sure you protect the environment, to make sure you protect the people involved in that activity? that is the number one priority of the industry. it all comes down to that question of safety and environmental protection. we have taken all lessons learned. the industry moved very quickly. based on that experience, we will build the containment system that can be used in other parts of the gulf. we will build it and have it ready to go. the public understands that we take that as our responsibility. we have a lot at stake. the people that suggest that these are just cavalier decisions is not fair. there is a lot invested in these systems. there are billions of dollars to incentivize thatzin these systems work. we will stay laser focus on

that. we, as an industry, through our associations, are committed to spend millions of dollars and other research elements through lessons learned in the gulf to make that better. how do we improve the issue of disbursements? how do we improve the issue of containment? the list goes on. we recognize that responsibility and take that seriously. >> bair ready, how are you sure it will work? -- being ready, how are you sure it will work? >> there is risk in everything we do. what we need to do is manage that risk to make it highly improbable that those accidents will never happen again. that is what we are doing with contemning technology, with 70 practices, and the new regulatory regime. -- with safety practices, and the real tory regime. we're doing everything -- and

the new regulatory regime. we're doing everything we can. >> thank you. we are back with our reporters. let me begin with where we left off with jack girard. you're asking can another spill be contained? >> i heard there was some risk. there's risk in any thing -- in everything, and i think he was right in that point. people want a very small level of risk. these containment systems are new to the industry. we have not seen them tested across a myriad of conditions. the industry is the first to point out that each well is different. the true way to stop a well is to kill it with a relief valve and that takes some time. time will tell. i think a lot of people think what i am thinking, which is that we saw what happened in the

gulf. a lot of strategies did not work. we had to invent something that actually did work. we also had a company that, on the books, was prepared for a spill and turned out not to be prepared. you have to come back and ask the industry again are you prepared even after what we learned from the deep water horizon? >> the report is not out yet. when can people expect to see that? >> we do not have a timeline. i think it is later this month or june that we will see the coast guard bureau of ocean management report. bp did its own. they had access. it was obviously a body of experts. people are waiting to see what actually happened up there. we will see. >> let's turn to capitol hill. >> yes. >> what will policymakers be

doing this week? >> house republicans would open up previously counseled leases on the coast that the obama administration delayed because of the spill in the gulf. another bill would open up a offshore. they will be coming of legislation for the money that they would use to these programs. >> are there any other bills going to the president's desk? >> i do not know. >> there are a variety of issues of were to go. >> thank you both for being here.

>> this weekend, former utah governor and former nasa to china jon huntsman delivers the commencement address at the university of south carolina. south carolina is the first southern state to hold the presidential primary. watch tonight on c-span's road to the white house. >> the c-span network provides coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, online, and of social media networking sites. and find our content any time through c-span's video library. and we take c-span on the road with our digital bus local content vehicle bringing resources to your community. it is c-span. it is now available in more than 1 million homes, provided by cable as a public service.

>> attorney general eric holder testified this week. he said that law enforcement cannot become complacent and that the terrorist fight is not over. attorney general holder is the first obama administration cabinet member to speak before congress about the osama bin laden issue. the judiciary committee will come to order. we welcome everyone here but particularly our guest today, the attorney general of the united states, eric holder. i want to recognize myself in an opening statement. and then the ranking member for his opening statement.

this morning, we welcome attorney general eric holder to the committee fn an oversight hearing on the department of justice. i would looing to thank him for providing for the patriot act provision. i appreciate the support of the mandatory retention policy. though he may not want to take credit for the next item, i should also thank the attorney general for the decision not try certain terrorists in the u.s. it is a right decision and will ensure justice to the families of the 9/11 victims. the killing of osama bin laden is a significant victory in america's efforts to combat terrorism. the threat does not end with bin laden's delt. in the years since 9/11, al qaeda has expanded into splinter groups. this makes it harder to detect

and deter plots against americans here at home and abroad. we cannot afford the leave the intelligence community without the resources it needs to dismantle terrorist organizations and interrupt terrorist plots. congress must reauthorize the patriot act. our laws should keep pace with the evolving triflt thet. they must keep pace with rapidly changing technology. nowhere is this more apparent than with the dramatic increase in the proliferation of child pornography. child pornography on the internet may be our fastest growing crime in america, increasing by an average of 150% a year. better data retention will assist law enforcement officers in the investigation of that and

other internet based crimes. when investigators develop leads, their efforts should not be impeded because vital records were destroyed. i'm concerned that in some cases this administration may have placed political and ideological consideration above enforcing the law. earlier this year, the department abandoned the defense of the marriage act. it seems that the president's personal political views regarding the law may have trumped the obligations of the department of justice. another example of selective enforcement is the administration's views when it komts to immigration laws enacted by the states. the justice department sued the state of arizona.

what about a law enacted in utah that creates a guest worker program for illegal immigrants in this undermines the federal law but the administration has taken no action. t marijuana distribution is illegal whether it is used medicinally or recreationally. states have taken it upon themselves to legalize medical marijuana. just last week, it was reported that the department has dropped the criminal code with a lawyer who admitted leaking class fied information on the terrorist program. this should have been a slam dunk since the attorney admitted to not abiding by the law.

the justice department has a solemn duty to defend the laws of the land as enacted by congress without politics on prejudice. i am concerned there seems to be a pattern of selectively enforcing the law based on the administration's ideology. i want to thank the attorney general to coming today. we look forward to hearing from him on these and many other issues. the gentleman from michigan, mr. c conyers is recognized. >> thanks, chairman smith. we welcome the attorney general, eric holder. most of us have known him for more than a number of years in this various -- his various positions in the government. and -- i welcome you here and praise your standing up for the rule of law.

especially in the area of national security. where you were the attorney general that supported the end of using torture and you released legal member mos on th subject that proved that what you were doing was right and some of those memos were incorrect. now for the things that we want you to improve on. i start off with the -- the fact that the worst economic upheaval

since the depression, with the suffering and damage it's caused citizens and their family, there is to my knowledge, not one single prosecution on any of the wall street barons that have created this economic mess. the systemic abuses have not ended and are still going on, as far as i'm concerned. in the area, general holder, of the approach to crack cocaine cases under the fair sentencing act, that the department would continue to seek extreme sentences that have been rejected as a policy matter by both the executive and the

legislative branch is disappointing. and more needs to be done to ensure that the so-called pipeline cases are handled in a just manner. and the area of anti-trust enforcement and merger review. we're getting more discussion about this. but our economy continues to become more and more dominated by global megafirm and of just about every merger that has come through the department of justice front door has made it out alive. and -- i know that you're getting ready to block one large

merger. but antitrust is still underutilized in the department of justice. i want to help work with you, if we can, to increase the use of antitrust enforcement as the global megafirms get larger. and then, in the national security area, the state secrets privilege policy is deeply troubling to me. of course, the department's become more transparent of late. and i appreciate that the state secrets report recently transmitted to our committee, there's still a lot of decision making that remains blocked.

this privilege, to me is a threat to the separation of powers and to the right of every citizen. to lawfully fight back against government abuse. and must be reigned in. and must be reined in. outside of those observations, we welcome you to the committee, general holder. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. conyers. other opening statements will be made. we're pleased to welcome eric h. holder jr. on february 3, 2009, he was sworn in as the a.d. second attorney general of the united states. he's had a long and distinguished career of public service. he joined the department in 1976, became one of the

department's first attorneys to serve in the newly formd public integrity section. he served as a judge in the superior court and the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. in 1997, he was named to be the department attorney general by president clinton. prior to becoming the attorney general, he was a lit gauge partner for a firm in washington, d.c. he attended columbia university, graduating in 1973, and columbia law school, where he graduated from in 1976. we look forward to hearing your testimony and welcome you again to today's hearing. >> thank you, chairman smith, ranking member conyers. that was a wonderful introduction except for the date you mentioned that i graduated from college. other than that, thank you. but also, distinguished members of the committee. good morning. thank you for this opportunity

to discuss the critical work of our nation's department of justice. as i stated often, no aspect of our work is more important or more urgent than protecting the american people. >> would you pull your mike a little bit closer so we can hear you better? thank you. >> protecting the american people is our most fundamental responsibility. two days ago, was the death of osama bin laden, the leader of al qaeda, and the world's most wanted terrorist, our nation maid historic progress in keeping this responsibility. millions of americans were killed on september 11, 2001. this achooeftment was the result of steadfast, almost decade-long effort. it spanned two administrations. it was advanced by military leaders, diplomats, policy

makers, investigatorinvestigat e prosecutors and terrorism experts. for the fast two years, the president has made sure that killing or capturing osama bin laden was a central issue. for the president's national security team, achieving this goal has been at the fore front of our work. as we continued and strengthened broader efforts. the justice department has played a violent role in the ongoing fight against terrorism. in the last two years, we have held top identify and drubt plots to attack new york city's subway system. and have disrupted other plots as well. we have secured guilty pleas and actionable intelligence from

people determined to harm our people, our allies, our interests. we have charged the most serious offenses in court in the last two years. through the kus of robust military, and intelligence operations, we have sent a clear and unequivocal warning to people. you will be pursued and brought to justice. we can all be proud of sunday's successful operation and enkoujed by the way that thousands of americans have joined together in this defining moment, we can cannot become complacent. the fight is far from over. i ordered the prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to be mindful that bin laden's delt could result in retaliatory atacts attacks in the united states and places overseas.

i have ordered people to remain cofaux kused. the united states is not and never will be at war with islam. bin laden was not a muslim leader. he was a matsds murder of muslims, in many countries including our own. we cannot and will not lose sight of this fact. i pledge that at every level of the justice department, we'll say focused on protecting the citizens we serve, using every available resource and appropriate tool, including the federal court system. we'll be vigilant against domestic and international threat. i hope congress will rethords the patriot act for a substantial period of time. i want to thank chairman smith for his leadership and strong

support. the department will combat violent crime and fraud and defend the rights of all americans, especially the most vulnerable among us. let me say, finally, that our country in the world hads witnessed an historic moment. what we make of it now is up to us. osama bin laden has been brought to justice. a brutal terrorist will no longer be tree to order the murder of innocent people across the globe. just as we came together nearly a decade ago in the aftermath of the most devastating attack in america's history, i believe we must come together. on 9/11, our nation was united like never before. today, we must be united by a collective resolve and a common purpose, to protect our homeland and our people. and honor the values that have made our nation great and build on the progress that's been admooefd protecting the people

we're all privileged to serve. thank you, mr. chairman. i'll be glad to answer questions. >> i'll recognize myself for questions. the first is this. at the end of the month, three provisions of the patriot act are set to expire. a lot of people say we may exaggerate the importance of those. would you comment on how important those provisions are and should they be extended? >> i believe it's essential that they be reauthorized. we never want to see the acts, the provisions expire. the fact that they have s sunsetted periodically is not helpful to us. we need certainty. our prosecutors and

investigators need certainty in that regard. our hope is that these provisions will be reauthorized for as long as we possibly can. if they're done on an affirmative basis, we would not object. i'm trying to get to the necessary votes in the house, the senate. and my hope would be that at a minimum, we reauthorize them for a substantial period of time. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. the next question goes to something i mentioned in my opening statement. the importance of data retention to allow us to go after the child predators on the internet. has the absence of data retention or significant periods of time for data retention hampered your ability to go after these individuals? >> i can't point to a specific case. i'm concerned about the lack of

retenti retention, period, will hamper our ability. in the child pornography field and the terrorist field. the national security field. the european counterparts want to have shorter retention periods than what i think is appropriate. i think that is worthy of our attention. >> as i mentioned, it seems to me that we have had the appearance that the department of justice has chosen to prosecute cases based on ideology rather than equal justice under the law. the decision of the department of justice to sue arizona on an immigration bill at the that state passed -- >> mr. chairman. >> but to not sue utah for the immigration laws they passed.

also, you reopened an investigation into cia investigations early in your ten your. but you ended a probe of the lawyer that leaked information on the terrorist surveillance program. that gives an appearance of selectively applying the law. is that appearance accurate or not? >> well, let me be very clear. with regard to those matters and in all the other work that this department of justice does, we apply the facts as we find them. the law as we find it. we do what we do and make decisions without any regard for political considerations. frankly, the work of the department could be made a lot easier if we listened to the critics and the pundits, looked at the polls.

that's not what we do. >> you understand that the examples i cited give that appearance, where it's accurate or not. do you think there is an appearance of inconsistency there? >> i don't see necessarily the inconsistency or the appearance of political considerations that you mentioned. for instance, with regard to the utah law, that's law that doesn't go into effect until 2013. it's been the policy to try to work with states to see if there is a way to reach agreement without us having to file suit. we'll look at the law. if it is not changed to our satisfaction by 2013, we'll take the necessary staeps. >> thank you. the ranking member has yielded to the gentlewoman from florida.

>> thank you so much. general holder, good to see you again. i know that you're going to be surprised about the subject about which i'm going to ask you. that would be our focus and your priority, which i'm thrilled continues to be a priority, on the exploitation of the nation's children. we have worked hard on the act. reports that came out last year detailed that there are hundreds of thousands of criminal suspects in the u.s. engaged in child pornography trafficking. according to the office of juvenile justice in 2009 rkts internet crimes task fost made over 3,000 arrests and identified over 1,000 victims. the funding has remained the same since 2008. about $30 million. we passed a budget that included

$60 million for the task forces. we though that with every -- with every dollar that we add, we can make it that much more likely to actually rescuing a child victim. wouldn't you agree that by doubling the task force budget that we would have an opportunity to rescue that many more children? >> well, let me say that we have enjoyed working with you. the focus you have placed on the issue is totally appropriate. >> thank you. >> it is, i hope what will be a legacy item for this department of justice. that people will see we stood up for our most important children. the task forces are, again, have been extremely effective. we want to support them in every way that we can. unfortunately, we're consigned to the budget reality that make it difficult to do all the work that we want to do. but with regard to those task

forces, we want to try to expand them the best we can. wring out efficiency so we can make sure that the budgetary problems do not get if the way of the work we have done together. >> the administration has been incredibly supportive. my concern is that we made it a commitment. we made a commitment in the 111th congress to continue to increase the funding. i'm concerned that same commitment won't be met in the republican congress. chairman smait has been incredibly committed. i'm hopeful his influence rises to the top. i want to also touch on a letter that i sent to you about shalom ribashkin. it's a case where the judge has been accused, accurately, of

exparte communications and excessive sentencing. if we could follow up with you on that, i would appreciate it very much. the sentence is incredibly excessive and the judge who levied the sentence engaged in inappropriate communications. la lastly, i want to ask you about the gas prices task force. i think it's fantastic that the administration set up the task force. i want to review the current situation. because most people are not aware of this. according to the energy information agency, under the u.s. department of energy, as of a week ago, a week iago, the u.. crude oil reserves were higher than at any point in the eight years of the bush administration. our total petroleum imports are

at the lowest level since 1997. in the gulf of mexico, we have larger production now than at any point in the last two decades at 1.64 million barrels a day. double the production in 1992. yesterday, though, the average price about pump was $3.96. there must be a dramatic increase in the demand that drives the increases. but that's not the case. so it seems like there's something that smells in denmark. can cow tell us speyou tell us w the fraud group, an aggressive way of pursuing fraud from friction, getting to the bottom, how to e ploex manipulation, collusion and fraud.

and tell us how congress can assist in this effort. >> there are market forces at work. i don't want to oversell what it is we will be doing. to the extent there are inappropriate attempts to manipulate the market, price gouging, other things that have had a def tating impact on arch americans trying to make do, that will be the focus of the task force. we have counterparts working with us. all of them will be coming together to look at the situation to see if there are people doing things that are inappropriate. to the extent they are, we'll hold them accountable. this is a serious effort by a dedicated group of people. it's wide-ranging, involving prosecutors, invooestigators at

wide degree. >> i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner. >> i would like on to ask a few questions regarding the february 23rd decision not to defend the constitutionality of section three of the defense of marriage act. as a result, the house of represents has to hire outside counsel at our ore den fence to make sure this is properly argued before the court. why did you do it? >> we had a unique situation in the second circuit where the decision was made. we had been in circuits where the courts of appeals had a standard. for if first time, we had one that had not looked at the

issue, had not come up with an applicable standard. we had to make the determination. given the nature of the way that gay people had been treated in this country, it was our opinion that a heightened scrutiny test needed to be applied. we did not think the statute would pass constitutional muster. it happens occasionally. i recommended to the president we not defend the statute. he agreed. >> sexual preference has never been a protected class in any civil rights laws. the vast majority of the courts disagree with the second circuit and agree that the lower standard is the one that

applies. now, evidently, the president has decided to take the pochb o opinion of one court to the exclusion of other courts. that he will not execute the laws that he took an oath to enforce. >> the instances happen occasionally. there's a federal statute that anticipates this. under that, when the attorney general decides not to defend a statu statute, a letter is sent to congress, as i did in this case. the different standard, the fact that much has changed since the passage of the bill 15 years or so ago. the supreme court has ruled that criminalizing homosexual contact is unconstitutional. the lower courts have --

>> but congress has never repealed or modified the defense of marriage act. this law has been on the books for over 15 years. you were the department attorney general at the end of the clinton administration. this was never raised. two years into the obama administration, the president and you apparently have decided that section three is unconstitutional. i know you have to pivot around a little bit in this business. but the constitution hasn't been pivoting. >> circumstances have changed. >> political or legal? >> the you look at the history of discrimination, coupled with what congress has done with regard to don't ask, don't tell. what the supreme court has said. >> but don't ask, don't tell, with all due respect, sir, was a

personnel issue in the defense department. that doesn't deal with either of these two items. doma was an intent to define for purposes that marriage is between one man and one woman. 45 states have also reached that conclusion through an amendment ratified by the people or statutory enactments by the legislature. my concern on this, it's deeply troubling, that the president has decided ed td to usurp the of congress and to usurp the function of the courts by saying that this law is unconstitutional when that's not his job. now, i guess what i can see the that i certainly would support

an effort to have the cost of congress' defending this provision that the president and you have refused to do so come out of the justice department's appropriations so that the message is sent down the street that an attorney general or president can't willy-nilly decide that a law that a law they may have voted against at the time is unconstitutional. well, my time is up. and let me say i haven't said the last about this. but you made the wrong decision and i think there ought to be a little bit off the department's back. >> in addition to the determination i made and the president agreed with was made on the decision made in front of us. there were several lower courts ruled that it is unconstitutional. and the notion that this is

something that ought to be taken off the backs of the department of justice in a financial way. the lawyers and department of justice that would've worked on that case have more than their full-time job. and they will have to use the time. it might have been used in the doma defense. they will use it in other areas. that is an appropriate -- >> with that objection, the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. >> well, mr. attorney general, i guess what i can say is that we're in a tough budget time. and we all know we're in a tough budget time. if you take the position that this should come out of congress' budget, which we willingly cut on the second day of the session, essentially what you're saying is there shouldn't be money -- government money to pay a lawyer to argue the constitutionality of this law. and, you know, i'm one of those that beliefs everybody's entitled to a lawyer no matter how wrong their position may be.

and you know what you're saying, as well, just because you and the president have decided not to defend doma because you and the president decide it's unconstitutional, there should be some kind of financial shifting around so that the lawyer gets paid for. because this is a serious constitutional question and the best lawyers ought to argue both sides of the case. i yield back. >> thank you, i'm very heartened to hear -- let me just say, i don't disagree. and you apparently hired a great lawyer. but congress it seems to me has the ability to pass an appropriation to pay mr. clement for a great defense i'm sure he will render. i think out of the justice department, however, is inappropriate. >> i'm delighted to hear the observation of the gentleman from wisconsin. and i look forward that everyone

is entitled to a lawyer. and i look forward to his support of greatly increased appropriations for legal services and legal aid so that people who need lawyers in this country can get it. and we'll be working together on that, i'm sure. mr. attorney general, i want to offer my sincere appreciation to the administration for its daring and successful mission to eliminate osama bin laden. i want to commend our military, intelligence personnel, and the administration for never forgetting 9/11 and pursuing terrorists to bring them to justice. and please bring that message back to the president. a number of us worked tirelessly to pass the 9/11 health and compensation act. this new law reopens the victim's compensation fund which will allow those still suffering from their work at ground zero to the apply for financial compensation for their losses. again, i want to encourage you to make rapid progress. i'm appointing a special master,

setting up the mechanisms necessary to process claims and doing everything you can to ensure they will get their the compensation they deserve. i hope it goes as smoothly as possible. now, getting back to the little discussion of doma. i don't believe that the administration had any choice in the matter at all by looking at the legal precedent. and tell me if it isn't true that he was a little mistaken because he said you chose one circuit over the other. in fact, number of circuits established the relationship, the second circuit hadn't established any test, which is why you had to look into the position of the department. what should you do? not whether you agreed with the second circuit or not. but isn't it true that the cases in the other circuit that

determines the rational relationship test was the right test, all were done in a legal context in which the supreme court had said that the act of consensual sodomy, the homosexual act itself could be made a crime. that was a, what, 1986 case, overturned by the 2003 case of lawrence which said you couldn't do that. and this had to give an entirely new context. and there'd been no determination by any court as far as i know. but certainly by any circuit of the proper scope of review or standard of review after the lawrence case. and if you look at the normal criteria for determining the standard of view, that the supreme court has joined upon us. does this class have a history of discrimination, does it have the political power to stop discrimination? et cetera, et cetera, it meets all the tests. and you really had no choice but

to go that route. >> well, i would agree with you. the legal environment, the legal landscape was fundamentally changed in some of those earlier decisions made by those other circuits. and we confronted in the second circuit a jurisdiction -- or a circuit that had not ruled. and therefore we had to examine the legal environment as it exists today. and on that basis, not on any political basis, but on the legal basis, a constitutional basis, the recommendation that i made to the president was that there was not a reasonable argument that could be made in favor of the constitutionality of doma and the president agrees. >> in a context after lawrence, not just a context of social change. >> exactly. in terms of what the courts have said. understanding what the courts said and when they said what the supreme court said, what many lower courts have said, and then looking at the -- trying to decide what the appropriate standard is. >> i commend you for that determination. i think it was compelled by the

court. i certainly hope we will not start trying to intimidate the department in terms of its legal decisions through the use of the appropriations process. that would be inappropriate. let me switch topics, if i may. we have here your letter from ron weiss actually on the state secret doctrine. and you make some very interesting points, but the key point is the courts should have the information. you're going to exercise this power very sparingly, et cetera, et cetera. but still a power the executive is going to use. in the ninth circuit, the initial decision in the ninth circuit, i thought the most important sentence was a sentence where the three-judge panel said the executive could not be his own judge. and all the criteria which you set forward are fine criteria. but, they all say in effect trust the department, trust the executive branch. no recognition of separation of

powers. and my contention is that you say in here that the department recognizes the courts have an essential and independent role in playing to review the assertion. it should be in approving the executive decision. a secret proceedings and so forth if necessary. but the key is that the courts should have to okay or not the assertion of the fact that -- a motion to dismiss on the grounds of executive privilege should have to be okayed by the court, not simply noted by the court regardless of our restraint. that seems to be fundamental to our system of checks and balances and completely missing from the department's position. >> what we have tried to do, what i've tried to do is really reform the process by which the invocation of that privilege is made. there are a whole series of

levels of review that have to agree to. and i ultimately must agree that the invocation of the privilege is appropriate. since the invocation -- since the this new process we put in place, we have only invoked the privilege on two occasions. and we only will do it in those instances where it is to protect national security and not to hide anything that might be appropriately done. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> may i have one additional minute? >> the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. >> all of which may be true. but the decision is still reserved for the department, not the court. and that's the fundamental problem, which i think is inconsistent with our general system of government. >> as i said, i think we have in place a new process that handles

the concerns that you have. and we make sure the invocations of the privilege are rare and are appropriate. >> thank you. >> okay. >> gentleman's time has expired. you can double check this mike for me, please. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for his question. >> good to have you on the hill. mr. attorney general, last june the justice department contacted the county in my district to inform the county board of commissioners that it was commencing an investigation concerning allegations of discriminatory policing and unlawful searches and seizures. the county assures me there's no factual basis and it'll be a convenient time, mr. attorney general. i'd like to meet with you and the appropriate staffer regarding this matter. >> we are -- we are trying to

negotiate with the sheriff's office to get some relevant documents. but to the extent you have concerns, i'm sure we can work out some interaction between our staff. >> i thank you for that. an important element, will attorney general of our federal bankruptcy law is a requirement that debtors consult with an approved agency to receive a briefing and a budget analysis from a credit agency prior to filing for bankruptcy relief. to assure high-quality standards, the executive is charged with approving non-profit agencies that may provide this service. there are allegations that the trustee office has approved a number of credit counseling agencies that are not immediately braimmediate ly interactive with debtors.

there are also allegations that many of these non-profit agencies are related or linked to for profit entities. are you familiar with these allegations? >> i've heard -- i'm not intimately familiar with them, but i've heard conversations in the department about the subject that you're talking. i know we are looking at these matters to the extent you have information, though, that you think we have not adequately addressed, again. that would be information you can share with us. i'll make sure that the appropriate people in the department examine it. >> i'll thank you for that. if you'd get back to us on what you'd find out, as well. finally, mr. attorney general, as has been mentioned, we're in a cutting mode on the hill, as you know. what are your priority areas for cuts? >> i always like to ask the question the other way.

>> well, i didn't mean to induce laughter when i asked that question, mr. attorney general. >> well, you know, we are mindful of the fact that we have tough budgetary times and the congress has to step up as other agencies have. we have our priority areas which revolve around the protection of the american people, national security, financial fraud, prevention of violent crime, the protection of the most vulnerable among us. we want to have an adequate budget that will allow us to do those kinds of things. there are budget proposals that are floating around. we have talked to our counterparts at omb, have made known to them what our priorities are. and my hope is that recognition was made of the unique responsibilities that the justice department has and a budget that will allow us to serve the american people in the way i describe will actually be enacted. >> i thank you for that. mr. chairman, i yield back prior

to the illumination of the red light. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> thank you, chairman. one of the things that i hope we can take a new look at is the state secret privilege in which the exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted by the government stating that the court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which could endanger national security causes the information to go and the case collapses. and i think that is a serious

problem in the way the previous administration and this one is proceeding. what bothers me general holder is that there have been cases challenging the use of rendition of wiretapping, of torture, and the administration has used the secret privilege state secret privilege to have these lawsuits dismissed. i think it's very troublesome and problematic. and i'm wondering if a number of us here can begin to persuade

you to re-examine the use of this technique. because it makes it very hard to challenge those -- in those cases to bring a case against the government. >> well, i certainly heard the concerns that were expressed by members of this committee and frankly other members of congress and people outside of congress. and i was concerned myself about the invocation of the privilege. and i think have put in place a regimen that as i indicated to mr. naddler would make the use of the privilege rare and appropriate and transparent to the extent that we can't. we have sent a report to congress about the invocation of the privilege, which has not been done before. i put in place a series of review steps that did not exist before and required that the attorney general himself or herself actually sign off on any invocation of the privilege.

all of which is new. and it would seem to me that that, i think, would deal with many of the concerns, if not all the concerns that have been raised. but this is a fluid process. and to the extent that there are other ideas that you or other members of the committee have, be more than glad to listen to them, work with you, and see if there are further changes that we need to make. >> well, thank you. i'm familiar with that new report, but look, many in the legal community don't think that it changes really very much. and we've got a lot more meetings to do in discussion, and i'm glad you're open to it. let me turn now to anti-trust. now, the anti-trust division has been dormant for many years in my view. and the global corporations get

larger and larger and larger. it works against our economy, and it certainly takes jobs away from this country as badly as we need them. and i haven't seen one major case. in which your department has refused to approve a significant merger. isn't there some way we can begin to review that? and i'd like to be able to meet with you and others on this committee. that think we can make a good case that is -- it's not good law. it's terrible for the economy. and that it would be the right thing to do to start refusing.

doj hasn't refused one merger. >> well, we have, i think, a very vigorous anti-trust policy. we've got a great assistant attorney general, christine barney, the head of the anti-trust division. and she has, in fact, revitalized the work of the division to the extent that proposed mergers have come before the anti-trust division. they have often times been approved, but approved with conditions that were required by the department. changes in business practices, divestment of certain components in the businesses it sought to merge. and i think that the way in which christine is going about it is appropriate. again, based only on facts, there are mergers that we presently have that we are in the process of considering. i can't talk about those. but in the examination of those proposed mergers, we will be vigorously enforcing the

anti-trust laws. >> thank you, chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman from virginia, is recognized for his question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general holder, thank you very much for coming to be with us today. a few weeks ago, director muller testified before this committee and highlighted the threat of cyber crime. please let us know what measures the department is making to strengthen our nation's cyber security. >> well, it is an issue that is of great concern to us in the department we have within our criminal division, a computer crime section that does a great deal of work dealing with with issues that come before it. it has been publicly revealed about steps we have taken with regard to a matter that was in -- center ed.

the national security is potentially threatened by cyber issues. there's economic fraud that can be perpetrated through the use of cyber components. we work with the fbi and other agencies within the executive branch to try to deal with these cyber issues. child pornography was indicated before. a whole variety of things can happen. the cyber world can be a positive force, but it has also the potential for great negative activity there. we are very active in a variety of ways in dealing with these cyber issues. >> are there additional tools that the congress can provide to the department that would help you in this critical mission? >> well, i think that is actually a very good question because the reality is that the cyber issues evolve. and what was state of the art six months ago isn't state of the art necessarily today. and to the extent that we can come before this committee, work with members of this committee,

and looking at the issues we're confronting now that we expect we'll have to confront in six months a year from now and make legislative requests, that would be something we would appreciate. and i would take advantage of that offer. >> well, thank you. and so i take it you would be willing to work with us to identify these additional tools and try to enhance our nation's cyber security as well as your ability to combat cyber crime? >> absolutely, absolutely. >> another subject relates to intellectual property, which is a subset of cyber crime, if you will. there's a great interest to better protect the public by enhancing respect for intellectual property online. one of the proposals being considered has been to give the department enhanced authority to petition federal courts to block access to websites, many of which may be based outside the united states which are

dedicated to offering illegitimate goods to american consumers. i wonder if you could address some key concerns. -- to serve as a meaningful deterrent to the scope of elicit online activity? >> well, i think you're again right to identify that as an issue that is of concern -- of legitimate concern. i went to hong kong, then to china a few months ago and raised -- gave a speech in hong kong about this very issue raised with chinese officials who i met with about the concerns that our government has with regard to these -- to these matters. to the extent that we can identify the need for new tools or the extent that there is proposed legislation, we would want to work with you, look at that legislation, and see if, in fact, there are ways in which we can either pass it, modify it,

but there are huge economic concerns, huge economic concerns around the issue that you've raised. >> what protections does the law currently provide before the government can seize or seek forfe forfeiture of a domain name. and are there additional steps to ensure that the constitutional requirements are met? that legitimate users of these domains are protected? >> those are the difficulty, really are, the difficulty constitutional in nature. that allow the department to seize domain names, to take other actions and do so in a constitutional way. that is something that we should explore. and we don't have all the answers in the department with regard to how that legislation might be crafted. and so i think working with this committee and frankly other senators who have raised this issue, as well, i think would be a wise use of our time.

>> and given that around 100 websites have been ordered seized, what's your best estimate of the number of websites you suspect the department will be able to target on an annual basis if something along the lines of the existing law was enacted outside of the borders? >> i don't know if i could give you a real good specific numerical estimate, but i can say that with different tools given the nature of the threat that we face that we would have substantially greater than the 100 or so that you have mentioned if we had to additional tools. and as i said, working with you, to identify the tools that we need and making sure that those tools are constitutional in nature would be of great use to the department. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott is recognized for his question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome, mr. attorney

general. you talked about the importance of all religions getting along. you're aware that then senator obama in ohio said that if you get a federal grant, you can use that grant money, and you can't discriminate against them or the people you hire on the basis of religion. is it possible in this administration today for someone to apply for a federal grant and articulate an intention to discriminate against people of a particular religion? for example, they don't want to hire catholics, jews, and muslims. would they be entitled to run a federal program? >> well, we want to make sure we partner with faith-based organizations in a way that's consistent with our values in a way that's constitutional. and we will continue to evaluate any legal questions or concerns that are raised with regard

to -- >> does that mean yes, they can get a federal grant and discriminate? >> we don't want to be in a position where people are, in fact, getting federal grants and discriminating. >> you have at least one administration official who has suggested tha eed they're going with discrimination on a "case-by-case" basis. in what kind of case would that be okay? >> obviously that kind of situation would not be okay. would not be legally appropriate, would be inconsistent with our value. >> is it legal under this administration? >> it's not a question of being legal under this administration, it's what the law says. >> does this administration provide grants to organizations that actively discriminate based on religion, or not? >> we don't want to do that, we try not to do that. but the question is, what -- >> wait a minute. either you do or you don't.

do you not give grants to organizations that actively discriminate based on religion or not? >> the attempt we make is not to do that. as i've indicated, our hope is that we do -- the grants that we give are consistent with the law. but beyond that, are consistent with our value. >> we don't have time to go into the legal memo of june 29th, 2007. could we give -- could you for the record provide the administration analysis of that legal council memo that stated that the restoration act of 1993 provides a virtual exemption to statutory nondiscrimination provisions. could you provide that to us for the record? >> i'm sorry, provide you -- >> with whether or not status of the -- of that policy, and whether or not that legal council memo is is still in

effect. can you provide that for the record? >> well, as i understand it, the memo is still in effect as i understand it. >> the religious freedom restoration act gives exemption to non-discrimination provisions? >> if you're talking about the 2007 olc world vision opinion, i -- >> if you're running a head start program, running a head start program, they can discriminate even though there's a statutory provision? they can discriminate any way? >> what i was saying is that in terms of with regard to that specific olc opinion, we're not in the process of reconsidering it. >> i'm not talking about the memo, talking about the policy. can they discriminate notwithstanding a specific statutory prohibition against discriminate, they can discriminate anyway based on that interpretation? >> obviously discrimination

cannot occur that contravenes federal law. >> well, let me ask a number of -- my time is running out. let me ask a number of questions for the record since we don't have time for the answers. the regulation act apparently overlooked juveniles prosecuted and jailed as adults. weapon wa we want to work with you on making sure they are covered. we also understand the changes that we made in the crack cocaine law are still not being applied for those who committed the crimes before the law went into effect. we need to know what changes need to be made since we have ascertained that those are unjust laws. we also want to ask you whether or not you believe poker is a game of chance or a game of skill. and whether or not the

anti-gambling laws apply to poker as they would for roulette and other games like that. we like to know -- in fact, another 30 seconds just to ask the questions for the record. the news reports have talked about the compromise of a lot of identity information. prosecution of identity theft and organized retail theft, not shoplifting, but organized including everything else are resource intense activities. if you could give us an opportunity of what kind of resources are needed to effectively combat identity theft, consumer identity theft, and organized retail theft. also on reentry, your remarks talk about the reentry and that you're studying what works and what doesn't work. we know that a lot more

applications are in than we have money to fund. so we'd like to know how that study is going. and also hope that you're going to continue to support the federal prison industries. if you can give us a comment on that, that is shown to have a significant reduction. >> the gentleman's time is expiring. >> i appreciate the chairman's indulgence. >> i'd be more than happy to answer those questions except the one about poker being a game of chance or skill. that's beyond my capability. >> thank you, mr. scott. the gentleman from california. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. according to espn, it's a sport. mr. attorney general, in 1996, the attorney general of california, we helped work with congress to pass the effective death penalty act. one of the things was try and create incentives for states to improve their habeas corpus proceedings and allow an

exception by federal courts. unfortunately, no court ever found any state to do that. so in 2005, we passed legislation which changed that responsibility for certifying from the courts to the attorney general. you published draft regulations on march 2011. the comments on the draft are due june 2011. i would hope that i could have your commitment that we will move on this since this goes all the way back to 1996. >> we have -- i tried to move this as quickly as we can -- >> as long as i've got your commitment, that's all i need. >> i would say with respect to doma. it would have been helpful that the president of the united states, as a former constitutional law professor, during the time he was running for president would've understood indicated he had constitutional questions about the doma when he was going around the country saying he believes that marriage is between one man and one woman.

these newfound understandings of the constitution after one's elected are somewhat troubling. and particularly when it goes to the question of defending a law that was duly passed by the congress and signed by a president. mr. attorney general, do you support and approve the action of the president and the military took going to pakistan, killing osama bin laden, and taking his body? >> yeah, i think that the act that we took were both lawful, legitimate, and appropriate in every way. the people who were responsible for that action, both in the decision making and the effecting of that decision handled themselves quite well. >> can you tell us for the public record whether we can therefore be assured that any intelligence which led to this capture and killing of osama bin laden was not the result of enhanced interrogation techniques? >> well, i think as has been indicated by other

administrations, there was a mosaic of sources that led to the identification of the people who led to -- >> i understand that. but were any pieces of that mosaic as a result of enhanced interrogation techniques? >> i do not know. >> if that were the case, would that have made the action we took against osama bin laden illegal? >> no, i mean, i think that in terms of the attenuation to the -- let's assume that were true, the attenuation between those acts that might have been problematic and the action that was taken just two days ago, i think was sufficiently long so that the action would still be considered legal. >> could we use the same tactics against khalid sheikh mohammed that we did against osama bin laden. would that have been lawful? >> could we have? >> used the same tactics against khalid sheikh mohammed when we captured him in pakistan as we did against osama bin laden. that is killed him rather than

captured him? >> well, the aim with regard to bin laden was to kill or capture him. i would think that with regard to khalid sheikh mohammed, we could probably apply those same standards. we have the ability there. >> does it seem some ways inconsistent or difficulty for more relevance to say that it is per se so shocking to the conscience that one would subject khalid sheikh mohammed to waterboarding, but it would not shock the conscience to put a bullet in his brain? >> one has to take into account a variety of things. and when you're on the scene, you want to get the person you're trying to capture. but you also have to make sure you're protecting the lives of the people who are on our side and who put themselves at risk. and it is for that reason that there's a safety component there. and the kill or capture

component raises itself in a way that would not of somebody else. >> since you imposed a military commission trial for khalid sheikh mohammed, would you have imposed a trial for osama bin laden had he been captured and not killed? >> well, that's a hypothetical. i'm not sure it's particularly relevant. >> well, you're taking a strong position against the military commissions and the reluctance that you showed towards closing guantanamo, you issued a rather strong statement about the disappointment with the congress with respect to our efforts to keep guantanamo open and the efforts to military tribunals. i think it's an important question to ask you whether or not since you imposed a trial, whether you would have imposed a military trial for osama bin laden and rather given him the protections of a civilian trial. my position is often times mischaracterized.

>> i sent five or six other cases to military tribunals. i don't have a problem with the commissions. but the decision i made in the khalid sheikh mohammed case was based on my review of the facts and tactical decisions that no member of congress had the ability to see. >> so it was tactical rather than civilian courts being the one that can uphold the constitutional notions of fair play as opposed to a military tribunal. >> i think our military commissions are, in fact, especially since they have been modified are constitutional and can give fair trials. but the decision with regard to khalid sheikh mohammed dealt with a whole variety of things that i uniquely had access to. and that's why i made that decision and why i would have

been so vehement in my comments that i think is an appropriate and wrong decision by congress to block our ability to try the case in that forum. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for his question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, attorney general holder. i'm going to submit if i can get the unanimous consent, a copy of a letter i received from the attorney general for north carolina asking me about funding for the elimination of -- of meth labs, meth lab cleanup. you may not have the information at your hand, but if you could, just let me know what the basis was for the u.s. dea halting all

funding across the country for meth lab hazardous waste cleanup. >> right. >> apparently is having substantial adverse impact, not only in north carolina but throughout the country. and it'd be helpful to know why they stop that funding. i'll submit -- i ask unanimous consent to submit a copy of the letter. >> without option, the letter will be made part of the record. >> in august of 2010 after a joint working group ftc and senior attorneys and public workshops and comment opportunities that the department of justice made a substantial revision to its

horizontal merger guidelines, let me ask you three questions and then i'll just give you the rest of the time to respond to the extent that you can. and if you don't have time, maybe you can provide written responses. first of all, could you briefly explain the impetus for the revisions and describe generally what the department hoped to achieve in making the changes? second, could you highlight some of the most significant changes made to the guidelines and briefly assess the impact these changes have had on recent merger reviews? and third, what role if any did the new guidelines have in the department's analysis and the -- of the merger between google and ita in particular, and if there are other mergers that these guidelines were significant in i'd like to have your response

probably in writing to the last question. but if you could respond briefly to the first two questions, that would be helpful. >> i think what i'd like to do is be able to give you a more detailed response in writing. but to say that the changes that we made, that were done under the leadership of our assistant attorney general were all designed to make the department's enforcement efforts more effective, to make sure that as we look at matters we have the tools that we need and that those tools are transparent. where the department is coming from, what -- people have some degree of uncertainty, things have to be structured. all as i said, with the aim towards making the enforcement of our anti-trust laws as effective as we can and as aggressive as we can. with regard to these specific questions, we will get you

something in writing. >> okay. is it likely that this new approach, though, is going to make it less likely? it seems to me you're moving toward a more compromised approach as opposed to an enforcement approach saying this violates the anti-trust laws, therefore we will not approve it. am i misreading that? and i think that may be the discomfort that he was raising earlier. there have been no disapprovals, not that we're looking for disapprovals. is this a shift in policy in the department, i guess, is a better question. >> to the extent that you're concerned or others are concerned that we're somehow stepping back from being aggressive in the enforcement of the anti-trust laws, i want to

put your minds at ease. that's not what we're attempting to do. in fact, you know, we take these cases and examine them one-by-one as we have to. and as i think i indicated, with regard to the decisions that have been made, we have often times required things of the parties before the mergers were approved. the fact that there has not been one that has been rejected, i'd have to look to make sure that's active. let's assume that's true. that is not an indication that there is any timidity on the part of the justice department, or any indication that going forward some of the more high profile ones we're in the process of considering might not pass. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. watt. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. attorney general, i'd like to comment on the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott whom i agree with on one of the few issues i think we agree with. the importance of the federal industries and would encourage you to look into that matter. you think it's an important program. i think once we have people locked up and at this level it's federal presence, i've dealt with them at the local level, as well. we have to make sure we're utilizing those resources, and most of them out in the street some day. and to the extent they can get job skills and improve themselves so they can become productive citizens, i think is very important. let me move to an entirely different topic then and that's guantanamo bay or gitmo. i've been there three times. the first time i was there was shortly after it -- after it opened, it was about nine years ago. not much to it at the time. that's where we, of course, held

that the detainees or terrorists or enemy combatants, most of them captured in afghanistan. and the reason, of course, we needed a safe and secure place to keep the most dangerous people, essentially, the worst of the worst, the terrorists, most of them. and the goal was not to do it on u.s. soil. and at that time, they were within guantanamo bay, it wasn't much more than a bunch of cages out there. and i think a great disservice was done when we had the initial photographs where they had bags over their head and they were kneeling. and the wrong impression was given that that's the way we kept them all the time. and the world press went wild. and i think it was a blow to the united states around the world because that's not how these prisoners are treated. for the most part.

and i was there a second time about five years ago, and most recently about a month ago. so i've seen it pretty recently and through the whole process. at its height, we had somewhere around 800 detainees is what my information is there. we're now down to about 172 -- a number of them have been transferred back to the countries of their origin. in some cases the countries didn't want them back. and we tended to try to give back the folks we thought were the least dangerous in the country. but the record shows about 25% have taken up arms again against the united states or some other country. and essentially, so 1 out of 4 have become terrorists again. and that's to me very disturbing. and they're treated -- there's a lot of allegations out there about how terribly their press treated, for example, the waterboarding. first of all, waterboarding is out there, this did not occur at guantanamo bay, is that correct?

>> i think that -- i think that is correct. >> so no waterboarding there. so first of all, when we hear that term and we have the equivalent that it's torture, people can think what they think, but the definition, it's not torture, but it did happen at guantanamo bay, and i think that's an important point to make. they probably eat better than they have in their lives, get the same medical treatment that our own soldiers get, have cable tv, 22 channels, exercise equipment, a koran, a prayer rug, clothing access to legal care among other things. would that be accurate, sir? >> i don't know about all the specifics. i was in guantanamo shortly after i became attorney general. and it is a place that i think treats people as they should be treated. i don't know about all the details. >> and there's a separate section, and it's classified so

i can't go into a lot of this. but there's about 20 people there, the worst of the worst is khalid sheikh mohammed. but i think our men and women in uniform have been really disparaged unfairly. and these are quality people who have handled a tough job with great professionalism and restraint. are you familiar with the term a gitmo cocktail? >> a gitmo cocktail? >> yeah. >> i think i know what it is. >> and it is what you think it is. it's pretty horrific things that get thrown by prisoners at our guards and even under those circumstances, there's an awful lot of restraint. i know this is one thing where i agree with the administration now where they've changed their opinion about closing down gitmo and bringing those people back here to the united states. there's absolutely -- that was a terrible idea, sir, to bring them to the united states, try them here.

to have the anti-american vile mind set spread among the prisoners in our federal prisons. and that's where they ought to be tried. we shouldn't give people -- can i have 30 seconds, mr. chairman? >> the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds without objection. >> thank you. to give a master propaganda -- a soap box is not the way to go. so i commend you for bringing them back here now and -- excuse me, for keeping them at gitmo. we also built a $16 million core facility there that was virtually unused. and so now it is going to be used and it should be. and full speed ahead with that. thank you. >> thank you. >> the gentlewoman from california is recognized for her questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and

thank you mr. attorney general for being here today. you know, a couple of years ago the immigration subcommittee held a hearing. and the factory workers there were literally rounded up and herded into a cattle area and then figuratively treated like cattle. they had group hearings, no translation services, and very questionable guilty pleas and prison time. -- who sentenced a number of the immigrants said this about that proceeding. and i quote. i found the plea agreement that the immigrants were asked to sign professionally and personally to be offensive. i thought it was a travesty. i was embarrassed to be a united states district judge that day. now, that was then, this is now. one way to look at these prosecutions is the impact in terms of due process rights and our adherence to law. as to the defendants, another

way to look at it is how are we using our resources? and i've had my -- the attorneys on the subcommittee take a look at the data. and i understand that illegal reentry after deportation is now the most prosecuted federal felony in the united states, and that misdemeanor prosecutions of immigration defenses in border districts has tripled from 2007 to 2010. and that these prosecution decisions making reentry felony prosecutions the most commonly prosecuted felony, federal felony has come at the expense of prosecuting other crimes. and non-immigration felony prosecutions in non-border districts have declined 6% to 8% in the same time frame. now, i raise this because many of us when we go home every week get this question from our constituents.

as far as we can tell, the department has not brought a single prosecution of a high-ranking wall street executive or major financial firm in the wake of the wall street scandal that contributed to the global economic crisis. so it looks to me that the department is spending its resources prosecuting nannies and busboys trying to get back to their families, illegally reentering, and yet we have not brought any prosecutions on the bandits on wall street who brought the nation and the world to the brink of financial disaster. could you explain these priorities, mr. attorney general? >> well, there's a lot packed into that question. the fact that there are so many prosecutions along the border is an indication of the nature of the problem that we confront. this administration has always stood for a comprehensive approach to -- >> to, no, no, no, i'd like to

about wall street. the lack of wall street prosecution. >> well, i was dealing with some things you said -- the fact that we have these prosecutions on the border is not any indication that we're not taking the wall street potential offenses seriously. we have prosecuted a great many cases that deal with fraud with regard to the mortgage area, financial schemes, a case was brought -- just decided in the last couple of weeks, a $3 billion fraud scheme that involved colonial bank. the department is looking right now at the report prepared by senator levin's subcommittee that deals with goldman sachs. the notion -- people have to s

disamus themselves with the notion that they don't want these cases. they come to apply the law, look at the facts, and to bring these cases. we are extremely aggressive in that way. >> can i ask how many investigators are assigned to the prosecution of executives on wall street who may have committed misconduct? >> i can't give you an exact number, but i can tell you a substantial number of people in the district of new york as well as the criminal division here in washington -- >> well, maybe we can get that number after this hearing. i'd like to turn to the whole mortgage industry. there was tremendous misconduct undertaken relative to the mortgage industries, including fraud. and as you're aware i'm sure all attorney generals have engaged in settlement discussions with banks about their misconduct. recently the controller of the

currency released a draft cease and desist order, which one expert described as the regulatory equipment of a village. i'm wondering if you could tell us -- i understand that the department is also engaged in the negotiations. what should the top priorities for a global settlement of legal claims against a servicing industry include? do you concur with the attorney general's outline settlement? or do you have a different approach? >> well, i'm not sure you can say that the attorney generals are a model. they have a variety of approaches. the associate attorney general is intimately involved in that process. and we're trying to work with the financial institutions as well as the state attorneys general to try to work our way

through an appropriate settlement. >> well, they have a framework. i'm wondering if you agree with that framework or not. >> well, yeah, there's a framework. there is a framework. but there's a whole bunch of different views. there's a stated framework. but in terms of the interaction that goes on in these negotiations, there are a variety of positions that we are trying to harmonize and work with. >> could you tell us if the -- if the -- >> the gentlewoman recognized for an additional 30 seconds. >> if the settlement discussions fail, are you prepared to prosecute these institutions? >> if there is -- if the negotiations fail, if there is a basis for prosecutions, we will bring them. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman from california is recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general i'd like to thank you for the work that the

u.s. attorney is doing in san diego, going after gun traffickers at the border. the work in my border district area of making our city safer because the crime in mexico often stops at the border because of her work and willingness to prosecute human traffickers, gun traffickers is very much appreciated. so just so you hear two sides of the california story for a moment. mr. attorney general, we -- we have two border patrol agents who are dead, who were killed by guns that were allowed as far as we can tell to deliberately walk out of gun shops under the program often called fast and furious. this program as you know -- and the president's been asked about it, you've been asked about it, allowed for weapons to be sold

to straw purchasers and ultimately many of those weapons are today in the hands of drug cartels and other criminals. when did you first know about the program, officially i believe called fast and furious? to the best of your knowledge, what date? >> i'm not sure of the exact date, i probably heard about fast and furious for the first time over the last few weeks. >> now that you've been briefed on it, the president has said on march 22nd that you didn't authorize it. did your deputy attorney general james cole authorize it? >> i'm sorry, did -- >> the deputy attorney general? >> did he? >> did the deputy attorney general authorize it? >> my guess would be no, mr. cole, i don't think was in the -- i think, i don't think he was in the department at the time that operation started. >> but he's been aware of it much longer. >> he's been aware of it much longer? >> than you have since you've only been aware for a few weeks? >> i'm not sure.

>> did he authorize it? >> i'm not sure whether mr. brewer authorized it. you have to understand, the way in which the department operates. although there are operations, this one has gotten a great deal of publicity. >> the there are dead americans as a result of thi hasn't gotten enough attention, has it, mr. attorney general? >> it's not necessarily -- there's an investigation that is under way. >> i'm aware of that investigation. let me follow up with a couple of questions. >> we'll have to look at that to see exactly what happened with regard to -- >> mr. attorney general -- >> i take very seriously the allegation -- >> mr. attorney general, do you take seriously a subpoena signed by the clerk of the house? >> of course. >> after 14 days awaiting a letter to be signed or acknowledged or responded to, we sent a subpoena signed by the clerk of the house. 32 days later, last night, your people responded by giving us 92

painls representing three documents that were public record already, all of which are available. saying that the other 400 or so responsive pages were not going to be produced. do you stand by that? and were you aware of that? >> i think we indicated that the other 400 pages would be made available for review. to be accurate. i think those were being made available as well. >> and that took 32 days to get that answer. >> the information was gathered as quickly as it could. i've taken steps to enhance our ability to respond to subpoenas and document requests in that regard. i was not satisfied with the pace at which these things were happening. as i've said, i've taken some steps that we are more responsive. >> mr. holder, do you agree that congress has an independent responsibility, particularly when u.s. persons have been killed because of a failed and reckless program shl, to investe whose who thorszed, approved,

knew about it and in some way was responsible to it? >> as i indicated to you last night when we spoke at the white house, i think there is a legitimate oversight responsibility that congress has. but i think also congress has to use that responsibility in a responsible way. we have cases, 20 matters, that will go to trial in june of this year. >> mr. attorney general, isn't it true that those case that's will go to trial in june -- i have very limited time, i'm sorry -- are basically a bunch of meth addicts who did the buying, that you do not have what this program was supposed to produce. you don't have the king pins, you don't have the places it went. what you have are the people that you already had on videotape, many, many months before indictments were brought, isn't this true? >> there are cases that are important that we are trying to bring that we want to try successfully and they're part of a scheme. they're a part of a scheme. you can't look at a case as an individual matter and think it's unimportant because small cases lead to larger ones.

that is why it's important -- >> i'd ask for unanimous consent for an additional. >> the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. >> mr. attorney general, my final question is, from what you're saying about a scheme and so on, do you stand by this program, in other words, and it's not a hypothetical, really, if you knew this program, knew about this program, 90 days ago, 180 days ago, would you have allowed it to continue? and if not, then what are you going to do about the people who did know and allowed it to continue? >> what i have told people at the department of justice under no circumstances in any investigation we bring should guns be allowed to be distributed in an uncontrolled manner. >> that would be consistent with the march 9th letter from deputy attorney general james cole in which he said that we should not design or conduct undercover operations which can include guns crossing the border if we

have knowledge that guns are about to cross the border we must take immediate action to stopped firearms from crossing the border and so on. that's your policy today? >> that's the policy that i've tried to impose -- >> isn't fast and furious inconsistent with that policy? >> that's one of the questions we'll have to see whether or not fast and furious was conducted in a way that was consistent with what jim wrote there, what i've said today and that's what the inspector general is looking at. >> will you agree to work with both this committee of course and the other committees investigating this as to we're not looking at the straw buyers, mr. attorney general, we're looking at you, straw purchasers, we're looking at you, your key people who knew or should have known about this and whether or not your judgment was consistent with good practices and whether or not instead the justice department is basically guilty of allowing weapons to kill americans and mexicans. will you agree to cooperate with that investigation both on the

house and senate side? >> we'll certainly cooperate with all the investigations. but i'm going to take great exception to what you just said. the notion that somehow or other this justice department is responsible for those deaths that you mentioned, that assertion is offensive. i want to tell you -- >> but what if it's accurate, mr. attorney general. >> -- to protect law enforcement agents, it is one of the reasons why i have tried to look at a whole variety of methods, techniques that we can use to protect the lives of law enforcement agents. it is something this country is not focused enough on. over the last two years the rate at which our people in law enforcement hwas killed -- >> what do i tell agent terry's mother that he died at the hand of a gun that was videotaped as it was sold to a straw purchaser fully expecting it to land in the hands of drug cartels? >> we'll have to see exactly what happened with regard to the

guns that are at issue there. and i have attended the funerals, you know? this is something -- this isn't theoretical. this is not political. this is extremely real for me as attorney general. >> it is for us, too. >> i think the chairman. >> no. i've had to look into the eyes of widows, mothers who have lost sons. i have felt their pain. and the notion that somehow, someway we are less than vigilant, less than strong in our determination to keep the people who put their lives on the line every day to protect the american people, that we're not doing all we can to protect them is inconsistent with the facts, inconsistent with the people who serve in the department of justice. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the gentle woman from texas, mr. jackson-lee is recognized for her questions. >> thank you very much. mr. attorney general i consider these opportunities a chance for us to work as a team. we are in fact a team. i have been privileged to serve

on this committee since being elected to the united states congress, and it is an honor because we hold in our hands, as you do, the lives of americans as it relates to the laws of this land. first of all, i too want to add my appreciation for i know what was a combined effort on the capturing and of course the ending of the evil actions of osama bin laden. obviously the intelligence and various law enforcement officers, certainly the cia at the lead, had over the years a longstanding effort. i thank you, the expanded team, and president barack obama, and it should be said over and over again. i thank you also for the very astute team, legal talent, that you have combined under your leadership at the doj. and what i would like to see most of all is our enhanced cooperation. we have worked together in the past and i have a series of questions, some of which i want to have answers but i'd really

like you to be in touch with and that person, please have them be in touch with me and my office. some of these require a detailed answer. you may not have had the details i associate myself with congresswoman wasserman schultz on the ruberso case. i think we can talk about this very briefly only because this person has been convicted and has been sentenced to 27 years. it is a nonviolent crime, first offender. they have eight or seven or nine children, maybe ten children. and they have been disallowed bail while they're on appeal. i think on the basis of an issue of flight risk. i would ask for a review of this case on the basis of the potential avail. i need to work with someone on that. i'm giving you the parameters. i don't want to engage.

i want to do it not as interfering in a prosecution, which has already been done, the question of a bail. the second question quickly is regarding the communication management units, 60 to 70 individuals are in it. two-thirds are muslims. it is a he very harsh unit. a story was cold to us, no communication with his children. i would like to know your thoughts about the practices surrounding cmus and whether or not they are extremely harsh in light of the population, seems that needs to be someone getting back to me. that is on the cmus. the irs criminal division we've had a lot of colorful stories about actors and others, but it's serious when it comes to our neighbors and friends. i would like to meet with the irs doj individual dealing with the ability to resolve what seems to be innocent cases,

meaning bad facts, payroll taxes i know sends horns out of our head. but individuals who have been in small business who have had some mishaps in their health and they're now caught up in the system. i really think we're better than this, and i really think the justice department is better than this and i think we have the latitude as a barred lawyer, someone who has a license, i'm certainly aware of ex parte contacts. i would be interested in having that opportunity. would you be able to let me work with individuals under your staff? >> we'll try to look at the requests you've made and get information back to you. >> i would appreciate it, particularly on the rabbi not having a bail. let me go to the atf situation. we had a report by the oig that ticketed that the greater guns, that long guns have a shorter time to crime than handguns in mexico. we know the atf has no permanent

director, but i believe as the oig has said, atf needs to have reporting responsibility or be able to get data and have more enforcement responsibility of this ak-47s killing people on both sides of the border with these horrible drug cartels. what is your answer to that? >> we've certainly proposed that with regard to long guns along the border with regard to four states that there be a reporting requirement if somebody buys two long guns over the space of five days that are larger than .22 caliber, if they're semiautomatic and have detachable magazines. it's a process that omb -- >> so we are working on that. i'd like to see that happen. i'll pursue it later with respect to harris county, i have a series of questions but i will ask them in writing. we submitted to the justice department a police brutality

tape regarding chad holly and have asked for the justice department to investigate. we have heard nothing on that. we've heard announcements from seattle and miami, florida, nothing for houston, texas. i also need to have a status report -- i'd like your answer on this -- on the question of the harris county jail. you issued a report that there were constitutional violationsment the question is, what has been the oversight of the department of justice and have they completed? i also want to ask the question -- i'd ask an additional 30 seconds so you can answer this -- the issue of the continental united merger that finished. i would like to thank your assistant attorney general for antitrust for a very open discussion. i would like to know whether there's a follow-up, whether we need to strengthen the clayton act for the justice department because we frankly feel there's no oversight. could you answer the question about the brutality case, excessive force and why there's not been a response including

that in the police brutality case and then the status of the harris county jail. >> we'll try to get you answers. i might ask you about a budgetary increase given the nature of the things you've put on our plate. >> i can say, mr. attorney general, i am one of your strangest advocates and supporters. so i would expect no less from you. you can assure sheila jackson lee will not ask to cut the cops' budget 600 million or the fbi at 38 million. anything i would do is increase the funding for the department of justice because i believe in what you do, both in terms of your juvenile division, civil rights division and if i can add one more thing, i need to understand what you're doing with respect to redistricting and oversight in the number of cases coming forward in the department of justice. >> we'll certainly answer all of those questions. i was kidding you. you have been a big supporter of the department and i thank you

personally and institutionally. >> i will add amendments so you can get more monies on this appropriation. i'm sure chairman chij smidge wi smith will support me in that. >> mr. forbes is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, thank you for being here. forgive me for talking quickly but i only have five minutes. i want to begin, i was interested that the ranking member deferred his questions at the beginning today to the head of the democratic national committee who asked two questions, one relating to gas prices and the other child pornographimey pornography. the first question on gas prices was this, the indication was that somehow this spike-up is a result of illegal activity by major oil companies in terms of price gouging or illegal influence in the market. six months before the administration came in to office in july of 2008, it was the highest spike we had, $4.11, president talked about it on the

campaign, administration came in concern about energy and the price of gas at the pump. in the last 2 1/2 years since you've been in office, can you tell us what evidence you have uncovered you can present to the committee today that the prices at the pump have been affected by illegal activities of major oil companies in terms of price gouging or illegal influences on the committee? i mean, on the market. >> well, the purpose of the task force is to -- >> i'm sorry so interrupt you. i'm talking about evidence you currently have. not studiys, task forces. do you have any evidence you can present today of such activity snz. >> i'm not prepared to present them at this point. what we're trying to do with the task force -- >> you don't have any to present to us today. have you made any prosecutions? >> but the task force will look at this and see what has happened over the course of time. >> when did you set up the task force, mr. attorney general? >> the task force was constituted i would say over the last couple of weeks of. >> so we've had is 2 1/2 years, knew the concerns were there.

except for the last 2 1/2 weeks, you haven't done anything to ascertain evidence and have none to present to the committee today. >> giving the situation that we are now confronting relatively recent in terms of the price hikes we've seen. >> in july it was higher. today it's 3.9 per gallon, 4.11 then. no prosecutions, no remss of any changes to the law from anything you found out in the last 2 1/2 years. let me skip that and go to the pornography issue. do you believe that there's any connection -- we talked about child pornography -- between hardcore adult pornography and child pornography, human trafficking, violence to women, and sexually violent behavior? >> there are relationships between certainly some of them. >> which ones do you feel are connected? >> we've certainly tried to look at those issues, violence against women.

>> which one do you feel there's no connection to? >> i -- >> let me repeat them again, human trafficking, any connection? >> with? >> between hardcore pornography and human trafficking? >> yes, l probably. >> violence to women, yes or not? >> probably. >> sexually violent hardcore adult pornography. >> congressman, if you let me answer the question, i have an answer for you. but i have to speak. >> go ahead. if i could get time -- p. >> i'd be glad to give you more

than five minutes if the chairman is willing. we have a child enforcement and obscenity section that handles as part of its responsibilities examination of obscenity matters. it is not only a child exploitation section, it has recently been reformed to include a task force that looked at strictly obscenity matters. >> we had a task force that was set up under the previous administration that got 52 kojss for hardcore pornography cases. have you disbanded that task force? >> it has not been disbanded but incorporated into -- >> can you tell me how many prosecutions in the last 2 1/2 years of hardcore pornography cases this administration has undertaken and how many convictions you've obtained? >> we have a number and you i can get it to you. i don't have it at my fingerprints. >> will you get that number for us? >> certainly. >> also let us know how many attorneys you've assigned to

adult hardcore pornography and how many agents that you've ra signed to adult hardcore pornography. and if you would, when you give that to us, would you let us know the evidence you've received of my major il companies illegal activities that resulted in higher gas prices, secondly any prosecutions you've had to date and third any recommendations you've made to change the laws. with that, my time is up. >> thank you, mr. forbes. >> with regard to the oil question, the task force we're putting together would look at not only what is going on now but what has happened over the past and make determinations about whether or not there are inappropriate market manipulations or price gouging. which is not to say we're not dealing with something that might be market-driven. we don't go into this with any preconceived notions. what the task force will look at is the situation and then make appropriate determinations. we don't go into this with preconceived notions.

>> my only point is we knew this was a big problem in july of '08. we've got 2 1/2 years and we just set up a task force 2 weeks ago. with that, i yield. >> i was not the attorney general of the united states. >> the gentleman from mr. tennessee, mr. coyne, is recognized for his questions. >> mr. attorney general, you we asked a question earlier, which reminded me, you smiled when the question was asked, and it reminded me of a nice article i read on the web this morning that said that president obama, when he engaged in activities over the weekend, going to alabama, going to florida, dealing with mr. trump at the the dinner and all of those things that he had a poker face. now, it's been said, i believe, that you and the president have played poker together. is that correct? >> no, we've never played poker. never played poker with the president. i don't know if the president plays poker. >> you seem to think that maybe you didn't know whether it was skill or luck in poker.

do you think phil ivy is just lucky? he's the world's greatest poker player? or do you think it there's skill involved? >> i'm not sure i know who mr. phil ivy is. i'm sure there is some degree of skill involved. i'm not a poker player myself. >> you're not. well, okay. i didn't realize that. you might become one because it's one of the rapidly increasing, popular activities in america. it's been going on for years. people used to play it at tables like in the kitchen. now they do it on the internet because there are things like -- it's amazing the things you do on the internet. i've even got one of these. i'm moving into the age. >> i've got one, too. >> you pay bills and do things you used to not do there. do you really think we ought to be spending a lot of time in trying to deal with internet poker, or dow think we should find a way to make it legal, to tax it and bring revenue that will help pay for the folks that

mr. sensenbrenner wants to take out of your budget? >> we have to enforce the law as it exists, and there are laws on the books with regard to internet gambling that we have to enforce. we recently announced an action in the southern district of new york. it is for i guess congress to decide what the law is going to be and then we will enforce those laws. >> well, i agree with you generally. i mean, i understand like there are civil rights laws in the '40s and '50s the government had to defend and then maybe 10, 12, 15 years later after thurgood marshall's argument, they realized those weren't valid laws and the law changed because society changed, people's thinking changed. same thing with doma. certain things change, you change even though it's the law congress passed, there's a change in the cultural lag and it kind of catches up and the people's perception of it changes. some of the same people that gave us doma, most of us gave us the laws against internet poker.

it was that family values crowd that -- yeah, quotes. they gave us those laws. but sometimes they might not have been the right laws. some of mr. forbes' folks who you could be prosecutie ining sf the obscenity cases with some of the people you've got otherwise concerned with some of these laws concerning internet poker. there are priorities. we can't do everything. don't you think in the priority range internet poker would be at the bottom of the level, beneath obscenity and hardcore pornography and child rape and things like that? >> well, there are a whole variety of things we have responsibilities for. you know, the cases that we brought, for instance, in the southern district of new york involved pretty substantial amounts of money and big financial institutions. and i think those cases are appropriate. there will be some other cases in this area that aren't really federal cases because they're not really large enough, people are not -- the degree of harm is

not serious enough. so even within a certain class of cases, certain ones are going to be worthy of our attention and some will not be. >> did the southern district coordinate with the criminal division or you particularly about the policies of your office, which have been kind of in flux underlying the decision to effectively criminal size poker, going after these folks? >> the southern district worked with main justice in the formulation of that case. though the primary responsibility was in new york. >> we're coming down on time. freedom is a big issue with me and the opportunity to do things. a lot of people -- the cocaine and crack sentencing we made progress, but is the department seeing thattor we're asking for tns sentences that are maybe in the lower range for those people that were indicted before the law changed? >> what i have told our prosecutors, i've given them discretion so they ask for sentences that are appropriate looking at the facts of each

individual case. the department is going to make up -- we're going to take a position with regard to whether or not the law should be made retroactive before the sentencing commission, but while we are still in that process, i've asked my prosecutors to make sure that we only ask for sentences that are appropriate and consistent with the facts. >> expungement is an issue i'm interested in, too. do you believe for low-level crimes, misdemeanors, an expungement law whereby after seven years a first offender for the nonviolence offense could get their record expunged to maybe get a job? >> that's something i would want to consider and work with the committee. it's something we had here in washington, d.c., when i was a judge for a relatively small number of offenses, obviously nonviolent, so that the stigma that goes with a conviction, especially for younger people, might not harm their abilities to get meaningful employment, to

otherwise make themselves productive members of society. so the ability to have that as a tool in the federal system is certainly something i'm willing to consider. >> the red light has come on. the hypothetical, i'm going to yield back the remainder of my time that doesn't exist. i'm going to bring up in the extra 30 seconds -- >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. >> i'm going to bring up a fact that the chairman would not want me to bring up. >> in that case, he's not entitled. >> the grizzlies beat the spurs. i know you play basketball with the president. has he recognized the grizzlies as -- >> the gentleman's time is definitely expired. mr. franks is recognized for his question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, general holder for being here. sir, money is indeed the lifeblood of terrorism.

without funding, terrorism would be nearly impossible. the 2008 holy land foundation case was the largest terrorism finance case in u.s. history, as you well know. according to the volumes of case history and evidence available on the web site of the federal court of the northern district of texas, hundreds of u.s.-based persons or entities are listed as unindicted co-conspirators who allegedly funneled millions of dollars to the designated terrorist organization hamas under the guise of funding a muslim charity. sources have told us that the case was the product of 19 years of investigations consuming thousands of hours, thousands of man hours, and manpower and millions of dollars. the department of justice has signaled it will not further prosecute this case, despite the voluminous evidence that the unindicted co-conspirators are financing terror from within the

united states. chairman smith of this committee and chairman king of the home land security committee are interested obviously learning why this case was dropped. as you well know, you received correspondence recently from both of them. you claimed the career attorneys made the decision to drop the case, but the press reports are saying that prosecutors, fbi agents and even your own spokesperson at doj are telling a different story. they claim that the decision to scuttle the largest terrorism financing case in u.s. history, spanning threed administrations, was made not by career attorneys but instead by senior obama administration political appointees. the scuttle of this case has obviously outraged the career lawyers and, according to congressman king, we've just learned from his office that his letter today was responded to in a completely unresponsive way. it never did speak to the questions that he asked. so i guess i ask you here, then,

today, which individuals -- and i hope you'll say their names -- are responsible for scuttling the holy land foundation prosecutions of the unindicted co-conspirators? >> well, the premise of your question is inaccurate. there was no scuttling of the case. >> do you intend -- i'm sorry. i wasn't yelling at you. the microphone kind of went off on me. do you intend to prosecute these cases? >> the decisions that were made not to prosecute those cases were made initially in the bush administration, continued in this administration. and i have to take exception -- >> i have to stop you on that. you claim the decision was a continuation of the approach taken by the bush administration, but that really isn't true. the bush administration successfully prosecuted the first round of defendants, they aggressively secured convictions on all 108 counts. and the first round didn't

conclude until three weeks after the election of barack obama, essentially the bush administration ran out of time. they were pursuing this. peter king has said that it's hard to hide behind the deliberations of the bush administration that predate the successful prosecution of the holy land case. so obviously you're not following the bush administration's path because they did prosecute and they got 108 convictions. >> but a decision was clearly made in not indicting certain organizations and people in that initial case. that is why they were, as you said, unindicted co-conspirators. but the other thing is, what you say about the concerns by the career prosecutors, that seems very inconsistent with the press reports that i have read from the guys who handled that matter. a career prosecutor who said that there was no political pressure brought to bear on anybody in connection with the decision. that was in the dallas morning news, i believe.

i'd be more that glad to get a copy of that article. >> i'm sorry. the microphone is giving me trouble here. let me just ask you, did you or the case abandon or not? did you do that? >> no. >> did anyone in your department do that? >> no. >> okay. with were you personally involved in any decision to delay any prosecution of the case? >> no. >> have you communicated with the white house about the holy land foundation case? was the white house involved in any sort of issue to try to delay or not to prosecute the case? >> no. >> were any of the unindicted co-conspirators communicating outside the legal process with the white house or the department of justice about the holy land foundation case? >> not to my knowledge. >> well, i think my time is up here. thank you, general, for come. >> thank you, from franks. mr. quigley is recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

welcome. you know, coming from chicago, i can't help from reflect on there's a trial taking place there and why i don't ask you to comment on that, i note that there always seems to be a trial taking place there or other places in the country that deal with public integrity. as you know, the court has struck down the honest services section of the statute, a very valuable tool that prosecutors had to do after public officials using their office for personal gain. we could really use your office's help preparing a replacement. i think it was probably appropriate the statute was struck down because it was probably, as they said, too vague. but i appreciate your comments on what we need to do to fill that void. >> well, there's -- that obviously is a very valuable tool. it's been used ove ed over the t

any number of instances. it's a statute that has a some had what troubled history. it's been unconstitutional, applied on a couple of occasions. i guess we need to come up with a statute that will survive constitutional scrutiny once and forever. obviously we would be willing to work with this committee and others so that we could have that tool back in place. >> thank you. and liked to afford you the opportunity here to talk about another issue that's important to everyone here, and that's the recent extraordinary increase i the country. i think since january 29 police officers have been shot in this country. this is an increase in fatal police shootings of more than 50% over last year. i believe you convened a conference on this last month. again, would appreciate your office's help on what else we can do to help you in this vein.

>> that is something that is of great concern to me, the reason why i convened that summit a few weeks ago, one of the reasons why we have tried toin creay ie our funding of bulletproof vests made available to agencies and why we have tried to require a mandatory wear policy. that's why we also have something called a valor program so officers can be trained on how to handle themselves in these situations when their lives are likely to be put at risk. that is something that i think is worthy of this committee's time, certainly my time, and i would be glad to work with you in that regard to try to keep our law enforcement officers safe. >> i can't help but inject another statistic that is bothering to me. of the 29 officers fatally shot this year, 20 were killed by individuals who would have been barred by federal law from possessing guns.

in my vein, this gets to the greatest loophole of all, and that's the gun show loophole. the fact that you could be barred from getting on an airplane, you can have multiple felonies, you could have been adjudicated as being dangerously mentally ill, but you can go to 33 states and go to a gun show and buy just about anything you want without a background check whatsoever. your thoughts on this? >> well, i think we have to look at the laws that we have on the books. we need to certainly enforce them. we need to be asking questions about whether they're adequate, whether they're keeping our people safe, law enforcement officers safe. i think we also have to focus on -- and i think your point is very, very good -- who has these guns. it's not only a question of what guns we're dealing with but also who has them. obviously everybody has second amendment rights, the supreme

court ruled that in the heller case. this department of justice respects that decision. but i think questions can be asked about, are there too many felons who for whatever reason are in possession of guns, people who have mental issues, whether they should have guns, people who have domestic violence issues, whether they should have guns. there are a whole variety of questions as to the who i think we need to focus on as well. >> i agree. to close, i would suggest to those who are very supportive of the second amendment that, while that case did grant second amendment rights, the majority opinion did talk p about limitations. one was who and one of the others was what. i think it's fair to ask if you're out to protect your home or you're hunting deer whether you need a 30-round clip. that's my own editorial comment for the day. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you, mr. quigley. mr. goe mert is recognized. >> thank you. i want to follow up on what mr. franks was talking about, the case volving the holy land foundation. you have mentioned the dallas morning news article. i have a copy of it here. i've also got a copy of the politico article and the person you're talking about is jim jacks, who is the interim u.s. attorney for the northern district of texas because the president has not made a nomination for u.s. attorney for the northern district of texas. so as long as mr. jacks stays in the good graces of the president, he serves at the will of the president or the judges in that area, he might even get the nomination if he does a good enough job from the president. he serves at his will. so let's go to this. are you aware that this same career prosecutor that you had mentioned filed pleadings in the

case before judge solis and before the fifth circuit where he supported the decision of judge solis that there was evidence to keep the unindicted co-conspirators listed? because some of them were wanting to be eliminated as co-conspirators. he filed documents with the court -- and i'm rather sensitive as a former judge and chief justice to lawyers filing things and say things they don't believe. because it seems that the position mr. jacks is taking now, which could be viewed as supportive of the president's position on some of the people and some of the organizations that are unindicted co-conspirators, are inconsistent with his position in his pleadings. and i have copies of those as well. but the judge found, after reviewing mr. jacks' pleading,

that there was plenty of evidence to keep them in as unindicted co-conspirators. now, if a lawyer files something that he doesn't believe and he knows he doesn't believe it, some judges think it's a fraud upon the court that requires punitive actions to be taken. so i'm also aware that when someone makes a statement to the "dallas morning news," even if he believes it's not true but it may help him in a political appointment, there is no actionable punitive measures that may be taken. so i wonder which mr. jacks' opinion we're relying on, the one that's the interim that possible ly hopes to be nominat or stay in that position or the one that filed pleadings before the court. now, are you aware that one of

the unindicted co-convispirator is the islamic society of north america? isna? were you aware of that? >> there's not an inconsistency on the position that -- >> wait a minute. my time is so limited i have to ask questions and get short answers. the fbi has recruited through the isna magazine isna has advertised in fbi publication -- in their publications and even in the white house's own deputy assistant national security adviser went out and spoke and met with and spoke out at the all-dulles area muslim society or short for that is a.d.a.m.s. ironic. deputy national security adviser dennis mcdone know, even in his opening remarks thanked the

president of isna, and that thank you is on the white house web site. so i'm wondering, when you say that you nor anyone else, as i understood, in your department assisted at all in the decision not to pursue prosecution of the most important funding case for terrorism in american history, do you need time to reflect on that? or can you absolutely be certain that no one in your department had any consultation with mr. jacks or anyone making the decision in this case before the decision was made not to pursue it? >> i'm not sure that's a question that i was asked. but beyond that, the notion -- >> well, that's the question i'm asking. >> well -- >> it went beyond mr. franks. that's the question i'm asking. >> now you asked me one question. now your question is what now? am i referring -- >> my question is, very

specific, is there anyone in your department who consulted with mr. jacks or whoever made the decision before the decision was made not to pursue any of the unindicted co-conspirators in the holy land foundation trial? >> my understanding that in fact there was contact twin washington national security professionals and the u.s. attorney's office in texas in that regard. but one thing -- >> are those washington national security professionals part of your department? because that's the question. >> that's the national security division. >> are they under you? >> yeah, the national security division is part of the united states department of justice. >> did they consult with you in any way? >> no. >> thank you. >> one thing i want to say that i think was grossly unfair, you have cast dispersions on a person who i don't know who has served, i understand, the united states department of justice and the people of this country quite

well for a good number of years. i've implied that he would take a position in order to -- a position in a case in order to maintain a position as an acting u.s. attorney or to become the u.s. attorney. these are the kind of things that will get reported in the newspapers, people don't know this gentleman, they'll wonder about him. i think that's a very unfair thing to do, given the fact that i don't think there's any basis for the assertions that you have made. >> wait. now wait a minute. you are saying there are no basis for assertions -- >> the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. >> -- that he said one thing in the pleadings before the trial court and the same things before the pleadings in the fifth circuit and yet he comes out and says something entirely different later, that there's no evidence to support that? and basically what he's telling the dallas news there was no basis for a case there.

and you're saying i have no basis for saying that? i've got the dallas news article. i've got the pleadings he filed. that's what i'm basing that on. >> no. it's not inconsistent. his saying that there is a basis to keep these people, these organizations, as unindicted co-done r conspirators -- >> have you looked at the documents that were made available in this case before you say that i'm being unfair by making allegations? have you looked at the evidence in the case? here's isna. here's documentation of the money they provided which ended up supporting terrorism as found by the court. and you're saying i have no basis for saying what i did? there is a basis for what he said before the fifth circuit and before the trial court. so i don't appreciate the allegation that i am making unfounded allegations. >> i'm just responding to what

you said. you essentially said that he would take a position in order to maintain a position. that's certainly what you implied. >> i raised the issue. sir, i don't know how many cases you've ever tried in court or prosecuted, but i can assure you, if you tried a case and you had someone with the impeachment material that was available from mr. jacks on his inconsistencies and you didn't pursue it, you would not be an efgtifective tr lawyer. these are basis of impeachment of his stating that there was no politics involved because there was no case there. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. chairman, what the attorney general is trying to explain why there was no inconsistency and he kept getting cut off. could the attorney general respond to the question? >> i was responding to the allegations about me having no basis for my statements. >> well, can the attorney general -- >> does the attorney general have anything to add? >> i was simply saying that the

notion that the filing of something that says that these people, organizations, should be treated as unindicted co-conspirators is not inconsistent with this notion that there wasn't political pressure brought to bear on that decision. i don't see how one necessarily affects the other. and, you know, i'm going to stick up for my people. that's what i'm doing. i'm not going to let people who work in the united states department of justice have their characters assailed without any basis. now, that might be something that people in this committee feels is easily done. it's not going to happen as long as i'm attorney general of the united states. it's not going to happen. >> now, mr. chairman, i should have a chance to respond since there were allegations made about me. but i do appreciate the attorney general now letting us know that mr. jacks is one of his people. thank you. >> as are the 114,000 other people who work in the united states department of justice.

>> thank you both. >> so they're part of your department. >> thank you both. >> so people in your department did make that decision not to prosecute. >> the gentleman from florida can ask his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general holder, thank you for being here. the "wall street journal" reported that the united states filed a lawsuit against deutsche bank. in clear violation of mortgage insurance program. these government-insure ed mortgages were sold off earning the bank a massive profit and the government on the hook to pay billions on insurance claims. the claims are startling and the charges highlight the efforts to seek profit at any cost while leaving thousands of people and their families to lose their homes and the taxpayers being

forced to pay for the banks' actions. first i'd like to commend you for the department's vigorous pursuit of these kargs against deutsche bank. and i'd like to ask first whether the department is investigating other large banks in possible deceptive actions that they may have taken to fuel the mortgage crisis that the country has been facing. we'll start with that. >> we have a very active program under way that looks at a variety of players in the mortgage field. we've brought a number of cases already. there are a number of investigations that are pending. >> next, would the department pursue criminal charges which would result in jail time for the heads of the banks and servicers if it's found they knowingly took actions such as the ones described in this lawsuit. >> the scrutiny we would bring would not be simply at the organizations and be looking to punish the organizations.

in are individuals who have taken actions that would warrant individual liability, that is something that we will pursue as well. >> and if i could just pursue one possible line of prosecution that's been raised, i'd love your thoughts on it. that is under servings/oxley that executives at wall street firms have to establish and maintain adequate systems and internal control, that they've got to regularly test those controls to make sure they're adequateequat adequate. and as i understand it, that statute provides that in the case of knowingly making false claims, one is in jeopardy of fines and jail time. if the claims were willful, the violations were willful, fines up to $5 million and jail time up to 20 years in prison. is this -- would this be the basis of potential claims against individuals in connection with the mortgage foreclosure cases that are being pursued? >> those are are potential

statutes. there are other statutes that we can bring. i mean, some as old and tried and true alz wire fraud, mail fraud. there are a variety of tools including those you've mentioned. we'll try to make use of all of those as we continue in these investigations. >> so as you pursue these claims, at what point is the determination made -- obviously my colleagues asked, others have asked, certainly been a big topic of conversation, while there's a $ $1 billion case fil today, which i applaud you for, given the vast array of potential individual claims that could be brought that would bring the potential of criminal violations, when might we expect to see some ofthose cases filed as well? >> that's hard to predict. we're serious about the investigating we're going. it's hard to