effects this thing will have on the work of igs, i want to provide you a specific example of how the opinion impacted my office even before the opinion was released. this is not just a justice oig problem note it's a limited just to law enforcement data. earlier this year we began an audit of international trade administration's enforcement and compliance business units efforts to ensure it was conducting quality and timely trade remedy determination is your. .. -- trade remedy determination's. ..

for guidance on this matter. according to the department's office of general counsel, they said they were coming out with an opinion expected eminently that would provide a framework to advise on the subject. in light of the potential criminal penalties the department office of general counsel included that it was advisable to wait until the opinion was released. subsequently the department's office of general counsel stated that. while they may be able to release to the office for the investigation particular to the specific proceedings there is no exception applicable to the audit. in trying to work collaboratively to obtain access to the information to anonymize the data.

however, according to them all of the requested data or business proprietary information additionally we suggested that we could provide an insurance statement indicating that we understand the importance of safeguarding the business proprietary information from the unauthorized disclosure. however the office of general counsel stated that given the fact that the opinion said it would release an opinion with a framework to use and resulting statutory conflicts with the act, the department office of general counsel felt that it was still advisable to wait until the opinion was released. the office of general counsel asserted that the act amendment that came into effect after 1978 when the act was passed didn't reflect the authority to access the information. after two months of trying to get access we had a choice but to terminate the audit to

provide the information based on the advice. conflict of laws hamper the ability to propose the mission. it is to promote the economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of and to protect from fraud and abuse in such programs and operations that as discussed above the act and trade secrets act were cited as the reason for denying access to the records. however, the act authorizes to have access to all records reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations or other materials available to their department. this access should pertain to all government records. i join with the inspector general community and urging the canadian congress to address these issues in light of the

opinion and its impact on the ability to provide oversight of our departments and agencies. i will be pleased to take your questions. >> thank you. we will have seven minute rounds for questions. the purpose is to find out whether or not they will handle the sensitive information. it's difficult and i guess i would ask you to pay attention to my first question. it's difficult to understand what problems the department was trying to solve by reversing the previous decision in 2010 and claiming for the first time that these various nondisclosure statute overwrite the inspector general act over the past 26

years the justice department inspector general has been provided access to some of the most sensitive information available to the department. i'm not aware of an allegation the inspector mishandled or inappropriately released any sense of information so i will start with mr. perkins. i would like to ask you to speak about are you aware of any allegations in the history of the release and any sensitive information? >> i'm not aware of any breach during the ten year. >> i am not aware of any instance in a ten year but i can say from a policy perspective the department believes they should get everything they need to complete the review.

>> isn't it true that you were subject to the same restrictions on the release of sensitive information as everybody else in the department? >> that is true and that's why we comply with them. >> i have to ask what is the issue of the inspector general to protect the sensitive information as well what would be under the same condition prior to 2010 >> i think to put it in the proper context there was a policy change in 2010 that drew things from one side to the other. there were process changes at the period in time, but put that in the it in the context i would even take it further back to right around 2001 in the records

review which was one of the early on used conducted by the previous inspector general a significant document request for the lengthy review process that was charting new ground for the bureau and the point i want to make is starting with that throughout the rest of the decade leading up to the pivotal point in 2009 and 2010 it is an evolutionary process even beyond that for this day where we pivoted to the point where, and i think that the inspector general would agree that outside of the current issues with the opinion that process in place today is the best that's ever been and continues to improve. but with that aside, 2009 and 2010 with a part of the process that we went forward with a more and more investigation and more and more document request. questions were raised by our own

general counsel's office into compliance with the law. are we doing things properly? there review of that raises concerns. i know that prior to 2010 for instance with grand jury material that i was turned over until we were totally assured those handling the documents were placed on the list. when i was on documents were turned over and the process is all throughout the decade leading up to that point. moving forward, it is a combination of the general counsel expressing concern concern whether or not we were acting within the law as well as turning over documents as well as the fact that as we went through 2011, 2012 into the current day the increases in technology and in preventing research for documents that plea increase the number of record coming into the process. so it was just a matter of volume in the fight whereas in

2005 when we had a document request, technology did not allow as thorough searches of the conflict today us in my opening statement hundreds of thousands of documents are still being produced today would not have been produced back then because of the technology research and periods of it it is a combination of all of those things that have come together and have brought us to this point but we are at today. >> i'm sure that you are giving aid and security answer. asian security answer. it sounds to me like a lot of red tape and manpower doesn't accomplish anything when the people are supposed to get the information or don't get the information and they haven't had any documented wrongdoing on their part. i would ask you to respond. expect we would like to streamline the process as much as possible. they've taken a number of steps that we would like to go further

the inspector general should get all of the document documents as requested but we are grappling with here is a legal question about the interaction of the two different statutory schemes. on the one hand the very general nature of the access provision in the ig act. the rule six of the credit reporting act relates to as mentioned before the intercepted communications from a grand jury proceedings and credit information about individual americans and those are really carefully restrictions that are included in the statute given the sensitive nature of that material. for example the dutch grand jury proceedings the information about the proceedings was protected from disclosure because of the nature of the proceedings and how that might impact say an individual that came before the grand jury as a witness or an individual that was brought in front of and into never in native. the process and procedures are

there to protect the secrecy of the proceedings, protect the due process rights of the individuals involved and we thought about that moving forward in that legislation. again, we understand the general access provision but we were grappling with those consisting statutory concerns that we think we can work with mr. horovitz and the congress to get the legislation that would address this issue and that's why we started the process that we started. >> i'm going to end by asking mr. horowitz to respond to what you just heard. >> as indicated in the question, before 2010, we have multiple reviews where we got a grand jury information and we got the title of an ann three information if we got the credit information no one went to the office of legal counsel to give

us that. we got it in a timely manner. we got it promptly at the time access to significant information in the reviews of despite matter, the 9/11 attack the president's surveillance president surveillance program, national security letter reviews, patriot act reviews, i could go on and on about the kind of work done and the kind of oversight we conducted before 2010 without anybody objecting to the access to that material based on any legal reasoning. no practices were changed. we kept doing the getting the same kind of oversight we've done before. >> and the order of the rival.

>> before you go we are not going to shut down this hearing. he will take over for a short meeting i had with the majority leader. >> gentlemen, thank you for being here today. before i ask questions, we had a committee meeting last week and we had some concerns again with what the cynical view would suggest is the roadblock for getting the right information it's either congress. they are responding to the

comment. the department depression in the commerce are still evaluating the opinion. they are also looking at the opinion to block the information to the inspector general. it is a general permission and by specific acts that are out there that do not state that they have access job that. how do you feel about it? >> i would say the process changes that have occurred recently moving the lawyers from

the fbi out of the process as to where - pic is a good thing. that is improving the process. having said that, we didn't have the discussion before 2010 about whether the process was good or bad. we just got the records and that's the bottom line. we shouldn't have to have the discussion and i shouldn't have to spend my time and frankly the deputy attorney general and the deputy director that had have stated their support and made these changes. i'm sure they have much more important things to do managing the organizations to figure out what process is the best process then >> am i pronouncing your name right? you mentioned a couple of times the position the department is taking right now is your interpretation of the law. since we are lawmakers what should we do to be able to get

back to the process that we thought was working relatively well prior to 2010 and is this something the department would support, in other words, to the point of also saying as a result of your interpretation, you come out with current policy memorandum. what do we need to change to get back to an all means pre- 2010 position and is not that something that the department would support? spin absolutely, senator theater he committed to working with congress on a legislative solution and we do think the legislative solution is workable and is something that we absolutely support to address this issue. as the inspector general we do not want to be in the position of having to deal with these issues. we think he should get everything he needs and raise any question about the interdependence can absolutely. those have been constructed and

we hope to be able to have some things that we can concretely discuss. >> i think that my colleague and the appropriations in the department of justice appropriations act in 2015 attempted to address this by enacting section 218. what more do we need to consider >> decision decided wasn't a fix. they decided that position was ambiguous and certainly from our standpoint having interacted with the appropriators on that, they thought they were clarifying, not leaving an ambiguous provision out of their. so what we thought was a fix was not because of the way that the decision interpreted the statute. >> how do we get - i'm not an

attorney. the ratio was two thirds until is better to become senator left it was a straightforward thing. we know your interpretation and you can reverse engineer that into what you need to get back to 2010. so why aren't we discussing here the specific proposed legislation that i hope on a bipartisan basis to pass. the legislation needs to say very expressly it currently says all that is now no longer all. they said that unless they allow

access to the records the inspector general that the records. that is the result of his opinion of what needs to be done if they can tell how important the hearing is this maybe one of the most important hearings we have in the congress in a long, long time. people forget the fact that we have a duty, constitutional obligation in the congress and the congress to do investigations and oversight and what this opinion does allows the oversight of congress has under the constitution. the attorney general, the new attorney general can't just

change the underlying policy back to what it was in 2010. so it complies with the inspector general's statute. world someone can come up with a legal opinion of 66 pages is what i count the 67 essay that since 1978 it is somehow preempted by these carveout provisions and doesn't mean all of this ties common sense whatsoever in any legal theory that i'm aware of. it is a possibility of a judge or lawyer to reconcile and harmonize the law. this was cited in 2010 but if we were to trump or preempt this means the provision of 1978. while i find it very disturbing that it continues a trend that we have seen in the previous

attorney general that i'm aware of that's ever been held in contempt of congress for failing to disclose information in the fast and furious investigation which mr. horovitz knows a lot about and upon which he has rendered at least one report. but it strikes me as the department of justice has become so politicized it essentially is ignoring the mandate of congress. i don't know why we should have to pass another law saying we really meant it. in 1978 when we settle we mean this time. that's ridiculous. >> i wish the attorney general would take a close look at this. there have been office of legal counsel opinions that have been withdrawn in the past that are erroneous and this one should be. i hope she will take a look at it. i have a lot of respect for the attorney general lynch and that she has the capacity to change the way.

and i wish her luck. i also want to just mention the fact that the president has continuously failed to appoint inspector generals in a timely fashion for the department of veterans affairs as needed for 582 days. yet the president hasn't made an appointment despite the letters of congress urging him to do so. the role that each of you please is absolutely critical for the functioning of democracy and for the capacity for self-government if any agency is in need of an inspector general is the va. if the department of interior needed the new ig since 2011 is in the indicator it'll be another 1,714 days before president obama gets around to meeting an appointment. that is three times longer than he has been in office.

that is simply unacceptable. >> what concerns me as well is that by one estimate nearly 40% of the opinions are not publicly disclosed in any way. i wonder how many other opinions there are that choose to reinterpret the long-standing law in a way that restricts the public access and inspector general's access to the watchdog that we intended the inspector general's to be. i'm very concerned about that and i hope that the senator will pursue that. they have requested to assist the department into solving in dissolving the complex legal issues implicated by the statutes discussed.

however by all accounts prior to 2010 no one thought the issue was complicated at all. what happened in 2010 to make what no one has before identified as an issue is a complex can you share any insight? i will open up to all of you that you have any insight would happened in 2010 to change the existing law. >> i was not the inspector general at the time but my understanding is the memos and the decisions from the legal counsel at the fbi followed several reviews of the national security letters and other hard hitting reviews because there was no other change in the law. no policy change, no regulatory change. the same law section 687 the same thing today. the jury title iii credited

information didn't change either. so there's certainly no legal issue that occurred in 2010. >> based on the reasoning of the opinion, i am not sure congress is capable of passing anything more offensive than saying all. i don't know. anybody have any words were suggestions that we would conclude about statute of the clarify this but all really does me no? i noticed some people are chuckling. it is laughable, and it is completely unacceptable. it is unfortunately part of the politicalization but we found under the previous attorney general that i think has been a complete embarrassment. >> mr. chairman, i would yield back. >> senator klobuchar?

spack thank you very much mr. chairman. i had another have another meeting i'm sorry i was a bit late. this is an important topic. in your joint testimony you state department of justice has an unwavering commitment to ensure that the office of the inspector general has access to all records necessary to complete its investigation. is it your belief that the department is currently turning over documents to the inspector general in a timely fashion? >> i will begin from a timely manner earlier in the testimony i mentioned some process changes within the fbi that allows for a greatly expedited review and turnover of information to the inspector general. i believe that we have worked our way through the vast majority of the backlog in a minimal amount left and we are working very closely work with

the inspector general for the rest of the staff and his people and i think that with the process that we've put in place right now you will see and have seen a greatly expedited turnover of documents still somewhat hindered by the fact that we are a don't want to say hindered but we are bound to follow the law in the opinion as it is stated. and so, there are continuing discussions on that matter but not any that are insurmountable and not any that we can't overcome. >> thank you for the question, senator. they are very supportive of the steps of the fbi has taken to streamline the process internal to the fbi and also taking steps results through to resolve through the april memorandum at july and grant him to streamline the process by which they can

get information even when it is restricted for one of these three statutes and it is in the process to try to minimize the role of the department's leadership to get what he needs. the inspector inspector general for the guidance in terms of the decisions that we can step out of that role entirely. >> do you agree with the assessment and what can we do legislatively? >> it is the fbi and the the deputy attorney general have definitely taken steps in the last several months to try to improve the flow of information and those are certainly welcome. we welcome the opinion and ones that doesn't mean all the question is where did that stop

and visit those three statutes or other provisions? they identify ten other categories as they have concerns about and just since yesterday, i am told in our review of the fbi the use of the bulk statutes the review of the committee is very much interested in our viewing we have records with reductions, not for the grand jury title iii credit information because those have been dealt with, but for other areas of the fbi identified legal concerns about. so, while process has improved a lot we are still getting redacted information and does not result resolved. >> should this be resolved legislatively? >> there is no other solution at this point. i think the opinion makes that clear. >> under the office of legal counsel opinion, as mentioned, there are three types of information at issue here. you mention the title iii grand

jury reporting information. us as we know how to be sensitive and confidential and we certainly had some data breaches lately not only in the government sector but also in the press sector. what do you have in place to prevent the data breaches i guess that also ask that of mr. smith. >> we very much work with the agency that is providing the information. it's in the fbi come and another component on how to make sure that we have protected the information and we comply with the grand jury statute and the same with the others. ..

we have stronger controls in place to prevent any kind of intrusion. we'll also protect the information evidenced locking it up and make sure that we follow all the rules and requirements. we understand that we have an extra duty not only to protect sensitive information but the information on witnesses whistleblowers and the like. >> mr. uriarte instead of going on the issue of confidentiality sensitivity is a former prosecutor respect the sanctity of the grand jury and if we make grand jury proceedings public some witnesses might not testify and others might not be forthcoming and suspects leave before there is probable cause

to hold them. you have any concern providing grand jury mature beyond what will provide can undermine the institution of the grand jury? >> i think in the context ensuring everything he needs to complete his reviews we have found a way to give him that information consistent with rule 60 and certainly in providing that asked that they follow the same restrictions that are prosecutors have to follow but i completely agree about the importance of the grand jury process and that is one of the reasons why it's such a difficult issue for us to grapple with from a policy perspective. we do think we can work with the ig to get them this information consistent with those interests. >> thank you. mr. horowitz along those lines when the grand jury material is disclosed the recipient may not disclose it further, right? chevette restriction also apply to an inspector general in other

words should inspector general be allowed to expose jury testimony to the public? >> it should apply and i'm a former prosecutor and recognize the importance of that information we regularly proceed pursuant to the restrictions. in fact with all of the information what we do before anyone of our reports goes out to send it to the department and the component. in this case for example it would be the fbi. they tell us if they think there are restrictions in there and what those restrictions are so our legal judgment can be a forum by what they believe and we have always complied with the law. there has never been an instance in our history since we opened our doors in the beginning of 1989 where we have in any way violated not only grand jury but any other provision of law. >> okay. anyone want to add to that? all right, thank you very much.

>> mr. horowitz in light of the change in procedures that were outlined and deputy attorney general yates memo from last week how do you think the protocol is going to affect the time limits of your investigations getting access to the documents? >> well certainly my hope is that the change in procedures will make the productions occur more promptly because it will, our hope is cut down on who is reviewing it and how long that review occurs. the challenge is again having been a federal prosecutor we look at the olc opinion and i will focus on grand jury information, it allows prosecutors to produce material to the oig if they find the act standard. i will tell you that would be a

difficult call for me to make to decide whether that information that the ig is asking for would help the department as a whole further its criminal oversight investigation so i could for see circumstances where those decisions are bumped up to higher levels, which could cause delays. i think at this point the question is how will this all works going forward? i think our view, our hope is in our belief is that the process will speed up but as i said earlier the issue really for us isn't, it's one of the issues areas are we getting everything we need, how are those decisions being made, who is making them, what don't we know in terms of the process and finally why do we even need this process? why is this process even in place and as i said just

yesterday the enhanced process that the fbi has legal questions about. >> mr. smith do you have anything to add to that? >> yes sir i do. we in the ig officer concerned that other federal offices may use this olc opinion to routinely delay requests by igs using getting information. we would not want to see the department of commerce established a legal review protocol office that would have to review every single request just in case there was some statute out there that did not specifically say the ig can have this. that we feel would definitely hinder our work, slow down the process and affect the information we are being given. >> mr. horowitz in your opening comments you made reference to

whistleblowers. do you think the protocol will affect the ability for whistleblowers to report misconduct? >> it's a concern for a senator. because all no longer means all section 6a employees throughout the federal government whether it's the justice department or other agencies now where before they could come to us with information knowing that understood -- section 6a we had a right to access them and they think twice. should they come to us with that? how many objections does my agency have two producing? you heard the department of congress has an issue and we know the peace corps i jihad an issue. the epa ig hatted issue with access to information because their agencies looked at their laws and said we are not sure how to get that information. that's a very substantial concern.

it's nice that a lot of lawyers can sit around and write pages about this issue to try and deal with the niceties of the legal issue but we are talking about employees who aren't lawyers who have identified waste and fraud and abuse mismanagement. they want to come to us with information. they want us to help fix fix itd the risk is they have to wonder what is whatever the number of pages opinion main and if i come to the inspector general for my agency will i be retaliated against? >> mr. smith? >> i would agree. i wouldn't necessarily call it retaliation because then the agency can say what you should have given that information to the ig in the first place because it says right here in the olc opinion they don't have rights to it so there wouldn't even be any whistleblower protection against an individual for disclosing information that we were not entitled to.

>> mr. uriarte, i understand that the department has indicated they want to work with us and the ig to solve the problem. i believe our committee invited the department to come meet with our staff and the ig on friday after the opinion came out and far right upper reason the department declined to join the staffer that meeting. how many times has your boss met with the inspector general's horowitz to discuss potential legislative fix to this problem? >> senator thank you for the question. i i can tally the office of attorney general and the deputy attorney general personally have been invested in finding a solution to this problem. this is the general problem of access issue and one of the issues she took gone by when she got to the apartment and it was the topic of conversation during earliest meetings with the

inspector general. she has regular meetings with the inspector general and since we have identified this problem and began working towards a solution i have been meeting with the staff to talk about specific solutions and have breathe with it deputy attorney general about this issue. i know she's dedicated most of find a solution because she too agrees that an independent efficient and effective inspector general is essential to her duty. >> mr. horowitz how would you describe the working relationship and the time to completion on getting a fix to this? are you working well together? do any twos accelerate the process? >> we have had productive meetings on a fixed. i s. chair of the inspector generals working with our legislative committee and others are working through a proposal the department has put together. we anticipating getting back to

the department very quickly because we want to be back here at the end of august before the committee working with the staff to have a legislative solution ready to go because every day that goes by where there isn't this fix inspectors general are stuck, not getting independent axis access and going back to my earlier point millions of government employees have uncertainty hanging over them as to whether they can go to their inspectors general with problems they see that a resulting in waste fraud and abuse in their agency. >> well gentlemen i appreciate it read to me again being a non-attorney maybe i don't suffer the tragedy of knowledge that this is more complicated than it seems that you now if we all seem to be in violent agreement that we need to correct this, we have the 67 page opinion, a lot of work went into that seems to me. if we put about as much work and

focus into the fix then we will have something at the end of august to act on them that's what we need to do. if we fail to do it i think it's a failure on the part of all parties to fix what to me is the blinding flash of the obvious something that needs to be fixed. thank you all for your testimony and we appreciate your time today and we are going to bring forward the next panel. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

actually before we have the panelists it down we will go ahead and have you remain standing so you can be sworn. actually we will give them an opportunity to settle and pay welcome. do please raise your right hand preview affirm the testimony were about to to get that for the committee will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. you may be seated. the panelists we have now are missed daniel o. branded date -- executive director bond government oversight professor paul light is a paulette goddard or fester of public service at the robert g. wagner graduate school of public service at new

york university and mr. brian miller's the former inspector general for general services administration and currently works as the managing director of navigant solutions incorporated. welcome. ms. brian will start with you. >> thank you senator. founded in 1981 pogo is nonpartisan and independent watchdog championing good government reform. the chairman grassley and others in ig serves as the congress's eyes and ears within the executive branch but in order to serve as the eyes and ears of congress and by extension the american public and ig office must have unrestricted view of the agency that oversees. i would argue it is those documents they hesitate to provide in ig paris view that may be the most important for the ig to have. very purpose of having an independent ig is undermined at the office has to seek the agency's permission in order to

carry out its mission. agency actions that restrict offices of aspect -- access to records in turn limit congress and the public's ability to oversee the executive branch and hold it accountable. chairman grassley and other congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle have rightly condemned the loc's opinion. we have been hearing it for the the -- for the first panel. tai chi can't be an effective watchdog if they are forced to negotiate with the very target of their investigation for access to the records. and comments to pogo the former deputy general counsel of the house of representatives said the ofc opinion treats theology as if it were quote above the law. doj can now use as he described the mighty touch approach to turning material secret. we are particularly concerned about the consequential's for for whistleblowers who are on the frontline exposing agency malfeasance as was raised by you senator tell us.

the ofc opinion could have a chilling effect on potential whistleblowers get the f. ai, eea and other offices who wants to provide the ig with evidence of wrongdoing insensitive operations but would understandably fear that there can occasion with ig would itself be a prosecutable offense. they followed the llc opinion would also towards the igs ability to investigate claims of whistleblower retaliation as was the case when the fbi delayed access to records in two recent oig whistleblower reprisal investigations. the opinion in essence can control over to the subject of investigation to decide whether or not it wants to cooperate create as it turns out this is not the first time the olc has challenged the authority of federal watchdogs. prior to the passage of the oig act the olc opined that they proposed requirement of ig

offices to congress as well as the agency had would violate the separation of powers doctrine. in another another opinion that all will see held that the gao was restricted by law her sussing intelligence information. as you've heard the effects of the olc latest opinion are already being felt beyond doj now to commerce and the irs demonstrating it is already happening dangerous consequences for the independence of ig officers across the federal government paid ig offices they several other barriers as well but i'd like to take the opportunity to raise in this hearing. under section 8e of the inspector general act the drg is required to refer any allegations of misconduct involving doj attorneys to an internal units the office of national responsibility. based on data obtained under foia pogo found that opr documented hundreds of cases of

restlessness or intentional misconduct by doj attorneys over the past decade however opr does not really identify information in its record unlike the inspector general meaning we have no way of knowing if anyone was held accountable. it's hard enough for the doj ig one has to fight the department leaders for access to agency records. it's even harder for them to hold doj accountable when it's regally -- legally with restricted from wrongdoing by doj personnel. the attorney general further has the authority to prohibit the drg -- doj ig from carrying out investigations that would require access to information concerning sensitive operations. top officials at other agencies including the secretary of defense, the secretary of treasury, postal service board of editors and the secretary of homeland security have similar powers under the law. although these provisions

require the agency has to affirmatively stop and ig investigation rather than requiring the ig to ask permission this provision gives us a positive we only know of one instance of this provision by the attorney general that we believe that congress should ask how often this is when provoked by their agency heads. logo has a number of recommendations to my written testimony that i will highlight only if you put out goofily congress should clarify that all means all. the doj ig should be give an explicit authority to investigate allegations of misconduct throughout the agency including allegations of prosecutorial misconduct committed by doj attorneys. senator grassley erbil addresses problems ig space matching data across agencies and we think that's an important improvement and finally as was mentioned by senator cornyn congress should continue to put pressure on the white house and agency heads to

fill ig vacancies with independent and aggressive watchdogs. thank you for inviting me to testify today. we look forward to working with the committee to strengthen ig independence and to ensure oversight is fair and effective. >> is such a pleasure to testify before this committee and the chairman in particular who is from iowa and i'm from south akoto so i trust you will be gentle with our lesser state although we don't tank it so. i have a couple of statements pretty much to the point. number one i am extremely familiar with the legislative record of this act dating back to 1976, that particular statute

establishing the h. e. w. a y. g. which is not mentioned in the olc opinions. i know this history. i'm not a legal scholar but i am a legislative historian and i will say point like the olc opinion is wrong, absolutely wrong. when i start my classes at nyu i tell all of my students that they haven't a, every last one and i will give them in a if they can hold back. you would be surprised or hats, perhaps not at how many students seek to give it back. and i think in this particular case olc has given it back. they worked hard to construct the opinion. they really did great i wasn't intimidated by that as i read dissertations that are much longer but i get them in a for

effort on this. they worked very hard to make the case that there are conflicting statutes at hand. my conclusion is that there are no conflicting statutes at hand. that the ig act as plain, contains provisions that require the igs to pay attention and use integrity with regard to any statutes that might require nondisclosure. and the nondisclosure issue was not at all and conflict with access to information. there are plenty of disciplinary procedures in place for the attorney general to stop an investigation if he or she should see the need to prevent disclosure by the igs.

that to me raises the question of why the senate and house would have given the attorney general such extraordinary power to hault, prohibit in the language of the 1988 special provisions to prohibit an audit and investigation or issue on some subpoena by the ig at the ig didn't have that information by right understaffed shoot. why did the olc in 1990 urged the igs to exercise extreme caution if congress requests information if the olc at that point in time did not believe the igs would have such information. it makes no sense to me. nevertheless we all know that this opinion will spread through the ig community and through the departments and agencies like crop circles in my home state

cornfields. and it has. you must do something but i don't think it is a sophisticated, heavily negotiated act. having drafted plenty of legislative reports when i was here as a staffer in congressional fellow i urge you to please golightly on the requirement that your staff drafts a dense legislative report on this. the tip of point in this entire opinion at least for me attorney general statutory authority to supervise or in this case direct and control inspectors the inspectors general. that's where this comes from. you might simply amend the statute to read that this particular authority does not include withholding. and let me just conclude, i mean

we can talk in question and answer about this, that the key conclusion in this opinion is that section 6-1 permits withholding. now my adobe reader on my computer works, i think and i searched every last record that i had, every last hearing, every last legislative report, conference report, the legislation. i cannot find a word withholding used for granted as a tool of her attention. the attorney general has the authority to prevent disclosure of sensitive information but not through a withholding, not through withholding. the statutes are not in conflict which renders the olc opinion of little interest, unnecessary

unless it is taken up by other agencies and the department of justice and used to propel complex negotiations that themselves will constitute a violation of the ig statute which prohibits or encourages the ig said i should say to prevent fraud, waste and abuse and promote economy and efficiency. this is an easy fix from my perspective reading the record and i urge you to consider that rather than the heavy-duty negotiations that you might soon or that you are currently attempting to enter. the last point, not a legal scholar that i am a legislative historian and i know this record better than the olc from my reading of the canyon. it's wrong on many points.

it misinterprets in many areas and draws the wrong conclusion that a that i would give give my student is degraded as you move through this report. that's all i have to say. >> a few professor light. >> you are so welcome. >> mr. miller. >> chairman grassley distinguished members of the committee thank you very much for inviting me to testify that it's a pleasure to be here. thank you for your long-standing interest in oversight and your support for inspectors general. it's a pleasure to see so many of my former colleagues here behind me in the audience. i think this shows just how important this issue is to the entire ig community and after serving in the department of justice for about 15 years, i had have the honor of serving as inspector general of the general services administration when i

was confirmed in 2005 and i served until last year, 2014. i consider myself extremely fortunate to have served with so many principled publics and servants and so many brilliant attorneys and others who worked diligently in the ig community. i too am concerned about the impact of the olc opinion. i am concerned about the policy impact and i think we heard something very curious a little while ago. even the doj officials did not seem to have been -- defend the olc opinion. that the deputy attorney general stated a different policy. he stated that this information should go to the ig and i find that very curious that not even doj is supporting this olc opinion. but generally everyone supports

oversight. we need to have oversight of federal agencies. we need to have oversight of how they spend money, how they keep our most sensitive and private information and that's why we have igs. to withhold one of the important tools that an ig has well have devastating results not just for the day of j. ig but for all igs. it's going to make igs jobs much more difficult. the american people expect that the app the eye and law enforcement departments had actually obtained grand jury information and wiretap information and surveillance information keep that information confidential but they also want someone to oversee those agencies to make sure that they are using that information in the proper way,

not missing using our most private information. so they want to ig is to get that information. i think that is the policy that has been stated in the previous hour. that is the policy that everyone seems to agree to even if i heard they represent the above they deputy attorney general correctly even he stated that. so in order to have effective oversight and ig must have independence to conduct an investigation review. this includes determining what information is needed great in making this determination it's the judgment of the ig conducting the investigation that matters. not the judgment of the overt -- agency being investigated. the olc at any number of verses that process and makes the judgment of the agency being

investigated control the judgment of the ig. that's exactly backwards. to deny the ig information that is needed to reach a conclusion or a finding is misguided. it's like trying to fill the bridge halfway over a river and saying you can't have the rest of the material. it just doesn't work. it's disastrous. the ig must have all the information to make an accurate conclusion and finding. the result of the current siege or a doj will stall doj ig investigations while they meet for agency officials to meet an rule on the igs access to this information. they will not get the information they need and the investigation that doesn't get information will stall just like

a car that doesn't get gasoline will stall. the igs job is hard enough already. i igs already have problems getting information and from agency officials. various legal reasons are often raised to block aig inquiries. many of those get worked out because they are simply unfounded. many of those are based on privacy issues, personally identifiable information concerns or financial information. ultimately the ig gets the information that the investigation or audit is slowed down. in fact, back in about 2009 and 2008 we were having difficulty getting unrestricted read-only access to electronic databases at gsa. i read an article in the journal of public inquiry about it and

the process was much similar to this and that what the agency wanted to do was shift the burden to the ig to prove why we needed the information so our auditors were filling out forms and trying to explain why we had a need to know. what i found out about this and found out about the delays in our audits i have a series of meetings with the administrator. will smiley face worked it out but it was a difficult issue that we had to work through and i recommend it at the time in that article that there be a legislative fix to clarify that all igs have unrestricted read-only access to all electronic databases. i still think that would be helpful but again it is redundant because the language is already clear that all means

all. i urge this committee to make sure that agencies comply with that language and that they understand that all means all. thank you very much. >> i will ask the questions after he is done. >> professor light you mentioned that we should go light. we are where we are and it looks like in a grade on the olc report that may maybe less than a because you disick rate with their conclusion but what does a light fix look like in your opinion? >> i think you will need to add a section of definitions. it's very simple. many statutes as you know contain definitions and key terms. the two definitions at hand here which need to be defined i thank

to dispose of this issue and i give the olc and a for effort. i think the chairman said or one of your colleagues said that it was really an almost herculean effort to figure out how to make the statute speak to this issue really impressive, but in terms of the outcome, no. so let you have got to define what the pivot is in here. the notion that a agency head or the attorney general could withhold is not dependent on other statutes with nondisclosure requirements because they act already says that the ig has to pay attention to that. it stands on the notion that the agency heads in the attorney general oversee, control and

direct the ig and therefore can withhold. a least that's how i read the opinion. therefore you have to say nothing in that provision may be interpreted to give the attorney general or any agency had authority to withhold information under the full access section. and then i think you need to define all a little more perhaps. i mean you know the olc opinion is on point regarding supreme court decisions, regarding abroad in a chair of the word. i don't agree pretty things all of its crucial and fundamental. the house worked hard to say how important this was but go ahead and give olc some help. i strongly believe that this memorandum should be withdrawn. it's not good for olc to issue

an opinion that is so tangled. it does not help their reputation in future memoranda that that's not something you can order or would want to order. it's very simple i think. >> mr. miller do you have anything to add? >> i would add that i like the language suggested by the council of inspectors general on integrity and efficiency. their language in their letter to this committee reads that a provision would provide that quote no law provision restricting information applies to inspectors general unless that law expressly so state and such and restrict its inspector general access extends to all records available to the agency regardless of location or form. end of quote. >> thank you. in the prior panel testimony and

your opening statement it seems to me that we all have agreement and we need to fix fix it fix in within the department. besser light you made a comment that i think is very important something that i'm concerned with. we could work hard and have all the these intensive negotiations and everything else but it doesn't seem like it's that difficult to me. i think we need to come up with a simple fix, not a 100-dollar saddle on a 10-dollar horse. this is a fairly straightforward proposition so i won't ask anymore questions except to say for those who are involved in this, keep it simple and get it done quickly it goes we need to get the inspector generals back to the point where they can do their job, very important job that they have done very well for many years. thank you mr. chair. >> before i ask questions, i

know that senator leahy has questions for both panels looks back that maybe from the other members that aren't here. what's the normal time? so up to one week we will take questions in writing. you have all had a chance to read the olc opinion and hear the testimony on the first panel our first question to all three of you is what do you think the weakest link of the olc opinion is ms. brianne? >> at the risk repeating what was said many times they are ignoring the fact that the congress meant all. it's similar frankly as i know you have doubtless in whistleblower protections where there's a question does any mean any inner disclosure? the same willful disregard and

what congress is intent was. >> mr. sub or? >> it was actually an order presentation regarding the deletion of the house provision so dealing with a blanket exemption for the inspector general from the privacy act. olc reads this and says well this is you know below that congress did not intend full access. they deleted the statute with this eloquent language or this provision in 1978. oh well see it actually reached that i sang that deletion allows -- in fact the deletion was a very mundane effort to clean up the statute. the senate is looking at the house statute and says do you know if this provision is unnecessary taxes kind of insulting. the senate was concerned about all the justice department's

objections to this. there was a 1970 memorandum that was very intense about the young guns -- it unconstitutionality of this concept to the deletion of this provision as read by olc as the statement that congress did not mean access to all. the deletion as explained earlier in the legislative report, four pages earlier as we have are cleaning up certain features of this act. but if you are averse to order it looks like this dramatic moment of great senate consideration to dump this provision in an effort to say all this not mean all. i found that the most disturbing actually because you are reordering legislative history and that is absolutely not acceptable. >> mr. miller before you answer my first question i want you to think about the second one

because we are looking for the language that would take made it clear enough to ensure the inspector general really does get access to all records belonging to their respective agencies. you can answer both of those right now mr. miller. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think the weakest part of the opinion is when it deals with the appropriations language section 218. i think that was clear and i think the discussion is probably the weakest part. to make it clear they do have language. on page 46 of talks about notwithstanding language. it mentions that in a number of places on page i think it begins on page 45 but mainly on page 46. it talks about other statutes where it would not apply because it has language saying

notwithstanding any other law or notwithstanding any other statutory prohibition on disclosure etc. etc. and then at the end it talks about a clear statement being clear, manifest and unequivocal. i think any sort of fix would have to be clear manifest and unequivocal. i think that's on page 56, 57 of the opinion the first full paragraph. again the problem with saying notwithstanding any other law you run into this problem that you mentioned mr. chairman that there are so many laws that if you try to list them all and say they don't apply what if you forget one or what have one has passed after the statute? and there's that problem. so i do think the council of

igs on integrity and efficiency did come up with some pretty good language and that quote that language in my written testimony as the end and that simply says, actually i don't have an frenemy right now but i read it earlier. that language was very clear and said -- here it is. no law or provision restricting access to information applies to inspectors general unless that law expressly so state and such

unrestricted inspector general access extends to all records available to the agency regardless of location or form. >> i think i'm going to and with this question to ms. brianne. your organization has been a leading advocate of transparency and accountability. about as long as the ig act has been in effect. in that time we have seen the importance of having watchdogs within each agency that are truly independent. what do you think will be the practical results of the olc opinion going forward if we don't fix fix it legislatively? >> thank you senator grassley and actually you me were call where the project on military procurement founded a year old friend ernie fitzgerald and that gets to the point of how our biggest concern is implication for whistleblowers who are generally some of the first-line people who are purporting to be ig so not only will they have

legitimate concerns as they are to do about coming forward, now this is going to amplify that problem but it's also going to prevent the protection of those whistleblowers by these igs which is where we are hoping the igs are going to be more capable of doing as they move forward. so we see this as an unnecessary in some senses because as we have been hearing before and i think senator cornyn made a really good point that if it's wrong they should just withdraw it rather than congress having to change the law because it does appear, not a lawyer but it it appears the congress is clear in what they meant. we all know that the agencies will be able to take advantage of what they want from the llc opinion and the do need the congress to ask this or we are not going to get the oversight we need from her ig. >> i want to thank all of you for your testimony and particularly for the large number of people we have had from the various ig offices. thank you all very much. we intend to fix this.

we will get it fixed and we will have igs do their job which is very important. they are very essential to those of us who take the constitutional responsibility of oversight very seriously. they help us in that regard. they aren't the only people in government to help us with that but they are very important part of it. thank you all very much. >> enqueue. >> thank you mr. chairman. [inaudible conversations]

now discussion on the rise of violence in american cities, police community relations and sentencing reform. from today's "washington journal" this is about 40 minutes. >> host: welcome to tom manger a present of the major cities chiefs association and also to achieve of the montgomery county police department in maryland. thank you for being with us. we want to talk about a real fight in crimes around the country in big cities. a lot of variables involved such

as? >> guest: we start talking amongst ourselves the chiefs of the large cities around the country. we all were noticing a spike in shootings and homicides so we decided to get together. we got together a few days ago on monday in what we found was that not only per week all seeing this spike in violent crime that we were seeing commonalities, things like the impact of synthetic drugs. we were seeing shooting scenes just tremendously large number of shell casings. now it's dozens of shots fired in some of these things. we saw the perpetrators of these homicides all seemed to have lengthy criminal records and you are asking yourself why was this

person out in the first place? why weren't they in jail? wiest saw, we were seeing commonalities among the suspects in these cases. so many of them didn't finish high school. so many of them had no job skills. many of them again were violent offenders that had served jail time but were now back out on the street. the good news i guess for us for something we could use with this meeting was when you look at all these commonalities it gave us some direction about how we can start trying to address some of these issues. >> montgomery county outside of washington d.c.. during the uprising that took place in baltimore and a lot of cvs and drug stores were looted. there's a real uptick in crime in the greater baltimore area. they attribute that directly to the use of these drugs or stolen from the drug stores. >> guest: your stackley i've

spoken a number of times with interim commissioner kevin davis. and he said you have got all these drugstores that were looted and he said there were tens of thousands of doses of narcotics that are on the street it's almost like there's a drug war going on in the city where rival gangs, rival drug distributors, illegal drug distributors are fighting each other to get their share of the market and this has resulted for the city and that uptick in the homicides since the unrest over freddie gray. >> host: what about synthetic drugs? first of all what are they and why have they become such a prevalent problem? >> guest: i'm not the expert on synthetic drugs by what we know is drugs are manufactures that are having a real dangers

impact on people that take them. what we are finding in the old days when folks would take pcp and you would confront someone who is high on pcp and they had this superhuman strength we are seeing the same kinds of uses people taking the synthetic drugs. they're having the kind of reactions, very violent. we have had a few cases just in this region of people dying in police custody and as a direct result of the use of the synthetic drugs. one of the issues we are dealing with is the legislators are playing catch up to try to make sure that all of these ingredients being used for the synthetic drugs are illegal because these synthetic marijuana's these cannabinoids once they make a certain recipe

illegal then they will change one ingredient so all of a sudden we have a more difficult time in law enforcement and charging someone because they have change an agreement -- an ingredient. legislators around the country are trying to play catch-up to make sure we can stay ahead of the synthetic drugs. >> host: if you are a police officer are part of the police draft you can give us a call at (202)748-8003 and tom manger is joining us from the chief of police association i want to talk about race relations which is another element in all of this. ferguson, cleveland, baltimore. how are chiefs dealing with this? >> it had a tremendous impact and of course they anniversary of michael brown shooting we had dealing -- been doi police, law

enforcement and police have some role. you do not take credit for all crime reduction because then you have to take all the blame when crime comes back up. tac need to look at what tics has a negative impact on our relationship with the community. especially when you look at the areas -- this is the same for every police chief across the country. we can tell you where crime occurs in our jurisdiction. invariably, it is places where there are higher levels of poverty. ratesok at the graduation

and where that is lowest, that is where you see more crime. where you see more young kids who do not have good, healthy, parental adult influence in their life. if you track those kinds of things, educational poverty levels, job skills, you can predict where crimes are going to occur in a jurisdiction. host: i want to bring in our viewers and listeners. when you speak to officers on the beat on this issue, what do you tell them? guest: i tell them it is our responsibility to ensure we have a good relationship with the public. we have to earn their trust and keep interest. we are only as good as our last contact with the public. you can go months without having any controversial incidents. then you have one that incident -- one bad incident that goes

viral and is being shown on the news and all of a sudden the police department is on the defensive. the problem is that folks seem to paint the police with a broad brush. there have been some absolutely criminal acts by police officers that have occurred in the past year that have been on video and shown over and over. officer,gle police every single police department has been impacted by that particular incident. it represents such a small percentage, such a minute percentage of contacts the police have with the public everyday. in montgomery county, we have one million people. we can document through traffic stops, 911 calls and a host of other things, we can document .5 .. year.

99.9% of them go exactly as you would want them to go. even the minute percentage can overshadow all the good work that is being done. i tell my cops you've got to work at this every day. host: tom manger began his career in fairfax county, virginia. moved up to chief of police in fairfax county. now has the title in montgomery county. he's the head of the major cities association. he's heading to chicago for another conference. jeff in hawaii, good morning. to thank both of you. is there something else parents can do to help the police in their efforts to save the young minds and the future of this country? perhaps respecting the feelings with the children. before creating trouble teens

which experiment with drugs? guest: there is nothing more influential in a young person's life than parents. as a father of two, oftentimes i think my kids are not listening to a word i say. they are. young adults will tell you the biggest influence in their life was their parents. having to work at teaching the kid good values, teaching the value of education. all those things are important in a young person's life. one of the best things we have highis put officers in schools. we have a school resource officer in every high school in montgomery county. it is not because the schools are dangerous, we want to make sure we have a safe learning environment. arerelationships the sros building with young people is tremendous. the police department has a responsibility to reach out to young people. the biggest,

influence and her life is their parents. parents have to take that seriously. talk about drugs. kid'sggest risk and any life is when they get behind the wheel of a car. having the conversations about not driving with your friends. making the tough decisions that your kid has to abide by, that is what is going to keep your kids safe. they are going to realize and -- they will realize that was for their own good. host: what is the size of your department and your budget? guest: our budget is around $280 million a year, between 1800 employees and 1900 employees. host: from indiana, a police officer. tell us about yourself and continued with your question for tom manger. caller: i spent 35 years on the

four spirit i was born and raised on the southside of chicago. years, there's5 been a profound disrespect in the black community for authority, for women and for life itself. i've done all the community activist stuff. i've been a coach, i've worked in the schools. i've done all those things, i said the homeless. it is just not working. these kids are being taught to disrespect police. they disrespect authority altogether. i retired last year. what made me retire, i was cutting my grass on the southside of chicago. everybody on my block knows i'm a policeman. a kid came up while i'm cutting my grass, put a gun to my head, and stole my lawnmower. can you believe this? they know i'm a policeman.

i am so disgusted. i give up. i've moved out of chicago. the disrespectt, is profound. that's all i have to say. guest: i certainly understand your frustration with what occurred. i've got to tell you, i've been a cop for 38 years. things are different today than they were when i started in the mid-1970's. but i will tell you that we cannot give up. the police has a tremendously important role in the community. you can talk about community policing all day long, it means 100 different things to 100 different people. it is about the community understanding the role the police have. the community does need to understand what we do and why we do these things. the police also have to you arend that when

policing a community that has a very high crime rate, there are still good people that live in that community. it is important for us to do our job, do our job lawfully, do our job effectively but understand that there are good people. in fact, one of the biggest things i think some big cities are grappling with is the lack of cooperation that we get from neighborhoods where they really need us the most. where you have the highest number of homicides. who gogot investigators there and people who have information will not come forward because they do not trust the police or do not like the police. all that does is result in a low clearance rate for those homicides and more violence. we do not have good cooperation. the caller talked about the fact that he gave up, it is probably

good that he retired if he has 1300 up.i've got almost cops that have not given up. they understand that they have to continue to do their job. there are hundreds of thousands of cops like that all over the country. host: have you seen the netflix series "orange is the new black"? guest: i have not. i don't get a chance to watch much tv. host: paper requiremen -- piper korman, who spent time in jail, she testified on capitol hill. [video clip] >> when i reflect on the punishment for my crime, i cannot protest when i think about the harshness with which poor people and disproportionately poor people of covered art -- for people of color are treated in this country. it's hard to believe there was social benefit drawn from my

incarceration. it prevented no new crimes. when we consider the punishments offenses, we have to reflect on the mandatory minimum laws from the mid-1980's. laws wereme, those intended to curb substance abuse and addiction. and some crimes that grow out of substance abuse and addiction. today, many decades after we passed those laws, we have put millions of americans in prison felonydled them with convictions. illegal narcotics are cheaper, more potent and more easily available then when we put mandatory minimum laws on the book and incarcerated those people. we can only draw the conclusion that in terms of curbing substance abuse and addiction that those laws are a failure. for drugeople up

offenses, particularly low-level nonviolent offenses, is a waste of time and money. host: piper kerman, author of the book "orange is the new black," which became a netflix series. you heard what she had to say before a senate panel. let me focus on present reform. what needs to be done? the president has talked about this. democrats and republicans say no more three strikes and you're out. about smartwe talk policing, we need smart sentencing reforms as well. find at think you will police chief in this country that would say that locking up a person for possession of marijuana or some low level drug offense needs to have any incarceration, perhaps any at all. diverting folks to substance abuse programs, we've been doing that for years. the notion that there are millions of people in jail for low-level offenses is not

accurate. yes, in the 1980's, the sentencing guidelines were changed because of the crack wars. i disagree with one thing, she said it was done to curb substance abuse and addiction. it was done to curb the violence soldiated with drugs being and gangs because of how much money they could make in the drug business. the violence. i think what we have all learned that someone who has a substance abuse needs .reatment, not jail just because someone was offense, of a drug

making them a nonviolent offender. we had a homicide a couple days ago in montgomery county by an individual convicted of two major narcotics distribution offenses in 2012. he was sentenced to eight years. less than three years later, he's out. he's been arrested twice in the last several months. once with a gun, with drugs and the gun. the otherled his wife day and then shot himself. the parole commission said how could we have predicted this? he was a nonviolent offender. he's had nonviolent -- he has had violent offense convictions since 1992. when we talk about sentencing reform, you will not get any argument. we understand there are sometimes better ways to handle folks that break the law, whether it is substance abuse, mental illness. sending folks to jail is not the answer -- treatment is the

answer for those folks. there are individuals that do community is safer when they are behind bars. the individual who committed the homicide in montgomery county the other day should have been behind bars. host: tom manger is the chief of police in montgomery county, maryland. he's the president of major cities chiefs association. from maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. he knows that i am a member of his county. disagree on something really quick and then go on to another quick point. when he says that the drugs, sentencing laws were for violence, we already had books that -- we already had laws on the books that address the violence. i disagree. these were political decisions and we know that.

when it comes to montgomery county and police action here, i see more policemen riding around in cars wasting taxpayer gas money. when they do stops, it is like four or five police cars like they want to put on a display. you do not see policemen walking in the street. montgomery county is an affluent neighborhood. there should be no fear of policemen getting out of their cars and walking and talking. i see an abundance of areas being targeted that are being aggressiveeas with policing. i see other neighborhoods such as potomac, bethesda where you do not see that type of action. these people commit crimes just as much as anybody else. if you go through the books and look at police stops, if you have a way of tracking race, i

guarantee in montgomery county you will see more black citizens stopped than whites. caller: -- host: we will give the chief at chance to respond. thank you for the call. guest: i'm in the community all the time, i know there are folks that would agree with the caller on a lot of points. we do not have a one size fits all in terms of police service. we have very urban areas, we do have folks, i have cops on foot, on bikes. o understand that you've got to put police officers where the crime is occurring. if there's an area with high service, has a higher crime rate, we have more police officers there. it is just simple. putting cops on the dots where they need to be. host: do your officers used body cameras? guest: we just began a pilot program. i've been wearing one for the

last six weeks or so. i have to tell you that i think they are great value. they are not the panacea everybody thinks they are going to be. they have limitations as well. maryland, itof requires that i notify somebody they are being video and audio recorded when i have my camera running. it is a real conversation stopper sometimes. tough to have a normal interaction with someone after you tell them they are being recorded. i understand the value of it. about somen we talk of the impacts of ferguson -- people want police officers to be accountable. they want transparency. they want to know cops are doing what they are supposed to do. % of the time, my cops are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. the cameras are going to confirm that for the public and anybody else who is interested. host: do they go on

automatically? how do they work? guest: you have to turn them on. we are in a pilot program now. we've just gone. i've got about 80 to 100 officers wearing the cameras right now. to turncers are allowed them off under certain circumstances. if they are going in to the locker room, going to the bathroom. if you and i are police officers and we are in the back of the station just talking about our kids and baseball and all that, you do not have to have your camera on. interactionave any with the public or are doing law enforcement activity, the camera should be on. host: david joining us, los angeles. good morning. caller: good morning. when i listen to the police every it reminds me of

nail. needs a despite the fact that what we have is complete system failure the judicial system, from the police to the mass incarceration. it's amazing to me that when you engage in this degree of denial of a failed system that constantly justifies itself by perpetuating fear. as opposed to saying when you asked him the question about his budget, you have all of these male-dominated professions like police and military. they garnish most of our economics here as far as tax dollars are concerned. there's no funding, minimum our little funding for schools and social programs.

educational programs. all the boys get their toys. host: your response? in mostisten, jurisdictions and certainly in mind, education is our number one priority in terms of funding. i have a budget of about $280 million. the largest agency within the county government. the school system's budget is in the billions. the emphasis is on education, as it should be. the notion that the entire criminal justice system is failing, i don't agree with that. what i do agree with is the entire criminal justice system wherea real study to see it can be improved. the last time we had a commission that looked into criminal justice system, a national commission, was 1965. it is long overdue to have

another crime commission to look at the criminal justice system to look at the issues this caller talks about it let's see where the system is failing. let's see where the system needs to be improved. since ferguson and with the other incidents around the country, everybody is focused on the police. everybody is criticizing the police. every time something happens, oh, my god, the police are out of control. police need to be looked at, there needs to be accountability. we need to look at who is investigating police involved shootings. are police being held accountable? those are important issues. good things are happening on those fronts. i do agree that the entire criminal justice system needs to be studied in a comprehensive manner to see where we can improve things. host: why did you become a cop? guest: i grew up in baltimore

city. a lot of what i believed were injustices in the world. i actually started off wanting to be a journalist. i quickly found out that was not for me. i decided i wanted to be a social worker. taking someed criminology classes and realized that i thought being a police officer would be where i could help the community the best. the one thing i can say is i picked the right profession. i love what i do. it is challenging but after 38 years i still enjoy coming to work. and am invigorated by the challenges that face police today. host: tom manger is the president of a major cities chiefs association. chief of police for montgomery county, maryland. we go to west virginia. michael is next. good thursday morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask the question

why. why are the majority of the major cities, there is a disparity in crime rates. they are all democratically held by democrats. are like, gun laws affecting crime in those cities and states that are all held by democrats. they are taking guns out of law-abiding citizens and criminals have all the guns. well, i'm not sure that every major city is run by democrats. frankly -- the one thing i do think that oftentimes transcends some of the partisan politics is the safety of our communities. i do not know of one elected official that would not tell you

the safety of communities is our priority. a fair number of executives and chief elected officials. they have made public safety a priority. and not tried to interfere politically with how law-enforcement is done. not every police chief can say that but i have had that good fortune. so, the notion that guns are being taken out of law-abiding citizens' hands, i'm not sure where that is happening. frankly, common sense gun laws, there are some commonsense initiatives that could be taken that would make our communities safer that cannot make it through congress or make it through any -- i talked about, earlier the shooting scenes where we are finding dozens of shell cases. there was a case in washington,

d.c. where you had a drum of a few mission -- a drum o ammunition, dozens of rounds fired out of a semi-automatic handgun. what mitt makes sense to enhance a penalty or make a specific law to give an enhanced penalty for someone who uses a high capacity magazine in the commission of crime? this has no impact on law-abiding citizens. shouldn't they face a stiffer penalty? it is common sense. we cannot seem to get any of that kind of legislation through. universal background checks. people can circumvent a background check so easily in this country. that is how guns get into the hands of people that should not have guns. whether they have mental illness or criminal records. some of these commonsense things we cannot seem to get any of those past congress or at the

local level. host: joining us from montgomery, alabama. democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to say to the sheriff, the chief -- 202-748-8001 -- [inaudible] ask how manyt to black officers does he have on his force? guest: i don't know the exact number. we're about -- is certainly over 100. maybe 150 or so on my department. could be more than that. i've been police chief there for 11 years. we have a large latino

population. when i got there, we only had about 3% of officers that were looking a. i have -- of officers that were latino. i've doubled the number that are latino. -- we areisan, 15% asian. i am lucky if i have 2%. host: why is it difficult to recruit? guest: there are some cultural issues. certainly with the asian communities, law enforcement a career that parents do not encourage their kids to go into. strict requirements. two years of college and a rigorous background check. we work very hard. i've been chief, we've been increasing the diversity of our department. host: time for two more calls.

judy in bowie, maryland. caller: communities where all through the night, they hear gunfire. how can that be dealt with? these people have to sleep on the floor. is there anything that can be done to address that? guest: great question. this goes back to neighborhoods this kind ofe got violence that is going on almost on a daily basis. strategies andn the police in -- the police employ, whether it is plain clothes officers, a high presence. officers have gone to a shot you do nothnology,

have to wait for a 911 call. a shot goes off and they can detect gunshots with listening devices. the policewn to is department working with those neighborhoods effectively? are people coming forward and saying we do not want to live in an unsafe neighborhood. are they working hand-in-hand with the police? oftentimes, the answer is no, for a host of reasons. that is where the police have a responsibility to develop the trust. make folks understand that they are there to keep them safe. they are not there as an occupying force. they are there to keep every resident safe. to realizety has that they have a responsibility for the safety of their neighborhoods as well. can handlek police it by themselves, they cannot. not any jurisdiction. whether it is a high crime area

or a quiet area, you have to have cooperation. host: when the citizens pull out their smartphones and record incidents that happened, whether it is in baltimore or elsewhere, what impact does that have? guest: it has been having a dramatic impact. i can tell you that i have talked to lots of cops about the best example, the shooting in north charleston. people were rebels to buy that that.ple were revulsed by people shook their heads and said we're going to get tarnished by the actions of that officer. perception have the that all cops are like that. cops have not been held accountable and we will lie for each other. that is not true. has it happened in the past? yes. police understand that we have

be transparent, we have to be held accountable. i think that even young cops -- listen, when i started .1 years old -- when i started 21 years o ld on the street, i wanted to save the world. i did not think about all the things i think about as a police chief. my cops understand it makes their life harder. i have cops that are targeted by groups of individuals. they will say hands up, don't shoot. the officer is just walking by and has not done anything. that is why you got to remind them every day that they are there to build the trust. as said a couple times, i'm proud of the men and women in my department. as tough a job as they have, they are doing it everyday. host: data from georgia.

a quick question, please. caller: first, a question and a comment. thank you for c-span. montgomery county, where is that? guest: adjacent to washington, d.c. caller: closer to the baltimore area, ok. i have been listening and trying to figure out if your hands are tied by what you can say and what you cannot say or if you have the same liberal-type mind prevalent in your area. for what you are doing. i'm a public servant and a legislator in my community. i commend what you do. areas,o me that in especially with the political the bestn your area,

thing to do is just back off. what has happened, parents are not raising the children right. you cannot force that. what you have to do, the police force has to back off and let happen what happens. the community gets together and says this has got to stop. host: thank you for the call. your thoughts? it is a do not think good idea for any police department to back off. let the community see how bad things can be. the fact is, you've got to work together. --you get to a point where he says are my hands tied, i've never felt my hands were tied. not one elected official i have worked for knows my politics. what they know is my priority is public safety. in-depthhad

discussions with very liberal politicians and conservative politicians. my point of view is the same. what i am focused on his public safety, what makes sense to best serve the public. frankly, i think that some of the more political discussions -- another time we can talk about immigration and gun violence and all those things. are thingsat there that make our community safer and that is what i'm focused on. host: chief tom manger from montgomery county, maryland and president of the major cities chiefs assoc

.. >> senate majority leader mitch mcconnell reviewed the senate's work over the last seven months and looked ahead to the fall when the chamber returns saying the gop shouldn't shutdown the government over planned parenthood funding.