we, the program in anchorage, i'm aware of partners in progress, they do about 40 to 50 prisoners a day i guess, it fluctuates but they provide them housing. i don't know if it is families. i don't know that detail either. but i would certainly think privatize a prisoner who did have a family when he gets out and they need a place to stay and put them together over individuals. i'm not aware of any studies. i just know the one in anchorage. that is where our major population is based, serves that, a number of individuals. and they, i was informed that, you know, for instance, trying to be flexible with the rules. i mean some, would be kind of axiomatic that no alcohol would be allowed in the premises for example, but will that push people out? maybe giving them more flexibility. so they're experimenting with

allowing some alcohol on the premises. and i don't know all the details of it but it's a very tricky area and very important one. as you say nothing is more likely to lead to recidivism than not having any place to go realistically, so. >> i will speak briefly to the law-abiding public housing tenants. i think you would also hear a voice, while it is an entitlement, it is being sucksy diesed by the rest of us they don't want people just got out of prison coming back and wreaking havoc. might not be the nicest place in the world but it is their home. do we have to be subjected to mrs. smith's son dante got out for robbery on third time and he is coming back and i know he will be doing, a, b and c? i know there is relationship between the consequence and for the good of the order for other people. >> that is a tough question.

yes? >> thank you. eric elman with the consumer data industry association. the collateral consequences discussion is really about saying no and part of this public policy debate, short of saying no is an employer's right to know. there are public policy proposals to essentially cut off after a certain period of time a employer's ability to ask a question about a criminal history. and, for example the human resources managers study that esta discussed at beginning of her comments showed that many employers do conduct criminal history checks but that study also shows that most employers conduct criminal history checks responsibly and thought fully and they should continue to do so. even a conference i attended that esta put on a couple years ago, some of the criminologists said there is no redemption point t can be 10, 12, 15 years

after supervision end. i think while many people agree that there shouldn't be a just say no to any job for any person for all time i also think we need to be sure don't lose sight of the fact that employers have the right to know entire breadth and width and depth of an employee's, perspective employee's criminal history so they can make fair, responsible decisions for them, their employees and their customers. >> comments on that? >> i guess i have several different comments. one is, more recent research that has been done on redemption time, i think you're talking about blonstein and acamora. looks like 10 years. depends we're talking about violence, drugs or property. leaving aside those people that immediately recidivate in those three years. so you've got to take a look at that. it is no question that employers have a right to know who is

hiring. the question with ban the box is moving it further down the road as opposed to having it up front and a blanket ban. the concern i have with background checks and eric and i have been actually talking about, when you get a report back, sometimes it is not accurate. when a person is going to have adverse employment as a result of that they get a chance to know what that is and have it correct the. the problem it gets corrected for agency a. it doesn't get corrected for agency b necessarily. and the correction may not take place with respect to the repository which is maintained by the state or federal government. what i'm talking about records that come back and it's not me. it is something else. it is esther, not esta and all it is 10 arrest records and no convictions. there is problem making sure they're accurate. when they're accurate, they're good. the question is the accuracy. that is my concern.

>> general seller? >> [inaudible] -- consequences itself. so, expungement was not fully thought through, i think that's what we're starting to realize. but it goes to the same issue about fairness to the employer. whether it's a bonafide qualification for the job. so the, do you all have any thoughts on this whole subject of expungement as it receipts to these issues. >> what types of problems are you seeing? what crimes are expungable and what sorts of problems are people seeing? >> well, it was a generic bill that allowed for expungement. so it really didn't have many guidelines. i think between local defense attorneys and local judges they have been kind of creating a new

body of law. so it is really particularly difficult because we don'thave very specifics that would be necessary for expungement. so any "d" felony. it could be anything pled down to a d. >> okay. well i think it is we're having our own controversy even as we speak and i have personally have some misgivings about getting rid of acquittals. i'm not sure what the time period is, i think it will be effective immediately. so it is going forward. there is language that says, the court system is supposed to use its best efforts to go back and expunge, take out, steal arrest records and so on. it is, i have some misgivings about it. it had tough sledding in a number of states. north carolina agreed on a 15 year, the crime had to be 15

years before. they had to do that to get buy-in from all the stakeholders that was something they could live in. so i i it is something i think it is reasonable to talk about through arrest record. certainly after some period of time i don't know that it is fair for somebody who rejoined society to carry around that stigma anymore. so i, on principle i think that it is a noble endeavor. once you start getting into details then it's, there are a lot of issues that are raised. >> scott, do you have some feelings about it expungement of felonies. >> briefly, a lot of what real prosecutors do, as you know general difficult and tough. i always thought expungable was a fun thing. i thought it was fun chance where i got to say, this person, it has been nine years. he is a family man. he has got a job. he has put all that behind that. i could stand before the court

with pride, say, your honor, the state concurs in the expunge -- i thought it was a good thing. again those states that have them, we rely on women and men that try cases all the time and i trust their judgment every day in indiana or wherever you're from to say yes, scott burns is entitled to this, or, no, i don't want him out there, without revealing that he has a particular record. so i think they're booed when used appropriately. >> absolutely. >> we agree? >> we agree. >> nice. >> we have a point of agreement up here. it is kind of a historic situation. >> what are you doing for dinner? [laughter] >> yes, sir? >> my name is lakshman, and i came from vancouver, british columbia. i thought the discussion was interesting and i emailed a friend during it. the supreme court of canada ruled collateral consequences have to be considered bit

prosecutor and sentencing judge n a recent decision, supreme court of canada said, for instance a certain sentence imposed might be within the appropriate range but if beyond that, if in the higher part of that range would lead to someone being deported or something like that or lose their right of appeal on the deportation order that should be considered. not that the sentence should be provided but that has to be considered and part of the consequences and whether that is appropriate consequence as a result. a more recent position from our court of appeals saying even when it wasn't before the sentencing judge, the prosecutor or the defense attorney at the time of the sentence, came later after the fact as fresh evidence to the court of appeal, oh, look the person got a call from housing, from social services saying oh, guess what, because of your conviction for fraud you're no longer eligible for any social assistance benefits as a result of this. she didn't know, attorney didn't know, crown didn't know and at the time of sentencing. the court of appeal they said, you know what?

that is fresh evidence we should consider. as a result we're going to grant her a conditional discharge as opposed to actual conviction on her record. so that is sort of a comparative understanding of what could be done. it is not that, it is not considered. can be as a collateral consequence considered and decided whether it is appropriate or not. just discussion about check the box, i found it interesting to say that whether you shouldn't have to mark, you know, whether you've been arrested or convicted, our law society asks that of every perspective lawyer, have you been arrested, have you been convicted, are you alcoholic, do you have mental health issues? it is not that any of those questions bar any of those people for any, if you're convicted, doesn't mean you can't be a lawyer. just leads to more questions and more process. for instance, someone said they suffered mental health issues, they have to go through medical, go to medical doctor, have counseling to make sure you're

okay. so that are consequences maybe possible. >> is it your sense that canada has few ircollateral consequences than the united states? >> for, definitely. i mean, 500 seems amazing. we have similar ones like immigration consequence, welfare benefit consequences but not so pervasive. for instance, if one person in the family that the whole family would be barred from social housing or something like that, i haven't heard that. but, 500 or so is beyond -- >> thank you. what's your sense about this after the fact look-see, gee, didn't realize i was not growing to get into housing and come back and you could reconsider? >> very interesting question. i think where does padilla lead us? i think, and i can't speak for the defense bar. i don't know.

i would be surprised if those kind of questions or information is not shared with your client before they plead. or shared by the judge if that is consequences of a conviction. fraud convictions are one of those things in the law that do single you out for a lot of consequences. it surprised me when i looked at it. to digress. just interesting on the deportation issue, just on our own, we have presumptive sentences in alaska for certain sentences. recently our, court of appeals decided that there is a gentleman, he lived in, was in the military. but was not a -- was in the military and committed a crime and presumptive sentence would have subjected him to deportation. our trial court and court of appeals upheld it, that the crime court could sentence him

to 364 days, less than the trigger, that might subject him to deportation. so, you know, a citizen of alaska would have gotten that sentence, that was presumptive sentence, legislature's called out but this individual because of his status, got a lesser sentence in order to, again it was upheld by court of appeals and our supreme court did not accept the review of it. so there es an interesting angle that many of us, a number of legislators puzzling over, that just didn't seem right under the circumstances. but i think in your hypothetical, somebody who is, pled to a crime on something like that, that might, have them rejected from housing or something, that's a tough case. i don't know. >> i love canada and you can rest assured you guys will be a lot nicer on all of this than we will so.

[laughter] i didn't know you deport anybody. i always thought i could go there if i got in real trouble. [laughter] jeez. >> on that note, join me in thanking our panelists. appreciate it very much. [applause] chris, do you want to give us some instruction where to eat? >> at 12:35 the room which is behind you. we'll direct there. we'll regroup in here at 1:45 for a second -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

>> both chambers of congress are in this week. the house returns tomorrow on their agenda this week, legislation to increase the business r&d tax credit. the full chamber has also scheduled a vote whether to hold former irs official low which is lerner in -- lois lerner in contempt of congress for invoking her fifth amendment rights refusing to testify before congress. . .

>> you can watch live coverage tuesday at 9:30 eastern on c-span3. and later on tuesday afternoon, the senate foreign relations committee holds a hearing on russia's intervention in ukraine with officials from the treasury, state and defense departments. that's live at 3 p.m. eastern tomorrow, also on c-span3. >> working again from a broadband plan, if you take that 150-ish number from aws3, the incentive auction, the h block, you need to figure out what comes next, what comes in that 2018, 2019, 2020 tranche, and the work to identify that spectrum needs to start right now. you referenced the cisco projections. they are staggering. cisco projects that between now and 2018 the demand for mobile

wireless bandwidth will increase eightfold. if you thought traffic in washington was going to increase eightfold between now and five years from now, you'd say we need some new roads. well, we face that same problem. we need more strum. the auctions will help, new technology will help, but we probably also ought to be working at figuring out what that next tranche is after the incentive auction. >> what's next for the wireless industry, tonight on "the communicators" at eight eastern on c-span2. >> the senate's back at two p.m. eastern. until then, a senate hearing from last week. the head of the drug enforcement administration says kansas has experienced an increase in seizures of marijuana coming from colorado, a state that has legalized the drug. michele leonhart made the revelation during testimony before the senate judiciary

hearing last week. she added that her agency opposes marijuana legalization and stressed the link between state legalization and increased usage. >> the senators who are here, senator grassley, senator sessions, senator flake, of course, senator whitehouse who will take over this hearing at some point. i had a chance to chat with administrator leonhart in the back, and i appreciate very much having you here. the hearing comes at an important time. our mission continues to struggle with an old and, unfortunately, persistent problem, the seemingly unrelenting addiction to powerful controlled substances. i think a lot about that problem is evolving and changing. the drug of choice is evolving along with the path to addiction for many americans.

i said to ms. leonhart it's a lot different from the days decades ago when i was a prosecutor or when senator sessions or senator whitehouse were. prescription drug abuse has reached epidemic levels, overdoses from prescription opiates now account for more than half, more than half of all drug-related deaths. something we didn't see not very long ago. around the country law enforcement is out demonstrating a strong commitment to creative approaches to combating drug abuse. we've seen the enforcement alone is not enough. no amount of arrests or seized drugs until we break america's drug habit, we need a comprehensive approach, one that includes prevention and treatment, reentry services. a month ago i brought the senate judiciary committee to rutland,

vermont. like rural towns across the country, it's seen a surge in addiction to heroin and other opiates. but the community's come together to respond in a remarkable way. that hearing budget a case of people -- wasn't a case of people pointing fingers at each other, they were saying we're all in this together. the police department almost functions as a community organizer, a partner with early intervention coordination, or social workers, even building inspectors to address addiction from every angle. and i'm encouraged to see the justice department similarly committed to a comprehensive approach. the crime initiative, the department is supporting prevention and reentry efforts and promoting fairer sentences. the da is committed through prevention. da has long supported educational programs that aim to reduce the demand for drugs. in the same light, controlling the distribution of prescription

drugs. i was pleased to see in conjunction with the authorities in vermont just last weekend we covered over 3300 pounds of unused prescription drugs through a take-back event. 3300 pounds. remember, we're a state of only 620,000 people. this is enormous. it means hundreds of thousands of unwanted pills are no longer sitting on shelves and susceptible to abuse. ineffective guess control means effective protection. and while the da's doing critical, important work in many areas, i do have some concerns that i have raised, i have concerns about some of the dea's special operations divisions investigative techniques. we've discussed this privately, and the sensitivity of it we will not discuss openly in this hearing. but it's an area where additional oversight is needed. and i want the dea to cooperate

with those of us who have the responsibility of oversight. and i've repeatedly sought answers regarding dea's involvement in a 2012 counternarcotics operation in honduras. for honduran -- four honduran civilians were killed, including a 13-year-old boy, and the dea must make changes to insure this type of tragedy does not happen again. and i realize that was before your time, but i want you to take a look at that, because if they haven't taken steps to insure this wouldn't happen again, i would have difficulty supporting dea's participation in such operations in the future. either way, my hand in this committee or another hat i wear, in the appropriations committee. but, administrator, thank you very much. and thank you for the time you spend on this. i'm eager to hear your ideas

right after we hear from senator grassley, we'll go to you. >> welcome, administrator leonhart. thank you for coming. your agency faces many challenges as it tries to and works to keep us safe from dangerous drugs. i'm going the point out in my questioning and in my statement that some of those problems coming from the executive branch make your job even harder, from my point of view, and the united states is experiencing this epidemic that the chairman spoke about of opioid abuse, particularly heroin and prescription painkillers. we recently had a survey of 700,000 americans reported using heroin in the past year. that a seems to be increasing.

-- that seems to be increasing. we read about the death of phillip seymour hoffman, pointing out as just one example of heroin overdose. law enforcement, including your agency, has a critical role to play in responding to the epidemic. and, of course, we can't arrest our way out of this. but we can maintain the current law enforcement tools that-help dea -- that help dea go after those who are trafficking heroin. unfortunately, as i said about the executive branch making your job more difficult -- and there's disagreement on this committee on this issue -- but i think the bill that the administration supports does just the opposite. the proposed smarter sentencing act that recently passed out of this committee cuts the

mandatory minimum sentences for those who manufacture, import or destruct even heroin. distribute even heroin. and it cuts that sentence in half. these are penalties for dealers, not users, in the midst of the heroin epidemic. as i said to you, i think that this makes no sense. i don't want you to take my word for it in opposing the bill. the federal prosecutors themselves wrote that the current system of penalties is a cornerstone of their ability to infiltrate and dismantle large scale -- well, this is a quotation -- cornerstone of their ability, quote: to infiltrate and dismantle large scale drug trafficking organizations and to take violent armed career criminals off the streets. that's a quote from federal prosecutors. and i don't want to remove that cornerstone. another challenge for your agency that i hope to discuss is

the mixed message from the administration that young people get about the dangers of marijuana use. the department of justice declined to challenge state laws that have legalized marijuana despite the obvious conflict with federal law. in an interview the president said this, that it was, quote-unquote, important that these states, quote-unquote, go forward with legalization. this has caused confusion and uncertainty about whether using marijuana is really something to be discouraged. we had a recent scientific study as a reminder of how dangerous marijuana use can be. a paper published earlier this month, the journal of neuroscience, concluded that even casual marijuana use was associated with potential harmful changes to the brain, particularly of young people.

the department of justice apparently concluded not so long as states that legalized marijuana create effective regulatory schemes and federal enforcement didn't consider that a priority. those priorities include the prevention of violence, increased use among minors and diversion of marijuana to other states. but we're seeing particularly in recent news stories minors getting very much involved in that use and even sale and diversion of marijuana to other states. they're telling me even if iowa there's a lot of marijuana -- in iowa there's a lot of marijuana coming from colorado. so i hope the administration's taking a look at the announcement they made and what they considered a priority for prosecution. as a result, it's hardly surprising that a senior dea official recently told the

senate caucus on international narcotics control that what was happening in these states, meaning washington or states where there's been recreational marijuana or even medicinal marijuana, is, quote-unquote, reckless and irresponsible. at these, at this point those words apply equally to the department of justice's policy that has permitted states to legalize a drug for recreational purposes that congress has chosen to make illegal. as the above examples attest, marijuana being combined with cookies and candy in colorado in a way that is attractive to young people everyone -- including children, i hope to discuss legislation with senator feinstein that senator feinstein and i introduced last year called saving kids from dangerous drug acts. that we can get something done

to deter this kind of marketing. i'm going to put the rest of my statement in the record, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. we'll look at any legislation you or anybody else might come up with. i'm always worried about, of course, legislation that steps on states' rights and what they might be doing. the -- please go ahead, ms. leonhart. >> chairman leahy and ranking member grassley, members of this committee, it's my honor to appear before you to discuss the drug enforcement administration and our role in reducing crime and protecting the american people from drugs. i welcome the opportunity to continue is successful and -- the successful and positive relationship the dea and the department of justice have with the committee. throughout our more than 40-year history, dea has successfully

pursued the world's most violent and prolific drug trafficking organizations, and this includes the cartel whose leader, joaquin guzman, was arrested earlier this year by mexican authorities. and as the head of the cartel, guzman contributed to the death and destruction of millions of lives all around the world. and the arrest of the world's post wanted international drug trafficker is a major step forward in our shared fight against drug trafficking and violence. in the past year, ten more of the most wanted drug traffickers known as c pots by the department of justice and otherwise known as kingpins have been arrested. six were extradited to the united states, and among them was daniel barerra who, for more than 20 years, led an organization that distributed hundreds of tons of cocaine around the world leaving a trail

of violence in its wake. barerra was considered one of the last true drug kingpins in the andean region. since we started tracking c pots in 2003, a total of 179 have been identified around the world. and of those, through our enforcement efforts 75% have been indicted, 55% have been arrested, and 31% have actually been extradited to the united states. and this is a record that we're very proud of. by keeping the pressure on drug traffickers and stripping them of almost $27 billion in revenue since 2005, we have prevented the use of these funds to fuel the next round of drug production and other nefarious activities. this is one of dea's contributions to the comprehensive national drug control strategy. which has guided a decrease in the overall rate of illicit drug

use in america by 35% in the past 35 years. and just like the efforts to eliminate cancer or poverty, the fight against drug abuse is a generations-long struggle, and it will not be won overnight. since 2006 the number of current users of any form of illicit drug other than marijuana dropped 8%, and regular cocaine use dropped 32% between 2006 and 2012. and at the same time, methamphetamine use is down by 40%. but we still have areas of concern. an estimated 6.8 million americans regularly use prescription drugs for nonmedical reasons. as troubling, 80% of first-time heroin users started by using prescription pain pills. the availability of both heroin and marijuana is growing. in 2012 438,000 americans were

addicted to heroin. and ten times that number were dependent on marijuana. from 2007 to 2012, the number of regular heroin users in this country more than doubled, and not surprisingly, overdose deaths have increased as well. one trend we have seen over and over again is that as drug use rises and as -- as drug use rises as a perception of risk decreases. weaver seeing that now with marijuana -- we're seeing that now with marijuana. from 2008 to 2013, past month use of the drug increased among all 8th, 10th and 12th graders surveyed. these increases parallel softening attitudes about the per sued risk of harm -- perceived risk of harm and disapproval associated with marijuana use. marijuana use is a very serious problem in this country, and here are some of the facts.

marijuana-related emergency room visits increased by 28% between 2007 and 2011. one out of every fifteen high school seniors is a near-daily marijuana user. in fact, since 2009 more high school seniors have been smoking marijuana than smoking cigarettes. and researchers have found that adolescents who use marijuana at least four days per week lost an average of eight iq points. these facts paint a picture of the choices we have to make and of the future we'll be facing. drug abuse is devastating on a personal level, and drug trafficking poses a serious threat to society because of the violence and the hazards that accompany it and the terrorist organizations that are often funded by it. so now is not the time to sound the retreat, but rather, we should be redoubling our efforts.

dea will continue attacking these threats using tools and techniques that have worked so well for us in the past. close relationships with federal, state, local and international parter ifer ins, information -- partners, information sharing and case coordination and going after what drug traffickers value most; that's their money. i have great confidence that dea, with your support, will continue to build on our gains and overcome the challenges that lie ahead. and those challenges are not insignificant. today's drug traffickers exploit new and evolving technologies to communicate, to launder illegal-gotten gains, to facilitate the smuggling of drugs and weapons and develop new substances that can be abused. so thank you for your partnership, and i look forward to continuing to work with this committee and congress on these important issues, and i ask that dded t]úébñi1f7zxvkñ"=ut

>> we are prepared for additional abuse -- >> that includes -- [inaudible] >> we anticipate because it's really the first hydrocodone,

pure hydrocodone product coming out that we will have addicts that will seek it out just we're concerned because anytime you put a new opiate on the street, we all remember the days of oxycontin when that was released. this is a drug that's coming out without any tamper-resistant ability to prevent it being crushed, smoked and snorted by addicts. so we're very concerned, but we also believe that the enforcement efforts that we've put forth and what we've done to really move our agency towards prioritizing prescription drugs will help alleviate, will help confront any additional use or abuse we see -- >> i would hope, also, the

manufacturer would start cooperating with you, otherwise they face the potential for backlash from congress, something they probably would not want to face. so i hope they do cooperate with you. we also consistently aerothere our law enforcement -- hear from our law enforcement a stronger dea presence is needed in southern vermont. you have agents stationed in burlington. where are we toward them? and i know we discussed this out back, but where are we toward the possible permanent assignment in southern vermont of dea agents? >> well, to help in rutland -- and i've met with the police chiefs and met recently with members of the vermont highway patrol -- we have been very active working in vermont. we've actually even though burlington is a small office, we've actually sent agents

temporarily, tdy, on a continuous basis, to help in rutland and make sure we have an enforcement presence there. i'm hoping by the end of the week or even early next week that i will be having a conversation with the u.s. attorney in vermont who has been talking to our special agent in charge. and as we make decisions about moving forward with resources or reallocating resources, i will, i will take into account what his needs are and what he feelsó dea could do to assist him in his district. >> and by highway patrol, i assume you mean the vermont state police -- >> that's correct. >> a lot more than the highway. they have arson, criminal investigation, all these other things. i'm very proud of what they do. >> that's correct. >> i sent a letter earlier this year expressing my concerns about certain dea investigative techniques.

some of that information remains classified, some has been deemed law enforcement-sensitive. we do need more of a public dialogue. senator whitehouse and i have both raised this, and will you, so will you cooperate with our committee's oversight? will you advocate within the executive branch for additional transparency with respect to dea's investigative efforts? >> senator, i'm limited in what i can talk about regarding those programs, but just be assured we have had oversight of those programs since 1992, and we will work with you. i know that we've, we've come up to brief some members of this committee, and we'll continue to look at ways to improve.

and if it's found that additional oversight is needed, we welcome a look at what we've been doing. >> well, we'll -- and i think senator whitehouse and i and others will continue to ask questions about that. we, i always worry that things are so classified. i realize that a lot of things should be. but sometimes things are classified because they don't stand the light of day. and we want to make sure that's not the case. and i know that in some of these practices have been suspended by the department of justice pending review. and that's what i mean about the facing the light of day. sometimes they don't stand up for that. without going into classified matters, we will discuss this further. i also sent last year a letter

regarding the counternarcotics operation in honduras in 2012 that killed four civilians including a 14-year-old boy. response to my letter of last year, i received a response this week. have you changed the dea, these types of counternarcotics operations as a result of the honduras experience? are you doing things to minimize casualties, especially civilians? >> senator, i assure you that we have looked at that operation from many, many sides to figure out, number one, how to learn from that, number two, you know, working with our honduran

counterparts, making sure that we are providing them the best training that we can. we, i want to assure you that we feel very, very bad about any tragedy, and this with the loss of four civilians is included. as we go forward, however, we have looked at ways that we can improve operational planning, how we can improve the training that we're giving -- >> concerning the corruption and other problems if honduras, i would hope that you and your department would put very strict controls. because if left to them, we have real problems. and lastly, i realize i'm over time, the farm bill has provisions for hemp research by

universities in state department. so a lot of hemp is used in clothing and other material. they do want to conduct serious research not only in my state, but a lot of other states. when are you going to provide guidance to the public on how to conduct this research, and will you work with the u.s. department of agriculture which is looking at the research here in the commercial nature of the use of hemp in clothing and everything else? >> yes, senator. with the passage of the farm bill as well as a directive from the deputy attorney general from last august on priorities, use of resources for the department

on marijuana cases, the department is currently reviewing both of those to better understand how we need to go forward with hemp issues. and working with u.s. department of agriculture and other stakeholders, we will make sure that once decisions are made by the department that we put out guidance and that we work with those stakeholders. >> thank you. and i apologize, senator grassley, for going over time, and i yield to him. >> i don't complain because you go over time because you always give me equal time. >> that's right. >> yeah. i'm going to repeat a sentence that i gave in my opening statement. as a -- it is hardly surprising that a senior dea official recently told the senate caucus

committee on international narcotics control that what was happening if these states -- meaning washington and colorado and maybe also, i think by implication, where there was medicinal marijuana -- is, quote-unquote, reckless and irresponsible. so i want to go then to the coal mammal last august where the department of justice established a number of federal priorities to guide its marijuana enforcement activities in states that legalized it. however, the memo also warned that, quote: if state enforcement efforts are not sufficiently robust to protect against the harms set forth above, the federal government may seek to challenge the regulatory structure itself. now, that's a -- i don't agree that the administration should be talking about what they're going to prosecute or not

prosecute, but if they, if they follow closely whether or not the state's doing what the justice department said you had to do if they weren't going to have prosecution, then that makes it a little more responsible. so then leading up to my question, the first three priorities listed in the cole memo are, one: preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors; two, preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana going to criminal enterprises involving drug trafficking, gangs and cartels; and, three, preventing the diversion of marijuana to other states. so a simple question, could you tell us what the trends are in colorado in these areas? >> senator, on those enforcement priorities you discussed,

obviously, dea and our local, state and local law enforcement partners are concerned about marijuana going from colorado or washington to surrounding states. and we are very concerned about what we see happening in colorado. takings for instance, kansas -- take, for instance, kansas, and we've talked to our partners in kansas, and they've already been seeing a 61% increase in marijuana seizures coming from colorado. and these seizures or were destined for 18 other states. they've also seen an increase, a 49% increase in money seizures, of money going back to colorado that they assume were a part of the proceeds coming back from marijuana loads. so that is of great concern to us, as is the first priority which is preventing the distribution of marijuana to

minors. >> yeah. now, in that latter point, you've seen some of that very much advertised on recent news reports about fourth graders selling marijuana for $11, as an example. so i suppose that -- when you said you're concerned about sales to minors, have you observed sales to the minors? like i think i've heard the news reports? >> well, not only in colorado, but other states that have marijuana dispensaries -- >> okay. >> -- where we have seen that those instances give us reason to take action, and we have. we've closed down dispensaries, we've done investigations and especially, you know, i'm thinking one in particular in california where we got a call from a school principal who warned us that a local

dispensary had put notices on the cars in the high school parking lot advertising, you know, stop by. we also have complaints from citizens about their kids being stopped on the way to school and being given or asked to come into the store and being given samples. so those are the, those are what causes most of our -- >> would you say as a matter of summary, would you say that the trends are moving in the right direction or the wrong direction? >> the trends are what us in law enforcement had expected would happen. >> okay. so doesn't end up being a surprise to you. as a follow up of that and not, and my understanding that you aren't involved in the prosecution or, i mean, in carrying out the department of justice's recommendations on prosecution, but have you talked

to anyone in the, at the department of justice who is monitoring what is happening in colorado for the purposes of reevaluating its decision not to challenge the state law? and secondly, do you know whether anyone there is actually doing so? >> well, i can tell you we have been talking with the department of justice and the u.s. attorney in colorado. in fact, on friday we were able to based on an indictment we made arrests for exactly what we've been concerned about. these were colombian nationals who had invested in a marijuana business in colorado. we took action. part of the investigation went down last fall, and we were able to obtain indictments and make arrests, and there's more to

come. so we have been working with the department and working with the u.s. attorney's office to bring cases that we at dea feel are significant and violate those eight factors. >> do you think that some of the things you just told me, has it led to any discussion about revisiting the decision not to challenge the state law? is has it gone that far? >> i'm not aware of any discussion. i know the stakeholders within government, ondcp, hhs and others, you know, we are finding a way to look at the data that is coming out from those states so that we are in a better position to assess what is going on. >> yeah. but then would, is that information being accumulated to

advise people in prosecution whether or not tease state laws ought to be, these states ought to be left alone or not? that's what i was getting at. do you think it's being revisited by people that originally made the decision as a result of some of the things you can tell them if they listen to you? >> i believe that they're assessing it. to what extent they're assisting it, i don't know -- assessing it, i don't know. >> okay. let me go to heroin epidemic. i'm sure you'd agree that enforcement of our drug trafficking laws is an important component response to our country's heroin epidemic, so i ask a question about hawn trafficking -- heroin trafficking. first, i want to be clear about whether mandatory minimums are applicable to heroin users or dealers. the law currently applies a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for possessing with the intent to distribute 100 grams of heroin. so my first question is how many

hits does 100 grams of heroin contain, and is that number of hits consistent with someone who's just a plain dealer? >> well, senator, to answer your question, this packet is a one-gram packet. so a hundred of these. depending on the experience of the user -- because it'll change. if you're a novice user, you won't need as much. if you're an experienced user, you'll need more. but -- and this isn't taking into account what type of heroin it is or what part of the country this is coming from, but on average with one hit being about 30 milligrams, this one, this one packet, a hundred of these would produce about

33-3500 uses. >> okay. well, then is that number of hits consistent with someone who's just a plain user? >> that, in our world, would be dealer quantities. >> okay. >> traffickers. >> now, i'll have to end with this because my time, equal time is just about up. as i mentioned earlier, our federal prosecutors -- are federal prosecutors making these cases on the line every day have told us that the system of penalties if place now is a critical tool for them to be able to dismantle drug trafficking networks to keep our communities safe. do you and your dea line agents find the mandatory minimum sentence to be a valuable tool, and if so, explain why you consider it a valuable tool. >> having been in law enforcement as an agent for 33 years, a baltimore city police officer before that, i can tell

you that for me and for the agents at work for dea, mandatory minimums have been very important to our investigations. we depend on those as a way to insure that the right sentences are going to the, equate to the level of violater that we are going after. >> well, tell senator leahy he can have 23 more seconds. i went over that. [laughter] thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator grassley. i have two questions that i'll address now with the administrator. the first has to do with the development of your policies as prescription drugs and the abuse of prescription drugs, and

particularly, opioid prescription drugs increasingly dominates america's drug abuse problem. my worry is that as you direct more law enforcement attention to that problem and more regulatory attention to that problem, you may intrude on the legitimate and proper use of those prescription drugs. and i'm wondering what the structure is within dea for evaluating those concerns, because while it's definitely a concern that we address the abuse of these prescription drugs, it's also a concern if a 80-year-old woman who's alone in the world and living in a, you know, nursing home is in terrible pain at 2:00 in the morning and there's no way for her to get relief from her pain

because we've made it such a fortress of regulation around her bedside that you have to get a doctor up at two in the morning to go do that, and that's not likely to happen. how does the sensetivity to the concerns of -- sensitivity to the concerns of elderly and other needy users of these drugs, legitimate users of these drugs, play into your calculation? >> senator, at dea, you know, we have the office of diversion control, and working with them it's very important to strike that balance. it's very hard, but it's very important to us -- >> who's the advocate for that balance within dea? >> well, i'm the advocate for the balance. but so are the men and women that are working not only in the office of diversion control, but even with our special agents in charge. and i can give you an example. we've -- >> i mean more specifically in terms of the development of this regulation, there are people who are going to be involved in it.

is there somebody in that who actually has the task of trying to look at this from the legitimate user's point of view and make sure that that point of view is brought into the discussion? >> several different levels, and it depends on what regulation. but regulations that require rulemaking always have a comment period. and so the regulations that we've put out as interim or as proposed rulemaking, all of those comments have come back. and we've had some that have come back with 200-plus comments. all of those comments are taken into consideration and addressed. and so it's those comments and concerns are looked at by the office of diversion control in coming up with a final rule, but they're also looked at -- >> so the comment process is

really key to that, because it's outside voices that are really the advocacy voice on this side of that balance. >> it's outside voices, but as the rule moves within the agency at the chief of diversion control level, he's looking at it, and he has done a very good job making sure that there's that balance. and then before it gets to the deputy administrator or myself, there is, there is discussion about impact on any rule that we sign with the office of diversion criminal. >> okay. as this goes forward, just don't forget the elderly lady alone and in pain as you're trying to crack down very legitimately on these abused but regulated and lawful prescriptions. the other question is on

electronic prescribing. the agency and i have had a long back and forth on the subject, and after a considerable effort and considerable time, ultimately, you changed the regulations to allow electronic prescribing of controlled substances, which i think was a huge step forward. one of the values of that is allowing for law enforcement access to data that the system produces so that you know if a to die is prescribing lots of -- podiatrist is prescribing lots of hydrocodone, maybe that's worth looking into. if the same individual's going to five different doctors and five different pharmacies and getting prescriptions filled for oxycodone, maybe that's worst looking into. and if somebody goes from 50 prescriptions a month to 500, maybe that's worth looking into. but i don't see that developing

very effectively between dea and the states, and i'm told that the office of the national coordinator for health information technology is working to develop consensus standards for exchanging this kind of information with the prescription drug monitoring programs. i'm not aware that dea is actually involved in that conversation. similarly, there's a white house initiative called the national strategy for trusted identities in cyberspace which helps deal with authentication and other issues when you're dealing with electronic information. and i'm not aware that dea's involved in that process either. don't you -- are you involved in those processes, and should you be? >> i -- >> go ahead. >> senator, i will go back and check on the first one you mentioned. i'm not aware of, and we very well could be. on the second one, i know we've been involved in the certification process, if that's

what you're talking about. we have certified the companies that then go in and bless whatever technology's going to be used. so we are often involved in the conversation. but having been involved with the trusted ids as you, conversation as you've just described, need to get back to you on that. >> okay. well, i look forward to working with you. i think that the value of moving towards electronic prescribing for controlled substances from an enforcement point of view is to be able to identify peculiarities and outliers for further law enforcement investigation. and if you're not engaged in getting that done, you're not helping the program go forward. i'll stop right here and end the tradition of going well over time and yield to senator sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i agree with you that prescription drugs as we

distributed in mobile a number of years ago, the illegal use of prescription drugs is a winnable war. i mean, it's something that can be controlled, and i believe a united effort can make real progress. i hope you'll continue to work at it. isn't it true that a number of the illegal prescription drugs that are found on the streets may actually have been paid for by medicaid, medicare or private insurance? and, indeed, represent a fraud on those companies and the taxpayers? >> >> you're absolutely correct, senator. in fact, a number of our cases we work with other agencies who are investigating medicaid, medicare fraud. that's quite common in our diversion investigations. >> our little plan simply with the prd, get everybody -- police department, get everybody arrested with an illegal

prescription truck, the case would not be employee bargained until they began telling where they got the drug. they ended up forfeiting two drugstores who were distributing drugs out the back door illegally. my experience in this area came when president reagan appointed me united states attorney in the early '80s, and we commenced a community-wide effort to create a climate of hostility to drug abuse. at that time according to the authoritative university of michigan study, over 50% of high school seniors acknowledged that they had used an illegal drug within the last year. that was a dramatic statistic. it threatened the future of our young people in every community in america. groups came together to educate, to try to reverse that trend as

a part of that. those experts told us law enforcement, effective prosecution, arrest of drug dealers and as well as an effort to create a climate of hostility to drugs were all part of goal. and within ten years the percentage of high school students using illegal drugs had dropped below 25%. that was a tremendous achievement. murder rate in 1980 per 100,000 was over ten whereas it dropped to under five today. and we've seen a continue wall drop. -- continual drop. even violence, would you not agree, is often connected to drug use and drug abuse. >> you're absolutely correct. i think that there's a correlation between the fact that we did approach the drug

issue not only from an enforcement, but also from a demand reduction and messaging point. i think there's a correlation there. 35% reduction in overall drug use since 1979, same with high school seniors. and we see that same drop in violent crime. so i do see a connection. >> are you seeing an edge upward now in recent years in drug use among young people? >> we were doing very good. we were doing very good until the messaging changed, and we started to see we had an exploding prescription drug problem that that has now becoma heroin problem as well. but all the other numbers were dropping. like i i mentioned in my opening statement, we've seen, we've seen cocaine use drop to all-time lows in this country. we've seen meth use drop by

almost a third. so i believe that it's the holistic approach, you know? prevention on the front end, treatment and enforcement. because a lot of people are not going to treatment without that nudge from law enforcement. >> without that nudge from law enforcement. that's what the treatment people and the experts i dealt with said. be they -- some of the best, you have to be able to arrest people, and then you intervening in their destructive habit, and you have a chance then to change their lives many times. and i've seen that with drug courts and other type ideas. but i've got to tell you, you said the messaging changed. and i think some people are irresponsible in what we are hearing about particularly marijuana. i thank you for you and some of your officials in dea for speaking out and telling the truth about the dangers of marijuana. this is not a upon the-dangerous

drug. -- a non-dangerous drug. and i've got to tell you in terms of messaging the president's statement, to me, i spent 12 years working with grassroots citizens' groups to change the approach to drugs and the climate on drugs and to make it hostile climate for drugs and, plain the dangers of -- and explain the dangers of drug use. one year we met every single week, the mayor, the chief of police, the head of mental health, and we discussed these issues. and then this is why it's so painful to me and to every, every person who's dedicated themselves and given time, effort and money to reversing drugs for the president of the united states to say, quote -- as has been well documented -- i smoked pot as a kid. and i view it as a bad habit and a vice not very different from

cigarettes that i smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. i don't think it's more dangerous than alcohol. that's the president of the united states. gratuitously making a statement of extraordinary importance. it has the potential to eviscerate the work of thousands of americans, hundreds of thousands really to try to explain the dangers of drugs. so let me ask you, did the president consult with you before he made that statement? >> i have not talked to the president about that interview. >> all right. do you know if he talked to the drug czar, the office of national narcotics -- >> i don't know who he talked to. >> i don't think he talked with medical experts either. they tell us repeatedly how the dangers, particularly to young people, from marijuana use, much less others. isn't it true that you do go through trends where you, where

we've seen a move from prescription drugs to heroin? my time is up. i'll stop there, but i'll -- maybe submit a written question. we need to find out more about the abuse and growth of heroin in alabama. we've seen a 400% increase in deaths in birmingham from heroin use. from 14 in 1910 to the upper 70 last year. that's a dramatic increase in deaths from heroin in birmingham, alabama. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator sessions, and we all appreciate the experience that senator sessions brings to this equation as the former u.s. attorney for his state. >> as the chairman has been himself. >> well, i now recognize senator klobuchar, and before we start her clock, let e express my appreciation to her for the work she's done, i think really leading this committee on

synthetic drugs, bath salts and so forth and trying to improve the scheduling response to that. senator klobuchar. >> well, thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding that all-day meeting yesterday with senator portman about addiction and the work that needs to be done. i was pleased to take part in that, and we welcome you, administrator leonhart. you spent many years in minnesota, how many years? >> most of my childhood -- >> yes. well, we're proud to have you in this job. as you and i talked about last week, i recently led a delegation to mexico a few weeks ago on the topic of sex trafficking as well as heroin. and i think we asked every single official there including the attorney general of mexico and the head of the federal police about what was going on with heroin. i went there with senator heitkamp and cindy mccain, wife of senator john mccain. and as you know, about 50

percent of the heroin is grown in mexico, and 60 percent of the aaron that we have come into the -- heroin that we have come into the u.s. is either grown or distributed through mexico. just as senator sessions wuss talking about -- was talking about, we've seen a lot of overdoses in minnesota. in the first half of 2013 alone, 91 people died of opiate-related overdoses in hennepin and ramsey county alone. it was a significant increase. hospital visits for heroin nearly tripped from '04 to 2011, and in the 7,000-person community of st. francis, minnesota, three young people have died of opiate overdoses since may. just to give you a sense of why this was important to me, why it was one of the reasons i went down to mexico. and the things we learned there as you know and you and i talked about, the prosecutors there and the police working with our law enforcement and dea are really ramping it up on the cartels. they were able to capture, the

mexican police captured el chapo in mexico, longtime boss of the drug cartel which dealt in heroin, and talking to them it appears there are still many issues with some of this now with taking on some of the leadership of the cartels. we now have smaller gangs dealing in some of these drugs. we have lower level kidnappings, express kidnappings for a day. and talking to the mexican authorities, three things. one, that they are trying to beef up their southern or border as they're seeing that pure heroin coming up from other countries down there, something we don't always think about. secondly, we pushed on the eradication issue which has been successful in parts of colombia as we're starting to see not just the black tar heroin coming out of mexico, but some of their own white powder heroin. and then, of course, the third is the continuing coordination with our own dea and law enforcement and going after these cartels.

this comes at a time where mexico so eager to partner with not just the united states, but canada as part of a few day if north america -- new day in north america, and there's so much potential for our economies to work together. and i actually see some potential in a major way for us for exporting things down there. if they can grow a middle class and take care of some of this violence which has really prohibited them there getting, reaching their full potential. so if you could talk a little bit about your efforts with mexico. >> thank you, senator, for sharing what you discussed on your trip, and thank you for the interest, especially bringing up the heroin issue on your trip. the relationship between officials if mexico -- in mexico and the dea and the greater u.s. government law enforcement community is still at an all-time high. very, very good collaboration. and that's why we have the

success of being able to, you know, take into custody chap poe guzman and how that -- chapo guzman and how that impacts drug trafficking around the world because he was such a big figure. we have a number of operations and a number of initiatives that we are working jointly with our mexican counterpart ands the other government agencies. and this is starting to pay off in dividends not just well chap poe's arrest -- with el chapo's arrest, but also the arrest of other leaders of the gulf cartel, of the -- [inaudible] organization and all of these organizations that really are responsible for most of the can cane, most of the -- cocaine, most of the heroin, most of drugs that is landing in our communities. so when senators take an

interest in pushing for good relationships with our mexican partners, we need to thank you for that. >> [inaudible] issue which you and i have discussed at length is the bill, and this does relate to heroin since four out of five heroin users now got their start with prescription drugs and got addicted to prescription drugs and then turned to heroin when they can't find the prescription drugs. and often times end up dead or addicted for life. one of the things that we passed four years ago, senator cornyn and i passed out of this committee and was signed into law was the secure and responsible drug disposal act. the idea here is to change some of the rules to make it easier for drug takebacks. not just have them once every three months in communities where they know they're collecting tons, but try to find permanent arrangements in long-term care facilities as well as, potentially, pharmacies. if the pharmacy's giving them the opportunity -- it's not required, but to take back these

drugs, how easy that would be if we no longer want to tell people to flush these drugs down the toilet payoff the water spry or, my favorite, grind them up with coffee grinds. i don't have a lot of coffee grinds in my house. so i think that's not realistic for busy families, and i'm hopeful that we can get these done. you know, we've been frustrated by how long it took, and i heard a little rumor that maybe you got some comments back from the office of management and budget this week and that that means it's then back in your court. if that were to happen, how long do you think it will take to get these rules out? >> well, i can tell you that we did get them back, and we've already taken care of a couple of the concerns. there is still a concern that we need to address, but we're hoping that we can do that very quickly. we remain optimistic, because i know we've all been waiting a very long time to have these

regulations in place so that people can have kind of a 24/7 way to dispose of the medications that have for years, you know, lingered in their medicine cabinet. >> uh-huh. well, i appreciate that was every time i see one of the public service ads showing someone opening the medicine cabinet and seeing their kid's face because the kid is taking the drug that shouldn't be in there anymore, i always think, this is great, it's going to stop people from getting addicted and then moving on to heroin. but if they don't know what to do with the drugs and they have no real place to put them, we have a problem. so i appreciate that and urge you to get these rules done as soon as possible. thank you very much, administrator. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. and now we turn to senator hatch who, among other things, is the lead on the designer anabolic steroid control act with me. >> well, thank you. it's certainly a pleasure, always, to work with you and

other members of the committee. i appreciate the effort you put forward. welcome, ms. leonhart. we're so grateful to have you here. i first want to raise problem of marijuana cultivation on land in my home state of utah. that the federal government currently owns. federal government owns a majority of land in only five of the fifty states, and that figure is actually around 70% in my home state of utah. now, people in most of the country don't know what that means, but utahans certainly do. it means the federal government has the responsibility to address issues and problems related to the federal land itself. and this is not the first time i've addressed the federal government's failure to live up to the that responsibility. last year, for example, i offered an amendment to the immigration bill that would enhance penalties for marijuana cultivation on federal land. now, this committee adopted my amendment by unanimous consent.

these activities pose a direct threat to public safety in and around our communities. do you agree that this is a serious problem and that it is the federal government's responsibility to solve it? >> i do, senator. and, you know, we have, we have worked with our state and local counterparts in utah and have done a number of cases, just as you have mentioned, that -- >> i appreciate that. >> -- that have been on public lands. and it seems that we each year are seizing more and more plants until recently. we've almost seen a shift off of public lands, though, to indoor grows. but the importance of continuing to go after the growing on public lands is, number one, it's, it is an enforcement priority for the government because that is government property. growing on public lands, there's

a lot of concern because we see mexican trafficking groups take hold on a number of those grows. we also are concerned because of the dangers, you know, someone hiking through the woods coming across a grow. there have been instances -- not just in utah, but unstances in other state states -- where there have been booby traps, and it's dangerous. so we have continued our efforts. we continue to run an eradication/suppression program. we continue to fund state and local authorities who are, who pledge to go and take enforcement on public lands. and we will continue to do so, and i know you've been very, very supportive in our efforts and want to thank you for that. >> well, thank you. the problem i just described is getting worse for two related reasons. first, with the second highest

percentage of federal landownership in my home state, sits next to colorado which now has legalized marijuana. the international drug cartels that already had been invading federal land to cultivate illegal drugs will inevitably work to increase supply to meet the increased demand. and secondly, even though your prepared statement says that the administration, quote, continues to steadfastly oppose marijuana legalization, unquote, the justice department announced that it will not challenge the legalization of marijuana in either c or washington. colorado or washington. in addition, the administration says it wants to lower sentences for drug offenders and even invites those now in prison to amy for clemency. now, to me, those are not welcome developments in a state like utah where the federal government should be doing more to prevent its land from being used to fuel the problem. now, do you agree that

legalization of marijuana will increase the demand for marijuana and possibly other drugs as well? >> senator, the administration opposes legalization of marijuana, and i believe one of the reasons it does oppose it is we know that where we see marijuana legalized there, you should expect more use. >> okay. your prepared statement details some of the evidence that marijuana is, in fact, harmful to a person's physical and intellectual development and pay very well impair their quality of life. now, research also shows, however, that whether a person will use drugs depends very much on whether that person believes that the drug is harmful. according to the monitoring the future study, the perception of harm from regular marijuana use among 12th graders has steadily declined. young people increasingly see marijuana as legal and we dissal rather than -- demissal rather

than harmful. and now we seed bls such as what appear to be cookies and candy that can be exponentially more potent than when marijuana itself is smoked. now, i have here in my hand an alert bulletin from the colorado information analysis center dated march 19, 2014. now, it says that there's been an increased amount of marijuana-infused products sold to the public and that these products include fruit chews, cupcakes and even butter and banana bread. in fact, more than that. mr. chairman, i ask consent to place this bulletin in the record at this point. >> without objection, it shall be included in the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman. now, ms. leonhart, i think the end result will be increased use, abuse and addiction. do you share my concerns on this? >> you have a right to be concerned, and as law enforcement officers, we're very concerned about that.

especially when we see some of these edibles. they're, the people who are making them and selling them are calling them adult gunmy bears -- gummy bears, but you can't even tell the difference between kids' excuse memy bears and those laced with marijuana. so we're very concerned. and it is one of those, one of the reasons why the department of justice in the august 29th memo with the eight factors and they have, you know, factors in there related to kids selling to kids. it's another reason why they put that memo out in anticipation that the states that pass legalization will put in place aggressive -- not just on paper, but real, aggressive oversight regulatory systems to take care of that. and we are very concerned about

those edibles and about the high concentration, you know, a person you heard about the young student who jumped out a window after eating the cookie which was, you know, seven or eight servings, not just one. we're concerned about all of that. the marketing, when these packages look like they're marketed for kids, they look like candy bar wrappers, we share your concern. >> well, i appreciate concern and, mr. chairman, can i ask one ore question? >> of course. it's just the two of us. please proceed. take the time you need. >> see? see what a great chairman he is? [laughter] i mentioned earlier would i consider -- what i considered to be the administration's misguided invitation for federal prisoners to seek clemency this these cases. now, the president has the tort to grant clemency in individual

cases, and i would be the first to stand up for that right, and i think it should be exercised from time to time. and i decried some of the former presidents not exercising clemency a little more than they do. but i can't remember a president using that authority to change sentences for an entire category of federal prisoners simply because he does not think that they should be in prison. now, congress alone has authority to determine sentencing policy. but i don't think the president appears to understand that. now, he is, in effect, trying to set sentencing policy on his own. now, i don't expect you to comment on the president's decision, but i did want to state for the record that i think he is going too far and that he is misusing his authority -- >> you can watch this hearing in its entirety at c-span.org. we're going to leave the last several minutes of it now as the senate is about to come into session for the week. we expect votes later today at 5:30 p.m. eastern time on several presidential appointees.

live coverage of the senate now on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, who has ordained that we live our lives within the bounds of time and circumstances, use your omnipotence to accomplish your purposes on earth. through the labors of our