapons ban that has led to a proliferation of weapons that i think that we need to take a look at in our legislature. ..

>> thank you. in 2009, you created a working group to review the department's profiling guidance that came out in 2003 under then attorney general ashcroft. in april of this year, 64 members of congress wrote to urge you to revise that guidance. what is the status of the working group, and are there

going to be changes to the guidance come and if you can, but with some of those changes be? >> we are in the process of looking at that earlier policy and seeing if it might have experienced that if there are changes that needed to be made. i had a meeting concerning this issue over the last two weeks. it would be to my expectations that the changes would be made and those would happen relatively soon. we have an interagency working with the justice department. we will have an interagency group. there are a number of agencies whose equities are implicated by the prospective change. it is something that we continue to look at, and something i have been personally involved in over the last few to three weeks. >> what was the goal of the so-called guidance? >> to try to make sure that we did not hamper law enforcement,

that we had in place rules and guidance so that we do not engage in racial profiling, which is simply bad law enforcement. >> if one looks at al qaeda, they understand that if we engage in profiling, they will be more successful. they look for -- and this has been reported -- they look with people with clean skin. people who do not fit particular profiles. those are the ones they're trying to send to harm us. that is why we relate this to the national security context, as well as law enforcement, it is a bad idea. >> let me sleep in my last question. can you talk a little bit about the charges of selective enforcement of immigration law? i don't know if you have heard of any of those kinds of complaints, but can you respond to that for me please? >> selective enforcement of immigration law?

>> do you mean by the federal government? >> the arizona law and the other states. >> okay. >> at the state level, if i could finish the question, mr. chairman. >> yes, puissance the question. >> we have laws that have been passed by a variety of the state could the supreme court has obviously heard arguments in connection with the arizona law. the concern that we have is that this is inherently a federal responsibility. we have laws that will make ultimate enforcement immigration laws impossible, having said that am i understand the frustration that many states feel. i think it points out the need for a comprehensive solution to this problem. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you, mr. conyers.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, i do want to echo mr. conyers's accommodation of you for coming before yes on a very regular basis. i know it takes a lot of your time to prepare. i also know that you don't know what is going to get thrown at you, and sometimes there will be curveballs. i hope mine is a curveball. i want to talk about the florida voter registration case. it appeared in "the new york times" yesterday. it was about the search on the eligible borders, and the secretary of state of florida has sent a letter to mr. herron of the voter civil-rights position, talking about the problem. the problem is simply this. as florida is trying to purge

its voter registration rolls of noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, people who are clearly not eligible to vote, the department of homeland security has had a nine-month delay in giving the national voter registration laws to the state, now, mr. sharon appears to be taking a position that florida can do anything after the federal government has delayed giving florida the information that it needs to do what can be done to solve this problem. how can the problem be solved? >> the problem with the florida effort is that it runs counter to the national voter registration act. it says you can do this within 90 days of an election. it has been approved by the justice department in north carolina and georgia. they did it the right way. the database that i think that florida is requesting comment that database, it is a dhs

database, it does not contain within that database, people who are born in the united states. that database will therefore be flawed and could result in the exclusion of people from voting who are nativeborn americans. >> well, the state of florida has attempted to obtain this database for nine months, so that it can do its thing, prior to the 90 day shut off. and the national voter registration law. i have a copy of the letter and secretary of state debts and are best it talks about the due process and the return receipt, 30 days to respond, hearing if requested, if the mailed notice is returned as undeliverable -- the names and addresses appear.

it allows for eligibility within a state circuit court. this is probably due process times four or five times. enough, i would like to know, what rights you noncitizens, and particularly from illegal immigrants have to the protection of the voting rights act and the national voter registration act. they have no rights. >> they have no rights. i stand with any state or federal official that wants to make sure that our voting system is done in an appropriate way. people who do not have the right to vote or not vote good exactly with the way that florida has carried this out, i saw a report

. an elected official in southern california indicated that 450 people were on the list. they were indicated to be people who were not eligible to vote, who in fact were eligible to vote. that points out the problem. >> with all due respect, mr. attorney general, there is a problem. any and eligible voter or fraudulent voter who has a valid place, hundreds of legitimate voters, they end up diluting the votes of the legitimate voters. the federal law is very clear of that. if the department of homeland security has not given florida needs to start the process out with all of these protections that i have just listed, and it seems to me that if your job is to uphold the law, you know, the law is a process to give the states time to do this. but we have another agency of the government that you are

supposed to be advising as attorney general that has presented the state of florida from doing this. >> i would say, i respectfully disagree, and and i point to come as i said from other states -- i don't know all the ways in which they did it -- but they have successfully implemented a policy that i would agree with. i think we should have people who don't have the ability -- i don't think we should have them casting votes in our nation. >> we need florida to do it because there apparently has been a roadblock in washington. my time is up. >> thank you, mr. citizen. >> thank you. we have made several requests to you, mr. attorney general, to review the legal counsel memo to provide legal justification for the terror suspects. arguing, among other things,

executive branch conduct here is the congress, and information is being shared with congress to make that check a meaningful one. yet, we have yet to get any response to our request. will you commit to providing that memo to come up to us and to providing a briefing? >> we certainly want to provide information to the extent that we can with regard to the process that we use in selecting targets. i gave a speech at northwestern university. mr. brennan gave a speech here this month. >> we provide a copy of that? and a briefing to members of this committee? >> we will certainly consider the possibility of a briefing. >> you won't commit to it? >> i think we will be in a position to provide a briefing. i would like to hear from the involved people in the intelligence community at, as well as people at ol sec. >> and you will get back to us in a month? >> we can do that. >> thank you.

>> when running for president and talking about medical marijuana, president obama said i will not use justice resources to circumvent issues. apparently, the department has not followed the presence and mission. since 2009, there have been problems with burson dispensaries. selling and possessing marijuana remains against federal law, citizens of 17 states believe it is medically issued and should be legal. we need to investigate and punish those who legally grow and sell marijuana.

contrary to what the president said on the subject. >> this is inconsistent with things called facts. the justice department indicated in a memo that went out by the deputy attorney general, that we were not going to use of limited resources that we have to go after people who are acting in conformity with state law. people who have serious illnesses, people who were acting, as i said, with state law. there are certain people that took advantage of the state laws and a different policy that this administration announced come up in the previous administration had. they have come up with ways in which they are taking advantage of these state laws and going beyond that which the states have authorized. those are the only cases -- >> so you are saying that they are not targeting people who are growing and distributing marijuana for medical purposes

-- in following be state law? >> yeah. we limit our enforcement efforts to those individuals, organizations, acting out of conformity with state laws. or in the case of instances in colorado, where distribution centers were placed within a close proximity to schools. >> okay. in september 2009, you issued a memo sending for the policies and procedures governing the states secrecy privilege. that required you are personal approval to defend the privilege and litigation. how many cases since september 2009 have you approved personally invocation of the privilege? >> i have to look at that. there have not been many. i think one, two, three --

something along those lines. those numbers get it skewed a little bit in the second circuit. in order to use the statue, the second circuit says we have a rule. >> i have a number of other more specific questions on this but i am going to submit to you. but i see that i'm coming to the end of the time. i have one further question. you do not indicate in this policy whether the administration will agree to judicial review of the basis for invoking the privilege. the prior administration said that information could not be disclosed in camera to an article three-judge. what is your position of the information that the government wants to withhold in two key respects. can the judge disagree with these executive branch's decision as to whether the privilege is properly invoked? >> i think that we have shared

information with article three judges. the way in which the privilege is set out, at the end of the day for the executive branch, it is up to them to make that determination. we have put in place a process that requires multiple levels of review. >> within the executive branch? >> you are saying that -- >> ultimately, i think a judge would override the privilege and we would have to decide whether we want to dismiss the case. our hope is that through the process, they only invoke it where it is actually necessary. we have invoked the privilege far fewer times than our previous demonstration. >> i hope you will jettison the next memo. >> thank you. >> thank you, good to see you, attorney and general holder. your last visit here, we asked

about a few issues that we would like to get a response here. i am disappointed that today, your office has been enabled to provide answers to some very simple questions that we asked in a meeting. i am especially interested in the number of doj with workforce prosecutions for the last four years. the number of prosecutions of illegal workers who have been using fraudulent documents. when can i realistically expect to get a response on our? >> i was under the impression that we had responded to all of the questions that were put to me during the hearing order, otherwise. if that is not the case -- i will make sure -- >> i have not received them. we would be happy to reiterate with specificity that it is pretty straightforward.

>> we will get you those numbers, and i apologize if you did not get them. >> we will work with your office. we all know that many illegal immigrants are using fraudulent social security numbers. or they are using individual taxpayer numbers to take jobs from american citizens. i don't think there is any question about that in anyone's mind. they also received taxpayer benefits such as child tax credits, earned income tax credits, there have been reports that some illegal immigrants are claiming tax credits for children not even living in the united states. what specific -- and i want to emphasize the word specific -- what steps are being used by doj to stop this fraud, recover taxpayer money, deport the illegal immigrants that have committed the criminal fraud? >> we work with our partners at dhs to come up with a number of ways in which we try to make sure that people -- through

worksite enforcement, through employers come into making clear what the policies are and the law is -- we use a variety of techniques to try to make sure that kinds of people you are talking about are not getting benefits which they are not entitled. it is something that we have worked effectively with with dhs. >> would this group of individuals that i am speaking about -- those that have clearly committed fraud, are these folks on a priority list for deportation? where are they among those that have been given an exemption were a review to get a green card? >> well, we certainly prioritize those people for deportation. we have tried to place at the head of the list people who potentially pose a criminal problem for those in the united states. people who are engaged in violent acts. those are the ones we are

emphasizing. it does not mean that those further down the list -- >> we know and i'm glad to hear that acts of violence by criminal aliens are at the top of the list. but the fraud issue, to me, is also an offense that should be very close to the top of the list when they are stealing taxpayer dollars that could otherwise be used to help your department, for instance. also, back in december, we talked about doj addressing the issue of medicare fraud. as much as $60 billion a year, that has been used as being stolen from medicare

fraudulently. what steps has doj taken to increase prosecutions on medicare, and also on medicaid fraud? >> well, working with our partners at dhs, kathleen sibelius, i've been going around the country and expanding what we call heat strike force teams to increase the federal presence and our investigative capacities. in cities that we have identified as a key problem. what we have seen, is that we have received in the settlements, in the prosecutions that we have brought forth, record amounts of money brought back, as i indicated in my opening statement, for every dollar that we spend, we bring back $7 back to the federal government. it is something i think should be funded at a high level that we possibly can. >> one closing question. could you provide information to the committee on what specific

enforcement is taking place in this area, in california specifically, southern california, and more specifically, in and around the area of los angeles and areas like glendale, california. >> yes, we can do that. i can certainly make with you what we are doing. generally, all the cities we have targeted -- i can also make clear what we are doing in the area of california. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from california , mr. berman. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome, attorney general. i want to commend you in your department for the diligent work you do, defending taxpayers against fraud. every year i watch the total amount recovered for taxpayers under the false claims act increase him and i am grateful for the work with the department and whistleblowers do together to protect our tax dollars. i think we are now up to

something just over $30 billion, and a lot of my colleagues today are focusing on their beefs with you today. i want to talk about this subject, because i think that investors department, you are doing this right. i would like to make sure that it stays effective. earlier this year, you invited me to take part in the 25th anniversary of the false claims act. although i wasn't able to participate in the panel discussion that followed the main event, i am told that one of the issues discussed on that panel, was whether or not we should change how relators are compensated for their their efforts and recovering on behalf of the taxpayer. in october of last year, the united states chamber of commerce put out a report suggesting that a hard cap of $15 million would be adequate to compensate for later. the logic seems to be that that

amount would cover most peoples future earnings if their efforts as a whistleblower kept him from working again. the report also suggests that such a cap would not deter whistleblowers from pursuing cases, because in their study of 26 cases, the whistleblowers responded to a question about why they were willing to bring suit, and most of them said that they did it because it was the right thing to do. i believe that. but i also know for a fact that the whistleblowers put themselves at commend this risk when they make the decision to file suit and try to recover on behalf of the government and the american taxpayer. these cases are expensive to pursue, and they can last for years. they require commitment, and i don't know if they general good feeling about doing right, is what will make someone committed to the cost for the long haul. right now, relators can be awarded a percentage between 15 and 30%, depending on certain

factors, such as whether or not the government joined the relators. in my mind, as plaintiffs -- in my mind, and i think that history of the act bears this out, this percentage share encourages a relator to pursue a case until they can recover an amount equal to the entire impact or fraud, as opposed to settling when the case goes too long. perhaps, because they know there is a hard cap and they can only recover so much money. though the chamber argues that a hard cap would say the government money, i have to wonder how many cases it would deter or reduce. in this world, where some cases recover billions of dollars, it would be a very costly endeavor for taxpayers. when we consider it the false claims act amendments in 1986, and in revision since, proposals to enforce the hard cap has not

been well received. of course, there are reasons that key suits would want to limit damages. i am more focused on what works best for the taxpayer. i believe what we have now is working well. i sent you a letter on the subject earlier this month, but i wonder if you could share some thoughts with me now about whether the department remains committed to relators being awarded a percentage share were a sportive shift to a hard cap. >> welcome i have to say that the act, as it is presently constructed is working extremely well. you are right. we has to asked you to come to the justice department to celebrate. we have been successful over the last 25 years, over the past 25 years we have had nearly a thousand cases that have been filed. more than $25 billion in recovery.

$3.4 billion in rewards to relators. in fiscal year 2011 long, the department recovered more than $2.78 billion in these cases, relators received about $500 million of statutory shares. the statue, as it is constructed, worked quite well. it has shown to be an effective tool and incentivizing people in the process, and working with government has promised. again, i will look at it. i have to tell you on the basis of my examination of the rule and regulation as it exists, the statute as it exists, i would be reluctant to tamper with it. >> thank you, mr. berman. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte is recognized.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. in relation to the "fast and furious" scandal, in a prior operation, when they reviewed that every four, 2011, letter that falsely denied the afp the sale of transport of weapons to mexico, do you think it is a serious offense for an individual to mislead the congress? >> with regard to the question, i think you have it a little off there. the two individuals you talk about, mr. brewer, and the other, they did know about the tactics of the "fast and furious" in the beginning of last year's. >> but they did acknowledge that atf let a bunch of dems walk. and they were somewhere recovered in mexico.

that was in connection, i believe with operation wide receiver. >> correct. >> correct. >> but they did not acknowledge that in their connection to the congress. you think it is an offense for an individual to mislead the congress? >> they said it was a mistake on their part not to share with the leadership of the department that prior knowledge, it also indicated it was an mistake on their part when they were looking at "fast and furious" when they should've been more sensitive to what was going on with "fast and furious." >> what consequences have a taste? >> they have apologized. >> apology is a good thing, but it is not a consequence for gross mismanagement of an operation that cost the life of one border security guard.

why haven't these two most senior political attorneys faced any consequences at all? for their participation in this lack of being forthcoming to congress and to othes, subsequent activity that took place? >> again, you are your premises is wrong. they have been forthcoming to congress. they have testified or been interviewed in a way that i think is consistent with the facts. >> what about the underlying position of allowing this to go forward? >> they were not in charge of, they did not have operational control -- >> when they knew about it, what did they do about it? that happened about the same time everyone in washington hears about the tactics. they were assured by the people in arizona that the gun walking did not occur. that is the information that

they got. if you look at the materials that we submitted to congress that delivered the materials -- we submitted it in a february 4, letter, you will see that mr. brewer or mr. [inaudible name] did not have this in regard to "operation fast and furious." >> with regard to the prosecution of ted stevens in alaska. in that case, senator stevens was falsely prosecuted. he was not reelected to united states senate. it was determined that the u.s. prosecutors were engaged in outright fabricating of some evidence. deliberately withholding information that revealed the senators and a sense, and ultimately, they were held in contempt of court and the

charges against senator stevens were dismissed. but, what consequences have been phased? to my knowledge, the only consequences for engaging in the outright deprecation of evidence and the liberty withholding exculpatory evidence that would have revealed the senator's innocence was that one of them was suspended without pay for 40 days and the other for 15 days. why were these individuals not fired? i would have said that they should have been disbarred for that activity. that is not the purview of the justice department. certainly, no longer having them on the payroll of the justice department would be a good step in the right direction. >> again, there are a number of premises is better here that are inconsistent with the fact. his case was brought by the prior administration. it was not dismissed by the court. i dismissed the dismiss the case. this attorney general dismissed the case after we had concerns about the way in which we failed to turn over information that

the defense had a right to. the opr report looked at the matter and made a determination of that they did not do so intentionally. it is inconsistent -- the report that was done by mr. henry schuelke and the recommendation made by those people charged with responsibility is that those penalties should be imposed at 40 days and 15 days. it is not something to be deputy attorney general is involved in. the determination as to how -- what punishment should be made for finding people who are career within the department. the same thing happened with regards to the determination that the creation of the ol steve memos involving and involving interrogation techniques -- that is something for great people charged with

that to ultimately determine. >> the statements with regard to what was known or not known about operation wide receiver and "fast and furious",. >> the documents will be made a part of the record. the gentleman from virginia will be recognized, mr. scott. >> thank you for being with us today. mr. welder come you have been criticized for not turning over information upon request to one of the committees. some of those requests that should involve information pertaining confidential information and wiretaps under quarter to seals and information related to ongoing investigations? >> yes, that is true, but we have turned over a significant

amount of information. we have collected data from 240 custodians. we have processed millions of electronic records. we have turned over 7600 pages. >> what is wrong with handing over information regarding confidential informants, wiretap information on the court seal, and information related to ongoing investigations enact. >> we are by law prohibited him discussing or turning over the contents of wiretap related material. there is a criminal provision that has a five-year penalty that prevents us from doing that. it is also a practical reason. there are concerns that one would have about people who are involved in these matters. you might put victims, victims safety at risk, he might put at risk of the success of prosecutions. >> goes all the reasons why there are very tight restrictions on the provision of material connected to wiretaps. >> thank you.

>> will the gentleman yield? >> i have very little time. >> i will be brief. we did not request any wiretaps under seal. i am the person who signed the subpoenas. >> thank you. >> mr. attorney general, section five is there to prevent discriminatory election practices from going into effect. you did not have section five discriminatory voting changes go into effect until the victims of discrimination raise enough money to get into court to get an injunction. those who benefit from the discrimination would get to legislate into law is overturned. and when overturned, they would get to run with all the advantages of incumbency. as a result of their discrimination. there is an incentive to keep discriminating. under section five, the burden is on states to demonstrate that an election change does not have a discriminatory effect on purpose. section five says that states

were not selected randomly, they were covered the old fashion way. they earned it with a history of discrimination. now, how's the department of justice using section five to prevent discrimination and discriminatory voting practices, and what you doing in florida to prohibit purging of voters, according to the press reports, that include decorated war veterans, clearly eligible to vote? >> i think that first, let's think for just a second. you have to understand over the course of time in which i have been attorney general, we have looked at about 1800 request for preclearance under section five. we have opposed 11. >> 1800 request, we have opposed 11. among these is what florida is trying to do with section five coverage. the counties, one of which those changes, which a federal judge has already said is inappropriate.

section five was reauthorized by a unanimous congress, signed by president bush. findings made by this congress, we have a need for section five to be reauthorized until 2031. it is the position of this department of justice, and this attorney general, that we will vigorously defend a new section five, indeed for this purpose. >> the first bill that the president passed was about lilly ledbetter actor in now, i understand this administration still allows discrimination based on religion if it is so-called a group.

my question is, do they need a certification qualified for the right to discriminate? where do they just get the right to discriminate based on the fact that they are an organization using federal money >> well, we trade this in a way that is consistent with our laws. and the department continues to evaluate. legal proceedings -- we try to flee comply with the applicable laws. >> does that mean they can discriminate? >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i think it was a yes or no answer. >> mr. attorney general, if you would answer the question. >> as i said, we look at these policies and try to make sure that they do act in a way that is consistent with the law. >> okay. thank you, mr. scott. the chairman from california,

mr. lungren is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and mr. attorney general. i followed with what mr. goodlatte had to stay with respect to the stephen's case. i realize that you reassign people after that. i realize it was an investigation and indictment that came before you. that is not the point. the point is, if you have no real consequences now, you're going to have no real changes in the future. that was conduct that was stated by the judge to be outrageous. he held a hearing as to whether a new trial ought to be called before he made a ruling. you didn't come forward with a motion recognizing to dismiss, recognizing the investigations showed widespread misconduct among the whole team. and yet i am unaware of anybody that was fired. his

election, more importantly, he lost his reputation. i happen to think that in the absence of serious action taken against employees, of either the department of justice prussic -- prosecutorial court, the message is not clear. i would like to state that for the record. >> if i were lucky enough to be invited down to meet you and sue at your office at the justice department, would not have to show a government issued photo id to get in? >> you might. >> if i were to go to the federal courthouse here in washington dc, either as a party or as an attorney, would not have to show a government issued photo id? >> that has not been my

experience. >> some federal courts are aware that that is required. >> i don't know if. >> are you aware that if i have come here from california to exercise my constitutional right of travel, as an ordinary citizen, have to petition the government for a redress of my grievances, i have to show a government issued photo id? >> that one, yes. to get on a plane you have to show an id. >> that doesn't -- that does involve the supreme court, right? >> guesstimate the supreme court says the right to travel is a right of dimension. >> so, does your justice department investigate the discriminatory effect of those laws with respect to someone's constitutional right to travel were constitutional right to visit you?

argue inhibiting me, are you respecting restricting the right to come visit you? restricting my right to show a photo id? >> the answer is, with regard to the limited things we do have to discuss that might not have an impact on your constitutional right, but with some of the laws that we have challenged, they do have an impact on a person's ability to exercise that most fundamental of constitutional rights, and that is the right to vote. >> mr. attorney general, i have a right to address my grievances, don't you think that is as important as a right to

vote? >> i would agree with president johnson after the 1965 voting rights was past. what distinguishes this country and makes it exceptional as compared to other nations around the world -- >> i also think it is important that we have the opportunity to position the government to redress their grievances. that is fundamental. >> i can change the government. i have that ability. >> you can sue me in court. you can threaten to sue me in court. as a proud individual american citizen, i suppose i have a right to at least talk to you about whether you are going to bring me before the court and the government against me, and i would think that that is important. >> i certainly have the ability to talk to you, but if i disagree with you at the end of the day, i have the ability to tap the ballot -- >> i can't even come and talk to you unless i show a government id. that's my point. >> if you are to show that the justice department and someone

could vouch for you, you can come in and we could have a conversation. >> is that right? >> i haven't tried that with the tsa. that doesn't work very well in terms of being on an airplane to fly back here to knock on your door to get to see you. >> there are terrorists trying to bring down planes as we have seen over the last 12 years? and there are people who cheat about voting when they don't have the right to vote. >> we do not see that to the proportion of people have said -- in an attempt to try to justify it is photo id laws. all of the empirical and mutual evidence shows that questions of fraud existed the extent of dutch people say it does exist. >> look, the supreme court was wrong in 2007 -- were they wrong when they said that states have a legitimate interest in requiring photo ids from voters in order to inspire confidence in the electoral system? you disagree with the court on that? >> what is interesting there --

>> if you you'll answer the question, we will move on. >> the case is fundamentally different from that we are talking about now. that was not a section five case. indiana is not covered by section five of the voting rights act. with all due respect, the attorney general talked about the crawford decision in indiana. it tells how it is different. the court acknowledges that the undeniable fact that voter id laws can burden some citizens right to vote. it is important to administer laws in a way that minimizes the possibility, and we will not hesitate to use the tools available to us, including the voting rights act, if these laws, important as they may be -- are used improperly. that is michael mckenzie talking about the indiana crawford decision. >> degenerate from north -- >> the gentleman from north

carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me express my disappointment that some of my colleagues are spending so much time advancing the notion that we should be disqualifying people from exercising the most basic right that they have in our democracy -- the right to vote. this is the judiciary committee, in which these arguments are being advanced. it is disappointing to me. second, i would like to applaud the justice department for some work that they are doing in my congressional district in particular. some very high-level cases fighting drug trafficking, protecting against child predators, a bunch of money spent on the program, and the

most vigorous supporters of the cops program, they are the most conservative sheriffs in my congressional district, because they have been able to access funding in order to beef up the law enforcement capacity. i won't go back to the voting rights part of this, because i think i will get too emotional about that. let me deal with the thing that is undermined subcommittee's jurisdiction, the one that i am the ranking member on. we made some efforts to try to do something about policy. we were not successful legislatively, but the problem has not gone away. a recent article in usa today notes the proliferation of dangerous, counterfeit products that pose safety concerns for the american public. many of these products,

including counterfeit pharmaceuticals are available online and come from foreign sources. in january this year, the department of justice issued indictments against mega upload, a company that was charged with infringing the copyrights against american businesses. and now, it is noted that some groups have -- what is it called -- some have anonymously the -- anonymously unleashed cyberattacks. now there is a connection between cybersecurity and cyberthreats. can you talk about the real threats that we have in those areas, both on the policy side and on the cybersecurity side? that way we can have some

background, and that elise informs the american people how serious the problem is. >> the piracy issue, it has a number of dimensions to it. it is an economic issue. it is a jobs issue. the method that they used to produce things is stolen. it has a direct impact on our economy. there is also a safety factor, health items, medicines that are produced in ways that are inconsistent with the great standards we have in the united states, it can put people at risk. the whole question -- there are parts that can be used in airplanes, other things that are not done in a way, consistent in which our intellectual property standards can have a negative impact on safety that way. the piracy question is one that

has economic consequences, as well as safety consequences. as one looks at the whole cyberissue, again, these are national security issues. the ability of foreign countries or organizations to have an impact on our infrastructure, to use cybertools to ferret out secret information from the united states, or put our nation at risk, it is worthy of the attention, i think him of this committee and congress and the executive branch. i would hope that we would be able to work together to come up with a way which we can craft tools for this 21st century problem. >> i think you. that's i thank you very much. at the risk of not going over my time, i will stop there. any other question i could ask would not be timely and would be well over into the next person's time. i yield back my time.

>> the gentleman from california, mr. darrell issa is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman, attorney general. on summer 24th, 2010, brian terry was gunned down. we begin knowing about "fast and furious" shortly there after. you have said, you didn't know about it beforehand. i sent you a number of letters. senator grassley sent to a number of letters. you mentioned in your opening statement the speaker's letter. the speaker did not limit the scope of the subpoenas you are under an obligation to respond to come he simply asked you for a response to two key areas. he did not provoke any subpoenas. however, you implied that we were working together, when in fact, since may 18, nothing, nothing has come from your department, not one shred of paper. i want to ask you first of all today, have you and your attorneys produced internally

the materials responsive to the subpoenas? >> we believe that we have responded to the subpoena. >> no, mr. attorney general. you are not a good witness. a good witness asters answers the question question. sir, when he asked the question again. internally, the people of that information? >> we have looked at 240 custodians, we have process millions of electronic records, and we have viewed 4,140,000 documents. how many documents are responsible you are withholding at this time? >> we produced 7600. >> look, i don't want to hear about the 7600. >> the lady is out of order.

[talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> excuse me, mr. chairman, i would beg to allow the attorney general to finish the answer. >> the attorney general will be allowed to answer the question. >> i think the chairman. >> i would like my time reclaim. >> i would like to take back the two minutes over that this gentleman used, that's. >> would you like to give me additional time? >> i will give you the 45 seconds that i peeled it back. but if we are going to apply the rule on one side of the aisle -- [talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> let's get back to business. the attorney general will be allowed to answer the question. >> i am not sure about that. >> i am sure that you didn't.

let's move on. ma let's move on. march 15, 2010. before brian terry was gunned down. april 19, 2010, before a brian terry was gunned down. may 7, 2010, before brian terry was gunned down. may 17, 2010, before ryan terry was gunned down. june 2, 2010, before it ryan terry was gunned down. july 2, the real date of our independence, 2010, obviously, earlier -- before brian terry was gunned down. these wiretap applications, which we did not subpoena, but which were given to us by a curious group of whistleblowers that are tired of your stonewalling come indicate that a number of key individuals in your administration, in fact, were responsible for information contained in here that clearly shows the tactics of "fast and furious", they were known. they were known and contained in these wiretaps. i understand you have read these wiretaps since we brought them

to your attention, is that correct? >> i have read them and i disagree with your conclusion. >> let me go through a very simple line of questioning, if i may, mr. attorney general. james cole, deputy attorney general, has written that the department has agreed out obligation than just checking the legal sufficiency and approving wiretap application. he thinks that applications also have to comply with doj policy. is that correct? >> applications have to agree with doj policy? >> that's what he said. >> sure. >> during a transcribed interview, deputy attorney general testified that senior officials approving the wiretap applications do not read the wiretap applications. is this practice acceptable to you? >> summaries of the applications -- that is a process that has been used by this administration and all previous administrations. it is the way in which the office of enforcement --

>> are you aware that federal judges, to your knowledge. >> can i answer your question? >> know, -- would you agree, senior officials are responsible for documents they signed? i would assume the answer is yes, let me ask you the question. jason weinstein, is he responsible for what is in these wiretaps? >> is he responsible? >> is he responsible even if he only read a summary? >> he did not create those affidavits or material. he would've been a person who would review them. >> when congress writes a statue, requiring that certain individuals are responsible, such as jason weinstein -- [talking over each other] >> the attorney general will be allowed to answer this question. >> i didn't ask the question.

>> if in fact the statute says they are responsible, and if they are not read -- [talking over each other] >> who is responsible for what is contained -- [talking over each other] >> the attorney general is allowed to answer the question. >> anyone of ordinary reading, including former director nelson, according to him, would be sick to their stomach because they would be immediately aware -- >> do you have a question, mr. chairman? >> who is responsible, mr. attorney general? >> you conflated a bunch of things here. -- [talking over each other] >> the gentleman will be allowed to answer the question. i would appreciate no interruptions so the ag can answer the questions. >> the responsibility of the

deputy attorney general, he looks over the summaries to make sure there is a basis to go into court and asked the court to grant the wiretap based on a determination that a responsible official makes, that probable cause exists to believe that the wire tap has been used in the commission of a crime. they did not look at the affidavits to see if, in fact, to review all of that that was engaged -- all of those involved in the operation. i have read those. i have read those end i have read those documents from wide receiver as well. i can say that what happened in connection with "fast and furious", was done in the same way as the wiretap applications were done in the previous administrations with wide receiver. they acted in a way that is consistent with the practice and the responsibility that they had, it is defined by the statute. ..

i appreciate there is hostility between the attorney general and myself. in fact, most of it was produced by the fact i have a great many questions in a relatively relict little amount of time and my committee through subpoena and a derogatory sense than attempting

to get answers for which this practice has basically said he asserts witness without law. >> the gentleman from michigan has the time. >> i would like to yield to the attorney general at this point. >> with all due respect to chairman issa. he said the hostility between us. i don't feel it. he is asking questions and try to respond as best i can. i'm pretty calm. i'm okay. >> let me assure the chairman of the general will be able to manage their future questions and the gentleman from california, ms. lofgren is recognized for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. wrister attorney general, thank you for being here with us. when your life before us in december, i asked you about a case involving the seizure of a domain name called the jazz

one.com for alleged copyright infringement. you said you're unfamiliar with the case that she was certainly look into them and get to me. since that era not only have i not heard from you, but new details have surfaced in there for you to revisit the issue. to refresh our memory, jazz one is a blog dedicated to discussion of hip-hop music. in november of 20-ton the domain name received as isis operation on an application by prosecutors in the department. the owners requested the government to return it to don and the law had 90 days to initiate a full proceeding against the domain or else return the property.

however in this case the deadline passed with no action. when the websites were acquired with the department's lawyers she was so the government had fired an extension, but under seal to the website was given no notice and they were never given an opportunity to appear in court and respond. i have talked to representatives of the website and he assures me he made to watch them at first to supply, but when he asked for proof that the extension, the lawyers basically said they would have to trust them. this happened to mark times. finally in december of last year, more than a year after the original seizure, the government decided to do in fact cause to support the future and return the domain. we now have unsealed court records and we know that ice and your department were rating for

the recording industry association of america, which based the initial allocation of encouragement to provide detailed, apparently proof. i revealed the affidavit in which i asked unanimous consent to put in the record that in september of 2011, 10 minutes after the seizure, the eighth agents were still waiting for information from riaa to get probable cause. now here's the concern i have. blogs are entitled to first amendment protection and may think it is the law that you have to have probable cause before you see these things. you cannot these things and have secret proceedings in a federal court and then a year later, with probable cause. so here is my question for you. it looks to me and i see another issue is to websites. this is not like a car or a bag

of. the evidence can be completely preserved in without seizures. i think the issue of seizures disney to be visited with us. i want to now, what does the department posture is if the i.c.e. age and is behaving recklessly and investigation as it seems to be in this case. don't the prosecutors have an obligation to reject falsely affidavits? do you think the ex parte process that was included here is proper and consistent with a first and fifth amendment to see the domain name that has an owner to be heard? >> as with all domains with operation our site, i believe the seizure you reference was

conducted pursuant to lawful court order and the procedures that the department followed in the case, including the ex parte procedures consistent with the statute that authorized the forfeiture and the process protections for the statutes provide. >> the representation turned out to be false under the initial affidavits which i again what has to be made a part of the record. were those false affidavit sufficient to have ex parte communications in secret proceedings from the federal court for over a year? >> clearly in material submitted that was false and underlying affidavit. >> or at least misleading. >> that would not be appropriate basis for action on behalf of the government. the seizure of properties is a powerful tool the government hasn't has to be used

judiciously to the extent there are problems along the lines you have described would be a great parent. we should not be in court trying to do the kinds of things that i have described with the domain seizures if the underlying is not consistent with facts. >> last december you're going to get back to me and i know you have many things to do. i would appreciate a mask again if i could get a report on this specific case and certainly. there are important issues that need to go on. i do not disagree with that, but we also have to be very careful about the first amendment and the fifth amendment. >> thank you, ms. lofgren. the document the gentleman referred to it will be made a part of the record. >> chairman, i have a parliamentary inquiry.

i appreciate it, mr. chairman. the gentleman from california in a statement about his own subpoena mentioned three he did not request wiretaps under seal. in contempt citation wiretapped indicated the division. my question is anyone review of the depth department reviewing reviewing -- >> that is not -- >> mr. issa in this hearing, how do we know the use of the information during this hearing, a fastback >> ms. jackson lee, we have to deduct a stronger time if you continue. >> i believe it is, mr. chairman. >> mr. forbes is recognized for his question. he might gentleman, thank you for being here today.

despite all the rhetoric, we know this committee is not asking you to break the log regarding what you say your information you provide to congress. as you know, it doesn't matter if you appear in congress seven times or 70 times if when you are asked to meet you at a note to the questions that are most part and or a few supplies 7000 pages or documents or 700,000 pages if they are not the proper papers to answer key questions. so i want to begin where you began and that is the standard for every action >> certainly limber adabas stick and hopping. >> we know every cabinet doesn't adhere to that standard. in fact we have in our paper today to several cabinet members were required to, the democratic headquarters and the executive

dirt for the national committee. was there a time the action they should take and for items to hold win reelection regarding the campaign of the electoral college and the importance of staying on message. the question i want to ask you this morning inside know that you are familiar with david axelrod of the top campaign strategy into the best of your knowledge come as mr. axelrod or anybody on his behalf or anyone on behalf of the campaign had any discussions on the justice department regarding actions you should or should not take messaging that you should or should not make our hiring decisions you should or should not support? >> absolutely not. one of the things i like a great deal about my interaction with people in the white house is i

think they take their lead from the president as they have respected that i would almost call it won't that happen between the justice department and the political operation that goes on in the white house. >> so there have been publications and of course we never know whether publications are accurate or not, but at least in one book that claims that you and mr. axelrod had some type of confrontation when he was trying to get you to hire someone, you're saying that is not accurate. you've never had been regarding hiring him at the department of justice? >> we talked about ways in which reminded proof the ability of the justice department to respond to political attacks that were coming my way. david axelrod and i are good friends. we have a great relationship. he's the person i respect a great deal. we were together on the campaign while he was at the white house, but he's never done anything i'd consider it it appropriate.

>> what you are saying is you have had contact with mr. axelrod, campaign strategists about how you should hand out different tacks as attorney general, correct? >> various from reality that i don't fit on an ivory tower just to law enforcement. i am the subject of attacks. i am the person who is seen by some is pretty controversial and there are times when i was looking for some help in that regard. >> so you have had those discussions. you ever tried to encourage you to hire or put any particular person of the department of justice? there's been a lot of discussions that we know that's a big item, not just for us, but ambassador to mexico has had that operation, which took place under your watch has poisoned the mexican people and really put a strain on the strides

we've made in two successive administrations in the united states. he has been considered the investigation hasn't been completed. have you ever had in a consultation with the white house or anyone with the canon came four with mr. axelrod about messaging related to fast and furious clerics about messaging? comments that were made how you would message it, and if that? >> we've certainly talked about the way in which we can deal with the interaction between the justice department and congress about ways in which. >> nothing about press messaging that are. >> in terms of hitting the message out consistent with the facts and make sure it was done in an appropriate way. i've had conversations in the white house counsel. >> two other quick questions. i know you filed actions

accounts on republican governors. my time is sad. would you give us a list of any similar actions of the profile you filed against any democratic governor states with democratic governors and also the final thing is, if you let us know if you had any relationship or meetings with the white house campaign about any messaging arena of the factions that took place on that? mr. chairman, my time has expired. >> thank you, mr. forbes. >> i'm not sure that there has been a photo i.d. attempts made by the state run by a democratic governor. >> no, i think if you look at the states, they were regarding immigration policies. any action you've taken against a democratic governor of a seller high-profile. >> with regard to immigration laws as i understand it, but i don't think there has been a similar immigration attempt made by states run by democratic governors, which is this reason

we do not oppose them, but i will check. >> and also when you checkhim if he makes you let us know the context you had with mr. axelrod or any messaging regarding the sections. thank you. >> thank you, mr. schwartz. ms. jackson is recognized for questions. >> i thank the chairman and the ranking member and i certainly think the attorney general for his service. i just wanted to add but i don't think very quickly within the abduction entre introduction of the attorney general without any disrespect not towards you, the questioning sites get a series of questions then. i didn't know you were at deputy general and you continue to serve i think your appointment time for obama. the jury made during nighttime? you've had a continuous served,

but between judgeship in the superior court that i understand your point about ronald reagan. is that correct? >> limiting and ask for your service and ask a questions. i ask for the investigation of texas for his purging of 1.5 million voters and i encourage and hope that there will be a speedy review inasmuch that we are in a process of election in a november 2012 election. i want to ask the question and i want to establish certain rights and eat grass and rise of access on the first amendment. and i want to just focus if you want to petition your government and use no i.d., most could

either take their vehicle, hitch a ride, but they would not be totally prohibited from exercising their constitutional right. he made a point about fundamental rights. but if you are denied the right to know, there's no alternative. there's no other way. babies need of low horn in the middle of the street, but there's no way you can impact the choice of those who govern. could you just be very quick on that answer? >> that's right. if you want to directly impact governmental policy, that is directly tied to the ability to cast a ballot. >> do you believe it is a legitimate duty, action of the division on civil rights of the department of justice operating under existing current to assess issues of purging or the impact of the voter i.d. law? >> absolutely. we apply the law passed by the congress and we got there as recently as six years ago

overwhelmingly by congress. >> are you going outside the bounds of the law would in essence review photo, texas, ohio, are you outside the boundaries as you can assess? >> all we do is supply the lab that exists and has existed for 40 years now. >> with respect to the affordable care decision pending for just a simple question. do you feel there was an adequate review and the decision ultimately rested with the supreme court, which i think has done a decent and fair job with recusal is with respect to justice kagan. would you have done anything more than what was with the justice department? >> with the recusal issue? the question of recusal is something brought up by litigants in the case. they had that opportunity. i think the justice department has done all it can responding to requests and all information that appropriately can be shared has been shared. >> we're certainly saddened by the loss of life that resulted

from fast and furious. you have said that often. are you aware of the report of elijah cummings? >> yes. >> were you aware -- do you believe under this report that his staff and ranking member coming for the oversight committee extensively reviewed either the 7600 or at lease the world information is given? >> i think they did a good job reviewing the information. they produced a good report that contains a number of reforms that we try to implement. >> quickly the statement as they found no politically motivated operation that fast and furious was not conceived and directed by high-level obama administration appointees at the department of justice. would you concede they would have the basis to stay than? >> if one looks at the documents, that statement is manifestly true. >> can i ask you as well to investigate and are you concerned or have you seen the

impact of single race pastries and a number of cases? this has been an issue in a number of areas in the south and cases particularly sensitive. i ask you to investigate the chat hollie case, which is the beating incident that occurred in houston, texas and a series of trails coming forward, but in particular one case tried by a single race jury and of course resulted in acquittal. would you please take this as an official request for the justice department to investigate beating an resulting trial trial that was the the beating and resulting trial that was the the beating and resulting trial that was the and that she said chat hollie? >> this sucre recognizes the collection process to deliver an attempt at the jury of a single race is not appropriate. i am familiar with, not intimately familiar with, but

that if something were the process of determining what course of action. >> a number of members today have made a request. munter may expect those to be responded to? in two weeks or so? >> we will do the best we can end as quickly as we can. i'm a little surprised we have not responded to the sum of the things raised in connection. will try to do a better job of that. >> i thank the chairman. thank you, mr. general. >> thank you, ms. jackson lee. >> thank you, mr. attorney general for testifying today. i'm just picking up on the chairman's remarks. at a series of questions that i asked december 18 at another we had a press will mostly for those responses, i haven't seen them so i will be submitting a new request for december 8 i believe. there's one piece left and i just ask you, when you first

started to doubt the original letter was accurate, what piece of information caused you to do that? >> my first doubt have been just about the same time i asked for the inspector general to conduct a report. as i listen to media reports and things as getting from senator grassley, i had them down with it first began about the accuracy. >> was there a piece of information in particular in most media reports that cost you to doubt come are just the information itself? >> i'm not sure i can remember anything specific, but the reports were inconsistent with what i heard from people in the department and also for senator grassley was telling me he sent october the ninth. >> yeah, i have a factory for letter denying atf ever whacked guns. i don't have the date of senator

grassley's letter, but that letter was formally withdrawn on december 2nd, 2011. i thank you. i take it back to the pickford issue and discrimination issues we discussed the last time, general holder. and now we discussed pickford then and i posed the question the farm bill to does make him a consistent with your testimony and also a statement made personally to me by secretary vilsack that the farm bill authorized the negotiations in the agreement that ultimately lays out in the terms of $1.25 billion distributed to black farmers who have claims of discrimination. the authorization the farm bill is 100 billion to cap for all the settlements they are. now i see not only is it not capped to 100 million go 1.25 billion we have 300 cases out your sins that period of

time. garcia versus vilsack, love the vilsack. my total is 1.33 billion. garcia 760 billion. one sense i suppose. 1.25 billion pickford for a total of altogether $4.93 billion to be there having been distributed are poised to be distributed under discrimination cases. 3.58 billion coming out of the judgment fund. can you tell me how much is in the judgment fund? i'm going to ask you to produce a report of the funds to comment on funds distributed out of the judgment fund. congress is an oversight if we do with numbers approaching $5 billion. >> what i can say is settlement that were reached, we set pools of money that can be tapped if people can prove they were

discriminated against. there is certainly discrimination that i think everybody acknowledges that exists between the department of agriculture in dealing with farmers of the variety that the city's engenders and the attempts at structuring the settlement was to deal with the redress of those wrongs. >> the $5 billion brown figures 4.93 billion is a big chunk of money to be distributed without congressional oversight. given the resistance to congress that looking up at dataquest contingency fees and distribution amounts and sources? >> that's a legitimate oversight to talk about the way in which the cases are settled. >> i'll follow up with a more specific question. i want to ask you about your reaction when he saw the video a big young man who claimed your ballot some months ago in your reaction towards the requirement for a photo i.d. after you saw that video. >> you know, an attempt to show

something i suppose, but what a from the video was back i was very careful not to say he was eric holder, not to actually get about. he did those types of things subjected him to criminal -- >> i'm not worried about that. he could've obtained your ballot with ease. it was offered to him. so i just suggest this, that may not be impossible, but it has been determined today with mr. lundgren that visiting a federal building, even your building may not be impossible, but difficult. it is difficult or impossible to visit a government building without a photo i.d., then how can we allow someone to help choose our government without a photo i.d.? >> at the claim the question is if you look at south carolina, they had place measures that protected the integrity of the ballot before they went to the photo i.d. the question is how to structure

is put in place, how they are distributed of whether or not it at a disproportionate impact on people of certain racer with the city. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> the gentleman from california, mrs. waters. [inaudible] >> had a number of questions i was going to ask you but my attention has been diverted to the line of questioning from congressman goodlatte. it is well known that he dismissed the charges stevens ever placed against senator stevens following your investigation that indicated that exculpatory evidence that then was held. now, was there just want things over there several names that were done that she disagreed with that cause you to dismiss?

>> of thing that was the main motivator to dismiss the case was i put the solid evidence that we had uncovered exculpatory material had not been shared with the defense. that was the main motivation for deciding to dismiss the case. >> and it seems that i think his name is pronounced mr. schuelke agreed with you basically, but the punishment that does not seem to match the crime. prosecutorial misconduct and a lot of people are wondering, how does the opposite sessional responsibility letter really dispute the seriousness of the withholding of exculpatory evidence. how do you account for that quiet >> yeah, i wouldn't agree that they don't take it seriously.

mr. schuelke who i know was that it is a good lawyer came up with the report and said the material was withheld intentionally. ethiopia report with a 700 page long and says the information was withheld and recklessly nonintentional was on that basis you appear recommendation was made estimate the appropriate sanction once. mr. schuelke never made a recommendation as to what he thought the appropriate sanction should be. judge sullivan said he was out of order that he could actually point to so he could find contempt or something like that. that's the difference between the schuelke report in the upi report aired the person who is engaged or people didn't turn over the information. >> in your opinion, do you believe that the recommendation or punishment by the office of professional responsibility, are those recommendations basically in line with the unintentional withholdings?

or perhaps they could have been -- what you think? >> is appropriate for the attorney general not to comment on these determinations because it is some pain that is not my responsibility. we put that in the hands of the career people. we have a great zero pr, office of responsibility with people outside who look at the funding and determine what is the appropriate sanction should be and the people who are political in nature or music related from that process. >> i suppose what we conclude is that you dismissed. you felt that the withholding of information the serious enough to dismiss and that -- and i asked anything earlier, was the leaking of information? with a sharing of information with others that should've not

been shared with in addition to the withholding of information? >> now, as i remember the code or in that i had was with a non-providing of information that the defense was entitled to. that was the concern that i had. the mac and so clearly, you address that concern, but again after having addressed it, the office of professional responsibility have the responsibility to determine what the punishment should be and you have no hand in that, is that right? >> that's correct. >> okay, i want to get on the record that the withholding of the evidence was a serious matter and you made a decision based on that. >> i would agree with your great mr. schuelke the dismissal of the cases what i did.

>> thank you very much. peel back the balance of my time. >> the chairman from haas unanimous consent request. >> the national organization for black one-person executives and boston police department and association of prosecuting attorneys on behalf of the attorney general and also a copy of a draft that we were but of the kind found citation on oversight and government reform, which the wiretap applications document the criminal division and the department of justice has failed to produce them so we know what ways. >> the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks is recognized for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, general.

mr. holder, april 27, 2011, members of this committee asked us to give you information surrounding the just us to forego prosecution of the unindicted co-conspirators. this is the larger terrorism finance case in u.s. history. you refuse to comply with this request and you're still not produced -- are still not prosecuting despite there being that many consider to be a mountain of evidence against the troops come at least one of which now sets his work in an federal agency to help advise on the project counterterrorism training. we are told this mound of evidence, which outlines the jihad is never to to be united dates announced bd banker boxes full of documents. this evidence was turned over to the court and much is given to the jihad is defense lawyers. numbers of this committee and other committees would like to review the seven and, whether it has to be a classified basis or not. would you commit today to give

us and provide us with those documents the price of the government's case in the holy land foundation trial? >> is hard to answer that question. >> it's not hard. will you or will you not? >> out about this grand jury material or wiretap information. there's a variety things i have to look at. i can certainly take your request and see what the nature of the evidence says whether a superb or it. >> reroute me to request an april 27 last year as a fire that hasn't happened, so it's like to make the request. would you give us your best effort, your good faith effort does she get that effort. >> certainly make a good-faith effort and see whether or not -- >> i guess i would hope you

would also give us an explanation as to why the request was the word that far. and they shift gears on you here. it has been reported multiple agencies including the fbi outside groups might find offensive, including the discussion of things as fundamental but quote, al qaeda is a group that enforces ideology that should be examined, unquote. that is an example. for the new guidelines, fbi agents may no longer discuss this in training sessions because it offends some people has been purged of the strikes many as the sacrificing of vital national security apparatus on the altar of political correctness. this concerning dean's the general seems warranted even the bipartisan senate reports on the reports on the fort hood massacre to quote them, the worst terrorist attack on u.s. soil since 9/11 found that quote political correct is inhibited

officials from taking actions that could have stopped the attack. the members of multiple committees are now investigating, has anyone inside your agency coordinated with any other federal agent is such as dod, dhs or department of state to carry out this review of counterterrorism training material? >> let me say first of all, the statements made with fbi to what used to be ministered materials not based on political correctness or whether or not some thing of the search for material was simply incorrect that had assertions about particular things that were simply wrong and didn't think that is appropriate to be included in the training materials. bob mueller has taken this very seriously, but i can tell you, he is not making the determinations on the basis of what is either offensive or politically correct. that is not the driver and his to make sure training materials are accurate.

>> so if anyone inside your agency coordinated this software, such as the days, whatever might be with dod for dhs and the state department? >> i'm not sure we have to. we haven't seen her act with our partners in a variety of ways. the deputy attorney general offered to impreza boasts two of the doj has to make sure training materials were accurate. we interact with our partners all the time and it is found that they said among other things that we have an ability to decide what materials are accurate. >> one of two things. either your position is knowing your agency has spoken over the wire house of counterterrorism materials or they have. and if you have, who directed these agencies in general to purge these materials? what outside groups are advising the department on the issue?

>> this is an internal process done by members of the fbi, members of the justice department who are seeking mass -- >> speechless with outside groups are devising this process? >> this is primarily out of the fbi to the extent they're outsiders involved with what we are trying to interact we can perhaps get you those names. >> i will leave it right there is still respectfully officially ask you to give as the list of 50 outside groups are working with you on this process because one of the jihad this group that are working with you on it. >> on the belief that, but i will relay the request to the fbi. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you on mr. franks. mr. quigley is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. server, as you know it's hard to minimize or diminish the tragedy of the horribly ill-conceived

program for there is loss of life of an agent engaged in others. and as you agree, be continued their independent investigation. justice must be done. corrections must be made and i believe have been made. with greatest respect i would say today that i believe the effort here has become politically motivated an attempt to embarrass the frustration. and that diminishes the process. the operative phrase that comes to mind the backwardness has been used to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. mr. attorney general, welcome to oz. pay no attention to the fact that this process began under previous administration. pay no attention the agencies lack sufficient resources. pay no attention ahead of the atf has been allowed to be

appointed. pay no attention the last are inadequate to protect agents in citizen on both sides of the order and more specifically that in arizona and a citizen to purchase an unlimited number of ak-47 and transfer that within the state private sales. but the special agents, either presell it to field testified that as it relates to straw purchasers and punishment to use the expression, quote, some people do this is no more consequential than and 65 and 55 and as it relates to the gun show loophole, we recognized the fact others ask you pay no more attention. you can buy any type of gun you want without any background check. you could be adjudicated as dangerous. you could be a silent, on your third order of protection or in and become by which you want.

in terms of resources the washington post that in 2010 the atf has the same number of asian it had in 1970. while the fbi has gone up 50% to 233% am glad this agencies cut the growth they need to make us safer, but atf does as well. finally, pay no attention to the fact the special agent peter fratelli said i have less than 100 agents assigned the entire state of arizona. that is 114,000 square miles. we have the resources? and we don't, but we desperately need. so mr. attorney general, life is unfortunately even after tragedy about moving on. i asked her in a perfect world would other situations and resources you another region these have to combat the threats that are still going on, the fact people are still dying from

gun violence in border areas. >> yeah, it is initiated that we have to confront. recent studies have shown up to 94,000 guns in mexico city, 64,000 guns can be traced back to the united states. the congress can help us in the direction with this site. we need a comprehensive firearms trafficking statute. we need tougher sentence is for straw purchasers so you have to 65, 55-mile an hour thought. we need to get atf the resources it needs. in fiscal year 11 congress cut our request for coming actions than half. it decreases our capacity to do these kinds of things and i think congress should not attempt to block the long been reporting requirement recently upheld by a federal court that would require somebody buying votes for ak-47 over a five-day

period to have the information that they shared the atf. that is a valuable intelligence to about assault as well as been in place in only four border states to develop leads and deal with the situations you've described. >> enough i might switch gears briefly, i come from illinois. i come from chicago and support to recognize the gentleman stepping down the attorney general's position in chicago is left an extraordinary legacy. i want to commend a separate than i give you the opportunity to do the same if you will. >> i don't pass fitzgerald says he was a lawyer in the southern district of new york and working on consequential terrorism cases. i have admired his work done. he has been an outstanding u.s. attorney into administration. he is a true patriarch and has been a u.s. attorney.

his focus on other corruption matters as well as national security matters. he has in fact been a model u.s. attorney is someone who will be >> thank you. i yield back. missed by us at the justice >> thank you, mr. quigley. department. ms. jackson is recognized. >> ask unanimous consent to put on the record or report of the minority staff, oversight and government reform dealing with fast and furious. i ask unanimous consent a statement on the draft contempt citation of the oversight committee a letter regarding the per gene of voters in a letter regarding the race is juries. isdn is consent to submit into the record. >> the gentleman reserves the right to object and can be heard on his objection. >> i have no objections to the latter material. in the case of the farrer cheerio come i ask unanimous

consent of her going to enter one side of any document from another committee you want into the record corresponding documents be allowed to be prepared to give a complete report. >> without objection the indictments by the gentleman -- will be made part of the record in the documents referred to by the gentleman from california made part of the record. we now to the gentleman from texas for us questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so, you know wearing coming from, mr. attorney general, i have been a prosecutor. i have been a district judge handling felonies and debt cases in chief justice of the court room. as i have been appointed to defend cases i didn't want to defend, but i did my very best job and did it well. i've had people come before me who were franz that i sent to

prison because that was consistent with justice of what i would've done to someone in their situation who was not a friend. i have sentenced the children of fran with a court room full of my supporters who were all making me not to, but i knew if i was going to be consistent in justice, i had to do that. i have sent people to prison because it was a fair and just went to figuring what it is done in the past. and i've gone in my office that are sent in and wept because of the personal anguish of those that i care deeply about. but i knew i did the right thing and history has borne me out. so when i hear and attorney general of the united states come before us and they somewhat cavalierly, there is a political

act back to this office, it is send beyond belief. your job is just us, mr. attorney general. it is justice across the board. and that is what is spent to trouble some around here. when we made a request a year ago here for the documents that your department has produced two people who work in the today's supporting terrorism. they are terrorists. and we wanted to document you gave to the terrorist, we are here later and we still don't have them. why in the world which are department be more considerate of the terrorists being of the people who were members of congress who can vote to just completely defend your department? and makes no sense. so i will ask again. and there is no room for response that it's an ongoing

investigation. some of these may be classified. i am asking for the documents your department produced to the terrorist supporters can take it in the holy land foundation trial. can we get those documents? just the one he gave to the terrorist defendants. >> certainly access to those things on the public record we used in the trial -- i was also a judge. i sat in his washington d.c. >> is that a yes or no but we would get those documents? >> as i said, i was also a judge and understand the anguish you go through. this may clear up one thing with regard to the political aspect of this job. i have to try to advance legislation that i think is appropriate for the department. that is a political job. i push policy initiatives for the department. that is political. i fight funding request the people cavalierly saw a round

about the budget of this department. that is in my perspective political component. >> sera, it is not cavalierly been a department has parts of it not doing their job and maybe giving more aid and comfort to people who are part of organizations who want to bring about an end to our way of life, then that concerns me that perhaps that is an area that needs to be defended. when you've been here before in this type of testing various in your past who actually authorized fast and furious, u.s. said we may not ever know who authorized fast and furious. are you any closer right now iccs here to knowing who authorized fast and furious? >> i suspect we are closer given the fact inspector general was charged with the responsibility of investigating this matter if my request is then in the field

and interviewing people. my guess is we are closer to that. expect a report to be out relatively soon. >> did you not ever go back to robertson say when you found out about fasting areas, i demand to know who authorized this? are things so fast and loose in your office for some of the can authorized the sale to international criminals of american guns that are bringing the death of american agent and nobody asks to do that in writing? >> the gentleman's time is expired, but you can answer the question. >> i do ask the inspector general to conduct and put a policy that led to the fast and furious debacle. i made personnel changes at ats and the u.s. attorney's office. we may change in the procedures they are not a stark contrast to what happened to my predecessor, attorney general battisti when

he was briefed about transmission of guns to mexico. as far as i can tell, far less than what i did. if you want to look at what i did, those are simply the facts. >> my question, mr. chairman, w-whiskey g go back and say i demand to know who authorized this fast and furious program. >> that is consistent with me telling the inspector general to find out what happened. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on may 12, the house passed its commerce justice science appropriations bill and this is a part of and it tries it best to investigate and neuter the ability of the justice department to protect americans

as it is supposed to do. you can't operate without money and the bill and its attempt to neuter the department cuts financial fraud and force. it prohibits sending foreign forcing the require and a licensed firearm dealer's report multiple sales of rifles to the same prison. it prohibits funding for action against the other voter identification loans among other things. the bill would cut funding for the general ministership mine on

doj's richard request from $81 million to 45 million pre-60s in me, yes, $29 million less than requested. the doj program for precision and asset forfeiture is had been cut. the number of u.s. attorneys still have 1000 unfilled decisions and you clarity last -- that's attorneys. you party last 800 east dennis is a hiring freeze that was instituted january 2011 has gone since that went into effect. this bill could result in an

additional 411 positions close. the antitrust division has cut $5.2 million to use the 70 position in that unit. you've already lost 77 positions in that unit. that is the unit that keeps consumer prices low and get that collusion and the braking and other entities that costs money to consumers, cost consumers money. the u.s. trustee program, which you administer, which are rather pricey and seen a 5% reduction. 50 positions may be suspended.

law enforcement while communications with the department has been cut. the ability to hire people and foreign language, skilled and foreign languages has been cut. these things hurt the department's ability to be effective. i want to get to that part about the voter identification laws. you are answering a question that was posed to you from iowa, mr. king. pitcher qaeda and were not given a chance to complete your statement on that. can you complete it now, please? >> i'll be honest, i don't remember what it was.

>> well, it has to do with south carolina challenge of your department to your voter i.d. laws. >> all i can say with regard to the south carolina locomotive that evidence provided to us by south carolina did not feel that the evidence about voter fraud with substantial amount to overcome the disproportionate impact of the changes in their voting procedures had on minorities, older people, young people on that a system under section five of the voting rights act we decided to file suit, to not pretty clear. >> so basically restating -- are you stated that the reason that south carolina gave for making it tougher to the voter i.d. requirement is to get at the

voter fraud who did not hold any water. in other words, there is insufficient evidence of voter fraud and so therefore they must of been under intention behind the legislation to make it more difficult to vote. would you agree me on a quick and at the initial materia didn't have any proof. become becoming cheerleader and indicated they were perhaps 900 people who were dead on voter rolls. i was then just be by another south carolina official pushes ollie not a matter before the court ultimately decided by a court in washington. >> i stated earlier, the house prohibits funding to bring actions against state for the voter identification laws. and i will yield back the balance of my time.

but i would like to make a unanimous consent request. >> with, what document does he wish to support quite >> attorney holder praising leadership from the national fraternal order for them partitioned my niche, the tucson shooting survivor comehither from the leadership conference to chairman issa, from commissioner ramsey to chairman issa, fran the network to chairman said seven. a letter from the leadership of a two speaker. a letter from the national women's law and her two speaker. a letter from the national women's law center to chairman i said. a tri-caucus letter from the

reason is gonzalez, representative cleaver. and last but not least, a letter from the national organization. >> did you get the skinny attorney attorney general himself? >> without objection, all those letters will be made a part of the record. >> mr. poe is recognized for questions. correct thank you for is recognized for questions. >> mr. poe is recognized for questions. >> mr. poe is recognized for questions. opinion in the name is dave. a recent pew study has come out and said there were approximately 2 million eligible voters in the united state. of that 2 million, 1.8 million are dead people. i would assume that you would agree that voter rolls, when verify that folks on the rules

are dead should be purged in some manner. you agree with that are not quite >> absolutely. the purging should occur. it should just be done with federal law. >> your office -- how many specific cases have you prosecuted or your office prosecuted on voter fraud that the then attorney general quite >> i don't know if the answer is. and i prosecuted myself. >> just when you then attorney general. >> with the number be zero? >> know, we've had both fraud pieces. i know we've even settled through trials, but we have had cases where people have committed offenses with his mates draw donations in other ways in which voter fraud was carried out. i don't know what those numbers are. ..

>> the mexican ambassador to the united states recently has made some comments about "fast and furious" that mexico was unaware

of. mexico was never enlightened on how the operation would be designed. "fast and furious" has hurt the relationship between the united states and mexico. i am not surprised that he would say something like this. we constantly talk him as we should come about, that the americans that were killed in "fast and furious." they were apparently, according to the mexican news reports, hundreds of mexican nationals killed because of "fast and furious." the last time you were here, you said that more people will probably die because of "fast and furious." do you know how many people in mexico have been killed as a result of the united states helping to facilitate straw urges us of automatic weapons going down to mexico? >> i don't know, but i think there has been some come and i know that given 64,000 guns that

have gone to the united -- from the united states but ended up in mexico. >> how many of the guns have been recovered from of the total number in "fast and furious" and get different numbers. i have heard 1200 and 2000. how many guns have been recovered in mexico as a result of the "fast and furious" operation? >> any gas at all? >> i don't know the number. >> any gas at all? was that not the purpose to keep up with the firearms when they go to mexico? seeing who the bad guys were -- wasn't that the purpose -- but they'll purpose? >> that was the stated purpose. none of which allowed the guns

to -- >> how many guns have been recovered in "fast and furious"? >> i have heard different numbers as well. anywhere from 800 to 1200. we start off with a number of about 2000, that was appropriately and properly put into the stream. >> what would america's reaction be if the rules were reversed? but if our neighbors in mexico or canada, they smuggled and facilitated the smuggling of automatic weapons where americans were killed, mexican nationals killed. what would be our reaction to that? >> probably similar to what the ambassador has said. i do have to say that we have -- we maintain a good relationship with mexico that operates on a whole bunch of levels. we have a good relationship with

the attorney general in mexico. we talk all the time. we continue to work together on a variety of projects, and it is nothing deterred by the regrettable "fast and furious" episode. i can understand the mexican ambassador's comment. >> i'm from the south come up we should get more than five minutes, i think. [laughter] >> what would you like the attorney general to respond to in writing? >> can you ask the question you were replanning planning to ask? >> thank you. mr. cohen, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i will talk fast even though i am from the south. the department of justice issued a statement, you may not remember, saying the proposed merger between delta and northwest will benefit u.s. consumers and is not likely to lessen competition. unfortunately, that forecast has come in many people's minds, proved to be grossly inaccurate. many of the promises made by delta in front of this committee have been broken. is anybody can attest, the price of flying out of the memphis hub is much higher than it is out of other cities, you can fly to cities through memphis at cheaper prices than you can from memphis to another city. this has caused the city the loss of conventions, the loss of businesses, many have left

because the price to fly is too great. the conventions moved to kansas city or elena, one group moved to kansas city. people are very upset about this. services have been cut in minneapolis as well. now that the merger is in place, what type of enforcement mechanisms is your department of justice have to break up the monopoly? >> i think we have been appropriately aggressive in our antitrust enforcement efforts. there are a number of cases that we have brought from everything from e-books to the way in which telecommunications and the industry has tried to consolidate. in those cases where we have not brought suit, we have extracted from the parties who have sought to join.

promises were concrete so that users so that we could maximize the benefit. i think we have focused appropriately on what the impact will be on consumers come and i think that. >> the airline industry are in basically three major airlines. the people of the cities basically have to pay what they are charged. can we do anything about that? >> there is a certain amount of consolidation in the industry. for instance committee look at delta and what usair tried to do, a transaction involving guardia airport and an airport here in washington dc. we approve what they wanted to do in your come and we have made decisions on what they have wanted to do in washington -- to

see what the impact is of these consolidated -- >> if i could interrupt, washington, los angeles, new york -- the big cities have had no competition. it is the middle cities in america who have had to suffer the brunt of this. what can you do about memphis, st. louis, pittsburgh -- >> what we can always do is examine what the impact of the mergers have been, and if we find anti-competitive operations in a particular city -- >> can i ask you to look into memphis? >> frontier airlines came in, delta came in, frontier left. usair is now running it, but delta is going to undercut them. southwest said they will be undercut. that is a monopoly. there cannot be this situation.

>> to the extent that one entity tries to undercut the other inappropriate way by lowering prices and driving the competitor out of the market, only to drive them out of the market, and then raises the prices once the competitor is gone, it is something that will have impact on consumers and it is something that we will aggressively pursue. >> in memphis, and i think i have written you -- schnooks -- schnooks has an area of influence because they swapped end there is no price competition there. it is happening all over america. businesses are working with each other to create monopolistic practices and consumers are left in the dark. it is what is happening. income, -- income inequality,

purchasing inequality -- the only change they have is with you in the administration. otherwise, big business cuts them out. i thank you for looking into monopolistic practices. >> our focus is on the protection of consumers. as i have said, i think we have been aggressive with the people who head the division and share that attitude. i think they have done a good job. >> thank you, and i yield back the proverbial remainder of my time. >> we now recognize the gentleman from utah. >> thank you. thank you mr. attorney general, for being here. i would like to focus on "fast and furious." he said he read the six wiretap applications. i.t. would have done so. i, too, have done so. i think it is a sliver of the

information we are looking at, where a reasonable person would only come to the conclusion that the seniormost people would have known that those tactics are being used. my question for you, mr. attorney general, those things are sealed. nobody wants to hamper a prosecution opportunity. my question for you today, would you be willing to make yourself personally available to myself and mr. gowdy and to mr. bobby scott and mike quigley, to come talk to us, sit down, and i want you to show me how you don't come to that conclusion, and i would like to show you why i think there is a preponderance of evidence that would lead one to believe that yes, indeed, the department of justice did not about this. is that fair? could you make yourself available? >> chairman -- >> mr. barnes, you may inquire

-- [talking over each other] >> i know the attorney general is about to answer, but is it appropriate -- is it appropriate for members to refer to sealed documents in this judiciary committee room and suggest that the attorney general makes a personal visit to members on what it feels and should not be provided during a criminal investigation? i simply ask. >> again, please, mr. chairman -- this is not counting towards my time. >> there is a dispute here could this has gone on for a year and a half. most numbers on the side asked about "fast and furious." we are trying to resolve this, get to the end of it. it is hard to do. i am just asking for personal time to show you what we have seen and for you to share with us what you have seen. >> mr. chairman, i again referred to the sealed

documents. excuse me, the attorney general, sealed documents that have been leaked, and then discuss it with members while there is a pending criminal investigation. >> the contents of the sealed documents may not be discussed. the gentleman may have his time back, and we will use the remaining time it has been allotted to the gentle lady from texas. >> is a reasonable request, we sit down and talk to us? >> i don't think under the federal law i have the ability to talk about the contacts of the wiretap. >> would you be willing to sit with us and talk about all the other pieces of evidence that are sealed? >> i have sat down with you on several occasions. >> i am asking for more time to sit with you, more than just five minutes. to go through this in some depth. give us two hours.

two for the democrats, two for the republicans. with all due respect, i gave you for hours on eight separate occasions. one point i would make him a you and i have both read materials that senior people in the justice department, as they went through those, that approval process did not read. >> let me go on, please. >> so the answer is no? >> you are eating up my time. i only have 3.5 minutes left. let me share with you why i think this is imperative. sunday, october 17, 11:07 p.m. jason sends an e-mail to james. do you think we should try to have lanny participate in the press when "fast and furious", the tucson case, is unsealed? it is a tricky case. it is a significant set of prosecution.

james's trustee, he says it's not going to be any big surprise that a bunch of u.s. guns are being used in mexico. i am not sure how much grief we get per gun walking. it may be more like finally they're going to be people -- who are going after the people who send guns down there. you claim, with passion, that nobody at the senior level senior level of the department of justice, prior to the death of brian terry you that guns were walking, and i have an e-mail that uses the term gun walking. >> that refers to "operation wide receiver", not "fast and furious." >> that is not what every four letter says. it says that the atf never uses those tactics. never. that is not true. >> we said that that letter was inaccurate. it was ultimately wrong. that e-mail referred to wide receiver. it did not refer to "fast and furious." that has to be noted for the

record. >> no, it doesn't. it's as "fast and furious." you think we should try to have lanny participate when "fast and furious" and the tucson case is unsealed? it is specific to "fast and furious." that is not true, mr. attorney general. i am happy to share with you. >> well -- >> i'm happy to share with you, sir. [talking over each other] [talking over each other] >> laura duffy was not involved in "fast and furious." >> the e-mail says fast and furious. i have it in black and white. did you personally read speaker boehner's letter sent you on may may 18, 2012? >> yes, i got that. >> did you read that?

>> yes. >> have you personally responded to the speaker? >> the deputy attorney general responded. >> you delegated that to do school? >> i did not delegated, it was appropriate for him to respond. what i am willing to do is engage with the people who signed that letter, before people come and try to come to an accommodation so we can get to the information that we need for you, which is what we need to do to protect the ongoing investigation. we want to get to the end of it. >> i have a hard time finding that true. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> welcome back, attorney general. as you said, the eighth occasion you were up here before as. as i have stated before, the first thing i will say is that i

have to commend your demeanor. your patience. your to quorum, in appearing before us. and subjecting yourself sometimes to a process that i do not believe is fair. if anything, this committee should always try to afforded due process. and i am sad to say that sometimes here you are interrupted in a way that is not deserving to the position that you hold. i thank you. now, as you probably expected, i want to complain a little bit. the familiar subject of my questioning is the federal government's response to drug related response in puerto rico in the neighboring virgin islands.

the murder rate is nearly six times the national average, and nearly three times higher than any state. most of these homicides are linked to the cross-border trading illegal drugs, which is primarily a federal responsibility to combat. during your your previous testimony come he stated that drug-related violence in our nation's caribbean territories is a national security issue that we must confront. you also dated that order begins our mayor considered sons -- puerto ricans are american citizens. i know you and your doj department have always made yourselves available to talk despite your schedules, and i appreciate that. and investigation resulted in arrests of airline workers who

were smuggling drugs. the men and women in puerto rico are doing terrific work. i want you to know that i respect that. but it is also clear to me and to any reasonable observer, the farmer needs to be done the cjs appropriate appropriations bill, which we approved this year, explicitly stated , the committee is aware that we need to reduce trafficking and violence on the sublets borders. including trafficking routes in the caribbean. we must do this by substantially reducing drug-related violence. i wrote this very same week to the president come asking him to direct on the to prepare and publish a serbian border counter

narcotics strategy, which would outline which would address trafficking and related violence. the first question i have, is do you see any reason why they should not do the same for the carribean border? >> i think that is in relation to my remarks, which he referenced before. when one looks at the carribean in particular, i think we need a strategy. we have a task force in puerto rico that the associate attorney general is one of the cochairs of. i think to the extent that it is not explicit, that we should develop such a plan. >> thank you. my second question, mr. chairman, you know, i would like to be able to make my

question and then get an answer, even if my time expires. quite a few of my fellow members have had the courtesy. i hope you can extend it to me as well. >> gentlemen, just asked the question. >> can you explain the complete that that has occurred in puerto rico? wouldn't it be important for doj to to increase resources on the island, even if it is a temporary surge, just as the federal government did when there was a spike in violence on the southwest border? i know we are living in a world of constrained resources, but we need to send his resources these resources to areas that need them the most. the fbi and atf have not increased manpower in recent

years. shouldn't you be acting with more of a sense of urgency in this area? please, tell me why i should feel better about this than i do? >> the attorney general will be brief. >> our law enforcement components [inaudible] for agents that are willing to work in puerto rico. retention is a unique problem that we have in puerto rico. the violence surges something we are starting to embrace. although we are seeing historic drops in the rate, we are seeing hotspots. what we are doing now is developing a capacity to search agents and resources, money, at times, to help local law enforcement into those hotspots. we have done it in a couple of cities in the united states, in the mainland, we plan on looking

at other places as well, including puerto rico. puerto rico, given the homicide rate, the violent crime rate, it is far outstripping what is the national norm. >> thank you so much. >> the time is expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy. >> thank you, mr. attorney general, for your great service. i would like to ask about a statement issued by the department of justice. in a "new york times" interview in december 2011, you said there is a desire to get at you because you consistently take progressive stances. shortly after that interview, the department issued a statement wherein it said your critics, and i quote, your critics view as a progressive force. the common theme in both of those statements is an apparently that you are targeted because you are, to use your

term, progressive. i want to be really clear with you, mr. attorney general. i am not a critic of yours because you consider yourself to be per aggressive. i'm a critic because i don't think the ag should have any political ideology whatsoever. you are the attorney general for the entire country. regardless of your political ideology or anyone else's, you are the attorney general for everyone. you are a former judge, you are a former attorney, you are current the chief official for law enforcement for the united states. i haven't had an opportunity to ask you, but i can tell you what attracted me to this was the notion of working solely for the women. a woman who is blindfolded and carries nothing with her were a set of scales and a sword.

no political ideology, no agenda, just a set of scales and a sword. it is important to me that she doesn't care about anyone's station in life, and she doesn't care about their political ideology, and she doesn't care whether they are black, white, brown, progressive, conservative. it is about the equal application of the law. further, in that interview with "the new york times", you singled out my colleague, senator graham, it who is someone who had good faith in his criticisms toward you. my question is, and then he suggested that others are motivated by something more nefarious. a desire to get you, a desire to do damage. doing damage to the president. my question is, you think it's possible to be motivated by good faith, and still ask the seniormost level official was

prior to brian terry's.? is it possible for me to ask that question when i. >> i would say yes. do you think john ashcraft was a conservative? >> i didn't know john ashcroft. he was every bit as progressive as you say you are, probably more. i have been one of his biggest fans, because you cannot tell what his political ideology is in the way that he does his job. i don't know john asked crop. i know the united states attorney. you can check your head when i say that, but the truth is, you were the one who said you were being targeted because you are a progressive. my point to you is, i would be

asking the same questions whether you were bob lundgren, bob goodlatte, john ashcroft, were the attorney general. >> all i would say is that the decisions that i have made in connection to the justice department don't reflect my political ideology. they reflect my view of upholding the law. >> why did your department say that in december that you are a target because you consistently take progressive stances? you think that is why i am asking you about "fast and furious"? because of your political ideology? >> i would accept that your question is based in good faith. i will not ignore reality and say that all of the attacks that have been directed at me have been those that are not political in nature or have come in good faith. >> can i be motivated by good faith? can i still believe that you have to show an id to vote in

south carolina, just like you do to enter the courthouse? >> absolutely. you can operate in good faith and asked that question. i can disagree with you in good faith. and not have a political motive behind my position. >> mr., attorney general, you have a difficult job. but if you think that, i would be asking the same questions regardless of what party was in power. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we now recognize congresswoman chu. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to take a moment to commend you, mr. attorney general. you have made intellectual

property rights a priority. it is very, very important for our economy, and i congratulate the department of justice on the groundbreaking case earlier this year were you charged seven individuals into corporations for running an international organized criminal enterprise that was responsible for causing more than half a billion dollars in harm of copyrights. i also want to thank the department for it seeking to protect every american's right to vote. during 2007, the civil rights division handled 27 new voting rights cases. and with 176 bills introduced in congress that are aimed at reducing those rights, you are doing an important and important work. i also want to applaud you for changing the material that the fbi had been using in their counterterrorism. materials that had inflammatory statements about muslims.

in fact, the fbi has conducted the review about this counter terrorism, that indicated factually incorrect information. early on, congressman franks said that the statement had to do with political correctness. actually, i wanted to name some of the statements that were made in these training materials that were incorrect, and in fact, offensive. for instance, this one guy was in the fbi manual. never attempt to shake hands with an asian, or how about, never stare at a nation. i personally take offense to that, i must tell you. how about this. the arabic mind is swayed more by ideas in fact. and how about traditional muslim attire and growing facial hair is an indicator of extremism is him. those are statements that have to be removed from those manuals. my question has to do with the

fbi agents being trained with these biased materials, what is the department doing for these people that were trained, making sure that they don't pull these kinds of stereotypes? >> we have certainly remove those so they are not trained that way. as people are updated, we make clear to them that that material was inappropriately shared with them. there are ongoing things that happen to make sure that people don't rely on the kinds of things that you have just read into the record. it is an ongoing thing. we understand that there have been certain agents who have been exposed to this, and it is our responsibility to make sure that that information that was incorrect, not politically incorrect, but simply factually incorrect, that we make sure that they operate only on the basis of factually correct information. >> i truly appreciate that.

actually, i also wanted to talk about another issue, and that is the nypd and the muslim community. in august 2001, the associated press published an investigative article that discussed the intelligence gathering of the muslim community in new york. thirty-four members of congress and over 115 communities have requested that the department of justice, to open an investigation on this issue. how is the department of justice doing, and have they investigated this issue? >> we are aware of the allegations we have received very at we have also received several requests to investigate the nypd. we are in the process of reviewing these requests. we are very far along in what i will call this preliminary stage, and i expect to be getting something, a formal recommendation, fairly soon. >> i would appreciate that.

we want to make sure that innocent americans are not spied upon, simply for eating in a restaurant order simply practicing their faith. it is offensive to many. i always remember the fact that we had 123 it doesn't -- 120,000 japanese americans put in concentration camps, yet no espionage was ever proven. we want to make sure that the rights of innocent americans is protected. >> that is our objective as well. >> thank you, i yield back. >> thank you, congresswoman chu. the next is represented. >> i believe you said it was the early part of 2011, how long

after agent terri's death were you made aware of the fact that one of those guns that walk was actually used to kill you or agent? >> i was made aware of guns on the scene were from "fast and furious." i'm not sure exactly when. >> would you consider that, -- let me go back to your opening statement. you said about arguing or agency are working closely with all the agencies. you had an agent murdered. there are guns on the scene to go back to "fast and furious", and it takes one or two months before you are made aware of the fact that this has happened?

>> are you talking about my personal knowledge? >> you are the attorney general, are you not? >> you are the chief law enforcement officer. [talking over each other] >> i am saying there were people in the justice department who were aware of the fact that there were guns found on the scene, they were from "operation fast and furious." i personally do not become aware of that until february. but there were people working with the dhs allies and the local law enforcement and fbi, who were aware of the fact. i thought you were directing the question to me as opposed to anyone else. >> i have heard and listened all day long, i listened the other day when you were here also, when it comes to "fast and furious", we always have a different timeline or someone, we have a letter callback for inaccuracy months after it was delivered to us. now we have, and he sit here and tell us today, in your opening

statement how well the agencies are working together, yet you have an agent that was murdered. and it takes a couple of months before you were made aware as the attorney general, that the weapons that were left and allowed to go mock were used during his homicide. we have all of this going on. in the previous administration, we did this or that -- that's what you keep saying. you know, i really don't care what happened in the previous administration. what i care about is the fact that when i work with agents in the previous administration is a law-enforcement officer, they had to produce the evidence of probable cause to their supervisor who had to sigh -- sign off on that. are you telling me that your supervisor signed off on wiretaps, based on summaries without looking at probable

cause? >> no, that's not what they do at all. they tried to see a probable cause exists. but they do not review it with the full scope of the underlying operation. they only make sure that when we go to court, there is a sufficient basis for us to say that probable cause exists with regard to the telephone number that we want to get a wiretap on, that we can say that particular phone was involved in a crime. not the full extent of what "operation fast and furious" was all about. >> you have covered a lot of different areas today. i'm still waiting for an answer as to how so many thousands of guns walked, i have never been involved in an undercover operation that would allow such a thing to happen. it is amazing that our own ag's office is allowing it to happen. >> i did not allow that to happen. >> it was your agency.

you had full reign over that agency, do you not? >> as soon as i heard about it, i instructed that that policy and practice had to stop. [talking over each other] >> you also talk about how your agency worked with immigration -- and you said we need comprehensive solutions for immigration issues. wasn't you in your agency that enforce the laws that we have on the books today? >> we deal of -- we do enforce the laws debate. [talking over each other] >> what we have is criminal alias being reached back into the communities because her home country won't take them back. i asked, did we ever file paperwork? i was told none. none has been attempted.

i have concerns, when i asked about her immigration laws being enforced. the other thing -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i yield back the. >> the general woman from california, ms. sanchez is -- i'm sorry, the gentleman congressman deutch is represented. >> as we are all aware, ineligible voters in florida -- all voters benefit with oversight and accuracy and enough time to rectify mistakes. unfortunately, the purge underway in florida is nothing of the sort. a list of 182,000 suspected noncitizens has been compiled by governor scott's administration. this list is so riddled with mistakes, that kurt browning objected to the list. if the list was not reason enough to stop, checking drivers

license data was guaranteed to resolve the mistakes. many legal immigrants who have become citizens are still classified as noncitizens in the motor record. it does not explain how a world war ii veteran was not and the staggering rate of inaccuracy in just the initial stage of the purge. if the rate of inaccuracy in the initials 2600 will do for the remaining 180,000, the nearly 40,000 american citizens voting right are at risk. everyone here agrees that we don't want noncitizens voting. i don't, you don't, the issues that this purge will remove thousands of legitimate voters. why is the bureau concern for these voters? one gentleman called it a model of due process. the governor believes that a

failure to respond to the letter within 30 days is reason enough to lose your right to vote, even if you are a u.s. citizen. maybe you moved, maybe you got lost, and maybe you are a different elderly veteran that received the letter the week his wife died, and he did not have the time to deal with the preposterous assertion that he's not a united states citizen. general, the doj rightly pointed out that federal voter laws prohibit voter purges within 90 days of election, thinks a lot past two decades ago. the closer we get to an election come the less time you have to correct mistakes. it disenfranchises voters. i am aware that the governor responded to you late last night in a letter that showcases his administration's willingness to make up laws that go along. mr. attorney general, i know you're department will respond

in detail and will do everything necessary to compel order to comply with the law to prevent thousands of floridians from being disenfranchised. finally, i'm going to give you a chance to respond to a letter that was sent to you by a colleague of mine. the letter reads that your department interference in this purge proves that you are quote, more concerned with protecting the reelection prospects of the president then upholding justice and enforcing the rule of law. you are actively working to keep noncitizens who have committed a felony on our state's voter rolls. general holder, with 16 cases of voter fraud in florida come up and over 8 million votes cast in 2008, the assertion of voter fraud as an election strategy is preposterous and condescending. it is rare because of it is a felony that was huge fines and it isn't logical way to sway an election. you know it isn't legitimate?

scrapping legitimate voters off the roll. seniors and impoverished americans who lack government ids. governor scott not just in florida, but around the country. maybe i am wrong, general holder. can you just answer quickly, it is my republican colleagues write? have i missed some grand conspiracy here? >> i haven't seen the letter, but that is not what motivated our action or will continue to motivate the actions we may have to take. i have not seen the response from the governor or the secretary of state in florida. i assure you we will make sure that the federal law is enforced. that voter purges happen in a way that is consistent with the law. i share your view that we do not want to have people inappropriately voting, we don't want to have both that -- but we also don't want to put people

off the voter registration who have served their country, who need to exercise their fundamental rights. the notion that this is somehow a political ploy is inconsistent. one only has to look at the law, which is clear -- 90 days. it is very clear. ninety days. >> in fact, general holder, it is possible that is the highest law enforcement officer of the land, do you actually have real concerns about american citizens being disenfranchised, and that the united states department of justice, the u.s. department of justice, actually cares about protecting constitutional right to american citizens that are now being threatened by this illegal voter purge. isn't that correct? >> that is correct. we have to enforce the law. a law that was designed by this congress and its predecessors to protect the rights of american citizens. that is what our action is all about. to protect the rights of american citizens. >> thank you, i yield back.

>> the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you for being here, mr. attorney general. i want to get back to how the wiretap application is approved in the process. he said that basically whoever it was just read the summary, it determines whether there is probable cause. if there is probable cause, then they send it off to get approval by the courts. is that basically what you are saying the process is? >> they look at the affidavits, prepare a summary by the deputy attorney general. >> so the deputy assistant is only looking for possible causes? >> right, to make sure there is a probable cause. >> how is that true? under extensive requirements for federal eavesdropping laws, the justice department officials have a duty, a duty to evaluate the law enforcement tactics that have been used in the investigation. why they aren't willing to

actually make it so that we can have a further investigation, and why you need to have wiretapping put into place -- usc section 2581 seed says that the application other investigations have tried and failed, -- now, we put these sorts of state measures in place because wiretaps are extraordinarily intrusive. >> unless the justice department was living up to what was required.

>> in fact, other methods have been tried and proven to be unsuccessful. >> you are saying that they did know about -- this is what i am trying to get at. did the deputy u.s. attorney actually sign off on these wiretap applications? did they actually go through and understand what the tactics that were being used -- then they would actually know at the time of reviewing those because you said that all they were looking at was a summary and probable cause, when actually they had to be looking for the tactics, why they failed and why they needed to have eavesdropping going forward. that means that they would probably have that information a lot earlier than what you said earlier. >> we were looking at the tactics that we needed to surveilled people. it doesn't mean that you're looking at every tactic that was used. [talking over each other] >> the investigation for the operation of what they were trying to accomplish, you are using various different

practices. the tactics actually are part of the application. why they failed, why you need eavesdropping. the deputy attorney actually knew about the tactics, even though you have been saying all along that he didn't because he only had the summary and you are only looking for possible cause. >> there is nothing that indicates that gone walking was allowed. let's get to the bottom line. i did not see anything in there that would put on notice a person who was reviewing either at the line level or the deputy assistant attorney general, you have knowledge of the fact that these inappropriate tactics were being used. >> are you saying in the summary or the full affidavit? >> in the affidavit as well. >> in whole, there were no comments about the tactics of the unlocking within the full affidavit, or are you talking about the summary? there is a clear distinction between the two. if you are saying that you are relying on the summaries, not the affidavit -- then, wouldn't

it be an untrue affidavit if they got wiretapping and didn't include the gone walking? are those the tactics being used in the operation? >> we have to speak hypothetically. >> hypothetically, i understand that -- i'm trying to get down what the process was. it seems to be a little misleading from what you have said and what mr. brewer said in the past that was only for legal sufficiency or probable cause from your perspective. when in actuality, the statutes that govern us are much more strict and require much more proof that federal eavesdropping and wiretapping is required to go through that and get the court to do it. >> the statutes do not require the degree of specificity that you are inclined.

>> what degree of specificity you think i am implying? you have to go through what the procedures and tactics are. i'm not trying to save you need to put down every serial number of a certain shoe that somebody was wearing while they were surveilling something, but the basic gone walking is a pretty big piece of the tactical operation in operation "fast and furious." >> again, i can't get into the contents of "fast and furious" wiretaps. i am prohibited from doing that under federal law. but i can tell you that the notion that you are pushing and you are pushing incorrectly. it does not require that degree of specifically. [talking over each other] >> but it provides more than probable cause. it provides more than legal sufficiency, which is what mr. brewer was saying earlier. >> let me answer the question. >> my time has expired. >> the gentleman from

california, ms. sanchez is recognized. >> thank you, chairman, and thank you attorney general for joining us today. i know that you would agree that this is an important role for our committee to play. i feel your pain to sit in front of us for this. of time,. i would be remiss if i didn't bring up the recent changes in the department of justice policy, regarding the reimbursement to local governments under the state criminal alien assistance program or known more commonly as scaap. it deport aliens charged with

two or more misdemeanors. deportation is a federal responsibility, and scaap is a program which acknowledges -- local police officials came to me and explain how a change in the scaap funding was having a very profound effect on their budget. the 2003 scaap reinterpretation, in which states only received reimbursement for criminal aliens convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors, and the rare -- arrest occurs in the fiscal year, which is an odd requirement, has had turman has repercussions throughout the law-enforcement community, particularly in california.

in california, scaap reimbursement payments have declined from 221 million in 2002, prior to the department of justice reinterpretation, down to 112 million in fiscal year 2009. we are trying to work on this bipartisan issue to try to recognize the need to return to the original congressional intent of this legislation. police departments and sheriff's departments in my state are already having to do more in terms of deterring crime and protecting constituents with less. this reinterpretation of the scaap reimbursement really hinders their ability to do that. they are trying under very difficult budget circumstances to do with this, and they are doing an incredible job. but they keep asking you, what is the federal government going to do about scaap reimbursement? i would love to be able to tell

them that the funds that they desperately need are going to be coming. last month, i was dismayed to find that your department further reduce the reimbursement under the scaap program, which has the effect of only further increasing the pressure on local law enforcement and making their jobs that much harder. this change is not only -- it would not only reimburse state and local law enforcement if they are holding a known inmate already in the database. i just want to bring your attention to a letter that i have from the california state sheriffs association, with your permission, i would like to enter it into the record. >> without objection. >> it suggests that if your department had made this change in 2010, it would have reduced payments to california's sheriffs department by an additional $10 million. that is already on top of the

50% cut from 2003 to 2009. i just want to quote a section of the letter, since i think that the california state sheriffs association summarizes this issue very accurately. they say, and i quote, the federal government must uphold the responsibility to the facilities that hold criminal aliens and not allow changes that would weaken the funding provided for it scaap. i hope that you will give this issue more thought, and much more thought to the impact of this change -- not just to mention southern california, but across the nation. i hope you reconsider this decision and consider rescinding it. i just want to make you aware of that issue. i will be following up with your office, and i hope that we can work together to try to ensure

that local law enforcement entities will be properly reimbursed for the great job that they do in trying to protect the public safety. i will allow your brief comment, and then i will yield back to the chairman. >> thank you, ms. sanchez. the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin is recognized? thank you mr. chairman, thank you mr. attorney general. i want to ask you if you are familiar with the olmstead case. it deals with disability law. are you prepared to talk about it today? >> i am not an expert on it. >> okay. let me ask you a few questions. in my state, we have a number of homes, institutions, for the developmentally disabled. around the country, there have been a number of lawsuits against some of these homes, alleging violations of civil rights. in some instances, these

lawsuits are filed with the view that the olmstead case contemplates a structure where the institutions are phased out, and that individuals who are disabled, intellectually disabled, developmentally disabled, those individuals are moved into more community-based care. >> my state has been, in arkansas, has been the subject of some of these lawsuits. first of all, i wanted to ask, do you believe that the olmstead case requires a movement away from the institutional care for the developmentally disabled, or do you believe that these inst