general to conduct a comprehensive investigation as well. i also put in place new leadership at atf which has take's steps including the implementation of a stricter oversight procedure for all significant investigations to prohibit the flawed tactics employed in these operations. now, many of the key enhancements implemented by the department set out in the deputy attorney general's letter to the committee dated january 27 of this year, even since the date of that letter, however, we have continued to refine the title 3 process. for example, our office of enforcement operations now requires that before it even accept as quett for a wiretap intercept from a united states attorney's office a supervisor in the relevant u.s. attorney's office must personally approve that request. i would be remiss if i did not point out the atf agents who testified before congress have also asked law enforcement be provided with the tools it needs to effectively combat gun

trafficking on the southwest border and want top reiterate my commitment to the work with congressional leaders to immediate the needs of our law enforcement partners and address national security challenges on our borders. finally i want to make clear we welcome the recent engagement of congressional leadership in the department's continued efforts to satisfy the legitimate goals of congressional oversight while at the same time reserving the integrity and the independence of the department's ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions, leadership's recent letter represent i'd think a promising step towards reaching a resolution as it accomplished two things. first it nair ode the universe of documents still in dispute between the justice department and house oversight committee. second, it identified the specific questions that remain of concern to leadership. we are confident that the constructive discussions that have occurred since this letter can result in a mutually acceptable resolution. all of these efforts, i'm grateful for your continued

support and would be happy to answer any of the questions that you might have. thank you. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. let me remind members that the attorney general is with us until 1:30 this afternoon. and in order for all 40 members of the committee to make comments and ask questions, we're going to need to adhere strictly to the five-minute rule. and i'll recognize myself for questions. mr. attorney general, the foreign beintelligence amendmen helped protect our country from terrorists expires at the end of this year. do you support of extension of those amendments? >> we do support them. is the most important legislative concern of the intelligence community and we hope that congress will pass that reauthorization brrng the expiration at the end of the year. >> okay. let me go to operation fast and furious. you mentioned in your testimony. mr. attorney general, who was the highest level official in this administration who knew

that these tactics were being used, and i'm talking about knew the tactics were being used before the death of agent brian terry on december 15th, 2010? >> well we know that the operation began in the field offices in arizona both in the u.s. attorneys office and in the atf office there. the inspector general was in the process of examining the -- >> to your knowledge, who was the highest ranking official in the administration who knew about the tactics? >> at this point i can say that it started in arizona and i'm not at all certain who beyond that can be said to have been involved with regard to the use -- that there was knowledge of it but use of the tactics. >> no one other than atf officials in arizona, you're saying, knew about the tactics used in "operation fast and furious" before december 15, 2010. is that right? >> i think that in terms of knowledge of the tactics as opposed to the operation itself. i don't think anybody in washington knew about those tactics until the beginning

of -- >> speaking of those tactics, when were you first -- when were you first told or became knowledgeable about u.s. officials allows firearms to be sold to the drug cartels in mexico? and i'd like a specific date, if you can give it to us. >> i don't have a specific date. i've got a letter from senator grassley at the end of january of 2011. i think i became aware of the tactics themselves probably in february of 2011 as i've indicated in the seven previous times i've testified. >> and it wasn't until that letter from senator grassley that you knew about the firearms being allowed to be transferred to the drug cartels in mexico? >> not in the letter. the letter directed my attention to the dwlaer ultimately led to my understanding about the tactics but the letter itself did not mention "operation fastened furious." >> okay. so once again, when did you learn the tactics that were being used? >> as i said, the early part of

2011. >> okay. that was immediately after, several weeks after the death of brian terry? >> that happened in december, 2010. >> okay. and is that the same date that you found out that these firearms connected to "fast and furious" were found at the -- at the murder scene of brian terry? or did you find out about that before? >> i don't know when i found out about -- i don't wleb i found out about that particular fact. i would guess would also be sometime in the early part of 2011. >> okay. why was it, do you think, that individuals who worked for you who were in this administration would not have made it known to you or others outside of arizona that firearms that were allow the to it be given to drug cartels in mexico by u.s. officials, why did it take so long for to you learn or for others to tell you? was there a cover-up going on? or what was -- what was the

explanation for you in your position not knowing more about the tactics? >> i think the answer is found in your question. no one knew about the tactics at the time of that initial discovery. it wasn't until the tactics were discovered people started to understand that we had a problem here. but for those tackices, "fast and furious" was a mid-level regional invest ghags from all reports was going on pretty successfully. >> but again, you didn't find out about those tactics until, say, six weeks or two months after the death of brian terry. is that correct? >> sometime in february. i think agent terry was killed december 10th or 14th i believe of december. >> when was anyone in the white house first informed about the tactics used under "operation fast and furious"? >> i don't know. >> all right. did you yourself not inform anyone in the white house about "operation fast and furious"? >> i'm sure there was -- there was contact between staff and

the justice department, probably and the appropriate people in the white house about "fast and furious." i don't remember myself ever sharing that information with -- >> how would anyone in the white house have learned about it, and who would have learned tab? under the norm's chain of command? >> i'm sorry? >> how would the white house have learned about "operation fast and furious" if not from you? >> well, through my staff and the interactions we have with the white house counsel. >> so when did your staff inform the white house about "operation fast and furious "? >> i don't know. >> were you of curious about that? >> well, my focus was on dealing with the problems associated with "fast and furious." >> it seems to me that you would want to know -- want white house officials to know whats would going on in order to correct the problem. my time -- >> tagtices in trying to solve the problem and not awfully concerned about what the knowledge was in the white house. that's my responsibility. >> i understand, but i still think the white house would have been informed. thank you, mr. holder.

the jap, ragentleman, ranking m rokzed for his questions. >> thank you, chairman smith. attorney general holder, would you pull your mike up just a little bit closer, please. you've made reference to the atf's multiple sales reporting program for certain types of rifles in states along the southwest border. this rule is intended to get at the real problem of gun violence on the border of mexico. in your view, has the program been affective? have we been stopping guns and saving lives? >> yeah. the rule simply says that for the multiple sale of certain kinds of weapons including ak-47ak-47 ens somebody buys more than one

in the four border states, that information has to be reported to the atf. that has throwed actionable leads. it is a very measured, responsible regulation that has been upheld by a court that has considered it and said that. is appropriate, and it is also totally consistent with what we do right now and have for the last 30 years with regard to the sale of multiple handguns. >> yes. and, by the way, i think we've repeopaled the assault weapon b, and that's led to a proliferation of -- of weapons that i think we need to take another look at here in our legislature. let's talk about the mortgage fraud task force of the president. and how it's coming along.

you know the effect this has had on our economy and on foreclosures and in families from one end of the country to the other. how is your staffing and resources picture in this context? >> i think we're doing pretty well. we have about, i think, 100 people or so who are presently involved in that task force. subpoenas have been sent out. investigations are under way. we're working, i think, very effectively with a number of u.s. attorneys as well as our partners on the state side. i think principally the -- the attorney general from new york, eric snyderman, as well as other state attorney generals. so the progress we're making there is very good. >> thank you. in 2009, you created a working group to review the department's

profiling guidance that came out in 2003 under then attorney general ashcroft. in april of this year, 64 members of congress wrote to urge you to revise that guidance. what's the status of the working group, and are there going to be changes to the guidance, and if you can, what would some of those changes be? >> well, we're in the process of looking at that earlier policy and seeing if in light of experience there are changes that need to be made. i had a meeting concerning this issue, i think, over the last two weeks, it would be my expectation that to the extent the changes are to be made, those would happen relatively soon. we have an interagency -- working within the justice department i suspect have the to the have an interagency group baup there are a number of agencies who equities are implicated by the perspective change but something we continues to look at and

something i've been personally involved over the last the two to three weeks. >> and what was the goal of the so-called profiling guidance? >> to try to make sure that we did not hamper law enforcement but at the same time had in place rule, regulation, guidance to those in law enforcement so we did not engage in racial profiling which is simply bad law enforcement. if one looks at al qaeda, they understand that if we engage in profiling, they will be more successful. they look for -- this has been reported, people as they call it, with clean skins. people who do not fit particular profile. those are the ones who they are trying to send to harm this nation, and the that is why profiling certainly on a national security context as well as i would say with regard to domestic law enforcement is such a bad idea. >> uh-huh. let me squeeze in my last question. can you talk a little bit about

thes charges of selective enforcement of immigration law? i don't know if you've heard of any of those kinds of complaints, but can you respond to that for me, please? >> selective immigration -- >> selective enforcement of immigration law. >> you mean by the federal government? or -- >> the arizona law and other -- >> states? oh, i see. >> at the state level. if i can finish this question, mr. chairman. >> please. answer the question. >> we have filed suit against immigration laws that have been passed by a variety of states. the supreme court has obviously heard argument in connection with the arizona law. the concern that we have is that this is a -- inherently a federal responsibility, and that if we allow these state laws to proliferate we'll have a

patchwork of laws that will make ultimate enforcement of our immigration laws impossible. having said that i understand the frustration that many states feel, and i think it points out the need for a comprehensive solution to this problem. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. conyers. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner, is recognized for his questions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman mr. president attorney general, i, too, want to echo mr. conyers' commendation of you for coming before us on a very regular basis. i know it takes a lot of your time to prepare. i also know that you don't know what's going to get thrown at you, and sometimes there will be curveballs and beanballs. i hope mine is a curveball. i want to talk a little bit about the florida voter registration case, and it appeared in the "new york times" yesterday. there was an article there about the state defending its search for ineligible voters, and

secretary of state ken dentsner of florida has sent a letter to mr. haren of the voting section of the civil rights division talking about the problem. and the problem is simply this -- and that is, as florida is trying to purge its voters rememberi registration rules of non-citizens including illegal immigrants, people clearly not eligible to vote, and the department of homeland security has had a nine-month delay in giving the national voter registration laws to the state, and now mr. haren appears to be taking the position that florida can't do anything after delay the giving florida the information it need to do. what can be done to solve this problem? >> well, the problem with the florida effort is that it runs counter to the national voter registration act, which says you can't do this within 90 days of an election.

you can successfully do that which florida is trying to do as has been done and has been approved by the justice department in north carolina and georgia. they did it the right way. you -- the database that i think has, florida is requesting is not necessarily the answer to these problems. that database, my understanding, does not contain on its rolls or twhaith database people who were born in the united states. that database will, therefore, be flawed and could result in the exclusion of people from voting who are native-born americans. >> well, the state of florida has attempted to obtain this database for nine months. so that it could do its thing -- well, prior to the 90-day shutoff and the national voter registration law, and i have a copy of the letter from secretary of state debtsner that talk answer the due process protections, such as a

notification by certified mail, return receipt, 30 days to respond. hearing if requested. if the mailed notice is returned as undeliverable, the names and addresses appear in a newspaper of general circulation and an additional 30 days that the conclusion of the notice and hearing process, the registrar is supposed to make a final determination based upon the preponderance of evidence, and allow for an appeal of any determination of ineligibility to its state's circuit court. this is probably due process times three or four or maybe even five times, and you know, i'd like to know what rights do non-citizens and particularly illegal immigrants, you know, have to the protection of the voting rights act and the national voter registration act? >> they have no rights, and i stand with any state official, federal official, high wants to make sure that our voting system

is -- is done in an appropriate way. and that people who are not allowed to vote, in fact, do not vote. but as a result of the way in which florida has carried this out, i saw a report that an election official in southern florida indicated that about 450 people were on the list that i believe is a woman that she got, were indicated to be people not eligible to vote who in fact were eligible to vote. i think that points out the problem in the process that florida's engaged in. >> with all due respect, mr. attorney general, there is a problem. and any ineligible voter or fraudulent voter who has a ballot placed in the same ballot boxes, hundreds of legitimate voters, ends up diluting the votes of the legitimate voters, and the federal law is very clear on that and you know, here the department of homeland security hasn't given florida the means to start the process out, and with all of these

protections that i have just, just listed, and it seems to me that if your job is to uphold the law, you know, the law sets out a process to give the states time to do this, but we have another agency of the government that you're supposed to be advising as attorney general that has prevented the state of florida from doing this. >> well i would say, i respectfully disagree, and i point to you, as i said, other states that have -- i don't know all the ways in which they did it, but who successfully have implemented a policy that i would agree with. i don't think we should have people who don't have the ability, who don't have the right to vote, casting votes in our nation, north carolina, georgia did it -- >> then, please help florida to do it, because apparently there's been a road block here in washington. my time is up. >> thank you, mr. sensesensenbr. >> and mr. attorney general, we have made several requests to

you top allow us to review the office of legal counsel that provides legal just fiction for the lethal u.s. citizens who are terror suspects. the department has sought dismissal of cases of judicial review of lethal targeting and the congress is being shared with congress to make that check a meaningful one. we have yet to get any response to our request. would you commit to providing that memo to us and to providing a memo. will you commit to providing a copy of the briefing, a copy of the legal memo from olc? >> we will certainly look at that risk and try to determine -- >> and a briefing to the members of this committee? >> we'll consider the possibility of a briefing.

>> the possibility. you won't mitt? >> we'll be in a position to provide a briefing but i would like to hear from the involved people in the intelligence community as well as people at olc about how we might structure something. >> you'll get back to us let's say within a month. >> we can do that. >> thank you. when running for president and talking about medical marijuana being legally used around the country in certain jurisdictions, president obama said the following, quote i'm not using justice department resources to circumvent state laws on this issue. close quote. apparently the department has not followed the president's admonish. since 2009 doj has conducted 200 maids on medical marijuana disp dispensaries. the president clearly did not want to prioritize prosecutions involving medical marijuana and while i understand selling and processing marijuana is against

federal law the citizens of 17 states and the district of columbia believe it should be legal. given these facts why is the doj focused on investigating and punish those that legally grow and sell marijuana under law contrary to the apparent intent of what the president said on the subject. >> see, this is inconsistent with these little things called the facts. the justice department indicated in a memo that went out we won't go after people working in conformity with state law. people with serious illnesses. people acting consistent with state law. one has to deal with the reality that there are certain people who took advantage of these state laws and a different policy that this administration announced than the previous administration had and have come up ways in which they are taking

advantage of these state laws and going beyond that which the states have authorized. those are the only cases that -- >> so, you're saying that you're not targeting people who are growing and distributing medical marijuana only for medical purposes in following the applicable state law? >> yes. we limit our enforcement efforts to those individuals, organizations that are acting out of conformity with state laws. or in the case of instances in colorado where distribution centers were placed within close proximity to schools. >> okay. on september 23rd, 2009 you issued a memo setting forward procedures and policies of the

department to defend assertion of the privilege in litigation. in how many cases since september of 2009 have you approve personally invocation of the privilege? >> i would have to look at that. there have not been many. i think one, two, three, something along those lines. i'm not sure. those numbers get skewed a little bit. the second circuit says we have to invoke the state privilege. >> i have a number more specific questions on this that i'm going to submit to you but i see i'm coming to my end of time so i have one further question on this. you do not indicate in this policy whether the administration will agree to judicial review of the basis for invoking the privilege. the prior administration took the position that information could not even be disclosed in camera to an article iii judge, thus ensuring there was no judicial review whether the privilege was being properly

invoked. what is your position as to judicial review of the information that the government seeks to withhold. can a judge review the alleged privileged information and two can the judge disagree with the executive brarj's decision as to whether the privilege is properly invoked? >> we have shared information with article iii judges. the way in which the privilege is set out, at the end of the day for the executive branch to make that determination. but we have put in place a process that requires multiple levels of review. >> within the executive branch. but you're saying you do not agree that ultimately a decision should be subject to judicial approval or disapprove swral as to invocation of the privilege? >> ultimately, a judge could override our aserge of the privilege and we have to decide whether or not we want to dismiss the case. our hope is through the process we go through we only invoke the privilege only where absolutely necessary. if we look at the statistics you'll see we have instroked

privilege far fewer times. >> i hope you'll share those statistics with us. thank you. >> thank you. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. good to see you again attorney general holder. when your last visit here we asked about a few issues we would like to get a response to. to this day your office has been unable to provide answers to some very simple questions that we asked in that meeting, having to do with prosecutions of worksite and enforcement cases. i'm interested in the number of doj workforce enforcement p

prosecution. >> i thought i responded to all questions that were submitted. if that's not the case -- >> i've not received them. in fact, we'll be happy to reiterate with specificity but it's pretty straightforward. >> well get those numbers and i apologize if you've not gotten them. >> you know, we all know many illegal immigrants are using fraudulent social security numbers or individual taxpayer numbers to take jobs from american citizens. i don't think there's any question about that in anyone's mind. they also receive taxpayer benefits such as child tax credits, earned income tax credits. there have been reports some illegal immigrants are claiming tax credits for children not even living in the united states. what's specific and i want to

emphasize the word specific steps are being used by doj to stop this fraud, recover taxpayer money, deport the illegal immigrants who have committed the criminal fraud? >> we work with our partners at dhs to come up with a number of ways in which we try to make sure that people through worksite enforcement, through reaching out to employers, to making clear what the policies are, what the law s-we use a variety of techniques to make sure that the kinds of people you're talking about are not, in fact, getting benefits to which they are not entitled. it's something we have worked pretty effectively with dhs. >> would this group of individuals that i'm speaking about, those that have clearly committed fraud, are these folks on a priority list for deportation, or are they among those that have been given an exemption or review to get a

temporary green card? >> no. i think that we look -- we've certainly prioritized those people for deportation and we've tried to place at the head of that list people who potentially pose a criminal problem for those of us in the united states or immigrant community people engaged in violent acts. those are the ones we're emphasizing. doesn't mean those people further down the list we're not trying to deport. >> i'm glad to hear that acts of violence by criminal aliens are at the top of the list. but the fraud issue to me is also an offense that should be very close to the top of the list when they are stealing the taxpayers dollars that could otherwise be used to help your department, for instance. also back in december we talked about doj addressing the issue of medar