attorney general eric holder was asked about the government's fast and furious guns program today on capitol hill. that's next on c-span 3. then a hearing on the employment of veterans by federal government contractors. after that, cyber threats to financial markets. and later, a discussion on european debt and the future of the euro. two days of live coverage from the "chicago tribune" this weekend on book tv starting saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern, the making of present day chicago. rich cohen in latin america when the people shouted yankee go

home, they had him in mind, that's a 1:00, and at 5:00, dwayne betts his memoir "coming of age in prison." sunday at noon, gail collins on texas' role in american politics, lindsey hilsum at one, and thomas mallon has a story to tell. also this weekend on afterwards, madeline albright on growing up in czechslovakia. this weekend on c-span 2. attorney general eric holder was asked today about wiretap about my occasions related to the government's fast and furious operation aimed at arresting members of mexican drug cartels. he testified at the house judiciary committee. we're going to show you part of this hearing. you can watch it in its entirety at c-span.org and later tonight on c-span 2. we pick it up with committee

chairman lamar smith questioning the attorney general. >> the foreign intelligence surveillance act amendments which help protect our country from terrorists expire at the end of this year. do you support the extension of those amendments? >> we do support them. it is the most important legislative concern of the intelligence community, and we hope that congress will pass that reauthorization before the expiration at the end of the year. >> okay. let me go to operation fast and fur furious. who is 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 the

atf office there. the inspector general 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 could say it started in arizona and i'm not at all certain beyond that who can be said to have been involved with regard to the use -- the knowledge of it, but with regard to 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 15th, 2010, is that right? >> i think that in terms of knowledge of the tactics as opposed to the operations itself, i don't think anybody in washington knew about those tactics until the beginning -- >> speaking of those tactics, when were you first -- when were you first told or became knowledgeable about u.s. officials allowing firearms to be sold to the drug cartels in mexico? and i'd like a specific day if

you can give it to us? >> i don't have a specific day. at the end of january 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? >> no, it was not in the letter. the letter directed my attention to the area that ultimately led to my understanding about the tactics, but the letter itself did not mention operation fast and furious. >> okay. and once again, when did you learn about the tactics that were being used? >> as i said, the early part of 2011. >> and 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 the firearms that were connected to fast and furious were found 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 remember what i found out about that particular fact. i would guess it would also be some time in the early part of 2011. >> okay. >> why was it, do you think that individuals who work for you who were in this administration would not have made it known to you or others outside of arizona that firearms that were allowed to be given to drug cartels in mexico by u.s. officials. why did it take so long for you to learn or others to tell you? was there a cover-up going on? or what was -- what was the explanation for you and your position not knowing more about the tactics? >> well, i think the answer's found in your question, no one knew about the tactics until the initial discovery. it wasn't until the tactics were discovered that people began to understand we have a problem here. but the tactics t fast and

furious was a mid-level regional investigation from all reports was going on pretty successfully. >> but again, you didn't find out about those tactics until six weeks, two months after the death of brian terry, is that correct? >> some time in february. i think agent terry was killed december 10th or 14th of december. >> when was anyone in the white house first informed about the tactics that were used under operation fast and furious? >> i don't know. >> did you yourself not inform anyone in the white house about operation fast and furious? >> i'm sure 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. >> how would anyone in the white house have learned about it? and who would've learned about it? and in a normal chain of command. how would the white house have learned about operation fast and furious if not from you?

>> well, through my staff and the interactions that we have with the white house -- >> okay. when did your staff inform the white house about operation fast and furious. >> i don't know. >> were you ever curious about that? >> well, my focus was on dealing with the problems associated with fast and furious. >> seems to me that you wouldn't want to know -- wouldn't want white house officials to know what was going on in order to correct the problem. my time -- >> tactics and trying to solve the problem and not concerned about the knowledge was in the white house. that's my responsibility. >> i understand, but i think the white house would have been informed. the gentleman from michigan, ranking member is recognized for his question. >> thank you, chairman smith. attorney general holder, would you pull your mike up just a little bit closer, please?

>> you have made reference to the ats multiple failed 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 effective? 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-47s, if somebody buys more than one over the space of five days, in four border states, that information has to be reported to the atf. that has led to actionable leads. it is a very measured responsible regulation that has been upheld by a court that has considered it that says it is appropriate and totally consistent with what we do right now and have for the last 30

years with regard to the sale of multiple handguns. >> yeah. and, by the way, i think we repealed the assault weapons n ban, and that's led to a proliferation 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 in our economy and on foreclosures and in families from one end of the country to the other. how's your staffing and resources picture in this context? >> well, 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 underway, 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 attorney general from new york, eric schneiderman as well as other state attorneys general, i think the progress we're making there is very good. >> thank you. in 2009 you created a working group to review the departments of 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 in light of experience there are changes that need to be made ahead of meetings concerning this issue over the last two weeks, it would be my expectation as to the extent the changes are to be made that those would happen relatively soon. we have an interagency -- we're working within the justice department and i suspect we'll have to have an interagency group because there are a number of agencies whose educates are implicated by the change. but it is something we continue to look at and something in which i've been personally involved over the last two to three weeks. >> and what's the -- what was the goal of the so-called profiling guidance? >> well, to try to make sure that we did not hamper law enforcement. but at the same time, that we had in place rules, regulations,

guidance to those in law enforcement that did not -- 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, and this has been reported people as they call them with clean skins, people who do not fit particular profiles. those are the ones they're trying to send to harm the nation and that's why profiling in the national security context as well as with regard to domestic law enforcement is such a bad idea. >> let me squeeze in my last question, can you talk a little bit about the charges of selective enforcement of immigration law. i don't know if you 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 the other -- >> states. >> yeah, at the state level. if i could finish this question, mr. chairman. >> yes, 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 -- this is 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. 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. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for his questions.

>> thanks very much, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, i do want to echo mr. conyer's accommodation of you for coming before us on a regular basis. i know it takes a lot of time to prepare, i also know you don't know what's going to get thrown at you. and sometimes there will be curve balls. i hope mean is a curve ball. 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 ditsner of florida -- talking about the problem. and the problem is simply this, and that is as florida's trying

to purge its voter registration roles of non-citizens including illegal immigrants, people are 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 the federal government has delayed giving florida the information that it needs 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 data base that i think is -- florida is requesting is not necessarily the answer to these problems,

that data base does not contain within its rolls, people born in the united states. it could result in the exclusion of people who are voting who are native-born american. >> well, the state of florida has attempted to obtain this data base for nine months so that it could do its thing prior to the 90-day shut off and the national voter registration law. and i have a copy of the letter from secretary of state detsner that talks about the due process qualifications. 30-days to respond, hearing if requested f the mail notice is returned is undeliverable. general circulation and initial 30 days that the conclusion of

the notice in 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 a state circuit court. now, this is probably due process times three or four or maybe even five times. i'd like to know what rights do noncitizens and illegal immigrants have to the protection of the voting rights act? >> they have no rights and i stand with any state official, federal official who wants to make sure that our voting system 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 on the list that i believe is a woman that she got were indicated to be people who were not eligible to vote who, in fact, were eligible to vote. and i think that points out the problem and the process. >> 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 box as the hundreds of legitimate voters ends up diluting the votes of the legitimate voters. and the federal law is very clear in that. and, you know, here the department of homeland security hasn't given floor the means to start the process out. and with all of these protections that i have 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 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 agree with. i don't think we should have people that don't have the ability, who don't have the right to vote casting votes in our nation. north carolina, georgia did it -- >> well, then please tell florida to do it because apparently there's been a road block here in washington. and my time is up. >> thank you. the gentleman from new york, mr. natler is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have made several requests to you to allow us to review the office of legal counsel memo that reportedly states the justification. the department has sought dismissal of cases by arguing among other things that the appropriate check on executive

branch conduct here is the congress and that information is being shared with congress to make that check a meaningful one. yet we have yet to get any response to our requests. will you commit to providing that memo to us and a briefing? >> well, we certainly want to provide information to the extent that we can with regard to the process that we use in selecting targets. i gave a speech at northwestern university -- >> excuse me, will you commit to providing a copy of the briefing? a copy of the -- of the legal memo from olc? >> we will certainly look at that request and try to determine -- >> and a briefing to the members of the committee. >> we'll look at the possibility -- >> you won't commit to a briefing to this committee? >> we are probably going to 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 -- >> and you'll get back to us on that within a month? >> we can do that. >> thank you.

when running for president and talking about marijuana being legally used around the country in certain jurisdictions, president obama said the following, "i'm not going to be using justice department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue." apparently the department has not followed the president's admonition. since 2009, doj conducted around 200 raids on medical marijuana dispensaries and growers and brought more than 60 indictments. it's my understanding that the department has a more aggressive record on prosecuting these cases in this administration than under the previous administration. the president clearly did not want to prioritize prosecutions involving medical marijuana. and while i understand selling and possessing marijuana remains against federal law, the citizens believe its medical use should be legal. why is doj focused so extensively on investigating those and punishing those who grow marijuana contrary to apparently what the -- 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 by the deputy attorney -- then deputy attorney general that we were not going to use limited resources that we have to go after people who are acting in conformity with state law. people who had serious illnesses, people who were acting, as i said, consistent with state law. but, 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 with 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 marijuana only for medical purposes in -- in -- in

following the applicable state law? >> yeah, we limit our enforcement efforts to those individuals, organizations that are acting out of conformity with state laws. or with cases of instances in colorado where distribution centers were placed within a close proximity to schools. >> okay. in september -- on september 23rd, 2009, you issued a memo sitting forth policies and procedures governing the executive branches in vocation of the procedures. that requires your approval to defend assertion of the privilege and litigation. in how many cases since september 2009 have you approved personally in vocation of the privilege? >> there have not been many. i think one, two, three, something along those lines. i'm not sure. now, those numbers get skewed a little bit because in the second

circuit in order to get -- use the statute, the second circuit has a rule that says we have to invoke the privilege. but that, i don't think is the same -- >> i have a number of more specific questions on this that i'm going to submit to you that i see. i'm coming to the end of time. i have one further question on this. you do not indicate whether the administration will agree to judicial review of the basis for invoking the privilege. took the position that information could not even be disclosed in camera to an article three judge thus ensuring there was no judicial review of whether the privilege was being properly invoked. what is your position as to judicial review of the information that the government seeks to withhold in two key respects? one, can the judge review the allegedly privileged information? and two, can the judge disagree with the executive branch's decision as to whether the privilege is propose eproperly

invoked. >> the way in which the privilege is set out, it is, i think 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, standard -- >> within the executive branch. but you're saying that you do not agree that ultimately a decision should be subject to judicial approval or disapproval as to invocation of the privilege? >> well, ultimately, i think a judge could probably override our decision of the privilege and we would have to decide whether or not we want to dismiss the case. but our hope is we go through, we only invoke the privilege where it's absolutely necessary. and you'll probably see that we have invoked the privilege far fewer times than our predecessors. >> well, i hope you will share those statistics with us. >> 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 that

we'd like to get a response from. in fact, i'm disappointed that to date your office has been unable to provide answers to what i consider some very simple questions. that we asked in that meeting having to do with prosecutions of work site enforcement cases. i'm especially interested in the number of doj prosecutions for each of the last four years. the number of prosecutions of illegal workers who have been using fraudulent documents. when can i realistically expect to get a response on that? >> i was under the impression that we had responded to all of the questions that were put to me either during the hearing or, i guess we call queue-fers. >> we will be happy to reiterate with specificity what those -- but it's pretty straightforward. >> we'll get you those numbers.

>> okay. >> and i apologize if you've not gotten them. >> we'll work with your office. you know, we all know that many illegal immigrants are using fraudulent social security numbers or individual taxpayer numbers that 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 that some illegal immigrants are claiming tax credits for children not even living in the united states. what's specific -- and i want to emphasize specific steps are being used by doj to stop this fraud, recover taxpayer money, deport the illegal immigrants who have committed the criminal fraud? >> well, you know, 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 work site enforcement, reaching out to employers, to making clear what the policies are, what the law is, we use a variety of techniques to try to make sure that the kinds of people you're talking about are not, in fact, getting benefits to which they are not entitled. >> 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 who have given an exemption or review to get a temporary green card. >> no, i mean, i think we look -- we've certainly prioritized those people for deportation and we have tried to place at the head of that list people who potentially pose a criminal problem for those in the united states on the immigrant community. people who have engaged in violent acts. those are the ones we're emphasizing.

it doesn't mean those further down the list are not also people trying to deport -- >> well, we know, and 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're 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 medicare fraud. and we know by many accounts there's as much as $60 billion a year that is being used as being stolen from our medicare program fraudulently. wh s