one only has to look at the law which is clear. 90 days. it is very, very clear. 90 days. >> and, in fact, general holder, then it is possible that as the highest law enforcement officer of the land, that you actually have real concerns about american citizens being disenfranchised. and that the united states department of justice, the u.s. department of justice, actually cares about protecting the constitutional rights, the constitutional rights of american citizens that are now being threatened by this illegal voter purge in florida. isn't that correct? >> that's correct. a base, we have to enforce the law, a law that was designed by this congress, or its predecessor, to protect the rights of american citizens. that's what our action is all about. to protect the rights of american citizens. >> thank you. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for being here, mr. attorney general. i want to get back to how the

wiretap application is approved in the process that it is. you said that basically whoever it was just reads the summary, determines whether there's probable cause, and if there is probable cause, then they send it off to get approval by the courts. is that basically what you're saying the process is? >> yeah, line lawyers in the office of enforcement operations look at the affidavits, prepare a summary that's reviewed by by deputy assistant attorney general -- >> the deputy assistance is only looking for probable cause, is that what you're stating? >> right, to make sure there's a probable cause basis. >> how is that true? because under extensive requirements for federal eavesdropping law, the justice department officials have a duty, a duty to evaluate the law enforcement tactics that have been used in the investigation. why they aren't going to actually make it so we can have a further investigation, and why you need to have wiretapping put into place.

we have title 18, section 28158 1-c says the application needs a full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appeared to be unlikely to succeed if they tried or to be dangerous. now, we put these sorts of safe measures in place because wiretaps are extraordinarily intrusive. and so probable cause being the only basis for putting the application is just blatantly -- it's just false. i mean, unless your justice department was not living up to what is actually statutorily required for an application. >> what you're saying is absolutely right. that, in fact, there is that requirement. if you look at the affidavits and the summaries you will see there's a statement by the person who does the affidavit and the person who prepares the summary that, in fact, other methods have been tried and have proven to be unsuccessful. >> so you're saying they did know about -- this is what i'm

trying to get at. is did the deputy u.s. attorney who actually signed off on these wiretap applications, did they actually go through and understand what the tactics that were being used, then they would actually know at the time of reviewing those because you said that all they were looking at were the summaries and looking for probable cause when actually they would have to be looking for the tactics, why they failed, and why you needed to have eavesdropping going forward. so that would mean they would probably have that information a lot earlier than when you said earlier. >> but you're looking at the tactics that we used in order to try to surveil people. all right? that's what you're looking for in terms of these tactics. doesn't mean that you're looking at every tactic that was used -- >> part of the whole operation, though. but the investigation, for the operation of what they're trying to accomplish, you're using various different tactics. it's not just for surveilling. it's for the whole operation. >> what i'm -- >> so the tactics actually are part of the application. why they failed. why you need eavesdropping. so your deputy attorney actually knew about the tactics even

though you've been saying all along that he didn't because he only had the summary and you're only looking for probable cause. >> i've looked at these affidav affidavits. i've looked at these summaries. there's nothing in the affidavits as i've reviewed them that indicates gun walking was allowed. let's get to the bottom line. i didn't see anything in there that would put on notice a person reviewing either at the line level or at the deputy assistant attorney general level. you would have knowledge of the fact these inappropriate tactics were being used. >> are you saying in the summaries or in the whole affidavit? >> in the affidavit as well as -- >> in whole? so there were no comments about the tactics of gun walking within the whole affidavit? or you're talking about the summaries? there's a clear distinction between the two, and if you're saying they're only relying on summaries and not the whole affidavit, then you'd have to two to actually -- then would it be an untrue affidavit to get wiretaps if they didn't include the gun walking? is that lying to the court and the tacktics being used during

the operation? >> we have to speak hypothetically. >> i understand that. hypothetically, i mean, i'm just trying to get down to what the process was because it seems to be a little misleading from what you have said and what mr. brewer have said in the past, that it was only for legal sufficiency. or probable cause in this instance from your perspective. when in actuality, the statutes that govern this, especially with federal eavesdropping are much more strict and require much more proof that federal eavesdropping and wiretapping is necessary to actually go through with it and get the court order to do it. >> they do not -- these statutes do not require the degree of specificity that you are implying. they do not require you to go and describe all of the things that you have done during the course of an investigation with a degree of specificity that you are implying. that is not accurate. >> what degree of specificity do you think i'm implying here? i mean, you have to go through what the procedures are, what the tactics were. i mean, i'm not trying to seay you need to put down every

serial number of a certain shoe somebody was wearing while they were surveilling somebody. the basic gun walking is a big piece of the tactical operation in operation fast and furious. >> well, again, i can't get into the contents of the fast and furious wiretaps. i'm prohibited from doing that under federal law. but i can tell you that the notion that you are pushing, and you're pushing incorrectly, it does not require that degree of specificity, granularity, to appropriately put together an affidavit and a summary that can go to a -- >> but it provides more than probable cause is what you were saying earlier and provides more than legal sufficiency which is what mr. brewer was saying earlier. >> let him ask the question. >> gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california, miss sanchez, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and general holder, thank you so much for joining us here today. i know that it's an important responsibility of your office to submit to this committee's oversight and i know that you would agree that this is an

important role for our committee to play. it can't be easy. i feel your pain, to sit in front of us for such a lengthy period of time and answer questions about the many different areas under your purview. so i'm going to apologize. i come toward the end. if some of my colleagues have already bent your ear on this topic. i would be remiss if i didn't bring up the recent changes in the department of justice policies regarding the reimbursement to local governments under the state criminal alien assistance program or known more commonly as scaap. scaap per mitts states and localities to seek reimbursem t reimbursements for the cost of detaining immigrants charged with a felony or two or more misdemeanors. deportation is a federal responsibility and scaap is a program which acknowledges that our overburdened local law enforcement facilities shouldn't have to bear those costs without

some kind of reimbursement from the federal government since it is a federal government's responsibility. shortly after i was first sworn in as a member of congress, some ten years ago, local police officials came to me and explained how a change in the scaap funding roles was having a for profound effect on their budgets. and the 2003 scaap reinterpretation in which states only receive reimbursement if a criminal lal yen is convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors and the arrest and the conviction occur in the same fiscal year, which is an odd and interesting requirement, has had tremendous repercussions throughout the law enforcement community, particularly in my state of california. in california, scaap reimbursement payments have declined from 220 million in fiscal year 2002, prior to the department of justice reinterpretation, down to $112

million in fiscal year 2009. and for ten years now in congress, i've been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, a bipartisan issue, to try to help justice recognize the need to return to the original congressional intent of this legislation. the police departments and sheriffs departments in my state are already having to do more in terms of deterring crime and protecting constituents with less. and this reinterpretation of the scaap reimbursement really hinders their ability to do that. they're trying under very difficult budget circumstances to do an incredible -- they're doing an incredible job. but, you know, they keep asking me, what is the federal government going to do about scaap reimbursement? i'd love to be able to tell them that the funds they desperately need are going to be coming. but last month, i was dismayed to find that your department further reduced the reimbursements under the scaap

program which has the effect of only further increasing the pressure on local law enforcement and making their jobs that much harder. this change is not only going to -- would not only reimburse state and local law enforcement if they're holding a known inmate, already in i.c.e.'s database. i just want to bring your attention to a letter that i have from the california state sheriffs association, and mr. chairman, with your permission, i'd like to enter it into the record. >> without objection. >> it suggests that if your department had made this change in 2010, it would have reduced payments to california sheriffs by an additional $10 million. and that's already on top of the 50% cut from 2003 to 2009. and i just want to quote a section of this letter since i think that the california state

sheriffs association summarizes this issue very accurately. they state, and i'm quoting, the federal government must uphold its responsibility to the facilities that hold criminal aliens and not allow changes that would weaken the funding provided for scaa. i hope that you'll give this issue more thought and much more thought to the impact that this change is going to have on law enforcement communities across the nation, not just to mention southern california, and i hope that you'll reconsider -- reconsider this decision and consider rescinding it. i just wanted to make you aware of that issue. i will be following up with your office. and i hope that we can work together to try to ensure that local law enforcement entities will be properly reimbursed for the great job that they do in trying to protect the public safety and i guess i'll just allow you a brief comment and i yield back to the chairman.

>> okay. thank you, miss sanchez. the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. attorney general for being here today. i want to ask you, if you're familiar with the homestead case that deals with disability law. are you prepared to speak about that today? >> well, i'm not an expert on it, but -- >> okay. let me ask you a few questions about it. in my state, we have a number of homes, institutions, for the developmentally disabled. and around the country, there have been a number of lawsuits against some of these homes alleging violations of civil rights. and in some instances, these lawsuits are filed with the view that the homestead case

contemplates a -- a structure where the institutions sort of are phased out and that individuals who are disabled, intellectually disabled, developmentally disabled, well, those individuals will moved into more community-based care. my state has been, in arkansas, has been the subject for some of these lawsuits. first of all, i wanted to ask you, do you believe that the homestead case requires a movement away from institutional care for the developmentally disabled? or do you believe that these institutions can exist within the homestead framework? >> as i said, i am not an expert on homestead. i'm familiar with the -- what the decision talked about, you

knows, and unnecessary institutionalization, how that clashes with the ada. you're asking a question that i think is just beyond my -- >> okay. could i -- could i get something in writing on that? and let me continue a little bit. my concern is that those who are implementing, and i understand it's many levels below you, my concern is that some in the civil rights division and the special litigation section at doj are pursuing -- and to be fair, some of this litigation began in the last administration. so this is -- this is an ongoing problem. but my concern is that there are some who read the homestead case as if not requiring a move away from institutional care, at least somehow endorsing the move

that those at the oj -- some at the oj have advocating for. my reading, well, i think anyone's reading of the case, the actual case demonstrates that that's not what the case contemplated, that the case was -- made it clear that -- that segregation of those with disabilities will not be tolerated. but that institutions could be a part of the solution there. and, in fact, the opinion, the plurality opinion said, and i want to quote this to you, quote, each disabled person is entitled to treatment in the most integrated setting possible for that person. recognizing on a case-by-case basis that that setting may be an institution.

and so that is -- if you could get me some answers on that, that would be very important to me. you know, the lawsuit that was filed in arkansas was eventually dismissed, for lack of evidence by -- lack of evidence presented by the department of justice. and, unfortunately, it cost the state of arkansas and the development center that was involved $4.3 million to litigate that. and in the end, it was dismissed for no evidence. and if -- i won't go into the details here, but i'll just tell you in a small state like ours, and with an institution like this, $4.3 million was a significant sum of money, and, in fact, had to be -- timber had to be sold. mineral rights had to be sold. et cetera. to help fund this litigation which was then dismissed because doj had no evidence. or did not have sufficient evidence.

so if you could get me just your views on that, i would very much appreciate it, and i thank you for being here today and listening. >> i'll be glad to do that. i think you have -- the underlying material that you've shared with regard to the disposition of those two cases is accurate. so what i will endeavor to do is to respond to the questions you have put to me and i apologize for that being able to answer based on that correct factual assertion that you've made. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. griffin. the gentleman from florida, mr. ross, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. attorney general, thank you for being here. i guess the benefit of having me question you, i may be the last one. thank now your for patience today. the house committee on oversight did receive six wiretap applications that it reviewed. in that, that committee's contention that those applications contain detailed information about fast and furious and gun walking. it's my understanding you've reviewed those applications since your last testimony. it's my understanding that you take issue as to what these

applications actually detail, as to whether fast and furious existed or whether there was any gun walking? >> yeah. i mean, what i would do, again, i can't talk about the contents, i would align myself with the letter that -- >> is that james cole's letter? no -- >> the letter that congressman cummings -- >> okay. >> -- sent out a couple days ago or so as he went through his analysis of that same material. i think that his -- his perspective is the correct one as opposed to what chairman issa -- >> since then, my understanding, there was a letter, january 27th, of this year, to chairman issa, from attorney general, deputy attorney general james cole that indicated changes had been made. two of the changes included department of justice has changed its way of response to congressional inquiries and also changed the internal process for wiretap reviews. in fact, they -- your office tripled the number of attorneys now reviewing wiretaps. is that correct? >> correct.

>> is that an indication what was done before was done inadequately and inappropriately? >> it was in response to office visits. people were saying it was taking too long for them to make requests in the field and get them processed in washington and get the approvals back into the -- >> it has nothing to do with another level of review as to make sure as to the accuracy of the content? >> one of the changes does. we now require somebody in the field, a supervisor, to look at the affidavit, the application sent to washington. we require a supervisor to look at that. that wasn't a requirement before. totering accuracy. >> on tuesday you have a spokesperson who issued a statement saying the review process for wiretap applications is limited and specific assessment. the review process is not an approval of an operation. i'm sure you agree with that. the sufficiency of it has nothing to do with what may be alleged in there. for example, hypothetically, if there was a human trafficking operation going on and the wiretap was requested for that,

at what point do you not look at the legal sufficiency whether the requirements are met for the wiretap, at what point do you stop the actual operation being asserted in there? >> when affidavits, they are pretty broad ranging. they describe in pretty good detail what's going on in an operation but they don't go into all of the, as i was explaining, they don't go into the nitty-gritty of everything going on in connection with an investigation. if for instance an affidavit did contain, talk totally hypothetically, if an affidavit did contain some indication that trafficking was going on, that young girls were being tortured or something or that guns were being walked -- >> what i'm getting at, we now have in place a process in reviewing these wiretap applications that will prevent another fast and furious, is that correct? >> i think we do, with regard to that supervisory level. this is always assuming that the people who are working on the affidavits are sharing all the

information. but it's not -- we shouldn't have that on the basis of just wiretaps. given the policy pronouncements i have made and the changes i have made, i think that is the primary reason why we should not have a repeat of fast and furious. >> believe me, i would love to spend more time on that issue. i'm sure you had enough entertainment on that one. what i would like to address is something that's near and dear to my state of florida. is it your opinion you feel deceased people should vote? >> obviously not. >> and illegal aliens should not vote either? >> no. but veterans should be able to. >> i couldn't agree more. as long as they're eligible to vote. but when my state in furtherance of its obligation to make sure we have an adequate and sanctified voting process nine months ago request from the department of homeland security the citizen data base, yet receives not only a no, but no response, and then today, when they are trying to do what's necessary to make sure that the sanctity of the voting process is preserved and appropriate, the department of justice

stonewalls and said sorry, you're within 90 days and therefore, the voting rights act applies and you can't do it. what is my state supposed to do? when dhs and doj does not cooperate with them in the furtherance of their obligation? >> i can't speak to what dhs did but i will say this about that data base. it does not contain people who were born in the united states so it is not going to be a cure-all. >> why would they refuse to give it? now they have to go to the motor vehicle rolls to do their job. they had better tools with that data base than now with their own internal tools. >> i don't know why they didn't but the data base itself would not be adequate for the kind of purging sought by the state of florida. >> there's in reason dhs should not -- they should have released it. >> i don't know what the basis was for that determination by dhs. i do know that, and i am concerned about the numbers of people who i have heard have been inappropriately purged from the voter rolls who are

citizens, who have voted in the past and who for whatever reason got those letters. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. ross. thank you for your testimony today. >> mr. chairman? i have unanimous consent, please? >> the gentleman is recognized for unanimous consent. >> it's a clarification regarding an e-mail sent by mr. jason weinstein. this is his testimony regarding an e-mail referred to by the gentleman from utah. the e-mail referred to the wide receiver and the testimony that i'm submitting indicates this statement. when i say it is a tricky case given the number of guns that have walked i'm talking exclusively about wide receiver. ask unanimous consent to submit this into the record. >> without objection, that will be made part of the record. mr. attorney general, thank you for your testimony. without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions to the attorney general and we hope he will be timely in his response. this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you.

earlier today, republican congressman darrell issa, who chairs the house oversight and government reform committee, announced that his committee would hold a vote next week on whether to find attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress for failing to turn over documents related to the fast and furious program.

according to the associated press, the justice department says many of the documents deal with open criminal investigations and prosecutions, matters relating to sensitive law enforcement activities that cannot be disclosed. to date, the department has produced over 7,000 pages of documents regarding the operation. the vote is scheduled for wednesday, june 20th. tomorrow morning, the senate's judiciary committee will get its opportunity to question the attorney general during a justice department oversight hearing. we'll have live coverage of that hearing on c-span beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. coming up, over the next hour, we will show you some of the commencement addresses from around the country this year to some of the college graduates. next, missouri governor jay nixon speaking at northwest missouri state university. then we'll hear from ibm chairman samuel palmisano at johns hopkins university in baltimore, massachusetts congressman barney frank at lasell college in newton, massachusetts and joint chiefs of staff chairman, general

martin dempsey, at norwich university in northfield, vermont. tonight, espn president john skipper on the network's expansion to different media platforms. cnn chief national correspondent john king on the ways technology has changed cnn, and cox business senior vice president phil meeks and their small business focus on the communicators, tonight at 8:00 on c-span 2. >> pulitzer prize winner author david mariness traveled the globe visiting places like kenya and kansas to examine the president's family tree. book tv gives you a preview with exclusive pictures and video, including our trip to kenya with the author in january 2010. join us sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern and later at 7:30 that same night, your phone calls, e-mails and tweets for the author on c-span 2's book tv.

>> missouri governor jay nixon delivered the commencement address at northwest missouri state university in late april. the democratic governor spoke to the class of 2012 about the importance of higher education, competing in the global economy and alternative energy advances. jay nixon was missouri's attorney general for four terms before becoming governor in 2008. his speech from maryville, missouri runs 12 minutes. >> thank you, board of regents, distinguished faculty, staff, honored guests, alumni, and students. i'm delighted to be here on this very special day and among the first to say congratulations, class of 2012. all of your hard work and long hours have paid off. and brought you to this point, standing at the threshold of a

new journey. since 1905, northwest missouri graduates have gone on to serve our state and nation with the highest distinction. you are about to become part of that proud bearcat tradition. graduates, i also want to extend my congratulations to all your parents, grandparents, families and friends whose love, support and sacrifice were essential in helping you get here today. your diplomas represent the fulfillment of their dreams and their effort as well as your own. you can't repay all that they have invested in you, but i urge you to try. honor them by using your education to make a contribution to your communities and to make a difference in our world. let me also congratulate the northwest missouri state faculty and staff for the outstanding array of programs offered here. your commitment to diversity and excellence has given students

the opportunity to explore traditional and nontraditional fields of study and prepared them to compete for careers in the 21st century. graduates, this ceremony marks the completion of one important phase of your education and the beginning of another. it is a celebration of all that you have achieved since the first day you set foot on this campus. you leave northwest missouri state with more facts and figures packed into your heads than you may have thought possible. about subjects as diverse as computer science and counseling, poetry and political science, geology and jazz. your education here expanded not only the boundaries of what you know, but also your capacity for learning. that capacity is infinite in all directions and continues throughout your life. very simply, never stop learning.