conviction rate, secured more than 9$900 million in criminal and civil fines, restitution and penalty and obtained sentences of more than 130 years of confinement against more than 30 years of individuals. in cooperation with partners at department of housing and urban development and bipartisan group of 49 states attorney general, we achieved a $25 billion settlement with five of the nati nation's five mortgage services. the largest settlement in the history of the united states of america. through evidence of president's fraud enforcement tax force launched in 2009, we obtained prison sentences up to 60 years in a variety of fraud cases including multimillion dollar ponzi schemes and largest hedge fund insider trading case in the history of this country and established two new working groups to bring federal and state authorities together in investigating and prosecutor misconduct by financial

institutions and the organization and servicing of mortgages that contributed to our financial crisis. and we continue to make tremendous gains in our work to combat health care fraud. over the last fiscal year in cooperation with the department of health and human services and my partner kathleen sebelius and other statutes, we have recovered $14.1 billion in cases involving fraud on health care programs, the highest amount ever recorded in a single year and for every dollar that we have spent combatting health care fraud, we returned on average $7 to the u.s. treasury, medicare trust fund and others. the department has also taken crucial steps forward in protecting the most vulnerable members of our society and ensuring civil rights of all of our citizens. over the past three years, our civil rights division has filed more civil rights cases than ever before including record

numbers of human trafficking cases to ensure that our workplaces and military bases and housing and lending markets and our schools and places of worship and immigrant communities and in our voting booths rights of all americans are protected. in addition, we're working to strengthen the rule of law across both the country and around the world and beyond our borders establishing global lines is necessary to combat transnational organized crime as outlined in the president's strategy. this includes combatting intellectual and financial property crimes, child pornography rings and organized criminal networks and criminals if facilitation.

now, this work goes on today in our efforts to help ensure reauthorization of the violence against women act. a critical law that has transformed our nation's respond to crimes against women and enhanced our ability to achieve justice for victims while holding offenders accountable. if goes on in our strong support for renew of essential authority such as those included in foreign intelligence amendment act of 2008 and we build upon the extraordinary accomplishments defining the last three years taking our fight against terrorism, crime, fraud and other threats to a new level. i'm proud of these and the department's other achievements and i hope to discuss how we are working to build on this progress. i would like to address current investigations. as a result of concerned raised by atf agents, we now know of several arizona based investigations that occurred under this administration and the previous one where

inappropriate tactics were used in an attempt to stem the flow of illegal guns across the southwest border. although these law enforcement operations were focused on the goal of dismantling illegal gun trafficking networks, they were flawed both in concept and executi execution. i share your concerns about how these operations were developed and how they were implemented and that's why just as congressional leaders have called for answers, i asked the department's inspector general to conduct a comprehensive investigation as well. i also put in place new leadership at atf which has taken steps including the implementation of a stricter oversight procedure for significant investigations to prohibit the flaw tactics employed in these operations. now, many of the key enhancements implemented by president department set out in the deputy attorney general's letter date, we have continued to refine the title 3 process.

for example, our office of enforcement operations now requires that before it even accepts a request 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 that atf agents that testified before congress have also asked that law enforcement be provided with tools it needs to effectively combat drug trafficking on the southwest border. i want to reiterate my commitment to working with congressional leaders to meet needs of our law enforcement partners and to help address serious national security challenges on our borders. finally, i want to make clear that we welcome recent engagement of congressional leadership in the department's continued efforts to satisfy legitimate goals of congressional oversight while at the same time reserving integrity and independence of the department's ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions and a promising

step toward reaching a resolution as it accomplished two things. first, it narrowed the universe of documents 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 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 i would be happy to answer any 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 be able 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 attorney 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 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. i got a letter from senator grassley at the end of january 2011, and i think i became aware of the tactics themselves probably in february of 2011 as

i've indicated in the seven previous times i 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 for those tactic, 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? under the 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 would want to know -- would 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. thank you, mr. holder. the gentleman from michigan, ranking member conyer 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

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 to the extent that 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 equities are impacted 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. 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. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner is recognized for his questions. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, i do want to echo mr. conyer's

commendation 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 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 ditsner of florida sent a letter to mr. haron of the voting section of the civil rights division talking about the problem. and the problem is simply this, and that is as florida's trying to purge its voter registration rolls of noncitizens 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 anything after the federal government has delayed giving florida the information that h needs to do. what can be done to solve this problem? >> well, the problem with the florida effort is it runs counter to the national voter registration app 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. the database that i think florida is requesting is not necessarily the answer to these problems. that database, as i understand it, a dhs database, does not contain on its rolls or within that 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 prior to the 90-day shutoff in the national voter registration law. and i have a copy of the letter from secretary of state detsner that talks about the due process protections, such as a notification by certified mail, return receipt, 30 days to respond, hearing if requested, if the mail notice is returned as undeliverable, the names and addresses appear in a newspaper of general circulation. an additional 30 days that the conclusion of the notice and hearing process, the registrar's supposed to make a final determination based upon the preponderance of evidence and allow for an appeal of any determination of ineligibility

to each state's circuit court. now, 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 noncitizens, and particularly illegal immigrants, you know, have through the protection of the voting rights act and the national voter registration act? >> they have no rights. 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 were on the list that, i believe it was 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 in the process that the

bar is engaged in. >> with all due respect mr. attorney general, there is a problem, and any inel jeigible voter or voter who has a ballot placed in the same ballot box as hundreds of voters ends up diluting the votes of the legitimate voters and the federal law is very clear of that. 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 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. >> i would say, i respectfully disagree. 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 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. sensenbrenner. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, we have made several requests to you to allow us to review the office of legal council memo that reportedly provides the legal justification with the lethal targeting of u.s. citizens who are terror suspects. the department has sought dismissal of cases seeking judicial review of lethal targeting 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 request. do you commit to providing that

m memo to us and providing briefing? >> we want to provide information with the extent we can with regard to the process we use in selecting targets. i gave a speech at northwestern university, mr. brennan gave a speech here, i believe -- >> excuse me, will you commit to providing a copy of the briefing, a copy of the legal memo from olc? >> we will certainly look at that request and try to determine whether -- >> an a briefing to the members of this committee? >> and we'll certainly consider the possibility of a briefing. >> the possibility? won't commit to giving a briefing to this committee? >> i think we're 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 -- >> you'll get back to us on that within, let's say, 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 going to be using justice department resources to circumvent state

laws on this issue, closed quote. apparently the department has not followed the president's admoniti admonition. since 2009, growers have brought more than 60 indictments. it's my understanding 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 in selling medical marijuana. the citizens of 17 states and the district of columbia believe its medical use should be legal. given these facts, why is doj focused so extensively on investigating and punishing those who legally grow and sell marijuana legally under local law, contrary to apparently what the -- contrary to the 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 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 following the applicable state law? >> yes. we limit our enforcement efforts to those individuals, organizations. they're 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. in september -- september 23rd, 2009, you issued a memo setting forth policies and procedures, governing the executive branch's invocation of the state's secret privilege. that requires your personal approval for the department to defend assertion of the privilege and litigation. in how many cases since september of 2009 have you approved personally innovation of the privilege? >> i'd 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 because in the second circuit, in order to use the cipa statute, the second circuit has a rule that says we have to invoke the state's secret privilege. >> i have a number of other more

specific questions on this that i'm going to submit to you that 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 be disclosed in camera to an article three judge, 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 the government seeks to withhold in two key respects? one, can a judge review the allegedly privileged information and, two, can the judge disagree with the executive branch's decision as to whether the privilege is properly invoked? >> i think we have shared information with article three judges but at the way in which the privilege is set out, at the end of the day the executive branch makes that decision. we put in place a process that requires multiple levels of