moderate syrian opposition elements operating in syria. this has been a difficult challenge and as i mentioned yesterday the president has been briefed on the current state of this mission and i've often said that the president and his team is interested in working closely with our coalition to make sure we are constantly reviewing the policies we have in place and updating and improving and refining them when necessary to better accomplish our goal. ..

that emerged overnight is one that has existed between senator schumer and president obama for more than a decade. >> just one question. in the report you said -- one american official said president rouhani has visited russia. [inaudible] he also violated the u.n. security council. so at least until there's some

kind of investigation from the u.n. -- >> i would refer you to our desk at the united nations for information about any kind of request we are making of the united nations. i think i would remind you we've been very clear that we do not anticipate that even a successful implementation of this nuclear accord that would prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is going to resolve the lowest of concerns we have with iran's behavior including the behavior of this individual. >> different thing. if this report is true does it concern you this president would be in the forefront of the accusation -- [inaudible] that actually will be given more money that should worry you ray some kind of red flag? >> the opponent for making that argument are wrong.

sanctions against mr. lamont to the united nations will remain in place once the deal isn't limited for 10 years. the president has been clear that the u.s. sanctions against him are unaffected by the do. that the our sanctions against him because of his support for terrorism that warning in place. so we certainly are mindful of these activities at our level of concern about them has not change. i will tell you that our level of concern about his activities would be greater if you access to a nuclear weapon. that's why we're working so hard to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. >> just confirming that actually he did visit moscow only went to russia speak what it sounds like cnn has some excellent resources. >> has president obama readies to leave on vacation later today, would you say that he

regards the past seven months as especially tough, and that is as a vacation he really needs it badly? [laughter] >> i think it is true that those of you who have been closely following the president would note his schedule has been especially demanding in the last several weeks. i think he would also be quick to tell you that the last several weeks have been especially rewarding for him. they've included an historic trip to africa. they have included the completion of negotiations on an agreement to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon that eventually got the unanimous support of the united nations security council. it concluded, after a couple of snafus, the passage of the trade motion authority legislation that we are hopeful will allow

the united states and a dozen other countries in the asia-pacific to complete a trade agreement to say nothing of these great -- supreme court rulings that once again upheld the constitutionality of the affordable care act and affirm a right for everyone in this country to marry who they love. so it's been a rather rewarding satisfying couple of weeks even if the pace of those accomplishments and the pace of that progress has been rapid. >> he moved up his departure by a day. was he anxious to get out of have? >> i think it took a look at his schedule and recognize that they would be able to fulfill all of his immediate responsibilities at a decent hour today that would allow him to spend the night in martha's vineyard and get started on his vacation first thing tomorrow morning. i know the president is looking

forward to spending some time with his him when he gets up there. >> josh, did you ever find out what he was talking about at the start of his au speech was you said president even have trouble with owner. you know what you thought about? >> i think it might've been a snappy wake into the backstage printer at american university. >> needs to get out of town. [laughter] >> if it's not one thing, it's another, mark. go ahead. [inaudible] do you think this is to the right time to peace talks with the taliban? >> well, let me start by saying that the united states condemns in the strongest terms last night's bombing in kabul which reports indicate killed more than eight people. i think last report i think

increase about the 14 or 15 other could be more, and will get as many as 400 400 civilians. including women and children the gulf between extremes and the people of afghanistan and shows a blatant disregard for human life on the part of those extremists. the fact is increasing as the afghan people have endured much, but they are resilient and our resilient even in the face of a brutal insurgency. we continue to believe and continue to urge the taliban to heed president ghani's call for reconciliation and make genuine peace with the afghan government. let me hasten to add that in terms of those responsible for the attack i would refer you to

the government of afghanistan. i can't confirm, i can confirm that from here. but what is clear is that there does appear to be an opening and we are hopeful that the taliban will take advantage of that opening, to try to pursue a genuine peace with the afghan governor president ghani has made clear that he would nurture and support that effort and we hope the overtures will be reciprocated either talibans. >> secondly, several times putting you have said -- i'm not going to be part of any -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i think it's both. let me explain to you why. you will recall that when the sanctions originally were put in place three or four years ago

that the united states traveled around the world including to india, sat down with the indian government and asked them to curtail the amount of iranian oil that the imported into the country. and we acknowledged in the context of those discussions that this would be an economic sacrifice that put people of india and of the economy of india would have to make. but indian leaders agree to it by saying that this is something that we are willing to do if they can advance our effort to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons through diplomacy. in essence that was the equipment that countries like india had agreed that they would take these steps even at their own expense to try to reach this broader international agreement. and the good news is that agreement has been reached, and

it is an agreement that is supported by the international community. 99% of the world as the president has described it. and that's what they would be so damaging to the standing of the united states, for the united states congress to act unilaterally to kill this deal. no longer would countries like india who have been making a substantial sacrifice over the years have any interest or incentive to continue to enforce the sanctions against iran. there's no basis, there's no credible claim for why they would be willing to do that. and there's no denying the significant negative impact on the united states credibility for the united states to be isolated in this way. that's why the president has said if congress were to move forward to kill this deal or kill this agreement, it would, in fact, yield a better deal for

iran. because what we would see is that iran would sanctions relief. they would have the ability to sell oil to india and give the proceeds of doing so without having to reduce their nuclear stockpile by 90%, without having to put 13000 centrifuges in storage, without having to gut the heavy water plutonium reactor, and without having to submit to the most intrusive set of inspections that have ever been imposed on the country. the program. that's what i've long certificate before congress is that iran is going to get sanctions relief. equations was not a united states and international community is going to get anything for it. that isce before mayors of congress right now and it's why we continue to be confident that we will be able to build substantial support, at least in the democratic caucus, and both the house and senate in support of this agreement. rich. >> josh, past administration has

charged republicans with posting certain administration initiatives with a personal sense, that it was the presence support for something to let republicans to oppose it. do you think or does the president think that with the of radio complicit republican president were to produce the same document would republicans opposed it as they do now speak with as an interesting hypothetical. i think they're a couple things going on, rich. i think the first one is there's no denying the fact that senior republicans in the united states congress that. on television two days before the agreement was reached and announced, to announce their opposition to the deal. senator mcconnell appeared on "fox news sunday," two days before the agreement was reached, and proclaimed a deal quote a bad you. is that even before the deal was reached, even before the deal was announced. now the question is why did he do that?

does he have remarkable powers of clairvoyance? as possible. it seems more likely that he is committed to the kinds of arguments that he and other republicans made in 2003 in the run up to the iraq war, but he's committed to the idea that diplomacy is not worth the effort, that war in the middle east is easy and that we can easily work our will at the detainees at some of our closest allies and partners in the world are not worth paying attention to get those are exactly the arguments that were made in the march to war in 2003, these are exactly the arguments we hear from republicans including senator mcconnell as to advocate against the deal. >> does the president think it's also a matter of them? if someone else were negotiating negotiating, the fact that he is negotiated, his administration has negotiated this deal is will

lead to bulk of the opposition's because i think it's hard to tell. there's a variety of motives. i think the clearest one is that i didn't senator mcconnell is making the same argument he made in 2003. is the president of you those arguments and the policy that resulted from those arguments did not advance the interest of the united states pensions going to war in iraq in 2003 and he does not believe they serve the interest of the united states if it is used to successfully kill an agreement that 99% of the world agrees with. >> does the white house feared a multiplier effect on the schumer angle, senior democrats oppose it is perhaps they would sway other democrats on the fence? >> not particularly. and i was a couple things about that. the first is there was a story in politico -- looking for a medical reporter today -- they are watching, i'm sure.

carefully covering our words this week at this discussion. politico did do the story sort of about the competing political pressures on senator schumer and not embarrass them i will say something nice about the because of their diligence in reporting out that stored they interviewed a couple of democratic united states senators who continue to be undecided, at least publicly about whether or not to support this agreement. of senator tester and senator mccaskill were quoted in the story saying that senator schumer decision would have no impact on there's. and i think it was even senator tester who hoped that the reporter wouldn't tell senator schumer that his vote wouldn't factor into his own decision-making i think the other data point that i can point you to point out to you rich, is that senator schumer is the senior senator from new

york. the junior senator from new york also came out yesterday and she announced her support for the deal. and since the senator schumer made his announcement at least based on my talent based on my toe and nothing would have made any statements since i walked out of, but as far as i can tell there's one democratic senator who has announced an opinion since then and senator baldwin who came out in support of the agreement. i think there's a preponderance of evidence to indicate that democrats are going to make up their mind not based on senator schumer's conclusions but they saw their own conclusions about the merits of this agreement and the strategy to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. we'll continue to feel quite confident about our ability to build support for this agreement in the democratic caucus. >> the vice president -- how engaged would you say is the president and the republican primary process? one of these folks might meet him on inauguration day in 2017 is indeed is a curious to see

what the debate is producing state of that president is certainly following the terms of the debate. just not in real-time. so the president is aware of a broader political debate that ongoing. i'm confident he will be more than just a casual observer in the 16 months or so between now and election day. i guess it's 15 months between now and election day. there has already been a couple of occasions where the president has been asked directly about some of the outrageous claims of those who are running to replace him. at least one or two occasions the president hasn't shied away from responding. >> wanted to follow a. do you think senator schumer's influence particularly on matters -- have been overstated? >> i guess it's hard to measure exactly what kind of influence he has on these matters.

he clearly isn't misery focus on these issues, but he's also somebody who has arrived at a starkly different conclusion than the president has and i don't think anybody including all of you have an opportunity to interact with the president when he's talking about this issue, would suggest the president some are not pay a lot of attention to the issues of well. i think it's hard to quantify. we continue to be confident investment or a democrats in the united states congress will make a decision based on their own conclusions and not on senator schumer's. >> the president may or may not make some calls but what would be going on during this period? obviously in early september they're going to start looking at this, start voting on this. even though i think -- [inaudible] you only have to get a third. you could still easily visit. so what's the strategy between now and then? >> chris, as we talked about yesterday i believe, that this

deal does not require congressional approval but is so that congress can play the spoiler. we are continuing to be confident of our ability to prevent that from happening but we sorted to take any of these votes for granted. while congress was in session use of senior members of the president nation's 15 spent a lot of time on capitol hill in a classified setting, in private meetings and even testifying under oath to of members of congress understand exactly what's included in a. i would anticipate even when congress is out of session data will be a number of private conversations that occur between senior members of the national security team and members of congress. i'm confident when the president returned to the white house a couple of weeks that he also will we engage in that effort and will also be making a number of calls and having a number of

conversations. >> a person close to decision suggested, well, didn't suggest told cnbc and i believe politico as well that this announcement by chuck schumer was to be made today by the white house leaked it last night deliver the because it would get buried with all the attention on the republican debate. to the white house leak this? >> no. the white house did not leak this. and i'm not sure who thought leaking it on thursday night we buried it to anybody has been in this business for a few days would understand that announcing this at 4:00 on a friday particularly a friday before the president addressing the many of you are prepared to head out on vacation, might been a more effective strategy. >> just one more thing. since the president did not spend his leisure time last that watching the debate, perhaps jon stewart's because i don't know if you watched jon stewart's final shoe.

it definitely started too late for me to stay up and watch it but hopefully i can catch up on it over the weekend. >> can i follow-up? because the president gave an interview to cnn that will air on sunday and have a code related to this, i would choose just follow-up because -- [inaudible] on senator schumer can you just clarify, does the president believe that the senator schumer is making common cause with online -- hardlined an event by feeling he's going to vote against supporting the iran deal speak what i think what the president did say does apply in this case that the concern the president had with the actions of the republican conference that he described as making common cause with hard-liners in iran is that they announced their opposition to this agreement before they agree with even reached before the agreement was even announced before the agreement was even available for those members of the congress to read. that's an indication of their ideological opposition to this

deal. hardliners in iran are also ideologically opposed to this deal opposed to this deal and that's the point the president was making. i'd also point out that the other thing, the other way in which republicans come at least a dozen or making common cause with hard-liners in iran is a wrote a letter to the supreme leader of iran tracking closely with the arguments that were made by hard-liners in iran, trying to convince the supreme leader of iran not to engage in the agreement. so that's the essence of the presidency case. senator schumer reached the conclusion that we strongly disagree with but the essence of our disagreement is a vigorous in its different senator schumer is advocating an approach to foreign policy that minimizes the likelihood of success and diplomacy, and relies far too much on the ability of the

united states to unilaterally impose our will through force if necessary on a sovereign middle eastern country. that is what senator schumer advocate in 2003. the president does not believe that this was what the interest of the united states in 2003 and it doesn't leave it serves the interest of the united states to kill this deal. >> a follow-up and one more question. tell me if i'm correct what you are saying. even though the white house is disappointed in the senator schumer, not surprised, disappointed not surprised, the distinction here between this is the expression of views and senator mcconnell is that senator mcconnell ideologically driven, expressly viewed in july, and senator schumer expressed his view on august 7. is that what you are sitting? >> what i'm saying is a on account is less significant than the timing of the announcement senator mcconnell announced

his opposition, he referred to as a bad deal before the deal was even reached. he called it a bad deal while the negotiation will still sitting around the negotiating table in vienna. party for the deal was reached announced or made available for his review. that's an indication that he was ideologically opposed to this and the same with hard-liners in iran are ideologically opposed to this agreement even before it was announced. >> you are maintaining senator schumer had an open mind about this but the presence of persuasion thus not affecting? >> what i'm saying is senator schumer at least read the agreement, talk to the experts were involved in negotiating spent time talking to experts who understand the nuclear bases for some the strategic conclusions that were reached by our negotiators. that at least demonstrates a willingness to consider the arguments of the other side. and just we were disappointed that he didn't ultimately reached the same conclusion that we did. not given his well-known view on

a range of foreign policy issues, the result is not particularly surprising spin one other question about the debate. because of the president -- encourage the american people to contact their members of congress and because the debate last night at a viewership of something like 59 people regard as a political party is the president concerned that viewership last night will in some way overtake his own appeal earlier in the week while members are at home, while members have gone on to talk to their constituents speak with no. the president has not worried about that. >> just to follow up on senator schumer heads up. get senator schumer indicate because your state was pretty clearly worded and there's been no follow-up from his office did indicate that he would both vote to override the president's veto in addition to both

disapprove the iran nuclear deal of? >> i don't know the details of information that was transmitted from senator schumer's office to the white house so i would refer you to senator schumer's office for a detailed explanation of whether or not he would vote to override a presidential veto. >> you were pretty pragmatic yesterday, and you suggest and today it's, in your words congress, don't screw this up when democratic senators are considering their leadership should they consider both the vote to disapprove and the vote to override, or does one matter -- ideas is a pragmatism, should delete into the democratic caucus of? >> ultimate that will decide based on the criteria. no any advice although i would predict i suspect they will apply that test as they consider

their vote for the next democratic leader in the senate. >> you are saying the white house remains pragmatic about the utility of the vote and a motion to disapprove if that message on as important as the override vote which is obvious that you? >> no, no. i think i may have misunderstood your question. my point is i can democrats in the senate will make up their own mind and deployed with her own criteria in terms of how they choose to choose their next leader i merely suspect many of them will include in their criteria for voting record of those who say they want to lead the caucus. but ultimately that's up to them to decide. maybe some of them won't but that's their own decision to make. in terms of our in terms of the best way for members of congress in either party who want to support the deal we would both encourage them strongly and in

the might of the president is not a close call in terms of making a decision, to vote opposed a resolution of disapproval and certainly oppose an effort to override a presidential veto, if that resolution of disapproval does past speed question on the gop debate last letter and number of the republican candidates want to take unilateral action -- [inaudible] enable lgbt administration. [inaudible] if any one of these candidates are in the white house -- [inaudible] >> chris, i think that's a hard thing to say. i think that so much of the progress that has been made is progress that a substantial number of americans have come

around to supporting. and i think that speaks to not just the critically important political progress that's been made in this country on some the issues yet decided but in some ways i think you can make a persuasive argument at least as important as that is the social progress that's been made in communities large and small across the country in which discussions of these issues are taking place outside the context of any sort of political election or partisan debate. and i think it's my view that at least some of that social progress would not have been possible without some political leadership. and that's why the president is justifiably proud of his record. but the real power behind this change in the views of so many

americans as we perfect our union is the power of the american people. a significant change that we see in a relatively short period of time. .. >> to try to make our country a little more just and a little bit more fair, but congress has resisted. you know, ultimately if those

voters who prioritize the issues, i'm confident will look carefully at the views and records of those who are running for president because there's no denying the kind of authority that they could wheel sitting in the oval office. >> regarding the transfer of the when i can -- iraq detainees you said the record of the obama administration has capturing building a case, trying terrorist suspects in u.s. courts what part of the decision because there is insufficient evidence. was there insufficient evidence that would have held off in u.s. courts, is that part of the reasoning or additionally because the what iraqi government

opposed that they can't hand over their citizens to foreign groups, and also why it occurred? >> there's a lot of there. let me see if i can -- >> that's okay, that's okay. lets get through all that. the -- in terms of why she will -- why she will put through the system we obviously can't guarantee a result, we have a firm belief that she will be held accountable for her crimes, and the united states stands ready to cooperate with authorities in iraq to support prosecution and insist in ensuring that justice is served. the other relev -- relevant fact

that he's been detained and we have worked with the regional government and the criminal justice authorities there and one of the other reasons that this makes sense is in terms of having her go through the kurdish criminal justice system, locating potential witnesses that would take part in these proceedings. i'm not aware of any concern that the department of justice expressed about the weakness of their case. you can go speak to them directly about this, but i do think that you could conclude that we believe this is best course of action because as i referred to earlier, this is the conclusion of the intelligence community, diplomatic community, certainly national security and law enforcement officials that this is the best disposition

and this is the conclusion that we reached in agreement with iraqi officials as well. >> did bag had -- bagdad request that they hand her over? >> they agreed with the decisions. >> tomorrow is the year anniversary of the military operation against the islamic state, expanded military options in syria might be counter productive in efforts to come to a political transition. is that reluctant in part to seeing that discussion as counter productive? >> no, i have been willing to

discus the legal justification to defend those department of defense trained and equipped soldiers that are fighting isis in syria. the administration has concluded that is appropriate for the united states and coalition partners to take strikes against extremists that are threatening or coalition trained that are operating on the ground of isil. >> does the 2001amf apply if they were to attack the troops that were training and reinserting in syria? >> what we have indicated -- i'm not aware of a firm analysis that has been done. maybe it has.

it has not been made clear. prior to initiation of u.s. and coalition air strikes inside of syria, the united states government admonished the ishad regime. also applies to any temptation that the regime may have with interfering with the effort -- the antiisil efforts on the ground. okay. last one. >> including secretary of state -- [inaudible conversations] >> also i got an e-mail from embassador where he said that under his administration he and

his staff -- my question here now, is ready to welcome prime minister next month in a huge celebration in new york. is there -- before he leaves to new york? >> well, any plan visits to the white house in conjunction for the united states -- >> thank you. tomorrow members are going to

march to the white house and several lawmakers are interested many including governor, any statement from the president also if anything has been done because they are asking anything because of their looks? >> well, when this event -- when this tragic event occurred, we offer our condole -- what we would remind you of is that this administration has made counter violent extremists a top priority. this kind of extremism manifest

itself in a variety of ways. this administration is determined to work effectively with local elected officials and local law enforcement and community leaders across the countries to counter it, and the -- this is a challenge that the administration doesn't take likely and our efforts continue 24 hours a day seven days a week to try to protect the american people. >> happy birthday to the president. >> thank you. with that, everybody, i hope that all of you will get a chance to take vacation while the president is off. while the president is out we will not have briefing setting. take care. enjoy. [inaudible conversations] >> we'll see you soon. [laughs]

>> tomorrow. [inaudible conversations] >> final white house briefing. you can watch it again if you missed on our website c-span.org. with congress in recess this month you can go on the city tour on c-span everyday 3:00 p.m. pacific. leader tonight at c-span 8:00 o'clock eastern lingering impact of riots.

we'll take a look at the state of the community there as well as baltimore maryland. one of the people on that panel is professor max german. >> i don't think we want to police to go away or disappear. a lot of people want to police to be more accountable. that's something positive. i been try to go -- trying to think of the positives that come out. people are start to go demand more accountability from their police forces. new york mayor signed an executive order. now people have been asking for that since 1965 when the congress on racial was demanding a civilian review board and it

kept getting kicked down the road. it was put in place just recently. new york state governor andrew, i'm not always a huge fan of the policy, but he has said that police officers will not pursue a police issue that the state will. there's been positive movement in that direction the whole police more accountable. >> also in the discussion professor on some of the policy changes. that panel organized you can watch that at 8:00 o'clock tonight on c-span. after the justice department denied request for document.

others talk about how it negatively affected both in and out of the federal government. [inaudible conversations] >> before the two of us give our opening statements, i've been told that there are some people from inspector general offices. i'd like to have all the people of igs, acting igs to please to stand. i want to thank you folks, for

doing the job you do making sure that the laws are executed. we spend money according to to the laws. you are very important part of the government being responsible. thank you for being here. the inspector general's act of 1978 created inspector general as objective units within the executive branch. since then taxpayers are relied to carry out three important tax, one conduct audits and promote effectiveness of program and three to keep congress and agency heads informed about program operations. to help achieve the goals authorizes inspectors general to

access quote unquote, all records belonging to respective agencies. two weeks ago the justice department office of legal con suil issued a legal opinion claiming that that word all does not actually mean all. today we will examine how this opinion is rendering the work of the justice department inspectors general. the department of justice ig is entitled of all department records, period. if inspector general deems a document relative to his job, to do his job the agency toweled turn -- should turn it over immediately without review. the department did exactly that prior to 2010, however in 2010

the federal bureau of investigation changed that practice after the ig uncovered some information about misuse of letters. the fbi claimed it had the right to provide information in over dozen categories including wiretaps and grand injury and consumer credit. the fbi claimed attorneys will review material first and then have the attorney general decide what would be released to the ig. congress did not intend to create this sort of litigation style standoff inside a department. it is a waste of time and money for two divisions of the same government department to be fighting over access to the department's own records. the department's current

practices exactly what the law envisions. under the law and inspector must be independent because agents cannot be trusted to investigate themselves. if igs have to ask for permission they would not truly be independent. the ig act does not allow the attorney general not the fbi to prohibit inspector general from carrying out an investigation or only in certain limited circumstances. when that step is taken it must be done in writing and ig must forward in written to congress. this is what they would have us believe that instead of written notice, it needs written permission to comply with an

investigation. this is simply not how the law was designed to work. the ig testified multiple times about these problems since taking office 2012. congress took action to resolve the dispute. we bolded and underlined section 6a that ensures access to records. section 218 of justice department appropriation act, declared that no funds deny all records. section 218 also directed the inspector general to report to congress within five days when there was a failure to comply with this requirement. in february and march alone we received four of those reports that the fbi refuseed to comply.

the fbi assistant director is here to comfort these matters and also mr. michael, inspector general of the justice department. i would like to find out from these two witnesses what the practice of the fbi and complied with the procedures that the opinion argues as mandatory because we have to realize the fbi can't be above the law. it has an obligation to comply and not only with the inspection general act but also appropriation. that means that fbi employees cannot be spending time withholding times before provide to the ig. the opinion endorses that practice. it needed 68 pages of tortured logic to support claim that

neither ig act or section 218 mean what it actually says. not surprisingly last thursday the appropriations committee of section 218 wrote a joint letter to deputy attorney general that said the following the interpretation of section 218 and the subsequent conclusion of our committees is wrong. we expect the department and all of its agents to fully comply with section 218. provide with immediate access to all records documents and other materials in accordance with section 6a of the ig act, end quote. now is that about as clear

statement as you can get and is equally clear but unfortunately only a few pages discuss the idea act. instead most of the idea, 40 pages analyze. those three provisions relate to title three wiretap, 65 grand injury and federal credit reporting. the fbi kited nearly a dozen provisions in withholding records from the ig. there are dozens if not hundreds of applicable nondisclosure provisions throughout the u.s. that could limit inspector

general access. that opinion argues that nondisclosure statutes like these trump the idea unless congress make it extra clear that they don't by specifically mentioning those statutes by name in the ig act. think about that for a moment. according to -- it would have to mention by name before doj believe congress really meant to ensure access to all records. that's simply unworkable. we don't even have a definitive list. the research services studying that question at my request but listing specific exemptions to

hundreds will be too unwillingly. we use all without having to list every potential exception. it really is that simple. members should be able to ask the office of legal consul about this. unfortunately now the department refuse today provide a witness from llc today in response to the invitation. mr. thompson is out of the country today. however personnel from across the country are here as you've seen to listen to this and to help us understand this. i thank all of you for joining us. in mr. thompson's office we provide a witness from his office the department claim

that they did not have enough time to prepare for the testimony. since may 2014 that office was not ready to discuss it publicly. that is very astonishing. i also invite the deputy of attorney general to testify about procedures she announced in may to access to records. when she was being confirmed i asked if she would appear before congress. all say, yes. now they ought to say, maybe they'll appear. four days she updated proceedings to comply with the opinion. however new procedures add further delay and uncertainty to the situation. the committee notified her and even moved the original date from last week to this week. unfortunately, however the department said that she was unavailable to testify.

an associate deputy attorney general is here to take our questions. i thank you for coming. i also have here to testify dave smith, inspector general, because that department has followed opinion and denied access to that inspector general. this is a sign of things to come in term that effect opinion. and we have three witnesses on our second panel to discus do implication of the opinion. donnie bryan. brian miller. i want to thank all of them for joining us. before i call on senator, i want you to know that senator and i might have some differences of opinion on issues before the

congress, but when it comes to his and i working together on oversight, i think we're hand and love and i think particularly i thank him for help when he was chairman to the committee to make amendments to the false claims act so congress can do its oversight and other issues as well. thank you. >> thank you. it overlooks the past, but ten to -- they do work together on a number of things as yvonne a lot of the oversight. >> while you're doing your statement i'm going to go across the hall on something that they have an executive session. they can't tell me when to come.

>> i'm just going to pas a whole lot of stuff. [laughs] >> actually senator have done things on trance par -- trance par -- >> i'm glad we're doing that today. we try today protect the jurisdiction over what is cornerstone transparency law. we done a lot of bipartisan with senator from texas. and i have worked very closely on this. if we -- we have to ensure are laws are strong and pr --

protected. we don't hold the department's accountable. i take the position whether republican or democratic administrations. we are an amazing country and the ability to have accountability. it makes us a stronger and better country. the inspector's general, i applaud all here today. a lot of you work long hours and i don't get -- i meet some of you on occasion but i applaud the work you do. you play a crucial role to make sure they operate efficienty, effectively and within the scope of the law. for no other agencies is more important to the department of justice, in the department of justice policies policy liberty, constitutional rights.

for any agency to be effective you have to have access to documents, necessary to provide program reviews audits, as there have been dispute with dog and inspector general. it was free-flow of information. i have in a previous i worked with grand juries a lot. i understand the question of -- the dispute impeded american phone records under 216 the patriot act. impeded review of drug

enforcement for routine criminal investigations. the very first independent review was conducted in secret for decades both democratic and republican administrations. to be an effective agency the agency needs complete access to the information. i want to thank deputy. on leadership of deputy attorney general we finally have an opinion from the office of legal counsel clarifying this position. new policies in place help, that's only a temporary solution. they could still hold information under ig circumstances. i think we need a more permanent solution, one that ensures the

ideas have access to the record that need to do their job. and i will work closely with senator to draft a legislative solution. the two of us can do that. i was praising you. okay. as i mentioned they've known us for members -- >> it has been. >> i'm told. >> the testimony that you're about to give before the committee is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god?

>> i do. >> department of justice mr. kevin will speak after him associate deputy director. an associate general from the justice department, thank you. lastly mr. smith acting inspector general. go ahead. >> thank you mr. chairman, members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to testify today about the critical importance of inspector general access to information. thank you for your strong bipartisan support of the inspector general community. the problem of accessed information is a relatively new one. prior to 2010 they questioned and we obtained wired information without legal objection and without the need for legal opinion.

indeed, it would be hard to imagine how we could conduct effective oversight of the fbi dea components if we were prohibited from reviewing information like grand jury and wiretap information that those agencies frequently use. the oig always handles information with great care and we comply with all statutes limiting the use and disclosure of such information. indeed, we have been provided with access to some of the u.s. government's most sensitive information in order to conduct our oversight and there has not been a single occasion in our 27-area history -- 27-year history where we have been accused of mishandling information. fbi lawyers also identified ten

other categories of records where they think we are not entitled to access. challenges to access to department's records seriously impacting ability to conduct oversight. the loc issued opinion two weeks ago and concluded the following first the inspector general act does not -- does not entitle our office to access grand jury, wiretap and credit information. second our offense -- office can only obtain such records if permits general access. third, in every instance the

decision whether these disclosure exemptions apply will be made by department employees. not the oig staff. there are circumstances where disclosure to the oig will not be permitted. it represents serious threat to not only my independence but all inspectors general. the inspectors general are entitled to independent access to all information in an agencies information. for the first time since it was passed in 1978, the word all in section no longer means all.

it turns the principle on its head. additionally we're concerned as a community that following this llc opinion agencies my object to producing other records. indeed, we understand that preliminary research has identified hundreds of law that contain similar restrictions in them. this potential uncertainty as to what information agency personnel can provide to inspectors generals could result in their becomingless forthcoming. such as shift in mind set also could deter whistle blowers from directly providing information the inspectors general because concern that the agency may later claim that the disclosure was improper and use that decision to retaliate against the whistle blower.

the only means to address this threat to inspector general independence is for congress to promptly pass legislation that affirms the independent authority of inspectors general to access without delay all information and data in an agency's. we in the inspector general community have long understood that no law restricting access to information applies to inspectors general unless that law expresley -- states. independent oversight by inspectors general make our government more effective and

efficient. inspectors general have saved taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars since inspectors general act was passed in 1978, refusing restricting delaying, an inspectors general access to records and information may lead to incomplete, inaccurate and significantly delayed findings and recommendations which in turn provide the agency can serious problems and deprive with agencies activities. on behalf of the couple of inspectors general, 72 federal inspectors general we look forward to working closely with this committee and the congress on a legislative solution. i would for be please to answer

any questions that the committee may have. >> thank you for standing up for what the law requires. mr. kevin. >> good morning, chairman, members of the committee. i'm pleased to appear before you to discuss the fbi's efforts in ensuring that they have what's necessary consistent with law. the fbi takes seriously obligation to enable ig to conduct effective oversight of all of -- in all of the activities we have been transparent concerning the challenges presented by seemingly conflicted -- conflicting statutory commands. i'm notwithstanding the challenges. the fbi provided 400,000 pages of documents and 136,000 emails to the ieg in the past year

alone. these documents were produced in a request submitted by the oig to the fbi which also contain additional 243 sub parts. during the same time 20 now ad its. to fulfill the request and those of the gao and other entities the fbi dedicated an individual's full-time to these tasks. the fbi and oig have worked to expedite access to material consistent with the law. the fbi has taken additional steps to ensure they receive documents in a timely manner. specifically fbi moved production function back to inspection division. since that time, the fbi has

consistently provided documents to the oig in advance to requested deadlines. the bureau is working to complete aspect of request that was subject to prior not if i -- no >> they received all requested emails and the majority of the one thousand 325 attachments contained therein. the final portion of attachments are to be delivered within the next week. the fbi will completely eliminated all back-bog -- back-log going to the oig. more specifically we reiterate our commitment to work with the oig and members of congress on legislation that enables the

department to comply with the law of providing the oig with the documents he needs as quickly as possible. thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have, sir. >> i appreciate all the statistics you gave us but mathematically all of those don't equal all all. >> good morning members of the committee. i'm here to discus the commitment that it has timely manner to review. as attorney general lynch have stated the department shares the belief effective ig is

critical to a wl functioning department of justice. you should be able to obtain all of the information necessary to perform its important oversight role. on the one hand, congress grant inspector act which gives access to all records. congress passed statute that is tightly regulate the disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information to protect individual rights to privacy and due process. then deputy general requested a formal opinion from the office of legal counsel. first, the federal wiretap act which restricts law enforcement

and investigative officer from disclosing intercepted communications. second federal rules of criminal procedure which restricts grand jury information. and third section 626 protects consumer information. since that time the department has continue today work to make sure that access to the materials it needs has directed all components and agencies to provide in a timely fashion all of the document needed to complete reviews. we are unaware of any occasion where did not receive them. since your appointment deputy general and the department have

worked to find the solution to these issues and we continue to work ig to expedite access to its records it needs. pending the completion of the opinion, in april of 2015 deputy attorney general issued mem ran do you -- to make sure it receives information that believe the material is necessary to complete reviews consistent with then controlling statutes. i'm quoting here serves an important function ensuring that the department of justice is run effectively and made clear that responding to the ig request is of the highest priority. it published.

the llc opinion concludes that the igf does not override limits on dislow -- disclosure. it does not refer to the statutes or the information it protect as broad general language does not contain efficienty -- efficiently. on july 27th deputy attorney general issued consistent with the opinion. provided wiretap and con -- consumer material. it may provide grand jury material consistent within the grand jury rules. finally, the department's leadership share it is believe that effective efficient is

critical to a well-functioning department of justice. as i stated, they are committed to work with congress on legislations that enables the department to comply with the law to ensure ig receives all the documents it needs. we've had a number of conversations to make sure he gets all the document he requests. these conversations are ongoing. we hope to have a concrete proposal that we can discuss with the committee in the new future. >> mr. david smith. >> chairman, ranking member and members of this committee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today regarding the resent opinion issued by the office of legal

council. in addition to the description inspector the general has provided you, i want to provide you with specific example of how the opinion impacted my office even before the opinion was released. this is not just a justice oig problem nor limited to law enforcement data. earlier this year we began an audit of the trade administrations enforcement and compliance business efforts to ensure it was conducting quality determinations. in april 2015, the audit team determined that the oig needed access to information which was submitted during proceedings and requested the data from it a. both it a and the department of commerce office of general council raised concerns would be a violation of the terrorist act

of 1930 as amended and in conjunction with the federal trade secrets act. the department's office to general counsel reached out for guide on this matter. according to to the department of general counsel said they were coming with an opinion they would provide fame work to advise on the subject. in light of the potential criminal penalties the department's office of general counsel concluded it was advisable to wait until the opinion was released. the department stated that while it a may be able to release data to our office for an investigation, there's no exception in the act applicable to an audit. in try to go -- trying to work

with it a we proposed by removing company names. however according to to it a all the requested data fields were business proprietary information. we suggested that we could provide statement. however, the office of general counsel stated that given the fact the llc opinion said it would release an opinion in resolving statutory conflicts the department's office of general counsel felt it was still advisable to wait until it was released. the office of general count asserted that the terror amendment that came into affect

to access information. after two months of try to go get access to the information we had no choice but terminate our audit because of the department's refusal to provide requested information based on advice. conflicting laws hamper ability to fulfill mention. a is to provide economy efficiency and to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in such programs and operations. as dye -- discussed above they were sited for denying access to records. however, ig act authorizes to have access to all records reports, audits, reviews documents, papers, recommendation or other information available to the department. this access should pertain to

all of the government records. i join with the inspector in urging the committee to address the issues and its impact on our ability to provide oversight of our departments and agencies. i will be pleased to take your questions. >> thank you all very much if your testimony. we'll have seven-minute rounds for questions. some of my purpose is to find out if it was mishandled, sensitive information. it's difficult -- i guess i would ask the two to pay attention to my first question. it's difficult to understand what problems the department was trying to solve by reversing its previous position in 2010 and

claiming for the first time that the various nondisclosures statutes overwrite. i'm not aware of even one ealls during that time that the inspector general mishandled or inappropriate release of information. so start out with mr. perkins. i'd like to ask you to speak about are there any -- are you aware of any allegations in the history releasing any sensitive information? >> no, sir, i'm not aware of any breach of that during the ig tenure. >> okay. i have two -- too i'm not aware.

from the department policy the ig should get everything it needs to complete review. >> isn't it true that you were subject to the same restrictions of public release of sensitive information as everyone else in the department? >> that's correct mr. chairman. that's why we comply as rig -- rigorous as we do with them. >> what's the issue they never violated restrictions, what would be wrong with providing ig full access to everything under the same conditions prior to 2010? start with you mr. perkins. >> thank you senator, i think to put it in the proper context there was no policy change in 2010 that prove from one side to

the other. there was policy changes but to put that in context, i would take it further back to right around 2001 in the records review which was one of the first early on reviews conducted by the pre -- previous inspector. requested a lengthy review process. the point i want to make here is starting with that throughout the rest of the decade leading up to a pivotal point in 2009-2010 it's an evolutionary process. i think the inspector general will agree outside the current issues with the llc opinion the process in place today is its best it has ever been. with that aside 2009-2010 was

part of evolutionary process. there were more and more investigations, more document requests. questions. >> raised by our office. their review of that raised crnción. -- concerns. i know that prior to 2010, none of that was turned over until we made shuar -- sure those handling the documents were turned. moving forward it's a combination of the general counsel expressing concern whether or not we were acting within the law as well as in turning over documents, as well as the fact that if we went to 2011 12 and this day vastly

increased the records. it's a matter of volume at that point. in 2005 when we had request technology did not allow deep-dive searches that we can conduct. hundreds of thousands of documents are being produced today could not have been produced back then because of technology restrictions. it's a combination of those things that come together and brought us to the point where we come today. >> it sounds to me a lot of red tape and manpower that doesn't accomplish anything. the people that are supposed to get the information don't get the information and they haven't had any documented wrong doing on their part. i would ask you to respond. >> thank you senator. i would completely agree with you. we would like to streamline the

process as much as possible. i believe they have taken a number of steps to do that. we would like to go farther. we feel we should get all the documents we request. it's really a legal question about the interaction of these two different statutory schemes. on the one hand the very general nature and the restrictions under titled 3. those relate to as i mentioned intercepted communication information about individual americans. those are really carefully restrictions that congress included in the statutes given the sensitive nature of the material. for example in grand jury proceedings, how that might impact an individual that came before the grand jury as a

witness. those procedures in the federal rules are there to protect proceedings. congress thought very hard about that before moving forward. again, we understand the -- the general access provision in the ig act. we can work with the congress to get to legislation that would address this issue and that's why we start ited the process that we started. >> i'm going to end to respond to what you just heard. >> mr. chairman, as i indicated many my statement and you indicated in your questions before 2010 we had multiple reviews where we got grand jury information, title three

information, we got credit information, no one went to the office of legal counsel for an opinion to give us that. we got it in a timely manner, promptly. we have had access to very significant information reviews to the handson spy matter, 9/11 attacks, national security letter reviews patriot act reviews. i can go on and on about the kind of work we've done. it makes little sense what happened in 2010 that would all of a sudden change that when congress changed no laws no practices were changed.

go ahead. >> thank you for being here today. ..

>> mr. smith, start with you and then go to mr. horowitz. >> the process that there is at the department of commerce, they are still evaluating the policy opinion. china from the letter from the irs they are also look at the olc opinion to block information to their inspector general. i'm not sure there is a process person at the department of commerce other than to believe what the olc opinion is that it's a general permission and the specific acts that are out there that do not state the ig has access, but that. spent mr. horowitz, and the mr. perkins was referring specifically to the process

within doj. how do you feel about it because i would say the process changes that occurred recently, moving over from the fbi out of the process bachelor i can say this, is a good thing. fewer voters is better. that's improved the process. having said that we didn't have this discussion before 2010 about whether the process was good or bad. we just got the records and that's the bottom wondered we shouldn't have to have a discussion and i shouldn't have to spend my time and, frankly the deputy attorney general of the deputy director who have stated their support and made these changes i'm sure that much more important things to do managing organizations and forget what process is the best process. just give us the records we are entitled to. >> mr. uriarte am i pronouncing your name right of? >> that's correct. >> you mentioned a couple of times the possession position the department is taking right

now is just founded on your interpretation of the law. so my question is since where lawmakers and we can change laws, what should we do to be able to get back to a process that we thought was working relatively well prior to 2010? is that something the department would support? in other words, to the point of also seen as result of your interpretation you have, with the purpose -- policy memoranda. what we need to change to get back to an all means position, and this is something the department would support? >> so absolutely, senator. as i think i stated in my opening we are committed to working with congress on a legislative solution to we think a legislative solution is workable and if something we support to address this issue. we do not ask inspector general mentioned want to be in the position having to do with these issues. we think we should do everything he needs and erase any question

about his independence. absolutely. so to that end with started a number of conversations with mr. horowitz between the departments leadership and mr. horowitz. i think it's been constructed and we hope to have some things we can completely discuss with the committee shortly. >> mr. horowitz, i think my colleagues and the appropriations, the department of justice appropriations act 2015, they attempted to address this. i think by enacting section 218. is that the fix or what more do we need to consider to go through congress? >> we thought it wasn't a fix but the legal counsel, lots of legal counsel to she shouldn't decide it wasn't the fix. decided that provision was ambiguous. certainly from our standpoint having interacted with the appropriate on that they thought they were clarifying not libby and ambiguous provision of there. what we thought was the fix turned out not to be that because of the way the office of

legal council interpreted the statute. >> wheldon how to make it very quickly, because they are not an attorney. actually the ratio we can come it was two-thirds not attorneys testament to go into senator grasso left. i'm not an attorney but it seems to me this is a fairly straightforward thing. we know what your interpretation is the you can reverse-engineer that into what you need to get back to 2010. so why aren't we discussing here a specific proposed legislation that i hope on a by person basis he can pass to fix this problem? >> senator, i do think there are, that legislation needs to say that it expressly and section 6(a) which is the provision that currently says all but is now no longer all, in order to get back to all we need to have a language in that

provision that says quite clearly unequivocally and expressly that unless another log restricts inspector general access to those records all means all. inspector general gets the records. that is apparently as a result of this opinion. what needs to be done. >> thank you. senator cornyn. >> i'm sorry that you but is not here so i can tell him how important this hearing is. this may be one of the most important hearings we've had in the united states congress in a long, long time. people forget the fact that have a duty, a constitutional obligation in congress did investigations and oversight. and what this olc opinion does is it undermines the oversight that congress has under the constitution. i don't know why the attorney

general, general lynch, 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 statute. how in the world so they can come up with a legal opinion of 66 pages is what i count, 67 and say that the law since 1970 is somehow preempted by these cargo provisions and all does not mean all just defies any common sense whatsoever. and any legal theory that i'm aware. it's the responsibility of a judge or a lawyer rendering a legal opinion to try to reconcile and harmonize the law not to say this trumps. no, we decided in 2010 that we are going to trump or preempt this all means all provision

1978. well i just find it very disturbing but frankly it continues a trend that we've seen under the previous attorney general, at least the first attorney general i'm aware of that has been held in contempt of congress for failing to disclose information and thus enters investigation, which mr. horowitz knows an awful lot about, and upon which he is rendered at least one report. but it strikes me as unfortunately the department of justice has become so politicized that it is essentially ignoring the mandate of congress. i don't why we should have to pass another law sing we really meant it in 1978 when we said all. we really, really mean it this time. that's ridiculous. well, 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 were obviously erroneous, and this

one should be. i hope she will take a look at the i have a lot of respect for attorney general lynch. i think she has the capacity to change the way the department of justice has been operating and i wish her luck. she will certainly have my support. but i also want to just mention the fact that the president has continuously failed to avoid inspector general's in a timely fashion. for example, the department of veterans affairs has needed an inspector general for 582 days. yet the president has not made an appointment despite letters from congress urging him to do so. the role that each of you play inspector general's plight is absolutely critical to the functioning of our democracy. and for our capacity for self government. if any agencies in need of an inspector general this that scandal ridden va but if the department of interior which has needed a new ig since 2011 is in the decatur it will be another

1714 days before president obama gets around to making an appointment. that's three times longer than he has been in office. that's simply unacceptable. so what concerns me as well is the fact that apparently by one estimate nearly 40% of formal olc opinion are not publicly disclosed anywhere. i wonder and other olc opinions there are that you to reenter the long-standing law in a way that restricts the public's access, restricts inspector general access to be the watchdog that we intended the inspector general's to be. i'm very concerned about that and i hope senator grassley, chairman grassley will pursue that further. so the joint department of testimony states be olc memo --

resolving the complex legal issues implicated by the interaction of three statute discussed. no, by all accounts prior to 2010 no one thought the issue was complicated at all. what happened in 2010? to make what no one had before identified as an issue so complex? can you share any insight mr. horowitz or mr. perkins but i will open it up to all of you. what happened in 2010 to change the existing law? >> i was not the inspector general at the time but my understand is that the memos and decisions from the legal counsel at the fbi followed several oig reviews of the handling of national study letters exigent letters and other oig reviews because there was no other change in the law, no policy change, no regulatory change.

that same law section 6(a) said that, says the same thing today, grand jury title iii credit information didn't change either. so there's certainly no legal issue that occurred in 2010. >> well, based on the reasoning of the olc opinion i'm not sure congress is capable of passing anything more comprehensive been saying all. i don't know the anybody have any words you would suggest we would include in that statute that would clarify this that i'll really does mean all? i noticed some people are chuckling. it is laughable. it is laughable and it's really completely unacceptable. this is unfortunately part of the politicalization that we found under the previous attorney general that i think has just been a complete

embarrassment. mr. chairman, i would yield back. >> senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i had nothing to i was so i was a bit later to serve an important topic. why don't we start with mr. uriarte and mr. perkins? in your joint testimony you state the department of justice has an unwavering commitment to ensuring that the office of inspector general has access to all records necessary to complete its investigation. is it your belief that the department is, turning over documents to the inspector general in a timely fashion? >> senator, i'll begin. from a timely manner earlier in my testimony i mentioned some process changes within the fbi that allows for a greatly expedited review and turnover of

progression to the inspector general. i believe we have worked our way through the vast majority of the backlog to what is only a minimal amount left and we are working very closely with the inspector general. i personally work with the inspector general as does the rest of the staff and his people and i think with the processes we have 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, i do want to say hindered we are bound to follow the law and the olc opinion at -- as it is dated. so that are continuing discussions with the ig on that matter but not any that are insurmountable and nothing we can't overcome. >> okay. you want to add anything, mr. uriarte? >> thank you for the question. deputy attorney general is the support of the steps the fbi has taken to streamline this

process, enter into the fbi and also has taken steps herself for the april memorandum and the july memorandum to try to streamline the process by which mr. horowitz can get information even when it is restricted under one of these three statute and its in the process tried to minimize the other departments leadership to ensure that mr. horowitz can get what he needs. as i stated before i think would like to take that one step further and work with congress and inspector general to have a clueclear guidance in terms of the legislation so that we can step out of that role and highly. >> okay. they agree that there's been improvements and what could we do legislatively? >> they survey, the deputy director of the fbi and the deputy attorney general have taken steps over the last several months to try and improve the flow of information. and those are certainly welcome. the problem is as mr. perkins indicated, the olc opinion leaves open -- once all doesn't

mean all in 6(a) asked, the question is so what does that stop what? is it just those three were other provisions yet the hesitantly in other categories that is concerned about. so just yesterday i'm told in our review of the fbi use of the bow of the statute a review that this committee is very much an interest in an argument, we got records with redactions. not for grand jury title iii or fair credit information because those have been dealt with by four other areas of the fbi has identified legal concerns about. so while the process has improved we are still getting redacted information and it is not result. >> and sadistic this should be resolved legislatively to make it clear as guidance. >> there's the other i think solution at this point to be

opinion makes that clear. >> under the office of legal council's opinion as you just mentioned there's three types of depression at issue. image and title iii grand jury fair credit reporting act information. it says highly sensitive and confidential. we've had some data breaches lately not on income sector but also in the private sector. what they have in place to prevent that i will also ask that of mr. smith. >> we very much work with the agency has provided information if it's the fbi dea of impose on how to make sure that we protected information if it's grand jury information to we comply with the grand jury statute. same with the others. we did a review agenda the president chavez program following 2001. probably the most sensitive review with at the highest level of classified advertising information, areas where we are told individuals in the white house some of whom didn't know what we are getting access to.

to this day we are protected that information carefully pick we attempted in a skit in further protecting so we are always prepared and always willing and have always protected the information as needed. >> mr. smith, do you want to add anything? >> we also protect the information that is provided to us to our network itself is separate or is it branched off of the department's network and we have stronger controls in place to try to prevent any kind of intrusion. we also protect the information evidence locking it up and make sure that we follow all the rules and requirements. we understand we have an extra duty not only to protect the sensitive information but the information on witnesses whistleblowers and the like. >> mr. uriarte instead of going off this issue of confidentiality sensitivity as a former prosecutor i respect the sanctity of the grand jury and

asas justice powell wants a fight with the grand jury proceedings public some witnesses may not not testify. others may not be forthcoming and suspects may flee before there's probable cause to open. the attention of providing grand jury material beyond what rule connected undermine the institution of the grand jury? >> in the context of inspector general's work and ensuring that he's getting of the need to complete his reduce we have found a way to getting that information consistent with the rule 6(e) and certainly and providing that asked if of the same restrictions under 6(e) that our pastors have to follow. i completely agree about the importance of the grand jury process and that's when the reasons why this event such a difficult issue for us to grapple with but for those perspective we do think we can work with the ig to give them this information consistent with those interest. >> thank you. mr. horowitz, before the grand jury material is disclosed under

rule 6(e) the recipient may not disclose that for the. should the restriction also applies to an inspector general ripsnort should and inspector general be allowed to disclose grand jury testimony to the public? >> it should apply. i'm also a former prosecutor and recognize the importance of that information and we regularly proceed pursuant to the restrictions in fact with all of the information but what we do for anyone of our report goes out and send it to the department and the component. in this case for example, of the fbi. they tell us if they think that our restrictions in their and with those restrictions are so that our legal judgment can be informed by what they believe. and we have always complied with the law. there has never been an instance in our history says 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. >> anyone want to add to that at all? thank you very much. >> mr. horowitz, in light of the changed and procedures that were outlined in deputy attorney general yates memo from last week how do you think a protocol think the protocol will affect the time in his other investigations getting access to the office document? >> certainly my hope is that the change in procedures will make the productions occur more probably because it will our hope is cut down on who is redoing it and how long that review occurs. the challenge is come again having been a federal prosecutor, if you look at the olc opinion and to focus on grand jury information it allows department lawyers,

prosecutors, to produce material to the oig if they find it meets the standard. i will do 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 for its criminal oversight investigation. likely i can see circumstances where those decisions are bumped up to higher levels which could cause delay. i think at this point the question is how will this all work going forward? i think our view is our hope is and our belief is that the process will speed up but as i said earlier the issue before us isn't are we to a fast come is one of the issues fast or slow but only getting everything we need how are those decisions being made? who's making them? what don't we know in terms of

the process and finally why do we even need this process? why is this even in place. as i said just yesterday, the enhanced process that has been put in place result in a skit a production with redactions because there are other categories of information that the fbi has legal questions about. >> mr. smith, do you have anything to add to the? >> yes, sir, i do. weekend the oig office are very concerned that other federal officers may use this olc opinion to routinely delay request by igs and gave giving them information. we would not want to see the department of commerce established a legal review protocol office that would have to do every single request just in case there was some statute out there that did not specifically say the ig can have this. that's what you would have to

enter our work slowed in the process that affect the information that we are being given. >> mr. horowitz, in your opening comment she made reference to whistleblowers. how do you think the protocol is going to affect the ability for whistleblowers to report misconduct speak with i think they send a big concern for us. because no longer always all in section 6(a) employers throughout the federal government, was at the justice department with agencies now where before they become to us with information knowing that under section 6(a) would write to access them may now think twice. should they come to us with that how many objections does the agency have to producing? the department of commerce that issue. their agencies looked at their

laws and said we are not sure you get that information. that's a very substantial concern. there are, this is all, it's nice a lot of lawyers can sit around and write tens of pages about this issue to try and deal with the niceties of a legal issue but we are talking about employees who are not lose have identified waste, fraud, and abuse, mismanagement. they want to come to us with information they want us to fix it and the risk is they have to wonder what exact the pages mean for me. and if i come to the inspector general, agency will either be recounted against if i do that? >> mr. smith's because i would agree. i would not necessarily call it retaliation because in the agency to say 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 any whistleblower protection for disclosing information that we were not entitled to. >> mr. uriarte i understand that the department has indicated that 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. for whatever reason the department declined to joint the staff at that meeting. how many times has your boss met with inspector general horowitz to discuss potential legislative fix to this problem? >> senator, thank you for the question. i can tell you the office of attorney general and deputy attorney general personally have been invest in finding a solution to this problem. this is the general problem of

the axis bishop in one of the issues that she took up right when she got to the department and i think the topic of conversation during some of her earliest meetings with the inspector general. she has regular needs with the inspector general and since identified this problem and wanted, and begin to working towards a solution i have been meeting with ms. or been meeting with mr. horowitz and discounted about specific legislations and have been briefing the deputy attorney general. i'm just dedicated to this issue must devise a solution because she agrees an independent efficient and effective inspector general is sufficient to prevent and running the department of justice. >> mr. horowitz how would you describe the working relationship and the time to completion i didn't ethics of this? are you working well together? towe need to accelerate the process? what more do we need to do? >> we have had productive meetings on a fix. we are and i as chair our work

with the budget committee and others are working through a proposal that the department has put together. we anticipate getting back to the department quickly because the want to be back at the end of august before the committee working with the staff to have a legislative solution ready to go. every day that goes by where there is in this fix, inspectors general are stuck not getting anything 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 the result in waste, fraud, and abuse in their agency. >> gentlemen i appreciate. to me again being a non-the tournament i just so-so but the tragedy of knowledge that this is more complicated than it seems. but if we all seem to be in violent agreement that we need to correct this we have a 67

page opinion, a lot of work went into that figure 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. .. >> thank you.