..

>> in a country with 11-12 million eligible voters there is still long lines of men and women in kabul and other cities that want a voting card. >> we should not judge the afghan election by the same standards we judge our own election. we have had 200 years of democratic evolution. this democracy is in its infancy. it will be the first peaceful hand off of power in afghanistan history. we want to not rush to judgment ahead of the people. it is there judgment to make whether the outcome is

creditable. we don't want to second guess their steps along the way. >> the drawdown in the number of international observers will have a sake psychological affect on the afghanistan and how the international community views it. so the reduction is unfortunate but it will not make a huge difference. there is enough observes there to do their job. the real story is this is an afghanistan election persuint to their observation. >> with the afghanistan presidential elections this weekend a look at what to expect. and live on booktv panels on gun

control, fracking, civil rights and politics from annapolis book festival. and talking to michael lewis and he looks at how wall street bankers are rigged the system in their favor. and u.s. policy in the middle east and your kanschance to tal bing west. and on american history tv, a visit to france positive taverage museum where general georgia washington bid farewell to officers. >> attorney general eric holder testified on the president's 2015 justice department request. it totals over $27 billion including $25 billion for

federal programs and the rest for state, local and tribeal assistance. this was the second hearing in two days. this hearing is about four hours. >> attorney general holder thank you for appearing before the committee this morning. before we begin, i want to mention that our thoughts today with the families and victims and survivors of wednesday's shooting at fort hood. at this hearing last year we spent a great deal of time discussing the victims of the terror attacks that occurred five years earlier. our thoughts are with the victim from this attack and from the earlier victims who this must be a painful reminder. the budget request for the

budget year 2015 is rather flat. it would continue efforts to restore hiring for vacant positions, your budget contains some gimmicks like $900 million of unspecified offsets from the department of law enforcement agencies. today we will discuss the potential impacts of the cuts to the federal law enforcement today. i want to recognize a few items up front where i appreciate steps you have taken particularly with regard to federal prisons. they was outset assessment and recommendation for reforming the prison system and i know that is important to you. i appreciate the department moved quickly on the grant

solicitation and i believe a reward will be made so the investigation can get started. this maybe the best opportunity if and missed it would be the best way to fix the prisons. i want to rebuild the system and put more inmates to work and get them job training. they are used positive steps with the benefits this committee provided. even getting all of the federal agencies to contract with the bureau of prisons is important. i want to address a number of critical issues on the jurisdiction of the justice department where i have been disappointed. you have bent the law to facilitate marijuana suppliers to access the banking system and also the gambling suppliesuppli.

i am concerned about the years of precedent regarding the wiring act. the decision was signed off in september of 2011, it was withheld from the public for months until friday before christmas in an apparent effort to bury the reversal. anything coming out on a friday before christmas, you have to wonder there is something not right. to date, no one knows what prompted the change and who requested it. but we do know the decision will open the flood gates to internet gambling. the society cost of gambling is documented and the easy accessibility on phones and

tablets 24 hours a day has the potential to create more gambling addicts than the country has ever seen. a college student will be able to go broke on their computer before their 8 o'clock class. and i am concerned with your relaxation of enforcement as well as your efforts to create a legal path for banking for marijuana distribution will be a horrible outcome for youth and society. just last week we heard the director of the national institute on drug abuse testified about the many negative consequences of relaxing the marijuana abuse laws. she was so impressive would you agree to meet with her?

would you agree to take time and sit down with her? >> sure. >> okay. thank you very much. i believe the failure to provide marijuana dealers access to bank accounts will result in more drug-related accidents and fatalities. i expect you are under a lot of pressure to facilitate the legal use of marijuana. but there is a direct correlation between the marijuana use and the health and safety problems. you have taken on marijuana and gambling but in other areas like sex traffics you have taken the opposite approach and prevent significant action from being taken to stop the internet facilitating of trafficking

young women and girls on websites like backpage.com. we held a hearing with a trafficking survivor, a fairfax county police officer who is working on this. this hit northern virginia and is hitting most areas of the country. the national center for missing and exploited children, and sydney mccain who helped elevate the issue in the media, all of the witnesses highlighted just how important it is for the government to confront the internet facilitation of sex trafficking if we are committed to ending this modern day slavery. we received your report i have urged how to write for years. the report provided good information about what statutoryy and reg lor tory changes need to be made to go

after the webites. however, i regret how long it has taken to give it the attention it needs. you have the ability to make an impact for the people trapped in this and i think you can feel good about it by moving on it. think of how many young girls and women, each someone's daughter, mother or sister, who have been victims of trafficking over the last fives years as the department hesitated to take voter action. today, i hope we can discuss the steps the department and congress need to take so they can make sure more years don't pass before action is taken. and another concern is this administrations narrow ininterpretin -- interpretereration of the military talk.

in most of the administrati min theying they -- this administration reads the law in a way that prevents the military to act against the al qaeda affiliates responsible for killing our ambassador and three others. the refusal to use the amuf is inexcusable considering michael moral said the cia said from the get-go al qaeda is involved in this attack. given the administration has known since the beginning and amuf allows the military to go after al qaeda terrorist.

can you argue they allow drones that injur our people but can't hurt the al qaeda member? your department is failing to assert pressure to have access to the terrorist. these are just a few examples of the department's selective enforcement of the law. you have the right to enforce the law whether it is poplar and unfortunately i believe the record falls short. we received your report on the implementation of new requirements to be applied for

hardware and systems coming from china. although the administration wasn't supportive of this effort to restrict purchases of questionable hardware i do appreciate the justice department appears to be taken the new requirements seriously and your report indicated the new process caught seven i perks precurements from six vendors were were associated with criminal activities, counter terrorism and others. end of quote. i appreciate the department moving so quickly on this to bolster the cyber security. i expect to have questions regarding prisons, cyber and the growing cyber threat of home and abroad. and the departments growing and evolving enforcement work for

priorities. i want to address the departm t department's failure to complay with the report that was signed into law a year ago. the fy 2013 bill required the department to provide 66 reports. to date over a year later the committee has own received half of these mandatory reports. there are 25 outstanding report and briefing from the fy 2013 bill and that doesn't include the additional reports that was signed into law earlier this year. there are already 18 reports in the 2014 bill that are overdo to the committee. with a workforce of 100, 000 employees i know the department has the capacity to write the reports but what is looking is

the will. these overdo reports will no longer be tolerated. i tend to withhold one million from every overdo report and they will be provided to agencies that replay with the requirements. with a current backlog of 43 reports this could be a reduction in fund for the department but the department is gi given fair warning this will be taken into account when the subcommittee determines the budget. i find it unfp that i have do this. at this time i yield.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. and attorney general holder, welcome to the committee. i sent the president and yourself a letter references the toyota settlement which was a knowled knowledged a couple weeks ago for 1.2 billion suggesting that the settlement could actually usher in a major opportunity to do something this administration is pointing do and everything everyone on the committee supported. we need to arrest the increase in the prison population. we need to do something about turning more young people into positive paths in our society. we are funding youth mentoring and getting closer to a hundred

million a year but we could take a settlement like that and similar to the bp matter and do something constructive. there are millions of young people not connected to any programs like the boys and girls club of america and big brothers and sisters. we could go through the laundry list of great organizations. but the point was that, you know, we cannot just complain about the increase in the prison population. it is rising to almost, i don't know, 7 million dollars in this year's budget request which is double what it was, just probably a decade or so ago. we have to do something about getting young people before they get themselves into circumstances that are problematic. and getting them headed in the

right direction. i would be very interested to hear your view on this. i have bipartisan leanly legislation that i have introdu introduces that talks about using settlements like this for medical research but i think the toyota settlement is an opportunity for whereas some of my republican friends say you don't need a law for everything. some things you can take executive action to do. i would be interested in your response this morning. i want to thank you. i know you did a department wide video in which you thanked chairman wolf and myself and count count counterparts in the senate in helping in the 2014 bill to lift the hiring freeze. it isn't every day members get

thanked for the work they do and i know it wasn't done for that purpose, but i want to acknowledge it. you have had a tremendous year and it is hard to follow the cr critcism because when i am hearing people talk about the law that allows us to go after terrorist the most aggressive way. and countries using all weapons at our disposal. so when i hear rand paul speaking and the chairman said you are not doing enough so i guess it is hard to find the right medium. but this administration has tracked down and delivered justice to terrorist. and you just had a huge success and i want to say congrats on

that. but most americans are not affected by terrorist attacks. they are affected by the people in their county. and for the 11,000 sex fugitives and 3400 drug operations that you rounded up. that the department for americans facing these kind of day-to-day challenge you have been everpresent and i want to thank you for the work you have done. we will have a hearing and talk through your budget and we will hear we have to spend billions for national security purposes and there is about 4 billion for core national security operation and 25,000 federal agents from the fbi to atf to dea.

the big number in there is this prison number that is ever growing. you have taken action inside the department and the committee and i worked together and he deserves the credit to put in this prison reform effort. and i think that the time shaha come for our country to think not just in the federal but the state system, too. there is a vicious cycle with intergenerational society and we are per peathis stereotype and could do more to get young people headed in the right

direction before they ever get themselves in any untoward circumstances. and that is an investment we should make. and i think you have with within your power to take action that could launch the most aggressive effort ever in our nation to do so. so thank you. and we look forward to your testimony today and i thank the chairman. >> mr. rogers. >> general, welcome to the committee. your request for the department is 27.7 billion. that is a slight 1% increase over fiscal '14 enacted. understanding the difficult budget strains you are operating particularly the rapidly escalating cost of the prison system we look forward to

hearing about the impacts of the funding level to the operational capabilities of the people on the front line in the prisons. these officers are concerned and as members of this committee we have a special responsibility to ensure we are prioritizeing the mission and tying the funding to the results. i am concerned about a number of proposals and misplaced priorities which undermine the integrity of the request. first, your budget proposes to absorb $937 million in mandatory pay and retirement increases and foreign operation expenses and gsa rent with unspecific quote administration reductions quote. i believe our colleagues on the

senate side refer to this tactic at smoke and mirrors. we will call it a bunnedget gimmick. you sent the budget over with a billion dollar hole that we have to find a way to fill. that is not a responsible approach to budgeting giving the responsibility to support personal with the tools and training and equipment necessary to care carry out anti-drug missions that keep the country safe. second, i regret that you will not find much support for the dozen new grant programs in the budget or any programs rejected by the congress in this year's

ominous bill. we need to support state and local partners but your request isn't placing a sufficient priority on the law enforcement or national security missions that are the keystones of your agency. beyond my specific concerns about the budget proposal, i would be remiss if i didn't register my concern that the administration has abdicating one of the chief responsibiliti responsibilities enforcing the law in the drug realm. your decision to allow distributors in washington state and colorado to dispense marijuana and your instruction to u.s. attorneys to deemphasis

marijuana prosecution. i am sure you understand that more than contributing to a terrible public health and law enforcement crisis, you are undermining the rule of law in the country when you pick and chose which laws you chose to enforce or not enforce. i hope and pray this doesn't leave a dark cloud on your legacy in this role particularly given our conversations about drug abuse in this country. this is running counter to the department's strides in recent years to beat the scores of prescription drug abuse that is crippling so many communities in the country. and i appreciate that you have

lent your voice to this cause engaging the law enforcement and public health communities, pardon me, particularly as we have seen a transition from opiates and pain killers to heroin in urban and rural areas alike. this is an alarming trend and we look forward to hearing from you doj is using their tools at their disposal to root out the bad actors whether it is street level dealers or the variety that wear a white coat. thank you for your time. we look forward to hearing for you. >> thank you. >> welcome. and before i begin i want to take a moment to send my c

sympathy to our friend at fort hood. all of our thoughts are with you. to the matter of hand, i thank you chairman wolf for holding to hearing and thank you attorney general for coming with us. you come to us with a budget request of $27.4 billion, a 1% increase over 2014. increases to the federal bureau of investigation and the bureau of alcohol tobacco firearm and explosives would continue to investigate criminals and crackdown those that use firearms. this is so critical. the security of our nations depends on adequate funding for these agencies. and the department combats terrorism and drug and weapons

traf trafffi traffics we most address the incarceration of young people falling off the right path and entering the juvenile and justice criminal system. i agree we must do a better job of focusing on rehabbing people so they can receive a punishment but treatments and resource toes have productive and law-abiding lives. i thank you for raising the serious need for reform of our critical justice system and note the budget supports $173 million for offenders that are low-violent and reentry programs and $100 million to the dna investigation and $35 million to

reduce the sex kit backlog. i have to bring attention as the only woman on this panel it is shocking to me and i cannot under it and i would like a detailed response how there could be 400,000 rapes and evidence are sitting in a box on a shelf, 400,000 rapes in this country! now many of the same guy could have been out there dozens of times but you don't have enough money or time this evidence, this dna evidence, is sitting on a shelf. i would like to follow-up on this and get a response. is astonishing to me. this isn't a third world country. 400,000 rapes have taken place and the evidence is in a box on the shelf.

lastly, i would be remiss if i didn't mention the work of the department to get the guns out of the hands from the dangerous people. 194 children have been shot to death since newtown. and as we saw at fort hood these acts of violence continue. there is no reason for these deaths and no defense for them. i stand with you ready to do whatever is possible to end these tragedies and make our communities safer. thank you. >> thank you ms. lowey. i want to welcome congressman judge carter who represented the area of fort hood. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i am joined by my colleagues roger williams and he also

represented fort hood and i am appreciating the fact the chair allowed him to sit in on this hearing. the incredible fort hood family, and i say that because they are incredible, have endured not one but two horrific shootings. the loss of life is more than we can bear and more than this or any other community deserves to bear. we cannot threat worst of humanity wield a gun in a mad rage against soldiers and defeat the best of humanity that is always on display at fort hood. sadly we are dealing with another tragic shooting at fort hood almost in the same place where 13 americans lost their lives in november of 2009. the death of three soldiers that

left 16 others is a reminder of the threat our military members are dealing with on a daily bases. each of these shooting strike at the soul of the american military. one of the things we sometimes don't know, many americans don't know or forget, is that the reason a soldier risks his life for his country, one of the major reasons, is he is fighting for the soldier on either side of him. they call each other battle buddies. they go to war relying on the fact the man that wears their uniform is there to protect them and they are there to protect him. and the strike by hasan and this soldier, the strike at the very core of what sold areiesoldiers.

18-20-year-olds go to war relying on the fact if an american uniform is with them, that person is protecting them. and when someone in your own uniform strikes you or your fell fellow soldiers it strikes at the very heart of what they believe in. these are much more important than a lot of us realize as affects the ability for americans to fight wars. i thank the chairman for letting me make a statement. i am asking i have been asking my fellow texans and americans to please keep the fort hood families in your prayers. you know, soldiers go to war together, families stay home alone. they may really be stronger than

the soldier they send to war. the coming days will be marked by mourning and a resolve to carry on. the resilient community of fort hood has proven their resilience and they will carry on to defend the great nation and we should never forget what they give for us. >> i see your colleague mr. williams has arrived. he represented the 25th district and is passionate about supporting the rules. non-committee members don't participate in hearing is the rule but we wanted to invite him to hear the testimony and with an opportunity to say a few words. so with that i ask unanimous consent that we can make a statement and his remarks be

entered into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you and thank you chairman rogers, ranking member lowey, chairman wolf, and members of the subcommittee, i appreciate you recognizing me and allowing me to give a short statement about an issue in my congressional district that is near to my heart. chairman carter as you heard earlier and i both represent fort hood, the army's instillation to train and premier heavy forces. we have seen a tragedy once again. once again we are witnesses the strength and resileiance of a community of brave men and women who serve our countries overseas and right here at home on military posts around our great nation. the attack left three of our service members dead and 16 wounded.

with the scars of the 2009 attack barely healed we are dealing with the horrors of an unspeakable tragedy. our prayers are with the fallen troops, those injured, and the families of all those involved. our thoughts are with the fort hood community as they stand together and push through. we pray for the medical team assisting as well. these were attacks on the troops and the values the soldiers defend. in 2009, we lost 14 americans. dozens were injured and hundreds of lives were greatly altered forever. the pentagon labelled it as workplace violence like a

disgruntled employee taking out his anger but the evidence in the trial proved otherwise. nidal malik hasan admitted his intent was to hurt soldiers after he switched sides. he told the jurors he supports the taliban. hasan was waving a red flag to show it was a terrorist attack. this workplace label is wrong. no one in american things this was a workplace violence. the victims of this attack have been denied the benefits, treatments and rewards their counterparts get when wounded and killed overseas.

we should award them the purple heart and the civilian victims medal because both awards provide special comp comp ensatd the benefits withheld to them. we will never forget the attacks and the family members they left behind. so my god bless all of the fort hood community during this mourning and may those victims and families receive the justice they have earned and deserved. i yield back my time. >> pursuant to the authority granted in section 191 of title 2 of the united states state in house rule 11 today's witness will be sworn in before testifying. please rise and raise your right hand. [swearing in] and raise your right

hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about >> thank you. i look forward to hearing from you. i ask you to summarize your results but you can proceed as you see appropriate. >> good morning chairman wolf and ranking member lowey and members of the subcommittee i want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. highlight the president's fiscal year (fy) 2015 budget for the u.s. department of justice - and to discuss the department's recent achievements and future priorities. i would also like to thank you for your leadership in securing the passage of the consolidated appropriations act for fy 2014, which restores justice department funding to pre-sequestration levels - and even adds funding for key priorities. in the financial sector concerns have been raised about a

practice called high frequency trading that uses data networks to execute trade and it has received scrutiny from regilators. i can conform we at the department of justice are investigating this practice to determine if it violates insider trading laws. the department is committed to follow the investigation wherever the facts and law lead. as i indicated yesterday, i have directed the full resources of the doj and the fbi be available to help conduct a thorough

federal investigation as we keep striving to achieve justice by working to determine what happened and bringing help and healing to chose that need it. my colleagues and i will do everything in power to prevent thes far to common tragedies from happening again. and we remain steadfast in protecting the national security and seek accountable for those that seek to harm the nation's people. we never doubted the report system to administer justice swiftly in this case as it has hundreds of other cases and this outcome vindicates the approach

and lays the political debate to rest. the president's request would strengthen the work by inest having in the counter terror department and $15 million in funding to operate the terrorist center in alabama. and it would provide 173 million dollars to support the criminal justice system to make it more effective, efficient and fair. this will enable to us to invest in the outstanding work by dedicated attorneys and departments litigating divisions and united states attorney offic officers. it department collected $8 million in civil and criminal fines and penalties. this is double the approximately

3 million in direct appropriati appropriations that pay for the offices. the department collected a combined total of 21 billion a record amount for a two-year span. and in recent months we obtained a series of res solutions and taken other actions to ensure we are serving as sound stewards of taxpayer dollars and protecting consumers from fraud. we had a settlement last week with jp morgan for federal and state claims to the process. as part of the ongoing efforts to hold accountable those behaviors of the mortgage criess

we filled a complaint on s&p. and we reached an agreement with toyota and just yesterday we announced a record $5.5 million settlement with another organization for environmental cleanup and claims. this represents the largest recovery of a cleanup of contam nation in the history of the department of justice. it holds the companies responsible for actions and years of actions. it is another critical step to protect the american people from fraud, corporate misconduct and safeguarding the environment. i am eager to work with passing the president's budget which is

$27.4 billion in resources and $25.3 for vital federal and 2.1 billion for state, local and tribal assistance programs. this support is essential to ensureing we can protect the american people and stregthen the criminal justice system. the fiscal year 2014 marks a critical year in the prison imp imp imp implementation. the government is working with the states to overcome challenges and established a pre-resource center to assist with the implementation and we

are confidant results are sustainable. i want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss this work for you and i want to thank chairman wolf for his leadership and support of the department's work and our efforts to combat the heinous crime of human trafficking. mr. chairman i have come to value your advocating and your high regard from a making our work possible. your expertise and public safety efforts. you were our savior in 2013 and have been invaluable to the department over had years and upon your retirement at the end

of the year you will be greatly missed. >> i am going to limit my question to one or two and we will get at the end as the others. one, on the issue of the prison reform, the committee has the committee who commissioned the chuck olsen bill, can you tell us the status of that? the quicks that moves we have appear opportunity to bring all sides together and because of your support i think there is an opportunity. so can you give us an update on where that is and how quickly we can get it moving? >> i think the effort in the initiative makes a great deal of sense. it is one that we certainly support and it is an important part of your efforts to improve

the federal correction system. there is a task force that will have a benign bipartisan panel that is made up of individuals with correctional reform and justice. we will focus on practical data dri driven ways in which we can increase public safety. we anticipate this is something we will be able to put in this relatively soon. it enjoys my support and the support of the people in the department to the extent we can work with you to make sure we keep the work of the task force on course and respond in a timely way. this is consistent with what we are trying to do with our smart on crime initiative and i think it can have a profound impact on how we do the federal

corrections work. >> thank you. on the human trafficking, i have a lot of questions. could you describe the department's work on human traffics and the kind of cases you are seeing and could you talk about how we can eliminate -- the whole issue of backpage.com comes up at every hearing and all of the groups working on this issue believe if we cannot deal with the issue of backpage.com and groups like that week we cannot deal with the issue. can you tell us with the department is particularly in regard to the website >> there is $44 million for the department to combat sex traffics. this is something we take very personally. the civil rights division and

the united states attorney office brought 161 force labor and sex traffics prosecutions in the fiscal near 13 and that is a 25% increase and the highest number of human trafficking cases on record. i share the concern you have about that page. and about other similar p publications. there are first uh meamendment regulations that have to be taken into account if there are legislative issues to deal with this. i would like to work with you to deal with this legislate veive deal with there first uh mend meaamendment responsibilities we would have to look at. when one looks at what appears on those pages and others like

it, a legislative and enforcement response is totally appropriate. >> the last question is last year the department was directed to follow the lead of the fbi to keep distance from individuals or associations associated with terrorism. director comy testified this policies was enforced throughout the fbi. can you confirm such a policy has been implemented for you all. >> there is not a specific plan. we don't have a formal relationship with care. i cannot say cat gorically we don't have meetings among the various united states attorney offices around the country where

members of the organization might be present but no formal relationship with care. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. let me tell you congrats again on the settlements that you mentioned. i want to talk about the toyota settlement. toyota is a big supporter of youth mentoring. i have sent you a letter on this. and i would like to have you comment on that. >> you have been a leader in supporting these vital programs. as you indicated we had meetings to talk about this question of youth mentoring and i share your concerns about keeping our young people both safe and productive and have them interact with positive role models. few too many of our young people

don't have positive adult menstores and role models in their lives. i know that i have staff that is reviewing your legislative proposal and i commit to getting back to you with what our views are on your ledgeilatigislation. we want to look at the fines and settlements we are bringing in and making best use of them. i think your legislative proposal is interesting. if you would give us time to look at it. >> as my republicans colleagues say you don't need a law for everything. i have a bipartisan support and we have every important legislation in the country supporting it and i hope we can pass it in the congress some day. but in the meantime, when the department is coming to terms, like for instance in the toyota

matter, like in the bp sett settlement, the fine could be in place and it could be directed and require the congress to act. when you take the legislation and you want to expand mentoring programs and there are six or more million young people who could use positive intervention and are not connected to any of these programs. some programs are expanding. first-c is a good example. they raised over $8 million and are going from 5600 schools to well over 11,000 schools. boys and girls club has doubled the number of clubs around the country. but we still need to do a lot more. so i am suggesting rather than the president saying that you know, this is going to be a year of action.

here is an opportunity in which you don't need to get 218 votes into the house, or 50 plus one in the senate, that the doj itself could act. and in concept with your responsibilities and your other stated goals which is to eliminate this cycle and stop building the prison systems. you have to have victims so if we could intervene earlier, it would make sense. i appreciate the fact the legislate veive proposal is goio be reviewed and i hope we get a fair hearing on that bill. i am suggesting we could act sooner than that. >> we will look and see what degree of discretion we have. i would note when it comes to the distribution of the bp money

that was pursuant to the legislative enactment that senator landry was instrumental in getting passed >> we do have other members so i will leave it. but there are numerous circumstances where money is directed. the toyota dollars are going to be in a hole. there is no purpose or resitution to them. they are not appropriated dollars and are not taxpayer dollars and they were not expected. so in a sense among the leadership of toyota to settle the matter. i am saying here is an opportunity to impact the lives of millions of young people and it can be done in a way in which we don't have to go through the

normal process in which the whitehouse tries to get an ini initiatiini initive passed through the congress. >> we will examine it and i look forward to working with you. the desire that you have is one that i share, and we share and we will work together on what the mechanisms might be. >> mr. rogers? >> mr. attorney general, i want to talk to you about prescription drug abuse. our favorite subject. we have real changes in the war, if you will, in the last few days. when the fda, after ten years of pushing by the dea and attorney general and me and others, finally upscheduled vicodan and loratabs from schedule three to

schedule 2 which is significant because a schedule ii drug requires a written prescription, can't be called in and there is no automatic refill, harsher penalties and trafficking and so forth. so it was a big-time victory for the fight against prescription drug abuse. the ... escription drug abuse, by the center for disease control calls a national epidemic, and which you recently said is an urgent public health crisis. with which i agree with you. but the day after fda rescheduled -- upscheduled these hydrocodone drugs, like oxycontin, the next day, inexplicab inexplicably, fda voted -- the fda director allowed the sale of

zohydro, a new, extremely poetent, ten times oxycontin's strength, is to be released with no abuse deterrent characteristics.tent, ten times strength, is to be released with no abuse deterrent characteristics. when we had a problem with oxycontin, finally the manufacturer agreed to make it under a new formulation. that is sort of like a gel or a gummy substance, can't be shot up or crushed or misused. like it had been. killing thousands. they then people then switched illicit use to opana, until it was reformulated, and now they're switching to heroin, because it's cheaper and all of that. and you can't get it -- you can't get a high -- you can't use opana and oxycontin like you used to for a high, crushing the 12-hour release into a single explosive use.

but zohydro, hydrocodone, opioid, ten times more powerful than oxycontin will be available in its regular form, which can be crushed and shot up, and kill. the fda's advisory commit a on this question, should we or not voted 11-2, no. they said. we're worried about the impact of this drug on people who don't know its power or its adiktability, and consequently they die from an overdose. can you ten me out, am i missing something? why did the fda do this? and what can we do about it? and what do you think? >> let me first say as i've indicated previously, and had talked about more recently, the

concern i have and that i share it with you about opioids and where they are ultimately leading our country. they are -- their abuse in and of themselves have had a devastating impact on our country. and the chain that we see developing between the use of opioids, misuse of opioids and the now growing heroin problem is one that i think we cannot ignore. i'm only familiar with the decision of the fda on the basis of what i read in the newspapers. and i need to understand it a little more. i'm a little baffled, given the progress, as you've indicated, with regard to the reformulations of other substances that had been abused. that were changed, such that crushing them no longer made them -- you could no longer use them in the way that they had been used where people were becoming addicted. this is something i have to examine a little more, get a little more understanding of what the decision was.

but if it is inconsistent with the efforts that we have painstakingly put in place, that is something that would give me great concern. and i just, as i said, i need more information to understand what happened. but i have to say that i do at least hear your concerns about that decision. >> well, i appreciate that. the pattern that we've seen so far in opioid abuse, first oxycontin which exploded in my district, i think probably ground zero for the country, 10, 12 years ago, finally we were able to bring it under control of oxycontin by the reformulation of the medicine. and then, as i've said before, opana took over, and then it -- it was reformulated. and now, zohydro, which fda says, oh, well, we'll put labeling on the bottles where it won't be abused.

we'll have instructions to doctors, and so on. it would be very restricted in who can use it and so forth. that was said about oxycontin 12 years ago. then we started to -- had to start going to emergency rooms and seeing kids die. and i fear that this zohydro in straight pill form, you can crash it and shoot it up, chew it, whatever, will be abused just like oxycontin was. and we're going to see more young people die. and so i urge you to put this on your front burner. i know it is already. you've been very helpful, in fact you and i talked about efforts you and i made in south florida in broward county florida, in shutting down the pill mills, which was furnishing 90% of the nation's illicit oxycontin.

and did a marvelous job with the u.s. state attorney down there and the governor in putting an end to it. but this one could be another oxycontin, except this one is ten times more powerful. >> again, mr. chairman, i need -- i guess i want to get some better understanding of what was behind the decision. but i think the concerns that you have raised are legitimate ones. especially given the progress that we have made. i would not want to see us take a step backwards. and we'll be checking with the fda to see if we can better understand what the basis for that decision was. or if there's some understanding or misunderstanding that i have about why they did what they did. >> i hope you can do more than just check with them. could you tell us that you will get back with us with a report on on where we stand with it,

and what we can do about it? >> i will interact with the fda, and then will report on that interaction back to you, and to chairman wolf and the ranking members, as well. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i agree with the chairman. and boy, you move quickly. about two years ago you were down in south florida and you did a great job. you really -- and if you could do the same thing here, you get an a-plus and that would be very good. >> we had a significant hearing with mr. rogers. >> yes, you did. >> i remember that. >> that's an understatement. >> well, mr. attorney general, i'd like to give you an a-plus, too. >> will the gentle lady yield briefly? >> of course. >> you know, at that hearing we were hollering about broward county, florida, being the place where most of the pills were coming from, oxycontin. and we asked the attorney general in a modest way to investigate, and see if he could put a stop to it. and we kept referring to broward

county and i said finally, do you want me to spell broward county? well, i got a note from the attorney general, maybe six or eight months later, after they had gone in there and really cleaned up the mess, and he was describing what they had done down there and he put a handwritten p.s. note at the end saying, p.s., i learned how to spell broward county, florida. >> thank you. mr. attorney general, i want to give you an a-plus, too. following up on the issue i referenced before. as i mentioned, there are an estimated 400,000 rape kits sitting in police department evidence rooms which have gone untested. with the cost starting at $500 and many substantially higher, many communities are months, if not years, and in some cases decades, behind on testing the rape kits. in the meantime, violent

criminals are free, victims remain fearful that their assailant might never be found. this is truly outrageous. i think you probably are aware that new york city eliminated its backlog in 2003. they had 17,000 untested kits. the arrest rate for the rapists went from 40% to 70%. now the budget request includes funding, both for the dna initiative, as well as a new grant program designed to help communities identify the obstacles they face in handling evidence of rapes, and testing rape kits. can you tell us how will the newly proposed grant program address these needs? what makes it different from the dna initiative, which is already up and running? >> well, first let me say that the whole question of dealing with sexual assaults is one that is a priority for this

department. and for this administration. we're dealing with the issue in a variety of contexts, both on the campus, for instance. we have a task force that is dealing with the issue there. and this question of reducing the backlog on rape kits is something that is extremely critical. this is, in some ways, the best evidence that we have. this is state-of-the-art evidence that exists. it is dna evidence. and so the budget requests that we have made is in an attempt to really speed up the process by which we look at this backlog that exists in a variety of jurisdictions, and give assistance to those jurisdictions so that they can do the necessary analysis, make the necessary hits that i think inevitably flow from them, and be more successful in the prosecutions. the statistics that you show are really -- that you mention are not surprising. that you have better evidence,

if you have dna evidence, which is the gold standard when it comes to evidence, i expect that you would see conviction rates start to rise. this is money that we want to have as part of the doj budget. it is money that we want to push o out. we also know that rapists tend to opt to do -- commit rapes more than once. so we're looking at the possibility of solving more than one case. we're also looking at the possibility of -- so we have the possibility we have within our hands the ability to have a real impact on the crime rate with regard to rapes. so it's not only a question of solving crimes that have already occurred. we can also prevent further ircrimes from occurring. >> thank you. one other question. i am a strong supporter of:v

background checks system a requirement for purchases, the system itself has to work and it has to rely on the best information available. secretary hagel recently announced that the deadly navy yard shooting could have been averted if information about the gunman had been made available. the report stated that superiors decided not to inform the government of the gunman's, quote, emotional, mental or personality condition, even after they received concerns that he could harm others. secretary hagel's review found that the gunman would have lost access to his position, and the secure area. but it still leaves the problem that he walked into a store, after these demons were known, purchased a deadly firearm, now 12 people are dead. and while it is too early to draw any conclusions, the commander at ft. hood has said that the shooter had behavioral

and mental health issues and was receiving treatment, though he was recently able to purchase a firearm. could you share us what tools are authority does the nic system need in order for it to represent in realtime the most accurate information and mental health histories for those seeking to purchase a firearm. >> well, let me start by saying that more generally i think that as a nation we should support the commonsense proposals that the administration made after the sandy hook tragedy. and come up with these ways in which we might support these commonsense gun safety measures. when it comes to dealing with the whole question of mental health issues, and the acquisition of firearms, we have recently proposed a regulation that seeks to clarify who, due to mental health reasons, is

prohibited from receiving, possessing, shipping, or transporting firearms. the revised definition that we have proposed clarifies that the statutory term adjudicated as a mental defective and committed to a mental institution would include a broader range of people. so that people with mental health issues, and there are at least preliminary indications that might be the case with regard to the shooter, most recent shooter at ft. hood, that people who suffer from mental issues don't have the ability, capacity to acquire these weapons and so that regulation that we have proposed we think will go a long way to dealing with that issue. but i also think it is something that we as a society have to ask ourselves again the more general questions, and then the more specific one with regard to how do we deal with the whole question of mental health, and the secretary amendment rights that we all enjoy as united

states citizens. >> just following up, what are the next steps that congress should take to open up the nic system so that those who pose risks to others are more quickly entered into the system? >> well, the way in which i think we can do this, we have $182 million in our budget, our now is the time initiative to ensure that those who are not eligible to purchase or possess guns are prevented from doing so. so this budget proposal, $35 million to sustain critical investments in 2014, $13 million for the national -- fbi's national criminal background check system, nics, and $28 billion for criminal firearms program to our budget will give us greater capacity for the system to take in more information, to process it faster and to make those kinds of on-the-spot determinations of

who should and who should not be allowed to obtain a weapon.thos determinations of who should and who should not be allowed to obtain a weapon. and so the passage of our budget will bolster our ability, enhance our ability and make the nics system much more robust. >> i'm going to go to dr. harris but i just want to, this area, the mentally ill owe fentder treatment and crime reduction act was bipartisan approach to better addressing with mental illness the criminal justice system. it's been around for ten years, gives little support, quite frankly, from the administration, and unfortunately the administration budget proposes funding for the mentally ill offender treatment and crime reduction act be eliminated and instead combined into a drug and mental health courts program which would effectively exclude 60% of the key elements and programs. so i think the administration's taking the wrong position to really propose the consolidation.

i ask you to find of think about that as you're kind of -- as you work through this budget. dr. harris? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. secretary, for being here with us today. let me follow up a little bit on what the chairman, and the subcommittee and committee both mentioned, basically controlled substance abuse. and particularly, about the enforcement of the controlled substance act. obviously a decision was made in the department of justice not to enforce the controlled substance act broadly in states that have legalized recreational marijuana. so i'm just going to ask, where -- where was the medical expertise that you used in making that decision? i mean i assume you didn't spread that decision to other control 1 drugs, quaalude, ecstasy, heroin, so was there a medical decisionmaking process into selecting that drug for selective enforcement that schedule i drug? >> what i say is we still enforce the controlled substances act.

but we made this a law enforcement decision. >> right, that's right. so making that law enforcement decision to pick out one controlled -- one schedule i drug as opposed to the other ones, was there medical input in to that? it's just a simple question. do you have medical input within the department? >> what we made was a law enforcement decision as to how we were going to use the limited resources that we have -- >> well, thank you. so, i'm going to urge that you take up the chairman of the subcommittee's offer to sit down and meet, you know, dr. volkau testifying in front of the subcommittee calls marijuana part of a complex and evolving public health threat. i don't know, mr. secretary, if you're aware, but if you talk about teenagers, 15.6, one in six teenagers, has used marijuana in the last month. only 9.6% have used tobacco. if you look at 12th graders, 6.5% use marijuana every day. only 2.2% use alcohol every day.

wow. that's a public health threat. and you know, the importance of signals can't be underestimated. so i'm going to ask you, do you agree with the president that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol? >> well, i think the president's remarks in that regard were taken a little bit out of context. you have to read the entirety -- >> he said marijuana is less dangerous in alcohol in terms of its input on the individual consumer. do you agree with that? >> as i said you have to keep reading what the president said. and he -- >> that's what he said, mr. secretary. i'm quoting what he said. >> could we let the witness answer the question? >> if you want to yield me some of your time -- >> i'll be glad to yield you time. just allow him to answer. >> then i will take you up on that offer later to yield me the time to finish my questions. thank you. mr. secretary, go ahead. because i thought i read it in the context in which he said it. >> there were further remarks which i don't have in front of me that were a part of that same interaction, i guess, he had with a reporter, tv reporter, i'm not exactly sure who it was. >> new yorker. >> new york magazine. he talked about how the use of

marijuana was not a good thing, it was something that he would not -- he's not advocating for, so in that regard, i think the president had it right. we are -- we looked at -- we looked at the limited federal enforcement resources that we have. we try to make determinations about how we can most effectively deal with them. we set out a series of eight factors that indicated how we would look at marijuana enforcement efforts around the country. and we focus on things like preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors. that is one of the eight factors that we take into consideration. >> thank you. and you know, the administrator of the dea testified there were those eight factors. do you agree with the president or do you agree with the director of the national institute of drug abuse that marijuana is quote part of a complex and evolving public health threat? do you just agree with that statement? it's not a complicated question. do you agree that it's part of a complex and evolving public

health threat? >> i think that the -- what we have done, the way in which we are looking at those laws in washington and in colorado, the enforcement authorities that we have set out, i think that what we are doing makes a great deal of sense. it is a good use of the enforcement resources that we have. and i think it's consistent with the general approach that we have taken with regard to narcotics enforcement efforts. >> okay so i take it you won't answer the question. i can't blame you, because it would be all over the press tomorrow. you we know what the attorney general's opinion is on the danger of main juana. let me talk briefly about two other issues. $182 million in the initiative to reduce gun violence in your testimony you say there's -- it's not certain that's where it comes from. there are grants to quote encourage development of innovative gun safety technology. is that part of that pot of $182 million? >> i believe it is. >> okay it also says other parts of your testimony the budget

request, $143 million to help state and local governments to continue to implement the administration's proposals for increasing firearms safety. that's separate, i take it? >> i'm not sure exactly how it is -- how it is constructed -- >> if you could get back to me about that. those grants to encourage the development of innovative gun safety technology where do they come from? where do they go to? where do they come from? which part of the department of justice and where do they go to as a competitive bid process -- competitive proposal process. is it worked out with nih, cdc, actually some public -- i don't -- is it mechanical issues, studies? i don't understand what the money is spent for. >> well i mean i think that one of the things that we learned in when we were trying to get past those commonsense reforms last year, vice president biden and i had a meeting with a group of technology people and talked about how guns can be made more safe by making them either

through fingerprint identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon. so it's those kinds of things that i think we want to try to explore so that we can make sure that people have the ability to enjoy their second amendment rights while at the same time decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things that we see on a daily basis. you know, where people, kids especially, are struck down by -- >> sure. no one wants that to occur. and you know we looked at that in the state of maryland well over ten years ago, and i just would like, and i'll submit a question for the record to actually separate out how much you intend to spend on those grants to gun safe technology. just finally one very brief question. you asked for an increase in federal civil rights enforcement division. i'm going to assume, and maybe

i'm incorrect, is that the division that actually was in court against the voucher program in louisiana? school voucher program? was that -- was that out of civil rights division? >> you -- not correct. that was not the division that was doing anything of that nature in louisiana. we were seeking to get from the state of louisiana information about their voucher program. never, ever took the position that we were against vouchers. >> is that the division that went into court in louisiana to ask for that information? these are not complicated questions, mr. secretary. >> no. they're answers that i -- >> i'm sorry, mr. attorney general. >> what i was saying is that we never sought to do anything with the voucher program, as much as to get information -- >> okay, is -- >> and which a federal judge ultimately agreed with us, and we worked out something with the state. it's a talking point that governor jindal and others, i guess you, think makes good political fodder. but it's totally inconsistent

with -- >> mr. attorney general -- >> inconsistent with fact. >> mr. attorney general, i'm going to take issue with that. >> well, as i -- >> i actually care about the education of children as governor jindal does. and to suggest that we use talking points any more than you use talking points is personally something i think should be above the level. to just have suggested that i'm actually using a talking point, mr. attorney general, you used federal money to go in to a state court, to try to hinder, hamper, disable, a school voucher program the majority of which goes to minority students. so i'm going to just take issue with our characterization of a talking point because we should use children, especially minority children, you can shake your head all you want, maybe you disagree that we shouldn't use minority children as wed wedges -- i just can't tell you how frustrated i am that you think that minority children in louisiana getting an education

in a charter school are talking points. i yield back the balance of my time. >> first off it was in a federal court not a state court. the judge, a federal judge, agreed with us that we were entitled to the information that we sought, and we were clear in the interaction that we had with the state that we took no position with regard to the voucher program. we only sought information about how the program was being run, and how it affected a long-standing statewide anti-discrimination settlement that had been in place for years. simply that. s simply that. >> mr. schiff? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. attorney general, for being here. many of us greatly appreciate your willingness to come and your testimony, and regret when members don't give you a chance to ask the questions that they purportedly want to hear the answers to. i wanted to follow up on my colleague miss lowey's comments on the dna rape kit backlogs,

and thank you, justice department, along with this committee, was very helpful in los angeles, when we had backlog problem at the lapd, and l.a. sheriff's office with more than i think 10,000 rape kits, and with your help we were able to clear that backlog. more than that i know when you took office there was a tremendous backlog in offender dna. and through the introduction of new technologies, investment resources, you've been able to essentially eliminate the offender dna backlog, and that's critical, also, in rape cases, if -- if you go ahead, and you test the rape kits they're only going to be as effective as the offenders that match them in the database. so eliminating that federal backlog is very important, and we greatly value your efforts to eliminate the backlog in the states, as well. he wanted to ask you about the metadata reform. and i know you've been spearheading the effort to find a new model for how that -- we

could get the information we need to protect the country, make sure we maintain our privacy protections. and i think the plan the president announced a week or so ago was exactly the right direction to go in. the one difference, i think, substantial difference between what the president has proposed, and now a bipartisan proposal of the intelligence committee, is that the administration's proposal would have the court review or request to query the telephone companies on a suspect number before the search is done. in the absence of an emergency or exigent circumstances. i think that's the wrong approach. there is a bill from the committee now that would require the -- or that would allow the government to go to the providers before getting court approval. but as i understand, the administration's already put into practice the provider court

approval. we've had now the benefit of some weeks of experience with that and i wanted to ask you, have you noticed any problems with that? have there been any difficulties? and if not, does it make any sense to move backward to a model where you can search without getting prior court approval? >> i think that the proposal that -- or the new processes that we are using have proved to be effective. we go to the court first in order to -- you know, the reasonable articulable suspicion, standard, get the information that we need. we only use two hops now, instead of three. and i think, i've not heard any negative reports. so i have to say that i agree with the legislative proposal that you have made, and is consistent with what the president talked about, about our need to have that emergency capability. for the ability, as we have now, in a variety of other fisa circumstances, the ability to get information on an emergency basis with collapse some

subsequent court approval, and review. just to ensure that we can have all the tools that we need to keep the american people safe, and to deal with those emergency situations, where they might arise. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. mr. chairman, do i have time for another question? [ inaudible ] >> then i yield back. >> and i just want -- i'm going to miss the vote. i want to defend dr. harris. i think the charter schools tuitions, the voucher, is really important. i've been in some of the schools in the district of columbia. it is making a difference. in my old neighborhood in philadelphia where mr. fattah knows well, that's an opportunity for kids in the inner city to get an education. i was the first in my family to go to college. an education gave me, so i think mr. harris, dr. harris is passionate about that, and so, in defending dr. harris, i think

that's what he was concerned about. we don't have to go into it. >> let me just make clear, my only point was, that what happened in the court case in louisiana was not about charter schools. not our view of charter schools. we can certainly debate about charter schools, support them, whatever. that's not of any consequence to me or the department of justice. we were seeking information about charter schools that dealt with a court order, a long-standing discrimination court order. >> i just want to -- >> mr. chairman? i just think it probably would not be a need for a hearing action if there could just be a normal question and an answer. i think the fact that the rush kind of increased the heat unnecessarily, because i think that the answer would have been sufficient to dr. harris' question. and i appreciate dr. harris. i told him privately he's been one of the most committed members of the subcommittee. >> i agree. >> but when we ask a witness a question, the witness has to

have a chance to answer the question. and then we can have, you know -- >> well i agree with that. but i know he -- he's been one of the better members we've had. and i know he's passionate on the issue and i think we all, fwrangly, we want a congress full of people who care. not just people who want to get here to do nothing. and he cares. and so i just wanted to defend dr. harris. with that i'm going to stay. there is a vote on, but it's previous question out of respect for the attorney general. dr. carter, and then judge carter we'll kind of go, but i'm going to stay so we can continue that way you won't have to -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was going to ask if we were going to take a break for the vote or not. >> well, i can catch you as you come back. you won't miss your time. so you can do what you think is appropriate. >> well, i have a pretty extensive question here and i would hate to miss the vote. >> okay. >> so i'd like to step out, vote and come back. >> sure.

>> if anyone, mr. schiff do you want to ask your question now? you can do it. because i think there's still six minutes left. >> there's time for your final question. >> okay. >> okay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the candid discussion we had here just awhile ago. and i welcome mr. attorney general. appreciate your work, also. the question i have was around the immigration. and in your testimony you've referenced your work on addressing the immigration backlog. and you're applying some money to it because the cases that we have right now on adjudication by about 40%, 42% between '09 and 0 twelve but the number of immigration judges crew only by 11%. so, i understand that you want

to use some of the money to upgrade and increase the number of immigration judges, and i understand that even if we upgrade them today, there's so many who are in line to retire, so my question is, you know, how many judges can be looking at, how will it reduce the backlog? and is there a plan to, you know, backfill with the ones in line for retirement? >> we certainly need -- we need more immigration judges to deal with the pending case load. if you look at the number of pending cases it's continued to increase to 358,000, that's an increase of 56% since 2009. our highest priority of cases deals with people who are detained to have criminal convictions. now our proposal, the

president's budget request, would allow us to add 35 new immigration judge teams at $17 million in order to do that. those immigration teams would be able to adjudicate between 20,000 and 39,000 more cases annually. and so we're looking at an increase of 35, and that would be the number that we would want to maintain, which would also mean that to the extent that people are retiring or leaving the bench we would want to replace those, as well, so that we have a net increase of 35, and try to get at that backlog. >> so the increase in the cases and the subsequent backlogs, is that as a result of paying more attention to the lower part of the morton memorandum where we say we want to go after folks who are law -- you know, not law abiding and leave alone the rest of the folks on that morton

memo? >> well, i'm not sure that i can say what exactly has generated the backlog, but it is there. it's extremely real. i mean you know 358,000 is an unacceptably high number. >> sure. >> it leads to resolutions that occur way too far from a time -- from the time that we would like to have them occur. you know, asylum cases take significantly longer to resolve than cases in which removal is not requested, and so those are very time consuming kinds of matters. but it's clear that we simply need more bodies. when i say immigration judges we're actually talking about immigration teams. the judges and all the people who support them. >> so when we talk about immigration judges, and cases we're talking about not only criminal, but we're also talking about asylum issues, and deportation? >> right. we're looking at the full panoply of things that immigration judges have to deal with.

>> so if -- as many deportation cases that i've heard about does not go through a court process, it sounds like, and it feels like that they're denied that process in terms of being adjudicated before they're decided whether you're going to deport them or not. whether they fit some of the executive orders that we say we can keep some folks here or not, or whether some of the folks are dream youngsters and their parents are being deported, whether we want to use -- put them through the adjudication process to see whether they should stay or not. is that all part of the caseload or is that separate? >> well, i think, you know, the caseload is varied. as i said there are asylum cases, there are cases involved detained aliens who have criminal convictions. there are, you know,

unaccompanied minors that we have to deal with. we have a program that we're trying to put in place so that they get adequate representation. there are a whole variety of cases that immigration judges have to deal with, and the issue at base is simply we need more immigration judges, and that's why that request is in the budget. >> thank you. in that process did we provide any kind of training or assistance to those who are noncitizens in terms of having them understand the process of our judicial system so that they're properly handled? and do we have hang considerations when they're being worked with? or going through the process so that they understand their rights and the things that are going on? >> i know that we have tried to make efforts to deal with the language issues that exist for people who find themselves in

our immigration system. it is something that we have tried to focus attention to, and resources on. you cannot have a meaningful process unless somebody understands what it is they are -- what they are in the middle of. so we've had to try to increase our language capability, and that is also something that is -- that is costly because we're dealing with, you know, predominantly maybe one or two languages but the reality we deal with a variety of language capabilities that we have to have. >> my sense about your stance on due process is that you want to do the best that you can. and that's costly, and i'm not sure that you get all the resources you need. perhaps we can talk more about that later. on the rape kits, i understand there is about 400,000 to 500,000 kits sitting in the evidence room waiting to be

processed. we have some sunding that's been set aside so that we can ask the fbi to be able to consider training local law enforcement agencies so that they can proceed and move on the backlog. and i understand that there's a constriction there, where the fbi requires all these tests to be certified. i think it's called through codis. isn't there a way that we can fund a process where local law enforcement can be trained, and then the kits can be uploaded to codis and be certified so that we can, one address the backlog, two, be more efficient, so that arrestees and victims can have their day in court? >> yeah, we want to make sure that the information is ultimately -- we want to make sure that the tests are done in an appropriate way so that we

can feel certain, we can feel secure that the information is ultimately put in to the national system is, in fact, good. that they are -- that we can run hits, see if we can hits against the information that's contained in the national system. the fbi certainly helps with training. the fbi has eliminated, i think, virtually eliminated, not totally, the backlog that we have on the federal side. there still is a backlog that comes to our state and local partners that we have to try to address. we want to do it in such a way that we get good, scientifically reliable tests that are done so that once they become a part of the larger database, we feel confident that the tests that are run against it will stand up, for instance, in court. and so that people are identified appropriately, cases can be won, convictions can be sustained on appeal. >> because it seems to me that

without that evidence, through the fbi, you can't do your job. to continue -- or the d.a. cannot do the job to prosecute. and so it seems like at least we should have some sort of pilot program in this country where we can promote some way to make it more efficient, and spread that responsibility. it doesn't seem to me that the application of the rape kit is going to be that complicated. and certify in it maybe some training, but doesn't seem to me that would be that complicated, either. and so, i like to see if we can't work together on a pilot program that we put in to the process, and see whether we can address this very important aspect of the backlog. because it is about speedy trials and making sure that the

evidence doesn't get stale on the way. so hopefully we can work together and move this forward, and i believe that the chairman is also very interested in this kind of efficiency. >> we look forward to working with you in the creation of such a -- such an effort. because there have to be ways in which we can be efficient, be creative, and at the same time be rigorous in making sure that the tests that are done are scientifically secure and will be evidentially sound and there have to be ways in which we can do that. and so, as we look at this backlog, we will try to make available the resources of the federal government to assist our state and local partners, and maybe through some pilot program, as you've suggested, we can do that. >> mr. chairman, the last comment would be if we're successful in this, in the move forward, i suspect that you're going to need more help in terms

of prosecution. because the other half, once it's determined, then the other half is going to be expensive, too, so understanding that we may have to think about how we cover that cost. >> well, you raise a good point, sir. and that is one thing that i think we always try to think about as we make our budget proposals. we have to look at this comprehensive. because the possibility exists that we could create substantial numbers of new cases. if we were to be successful in reducing the backlog which is a good thing. we want to have the capacity to process these cases, to try these cases. which are at this point going to be mainly at the state and local level. and so that means that i think we probably want to have the ability through our grant-making perhaps, to support those efforts. but we have to view this comprehensively. we can't simply fix one part of the system because it will have an impact on other parts of the system. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> you could take some of the

settlement money that was discussed and use it, and i think mr. honda has put -- mr. amodei? >> thanks, mr. chairman. general i represent most of nevada that does not include las vegas. and i want to sensitize you to the things that's been going on in the department of justice since the bush administration. and that is what i call discrimination against resort cities. there is presently -- >> pardon me? >> discrimination against resort cities. there is presently in doj administrative guidance, not regulation, not a statute, stay away from places like, and it names a few places in my state and other states, for conferences, trainings, meetings, stuff like that. now i understand with other agencies the sensitivity over the last few years, when people go to places, and pay for dance lessons, and exorbitant food costs and all that other sort of stuff, which is a bad thing. but i also know that, for

instance, and i'm sure this plays out in other areas, that one of the primary factors in deciding where to have a training or a conference or a meeting should be value to the taxpayer. you've testified here today, talking about scarce federal resources, and i want to sensitize you to some instances because there are a couple of organizations that are actually in reno, national judicial college. doj is involved with funding for training for judges in various areas. national council of family and juvenile court judges. both happen to be located in reno, nevada. have been for a long time. don't know why they picked there. but it's a long time ago before you or i were hanging out here on a regular basis. that have experienced, since the bush administration, guidance in doj add minimum policies that says you must avoid these locations. and as recently as two weeks ago, got a call from somebody who said, who's in the resort industry, we can't hold our meeting or our conference or our

training in your facility because it happens to have a fasano attached. and so, my sensitivity lesson here, if i could is, is i sit here and look at this stuff and it's like, listen, i expect that when we talk about, especially in an appropriations context, scarce federal resources, department of justice doing more with less, all that, that one of the primary drivers would be how much does it cost to go there? because in many instances where these things have been canceled, and a lot of them have been doj cancellations, small, this is not the american legion convention. it's 70, 100 folks. they've been canceled within a couple weeks, so you've got the airline costs, they've been moved to a venue where rooms are triple the cost. and also, i'm not a convention person, but you know the price of a gallon of coffee and all that stuff? where it's like, under the guise of avoiding an appearance of, we did it in a casino, oh, my god, that the cost went up triple.

to what? i think they're capable of not using taxpayer money to gamble. i think they can figure out that they don't need to be paying for dance lessons or whatever they have. a ought to be capable of being able to make a decision based on what's the best value for the taxpayer. because i don't see doj guidance that says, and i don't expect to see it, and i hope i wouldn't see it, that says hey by the way we're not doing any more meetings, conferences or trainings in states that have legalized marijuana. what's that got to do with value to theee taxpayer? or states where, you know, some members have talked about, you know, unacceptable, civil rights backlog, or whatever. where it's like we're not coming to your town because we don't like the whatever. hopefully decisions are made on the best value of the taxpayer and there happens to be a place in nevada or oklahoma or wherever that if somebody says how come you're there, you can say because guess what rooms are 80 bucks a night, they got the best deal, it was the best

price, and by the way, we're not using taxpayer money to -- you know. anywhere you go has got a bar in it. i mean are we talking about we can't go to your venue because there's -- you kind of get the gist. so in sensitizing that to you i would like to be able to provide you the guidance that's been in doj since before you arived and have a point of contact to work to say, listen, i want to make your management decisions for you. but when i see a discrimination that's been pretty ongoing in the 30ments i've been here, numerous cancellations, and not just doj but you guys are the ones that have it in writing that i'd like the opportunity to work with you. it's not at regulation or statu statute. i don't think you need a law but to sensitize somebody in doj, if you can defend it on the best value of the taxpayer and you're not giving out rolls of nickels for the slot machine, then let them compete with everybody else. just off the top of your head, would that be something that we could work on?

>> sure. we have -- you might have seen cancellations of doj conferences as they probably happened around the country, because of sequestration over the last year or so. where we had to bring down certain conferences. but we don't forbid the use of any location. we do counsel components to pick cost effective locations. but we have held doj events in nevada. you're right about, you know, the judicial college, and the judges training facility that exists in reno. so, we don't have any at least as i understand it, any prohibitions that exist with regard to nevada or other -- with regard to nevada. so to the extent that you have those concerns i'd be more than glad to talk to you about those. >> we'll provide you with the guidance that we have with whoever the appropriate point of contact is to say listen, not asking for any favors just want to compete straight up on a cost benefit value basis. >> that's pine. >> thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman.

>> thank you, mr. amodei. on -- there are a number of issues i'll just submit for the record on the marijuana issue. but in february the treasury and justice department issued guidelines for financial institutions to allow them to provide services to marijuana businesses. at this point many of the banking industry seem unwilling to accept such business. and given they would be providing services to those previously classified as felons, and would have to be sure customers were within law is easy to understand their reluctance to stick their necks out. i do appreciate your agreeing to meet with the head of nida. we will be in touch with her office. could you give me a call after you sit down with her? >> sure. >> it was one of the most impressive testimonies on this issue. and it deals with, particularly young people, deals with the impact on -- well, anyway. you're going to meet with her and we can -- >> sure, i'll give you a call afterwards. >> thank you very much.

aircraft. personal aircraft. last year we discussed a report on personal use of justice department aircraft. one aspect of this issue is that some of the flights have not been documented or reported since the general service administration, gsa, the agency responsible for documenting such use of government assets was excluding nonmission flights by senior officials on security grounds. i recently -- report issued by gao recommended they change the procedure and identify when any such grounds are listed as justification for such use. gsa has agreed to the recommendation. while changes in reporting have yet to be implemented, are you ensuring that all such flights by doj will be reported to the gsa? >> yeah. this is one my staff keeps telling me to take it easy, you know. this is one that gets that --

sorry, guys -- >> that's okay. you can -- we want to hear from you. show some emotion. that's okay. go ahead. >> my air travel's really well documented. as former director muller, same thing. we answered five different requests in the past two years. everything that has been rele e released to gao, to senator grassley as well. there's this notion that we've taken it's described as hundreds of personal trips. that was wrong. gao counted flights, not round trips. and we looked at it and figured out from the time period that they were looking, took not hundreds, but 27 personal, four combined, official and nonpersonal trips. and none of the trips that i took or that the director took ever had an director took ever impact on the mission capability of those airplanes. but -- so we did have a reporting requirement that

existed before. if they want to change the rules, i'll be more than glad to share that information with the appropriate organization, but this is something that is really wide open. as i've said, we responded to senator grassley. just so that people understand that we're making appropriate use of d.o.j. aircraft. a lot of the stuff is described as mission. and nonmission in the way in which that was defined was not correct. a non mission trip, for instance, the trip i took to newtown was described as a non mission trip. i don't see how anything could be more mission centered than having the attorney general of the united states deal with first responders at newtown. so i got it off my chest. >> you got it off your chest. so you will be ensuring that all flights will be reported? >> will do that, yes. >> on february 24th you asked

congress to create a strong national standard for quickly alerting consumers whose information may be under threat. what specific registrations do the administration and department of justice propose? >> i think first with regard to reporting breaches, that we should have a uniform standard so businesses understand when they have an obligation to report to the protoauthorities when there have been data breaches and so that the public is aware of these breaches. and also i think it would mean businesses would understand what category of things they need to report, and which category of things they need not be concerned with. a greater degree of uniformity so the american people can understand both the nature and extent of the problem and whether or not they are personally affected by a breach. and so we think a national

standard working with congress would be appropriate. >> is there any legislation coming up? >> i think we're going to try to work on a proposal. we would like to work with congress in dealing with that. it's something i talked about in a speech i recently gave or maybe in one of my weekly tapes. we are prepared to come forward. >> have you been out to the fbi center where they list all the companies and individuals and everything who have been hit by the chinese? have you seen that? >> i've seen those reports. >> have you been out to the center? >> have i? yes. yes. >> you may want to go again. it's pretty impressive. but this is, as director muller said, former director muller, this is the chinese, russians organized crime. you may want to go out again and take a look at it. it's so comprehensive.

if american people could see the list, they would be shocked. last week you sent the committee a report. a new procurement practices for technology hardware and software to be used. it appears the implementation has been adopted and procurement offices are up to speed and helping to ensure u.s. government systems are not vulnerable to cyber espionage. your report indicated seven were canceled. could you characterize the nature of the threat we are facing and the impact the standards are having? >> well, i think the standards that were put in place have been useful to us, and we tried to follow them, as you have indicated. there were steps that we took to cancel, i guess things that had previously been contracted for. this concern that we have about cyber intrusions and cyber

threats is something that has to be a primary concern, for any agency head. we factor those kinds of concerns into our pro kurmt of technology. we work closely with the fbi, and i think our standards are pretty high. we have sent out guidance to the field. so that we can comply, and we want to work with you and the committee going forward so that we can figure out how to best protect against these risks. >> do you think it would be helpful to have, going back to the previous question, it would be helpful, would it be helpful for the government to notify the congress, notify one committee as to what agencies are subject to cyber attacks so that there's one place where we can see the intensity of what the chinese and et cetera are doing? >> yeah.

as i said, i think with regards to the private sector, there needs to be recording. i would put in the same concern or the same scheme, government agencies as well. so that to the extent there are breaches, those are shared, and we could work out where those would go. but yeah, a place, a repository where consumers, members of congress have the ability to see exactly where those -- what the targets are, what kind of information might have been compromised. i think we will do a much better job of understanding what the nature of the threat is and taking counter measures if we have a place, a repository of all this information. >> maybe when the committee, every time an agency is hit they report to the fbi. i think the bureau is probably more involved than anybody else. that way ai think the privacy, if necessary, can be taken care

of. it would at least give every other agency some understanding. if we could maybe carry that in fy 12 the committee rejected a proposal to reprogram 165 million to require -- in illinois. the department proceeded with the acquisition despite this extraordinary breach of long standing traditions of respect between the branches. although, i understand politics. as i pointed out last year, the $165 million that could have been used instead for departmental operations in the wake of the sequester. your request proposed $158 million off offset. given the fight funding and need to move on in other sites in mississippi and west virginia, and need to maintain staffing to maintain services, how do you fit thompson in with this? and what