>> that's correct. let me thank you for your service and ask a series of establish certain rights egress, ingress the protection of access and the first amendment. i want to just focus if you wanted to petition your government and use no government -- most could either that i can their vehicle hitch a ride, they would not be totally prohibited from exercising that constitutional right. you made a point about fundamentalal rites. if you are denied the right to vote, there is no alternative.

there's no other way, maybe you get a bull horn in the middle of the street. there's no way that you could impact the choice of those who will governor. could you just be very quick on that answer, please. >> i think that's right. if you want to directly impact governmental policy who is setting those policies that is directly tied to the ability to vote. to cast a ballot. >> do you believe it as a legitimate duty, action of the of operating current law to assess the -- >> we apply the law passed by this congress in 1965. we authorize it six years ago. >> are you going outside the bounds of the law when you in essence review florida or texas or ohio, indiana. are you outside the boundaries as you can assess? >> all we're doing is applying

the law that exists and has existed for over 40 years now. >> with respect to the affordable care decision that is pending. i want a simple question, do you feel there was an adequate review in the decision ultimately rested with the supreme court which i think has done a decent and fair job on recusal with respect to justice cay began. could you have done anything more? >> with regard to the recusal issue? >> i don't think we should have done anymore. i think the justice department has done all it's case especially responding to requests and all the information that can be shared has been shared. >> i appreciate it. we are saddened by the loss of life that was resulted by the fast and furious. you have said that often. are you aware of the report by elijah cummings? >> yes. >> do you believe that be under

this report that his staff and ranking member cummings of the oversight committee extensively reviewed the 7,000, 6,000 or the world of information that was given? >> i think they did a good job of reviewing the information. they produced a good report that contains a number of reforms that we have tried to implement. >> quickly, the statement says that they found no politically motivated operation that fast and furious was not conceived and directed by high level obama administration political appointees at the department of justice. would you concede that they would have the basis to say that? >> i think if one looks at the documents what that statement is manifestly true. >> can i ask you as well to investigate and are you concerned or have you seen the impact of single race based juries in a number of cases. this has been an issue in a number of areas particularly in the south in cases that are particularly sensitive. i'm going to ask you to

investigate the chad holly case a beating incident that occurred in houston, texas, and the series of trials that are coming forward, but in particular one case was tried by a single race jury and of course resulted in the acquittal. would you please take this as an official request for the justice department to investigate the beating and resulting trial that was a single race jury in the case of chad holly? >> the supreme court has recognized that the selection process that deliver an attempt at creating a jury of a single race on the facts of the case is not appropriate. i'm particular with the holly case. not intimately, but i am familiar with the holly case. that is something that we are in the process of determining what course of action we should take. >> a number of members today have made requests from you of information. when can they expect those requests to be responded to within two weeks or so?

>> we will do the best that we can as quickly as we can. i'm a little surprised that we have not responded at least to some of the things that have been raised in connection with last time i was here. i will try to do a better job of that. >> i thank the chairman. >> may the gentlemen from iowa be recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you attorney general for being here to testify today. picking up on the chairman's remarks. i point out that i had a series of questions that i asked december 8th. we haven't pressed relentlessly for those responses i haven't seen them. i'm going to be submitting a new request from december 8th and then additional here for just today. first of all, there's one piece left on the fast and furious i'll just ask you is that can you tell me when you first started to doubt that the original letter was inaccurate? can you tell me what piece of information caused you to do that? >> i think my first doubts happened just before or just

about at the same time that i asked the inspector general to conduct a report. the reports were inconsistent to what i was hearing within the department. i had a letter from senator grassly in february. >> i have a february 4th letter denying the atf ever walked guns. i don't have the letter, but that letter was formally withdrawn. i thank you. i take us back to this the

pickford issue and that d discrimination issues. we discussed pickford then. i posed the question that in the farm bill of 2008 consistent with i believe your testimony and also statement made personally to me by secretary vilsack that the farm bill authorized the know goegss and agreements that lays out in term os of $1.25 billion to be distributed to black farmers who have claims of discrimination. the authorization is $100 million. that's to cap that for all of settlements there to there. now i see not only is it not capped at $100 million. it's been expanded to $1.25 billion. and we have three other cases out here since that period of time. garcia versus vilsack. love versus vilsack and when i total them up it's $1.33 billion

in this order for garcia. for a total of all together $4.93 billion poised to having been distributed or to be distributed under these discrimination cases. a lot of it coming out of the judgment fund. can you tell me how much is in the judgment fund. i want to ask you to produce a report of the funds that come in and the funds that are distributed out of the judgment fund. i think this congress needs an oversight if we're dealing with numbers that are approaching $5 billion. >> what i can say is that settlements that were reached we set pools of money that can be tapped if people can prove that in fact they were discriminated against. there is certainly an unfortunate history of discrimination that everybody acknowledges exists between the department of agriculture in dealing with farmers of a variety of ethnicities and

genders. the attempts at the settlements were to address the wrongs. >> but $5.3 billion that is a big chunk of money to be distributed without congressal oversight. do you have any resistance to congress taking a look at that data, the contingency fees and the source of the money and the amounts? >> no. i think that's legitimate oversight. >> then i'll follow one a more specific question. i wanted to ask you about your reaction when you saw the video of the young man who claimed your ballot here some months ago. your reaction towards the requirement for a photo i.d. after you saw that video. >> that guy was very careful not to say he was eric holder not to say he got a ballot. he didn't do the kinds of things that would have subjected him to

criminal prosecution. >> he could have obtained your ballot with ease. it was offered to him. and so i just suggest this, that it may not be impossible, but i think it's been determined here today in the questioning of mr. lundgren that visiting a federal building even your building is maybe not impossible but difficult without a picture i.d. if it's difficult or impossible to visit a government building without a photo i.d., then how can we allow someone to help choose our government without a photo i.d.? >> i think the question is if you look at for instance south carolina, they had in place measures that protected the integrity of the ballot before they went to the photo i.d. i don't per se say that photo i.d.s are necessarily bad. the question is how the structure is in place. whether or not it has a disproportionate impact of people of a certain race, ethnicity, age group. >> the gentleman's time has

expired. >> thank you, mr. king. the gentlewoman from california, msz waters. >> thank you very much. i'd like to welcome you mr. attorney general. i have a number of questions that i wanted to ask you, but my attention has been diverted to the line of questioning from congress goodland. it is well known that you dismissed charges that were placed against senator stevens following your investigation that indicated that certain exculpatory evidence had been withheld. was there one thing or several things that were done that caused you to dismiss? >> the thing that was the main motivator to dismiss the case, i thought the solid evidence that we had uncovered that brady material exculpatory material had not been shared with the

defense. that was the basis, the main motivation for my deciding to dismiss the case. >> and it seems that mr. s-c-h-u-l-k-e. >> schulke. >> agreed with you. the punishment does not seem to match the crime, prosecutor yal misconduct. a lot of people are wondering how does the office of professional responsibility literally dispute the seriousness of the withholding of the exculpatory evidence. how do you account for that? >> i wouldn't agree that they don't take it seriously. mr. schulke i know is a good lawyer. he came up with a report that said he thought the material was withheld intentionally. the opr report about 700 pages long says the information was

withheld, but said it was done intentionally, not recklessly. he never made a recommendation as to what he thought the appropriate recommendations should be. the jumg said there was not an order that he could appoint to to find contempt. that's the difference between the reports. the state of mind of the person who did not turn over the information, or people that did not turn over the information. >> in your opinion do you believe the recommendations for punishment by the office of professional responsibility those recommendations in line with the unintentional withholding or perhaps could have been stronger. what do you think? >> well i think it's appropriate for the attorney general not to comment on these determinations because it is something that is

not my responsibility to do. we put that in the hands of the career people. we have a great opr, great office of professional responsibility. we have a structure in place so people outside of opr look at the findings and make a determination as to what the appropriate sanction should be and the people who are political in nature are insulated from that process. >> so i suppose what we can conclude is that you dismissed, you felt that the withholding of the information was serious enough to dismiss. >> yes. >> and that whether -- and i asked i think earlier was there leaking of information? was there sharing of information with others that should not have been shared with in addition to the withholding of information? >> no. i don't know. as i remember it, the concern that i had was with the nonproviding of information that the defense was entitled to.

that was the concern that i had. >> and so clearly, you addressed that concern, but again after having addressed it, the office of professional responsibility had the responsibility to determine what the punishment should be. and you have no hand in that, is that right? >> that's correct. >> okay. i just wanted to get on the record that the withholding of the evidence was a serious matter. and that you made a decision based on that. >> i would agree with you. whatever whether you agree with mr. schulke or opr, it was serious. it necessitated the dismissal of the case which is what i did. >> thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you miss waters. does the gentleman from virginia have a unanimous consent request. >> the letters from the national

organization from black law enforcement executives city of philadelphia police department, boston police department and association of prosecuting attorneys on behalf of the attorney general. and also a copy of the draft contempt citation we were questioning what had been asked for draft contempt citation offered by the committee on oversight and government reform which says in part the wiretap application document extensive involvement in criminal actions in fast and furious. yet the department of justice has failed to produce them. >> without objection those documents will be made part of the record. mr. franks is recognized for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen. mr. holder on april 27th, 2011, members of this committee asked us to give you information surrounding informs to forego prosecution in the holy land foundation case. this is the largest terrorism

finance case in u.s. history. you refused to comply with this request and you have still not produced, you're still not prosecuted despite their being what many consider to be a mountain of evidence against the jihadist groups at least one of which that says it's working inside your agency to purge the counterterrorism training materials. we're told that this mountain of evidence that outlines the jihadist network outside the united states amounts to 80 bankers boxes full of documents. this evidence was turned over to the court and much of it was given to the jihadist defense lawyers. members of this committee and other committees would like to review this evidence. whether it has to be on classified basis or not. would you commit today to give us and provide us with those documents which comprise the government's case in the holy land foundation trial? >> i don't -- it's hard for me to answer that question. >> it's not hard to answer. it's will you not?

>> i don't know what the nature of the evidence is. i don't know if it's grand jury material. i don't know if it's wiretap information. there are a variety of things i have to look at. i can take you request and check to see what the nature of the evidence is and make a determination about whether it's appropriate for that material to be reviewed. i just don't know. >> we made the request on april 27th of last year. and so far it hasn't happened. so i would like to make the request and would you give us your best efforts basis that you're good faith effort that you will give that information to us if you can do so? >> i will certainly make a good faith effort to look at the request you've made and see whether or not it can be complied with. >> all right. i guess i would have hoped you would give us some explanation as to why the request has been ignored thus far. let me shift gears on here. it's been reported that multiple agencies including the fbi are now purging counterterrorism

training materials of information outside groups might find offensive. including discussion of things as fundamental as al qaeda is a group that endorses violent ideology that should be examined. per the new guidelines fbi agents may no longer discuss this in their training sessions because it offends some people and it's been purged. this strikes me as the sacrificing of vital national security on the altar of political correctness. this concern seems warpted given the bipartisan report on the fort hood massacre to quote then, the worst terror attack on u.s. soil since 9/11 found that political correctness inhibited officials from taking actions that could have stopped the attack. members of multiple committees are now investigating has anyone inside the agent coordinated with any other federal agencies

to carry out this review of counterterrorism training materials? >> the decisions made by the fbi with regard to what use would be made of certain materials is not based on political correctness or whether or not something is offensive. the search was for materials that had assertions about particular things that were simply wrong and didn't think it was appropriate to be included in the training materials. i can tell you if anybody knows bob mueller he is not making the determinations on the basis of what is either offensive or politically correct. that is not the driver in this attempt to make sure that our training materials are accurate. >> is anyone inside your agency coordinated this effort such as it is whatever it might be with d.o.d. or d.h.s. or the state department? >> i'm not sure that we

necessarily have to. we interact with our partners all the time in a variety of ways. the deputy attorney general issued some guiding principals to all d.o.j. component heads and attorneys to make sure the training materials were accurate. we interact with our partners all the time. it is on that basis among other things that we have an ability to decide what materials are accurate. >> one of two things. your position is that no one in your agency has spoken with or met with other agencies in the white house and carrying out this purge of counterterrorism materials or they have. if they have, who directed these agencies in general to purge these materials? and what outside group's advising the department on the issue? >> this is an internal process being done by members of the fbi. members of the justice department who are steeped in this -- >> can you tell us what outside groups are advising you on this process? >> this is something that's

being run primarily out of the fbi to the extent that there are outsiders who are involved we are trying to interact with. we can try to get you those names. >> i'll leave it right there. respectfully, officially ask you to give us the list of who the outside groups are that are working with you on this process. one of them is a jihadist group that says they are working with you on it. i just want to make that. >> i don't believe that. but i will relay the request to the fbi. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. franks. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for questions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. sir, it is very hard to minimize and diminish the tragedy that is fast and furious. horribly ill conceived program. led to the loss of life of an agent, endangered others. and there must be a continued thorough, independent investigation and justice must be done.

corrections must be made and i believe have been made. with the greatest respect i would say today that i believe that the effort here has become politically motivated. that diminishes the process. >> the operative phrase that comes to mind since that witness has been used is pay no attention to the man behind the current. mr. attorney general, welcome to oz. pay no attention this. pay no attention that the agency lacked sufficient resources. pay no attention the head of the atf hasn't been allowed to be appointed. pay no attention that the laws are inadequate to protect agents and citizens on both sides of the border even more specifically than in arizona any person may purchase an unlimbed

number of ak 47's and transfer them within the state in private sales. that the special agent of the phoenix field division testified a t a previous hearing as it relates to straw purchasers and punishments he used the expression, quote, some people view this as no more consequential than doing 65 in a 55. as it relates to the gun show loophole, we recognize the fact and others would ask you to pay no attention that you can buy any type of gun you want without any background check. you could be adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill, you could be a felon, on your third order of protection, you could be on a terrorist watch list and buy what you want. in terms of resources "the washington post" said in 2010 the atf has the same number of agents it had in 1970. the fbi has grown by 50% and dea

by 230%. i'm glad those agencies got the growth they need they make us safer. and finally pay no attention to the fact that the special agent said i have less than 100 agents assigned to the entire state of arizona. that's 114,000 square miles. do we have the resources? no we don't. we grately need them. mr. attorney general, life is unfortunately even after tragedies about moving on. i ask you in a perfect world what are the situations and resources that you and other agencies have to combat the threats that are still going on. the fact that people are still dying from gun violence in the border area. >> it is an somebody that we have to confront. recent studies have shown of the 94,000 guns that we are seized in mexico 64,000 of those guns

can be traced back to the united states. i think there are a number of steps that congress could take to help us in connection with this fight. we need a comp hence firearms trafficking statute. we need tougher sentences for straw purchasers. so you'll have that 65, 55 miles per hour thought. we need to give atf the resources that it needs in fiscal year 11 congress cut our request for 14 project gun runner teams in half. decreases our capacity to do these kinds of things. i think that congress should not attempt to block the long gun reporting requirement that has recently been upheld by a federal court that would require somebody buying multiple ak 47s over a five day period to have that information simply shared with the atf that is a valuable intelligence tool and has helped us while it's been in place only four border states to develop leads and deal with the situations that you have

described. >> and if i might switch gears briefly. i come from illinois, chicago, it's important to recognize the gentleman stepping down from the attorney general's position in chicago has left an extraordinary legacy. i want to commend his efforts. i'll give you the opportunity to do the same, if you will. >> i have known pat fitzgerald since he was a lawyer in the southern district of new york and working on consequential important terrorism cases. i admired his work then. he has been an outstanding u.s. attorney in two administrations. he is a true patriot. he's been a great u.s. attorney. he has focused on public corruption matters as well as national security matters. he is in fact been a model u.s. attorney and somebody who's going to be sorely missed by us in the justice department. >> thank you, sir. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. quigley.

the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. >> thank you for your courtesy. a report of the minority staff of the oversight and government reform dealing with fast and furious i ask unanimous consent a statement on the draft contempt citation of the oversight committee. a letter regarding the purging of voters and a letter regarding race-based juries. i ask unanimous consent. >> reserving the right to object. >> the gentleman reserves the right to object. >> i have no objection to the latter material. in the case of the former material i would ask unanimous consent if yoer going to enter one side of any document from another committee if you want it into the record, that corresponding documents be allowed to be paired in so as to give a complete report. >> without objection the

documents mentioned by the -- >> i have no other -- >> part of the record and the documents referred to by the gentleman from california made part of the record. we'll go to the gentleman from texas for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know where i'm coming from mr. attorney general. i've been a prosecutor. i've been a district judge including felonies and death penalty cases. i've been a chief justice of a court of appeals. as a -- i've been appointed to defend cases i didn't want to defend. but i did my very best job and did it well. i've had people come before me who were friends that i've sent to prison because that was consistent with justice of what i would have done to someone in their situation who was not a friend. i have