the objection of the fbi general council, the department grants you access to sensitive material. as recently as last thursday and his response to your office's report on material witness statute, the deputy attorney general again pledged, quote, to provide your office with access to all materials in to complete our reviews consistent with young. >> yes, the department's leadership made clear they will continue to issue orders giving us access. so our issue isn't with getting these documents, it's, frankly, the process of played out compromises our independence. have the attorney general and deputy attorney general been

helpful to you? >> yes. in getting us these orders, they have been helpful. in issuing these orders, they've been helpful in getting us the access. >> now, as the only member of the committee that was voted for the 1978 act, i agree wholeheartedly with your testimony. congress meant what it said in section 6a of the act. inspector general must be given complete, timely, unfiltered access to agency records. in your opinion, why did the general council of the fbi feel compelled to arrive at a different interpretation of the same statute? >> i would be speculating, frac frankly, as to what the motivation was. but there's, i think, it's clear

as you've indicated from looking at the opinion and you have it, it's attached to my statement, that the ig act, i think, trumps the arguments quite clearly. >> well, i hope the office of legal council issues a strong opinion giving your office unequivocal access to the material and information that you require. and this committee is going to be watching that very carefully. i thank the chairman and yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, gentlemen. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. issa, chairman of the oversight committee for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. claireman. general horowitz, thank you for injury courage. for the inspectors general to write a letter appealing us to over the people who appointed them but will not let them do their job and to have plor than half of all of the igs do so is clearly unprecedented.

and i commend you for your courage. i have no doubt that this administration will attempt retribution against all of you. that is their pattern. you won't say it, but i will. this is an administration that believes justice delays is justice given. they have delayed it every step. so although, the distinguished ranking member is absolutely willing to say all the right things, he made one error. the fact is, there should be no commending of a man who sat in your chair, the attorney general of the united states, and told us he wore two hats. one being a political hat. because the fbi does not operate in a vacuum. that information can be made available to you over the objections of everybody who works for them. and the policies that are in place are his choice.

now, i'm going to ask just a few quick questions because you and i will be together tomorrow next door. one of them is, is there any basis, not just with your shop, but with any of the 74 inspectors general, any of the 12,000 men and women, is there any basis to see that igs have not been good stewards of confidential information over the many years since the act was enacted? >> we absolutely have been. we have handled, in my office, some of the most sensitive matters, including the hanson matter, the christina leon matter. we handles these matters entightly appropriate and consistent with the law. >> isn't it the practice of who you see and quite frankly across the department of justice, fbi and all of the other agencies, atf, isn't in fact one the most

important tools the clandestine nature of discovery, isn't in fact a good fbi investigation often does in a way in which the target of that investigation is an iwa not aware that they are a target until a substantial amount of information has been collected. >> that's correct. >> so the very requirement for you to ask for access, doesn't that essentially negate the ability for you to look through such information as you need and perhaps extraneous information, so as not to always have the targets always know you're coming and potentially thwart your investigation? >> it is. and i would note that in those earlier reviews, for example in the hanson matter, we had direct access to the information. we didn't even have to go through the process we are now going through that is creating the problems we are facing. >> i guess once of the, i always say last question, and i don't really mean it, as you know. but an additional question, is

if in fact the target knows and if your statutory limit is in fact only against current employees of the department you're involved in, doesn't any delay cause the likelihood that both political and nonpolitical appointees will move on. either through retirement or transfers? >> we face that problem frequently, i've learned, in the last two years, that individuals under review or investigation retire, move on to another job before we're able to complete our work. and there are an innumerable number of issues that we face that are problematic. >> and just hypothetically, let's say that congress is interested and sends you a letter because we are concerned about people doing the lowest learner irs targeting investigation, are in fact tainted in some way. either because of their conduct or some other matter, and you

agree to look in into it, isn't that a classic example where it has to be done timely or irreparable harm to the process concerns. >> it sim perative that we be able to do them timely, and we are not able to do that right now. in a number of our ongoing reviews. >> well, themr. chairman, mr. ranking member, i want to take a moment to say one of the few areas of specific legislation, one of the joef sight committees, is in fact the inspector general's. tomorrow i will take a hearing and draft legislation zun on a bipartisan basis over the last several years work working with the inspectors generals and with their oversight groups. and all through that legislation, and i hope both of you and your staff will look at it ahead of time, give us your

input. because i think today's hearing here, tells us that we must, as a body, restate some prince pams and make reforms to make it cleer for the next president, next administration, that we really meant what they legislation said. and i yield to the ranking member. >> thank you. may i ask unanimous consent that gentleman be given one additional minute. >> without objection. >> thank you very much, my friend. but i do not think that i am in error in commending either the attorney general or deputy attorney general. because since 2010, when the fbi service advanced thissing a umt, the leadership of the department of justice has bent over backward to make certain that the office of the inspector general has access to every last shred of evidence it requires.

attorney general holder, deputy attorney general coal, personally have at least a half dozen times -- >> i thank the gentleman. i just ask mr. horowitz to comment on whether those interventions in fact represent the kind of timely and unobstructed activity. particularly when ranking members said six times. isn't once enough to show leadership and six times a pattern of obstruction that you're not able to overcome? >> i would say that the problem with the process, as i laid out, is significant in terms of our independence. it also delays reviews because we have to keep going up the chain to get to the leadership. and that's the continuing problem we face. which is why the leadership made the decision to send it to the office of legal council. we need that decision promptly. that's what we need to hear right away. thank you. time, gentlemen, has expired.

chair recognizes gentleman from texas, miss jackson lee, for five minutes. >> let me thank you the gentlemen for being here. and helping us through what are important issues. and i certainly hope that we're not on another chain of condemnation, following the obama administration, that we are actually trying to get to the facts that will help the oversight of this congress and as well work with the ids at various agencies. i understand that the doj, epa and peace corps, certain peace corps shocks me, because humanitarians around the world, we hope there is nothing they're doing, sending great americans forward to be of help. but let me -- have you had an absolute bar to being able to

address issues that have come to your attention, meaning there have been an absolute dropping of the iron i got, steel gate, concrete wall. what have you faced in trying to do the work of the inspector general? >> the issue hasn't been a roadblock to our undertaking reviews. the issue has been getting the information to timely complete them. that's been the big problem. >> you know, that is a distinction, to be very honest with you. i want to help you find a system that works. but as you well know and as i as a practicing lawyer previously, i use the term discovery. and many times, particularly if we are in litigation against one of the big guys, there are several ways we can interpret discovery. one that they are in essence roadblock org that the documents, whether it is a governmental entity, that we have immunity issues. but if down in the bowels

somewhere, my question to you is this an issue of getting a system that works because they are in the bowels. remember we have gone tech. but five years ago or ten years ago as many of us star in the united states congress for example, we were all paper. we packed up papers at the end of the session. we boxed them up. we labelled them. they were somewhere in distant mind. can you discern that we are speaking of what every american understands. i filed it away under sm where. but where is it? would you? >> great find, congresswoman. in fact, respect, we feel like civil litigant where we're opposite the party that's going through documents and having lawyers look through documents. for example, at fbi now, the process in place because of their legal position, what they

are entitled through legally. all of our requests go through the office of council. . >> are you saying it is good intent. >> they are sending it there because of their legal position. the result is that we have lawyers like civil litigants. we are waiting for their discovery reviews. we end up sometimes getting documents from them and learning what is documents weren't produced. that's the problem with this situation that's been set up. and it has to be resolved, and should be resolved, in a way that gets us access, immediately, frankly. there is no reason for this process, to even be undertaken. >> but let me get you to -- this is not seen by the ig -- because i'm going to get to the point of a solution. this is not seen in the ig as a malicious intent. is this a malicious intent? >> no, i'm not here to suggest a

malicious intent, but the action put forward and the time taken, that's what organizational -- >> and this has gone over a series of administrations. i don't know how long you been here. but this has been ongoing, whether it's been president bush administration, there's a system in place that i'm understanding? >> on the ig side, my understanding is this began in 2010. i started in 2012. but fbi waves its objections -- >> the fbi end of it. >> correct. >> the question is, we are holding hearing here. and i want the hearing intent to be a resolution, not condemnation. and so i think it is important for us to look certainly as you well know, we're not litigants but litigants each have individual rights. i would have the right to protect my client and therefore in discovery i'm going to make sure that i'm giving precisely what is asked and not something that is just grading.

and you on the other side will be the same if you represent a client. we want transparent government. but as well, the fbi or epa or those production documents should be adhering to the law. the structure is in place that came in in 2010. let's see how we can work it better. but fbi has a right to council. epa has a right to council. and have you a right to transparency. am i arguing or making the point that you say you now need a system that allows these documents to come forward? >> and what i'm suggesting is the mind-set has to change. both in our earlier reviews, for example, robert hanson matter. very sensitive matter, we have direct access to information. no one tries to interpiazza lawyers in that regard. we are part of the department of justice. we should have and congress set up a system in the ig act as congressman laid out that says we're there to oversee them. if we're going to oversee the fbi, their lawyers should not be

going through and deciding and filtering what documents we get and how fast we get them. >> you have just given us a framework. and you're from the doj and and i think of them as twinkle toes in terms of the work they do, but what i would say to you is that this is a workable -- you're presenting facts and i want to be clear as i end my queerry, that, and i know there's a series of sections you have come under and offered sections going forward. as i end, could you precisely just give, is that your suggestion to move that lawyer structure or could you work with a loyal structure that was would then have a structure that would be fair and cooperative with the ig. if you remove them totally, could you work with that.

>> the time of the gentle woman has expired. the inspector attorney general can and the question. >> yes. the lawyer needs to be removed from the process for routine requests. there may be issues that arise that require legal opinion. right now, every request goes that route. we should be able to get direct access to information. the witness, the whistleblower, the witness at the fbi wants to come to us with information, with documents, they aught to be able to do that directly. we shouldn't make have to make a request through legal council, get them eventually, hopefully, and then as i said, learn from other witnesses there are more materials out there relevant for their review. >> thank you, mr. chairman for the time. and i hope condemnation is not coming forward. i yield back.

>> gentleman from ohio, five minutes. >> mr. horowitz, i want to make sure i understand your last statement. every single request, information you are trying to get access to, goes through the department of justice council. >> sorry, fbi, office of general council. >> fbi has? and you're saying that is not political? >> office of general council is not a political appointee. >> i understand, but -- >> to send it through office of general council -- >> how long ago did that practice start? >> within the last two years. two to three years, sir. it may have been just before i came. >> i'm concerned about all your work but i'm particularly concerned about one issue that's been a focus of the oversight committee and other committees. and that's the targeting by the internal revenue service of people exercising their first amendment rights and frankly

have been very disappointed in the criminal investigation. then fbi director muller sat in the chair you are sitting in and was asked who is the agent, who was assigned to the case and have you interviewed victims. his answers were i don't know, i don't know, i don't know. didn't exactly inspire confidence at that point. since then, there's been, early this year, the leak by someone at justice that no one is going to be prosecuted. the president's now famous comment, no corruption, not a smidgin and of course the lead agent has maxed out contributiones to the president's campaign and yet she is the lead agent in -- or excuse me. not lead agent, but lawyer in this case. you signed with 46 other inspectors generals. it says this. access to certain records available to their agencies that were needed to perform their oversight work in critical

areas. so i want to know, what were those critical areas. did any of the -- were you denied access to oversight work and were any of the critical areas relative related to the situation at the internal revenue service and criminal investigation going on there? >> any other inquiries that you were denied access to? >> no. that is not an area i was referring to -- >> i know we have asked to you look into certain things. specifically, i think, to look into the fact that mrs. basserman was selected to sort of head up this investigation. so you are not -- you didn't face any restrictions or face any deny of access regarding that? >> we have not faced any documents restringses with regards to that matter. >> are you, changing gears a little bit then, one of the other issues we were very

nervous about, brought to our attention a few months ago, was the fact that the irs gave 21 disks of information from the fbi, regarding the targeting issue. that information was given to the fbi under 2010. 1.1 million pages. some of that information contained 6103, donor information. are you aware of that issue, mr. horowitz? >> i am. from the news stories and various letters. >> has your office looked into that at all, in any type of elementary way or examine any of that information at all. >> we try not to talk about matters that are nonpublic unin our office. >> are you concerned about the fact that justice department, specifically the fbi, has confidential taxpayer information and they have for years. >> yes, i have taken note of that information. >> last question then. just to be clear, though, none

of these information denied in your oversight work dealt with the irs? >> that's correct. >> okay, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thanks. recognize the gentleman from utah. five minutes. >> i thank the chairman and thank the inspector general. i had the pleasure to work with you on several different occasions. we wish you nothing but success and want to make sure that your efforts are unimpeded. i want to ask you questions though about operation fast and furious. part of the indication from the attorney general was that he could not answer questions, would not provide more information to the public in part because the inspector general was doing a review. how do you summarize your

ability to access information regarding fast and furious? >> we had difficulty -- and this occurred just before arrived. then i picked up the investigation. but we had difficulty just before i arrived and having access to grand jury information. as you know fast and furious raised a lot of issues, as well as title 3. there were numbers of wiretaps. we had difficulty obtaining both of those in a timely fashion because of the objections raise bid component to providing it to us because they did not read section 6a of the act as giving us ability to look at that information. >> what percentage of the information could you actually see? >> i'm not sure i could put a number on it. frankly because i wasn't here at the time. >> right. >> i wasn't the ig at the time these requests were going on. i do know there was a fair amount of information potentially grand jury information. >> in your interpretation, you should be able to -- talk

specifically before grand jury information. >> i think it is quite clear in the first instance that section 6a in the ig act means we should have unfiltered, timely access, to all record. the agency doesn't get to pick and choose. so that would be the first basis. the second is, we have always gotten grand jury information up until 2010. if the fbi and the department components. either through the ig act or through one of the exceptions in the grand jury, which has an exception for the attorneys for the government. we are attorneys for the government. i work for the department of justice. that should be self evident but apparently is not now it is interpreted by the fbi. >> how many people report to you in your group? how many igs are you overseeing? >> my office has over 400 employees. >> and so the process now,

they're having to go and ask permission -- from what is it? who are they having to ask permission from? >> what happens thousand is we send our request because we don't have unfiltered access. we have review going on between our request, getting the documents. make a request, the fbi, office of general council reviewes it. if there is a an objection, we start the process going. >> what are the so-called objections? what are their excuses as objections? >> we had the grand jury objection. we've had objection to wiretapping information. we had objection to person identification information. but it took months before it got sufficiently elevated and the fbi withdrew its objection and we got the materials. >> at one point, there was an

objection about an organizational chart. can you tell me about that? >> correct. in two of our reviews, it has come up. one of the audit, an fbi related manner. our review on cyber. the witness we were speaking with was prepared to hand us an organizational chart we asked for but was told couldn't do that because it was going through the office of the general general. so we were delayed for weeks. i had to send in an e-mail to the general council saying, i don't understand how this can be the case. >> a simple organizational chart? >> simple organizational chart. recently, with the dea, we got an organizational chart with names whited out. we didn't want to go back and say, we need names. because the purpose is who we interview. then i got a makeshift with names. i had to elevate that. to the administrator in order to get organizational chart we were

looking for. >> chairman, i'm so glad we are holding this hearing. so glad we are doing this in the government oversight committee tomorrow as well. this is outrageous. inspector general should have information from anywhere they want. when it comes to the point they haven't even seen an organizational chart it reaches a level of absurditiy. i appreciate the bipartisan notion on this. i yield back, thank you. >> the gentleman's point is well taken. not only does the clart give an indication who they need to talk to, but also who should be held accountability. and it is very serious in any government but it is in this government. it is my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from north carolina. his questions for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. claireman.

now limitation that's unique to doj, the department's oig does not have authority to investigate all within the agency. the nonduct by nonlawyers, it does not have the same jurgs over alleged misconduct by doj attorneys when they're acting as lawyers under the department. if you could explain for us how this distinction came about and how to this works. >> this is really an historical works. is it because of the thought that opr, we did in 1988. when we were -- our office was created in 1980 by congress. they decided that time to keep opr in existence and have the jurisdictional limitation so all matters went to opr. the argument being that for many years opr had experience doing

these matters. so they should have authority. we're 25 years later now. we have been given authority over misconduct by all other parts of the justice department. we exercise that appropriately and independently. there is no reason that agents alleged misconduct should be reviewed by the oig. but attorneys get to go into a nonstatue body for their conduct of. >> are you advocating -- if you're advocating for that, would opr continue to have any role at doj or are you saying it is past its usefulness? >> i think that would be a decision congress would have to make. in the past, they kept in place, for example, fbi's opr. and what has happened now is we have right of first refuse yl. we take the most sensitive cases. cases where there needs to be

independent review. criminal contact. high level officials involved. and opr for dea, fbi, marshal service, et cetera, handled other matters p. that could stay as the process or congress could decide we should have all of the attorney misconduct no matter who or what is alleged to have done. >> all right. in addition to opr, there's the doj's national security division oversight section as well. as you put forward in your testimony, they provided access information that the oig has had trouble accessing despite the language of the statute. so what is your understanding and that what is forthcoming to the documents and materials to these other entities as opposed to oig? >> our presumption is because wore independent and they're not

and there appears to have been a conclusion that there does need to be a finding that our reviews are consistent with the leadership. it is self evident because they are working for the leadership, we are stater to torely indepen. congress set it up that way. it pairs we need to go go through the process. it is clear that our needs are being -- that is entirely inconsistent with what congress set up. >> thank you. i give back. >> recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. gomer for five minutes. >> thank you. we appreciate you being here. we appreciate your candor and efforts in trying to get records. we had the attorney general testify earlier in here as

tenure as attorney general, and there was a reference about how close he was that he made it, about how close he was to the inspector general at the time. that caused me concern because i hoped there was more independent from an inspector general. nobody is supposed to be an inspector general and be big buddies, with the attorney general. though he called me his buddy. i take that as a term of endeerment, even though he said, you don't want to go there, buddy. we never intended for you to have any impediment of getting documents. just so you're aware, for almost all of this administration, i've

been seeking the documents that justice department gave to the defendants in the holy land foundation who were convicted of supporting terrorism. this attorney general has used such lines as, you know, classification u issues, things like that. when it actually, it is very clear if you give documents to the justice department to terrorists who are convicted, then it's probably okay to give them to congress. and yet, still, the most that i've been able to get after all these years that we can have documents that were admitted. so i share your pain in trying to get information from this administration that should have been a slam dunk. very easy, just give me disk, give me the papers, whatever. i've been through boxes.

i've been through masses of cds as a judge and lawyer. so what do you think we can do, just the top thing that this congress could do. put it this way, the house could do to make your job easier and make your position more effective? >> i think frankly -- >> the number one. >> given where this is at olc right now, i think having comments by the ranking member, about congress and does section 6a of the ig act that congress passed mean what it says. that's the number one issue we are waiting to get an answer to right now. >> gentlemen? >> yes. >> i wanted to invite to you

join with me in this endeavor because i think you're interested and have learned a lot about it. >> and i would certainly be willing, i would think that a sense of the house might be what we pass as quickly as possible to make clear about our bipartisan belief and importance of inspector general and i very much appreciate the ranking member, former chairman, understanding that this should be a bipartisan issue because we change majority, the white house changes, but we have got to make sure inspectors general can get the information they need. so i very much appreciate ranking members. >> thank you. i look forward to working with you. >> mr. horowitz, you don't have to come back here for a hearing to seek individual assistance. any of us that can help, i know all of us, i know the chairman,

any of us, would be willing to assist in any way. you let us know what we can do. it is critical for any democratic republic, as this is supposed to be, to function efficiently, if an assistant general can't get access to information he needs. >> thank you mr. chairman, mr. horowitz. as a member of this oversight government reform committee, i'm acutely apair of the benefits of the inspector general community throughout government provide to the citizens of this country. you're the first line of watch dogs right there with the whistleblowers that combat waste, fraud and abuse in the

government. the idea behind an inspector generals where they work within the agency but independent, so they understood how the agency worked. feel like there is less reluctance of agencies to share information with the ig for internal investigations and the like. but the stuff we've been talking about and hearing about today has taken this to -- into politics. and that's where i think the trouble is. again, one of the advantages of the ig is they are within the organization. that's the intent. rather than having congress speen w subpoena a bunch of documents and a lot of things can be taken care of with the igs within ang encys. but this seems politicized.

what it would be, that is the sense that you get, there's a political element to this? >> from our standpoint, what we have seen is simply, and lots of different reviews, objections being raised, no one has said to us that it is being done maliciously. i will let others decide how this all came about and why. >> it has been my experience to pry information out of this administration that delay, stone wall and quite frankly when dealing with the irs, outright lie seems to be the rule of the day. and eventually, some of these -- y'all got some of the documents that y'all were after. but this is only after the leadership and the doj determined that they were positive. again, this points to the plitsism of it. i don't i don't have another

question. i just want to express publicly and on the record my dismay at the dismantling of what i think has been one of the most effective oversight and reform tools within the government of the inspector general as being opted and in my opinion politicized and misused. an administration that early on said they wanted to be the most transparent administration in history and clearly, that's not been the case. this is just another example of it. i struggle not to be numbed by it. like we have another scandal that comes out every two weeks, any one of which would have folks head exploding, not that many years ago. it is dishearten pg. i'm going to yield back the remainder of my time. thank you. >> thank you, gentlemen. recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, for five minutes. >> thank you. as coming back in, a lot of

things going on. i'm glad you're here. it is really good. starting on oversight, and what you do is amazing to the government. i wish we had more work like it. and i've learned you don't have access to information that i as an attorney but i believe you are entitled to. leading up to the letter and issues, based on your experience, is it particular people? is it some body? just on agency under this environment and agency leader? what is it that led up to the necessity to write this letter and, you know, we don't think you're getting access that you need. >> yeah. you know, this all began a couple years before i became ig. but there's been a series of reports that we issued that were critical with some of the handling of matters.

this followed shortly thereafter. and what happens once this begins is we start to see this under other component and regular reviews and the roadblocks become more regular and that's the problem with not resolving it and dealing with it promptly. >> and i think that it gives the impression, especially government to government, if you are roadblocking yourself. and frankly, leaves the opinion you're hiding something. that's simply the way it looks. your department's use of material witness statute, the fbi conducted page by page preproduction review, and redacted anything it considered to be grand jury material. as a result the review states documents were not useful and the review came it stand still. while the deputy attorney general gave you access to certain documents, this avenue is not without its delays. how long did the oig have to

wait for the grand jury material in all? >> it took us almost a year from start to finish to get the material we asked for in terms of completeness of the process. >> and there is really, at this point, no reason for that year's delay? >> no reason. from our standpoint, certainly. >> so basically, again, we're stopping, hiding, whatever you want to call it -- because frankly, if you're sticking to a story, like i told my kids, if you start telling stories once, then you have to tell stories whoelt way through. >> right. >> now they are coming back, giving you information when they first said they couldn't. >> and i will add on top of the delay to the review, have you a whole bunch of lawyers that in the fbi, that have a lot of thing on their plating with spending time going through page by page documents we should be getting. my auditors and teams, lawyers, et cetera, put on hold. not able to complete the work. so there's waste along with it. not only the delay, there's

wasted resources going on. >> i understand. and i think that's another whole issue. but we are trying to find every penny we can to properly use taxpayer dollars. >> also, while they are waiting for doj returning to produce grand jury materials, t what information was that and what was that rational? >> the fbi came us to with a list of areas it had concerns about producing. we ended up having to disgoesh yit and discuss with them a whole variety of categories before we got what we thought was complete. but since they are controlling the process and we aren't getting access, we are relying on their interpretation of the statutes and what is relevant and not relevant. >> and again, not to disparage in a large sense but in the sense we are looking at an investigation here coming internally. something that should be working together on and not pitting, you

know, us against them. this is just an honest truthful mentality. look bb we just got back off of a working period in which we were out in three town halls. that's the biggest thing i hear from folks is they don't trust the government any more. i've made many discussions about this. they come up and say, what could we do. we've got to restore trust. part of there is going through our own internal check list and make sure we are not just for the sake of busy work, doing that. and the letter was courageous. in a short amount of time, quickly, i appreciate the claireman for doing this, what action do you hope congressman will take in response to what has been broj robot forth today. >> i think statements and message that has been put forward by ranking member today talking about 1978 but other statements for example in 1988 and in the 1993 reform as to our

office. what was meant by accessed information? congress intend us when it gave us authority in early 90s to oversee the fbi and to look at records like grand jury title 3 information. the answer has to be us. otherwise, giving us that authority would be meaningless. >> you summed it up well. thank you for ranking members being part of this. if you don't have access, we are telling the american people we are doing something we're not going. that has to access the trust issues. we have to be accountable and i thank you for what you do. i yield back. >> chair has one additional follow-up question then i will check with ranking member to see if he has any additional questions he would like it ask. >> fbi argued that based on its interpretation of section 6b2 of the act, it has the ability to

request documents as long as it is quote reasonable. will you explain this conclusion by the fbi and your opinion as to whether there is any mer it to that position? >> frankly, i don't think it has any merit. i think congress quite clearly put in place in section ad of the act, the process. he could be followed if there are sensitive dock that's shouldn't be disclosed to the ig or ig shouldn't disclose publicly. that leaves the power with the attorney general. not with anybody else in the organization. so we disagree entirely with that. >> where does that phrase reasonable emanate from, do you know? >> i think that's their interpretation of the ig act. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, i have no additional questions. i want to thank again, inspector general for his very thorough and complete testimony today.

>> and i want to join you in thanking mr. horowitz and make sure that anything congress can do to bolster his ability to conduct neutral information and how any leadership operates. i think it is important to set the president straight like we did in 1978 and if we need to reinforce that today, we will do so. thank you, gentlemen. that concludeses today's hearing. without objecting all members will have five legislative days to submit questions for the witness or additional ters materials for the record. and this hearing is adjourned.m for the record. and this hearing is adjourned.

>> this weekend on c-span, american history tv is live from fort mchenry for the 200th anniversary of the star-spangled banner. later at 6:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv we will toor fort mchenry and learn how war came in 1814, about british barrage on the for the and how francity scott king was there for the fight. former presidents george w. bush and bill clinton launch the presidential leaders program at the new museum in washington, d.c. sunday after no one at 3:30, live coverage with comments from iowa democratic senator tom harkin and bill and hillary clinton. and on c-span 2, saturday night at 10:00, on tv afterwards, ken silverstene on the secret world

of oil. and on book tv, democratic senator from new york crist gin jill brand on her live in politics. find our television schedule at c-span.org and let us know about the programs you're watching. call us. e-mail us at comments@dr c-span.org. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter.join the c. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. now federal regulators talking about the regulations put in plate by the dodd-frank law. the securities and exchange commission, mary jo white and the consumer financial protection bureau testify. senator tim johnson of south dakota attend the hearing.

today i welcome back the financial regulators for another one of our many reform oversight hearings in this committee since enactment of the law. you all have been busy over august, as you continue to make progress and complete and implement reform. i thank you and your staffs for your hard work. i strongly believe today, as it is in 2010, the appropriate response at the time to the financial crisis. we can already see the benefits we have a regulation for our

banks and nonbank companies. we have transparency on oversight for directives. we have a dedicated and watch dog focus on veteran's protection and consumers, which has strengthens coordination and have new ways to monitor trust to financial stability. as we all know, the road to implement in wall street fog has been long and hasn't always been easy. this is especially true for those trying to work together to right effective rules for an increasingly complex and global financial system. to some, this work has been done while congress has not provided adequate funding proposed rules have not always been met with open arms from congress or consumer groups.

however, with constant oversight, members of this committee has had the opportunity to express their views in each of you and your agencies. because of it, the finalized rules are stronger. going forward, as we get further away, from the crisis, it calls the watered down fog, policy makers cannot forget a list from the strikers and how costly a regulatory system can be. our financial system is strongest when we have tough oversight to provide a level playing field for all financial firms to better serve their columns. today i look forward to hearing from the witnesses, their next steps to complete the remaining

wall street role makers. because of your diligent work, our financial institutions are stronger, going to be more stable and the rest of the world is looking to us when it comes to strong financial regulations. this is the vast improvement for from where our country was, before and during the financial crisis. i now turn to senator for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dodd-frank requires about a $400 new rules fob written and approved by the financial regulators. today, slightly more than 50% of these rules have been finalized. some are still in the proposed stage. the remaining 25% are yet to be written. with some 220 rule making finalized, we still have no idea what the accumulative cost of dodd-frank was or will be.

in the conflict minerals rule alone, adding paperwork burden hours and over 1 billion for services of outside professionals. and that is just for two of the 220 rules finalized. we couldn't believe these aren't passed ton consumers p without a accumulative analysis, we can't understand the impact on the related entities, consumers and mark pepts for example, while dodd-frank was meaning -- regulatory demand are trickling down to the community. community banks are disproportionately effective because they're less able to absorb additional costs. out of concern about what new regulations may be imposed next yb pnl institutions keep money

for compliance costs rather than invest it in local communities. we can and should make kmen sense changes to lessen the regulatory burden. in past, regulators supported recei several dodd-frank fixes. regarding the latter the senate passed a fix so insurance companies are not subject to bank like capital requirements contrary to their business model. i look forward to hearing from the witnesses who specific fixes should be made so that traditional banking services don become to complicated or expensive that banks like those in idaho or other rural communities can no longer offer such services. i appreciate some of your agencies have mandated review of existing regulations to identify outdated or or burdensome

regulations. a 2006 regulatory relief law, i encourage the agencies to join there effort. i urge all of you to make this review a priority. set up outreach meetings and with community banks and others arizona and to provide a list of recommendations to congress. for example, several witnesses discuss limiting a paper version of the annual privacy notice. a measure that passed the votes and in addition to dodd-frank, there is also an oversight council. at the july hearing, i reiter e reiterated my concerns about the lack of designation process. last week's action by metla -- on metlife, only reinforced and disrupts a regulatory balance. for an industry hats been

traditionally under the per view of state regulators. the u.s. financial system and capital markets within remain the preferred destination for investors throughout the world if our regulators operate a under a cloak of secrecy. secretary lou stated each of the designated nonbank sifis was given detailed information as to why they were. but the information was only after designations were made. i urge you to publicly indicate in the public register for public comment and propose to -- and i urge you to impose a moratorium on new designations until there are metrics and increased transparency. only then can we restore accountability to the process. all of your agencies should recognize the benefit in having an open and transparent regulatory process.

transparency does not weaken rule making. it gives them much-needed legitimacy. mr. claireman, the issues we're discussing today are very important especially as they relate to smaller financial institutions. i know that the committee will be looking at the small business issues in the near future and i thank you for that. >> thank you, senator. there morning, opening statements will be limited to the chairman and ranking member to allow more time for questions from the committee members. the record will be open for the next seven days. we will be open longer if there is a material you would like to submit. now i would like toint duce our witnesses. daniel torilo, a member of the board of governors of the federal reserve system. martin grimburg, is the chairman of the federal deposit insurance corporation. tom curry is a comptroller of

the currency. bridge cordray is from the consumer protection bureau where joel white is the chair of the security exchange. chairman of the commodity features trading commission. tim, welcome back to the committee. i thank you all for being here today. i would like to ask the witnesses to please keep your remarks to five minutes. your full written statements will be included in the hearing record. governor, you may begin your testimony. >> thank you, mr. claireman. senator and other members of the committee. i senator, i understand that this may be the last time that this group of six appears before you and your time as chairman of

the committee. i want to say before i begin that i think everybody appreciates the care and even approached with care. speaking as one who testified before you over the years, i also want to thank you for the patience and courtesy that you've extended to all witnesses in your time as chair.