>> good morning. the subcommittee on commerce will come to order and today we will take testimony on the budget request from the department of justice. today we will be listening to the attorney general, eric holder, testifying on behalf of

the justice department and then from the inspector general on important oversight issues. this committee makes sure we spend the right money in the right way and make sure we have the wonderful advice of an inspector general. we want to alert everyone, though, there could be the possibility of votes beginning at 11:30, so we will move to kind of. this hearing today is one of 60 hearing in six weeks where we are taking a look at the request from the agencies and the president's budget. today we take testimony from one of the most important agencies in the government; the department of justice. who has a very key job in making

sure they keep america safe and rather it is federal law enforcement, prosecution to terrorism and the enforcement of white collar crime and civil rights and hate crimes. it is the department of justice. and we are proud of that. mr. attorney general we want you to know we select the 112th thousand employees who work for justi justice, the 125,000 federal agents, 18,000 prison guards, 13,000 prosecutors and investigators and the wonderful support staff the g-7, 5's and 9's that keep the government

going. we get the headlines but they make sure it keeps going. 11,000 fugitive sex offenders have been arrested, the fbi has dismantled 421,000 vents, and 3400 drug trafficking organization out of business and 83,000 defendants in criminal court while facing sequester and shutdown. just imagine what you can do with certainty in funding. we now want you to take a look at what your reques quest are. and my goals for the hearings are three priorties: community security, in terms of state and

local. of course national security. and then oversight and accountability in terms of spending dollars wisely. to uphold the rule of law, protect civil liberties and communities. there is a request for $2.2 billion for state and local government that puts cops on the bait, puts away child aboston -- a abuser and processes rape kits at the local level. we think strengthen the process and get better results and enforcement. and the thin blue line in the local community we want to know they have the equipment they need to protech us. and we want to look at the u

issues related to the prison. we know you are looking at a review on how to reduce the prison population without increasing risk to the community. we look at compassionate parole to those in their 70's and 80's. we would like to hear about that but we want to know what we need to fund our prisons and keep our prison guards safe. we met with the family and other officers relate today eric williams who was murdered in pennsylvania. they have ideas they need for training. what they need to carry in the prison and how they have to keep

themselves with violent and mentally ill prisoners. we would like your thoughts on. we were all gripped with with the boston marathon this time last year and that showed us how important it is to for safety. we want to make sure this never happens again and we would like your views on what we can do in terms of national security. the other threat, i have, is cyber security and mr. attorney general i hope you can draw the line between surveillance and

security. a lot of people are spooked and talk about 2-15. but if you go into a target or michaels the craft store, most of america is in places like target, and the loss of cyber security breach has been phenomenal. the breaches at universities like maryland and hopkins so stealing our trade secrets to the things going on we need to protect the people. every day we count on the justice department to fulfill it's mission and protect our

lives and constitution. we need to hear what the is the right funding to make sure we do justice to the justice department. i now turn to senator shelby. a strong advocate of national security and supporting our local law enforcement and we appreciate his efforts on behalf of women and children. sfwl >> thank you, madam chair. thank you, general holder. today we will hear about the 2015 justice department budget request and the department chair general will testify about his work and the difficulty he has encountered in executing his oversight responsibility. today i welcome you both. the 2015 budget request for the department of justice totals

27.4 billion and i am concerned while the 2015 budget reports to recognize the multi faceted work, but it fails to put priorties first. programs like smart on crime and 12 new grant programs i believe take center stage. law enforcement and national security priorities, the main central mission of the department, i believe take a back-seat. this approach is evident in the cuts required of nearly every component within the department of justice. the 2015 budget requires cuts totaling more than $500 million. they are characterized as miscellaneous programs and administrative reductions and will be identified once the

funds are appropriated. congress made a conscious decision to return to regular order to put a stop to in discriminate cuts your budget requires. a budget proposal that uses smoking mirrors doesn't provide a way to safeguard security, reduce crime, prosecutor criminals or support state and local partners. i do not support the approach this budget has taken and i look forward to working with you, madam chair, to make sure the department of justice is funded. i want to touch on the topic of concern that chairperson mentioned and that directly impacts the inspector's general

ability to conduct much-needed oversight of the department of justice. since arriving in 2012, they have worked to investigate a list of trouble spots. he encountered specific roadblocks and hasn't been provided access to materials that are essential to investigations and on-going audits unless the attorney general proves is. this is the inspector general. you should provide him the material to see what is going on in your department; good and bad. i believe the work of the inspector general is essential to the well-functioning government agency. they are independent and shouldn't be emcumered by people

in the position of power. yesterday, the chair and i sent you a letter on this matter and we expect you will address our questions and resolve this controversy. but without on independent inspector general that can kerry outb responsibility, i am concerned the integirity of the whole department could be called into question. i look forward to hearing more. >> senator collins, do you want to say anything? >> madam chair, thank you very much. i want to welcome the attorney general to the subcommittee today which has great leadership on both sides of the aisle. i am going to being directing my questions to you on several

topics. one has to do with our broken asylum granting system when the department of justice has jurisdiction with the department of homeland security over. another is the testing of the boundaries of executive power by this administration in particularly the aggressive position the administration has taken with regard to the president's enforcement discretion and third i hope that if you are don't do so in your testimony, i will ask you for an update on the department of j t justi justice's activities to bring justice to the attackers in the benghazi case. thank you, madam chair. >> mr. attorney general. >> good morning. and thank you chairwoman, and

ranking member shelby and senator collins and senator curt. thank you for allowing me to speak to you todayi. i know we are mind full of the mass shooting at fort hood yesterday. i am being briefed regularly on the situation and i have directed that the full resources of the department of justice and in particularly of the fbi be made available to ensure the security of everyone on that base. we will work with local officials and the department of defense to provide assistance to those that need it and conduct a full and thorough federal investigation. as the investigation unfolds and we work to determine what happened, my thoughts and prayers are with those whose lives have been impacted and

with the entire fort hood community which has displayed strength since the event of nearly five years ago. as the president said, it is heart breaking something like this has happened again and we owe it to all of our men and women in uniform and their families to see that justice is done to ensure they are safe here at home and do everything in our power to prevent these common tragedies from happening again. my colleagues and i are determined to doing that and determined to continue to build on the work we have performed over the years. your support will allow us to build on the support we have obtained to perform the vital missions we are entrusted. the ongoing work to protect

americans from terrorism and other threats. just last week we severed the guilty verdict of bin laden's son-in-law. it was appropriate this defendant who very publically rejoiced over the attacks on the world trade center face trial in the shadow of where those buildings once stood. we never doubted the court system to administer justice to this case swiftly as it has hundreds of other cases. it would be a good thing, i believe, for the country if this case has the result of putting that political debate to rest. the president's budget request

would invest 4 million in the counter terrorism and nationt security programs and 1.5 million to obtain and oberate the terrorism explosive center in alabama. and it would invest in other key preorities providing 273 million to bolster the vigorous enforcement of civil rights law and 8 million in new resources. and it would enhance the department's ability to combat heinous crimes like human and sex trafficking as well and $173 in efforts to strengthen the criminal justice system as as whole. this is common sense reforms

including modification to the charging policies with regard to mandtory systems for low-level non-violent crimes and evidence based diversion and rehab and reentry programs. the budget would have investment in the bureau reentry programs. these and other really proven programs will help to make the criminal justest system more effe effective and free up resources for police and prosecutors and make our systems more efficient. and this in turn enables us to further invest in the outstanding work that is performed by attorneys in the litigating divisions and united states attorney offices.

thanks to their efforts during the fiscal year of 2013, the justice department collected 8 billion in civil and criminal fines and penalties. this is more than double the 3 million in direct appropriations that pay for our 94 u.s. attorney offices. during the 2012 and 2013 fiscal year the department collected $21 billion. a record amount for a two-year span. we are taken other action to make sure we are serving as sound stewards of american's taxes. we security -- secured -- the largest settle last year year to

resolve claims. as part of the on going efforts to hold accountable those whose conduct so the seed of the mortgage crisis the department filled a law suit against the rating firms s&p with a 1.2 billion agreement we reached with toyota, the largest criminal penalty ever imposed on an auto motive company, we are making good on protecting consuco consumers and addressing fraud. i am happy to work on these. 24.7 billion in discretionary resources and 25.3 bill grn federal program and 2.1 billion for state, local and tribal assistance as well. this is essential to continue to serve the american people and take important actions to

stregthen the criminal justice system. i want to thank you were the opportunity to discuss this work with you ask i am happy to answer questions you might have. thank you >> thank you very much, mr. attorney general. we'll follow a five minute time limit and see if we can get to as many people as they can. if there is a chance we will do a second round. let me get to my question: mr., attorney general, one of the biggest areas in terms of the justice department is the funding of federal prisons. and my question to you, and we are concerned about two things. the adequacy of the funding and the protection of prison guards

looking back to that terrible death and number three what is your plan because there are now 18,000 prison guards doing a great job and we are very proud of the guards and the stress they are under, but you have initiati initiatives and now the prison guard population is 1/3 of the justice department. so we have to keep the bad people off the street, but are we just loading up the federal prisons and are there other ways to protect america and keep up with the prison population demand. can you give us your views on the resources needed and the policy direction you say you see

going on. >> i agree. we have to focus on the intake and how many people we are bringing into the federal system and making sure only those people charged with federal crimes are brought into the system. that is one way i think we can do a better job. safety of the people that work at the prison and are there on a day-to-day bases are the ones we must keep the upper most in our minds. 6.8 billion do maintain the enhansments provided in the 2014 budget and to support mandtory prison operations and we want to prioritize the filling of staff positions so we have adequate numbers of people in our prisons. that will not only mean that people are treated fairly, humanly and it keeps people who are employees safe. we have a good relationship with a renewed and good relationship

with the union that represents our prison officers and i think that through the combination of the work director samuels is doing with the help of this committee, i think we can keep the bureau of prisons adequately funded and the people that work there safe. >> well, i met with prison, of course i have been up to the cumberland prison but also with prison guards that were teammates, if you will, of officer williams who died in pennsylvania. through the union they had specific things they felt they needed needed to do tofroprotect tethem -- protect themselves and i would encourage you to have ongoing conversations with them. i will go to another question.

and this knows to the heroin crisis. the heroin crisis is sweeping america. i am hearing it in maryland from county executives, cops and heroin is selling in baltimore for $6 a bag. you know chiefer than, you know, buying a bag of kale at the gormet grocery store thing. the governor of vermont made it the focus of the senator -- state of the union -- could your share your view on this and the sources needed at the department of justice level and how you would work with the state and federal level of this new epidemic >> i started hearing about the resurgeance of heroin three years agree when i was going

around the country and was struck i was hearing about heroin. i thought this problem existed in the '60s but there is nose question this is a national problem. it isn't state or renal -- regional -- we need to have a strong enforcement to it. we take the lead in that record. we are recovered record-amounts of heroin coming into the united states but we need to focus on the public health component and work with partners at hhs and cdc to come up with ways in which we can educate people about the issues that surround heroin use and also the connective problem of prescription drug abuse and how

that leads to the use of heroin. this will require more than the justice department getting at it. so i think we have to be n in the lead given our enforcement responsibilities we take seriously. >> my time is up. i am turn to vice chairman shelby. but i would encourage and i think we cannot underestimate the heroin is an epidemic and if this was a new flu, we would have kathleen sebelius on her chair and i think we have to go to the edge our chair here. this is prescription drug addiction that is leading to people buy heroin because it is easier to get. we have suburban people

drivering into boston looking for heroin markets. we are concerned about what this is. if we marshaled the resources of the federal government working with the american medical association, doctors in the community, etc, we can deal with this. this is not only crime it is public health and can i count you know to take the lead in this? >> i will and i will engage with other members of the cabinet and beyond the federal government i will try to enlist others who i think should have an interest in this as you indicated the american medical association and others so we can get at this in a balanced way. we have to deal with this as a public health issue as well. >> senator shelby. >> thank you. i want to pick up on the chairwoman's area there.

what percent of the people in federal prison, roughly, and you might want to furnish the exact number if you don't have it off hand for the record, are in p s prison related to drug use and sales? >> roughly about 50%. >> 50%. and in the state, i believe it is higher than that? >> i think that is correct. i think it is probably higher in most states. >> what is the rate of not just drug related but recidivism of repeat offenders that go into the system is go back after a while? >> that will vary from state to state. i think the federal rate is roughly in the high 30% or so. >> about a third more or less of the people that go to prison come back.

so the prison system, state and federal, are challenged to say the least, are they not on rehab illitating people? >> absolutely. >> what percent of the people in federal prison are there connected in some way to violent crimes? people that need to be off the streets period. >> can you furnish that for the record? >> we have drug offenses, 50%, weapons and arson and explosive 4.5%. >> violent related and people you would not want in your neighborhood. >> i can provide you with a more precise number, senator. >> did you believe that a lot of our prisons are overcrowded state and federal?

>> yeah. if you look at the federal prison system, we don't have enough beds for the people especially when you look at the people who we consider the most significant offenders. that is why we are trying to bring online more prisons. >> when you make priorities as a prosecutor, you should look at violent crime and get them off the street and into institutions first? >> sure. there are a range of things in the federal system. national security, violent crime, drug offenses, and we have a range of things working and state and local partners that do the vast majority of prosecuting when it comes to violent crime. >> i know it has been said the department led by you and trying to figure ways out to lesson the

impact of tough sentencing which is statutory, i think. a lot of the sentencing on federal courts on drugs and other things is according to statute. is that right? >> there are certainty mandatory limits that we follow. >> i am talking about sentence based on a statute. >> there are guidelines adviceiadvice vs.ing them but they are not mandtory. >> once a judge sentences someone after going through there court and plea, do you have the power as the attorney gener general to change that? >> i have limited amounts of

power >> like what? >> i can release on the bases of compassi compassionate release. someone who is 70-80 and is no longer a threat >> it is statutory? >> yes, and general the attorney general doesn't have the ability to reduce. that is something the president does. >> it comes from congress to modify, repeal or enact something to supersede it. >> and that is why we are supporting the efforts of senator lee and durbin to make changes to the federal system >> i have a few seconds left buts this is important, i think. a lot of us are concerned about the issues raised dealing with the inspector general.

i think congress has been clear as has this committee that the inspector general must have unfettered access to any and all documents to carry out this duty. do you disagree with that? >> i would say the inspector general needs access consistent with the laws that govern. >> it is all consistent with the law. >> the law is written that concern requests that are made the deputy attorney general has to make a determination it can be shared. there hasn't been an instance they were not given what they asked for. >> do you think they should ask your approval to access jury

proval for ongoing investigation? >> i think as the law exist now with regard to grand jury material, wipe wire tap information, there is an approval process that i think is appropriate. but there has never been in instance with regard to a request made by a attorney general have said you cannot have access to that material. >> will you grant the attorney general unfettered access to documents to carry out the investigation even though it might be detrimental to someone in the department. >> this isn't a function of who is under investigation or what harm is going to happen to the department. it is function of -- >> what if he was investigating

somebody high up in the justice department? and he had reason to do this and he needed dockments. would you give him access or cause him trouble? >> sure, they would have access to the documents they have in the past. >> and you will not block the attorney general from doing his work? >> there is no tension between making sure the attorney general has the documents he or she needs or the laws that govern the release are followed >> what if the head of the justice department or secretary of state if you have an inspector general there, if they can say you cannot go there, it would impede the investigation >> the attorney general is the

pocessor of the wire tapping information so the need for statutory requirements we have to go through at the justice department are different than other executive branch agencies. >> but if the department of justice couldn't do their job unless they had unfettered access to stuff he was seeking, you seem to be stalling on giving him access to things in the justice department. we don't understand that. >> you will have the ability to talk to the inspector general and there has never been in instance where material that is sought hasn't been granted and there was a question raised about whether there was a legal bases for the position weer were

talk n. the decision was made by the inspector general not to have the olc opinion done. we have copies of the letter shotoo show what we did was consistent with the law and the important responsibilities. >> senator shelby, why don't you consider this with the attorney general. we want to make sure other members have to answer their question. this is really crucial and we acknowledge the essential nature of this conversation. senator collins.

>> thank you. mr. attorney general i mentioned the department of justice along with the homeland security plays a critical role in reviewing claims for asylum. i believe the system is seriously broken. it has allowed individuals to remain in this country under grants of asylum who never should have been allowed to remain here and yet it takes too long to adjudicate the legit mate cases that are delaying them the ability to work and imposing burdens on community general assistance funds while these asylum seekers are waiting for their cases to be

ajudicateajudicat ajudicated. i would like to give you examples of both and get your opinion on what you are doing to improve the system. later this month it will be one year since the terrorist attack at the boston marathon and the circumstances which the perpetrators came to be in the united states underscores the policy. the younger came on a visa and was granted asylum on his father's petition shortly there after. asylum is supposed to be available only to those who can show a credible fear of persecution in their home country yet the elder brother

came to the united states leaving behind his wife and three other children in the country that he claimed to fear. so it is difficult for me to understand how he possibility could have met the burden of proving a credible fear of persecution by the country in which he left in his wife and remaining children. ev ev ev even more troubling is the question of the grant of asylu to the immigrant who was killed by law enforcement regarding his association with the brothers. he came into the united states

in 2008 on a j-1 visa to par ta ticipate in an international exchange program. now, from the start, it appears that todashev had no interest in paying attention to the rules and the council withdrew their sponsorship of him because he failed to provide the required documentation with respect to employment. that very day they instructed him to make plans to leave the country, recorded the information on a federal

database that is used and yet despite doing everything that is correct and despite the fact he was out of compliance with there the requirements of his grands he was granted asylum and a green card. this shocked the entity of maine that reported him from being out of compliance with the visa years ago. i find this very troubling. how is that a young man comes to the united states to participate in a cultural program and violates his visa, is told to leave the country, and then is granted asylum. that shows a real problem with sharing information and with the

system. on the other side, we have the problem of legit asylum seekers. and they have been forced to rely on local governments for the money they need to live on. in maine, for example, the city of lewiston alone have contributed $10 million from their general assistance programs to support nearly 4,000 asylum seekers and their families over the past two and a half years while they await the judication of their claims to give them a work visa. so we have problems on the both end of the spectrum and that suggests to me the entire system is broken. what is the department of justice doing to work with the department of homeland security

to solve these serious problems? >> this largely falls into the hands of dhs but we need more immigration judges. the number of case pending is increasing at 56% since 2009. our budget request will enable the executive immigration component to add 35 new immigration judge teams. that would increase the capacity to look at the cases, ajudicate them in an appropriate way, listen to the evidence and make decisions that are based on the facts as they are developed. we don't have the ability to do the job in a timely way as i think we should have the ability to. >> well i support your quest for additional resources but those judges are not looking at the

databases and are not looking at the information from dhs consulting with the department of state on whether there should be a credible fear of prosecution and looking at whether they are violating the visas and adding more judges will not solve the problem. i think we need both. >> that was an eye opener. that was very meaty. when we do immigration reform and we have to look at the local levels. what maine is paying is stunning. senator sheen? >> as i am sure you are aware, what we have seen in new hampshire and northern new england is a reepidemic of hero

a and opiate use. the number of people admitted to state treatment plans has increased 90% for heroin ruse and 500% for prescription use. and we have seen double the number of deaths from heroin between 2012-2013. this summer, new hampshire plans to institute a new prescription drug monitoring program in the state because of a department of justice grant we have received. and wonder if you could comment on how effective these monitoring programs have been in other parts of the country and what other federal resources might be available as we try to combat the epidemic of heroin and prescription drug abuse. >> senator, there is an epidemic.

the term is correct. it is one we see in your state in that region of the country, but we are seeing it nationwide as well. there has to be an enforcement component to this and we have an increase of 320% between 2008-2013 by the amount of heroin we have taken from there c c cartels. but that is not enough. we have to enough the problem as a public health problem. police officers, doctors and educators need treatment, prevention and educational reform. i don't think we should repeat the mistake where we dealt with the crack epidemic and looked only at enforcement components.

we have to bring in supporting the programs you have described. it is why i think it is so important our capacity to aid our state and local partners be made whole in our budget. these are issues that the federal government has an interest in but on the ground it is state and local partners that have to do these things and i want to have the ability through our grant making ability to support these efforts. >> thank you. and obviously the justice grants have been helpful to us in new hampshire and there has been a coordinated effort on the part of law enforcement. i would hope you might consider sending someone up from the justice department to meet with our local law enforcement officials as we try to address this issue because as you point out it is going to require a multi level approach to really

do something to make a difference as we look at how many people are being affected. can you talk a little bit about the other efforts the department has under taken to better integrate these kinds of strategy? we know the burn programs are helpful and the monitoring programs. but what else is the department doing that can be helpful? >> we have a variety of things. we have a great united states attorney in new hamburger >> who is doing a great job i might add. >> with regard to grants, that is something we want to consider. we have the cops program so we have the ability to put more police officers on the ground to deal with these kinds of issue. and we want to come up with programs that we work with it

department of health and human services as the chair had suggested. this has to be something more than a justice department initiative and i think we have the ability now to really potentially nip this in the butt but we have a relatively small window before this gets more out of control than it is. if we take a balanced approach involving agencies beyond the justice department and make sure we support state and local partners and so that we educate and especially educate young people about the dangers of prescription drug use ando opiae use i think we can have a significant impact. >> thank you for raising the issue here and also others

raised it. i hear it, too. we asked the attorney general to take the lead in interagency because we have to go with start wilderness generation -- starting with the prescription drug agencies. we can plan staff briefing to get updates and put this in. senator kirk. a well known anti gang fighter >> the 18.5 million this comm committee has laid at. the black souls were taken down with one resource and i would say that is a model the public can get behind. taking out a whole gang wasn't

one of the vast gangs but there were 23 defendants in the case of the black souls arrest in june of two years ago. just to highlight that issue as a way of attacking this problem, we do have about 252 factions of the gd's in the chicago land. if we can execute the 18.5 million strategy to whack a number of those and totally eliminate them you will have a lot of support from this subcommittee. >> i appreciate that, senator. i think you are right to identify that is a challenge we have to meet. chicago gets an unfair wrap. this problem exist throughout the country. this problem of gangs. our marshal service plan to hire gangs and investigators in sever

n regional task forces and this problem is nationwide in scope. the effort you described of taking down significant numbers of the gang members at one time cripple them. we are looking to make those kind of cases. we want to be strategic in the way use what we have but unless we get at the gang problem we will not get to the root of the violence problem in too many cities. it isn't just chicago. it is going well beyond chicago. >> madam chairman, and senator kirk, we want to keep this going. you are on to something big and we think it is crucial. senator murkly? >> thank you, madam chair.

and thank you. about a year ago, you set off a bit of a firestorm when you noted that one of the reasons that certain companies couldn't be prosecuted is because of am economic impact of potential indictments and later you backed off that a little bit. but the general point continues to resinate that there have been a host of dramatic activities, and every three months we have a major scandal that involves wrongdoing and at the heart is criminal wrongdoing but the institution pay as fine and everyone goes back to business as usual. i am stunned by the list of things that have happened during the time i have been in the senate. we have offshore tax evasion by

international banks, we the m manipulating, we have forecloser fraud, and we have the laundrying of what was estimated to be hundreds of billions of dollars, possibly a trillion. and this is landering activities that involve terrorist activities, drug rings, and statewise economic sanctions like our relationship with iran and trying to prevent them from having nuclear weapons. and electricity prices.

the list goes on. have we reached a different point and successfully tackled the issue of too big to too fail and its close cousin which is more in your realm of too big to jail? >> what i would say first is that the matter is a matter of misunderstanding of what i said. i would not say i pulled back from what i said in the initial statement. maybe i clairified it. but no person is too important to be held accountable in the criminal sense if that is appropriate. if you look at what we have done beginning in 2013 and the guilty pleas we have gotten from financial industries, if you look at individuals we have gotten big individuals from many big banks, so we have gotten

pleas both from institutions and individuals, and we have done creative and i think, appropriately aggressive things with regard to the civil law as well. i am proud of what this department as done in holding accountable people who were partially responsible for the mortgage meltdown that led to the financial crisis. this department's record will withstand the justice of time. >> you would say there is no hesitation to pursue criminal charges because of the potential impact on an institution? arthur anderson was the person put forward. ...

you put that organization out of business as a result of the indictment, that is something that i think you should appropriately consider? innocent people get punished, potentially employees, shareholders. does not mean -- you might have to make the determination that because the company is a recidivist or that the harm is so great that that is in fact the press to innocent people pet. our track record shows that

where we have made the determination that people and institutions should be held accountable, we have not hesitated in doing so. >> well, i will close with this. what really stuck in my mind is that the same week that the settlement came out with hsbc, which i may be wrong but i don't think involved in the individuals being prosecuted. that same week there was a story about a woman whose boyfriend stashed his drug money in at a coffee can in her attic. and if i recall right, i think she was serving 15 years in prison. and so one involved a few dollars and the other involved hundreds of billions of dollars and it just seemed like the sort of thing that sticks in people's minds as to whether the justice system is not waited heavily in favor of the powerful. and i just want to encourage you

to do all that you can -- and i understand that often it makes sense to go, when individuals are involved a lot to go after the individuals rather than the institutions for the reasons we are discussing, but it is important to our system in the united states that the powerful don't pay a fine while the ordinary person goes to prison. >> senator, you make an excellent point. that is one of the reasons why our smart one crime initiative has, at its base, the notion that there has to be proportionality in regard to how we enforce the criminal law. and so what i am trying to do is, working with congress, so that we put, i think, some sense of balance back into the system that has gotten, i think, a little out of balance, but the concerns that you raised a very legitimate ones. >> thank you very much, senator. senator murkowski. >> thank you, madam chairman. madam chairman, you have raised as well as centers justine the issue of heroin and what we need

to do as we move forward, use the terminology, we need to be on the edge of our chair when it comes to issues like heroin. i would suggest also, and i present this to you, mr. attorney general, that we are seeing an increasing level of synthetics drugs that are coming into our communities and doing great damage. of course, the problem is is that at the state level you can say based on this formulary bob's this is a drug under the schedule, but all of these individuals have to do is change that formulary and day of a door avoid those laws. we are seeing some really devastating impact in some of our very, very remote communities where the only way to get these drugs and is by mail. and the drugs are coming into the community through the mail. >> through the post office? >> through the united states

post office, madam chairman, and it is something that we have been trying to work on, issues of north. again, we are seeing, whether we call it an epidemic or crisis, but we are being beaten on these issues. and the impact to our communities, again, utilizing legal processes to get these drugs in that our, in many cases, wiping out families. we need some assistance. >> you raised something that i think is a point that we need to focus on. i had the same reaction that the chair did. you're right. the postal service, the mail is being used to facilitate drug dealing. we need to work with the postal service to see the amount of drugs that it pumped into communities all around this

country through our mail system, and we have to deal with that. that is a major problem we have to deal with. >> it is major. we need to be talking further about this. i have some ideas, but we need to get on it yesterday. mr. attorney general, as you know, i continue to seek further answers in the miserable prosecution that brought senator ted stevens down. we had the fbi director before the committee last week. he indicated at that time to me that the fbi agent to had thought about this whole issue that he had been severely disciplined. the investigation came under scrutiny. he was severely disciplined. he did not indicate what the west. i think we all know, there may be varying degrees of what might be severe discipline. can you shed any light on the

status of that individual, whether he's still working for the fbi, in what capacity, i have requested a copy of the report to be submitted here to the subcommittee so weaken further review it. but it is important that we understand. >> i support that effort to make sure you get that information with regard to the fbi agents. there are also, prosecutors the lawyers were found to have acted inappropriately. they have been sanctioned. they have appealed the penalties that we sought to impose. the appeals are now presently pending before the american systems protection board. once the body makes his determination, we would be more than glad to share with you. i think that is appropriate, to share with you what the board decides to do with those lawyers , but we impose sanctions against those lawyers who, and that is now, as i said, appealed

to the ms p be. >> so they are still working with the fbi. >> i am talking about the lawyers. >> excuse me, the department of justice. >> they are still at the department, yes. >> again, i would suggest, is this really discipline? let me inquire further in this area. last year i introduced the fed it -- fairness and disclosure of evidence act. will we are attempting to do is to ensure that the obligation to disclose the exculpatory evidence to federal defendants in accordance with the brady rules is uniformly applied across the district. i think we saw in the steven's case that this was part of the problem. this still was endorsed by a broad spectrum of folks that at the end of the date apparently it was unacceptable to the department. and yet there was no real assistance or guidance in terms of what was not acceptable to the department. what i would ask of you, and i can keep trying to write bills on this. i'm not going to give up.

i think this is too important. if you would be willing to work with us to determine what might be acceptable in terms of those parameters because, again, i think when we lack uniformity with regards to these obligations to disclose, this evidence, you are going to get out comes that will not only be upsetting but are difficult than to defend from within your department. so if you would give me some assurance that we could be working with you to try to better define this, i would appreciate it. >> we want to work with you and make available to you are aware of the training that we do in the apartment. >> we have been told about the training. again, you have got -- you don't have uniformity across the districts. and so, if you get training going on over here and you focus in one area, the application is

different than we have over there, it does not achieve the same end result. >> that is something we tried to eradicate through this training so that there is one person in every office, every u.s. attorney's office, at least one you can be seen as almost an ethics cue, a person to whom you can go if you have a question about what materials should be turned over. and we also try to make sure that every prosecutor understands is our obligations under what is clear, supreme court law as defined in brady and in subsequent cases. i think that the problems that were identified in stevens, and senator stevens case which i think justify my decision to dismiss the case are not typical of what happens with the federal prosecutors around this country who, millions of cases making millions of decisions are complying with their brady and other ethical obligations.

i think there is danger that we paid with too broad a brush, the really terrible waste areas that we add in stevens and told other people, other prosecutors to have not done anything improper, and appropriately, seen in the same way. that will be more than glad to talk to you about this issue and try to come up with the way in which we can satisfy you that we are doing a good job. and if there are suggestions that you have about ways in which we can do this better would be more than glad to sit down and talk and work with you in that regard. >> thank you, madam chairman. >> chairman. >> before you begin, i would like to advise the committee the votes at 1130 have been postponed until late this afternoon and now pending in approximately 430. who knows. senator. >> thank you, attorney general,

for your service. thank you, madam share, for your three questions. one of them is about the safety of our corrections officers and some of our high-security federal prisons. one of the challenges that the chairman of this committee has taken up and the nation is focused on the overcrowding of our prisons, the per capita statistics about the number of people in prison in the u.s. we have had discussions about this this morning. you know, we need to change our policies. we need to provide additional resources. i want to focus specifically on the safety of our officers. you may be aware that in louisiana we had one of our corrections officers brutally, brutally beaten and stabbed. he, because of levels of the department of justice and the

staffing requirements, was on the floor, madam chair, with 100 prisoners out of their cells and there was one security officer. the letter i wrote to you, and you responded to a part of the response was that you all had provided pepper spray for some of these officers. now, i'm not sure how effective pepper spray is going to be, mr. secretary l.a. in the hands of one officer with 100 prisoners out of ourselves. so the budget requests to help upgrade the security for these officers was $79 million. it was not submitted in your budget. there are other priorities, i understand, but did this come up to you? did it come to a lower level of decision about the allocation of resources to protect these officers that we are asking to do pretty dangerous jobs in pretty dangerous situations and would you reconsider? >> the concerns you raised are

very legitimate. we try to do is look at this from two angles. first to work with the union. we have a different relationships with the new leader of the union. think we have made substantial progress in that relationship. it is not as antagonistic as it once was. through the relationship and the interaction there will have a think we will do better. we are prioritizing filling of staff positions. fiscal year 2015 requests supports the hiring of 4300 new officers that were included in our 2014 enacted appropriations so that we need simply more bodies. that is why we are prioritizing filling staff positions so that we have more people there in addition to whatever else we are doing with the union. >> okay. i appreciate your continued focus. i understand there have been literally dozens if not hundreds of incidents of attacks and

against correctional officers. while we do want to focus on the safety of the prisoners, which is important as well, we really want to focus on the safety of the men and women in uniform during a job to keep order in the prison and our country. domestic violence is something that the chairman and i have supported for years and years. there is some kind of new provision you're encouraging in the budget called transition offices -- i'm sorry, technical assistance provided to the domestic violence shelters around the country. i have been hearing some complaints about that from my network that i trust in and out of this administration, republican and democrat, they have been good to do this work. they are saying that some of these transition technical assistance providers come in without a lot of knowledge about

what's actually happening on the ground in our regions and in our cities. i am encouraged that your budget includes for under 203 million to reinforce efforts to combat domestic violence. we ranked louisiana one of the top states unfortunately for domestic violence in the country. can you comment about this office, this new contractual arrangement in technical assistance providers? what are they supposed to be doing and why they needed? >> i'll be honest with you, not familiar with the complaints that you have raised. perhaps our staff can get together and we can get more specifics about the complaints that have been raised so that we can examine. we have a budget request of four ordered $23 million. you know, this all motion of

combating domestic violence, sexual assault of violence again -- against women generally is priority for this just apartment, a priority of mine throughout my career. to the extent that their issues in the way in which we are using those resources -- >> i would appreciate that because i know it's been a priority, and i want to commend you and the president for your efforts. that is what worries me. madam chairman, just to submit this question for the record, the new orleans police department entered into a consent decree with your office. that does not seem to have -- they don't have the review that was required get. my question in writing, what is causing the delay and what processor using to review the nlpd justice, and i will submit that in writing. >> thank you. >> senator, that was excellent. center bozeman, you have been very patient. >> thank you, madam chair, as

always. thank you for being here. i was looking, when you look back 15 years ago, the bureau of prisons enacted budget was 3 billion. this year were asking for fiscal year just under 7 billion which i am supportive of. center lender has outlined some of the problems we have had. i have had the a virginity the visit and see that there are difficult situations. the problem is right now it's taking up 25 percent of your budget. and as opposed to not too long ago, to 16%. we've got to do something. one of the things that i've been supportive of and interested in is the drug courts. a gao study in 2011 confirmed that drug courts reduce crime by up to 58%. the best drug courts cut crime

rates in half, the other thing is when people go on to prison, usually they're working in help to support the family. so believe the family destitute. i would really encourage, you know, still look at that. i think it is something that -- to me it is just a no-brainer. we don't do a good job of supporting it at the federal level. our states are not doing a good job of doing it. we do need to look and make sure that they did drug courts to returning that, we need to have standards to make sure they're doing things appropriately. again, if you could look at that. i know that you are interested in something that we can get done. the other thing that i'm concerned about is, as has been mentioned on several occasions, the prescription drug problem. now, we don't want to, you know, but math on the back burner, which has seemed to happen a little bit.

as you talk to -- when i talk to our chair -- shares and things, though it might not be used as much, it is the cause of the violent crime. it is -- when you look in who is in prison you have all these people using different things. the people that are actually in prison causing violent crimes are not related. with regard to the prescription drug problem are really do wish you would get a task force together. this is something that the cdc needs to be involved in, the nih and research prescript risk, there is no good data as to how addictive the stuff is. and so it is being over prescribed. we need to educate the push cars more than we need to educate the individuals that a doing it. we all have these drug take back days. you can go to some little

community and have a drug take back. there will be pounds and pounds of the stuff that comes in. these are the people that go to the trouble to drop off. as i visit with my sheriff's going to the rehab centers and asking where they get it, many of the people that got their prescription drug bills through the mail or whenever, it was sold to them through senior citizens that are supplementing their social security. they're doing of better job. i guess what i would really encourage, we need to get all of those groups together. prescribing is a huge issue. a need to get aggressive. i think that my understanding is that probably the leading cause of accidental that indian people now is, you know, prescription drugs and alcohol. if we had the same sort of casualty rate overseas, you know, within people dying as a result of some sort of, you know, situation wherein as for

as the war it would be the tremendous uproar. i have gone on too long. if you would consider those things i think we can actually do some good. >> senator, i think that it did not go on too long because what you talked about is extremely important. the use of drug courts, i think, is extremely important. as you say, are budget, third of our budget is taken up by expenses connected to the bureau of prisons, and we have to do all the weekend to keep people working in our prison safe. agents we can put out on the streets, and drug courts are way in which we can handle these kinds of problems in a way that is more cost-effective, reduced the prison population, and it has all kinds of benefits that flow from a. we have focused on heroin here today, but your focus on math is

exactly right. this continues to be a problem that is directly connected, for whatever reason, pharmacological, not sure, with violence. we cannot lose sight of that problem as well. so the approaches that you are talking about, i think, make a great deal of sense and are consistent with the approach is that we are trying to push as part of the smart on crime initiative where we are looking at new innovative ways, evidence-based ways in which we can deal with these issues says. strong enforcement, not giving up on that and all but also looking at ways in which we deal with these drug problems in new ways, for instance, as you describe, a great record of done well, turning people around, getting them off their habits and cutting the recidivism rates which ultimately saves us money.

>> thank you, madam chair. >> i am turning to a senator leahy who spoke to me about the heroin problem and has continued to speak to me in a very forceful way. you can hear where we are here, mr. attorney general. center bozeman has really outlined how in some ways the federal government are enablers, from the post office to the department of veterans affairs giving drugs to one group. and we have -- this is where the interagency task force needs to happen. i think sooner than later. senator leahy, i know you have spoken. we are eager to hear your questions and your expertise in this area. >> madam chair, i appreciate what you said and what center chain said earlier about what i have been doing. the attorney general and i have known each other for a long time and have talked about this a great deal. i saw the article the other day

on the front page of the post. there was nothing that if somebody was having an overdose and the people with the person can call for medical help without being arrested themselves says. we actually did this in a thing called the place in burlington, vt. for seven or eight years back in the late 60's and early 70's because as chief law-enforcement officer of that county the police agreed with the. and so their friends could comment. adjusted to into their pockets of many drugs they had. nobody but fall to record. interns and residents at the medical school volunteer their time to be air. one of them is now a very noted surgeon in this area.

so i appreciate what you said, senator. we talked about this before. i also -- low, this isn't the issue today. senator murkowski talked-about the steven's case, senator stevens case. it doesn't appear to be partisan. i totally agree with her. you and i discussed that. i applaud your decision. it never should of been brought and it should not have been handled the way it was. i agree with that. unhappier no, when the justice department closed other grave, the son-in-law received a huge amount of criticism because he had been given a random morning and was not brought straight to guantanamo, so you might face military commission.

since america is strong enough. we can use our court, the best in the world, they brought in to new york, and he was convicted. i would much rather be the prosecutor in that case then the defense attorney, demonstrated that -- i think we have had three or four convictions in military tribunals, several hundred in our federal courts. thank you for doing that. prove to the rest of the world we use our system and it works. i commend you on that. we have been in burlington got vermont. retiring drug-traffickers but also annex to treatments continue helping these kind of programs.

>> well, that is certainly our intention. it is interesting. i would like to hear more about the place and see how that worked. those are the kinds of locally based innovative kinds of things that we want to identify. if the evidence shows there effectively want to try the support, and that is why i think the grand making function of the justice department can be so important. we are working as best we can to deal with this epidemic of heroin, a continuing problem of math. trucks continued to be a problem for the station, the connection between drugs and violence is inescapable. a number of people on drugs or of drug-related crimes in our prisons is still exceedingly high. no one should take from this smart on crime initiative any sense that we are retreating from our enforcement responsibilities in that regard. all we're trying to do is come up with ways in which we can be more effective and ultimately

knocked down the recidivism rate by dealing with people who have drug problems that tend to the reid crime. >> well, u.s. attorney has worked with the local state and has been very helpful. the justice department involved. i the of the office of juvenile justice delinquency prevention has indicated intention to change the eligibility requirements for a grand programs by requiring the presence in just 30 states. the current requirement, at least 45 states. obviously when you're representing the second smallest in the country. i worry. show them the improving capacity

. >> what we want to do is try different things. for those things that the evidence shows, we want to support those. to the extent you have a concern about a 0jjd ps kabob pulling back, that is something i would like to talk to you about or are staff could talk about because i don't want size to be the prime determinant as to how we are apportioning our funds or using our grant making capability. you want to make sure that in large cities and in small towns to the extent that we can positive justice department presence is bigger. >> and devonshire, the nation's integration mccourt's, 32 vacancies. the immigration judges eligible for require -- retirement. grown by 50 percent peter

requested $70 million to support additional 35 immigration judges , top processed backlog of over 350,000 is this a priority? are really worried that we are of such a tipping point that justice would just be totally denied. >> it is a priority. we have made a specific request for those 35 teams. we think that that would have the potential to vote increasing caseload between 20 and 35,000 cases. we have to get at the backlog that exists. we can do that, i think, by coming up with innovative procedures and processes, but i think the base we need more immigration judges which is why we have included in our immigrant -- fiscal year 2015

request additional funds for the additional team. >> thank you very much. >> senator, we are sharing with the attorney general your idea on how to look. >> thank you, madam chairman. my reserve unit last night and a briefing from the fbi about 69 taskforce is that a dealer cries of sex trafficking, young women in particular. i was just really impressed upon us off. i want to come visit and see how we can maximize. i think the committee would be astonished as to what is going on out there. at least i was. and i just want to commend you on a program. so tell us, if you could, in 2016 sequestration kicks back in. could you walk through fairly quickly what does it mean to your department?

>> future attorney generals to be a will to protract this nation, sequestration being fully implemented getting ford. >> over the course of the last couple of years. since i put into effect a hiring freeze we lost about 4,000 people in total and the justice department. 900 attorneys and support staff, 6% of the roughly 10,000 lawyers in the department. the fbi lost or 900 agents, analysts, and other staff. the loss 700, etf 500, united states marshals 300. those are daunting numbers, and you can't expect the justice department to do the job of the american people want us to do and that we want to do if we are faced with that kind of issue. i would not wish this upon any of my successors.

>> and it gets worse over time. >> absolutely. we have in place now this will help us make some lost ground. unless we have in 2016 a realistic budget we cannot have another flat budget and certainly can't go to a sequestration unless we have a budget that increases the amount of money that goes to the justice department we will find ourselves in the same place. at the end of the day it will have less some point in a fact. >> and it will be less safe. >> that's absolutely right. >> to you agree that we are still involved in a war against radical as long for lack of a better definition? >> like a better definition would agree. >> and home grown terrorism as a threat that we have to a deal with and is probably growing. >> absolutely. it is growing. that is the one that keeps me up at night. >> wrigley so.

cyber attacks on this country. we will have to get at of that. the fence we face are growing. >> that's right. >> who would've thought that? i hope the congress will rethink this and we can and bipartisan fashion of some relief to sequestration. republicans given the democrats give commander plus it was something that will make the country safe. how to defend america? analyst phil do agree that article three courts of viable in the war on terror. you tell me you believe there is a place for military commissions are we still on the same sheet of music? >> yes. >> okay. do you agree with me that in any combat status being conferred on a potential terror suspect is still lawful in this country? >> if they meet the criteria and they're is a legal basis.

>> okay. do you agree with me that intelligence gathering is important when it comes to stopping potential attacks against a country? >> i totally agree with that. we have done so through the use of our article three system gathering intelligence on people before prosecute. >> how long have we help people at guantanamo bay as enemy combatants? is an terror group that has been held for years? >> yes. think there are people have been there ten, 11, 12 years. >> this idea that we caught him because of water boarding, people say that is not true, and i am in the camp. i think we're were able to catch him because we gathered intelligence over a long time from people held at guantanamo bay and put the puzzle together. to you think that is a fair statement? >> there were a variety of things that led to the death of them. some intelligence gathering from people who were detained.

now here is why want to make sure you understand. i will support article three courts, but mr. attorney general you'll never convince me that the criminal-justice system is the best way to gather intelligence. i don't know of any military in the world that uses their criminal justice system to gather intelligence from enemy combatants. they have a military intelligence gathering process, which is a completely different legal endeavor. to you agree that carry intelligence is different than prosecuting? >> it is, and it is why the process we put together involves the use of the high. we then put in all different team. >> convictions are great. i am more worried about finding

from that suspect what the enemy is up to. the trial was important. how long was he interrogated before is marin writes for red? >> i believe about a week or so, what i'm not sure about that. >> i think it is ours, not days. >> i think the article pretrial was the right venue for him. here is where we differ. if i keep criminalizing the war and allow me capture these guys, if we don't call them for a time together -- to gather intelligence and put them into the criminal justice system and believe we're missing great opportunities to find out what the enemy is up to because i personally believe that once you mirandize someone and give them a lawyer it is much harder to gather intelligence than it would be feel that your military and cia officers lawfully not torture but gather intelligence. i just hope that you will pay attention to this because i

think we are giving of intelligence gathering opportunities by putting people in court right off the bat. it makes it more likely we get attacked if we go down criminalizing. that is just my two cents' worth. >> our experience is shown once we come into contact with these people and even after their given their rights there is still for whatever reasons desire on your part to talk. we have had very fruitful interactions where we gathered usable intelligence in the article 37, which is not to say that because i have sent people. people tend to forget that. and some people to the military commissions. i think we have to have both. but i don't think we should shy away from using a system that is tried and true. >> its way over my time. i just want to make sure that

before we put it in the military condition that we tried to gather as much intelligence as possible. >> and that's what we try to do. >> mr. attorney general, we thank you for your testimony today. as you can see, this is a pretty smart, aggressive committee. most of all where we really want to work across the aisle and protecting your people. starting first of all with the constitution, we want to protect the constitution, the people against all enemies, foreign and domestic. that means this, who prey on people with creed, mortgage fraud all the way up to these despicable acts of terrorism. you have a big job. we are going to take a look at it and see how we can support you. >> just one thing, thank you to this committee and to the chair

as well as senator shelby. we have dark days in 2013. the flexibility that you allowed us with regard to moving the people at the justice department don't have to be furloughed. it allowed the justice department to do the job under very trying circumstances. we would not have been able to do that without the flexibility that you gave us. on behalf of the hundred 13,000 men and women of the justice department of want to thank you, this committee, but you specifically. >> well, really we could not have done it had we not work on a bipartisan partnership and really with our colleagues. this is where we are trying to say, we're all in it together, we'll take the same of to the

constitution and to protect us. and so we thank you for that. here in the front nine. we will lease use you now and said if the question is related to the attorney general the record will be open. we ask them to respond in 30 days. you will go to the inspector general. >> i have several questions for the record, the attorney general . >> yes. >> the senator's right will be protected, as are others. we are really doing these hearings in six weeks. there are many that wanted to comes of the could. we now call upon the inspector general.

>> we are glad to see you. with senator shelby and i being

vigorous supporters of the inspector general, and we look forward to your testimony and your advocacy here. please proceed, sir. >> thank you, madame chairwoman, ranking member shall be, think you for inviting me to testify today and your continued strong support. it would be hard for me to overstate the importance of having appropriated budget this fiscal year that we can plan around them will enable us to rebuild our staff. moreover removing for low and shutdown threat provides a much deserved boost and the morale of our staff which has said from the perform that and externally high-level. our office has issued numerous reports for the department's budget and promote transparency and increase efficiency. just last month we report of the department's efforts to address

mortgage fraud, examine the operations of the organized crime drug enforcement task force fusion centered commodity fbi management terrorist watch list nominations and report on the efforts to improve acquisitions through strategic sourcing. and we continue to conduct extensive oversight of the department's harbor security effort and his national security initiatives. for example, we are reviewing the fbi implementation of its next-generation cyber initiative as well as the fbi's regional computer forensic laboratories, reviewing with three other inspector general's the u.s. government's handling and sharing of intelligence information leading as to the boston marathon bombing. we also continue our efforts to ensure obligations for muzzle blowers are reported, investigated, and handled appropriately. i am proud our efforts to resolve a recognized for certification from the office of special counsel. we will continue to foster an open and effective and garment for whistle blowers to come forward with information about

waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct. late last year in our annual challenges report we'll identify six areas protecting taxpayer funds, and hinting server security, safeguarding national security consistent with civil rights and liberties, ensuring effective and efficient law-enforcement command restoring confidence and integrity, fairness, and accountability of the department like to highlight the first two of those areas today. the crisis in the federal prison system continues today. during my testimony of for the subcommittee last year i discussed at length to enter related crises and a federal prison system. the first is the cause that continues to consume an ever larger share of the department's budget with no evidence that the cost curve is been broken. for example, the budget continues to increase of the last two years and an even faster rate than the department's budget.

moreover, while the number of department employees has decreased since the fourth 2012 the number of employees has increased one of every three department employees now works for the gop. in the past year the apartment has announced several new initiatives to address this challenge, but much will depend on the success of their implementation, which we will, of course, monitor. in connection with this challenge the department must consider its growing number of elderly inmates. from a flight attendant for 13 the population of inmates over age 65 increase by 31 percent of the population of inmates' 38 under decreased by 12%. this demographic trend is significant budgetary implications because older inmates of cairo care cost and they're more expensive to incarcerate. the zero ig is currently conducting a review in this important area. the other half of the prices which we discussed earlier today

is insuring the safety and security of staff and inmates in overcrowded federal prisons. despite having nearly $7 billion budget as of november, 2013 there are operating the facilities of approximately 36% of rated capacity. moreover, the inmate to a staff -- in may to a correctional officer ratio has remained an approximately ten the one for more than a decade. in 2005 the five largest correctional system said no more if the ratio of six to one. thus not only must the department evaluate the cost structure but also find ways to address capacity and staffing challenges. another fundamental responsibility of any budgetary environment. more than $35 billion in costs

and more than $4 million in taxpayer funds that could have been put to better use. the department must remain vigilant on the moneys it gives to third parties whether contractors or grants and make sure that they demonstrate that the money, the value that is being received is worth the money is being given out. let me turn briefly now to two areas of our effectiveness that i would like to address. providing strong and independent oversight of the ids ability to oversee the department is critical. for any oversight agency to be conducted effectively we must have complete and timely access to all records in our agency's position that we deem relevant to our ongoing reviews. this is the principal congress codified in section six. most of our artists are connected with full and complete cooperation. order, there been occasions when our office has at issues arrived

with timely access to certain records due to the department's view that access was limited by other laws. ultimately in each instance the attorney general or the deputy attorney general provided deal ig with permission to receive the materials and made clear there will continue to do so as necessary going forward terry however, requiring inspector general's to request and receive permission from department in order to review critical documents impairs our independence and can the lay of our work unnecessarily. stated simply, the inspector general act and the inspector general should be given prompt access to all relevant documents within the position of the agency. let me turn briefly to an issue finally that was discussed during my testimony last june. unlike inspectors general throughout the federal government our office does not have the authority to investigate alleged must come to the misconduct. in those instances inspector general has exclusive authority

to the department's office of professional responsibility. my office has long questioned the distinction between the treatment of agents to engage an alleged misconduct and those of department attorneys barry last month a report was issued that was critical of the lp our lack of transparency and recommended that congress and our office to investigate misconduct by doj attorneys. our office it is statutory and operational penance in the proper dentures in to return to the integrity of our investigations and that they occur through transparent and publicly accountable processes giving the allies say the ability to exercise jurisdiction of misconduct cases just as a dozen matters involving on attorneys would enhance the public confidence in the outcomes of these important investigations and provide our office with the same authority as every other inspector general. thank you. look forward working with the subcommittee in answering your questions. >> thank you, mr. horowitz, you and your team, such a great job.

tell me, how many employees steal have? >> about 405. >> and what is your budget? >> $86 million is our base, and we have asked for that for the next fiscal year plus 2 million in enhancements. >> so it would be 2 million more >> correct. >> we ask you to do a very important job overseeing $37 billion. i know senator shelby will be raising questions about access to records. ibook would welcome your insights. i'm going to go the cyber security, an area of keen interest to me. i have been an advocate. one of the things i fear is techno boondoggles. you know, we go through the fbi case filed. we understand the fbi -- excuse me, the fiscal 15 budget request

from justice is 722 million. how they are actually decreasing it. the threat is increasing you know that -- you said 130 open recommendations for improving the security of the department's system. could you comment on what you think or where you think appropriate in an open and public session so that we don't to pay debt guess you're. what would you think they need to do to improve there sires security? do you think it is money, management, or do you think it is i government-wide problem? i would like to hear your views. >> are 130 recommendations come from our audits which are obviously marked sensitive given the nature of the information.

generally they have involved the handling of configurations of systems blackout management of those systems. we have made a number of very specific requests and that outlined the issues that i think need to be addressed. i think generally it is a function of both the needs, additional needs potentially for the systems as well as the possibility of the requirement for additional personnel. we ourselves, for example, are struggling with both of those issues in a tightening budget environment making sure we have the right nike people as well as enough funding for the right systems, and so that's one of the things i've tried to do with our budget this year to catch up essentially for where we felt mind over the last two years. >> do you feel that the justice department is on time? >> the think it a number of

areas the department is to do a better job in implementing the recommendations we have made faster and killing and looking at them seriously and taking them seriously. the continued to push on that. the attorney general has supported that effort, and we will continue to press on that. >> you feel you had the support. again, i will come back. is it a resource issue, a consistent resource issue? senator shelby, gramm, others have raised sequester, slim down, shut down, furloughs, what is the issue here? we can't hire type people? >> i think it's probably a combination of both issues that you identified. the needs continually change. they are continually evolving. technology is continually evolving. the threats are continually evolving. that is one of the reasons we have undertaken the next several

initiatives review because congress has given a substantial amount might to the department to undertake an effort. that is a very significant part of the department's budget and the critical part of dealing with threats going forward. >> thank you. i'm going to turn to senator shelby. >> thank you, mr inspector general. i appreciate the work you're doing, your dedication. as the chairman said, we want to make sure the you have the tools to do your job. because the inspector general, whether it's at the justice department, in the pentagon, or whether we create the position for reason. you know this well. do you believe that you, the inspector general of the department of justice, should have to seek approval of the attorney general to access grand

jury documents or any documents relevant to ongoing investigations? >> i don't, senator. it is inconsistent, in my view. >> with your mandate. >> correct. >> because even though it's the justice department, it could be any department. if you have to go to the head of the department, the secretary, for example, a cabinet level position to approval is seeking it seems that could be under dire circumstances, an impediment to doing your job. >> well, and ultimately that's correct. ultimately letters that we have gotten from the attorney general giving us access have focused on finding the review is important to their oversight of the department. that sets it up in such a way that the oversight decisions, i think, should be made by inspector general, not by the secretaries are cabinets. >> have you been basically -- have you had unfettered access

to relevant documents? >> with regard to certain records, we have only gotten them after the attorney general or the deputy general have made -- >> have you had to jump through a lot of hoops. >> after we had to get a letter from them to the component informing them that they have the permission to give us. >> to you know if your fellow inspector general, said the department of state, the pentagon, agriculture, unit, commerce, do they have to jump through the soups? >> well, i understand that there is one inspector general at the peace corps, for example, who is trying to get records to do the oversight that congress expected in connection with sexual attacks on volunteers overseas that has an opinion from her general counsel indicating that the idea to not give her authority to look at those records. >> have you thought about whether or not perhaps we need to address this legislatively to

be direct on this to secretaries attorneys general, whoever they must furnish unfettered access to documents. otherwise you can't do your job. >> at think it's critical that inspectors general have that ability to make the decision for themselves and legislation obviously would clear it up entirely. it is a relatively small fix to my understanding legislation is always difficult to get enacted. >> well, it might not be that hard to get enacted with the chair of the appropriations committee. your nose. but i think we need to make sure under all circumstances that you and your fellow inspector general's have unfettered access to documents that could rip out wrongdoing in any department. >> i could not agree more,

senator. i think ultimately what is set up now is who should make that decision. the inspector general decides what's relevant and what is needed. >> use for an of to do that job. thank you, madam chair. >> we believe the inspector generals, this is a bipartisan approach that should have access to the information compliance with existing law. there are certain rules. you know, there's equal compliance and is access. that's one thing. second thing, i am familiar with this are becoming familiar with this peace corps situation. a young lady who was the peace corps volunteer saw another volunteer reportedly sexually assaulted or reported, and the peace corps server who reported it was murdered. well, this is big.

.. you come with an extensive background in sentencing and incarceration and something he read at the sentencing commission. yes sir go you come with hands-on experience in you see the good the bad and the