close confidants and i know mark martin is the chief prosecutor, and you've got a good defense team down there. i do support article 3 courts, terrorism trials where appropriate. i want to acknowledge your support for military commissions in appropriate circumstances, and with your help, i think we've got these things up and running, and i look forward to more action coming out of guantanamo bay to get some of these people through the legal system. so thank you for that support and to all those at guantanamo bay doing their job, you're going a great service. particularly the defense counsels i. think that's right and i think people should understand that when i sent people down for military commission treatment there, the revised commissions that exist, as i said in my speech at northwestern, many of the elements of due process that we consider vital to the american system. i think we have great defense lawyers down there.

the military system doesn't get the credit it deserves for the fair way it deals with people and under the direction of mark martin a person i've known for some time, i think we'll be proud of the work they do. >> thank you very much, mr. attorney general. we're now going to turn to senator feinstein before senator pryor leaves, thank you for mentioning the cyber exercise and all who participated. next week we'll hear from the fbi and do an open hearing and then a classified hearing. you'll get -- this would be an opportunity to ask many of your cyber questions and go into the level of detail. i think the committee would like. so, thank you. senator feinstein. >> thanks very much, madam chairman and welcome, general. i wanted to say the comments of senator mikulski and senator hutchison. i think the -- died before he knew this was a faulty prosecution.

that elevates this to a new height. so i think this investigation is really important, and i think that actions have to be taken, and i just wanted to express that. what -- i wanted to follow-up on senator brown's comment. it's my understanding that more -- there's more oil available in the united states than demand calls for. and as a matter of fact, surplus is being sold outside. this, i think, would bring to special attention the issue of speculation, and i hope the study that you're doing is going to take a good look at the financial marketplace with regard to its ability to impact price in this way. >> well, as i said, the oil and gas working group that we formed last year as part of the president's financial fraud enforcement task force has been

meeting. it just happens that they are having a call today, meeting, either tomorrow or on, the full committee will be getting together to look at the full issues you've raised and the issues that senator pryor raised. >> good. thank you. as you know, title 7 of the foreign intelligence surveillance about the expires at the end of the year. this allows for electronics surveillance of targets outside the united states. senator mikulski and i both serve on the senator intelligence committee, and we've done extensive oversight of the government's use of these surveillance authorities. and look forward to working with you to make sure congress can reauthorize title 7 well before the end of 2012. we need to maintain the collection of critical foreign intelligence and provide certainty to intelligence professionals in that regard. for members of this committee,

that don't follow this issue closely, could you explain the need to reauthorize title 7 of fisa, and the efforts taken to protect the civil liberties and privacy of americans as this title is carried out? >> well, the surveillance authorities that are in the fisa amendments act are absolutely critical to our national security on a day-to-day basis. i authorize fisas, head of the national security division does, sometimes the deputy attorney general. it is a critical tool we have in keeping the american people safe, and so the administration strongly supports the reauthorization, and as you indicated, hopes that it occurs well before the end of the year so that the certainty that is needed by the men and women who are in our intelligence community will have some degree of assuredness that those tools will remain there and that our fight against those who do harm to the united states can continue.

>> thank you. i also want to thank you for your enormous help and the help of the fbi with respect to national security. the fbi now has some 15,000 people located around the united states essentially doing intelligence work. so that transition has been affectively made. director muller at our worldwide threat hearing indicated to us in the past year there have been 20 arrests in the united states of people in this country planning or participating in attempted terrorist attacks, and as you mentioned in your reasons testimony, omar farouk mutalib was recently sentenced to life in prison. now, i also want to say that even though its specific activities are classified, in your written testimony you mentioned the high value detainee interrogation group, or

the h.i.g. as we call it. i can say that we've seen the excellent intelligence, the h.i.g. is producing, and earlier this week, also four principal members were charged with computer hacking and a fifth member pled guilty. now to my questions. it's twofold. i think we have to begin to look for a redundancy and duplication of effort. we now have a counterterrorism center, we now have homeland security with intelligence, and we also now have the fbi, and so i hope you will take a look at that, because the dollars are precious, and we're already experiencing cuts in the intelligence budget.

so here's my question -- what are, in the national security area, your budget reductions? what will that mean for counterterrorism, and are there any gaps in our efforts? >> no. i think that we have adequate amounts of money contained in the budget that we have requested. if you look at the amount of money that has gone to the fbi for the national security sphere i think since 2001 about a 300% increase. i mean 300% for the justice department. for the fbi, 400%. a really substantial increase over the course of the last ten years or so. and even with the flat budget that we essentially have for the justice department and its components including the fbi, i think we have adequate amounts of money to keep the american people safe. and i will tell you to the extent that i feel that is not the case, my voice will be heard.

we have no greater responsibility than keeping the american people safe. >> good. thank you very much. thank you, madam chairman. >> senator feinstein, we look forward to working with you on that part of it. senator alexander? >> thanks, madam chairman, and general holder, welcome. it's good to see you. i was thinking about a conversation we had during your confirmation about griffin bill for whom you worked and i know you admired him. i certainly admired him. i was a law clerk when he was judge and one of the things he said and i've heard you say, too, i think, is that the attorney general is the lawyer for the united states, not just the lawyer for the president. in the following up senator grahams questions i wanted to ask you a question, as the lawyer for the united states, if the president called you up and said, general holder, i noticed the senator's gone into recess for lunch. i've got a supreme court nominee i want to appoint.

can we put him on the court without their advice and consent what would your answer be? >> gone to lunch? that would not be a sufficient recess. >> what if he said they're going to lunch. they're going to recess for lunch and for dinner. they won't be back until tomorrow. would that be a sufficient recess? >> well, i mean, i think what we're getting at, if you look at that olc opinion. >> no. i'm asking your opinion, mr. attorney general. >> i associate myself with that olc opinion. >> meaning you agree with it? >> with the olc opinion? >> yes. >> you do agree with it? >> yes. >> meaning the president can decide, not the senate, when it's in session for purposes of advice and consent? >> one has to look at the reality. the totality of the circumstances and determining whether or not the senate is actually in session as that term has historically been used and the determination made by olc was that given the -- >> well if we look at that, mr. general, was your deputy solicitor wrong when he told the supreme court in a letter that,

two years ago that the senate may act to foreclose recess appointments by declining to recess for more than two or three days at a time, and was senator reid wrong in 2007 when he really devised the plan for pro forma three-day sessions because he said he heard that president bush was about to make recess appointments? senator reid said on july 28 -- well, november 16, 2007, with the thanksgiving break looming the administration is informing he want to make effort is recess appointments. as a result i'm keeping the senate in pro forma to prevent appointments until we get back on track. we don't need to go in recess, be on pro forma session, president bush didn't like it but respected it. so are you saying that the president, not the senate, can decide when it's in session for purposes of a recess appointment? >> i think one, what we have to do and what we have done in this

olc opinion is look at history. look at precedent. look at the law. used some common sense when it comes to the approach whether or not the senate is actually in session -- >> was senator reid wrong? >> well, the determination we made here was that with respect to those, that 20 days in which those pro form pa sessions were occurring, those were in fact -- >> the senate decided it was in a three-day session according to the formula. was reid wrong an about that? >> i'd have to look at that period, but given the facts presented to the olc in this instance i think the determination they made was correct. >> so the president may not -- i don't see why the president couldn't look at the senate and say, i'm going to send up a supreme court justice and i'm going to skip advice and consent. i'm astonished by this, really. and i would think democratic as well as republican senators would honor the reid formula that president bush honored. that the senate did the very same thing in january, and the president nevertheless made four appointments during a time when constitutionally he shouldn't have, according to all the precedent that i've seen. >> the only thing i'd correct is that the determination was not made by the president.

the determination was made by the office of legal counsel and then shared that opinion with the president, and the president made the decision as to what he wanted to do -- >> he made the decision not to respect the senate's decision about when it's in session or when it's not, which to me is a blatant lack of regard for the constitutional checks and balances and something we ought to avoid. may i ask quickly a question, last year the department found money to support the work against methamphetamine. i thank you for that. it's getting increasingly higher. in our state, the highest number of meth lab seizures in the nation. money's running down, state's increasing funding. will the department be able again to try to help states that are working on this as you were able to do last year? >> we are certainly going to try to do as best we can.

one of the things we've certainly seen with regard to the cleanup of meth sites, there have been a number of these container activities, and i think, i think this is right. tennessee is actually a leader in that effort. >> yes. >> there have been a number of states that have come up with things and instead of it costing, $300, $400, $500 coming down to $20 or $30. the experience we've seen there is something to extrapolate and use in other parts of the country as well. >> thank you, general holder. thank you, madam chairman. >> senator? >> i think -- >> oh. i'm sorry. wait. wait. it's a little rock 'n' rollin' here today. >> thank you, madam chair. >> attorney general holder, good to have you here. if i could just follow-up a little bit on what my good

friend from tennessee, senator alexander said, on the recess appointment. there is an easy way out of all of this. require a little cooperation on both sides. and i suggested this in the judiciary committee, that the president -- resubmit the nominations and republicans agree to have an up or down vote within a week or two weeks. the president did this even though you had -- knew there was more than 50 votes. normally what it takes to confirm somebody available, my friends on the other side of the aisle were blocking having a vote. i understand the president's frustration, but i think the easy way out of this is simply if the republican leadership would agree to an up or down vote say within a week or two weeks. whatever amount of time is needed for debate. and resubmit them and have an up or down vote. that takes care of all the problem. i just would suggest that as an

easy way out. it's not as much fun on the talk shows, but -- now, mr. attorney general, the department administers many programs that help victims in law enforcement including ones i've been heavily involved in. the violence against women act programs, and as you know a senator and i have a reauthorization bill on that. cops grants. the bullet-proof vest partnership program. government accounting office has says there's appliance of duplications and inefficiencies in some of the grant programs. will your department work to make sure there are, if there are any duplications that they be removed and that we -- we go forward?

because these are good programs but there's only so much money to go around. >> that's exactly the problem we have and we have to make sure the limited amounts of money to go around and make sure there's no duplication. managers from ojp, cops, the office of violence against women regularly meet to coordinate programs and activities and one thing people should not assume is that because of see the word "victim" in a number of things we do in the department that necessarily means that the money is being, is being -- that we're duplicating efforts there. they have very distinction responsibilities but we are working to make sure that the money we have is being used in an efficient and appropriate way. >> and one of the things i'm very proud of, from my team here in the senate, is a bill that i wrote with then senator campbell on bullet-proof vests.

so much so that i've walked down the street in denver, colorado a year ago, a police officer came up, asked if i was, who i am. i said, yes. he just tapped his chest and said, thank you. but we've been told by the galo that there's some funds that have not been obligated on the bullet-proof vests partnership grant program. law enforcement, especially in the smaller communities where they do not have the budget to buy the bullet-proof vests which are $500, $600. can you check to make sure these funds are de-obligated or are obligated? >> yes. to the extent jurisdictions use the unused funding, and have the time period with which they can

draw down ex-tended so that we can get these bullet-proof vests out to these officers. >> and i would reiterate what i told you when we chatted earlier this week when i was in vermont, about your speech earlier this week, guided drones and targeting of u.s. citizens. i still want to see the office of legal counsel memorandum, and i would urge you to keep working on that. i realize that's a matter of some debate within the administration, but -- >> that would be true. >> please, keep my staff and me updated of the progress of the review of the nypd surveillance of muslim-americans. >> we will. >> and lastly, i wrote to you secretary of homeland security janet napolitano to encourage you to hold marriage-based

petitions for same-sex spouses in advance in light of the administration's decision to no longer defend the constitution the defense against marriage act. it may be granted in individual cases, i hope you'll reconsider the administration's position. we have a case i've written to you about francis herbert and -- married in vermont lawfully. we have a number of states where same-sex marriages are legal, but then they run up against the immigration problem. so, please, review that. >> i will look at that case and will get back to you, senator. >> thank you. thank you, madam chair. >> excellent points, senator leahy, and thank you very much.

the job doesn't seem to be getting easier and i'm not blaming, i'm just sympathizing. >> that's a good observation. >> not so much that i won't ask for more because we're doing with less and we see it in my state of new jersey, 246 gun murders in 2010, 12% more than the previous year. we've had layoffs galore and from cities that can't afford to maintain their police force structure. and so when i look at things that we're doing i worry about what it is that we can do from your department and from others.

what can we do to help these communities? state budget costs have caused other cities in new jersey to cut their police forces at alarming rates. a third of the police force in camden, over 100 terminations of police officers in newark. and december i wrote asking if it would provide federal resources, could provide federal resources to assist our ailing cities. and i am pleased, general, to see an increase because the department of justice planning other steps that we can use to help protect new jersey from violent crime? >> we have a substantial amount of money in the budget. i note that i spoke to the mayor of camden.

i was at a reception. we have certainly with regard to camden in 2011 made available moneys to hire 14 officers, 3.79 million officers. we'll be looking at that unique situation again this year. we certainly are putting in task forces so that the atf, fbi are helping to the extent that we can as well. there are a variety of ways in which the federal government can help, given the economic situation that many cities around the country are facing. we want to be good partners. camden is a place that deserves special attention given the unique problem that we see there. >> can i ask of you whether or not you think we're doing enough between your department, fbi,

our state and local police people, are we doing enough based on what we see in the statics? are we doing enough to say honestly that we're protecting our people appropriately? >> well, i think that we have crime rates that are at historic lows and yet i'm still troubled by the number of police officers, for instance, who have been killed in the line of duty in the last two years where we have seen a 16, 20% increase there and i think that is something that we have to work on. i'm concerned about the fact that although the number of murders are down, 67% of them occur by people using firearms, i think that's an issue that we have to deal with. too many of the wrong people have access to guns and then use them inappropriate ways. and the targets of many of those people are law enforcement officers who are sworn to protect us and we have to do

everything that we can to protect them. >> well, the wrong people or wrong law. the man who shot congresswoman giffords last year used a gun with a high-capacity ammunition clip to kill six people, wound 13. it was only when he fired all 31 rounds in his clip that people were able to subdue him. last year you said that you thought reinstating this ban should be examined. what's the result of that examination? >> well, we are still in the process of working our way through that. i think there are measures that we need to take. we need to be reasonable, understanding that there is a second amendment right with regard to firearms. but even the dissent in the heller case and what the administration has tried to do is come up with ways in which we

are respecters of the seventh amendment and come up with reasonable, appropriate firearms laws that will ultimately protect the american people. >> madam chairman, your indulgence for one more question, please. over the past several years the new york police department has been engaged in surveillance of new jersey's communities and universities, searching for those who might be accused of terror. governor christie, newark mayor corey booker, both -- each apparently unaware of this large-scale investigation. how can the law enforcement agency spy on another state's residence without notifying the authorities? the governor, the mayor not even knowing about it? >> i don't know. we are in the process of reviewing the letters that have come in expressing concerns

about those matters. there are various matters looking at these matters. i saw governor christie at a reception a couple of days ago or so. he expressed the concerns that he had. and i think at least what i've read publicly and again what i've read in the newspapers is disturbing and these are things that are under review at the justice department. >> thank you, general holder. thank you madam chairman. i assume the record will be kept open. >> the record will be kept open for questions. and we then ask can the department to respond within 30 days. senators may submit additional questions. we ask the department to respond within 30 days. before i recess the committee, i'm going to conclude the hearing the way i began. as i listen to the questions, the answers, we've looked at the

budget in the short time that we have to review, i want to end the hearing the way i began, which is to thank the men and women who work at the justice department. i've been on this subcommittee a long time. it's been a great blessing and a great honor. and when i think about it the way the scope and complexity of what our citizens and our country face and what our justice department faces, it's an amazing job from community safety to national safety, just the -- in the last decade the expansion and the national security portfolio and the transformation of agencies. the fbi is not -- you know, jay edgar hoover is not fbi anymore. so for everybody who works, everybody's out on the street, everybody's tracking sexual predators, everybody's doing their job, the prison guards, all of the wonderful support staff that's the paralegals, the

secretarial staff, the admin staff, et cetera, we just want to say thank you. i think our country's safer and because -- and because of your work. we have to look out for our civil service because we need an independent judiciary. we need a justice department that functions with absolute integrity. but we who fund the appropriations need to know that if you're going to have a cracker jack civil service, we have to also support that cracker jack civil service. so thank you and god bless you and god bless america. the subcommittee stands in recess until march 15th, next thursday at 10:00. we will take the testimony of the director of the fbi in both the open and ultimately classified hearing. the committee is in recess. >> thank you, madam chair.

>> our specific mission is to work to see that human rights remain a component of american foreign policy and that when we are evaluating our foreign rights, it has to be part of the dialogue. >> katrina lantos swett is the ceo for human rights injustice. >> when we abandon our deepest values and whether we're talking about torture as it relates to the war on terror or the reset policy with russia, you know, and the upcoming issue of whether or not the u.s.