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 activities are being cut to pay for the $158 million?

>> well, in terms of thompson, we acquired it the end of fis car year 2012 during the shortage of high security beds. we're presently 52% above our rated capacity. i think the way we describe thompson is we've gotten twice the prison at half the price. and we have an appropriation of $44 million to begin the activation of thompson. that's reflected in the spend plan. the $4 million is retained in fiscal year 2015 for activation costs. and i think what we're looking at is a slow ramp-up of thompson. we hope to hire a warden, i think, in may, that is the plan. followed by the hiring manager of food services and medical staff. ultimately hiring up to 290 staff and to begin bringing in the first inmates in the

july/august time frame. we think that was a very good expenditure, a good acquisition where we got a facility that's going to help us with those high security needs that we have, and do it in a cost-effective way. >> were you a boy scout? >> yeah. >> do you take your boy without pledge that you will make sure that this thing plays out? there's going to be differences. that there will never be anybody from guantanamo bay there. >> i promise. three fingers. that's boy scouts. >> we're going to go to dr. carter. judge? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me congratulations the administration on the 49th consecutive month of job growth, averaging around 200,000 a

month. and close to 9 million new jobs over this stretch of time. one of the questions before your department is how to protect american jobs in terms of intellectual property. and you've been doing a great deal of work in this regard, but obviously there's more work to do when we have, you know, in our -- the world economic forum, they said that the u.s. economy is innovation, is innovation based economy, that the essence of how we have created the wealthiest country in the world is through innovation and new ideas. and so protecting the intellectual property of american inventors and companies is critically important. the chairman has been focused a

little aggressively on this tion in this sense of entities going into american companies particular law firms that work in patent related areas and so on to steal secrets to give their economic competitors an advantage not to their hard work but through utilizing the smarts of our own engineers and scientistscientist s. if you could talk about this work in terms of intellectual property vis-à-vis the appropriations request that would be appreciatappreciat ed. >> this is something that is again a priority for us. our budget request provides a total of $42.1 million for intellectual property enforcement spread among our criminal division the fbi are office of justice programs and the attorney's office and represents a 7.7% increase over fiscal year 2013th level.

we have really increased our enforcement efforts not only to safeguard the economic well-being of our country but also to protect public health and safety which is also any people have to understand that this intellectual property theft and the distribution of substandard parts and medicines has the ability to have a negative impact on public health and safety. we have an intellectual-property task force chaired by the deputy attorney general where we try to come up with a coordinated high-level approach to figure out how we investigate and prosecute these crimes. we also work with the white house office of intellectual property enforcement coordinator and there's a government wide strategy that was published in february of 2013th. we investigate trade secrets is up top parties so we want to work with congress to make sure

that our criminal i.t. laws keep pace with the new technological and emerging trends that we see. these are laws that have to be looked at a thing periodically given the rapid pace of change that we have given the threats that we are confronting and we hope to be able to not only have our budget request but also look forward to working with members of congress to make sure that our laws are kept up-to-date as well. >> now, after sandy hook there was a push for more states to supply data that they had not yet supplied in terms of people who are ready for purchasing firearms that is people who meet the circumstances that would prevent them. i know in my own state hundreds

of thousands of names that had not been supplied were supplied. if you tell us the status of where the national terms of state compliance with submission of names. >> that is something to be accurate and i want to respond to you in writing as they get a chance to look at what the compliance rates are. i think one of the things will concern after sandy hook was where we stood with regard to the number of the amount of information we were getting from the states so just as i said to be accurate i want to make sure that i have an ability to look at and just make sure that we are getting accurate information. we have certainly done what we could with regard to the grants we have made it available to enable states to have the financial capacity to make this information available to the system but i want as i said to have an ability to look at where

we actually stand in that regard. >> i was -- i went out to the joint terrorism centers in virginia and it's amazing to see many of your agencies they are working together in terms of the effort, the national security effort of one of the things we know and that has been a challenge on some of their lives could be the purchase of firearms given our laws and it wasn't one of the al qaeda training videos the notion that one could just walk into a gun store and make a purchase here in america. so reconciling the right of

americans to purchase firearms and your responsibilities to protect americans from harm i know you face a lot of challenges. is there any progress on this particular question of whether or not someone whose name may appear on for instance the no-fly list or some other subset of lists could be in any way lawfully put -- precluded? >> that is something where the process of working for in their investigative reasons and investigative arguments made as to why we don't want to have those lists necessarily merged. there are different views within the various agencies so that's something we are still trying to wake there -- work our way through. with regard to the first question i can share some information with regard to the numbers that we have. the mixed index system has doubled from 5.2 million records

in early 28 -- 2008 and at the end of march of 2014 the number of records provided by federal agencies has increased 70% from 4.1 million to nearly 7 million records in the states have posted an increase of -- submitted just over 1.1 in 2000 to 4.4 and 2014. state agencies prohibiteprohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health related reasons has increased by 678% from 410,000 records in 2823.2 records as of march 31, 2014 so substantial progress has been made with regard to the acquisition of that information that is now part of the system. >> thank you. i think it's obviously unfortunate that we need to have

a sandy hook circumstance for states to supply this information. my own state had not supplied this information but after the incident they did. these are people -- where laws should be prohibited from a purchase or ownership of firearms but they can't can't be unless their names are in the database so i'm very pleased that the state of pennsylvania and based on those numbers a lot of other states have complied. this shows the public that even though they were still a lot of work to be done some progress is being made on this front. i was looking over the actual budget request of the president's budget submission and you have about 2.1 million four support for local and tribal governments which is obviously critically important because a lot of the actual work done on these issues are done at

the state and local level. i did want to mention that i see there is a proposed $58 million in the budget which is a reduction of $30 million. this is an area the subcommittee disagrees with the administration and this is an area and i think the only area that has seen an increase in each of the last four years. it's something we are very focused on. we are going to work through the provisions requested we want to support the work being done and i yield back mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman and general holder welcome. five star general hugh and i are both lawyers and you are the top in america according to the number one lawyer in the federal system and i was a small town district judge but we both have

been involved in seeing evidence from witnesses and i'm sure you have already realized there's a whole lot of difference between what we seek evidence here and we'll may have an epidemic -- an opportunity to seek evidence in the courtroom. quite honestly a strong question the witness can go into a soliloquy so i'm going to ask you a long question about a series of questions contained therein. it would probably objectionable to board up well but unfortunately that's the way it works here so i just wanted to point that out to you. i have got questions about it. when you were listening or watching you saw the reporters were continually asking when will esb ip here? we heard reports from dallas that fbi agents were on the way all the way from austin so the fbi was coming in somewhere here at the press conference. in this recent shooting you in

your opinion will take the lead in the investigation in the 2014 shooting? the seat fbi or the cid? when will that decision be made as to which one will do that and who makes that call? you? the president? house that decision made in 200? who makes that call where doj and its resources pulled from the first ford had shooting based on the classified shooting its workforce violence? being a fine lawyer i am sure you are familiar in your five answers them in the with the definition of terrorism. did the doj discussed with the dod declassification of the

event in 2009 as to whether or not you will be an act of terrorism? it seems impossible that two of her top agencies were not have the conversation about that. you know and i know that ultimately he made a statement that this was the dod classification. i'm asking you about as chief law enforcement officer of the united states would you classify the 2094 could shooting as a terrorist act or terrorism as defined in 18 usc and had the 2009 shooting occurred at headquarters and would you categorize that as a workplace violence up workplace violence event and finally how have jurisdictional lines between the fbi and cid and other law enforcement agencies back to find when criminal acts are taking place at a military post

and in light of their recent shootings should be clarified investigative responsibilities? lots of questions, sorry. >> the white house confirmed i guess wednesday night that the department of defense in regard to the investigation. it does mean however the fbi will not try to assist in any way we can with regard to france the capabilities. we will assist in that regard. with regard to the workplace violence designation that was based on the dod assessment. understand your concerns but i will refer you to the department of defense for questions. interestingly chairman will then ranking member fattah appropriately use these questions with dod ended may 2013 letter letter which acknowledge acknowledged in equipment the department of defense designated the attack by an major nidal has saw this quote workplace was something that determination was made by

dod as opposed to doj. >> would you mind answering my question that i asked you? had it happen that your headquarters how would would you classify that? >> again you have to look at the totality of the circumstances. >> for the sake of the question assume the exact scenario that happened in ford had in 2009 that has a person of islamic dissent shouting out at bar and he was 30 people and kills 13 or 14 of them would you still take that as a position that was able workplace violence act and therefore under a terrorism statutes? speedy's are fact specific things so it would depend on what the person's motivation was was the person a follower of a lucky as hasan was?

what was the motive for the shooting and attempt to follow the teachings of al-alawki as opposed to workplace problem that you had with your colleagues i can see how that would be classified as a terrorist incident if it happen under the justice department but it did then some effects of the situation. i look all the factors that went into the dod designation. >> i agree that the facts are important. and i just happen to have a copy of the code here. you don't have to be involved with islamic -- the situation about to commit terrorism in the united states at all, do you? >> no. >> is a defined statutory thing and it's pretty simple. it involves acts dangerous to human life that violates federal or state law intended to

intimidate a population the population of the government by intimidation or or coercion entry entries to affect the conduct of government by mass distraction assassination or kidnapping. it doesn't say a thing about relationships. international terrorism does have a definition of someone outside the country being involved but i first ask you what you considered a terrorist act if that were your office? >> again i am not as familiar with what happened at ft. hood the first time as the people at dod were and i'm a little hesitant to an essence second-guess the assessment that they made. still not asking you to second-guess their assessment. i'm concerned if you are the top enforcement officer of the united states of america and there is a clear definition of

u.s. code. this is extended and i didn't read all of that but it's a clear definition of the u.s. code and if someone started shooting people in your office and you have multiple people screaming out some kind of political comment, i don't care what it is would you have automatically said this unfortunately is a civil workforce violence problem we have here? >> it certainly could be a terrorist act. it would depend again on the facts. those of the kinds of determinations he would have to make. >> the truth is if it happened it wouldn't really be any consequences is related to your office because the term workforce violence has consequences under the doj but it doesn't have consequences in the term terrorism as a consequence. both of those terms have major consequences on the lives of those involved. that's the real issue i have been concerned about since day

one. a simple declaration by the administration or the army public or private that says it is a workforce violence act takes two dozen people and puts them in a category where they don't get certain benefits from the federal government as a result of them serving their country and being shot and killed or injured. that is why i'm asking you this question. i think you ought to at least acknowledge that there's a clear definition under the federal law and by the way texas has won under state law that says i think clearly that the act was terrorism. whether international or not is up to dispute. that is why ask you for your help. i understand you don't want to answer the question and that's fine but i ask you for your help. i think i've probably used my

time. >> if the judge would yield for a minute. >> i don't have time to you. >> i agreed that clearly this was a terrorist act. i think the point it was just term and the first determination was made by the department of defense. as the congress we can change that and we should because as was the case when people lost their lives on on 11 or the pentagon this was an act by the statement of the perpetrator himself. so there is no ambiguity. >> from the top lawyer at the united states, that's all. thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate it. >> following up on what judge carter said i agree with him and you were here last year. in fact he spoke to some of the individuals. boy they have really gone through a tough time. iges on article today and i listened to it going home.

kimberly monthly was shot three times and taken down by hasan and then she got laid laid off you yet she never stopped fighting for the victims in the military in that shooting. think what judge harding is saying your relationship with the president probably have a better relationship with the president that most of the cabinet members. well, you do. you're not denying it. you do. it was not workplace violence. people have been heard. they so contact my office some of them. one of the women has moved to the northern virginia area. also our government is partially responsible. did the bureau missed some of that? there was communication to the major. i spoke to a psychiatrist and forth it who said that a lucky

was telling returnees from afghanistan that they should basically say that they were war criminals. the government missed it so it i would ask you on behalf of judge carter if he would take it back, i think we can change what took place in 2009. we wish we could. it's kind of like when you see something you say if only but i think it would go a long way to healing this. and we did do a letter. we are not going to dock you a million dollars for this letter but we sent a letter on march 15, 2015 signed by mr. mccaul and mr. carter myself with a lot of questions on this and we never got an answer. i would ask you on behalf of judge carter and more so judge carter and on behalf of those

who were wounded and the loved ones would you go back to speak to the president and ask if secretary hagel who is in my congressional district if they would look to redo this in such a way now because the cases over whereby whereby these individuals who were wounded be treated in a much more appropriate way. could you take that up to with a president? >> again. c. is a questions sir. i'm not asking specifically what we are going to call it. we have to close this chapter. we have to do it for the people. jesus says do unto others as you have them do unto you. if you and i were in that circumstacircumsta nce we would feel the sense of injustice and i think what dr. -- judge carter is trying to do is to represent them and i think you would have the ability -- i'm not asking you to define what it would be called to see what could be done to heal this wound.

if you could just say i will look at it. i will talk to the president and get back. but it would enhance your credibility in the justice department. it would be the right thing to do and now that there has been a conviction all the arguments that have been answered before so if you would do that i would appreciatappreciat e it. >> again this was a dod assessment so it's more appropriate for me to talk to secretary hagel and i will do that. >> would you tell him it's member of congress asked him to do it to do at it collects the island dictate to him exactly why. >> thank you very much on behalf of the families. >> thank you mr. chairman and welcome secretary-general.

in another capacity mr. attorney general or service a ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee with oversight over the securities and exchange commission and in the hearing earlier this week sec chair mary jo white confirmed that the sec is investigating high frequency trading as well as the new york attorney general is also looking at this. can you describe the potential concerns with the high frequency trading in terms of violations of the law? as indicated in my opening opening statement i've confirmed the department of justice is looking into this matter in the subject areas well. the concern is that people are getting an inappropriate damage, a competiticompetiti ve advantage over others because of the way in which the system works and apparently as i understand it and i'm just learning this in milliseconds can matter.

we are trying to determine if any federal laws or federal criminal laws have been broken. this is also obviously something that the u.s. attorney in and head of the sec will be looking at as well. >> you will be working together on that? >> there are barriers that we can't -- but we will make sure these parallel investigations are in such a way that they don't have negative impacts on either. >> now this new crime if you will if it is a crime at the end of the day is directly a result of the new technologies available. people can do this in the second right? the i'm not really up to spit on this but it is all about technology and how things get routed and if you learn something five, six, seven or

eight -- you can do things that others who don't have that capacity can. we have to determine whether or not it's a violation of federal criminal law. at least this attorney general has to understand the facts. >> attorney general i am interested in discussing the review that this committee funded last year and for which i'm requesting additional dollars credit think this is an important idea. it's extremely troubling to think that we are forcing people to go through proceedings with little to no understanding of the system. how was the department using the money appropriated last year and was sort of impact do you expect it to have? one of the reasons a the question like this becomes more important than it would have a year ago is that there is a

sense and certainly the president wants it to happen that we would have immigration reform in place by now. now we are not sure that is going to happen so now these other associated issues will become just as important as immigration reform and almost as important. i would like to hear your thoughts on that. >> there are friday things that we are trying to implement. >> unaccompanied minors and how they are doubled in the system. we have a program that we have put in place that we are trying to staff up in such a way so that young people can navigate the system in a way that they have not, may not have had the ability to do in the past. there is a docket that we have established throughout the country that will facilitate

consistency and do the kinds of things that have to be done in the system in a more child friendly way. that is just one of the ways in which we are dealing with these issues. i think more generally we are looking at the system and trying to come up with ways in which we deal with people that have mental health issues and a whole variety of things so we have a system that is consistent with our notions of due process so that people feel they are being treated fairly and so that we get appropriate results. if we follow in a due process way in which we try to conduct our judicial proceedings to get better results. we get more just results so these are the kinds of things we are trying to make a part of that effort. >> okay and i note that there are limitations in counsel for

people in the deportation situation but without asking you to go around the law for inside or outside of the law is there more we could be doing to provide some sort of legal counsel and i'm searching for a better word, so that these cases are better handle. as you know and you just mentioned the issue is not just the deportation itself. it's a separation of families and that is become now a major issue. and also the american people agree that a separation and break up of families is not what they intended to talk about when they talk about fixing our broken system. >> i mean what we want to try to do is come up with the way in which we have a system that is sufficient and that resolves the backlog as we were talking about

as best we can do the same time have a system that is perceived and actually is fair. the involvement of lawyers is something that always helps in that regard. ability to speak to somebody who is conversant with the law and familiar with the way in which the system operates so you understand what your options are all of that breeds respect for the system which is important but also has a substandard impact as well. it's a bit delegate to come up with determinadetermina tions that will stand not only the test of time but make sure that in terms of further proceedings those are minimized which ultimately leads to greater efficiencies and smaller costs that are expended. >> do we have time for one more question this or chairman?

last year the administration was good enough 2% for the first time ever language referring to a referenda in puerto rico on its political status and chairman was then ranking member fattah were excellent in making sure that language stated because as you could imagine some folks wanted that language to disappear. now does become law and become law and everybody is aware of it. what is the next step in terms of what has to happen? is there something that you can prod them along at the commonwealth to establish or something you have to do on your own in the local legislature without prodding and i must say i was very much taken and pleasantly surprised by the fact that the language clearly states that you will have final say as to what the ballot looks like and the information on the ballot that it meets constitutional requirements of the public laws in this country.

i don't know if you are aware of this and you must be aware of this is the first year the government is for this role. puerto ricans have spoken on this issue before but they have done it among themselves despite the government saying here's an opportunity to say something so what is the next that? >> the appropriations and 2014 was saved one time $2.4 million carve out under the byrne program for objective nonpartisan voter education via site that would resolve the political status in puerto rico. those funds are to be provided to the commission of puerto rico which has faith or sponsor body of drafting the voter education materials. the department's role is limited to reviewing those documents and making that determination about whether they are compatible with the constitutional laws and policies of the united states but it is the department's role

and obligation to make such a determination. steve reich and i must say in closing to me there were two points in that language that were crucial -- you know because you have become some sort of an expert whatever the issue of puerto rico comes up there are 5 million analysts on the island to analyze what was that the federal government said. it's going on right now and i assure you once the news gets out that i asked you this question there will be another 6 million analysts around the states and the commonwealth analyzing what he said what i asked and what i i said that they are two key words in the resolve and i hope that continues because resolve is exactly that, resolve. it can't be in my opinion more of the same and lastly within constitutional requirements in my opinion without getting too deep into the subject there was

one possible presentation of an option that wouldn't meet constitutional constitutional requirements and the others do so i'm looking forward to what they come up with and what your responses and i must say you deal with a lot of issues but when there's territory sitting around for 116 years this may not be one of the biggest issues on your plate in effect i noticed them but i can assure you to us, to the nader community into chicago and all of latin america this is something we watch very closely. >> this is obviously a very serious matter and puerto rico is a subject or a place that generates justifiably generates a lot of involvement in the justice department. i was in puerto rico a few months or so ago working with the governor on some issues.

our u.s. attorney down there is doing a good job in trying to help the local authorities and the violence problem that exists on the island. it's a topic. it's an area in the subject matter that justifiably takes up a fair amount of not only my attention that the people in the justice department as well. so you'd need not apologize for that think that this is something that i think appropriately is a concern to us that the department's theory. >> i would hope that we will continue to work on the because my personal political happen being raised in the puerto rican capital of the world new york city the fox say that 116 years as a long time. it's good for puerto rico but it's also good for our democracy to resolve this issue once and for all so i thank you for your

effort. >> the 15th congressional district. represented by mean mr. chairman. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. by the way a lot of the issues that i want to bring up to you or already brought up so i will go back to another one that we have already spoken a little bit about. currently it's the issue of marijuana and the enforcement of marijuana. obviously as we have talked about parwan is illegal according to federal law. it's classified as a schedule one substance under the controlled substance act and this label implies that the drug has a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use in treatment. i am not an expert on that but that is what current federal law is.

so again according to federal law it is not a minor benign substance. it is the same according to federal law as other schedule one controlled substances. attorney general you have talked about already as to why the department of justice is dealing with it the way that you are dealing and i don't want to litigate that but i don't know if you are aware and it's just a sad reality that a lot of folks in the country believe that this administration selectively enforces the law. i don't want to relitigate that either but there is a perception out there and that's something we have to deal with so here's the question. again you have talked about how because of law enforcement that schedule one substance is being treated differently than other schedule one substance is. so to my point, wouldn't that make sense that your department

or somebody in the administration would bring to congress a proposal to as opposed to just selectively and i'm not trying to say this in a negative sense. i'm just saying your department is dealing with that differently than other schedule one drugs as far as the importunate. would it not make sense to then change or at least recommend that you recommend changes to either federal laws to the legality of marijuana or at least changes to the schedule one drugs so that the american people would be certain that it is in fact you are actually enforcing the law which obviously you say you are supposed to select only enforcing law for whatever good reasons there may be so wouldn't it make sense to come to

congress for changes if nothing else to give certainty and consistency and the american people would understand that the law is applied with certainty and consistency? >> i don't want to be argumentative but i would take issue with the notion that we are selectively enforcing the law but i will leave that they are. with regard to the whole question of the scheduling of marijuana by more than glad to work with congress if there is a desire to look at in re-examine how the drug is scheduled. as i said there is a great deal of expertise that exists in congress that ultimately congress would have to change and i think the administration would be glad to work with congress at such a proposal were made. >> mr. holder the congress is not the one who has decided to allow or to not go after folks in a couple of states who now have in essence are selling there want to. that is not congress's decision.

that is my unilateral decision by her department so that is again my question. if that is the decision of your department which is what things like that are seen and this is not the moment to obviously look at that but as selective enforcement. as far as congress is concerned marijuana is illegal and federal law. that has not changed and your role is supposed to be among the rules to enforce that federal law. not only is it illegal but again it is a schedule one controlled substance. you have made i guess persecution on discretion to allow to not go after certain individuals in certain entities in colorado and washington for that violation of the federal law so again it's not congress because we haven't changed anything. what has changed is the policy of this administration versus

previous administrations as to how to enforce that federal law. based on the changes that you have made shouldn't that come to congress and say look we believe that the law is wrong and this is how we are enforcing it now and we believe this is why we think the law should reflect the enforcement. >> i would say if you look at the end of the day, if you look at the kinds of cases, marijuana cases that we will bring or that we are bringing and what was brought by the justice department previously i am not sure you will see huge difference. the priorities we talk about preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors and preventing cartels from being involved and preventing violent use of firearms. a lot of the marijuana enforcement preventing cartels from being involved and a lot of the marijuana enforcement happens at the state and local level with regard to possessory

cases. i'm not sure you are going to see a substantial difference and to the extent the scheduling issue is one that the congress wants to engage in i think the administration would be prepared to do that. but the responsibility of this resides in congress. >> mr. chairman i don't know via time for one last question. again this may not be specific to their water. the state of florida as a ballot initiative coming up on the same issue and who knows what will happen there. is there process or will there be a process involves that you deal with to analyze what if any effect these changes in the different states are going to have and you don't deal with the health issues i understand. you do with potential issues of

crime or organized crime or whatever it may be. is there going to be an organized established bureau to process a commission and if not is that something that you all should be looking at to make sure whatever impact and we don't know what they are going to be whatever impact there may be that all the of a sudden 10 years down the road we don't say real realize this is happening and it's too too bad that now that it's too late. is that something formally taking place? the that's a good question what i have told the governors of both washington and colorado is that we retain the ability to file federal lawsuits if we feel the schemes they have put in place, the regulatory schemes they have put in place are contrary operating consistently with what they say in terms of an impact on public safety or if they are public health concerns generated by these new

regulations. what i told them is that we will not hesitate to comment and file lawsuits and we will within the department come up with ways in which we can objectively monitor the situation so that we can make the determinations about whether or not further federal action would be appropriate beyond the promulgation of the enforcement prairies we have in the letters for deputy attorney general sent. >> those which i'm glad to hear, is that process something that you will be willing or be able to share with congress so that we can also see the information that you are getting? i am sure congress will look at it too better i think it's helpful that we are on the same page so we all have the same information. in many cases i think i would be helpful. >> my guess would be that the way this will happen is you will get research proposals from a

variety of places. our office of justice programs would make determinations as to which ones to fund. they are publicly available and obviously we would share them with congress and on the basis of those determinations and the basis of that research make determinations about what further action made by the justice department is warranted. >> think giving much mr. chairman. >> following up i think we have reached the threshold. i think the administration quite frankly is failing. i just saw the article the other day. first reported death linked to marijuana and colorado since legalization. the first reported death linked to marijuana in colorado since it was legalized the medical examiner's office wednesday said an exchange it and fell to his death after eating ipod cookie. an exchange student from the public of, died while visiting

denver after falling from the balcony of a hotel in march according to "the denver post." the autopsy report on channel fox 13 report ruled the death in excess saying his death was due quote to multiple injuries after a fall from the balcony after consuming marijuana cookie and marijuana intoxication" math. according to the report. [inaudible] we are seeing reports. i think we are going to see reports and you are a moral leader and the president is. i know the president wishes he could take the statements that betty had made but as we see accidents and as we see car accidents i mean imagine the mom and dad out with three kids and all of a sudden an automobile accident takes place with

someone who is high on marijuana. i think you are failing the nation and mr. diaz-balart is right. you want to quickly collect time out on this and bring together some of the very best minds on the health issues. law enforcement telling me they have a difficult time monitoring is a person high? with alcohol the content is a certain number. i frankly was breaking with my leadership at that time. i push .08. we carried .08 in the spill and the alcohol people, they were angry. the restaurant people were angry but we saved a lot of lives. i remember former congressman mike bonds i think the door is wide open now.

that is why you sent a letter to the president asking him to meet with the head of nato on research not whether your present opinions on research and hopefully the president is a good father read i disagree with the president on a lot of issues that no one can say he is not a good father. both of you have a unique responsibility at this time and i do predict that if the president and you do not do something the door will be wide open in 10 years from now, 20 years from now when you are sitting in your rocking chair you are going to say i regret when i see what is taking place with this country on safety, and regret that when i have the opportunity there is nothing nothing more ex-pat than an ex-attorney general. when you are gone you will feel that to do anything. i urge you to follow through and that's all i'm going to say with that. i think when you sit down with neither you will have a better

opportunity. you can provide that moral leadership to kind of deal with it. i remember when governor hicken looper was here for the governors conference. you probably met with him two or three weeks ago. he urged the other governors to move carefully here and very slowly because this thing could have ramifications for the nation. we all love this nation whether republicans or democrats. i have 16 grandkids. i don't want them to be -- and you know i'm not going to -- but if you do that if you want to say something. >> i hope 10 years from now i won't be in a rocking chair. >> is okay. >> circuit is said in a rocking chair. you may want to just sit there and they get up and do something but the point is when you leave here, when you leave here -- that president kennedy was in his 40s when he sat his 40s when he sat in a rocking chair. i love the rocking chair but the

point is when you leave this opportunity will never again -- like you have been given a great opportunity to serve the country. you are not going to have the impact you can have now. now you have that i urge you to please do it on the half of america. >> most seriously as i was discussing with congressman diaz-balart the important priorities would in fact warrants federal intervention, federal investigative prosecuting activity. preventing drunk driving and exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use. we are saying in essence that with regard to drunk driving but beyond that picking up on the incident you talk about and that he spoke about more generally. if they're at first public health consequences that we team

associated with marijuana use this as an enforcement priority for this administration and for this justice department and that would warrant our intervention. >> we have always seen it as the pain and suffering and agony of this family back in the republican. they will never again have their son with them. i think the threshold has been met. mr. culberson. >> thank you mr. chair. thank you mr. attorney general for being with us and i want to ask if i could to talk about a nationally prosecutorial discretion and the responsibilities of the president and he was the chief law enforcement officer the united states. they are frankly many responsibility set out in the constitution for the president. of course he is the chief executive officer and he is the responsibility of commander-in-chief to make sure he nominate ambassadors and public ministers and consular judges other offices created by

congress, fill vacancies give congress information of the state of the union and then what when i wanted to zero in on the critical one of of course this chief executive officers to take care of the laws of the united states and make sure they are executed faithfully. in your opinion could you talk to us about in your opinion talk to us about case law precedent. what is the scope when it comes to criminal cases in particular, your prosecutorial discretion? what's the scope of prosecutorial discretion? >> it's a good question. it's a hard thing i think to define and to quantify. but understanding that when the federal government moves to investigate and prosecute somebody -- being a criminal case be in a criminal case or even a civil case that has broad

ramifications obviously for the individual. it sends a message to the broader community about what the priorities that we have. discretion from my perspective is the a wise use of the power that we have so that we act in a way that is consistent with our values. it is perceived as being fair and breeds respect for the system and actually is there and does do things in a way that is consistent with our constitution and the precepts links to this country. >> is set as judge carter said it depends on the individual case. >> well it depends on the individual case but with an umbrella of understanding about how prosecutors should generally conduct themselves. >> particularly in criminal cases want to look at those

individually. you can't -- talk to us about the authority of the administration and the department of justice with a broadbrush sweeping aside the entire category of cases on policy grounds. it's just not going to pursue them under prosecutorial discretion. when and where has that happen what is the legal justification for example for refusing to prosecute a whole range of cases as as been mentioned with the controlled substances act and whether would be also with individuals that have come into united states lawfully in violation of terminal statute's? again it's a question of how i say said with to the marijuana matter we still enforce the controlled substances act and enforce them when it comes to the marijuana issue. the question question is what are our priorities going to be? how are we going to use limited resources resources we have and what we going to focus on in that enforcement effort and has

defined a reasonable use of our prosecutorial discretion. >> in some cases looking at the border of the united states entering the united states illegally or even the united states unlawfully there is a criminal code for that and in the laredo sector in the rio grande valley sector i understand from talking to members of congress are good friend henry cuellar is not here but henry tells me there's a limit set in place that you won't prosecute folks that bring in less than 100 pounds of marijuana and the tucson sector from my own experience several years ago nobody would be prosecuted if they brought in less than 500. every load smugglers have figured out every load comes in just below it. are there any other examples to

your knowledge in legal precedent or any other examples you can point to us in other administrations where there have been policy decisions made to not prosecute a whole category of folks for example whether it be smuggling or in the case of individuals who are under a certain age who cross the border without permission as has been done with the administration's policy not to prosecute kids under certain age regardless of the parents are the policy. talk to us about as the chief legal adviser to the precedent of what is the legal authority to that, to set aside and not prosecute a whole category of folks? was how has that been done in the past and what is the legal authority? ..

obviously you want police officers to use their good heart and their good sense when they're making a stop. for example, nobody wants to throw little kids in jail. set that aside. talk to us in general about any legal authority previous cases, prooef administrations that have made a policy decision not to prosecute a particular category of individuals. >> well, what i'd say is, you know, i think what you just said is a good example. you want police officers to act in a sensible way. >> common sense and good heart. >> you want your prosecutors to do the same thing. and the notion that somehow or another this administration has turned a blind eye to border enforcement is certainly belied by the statistics and frankly the criticism that the president has unfairly received over the recent past about the border

efforts that we have been engaged in. you talk about those limits. if in fact there are limits -- i don't know whether they exist or not of 200 pounds per person carrying in and everybody comes in at 199, well a good u.s. attorney is going the say guess what, we're going to start prosecuting 199-pound cases. >> i'm not talking about vid cases, just the policy. i'm not aware of, and i'm searched -- i've been serging for examples -- i understand in individual cases you want police officers and law enforcement officer to use their good heart and good judgment and common sense. every case is different. obviously that's within the bounds of prosecutorial discretion on an individual basis. can you point to us any other administration legal precedent, case law where an administration has just decided as a matter of policy to get aside a whole category of cases that are

eligible for prosecution but in a broad sweep? this whole category, we're not going to look at them or prosecute them. when has that been done before? >> i can't give you specific incidents but i'm sure i can come up with exam. s. administrations ma make these determinations all of the time. when i desize that we're going to prosecute category a, we're going to prioritize those and i have eight, ten,000 prosecutors, that necessarily means i'm probably going to have less capacity to do other cases. >> certainly. >> former attorneys general, former justice department folks who head up the criminal tuition, other enforcement divisions have made those determinations all of the time. >> for broad categories of individuals that fit broad definition of characteristics. i'm talking about broad policy matters. what i'm trying to drive at, you said you can't think of

specifics. it sounds like the administration may be blazing a new trail here. >> not at all. >> when has it been done before? >> what the administration is doing in its exercise of its prosecutorial discretion is totally consistent with the way that other attorneys general and other departments of jus have conducted themselves. i've been through priority a, priority b, we're doing this, i mean, i've been through these kinds of appropriate determinations by the political leadership of the department, looking at the situation that they confront, the needs of the nation at that time to make appropriate determinations as to how the limited resources of the department would be employed. >> in individual cases. >> no. >> it's an interesting question. >> i want to open an avid dispute with you just a little bit. you just described what we call selective prosecution. the attorneys everywhere in the

world decide which cases they're going to ask to go before a court as a priority. and you call that prosecutorial discretion, i disagree with that definition. and in fact, judges and prosecutors, when it happens and they get accused of refusal to prosecute certain categories of crime, they get accused of abuse of discretion. judges get brought before the certain internal governing bodies on the issue of abuse of discretion and prosecutors do, too. there is quite a difference between the individual category of prosecutorial discretion, let me look at my case against that person, is this a case that i should be bringing to court or before a grand jury. that's prosecutorial discretion. >> exactly. >> to say as a broad category i'm not going to prosecute any drug cases in any county, which

there have been judges an prosecutors have done, and they've been sanctioned and sometimes removed from office by using that situation. >> judge -- >> that's really what i'm driving at. >> if gentlemen would yield for a second. the truth of the matter is that the federal government doesn't go around prosecuting people for what might be called -- i'm not sure if any place you've ever been, places i've been a nickel badge of marijuana. you know, u.s. attorneys, fbi agents are not coming on the street corner locking up a kid for -- possession of marijuana is not something we've focused on. the truth of the matter is there is a whole host of crimes, broad categories of which, right, that the federal government doesn't take -- we leigh that to state and local government to do. and when, you know, president

reagan gave amnesty to 3 million people, right, that was a use of discretion by the administration. there are times -- because i think if i asked the attorney general how much would we have to appropriate to enforce every law in every state on every person, it would not be a sum that we could afford. so by virtue of that, there is some decision-making process that has to take place. >> if my friend from philadelphia -- >> i'd be happy to yield. >> i'm talking about in general. judge carter really hit it. i'm talking about the drug laws in general or immigration. i understand it as a fact specific situation. i'm really looking at judge carter's question. when you've got a prosecutor or a judge that decides to set aside a whole category of individuals -- right, judge?

>> yeah. >> how many years were you a judge? >> 20. >> two years as a judge. you're aware that if a prosecutor said we're not going to prosecute this entire category of people, and the law is real clear -- >> then sanctions are taken. >> could i ask my friend to yield. >> before you yield, let me say this. >> certainly. >> i come from a place called philadelphia. the philadelphia different attorney three years ago announced he wasn't prosecuting possession of marijuana period and he's brought no cases on that issue for the following years. >> no one has sought sanctions against him. >> no one. >> it's on the state. >> it depends on -- the prosecutors have that discretion. he's an elected official, elected by the people of the city of philadelphia. we might not notice this but the country is changing its view on marijuana, the same way it happened with alcohol. we had a prohibition. we had a major law enforcement effort. it obviously didn't work to stop

people from drinking alcohol. so the country made a different decision. no it's not great for people to do it, it's dmef natalie not good for them to drive on the highways, it can impair their situation with their family but we're going to let the americans make the decision. >> can i make one quick point? >> sure. >> you've been so kind to yield to all of us. >> that's because he is a kind person. >> he is a very kind person. i want to give an example in the federal system. when i started at the u.s. attorney's office back in the late 80s, there was a department justice policy that we wouldn't prosecute cocaine cases less than one kilo. we didn't have the resources. a few years later we wouldn't prosecute cocaine cases unless they were over 5 kilos. >> because they were left to the

state? >> the state has dual jurisdiction but watz question of the federal government prioritizing its resources and deciding where it best used his prosecutorial jurisdiction. >> prosecuted by the state. the federal attorney said i've only got so many resources, these are state cases. what i'm mentioning, is the amnesty was a statute. >> you know what, if we ever get a vote in the house, we're going to do it too. >> that was congress enacting a statute. and my friend mr. shift, who true will is, we're very good friends. what you're referring to is the federal prosecutors left those case to the state. >> that's what i wanted to ask. when you refused to prosecute five pounds or ten pounds of coke, did you then -- because the federal case always takes priority over the state case. i'm fairly certain it's illegal

to have find pounds of coke or ten pounds of coke. did those cases get turned over to the state courts to be prosecuted? >> yes. the state district attorneys usually picked those up but of course they have their ore limitations and they set their own priorities that we will go after certain cases and not be able to prosecute others because we don't have the resource to do everything. this is a state practice as well as a federal practice. >> one that i don't disagree with because you've got to leave some to the state authorities and others when congress has changed the law or the people changed the law or for example in philadelphia -- i'm a big tenth amendment guy. i think all of these criminal cases ought to be handled by state authorities. i understand. the distinction, what i'm driving at, i think you can distinguish what they're talking about and what other administrations, what's the precedent for other administrations, what's the legal precedent for not even

prosecuting whole categories of cases? when has that been done. you've been in the department of justice since 1976. you said you couldn't really think of any. i'm trying to establish, are you blazing a new trail here or what? >> no, we're not blazing a trail. it's determined by the amountings -- >> but the state pick those up. >> that would be true of the marijuana cases as well. in the sense that we make a determination that for whatever reason we're not doing the cases unless these eight priorities are met, that doesn't mean that those cases won't be prosecuted. the state has the capacity to bring those cases. >> right. >> selective enforcement -- >> if the gentleman will yield for one moment i'll give you an example. there was a date in our history that the president pardoned hundreds of thousands of people violated the law by avoiding the draft.

>> he's got the power of the authority of the constitution. >> no. >> he's got the authority under the constitution. >> there was an election, this administration was elected, this attorney general was appointed and confirmed by the senate and is acting, serving as the pleasure of the president. and the president said smoking marnd is not a good thing. he's not advising that people do it. what he's saying is that the country is moving. yesterday the poll came out and said forget marijuana, 67% of the people think they schould go to treatment. we live in a democracy in which the public gets a vote. >> and we enact laws to reflect the opinions of our constituents. and the pow are of pardon is vested in the president by the constitution. >> i don't want you to think that no president has ever taken

an action like not prosecuting a whole category. that's what i'm getting at. >> let me ask you a question. would you have the federal government, the prosecution prosecute every single case we had the ability to prosecute? >> no. >> exactly we can't. >> that is an individual case by case decision. that's what i'm driving at. >> mr. holder, do you ever plead anybody out? >> do i ever do what? >> does the justice department ever plead anybody out? about 90% of your cases, right? >> 97% of the cases. >> you couldn't plead out a five-pound deal? i mean you decide you're too busy to prosecute a 5-pound deal. five pounds is a hell of a lot of cocaine when you measure it by the gram. >> we're talking about cocaine now. >> that's what i was pointed to an example.

five pounds of cocaine was the cutoff, now it was -- >> it was five kilos. i'm sorry. >> that's even worse. that's 10-point -- that's is 1 pounds. but the facts are you plead out those cases. to say you don't have the people to do it, you plead out 90% of you case is. >> no. >> that's not really the example we're talking about here. let's switch examples -- >> even in plea bargain cases you still have to investigate the case. you don't get a plea just because you ask for one. >> you don't get any plea if you don't have a prosecution -- >> it may mean you can't do all of the ten kilo cases. >> but you plead them out or hand over to the state. >> but the real question is -- >> we're going to stop asking to yield. >> let's get away from the stuff that's clearly illegal in the big debate where the state has no jurisdiction, immigration.

>> bingo. >> you have refused to prosecute immigration cases, made a statement as a public policy that you would not go forward on anything but major criminal violations, not violations of the immigration code but violations of the criminal code. that's a policy that you've established. and right now 60,000 unaccompanied minors are coming across in the rio grand valley this year all of which, if they were american citizens would go before our child protective services and probably be taken away from their parents rather than turned over to a criminal organization and nobody crosses the texas border from mexico without the assistance of the cartel. nobody. now how in the world haven't you created a very dangerous situation by saying i'm not going to prosecute anybody that's living and working hard. but they're safe. and then that's encouraged people to make this kind of decision for their children?

this is atrocious. >> well, judge, i will match the enforcement record of this administration against the enforcement record on the border of any other administration, any other one. >> you're talking about deportations. >> any other administration. >> i will agree with your figures when you eliminate the pass backs, okay? >> let's look at the record. >> the turn backs. because we turn back mexican nationals every day. >> let's look at the record and see what this administration has done, what this president has done, what our border enforcement efforts have been like. and they are the equal of and better than what any other amendment has done which i suspect you probably were not as critical of. >> thank you. >> chairman wolfe -- that's one reason i love this subcommittee so much how generous you are with our time and the thoughtfulness of our discussion. it is heartfelt earnest

discussion. in your mind you're not aware move any other instance in which an entire category of individuals the department of justice has refused to prosecute? >> the premise of your question is that it's something we're doing now. >> it's being done with immigration. >> we are again using or resources in appropriate ways. we're not saying the categories of people, categories of kinds of cases are not going to be prosecuted. individualized determinations are always made. there are exceptions to rules that we come up with. we have the eight categories here. al ka poen, couldn't get him on any of the stuff that he did so they brought a tax case. >> that's an individual case. i'm talking about categories. thank you. but chairman carter is wrestling with this right now.

we've got vast numbers of abandoned kids being handed over to the cartels coming across the border. it's heartbreaking and it's a terrible message to send not to prosecute a whole category of people because you've got these kids being abandoned. it's a heartbreaking situation. >> just so my position is clear, i categorically disagree with your saying that we are not prosecuting vast categories of cases in a way that's inconsistent with the way things have been done by prior justice departments. >> i suspect judge carter will have a follow-up. >> if the gentleman will yield. i appreciate the chairman being patient. i can tell you in my subcommittee on the homeland security, we have sat and heard the conversation from all of the departments that it's the policy of the government to only go after criminal aliens.

that's the department of justice policy to only go after criminal aliens. it's been given as a reason for resources, reason for moving -- >> right. >> -- resources around the border. yada yada yada. we heard it since -- it began when the democrats were in charge. this is when we decided that the people to go after were criminal aliens. and all other people that cross the border we were not going to pursue anything in court. now -- >> chairman -- >> i don't know where -- i don't why forree eight years, six years people have been telling us a story but that's what they tell us. >> if the gentlemen would yield. judge carter is in the majority in the house. let's put this in perspective. the senate passed the immigration reform bill that has an enormous amount of resources

to be provided for border security, tens of billions of dollars. the president supports this or would support a house alternative. the house majority has yet to bring that bill to the floor, immigration reform that would increase border security. they refuse to bring it to the floor just on border security. >> i thank the gentleman for reminding me of that. >> excuse me. so when you hear the passion emanating from the other team about how concerned they are about these issues related to the border, the first question is when are they going to bring, within their own authority, a piece of legislation to the floor of the house so that the house could act? one, this critical issue. if tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors are coming across the border, right, if all of this is going on, if the administration is somehow dur f in its responsibility, then the

congress should act. the only instrument of the united states government has not acted on this matter is the house, which is in the control of the majority. so you to question this passion relative to the inact. >> that's not the law yet. that's all i was drawing at. >> that's a great way to avoid the question. i thank you for that. >> i want to help the understanding of -- >> that's not the law yet. >> chairman wolfe, thank you for your generosity with the time. >> we're going to vote soon. >> mr. chairman, should the rest of us get a law degree just for sitting in on this debate? >> you can audit the course and get a credit. >> you can audit the course. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, we all have to make choices. i think the greatest thing about the life that god allows us to lead is we get to make choices. when you choose to focus on one

area, there is in the economics, there's something called the opportunity cost. if you choose to focus on one syria, you can't focus on something else. these are choices that have get made. we've said as a nation the core responsibilities of the united states is to protect the american people from another terrorist act. we turn the whole fbi turn it around to prevent another attack. so there is a difference in some of the priorities of the department of justice today than the department of justice pre19 -- the pre9/11, right, under your leadership and under past attorneys general. you've had to focus on this threat from al-qaeda and others who seek to do americans, the american public harm, right? so there is a difference on what we might do a whole range of

these other items that more traditionally might have gotten more attention because you've got to focus some of your attention on people who are not trying to, you know, kind of violate some criminal law here in our country but really trying to kill us. there is a difference in your responsibilities. i want you to talk a little bit about the work on this national security front, right? because i think that there was a hearing a long time ago where we had a former speaker goi eer gi he was saying, we got to do this. i asked the question, there was a time under former american president, we would criticize china for arresting people without due process, without charges, with secret evidence that was never made public and so on. and the bush, sr., complained about this process in china.

i asked former speaker gingrich, what does this mean in our war on terrorism now? how are we going to reconcile being a nation of laws and you know, protecting ourselves, right? and he admitted in this hearing that we are in a different place. and this has been part of the controversy that you've had to confront in terms of reconciling our laws and our constitution with the fact that we are in a situation in which the geneva conventions and other normal con strants don't exist, at least for those who are adversaries. if you would talk a little bbt about how you try to reconcile these issues in you role, that would be helpful. >> well, what i've often said is there's not a tension between keeping the american people safe and our national security responsibilities and adherence

to our values. we can do both, in fact if we're doing it in the way we should be doing, we should be keeping the american people safe in a way that's consistent with our values. we have in our budget requests for what in essence is a new justice department, new in the sense that it's different, as you say, from the justice department that existed before 9/11. you're about absolutely correct that the fbi is a fundamentally different agent thn it was, the justice department is different. when i was the deputy attorney general in a pre9/11 justice department i didn't start my day by going to 8:30 briefings where i would get the raw threat stream for the past 24 hours as i do now, along with the deputy attorney general. we're much more a national security agency than we once were. i spend huge amounts of time in

the situation room trying to determine what the national security response of the united states is going to be in a whole variety of contexts. so this department needs the budgetary requests that we've put forward to support this relatively new mission, we're talking about something that is a decade old at this point. but we're constantly trying to redefine or measures so we can be more effective and adhere to the values. >> i told you i visited the joint terrorism center when it opened in virginia. the chairman lets me go to virginia every once in a while and i was there. it's a whole range of entities, many from doj working together trying to -- you'll find the needle in the hay stack, if you would. these post 9/11 there was all this concern about not

connecting the dots, right? so what is your sense now in terms of doj as it interacts with the other intelligence apparatuses? do you think there is appropriate interaction or are there still challenges? >> i think we are in a much better place than we were, in a better place now as this administration. there were certain concerns that were raced after the abdul incident in detroit where we didn't see the kinds of communication between the national security agencies that we needed to have and this was of great concern to the president. so i think we're doing bet ner that regard. i think we can always do better to make sure that institutional barriers, turf, consciousness is not something that gets in the way of information sharing and policy development. but i can tell you that when it comes to a whole range of national security issues, i look

at the people who i normally meet with. these are members of the intelligence community, the defense department, the justice department, representatives from the white house, national security staff, these are the kinds of things that we take a whole government approach to. didn't mean we're perfect but i think we're also sensitive to the fact that we need to become as perfect, you know, as we can. we're always trying to fine tune the efforts that we're engaged in. >> thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. >> prison rain elimination act, the budget requests pro cutting the grants by 16%. what's your rationale for that? >> i'm sorry? >> your budget is cutting preas by 16%. what is your rationale for that cut? >> well, i mean, dealing with

this whole problem of sexual violence is something that is obviously -- not on yougsly but is extremely important to us. we're making, i guess, changes here. >> it's a cut. >> as there -- they're fazing out the prison rape review panel. >> these are grants. >> yeah. i mean, there are ways in which -- you know, we have to make determinations about how we're going to use the money that we have. we have a budget that is good, not as great as we would want it to be, so we've had to make some tough determinations about how we spend the money that we have. and to the extent that there were cuts there, we think that they were ones that were difficult to make but nevertheless will leave us with the ability to enforce prea in the way that was intended. >> i doubt that you really support cutting the grants by

16%. but unicor is beginning to use the authority to allow them to repatriot jobs back to the u.s. increase the products. so that men and women in prison have the dignity to work and learn to be rehabilitated to come out, including new offers like l.e.d. lighting, baseball caps and battery chargers. are you aggressively working with the other department to ask them when they can to use unicor? have you done a let toter to alf the other divisions? you buy a baseball cap or a t-shirt, it's made in china. are you working -- have you been

in touch with the other agencies. >> i think that's a good idea, the notion of a letter that would go to the other agency heads to encourage them to make greater use of federal prison industry products. we reached out to 200 companies regarding potential opportunities. we have 34 currently approved projects, 450 enmates employed. still from my perspective, this is not enough. this issen a area where i think we can have a dramatic impact on the lives of people who are presently incarcerated, increase their chances for being successful out of the prison context, reduce resit vichl. if we can reduce the resources up front we can knock down the crime rate and decrease the amount of money we spend in the system. >> if you can do a letter to all of the agencies.

>> i think that's -- >> the committee appropriated $12 million. how is the research being used to inform the department's response and to refine its counterterrorism mission? you have had 50-something americans leave the united states and go to syria. >> we've had americans leave and go to syria and somalia and we're also concerned about people who don't leave and get radicalized in a variety of ways. this is something that is a priority for the president. it is one he asks the team about and expects reports on a monthly basis. we use that money to try to understand how do people get radicalized, what drives otherwise seemingly normal people to take the radical courses and to come up in ways

that we interact with groups of people, individuals, various communities so that there's a counter narrative to people that would go on the internet and be convinced that there are certain ways of life that they should follow. our u.s. attorneys have been very involved in this action. it's one of the charges that i've given to them to get out into the community and to interact with communities that are at risk so that we reduce the responsibility of these domestic violence, potential domestic violence adherence. >> it was amazing to hear michael moral, former deputy and head of the cia say that two days ago he removed the word islamic because he didn't want to offend anybody when they were doing the briefing of the attack on benghazi. that is political correctness gone awry when the cia removes

that word. and if it's reached the cia, your request on human trafficking to strike language carried the past several years requiring each u.s. attorney to lead or participate in human traffic or task force, why would you ask that? i mean, kneel mcbride, he's done probably better than any other u.s. attorney. now you want to take that language away. why would you want to do that? >> i'm not sure i'm familiar with that. >> is he going to give you -- yeah, it says to strike. >> well, i mean, this whole question of -- >> you didn't want us to strike it then, i assume, because then you would -- >> i'm not just familiar -- >> you're opposed. that's what we wanted to hear you say. the fbi director the other day agreed that the fbi's national

gang intelligence center would be a logical place to assemble and analyze intelligence on rue man trafficking because many times gangs are involved. would you agree that that would make sense? >> i think that would be a good place but as long as we don't think that human trafficking is only done by ganging. >> no. but it would be because in northern virginia part of it was gangs. so that would be -- okay. good. we're running out of time. really until the law and regulation can be aligned with a duty to protect their children, i would hope that you would maybe send a team up to sit down with us and there's language moving through the house to perfect it in such a way so that it's not a paper passes something people feel goodant it

doesn't have any impact. if you could have your team contact the staff and sit down with the people working on it to make sure that whatever is brought up is constitutional and does really deal with the issue. >> yeah, as i indicated in my remarks, and i think as we've said to you in a letter, we'd like to interact with you in terms of legislation that will be effective and that will pass first amendment constitutional muster. >> if you could have somebody come up next week, that would be helpful. on human trafficking in mcclain, virginia, my district, there was a case where a saudi diplomate kept a person in slavery. in new york we saw an indian diplomate under paying a housekeeper. what charges are you facing in. >> well it is an issue that has become apparent in at least a

couple of cases. there are others that we're looking at trying to deal with. it is something that there is an increased awareness of by various u.s. attorneys, not only in new york and in washington, but in other parts of the country as well. >> was that saudi diplomat prosecuted? >> i don't recall. >> could you check and let us know? >> we could. >> i'm concerned that the department is not taking seriously the problem of honor violence in the united states. we saw a case in arizona, 19-year-old arizona, after he was seen talking to a boy, her father put a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her while her mother and sister taped her to a bed and beat her. another person was killed by her father by refusing to participate in a forced marriage. they collected stricts on honor

violence and to examine whether data series such as the uniform crime reporting series spould include day the on honor violence. can you provide us with an update. >> bjis has been charged with that. the national crime victimization should collect report on honor violence. and bjis has collected information on violence against women and nij is projects assessing part of the issue. this includes a project funded by nij that addresses forced marriages. this is a topic that is one that really tugs at me. i'm the father of two daughters.

and the notion that these kinds of activities would occur in our country is simply something that is unacceptable. so we're working to deal with this issue in the ways that i have described. >> i appreciate that. if you could again, have your people keep up with the subcommittee to let us know as we mark up the bill to see if there's something else we should be doing. i'm going to ask you one last issue that hasn't been covered. for 50 years the wire act served as a barrier to gambling operations. then in 2011 the office of legal council ruled that the wire act applied only to sports betting. the result a surge in online gambling. we're now concerned about the process which has made it easier with as many consequences of expanded online gambling. can you explain why and how the legal warning was made with no consultation with congress? >> the deputy attorney general

sent a letter, i guess, that the wire act only covered sports betting. the olc looked at this matter and issue an opinion, i guess, in september of 2011. i'll be honest with you, i don't remember what the circumstances were that precipitated the examination by olc. >> can you find out and tell us? >> i mean i have something that i vaguely remember but i don't want to say something that is not consistent with what the facts are. >> sure. >> i do remember that was an issue that was of note. there was a precipitating event that made olc examine that question and issue that opinion in september 2011 that then precipitated the letter that the deputy attorney general sent out. we can find out exactly what that event was and share that with you. >> to release something on a friday before christmas, you just know there's something wrong. and i was the author of the

national commission on gambling a number of years ago, and there is a difference on the impact for destination gambling and convenience gambling. destination gambling, you're going to go out far away, you take so much and that's it. convenience gambling, around the corner -- the ultimate is to be able to go online in your bathrobe in your dorm at penn state. so, you know, i'd like to find out -- and also senator graham introduced legislation to restore the wire act. will you provide the expertise to create that? >> we'll look at the statute. i frankly don't know what the administration's policy determination would be with regard to that question wu we'll

certainly look at the statute and provide the technical assistance that will be required. >> if anybody on either side wants one last -- yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general, you've been very outspoken about your concerns about the broader issues in the criminal justice system and in particular inequities which fall disproportionately on many minority communities. we have the do you know rouse d distinction of some of the highest incoarse ration numbers in the world. it remay understand me of something church hill said, now that we're broke, we have to be smart. we feel that in california with our prison budgets bankrupting the state. when we step back and look at the justice system in the u.s. and our rate of incarceration,

racial disparities, prisons are pouzing thousands of americans with substance abuse issues and mental illnesses, there has to be a better way. and i think the efforts you' made to change that way are going to be among the proudest achievements of your term as attorney general. i want to compliment you on the funding for the honest appropriate yagss and the justice reinvestment. regrettably, my own state of california has not and i look forward to working with you on it. i wonder if there were any thoughts you wanted to share on the overall direction of the criminal justice system. >> i look forward to working with you and other members of the committee in that regard. think what we've tried to do on the crime initiative is to look at the world as it exists and look at the criminal justice system as it exists. and also examine what some

states have done. very interesting experiments that have been done in states, in red states, texas, kansas, kentucky, whereby emphasizing prevention, emphasizing rehabilitati rehabilitation, emphasizing reentry programs, states are spending less on prisons. they're having a positive impact on their crime rates. so that -- it's something that i think people don't necessarily equate. it is possible to spend less and keep people safer if you are smart in the way in which you structure your criminal justice efforts. that's what we're trying to do in the federal system, the program that i announced, i guess, last august. we have money in our budget requests to support these efforts. i'm actually optimistic that -- there's also legislation that's pending set up by senators

durbin, senator lee, that we supportive of and hopefully will be passed by the senate and hopefully passed by the house so that we can institution allize some of the changes i've made with regard to how the justice department prosecutors are supposed to be conducting themselves. >> if the gentleman would yield for one comment. >> this is a very important effort that the committee supported. we just had a veteran in an overheated cell in a prison somewhere in america, i can name the place but i'm not trying to den ingrate the location. i want to say that he would die in a cell 100-degree plus heat. we want to have more veterans courts, more drug courts. we won't to be more focused on this. i say that because my legislation would in part fund for justice rehabilitation

programs using these settlements. i want to make that point. >> thanks, chairman, i dwreeld back to you. >> thank you. judge carter. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman, i'll try to make this a little short, any way. mr. attorney general, i'm going back to a subject matter we were just discussing but only briefly. my colleague raised the issue of immigration reform. my friend to my left here, mr. diaz balart worked on what started as a gang of 20 and reduced to a gang of seven that met every week and worked on drafting a bill on immigration reform. so i think vi a fairly reasonable credential to say that i have worked hard to try to come up to a solution to immigration reform. give me -- and i want -- i've got more to say that this. how can i feel confident there are laws on the books today that

would fix immigration reform but they're not being enforced? so how can i feel confident after five years of work and the battering we're going to take when we ultimately do immigration reform, that not maybe you as attorney general but the next attorney general -- now the president has said i will enforce the law as i want to enforce and i won't enforce the laws that i won't. how can i be sure that that work is not going to be for nil. that's the real issue and the question being asked by people all around the country that are just simple folks that say look, don't tell me they're enforcing the law. don't tell me 60,000 kids come across the border and they're enforcing the law. i mean, why aren't they doing something about the parents that pay these coyotes to bring the

children across the border. i had a girl walk up to me at south southwest in austin. he told he her story, picked up at 16 years in gat mall will. the cartel had her work her way across mexico. i didn't ask her how she worked her way across mexico. ultimately they had her working in a hotel room which she thought was in mexico, they left me alone a minute and i went out the world and discovered that i'm in brownsville, texas. i'm now a college student. that's a 13-year-old girl, a child that we ought to be talking about here. and so the issue -- i'm for immigration reform and folks in

my district know it and i deal with that issue. but i'm not for writing a bunch of laws that an individual could choose not to enforce or a group of individuals could choose not to enforce. i come from a world where the law is the law. if you need for prosecutors i'm willing to give them to you so you can enforce the law. if you need staff, i'm willing to give them to you because i believe the law should be enforced. and if that's what you need, please tell us. the real question here, do we need to write into the law that those things you're just not capable of doing because you're overwhelmed by the caseload that you have, then maybe that it will automatically revert to the state and you will waive any priority that the federal government has so the state can go forward and prosecute the case. maybe that's a solution. maybe we ought to writing that into our immigration laws and drug laws. but at some point in time not

enforcing the law becomes a crisis in a place where we say the rule of law is the glue that holds or society together. if you would like to comment on that, i'd appreciate it. >> that's what i was driving at. >> okay. all right. well again, i would, you know, take issue with the notion that we're not enforcing the law. but i would say that the administration obviously remains firmly committed to common sense immigration reform and doing so in this year. our immigration system is in question, broken. there is a bill that was passed in the senate that talks about an earned path to citizenship, hold employers accountable, brings our immigration system into the 20th century. that's the path that e could follow. this is something that the department will certainly work with congress on. the administration really has called for and has been

supportive of immigration reform. as i said, the bill that has passed the senate is, i think, an appropriate way to proceed. >> and i disagree on the senate bill as does most of the republican members of congress. there will be alternative bills drafted and ultimately we'll let the process do the way it's supposed to do under regular order and come up with a solution to this. if that's the argument, then it's a bad bill and i'm not going to vote for it. >> judge, let me -- the gentleman would yield. what the president said he could support the senate bill but he would be willing to look at whatever the house would act on. the issue for the house, you say most member don't support the senate bill, we should have a vote on the floor. tights people's house. >> i support that. >> if you come out with what you might have, that might pass. >> and hang on. >> then we would be in regular

order and get an actual bill. >> the year goes until december 31st of next year. you may see something yet. >> i'm going to walk the path with you. >> i think the problem with our side and many people in america is there's a lack of trust in the administration. >> some people don't think he was born in america but we still have to run the most important country in the world whether we agree with who got elected president. >> i think -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> -- enforcement issues, there is. and i think, you know -- we should probably. >> yeah, we need to wrap up. >> it really goes to the hart of what's in the constitution duty of the president to take care of the laws that we've fatefully executed. >> all i'm saying is this administration has acted in a way that's consistent with the provision that you just read, i'm proud of what this administration has done.

generally i'm proud of what the justice department has done specifically. we've acted consistent with our obligations. we've been fair. we have done things appropriately. where we've made mistakes we've had mitted them and tried to correct them. the notion that we are somehow been darrel lick is inconsistent with the facts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and again, interesting discussion but i think sometimes we don't take it into context of history then it becomes a circle of discussions and arguments. on the issue of minor sex trafficking, the subject of human trafficking and how we ca members of our society, our youngsters, we know one of the best opportunities for identifying intervening cases of domestic minor sex trafficking is when these victims of these

youngsters appear in juvenile court. and just wondering whether the county, state and tribal judges would need training how to identify these victims when appropriate and place them in situations where they can be safe, rescued, and helped. and we're just wondering whether a any kind of training from your division and what the department is doing to ensure that the county state and tribal courts are trained to recognize the child victims of sex trafficking so that these youngsters can gain access to the appropriate services and intervention and dependency courts as opposed to being treated as criminals in delinquency courts. i'm wondering what kind of training are you doing there, are you monitoring it and how much do you plan 0 focus on this? >> well, the determinations that are made are largely made by state courts, local courts.

and so the justice department role in that is really supportive not necessarily of primary concern. we have done an awful lot with regard to tribal lands where we have spent huge amounts of time as well as dedicated specific resources to dealing with the issues that are unique to native lands to indian country. we also try to encourage training of judges and of prosecutors who are involved in these matters. these are issues again that are largely the responsibility of our state and local counterparts and the role that we have to play is to support them, help train them as you indicate and there are requests in our budget for the training of judges and also making funds available to states that make requests of us

for in a whole variety of contexts so that i think our budget would go, our grants budget in particular would put us in a good position if enacted to be of assistance in the way you have described. >> mr. honda is right though. i'm going to give you this video before you leave. there needs to be and i think we need a conference this year to bring everyone together because there's apprehension but it's what do you do when you find a young person in and you just cannot allow that person back out. so he's exactly right. we have the joe gibbs home youth for tomorrow here. but i think he's exactly right. there are three legs of these stools. if you don't deal with the rehabilitation what do you do afterward, it really doesn't help that much. in closing, we're going to follow up with your staff. i'm sure mike's been writing down every promise you made. and you'll do the same thing to us. i appreciate your testimony. with that, the hearing issed adjourned. >> thank you.ed

adjourned. >> thank you.d adjourned. >> thank you. adjourned. >> thank you.

>> and nonprofit organization in rehab book arts it is inert for its held just above book bound or not and different structures ended is the the block from the traditional bounds poke in the party of all humans made. not just the words but the structure of the book is part of the art, the paper the disused -- is used with tax store without.

and an ending world to discover a and create. ing offict objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. madam president, yesterday's hearing of the commerce committee subcommittee on committee subcommittee on >> yesterday's hearing of the commerce committee on

consumer safety provided a powerful and important moment in our legislative process. , want to think my colleagueleag the chairman to enable us to come together as well as my other colleague global sides of the i/o -- ideal for there very insightful and significant questions and comments vents, death on a challenge that should unsuspecting drivers who were victims of a defective ignition switch in automobiles manufactured by g.m. a car defect that should have been fixed disclosed