create new enemies. >> she has made a career as an advocate for world peace. more with jody williams sunday night at 8:00 on>> u.s. attornec holder was on capitol hill today testifying before the senate judiciary committee. he was asked whether it is constitutional to kill u.s. citizens on u.s. soil if they do not pose an imminent threat to the country. that hearing is next on c-span. senator rand paul spent much of that day filibustering john brennan. he led the filibuster on the senate floor since 11:45 a.m. eastern. he is continuing the filibuster alive right now on the floor. -- live right now on the floor.

for decades, u.s. courts have allowed law enforcement to conduct aerial surveillance without a warrant. this is that sort of open spaces doctrine. i'm not saying it makes it right but the government has been doing it for decades. some of the courts have apparently ruled that what a person does in the open, even behind a back yard fence, can be seen from a passing airplane and is not protected by privacy laws. you know, i don't think i agree with that. if you're swimming in your pool in your back yard, if you're in your hot tub in your back yard, just because we have the technology to be able to see you in your hot tub, does that really mean they have a right to look at what you are doing in your back yard, so i don't really accept that. i think it has been abused and something that really we should be fighting against the surveillance state. advocates say predators are

simply more effective than other planes. flying out of earshot and out of sight, a predator bee can watch a target for 20 hours nonstop, far longer than any police helicopter or manned aircraft. i would say there it seems like it may be somewhat analogous to the supreme court case. the supreme court ruled that you can't tag people's cars and watch them constantly waiting to see if they break any laws. so i would think the same for a predator, you can't just stake them out, watch and eventually you will get somebody breaking a speed limit or running a stop sign. i don't think that's what was really intended. howard safire says i am for the use of drones. he is the former head of operations of the u.s. marshal's service and former new york city commissioner. he said drones could help police in manhunts, hostage situations

and other difficult situations. i agree completely. if someone is being held in harm's way, if someone is being held and threatened, absolutely, drones are a great idea. it's not that i am opposed to the technology. i'm not particularly excited about them hovering outside your window, looking over your shoulder at what magazines you read, whether you're reading >> rand paul continuing his filibuster tonight. we could see a senate vote on john brennan tomorrow. we will show you more of the filibuster after attorney- general holder's testimony. the legislation passed by a vote of 267 to 151 with 137 democrats voting against it.

the $982 billion stopgap measure locked in sequestration spending levels. we will bring you some of that debate later on tonight. now we take you to attorney- general holder testifying before the senate judiciary committee on justice department programs. senator patrick leahy of vermont is the chairman. this hearing is two and a half hours. >> the intimate general is here

and -- the attorney general is here and the session will be in order. attorney-general, if you would join us please. because the session has begun, nobody will stand and block people behind them. this is a meeting of the united states senate could judiciary committee. everybody here is a guest of the senate. we expect you to be aware of your fellow casks. -- your fellow guests. everybody has an opportunity to be here. i would hope nobody would be so

arrogant that they would feel they should have an ability to review and block the view of others -- to view and block the view of others. this week is the anniversary of bloody sunday. people were beaten by state troopers at a tepid two -- as they tempted to cross the bridge and in alabama. laws protect the rights of all americans. that is what this attorney- general is dedicated to doing. in 2009, the attorney general worked with us in congress to pass landmark hate crimes legislation to address crimes committed against americans because of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or

gender identity. mr. attorney general, i am glad the justice department is enforcing the law. this week the president will sign legislation on the violence against women act. and the trafficking victims protection act to protect all victims of abuse. i know the justice department will implement those lawless. the justice department is defending the protection as provided by section 5 of the voting rights act to insure all americans have the right to vote and have their boats matter. -- their votes matter. after nearly 20 hearings, thousands of pages of testimony, before the house and senate judiciary committee's, we found modern-day barriers for a boating persist in our country. we passed the bill.

i remember talking with president bush the day of the signing and how proud he was to be signing it. republicans and democrats came together to craft the legislation because of its need. i commend the attorney-general and fbi director miller and all those working today to keep americans say. a follow-up attack to 911 has not occurred. part of that is vigilance. i thank the attorney general for reaching out on issues of our security -- of our national security.

[indiscernible] i remain troubled the committee has not yet received the materials are requested regarding the legal action of the targeted killing of united states citizens overseas. [indiscernible] i am glad to see it was provided to a sinister feinstein's -- to senator feinstein's intelligence committee. a nominee coming out of the committee will be because of the inability to get that memo here. we have worked together effectively to help keep

americans safe from crime and health crime victims rebuild their lives. we have worked to strengthen federal law enforcement. crime rates have experienced a historic decline. i remember hearing senator coons in delaware where we saw parole officers, members of the community coming together [indiscernible] congress passed a recovery that -- recovery act. the dodd frank act. the test department has broken records over the last several years for seminal -- for fraud

recoveries. the committee has worked to ensure the criminal-justice system works as it should. this month is the ticket anniversary of the supreme court decision -- this month is the 50th anniversary of the supreme court decision. i remember as a young lawyer reading a book on that, "dieon's gideon's trumpet." we need to do more to ensure justice for all. i was glad to see the announcement of a joint initiative to help improve forensic science across the country. i appreciate the attorney general and joining me in recognizing the problem of our growing prison population,

having devastating consequences. there is also a human cost. we have to find more constructive ways to solve it. turning away from mandatory minimums for nonviolence would be a good start. the senate confirmed attorney general eric holder four years ago. the credibility of the department among the american people has increased dramatically. i am glad to see the morale that hard-working agents, prosecutors, many who have been there from both administrations has improved considerably. i apologize for the allergies and the voice. >> before i speak, could you

inform us how you will handle it when we vote? >> apparently we have a vote scheduled for 10:30. i would encourage us to -- for time, we keep the committee meeting going and try to get out and vote as quickly as possible and come back as quickly as possible. go ahead. >> welcome, general holder. this hearing affords us opportunity to clear the deck on many outstanding questions we have yet to receive from the department. example -- we have not received questions for the record and the last oversight hearing held nine months ago. we also have questions for the record from department

officials at various hearings that remain outstanding. there are a number of inquiries that have not received a response on important issues. i cannot go through all of them but an example, i have not received a response to a letter i sent on the impact of budget sequester. another letter outstanding on the failure to prosecute individuals at hsbc for money laundering. that was sent in december. i have an outstanding request related to investigation if fast and various -- of fast and furious. it is unfortunate we have to always start hearings with the same request of the attorney general to respond to the unanswered questions. that said, i have a number of topics i want to discuss with the attorney general, including the latest letter to senator paul, arguing in favor of the

president's ability to use force to kill american citizens on u.s. soil without due process of law. this letter is extremely concerned, not just in its content but classify but they -- but doubled with the classified memoranda. this oversight hearing also comes on the heels of an extremely important hearing before house judiciary on the topic of target killing of americans using unmanned drones. this is an issue chairman leahy already referred to. i have asked repeatedly the attorney general about our electors on this matter that have gone unanswered, including our most recent letter to president obama seeking access to classified memoranda of the rise in the targeted killings of americans abroad -- memoranda on

the target the killings of americans abroad. i joined chairman leahy in discussing the importance of the damage -- of the judiciary committee obtaining these documents, despite opinions of this administration and the previous one to the contrary, congress has a significant role to play in conducting oversight of national security measures. we have the right to receive classified information through appropriate channels to determine if the activities of the executive branch are appropriate. this committee has president - has precedent of obtaining highly classified information. for example, her in overseeing the fisa amendment act -- for

example, in overseeing the fisa amendment act. and as part of the oversight conducted by the committee reviewing the enhanced irrigation techniques. in light of the march 4, 2013 to senator rand paul, with the attorney general argued the president could use lethal force on u.s. citizens on u.s. soil in an effort to protect the u.s. from a catastrophic attack, it is imperative we understand operational boundaries for use of such force. the letter deals with " extraordinary circumstances." american citizens have the right to understand when their life can be taken by their government as in due process. providing these memorandum for

review would go a long way toward complying with the president's election promise to have the most transparent administration ever. move on to another issue -- gun violence. tomorrow the committee begins mark up. we have held three meetings it into the past 2 months. both times the department testified we heard a reiteration of the department's's support of a ban on semiautomatic rifles with certain features. both times when i asked whether in the deficit in official opinion determining whether a ban was constitutional in light of the second amendment, i heard no opinion has been issued. we are martin of the bills tomorrow. it would be good to hear out -- -- we are marking the bill tomorrow. it would be good to hear on the

attorney-general in advance of the mark up. these companies settle for pennies on the dollar and the costs become the costs of doing business for these institutions. it has led many to believe financial institutions too big to fail are also too big to jail. while this distinction was mostly reserved for financial crimes, and portion, a position i find flawed, this policy appears to have seeped into other misconduct enforced by the department. december 2012, the department entered into a deferred protection agreement. dpa with the bank hsbc. that is a global bank, violating

federal laws designed to prevent drug lords and terrorists from laundering money in the united states a deferred prosecution agreement for a company involved in money-laundering for drug lords and terrorists. i sent a letter to the attorney- general extras -- expressing my outrage on december. i asked why no employees were prosecuted. senator brown of ohio and i sent a letter in january seeking the right to know fo. the response was will fall and failed to answer our questions. this is a leadership problem, and the one that needs to be fixed quickly -- and one that needs to be fixed quickly.

but also want to hear from the attorney general about -- i also want to hear from the attorney general about a concerning new studies. i requested the gao conduct a report. the department executives reimburse the government for part of the trip but only the cost of regular coach fare. this is less than the thousands of dollars an hour that these planes cost. the report found that between fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2011, total flight time was 60% of the time. but accounted for millions of dollars of tax payer expenditures -- they accounted for millions of dollars of

taxpayer expenditures. in light of sequester and the dire fiscal situation the federal government faces, this trouble was concerning yet it was especially concerning getting the justification provided to congress in 2010 was for counterterrorism measures. the g-20 general and at shiite director are now -- the eighth andy fbigeneral director had the discretion to use commercial air travel. this report raises a number of troubling questions in light of the proposed spending reductions because of the sequester. most pressing of which is should the executives at the department be using these claims for non mission travel on a jet purchase

for counter-terrorism missions? i yield the floor. >> we will -- again, i would add i realize some in the audience feel very committed to their positions and feel whatever their position is is far more important than anybody else in maybe sitting here. i ask you not to block other. people. please welcome everybody whether they agree with us or not. we have a responsibility to the people who are also trying to [indiscernible] attorney general, earlier this week worked with senator collins to produce a bill to adjust the problems of fire arms trafficking.

the current law need to be strengthened and fixed and close the gaps that makes it too easy for by the criminals, gangs and drug trafficking organizations to obtain guns. do you agree there is a need for specific statutes criminalizing gun trafficking and straw purchasing? >> yes, mr. chairman. there is no question there is a need for a stand alone trafficking bilbray what we now have is a hodgepodge -- stand alone trafficking. what we have now is a hodgepodge. it is not likely to induce cooperation from people we are charging. >> mr. attorney-general, i realize -- i forgot to give a

chance to give your opening statement. please give your opening statement. [laughter] >> chairman leahy, ranking member and distinguished members of the committee, i appreciate this opportunity to provide an overview of the justice department's recent achievements in the park -- the accomplishments my colleagues have made possible. i look forward to working with you all to take on critical efforts to a new level. before we begin this discussion, i must acknowledge three correctional workers employed by the federal bureau of prisons to over the last week had made the old men sacrifice. officer erik williams, the gregory bineski and the tenant oswaldo. determined to ensure those

responsible to the acts that led to the deaths of these brave individuals are led to justice. we are committed to honoring the service of these officers by doing everything in our power to treat the women and men in law enforcement safe. in this regard, i am proud to report the department has made progress in battling by the crimes, financial fraud, upholding the civil-rights of all, safeguarding the most vulnerable members of our society and protecting the american people from terrorism and other national security threats. since the horrific tragedy in newtown, the urgency of our public safety efforts have come into sharp focus. earlier this year i joined president -- vice-president crichton -- vice president biden .

in january, president obama announced a comprehensive plan that includes 23 executive actions of the justice department and other agencies working to implement common- sense legislative proposals. i am pleased to join the president, vice president and countless americans in calling on congress to enact legislation adjusting gun violence. including measures to require universal background checks to impose tougher penalties on gun traffickers, to protect law enforcement officers, to ban high capacity magazines and military-style assault weapons. and to eliminate misguided restrictions that require federal agents to allow the importation of dangerous weapons and because of their age. i am pleased to'echo the s call for the senate to confirm todd jones -- i am pleased

call o the president's for the senate to confirm todd jones. we are determined to combat domestic violence as well. strengthening this, i am pleased this bill will finally close in loophole that left many native american women without adequate protection. the justice department looks forward to implementing this historic legislation. we are committed to become smarter and tougher on crime and remained aggressive and fair in our enforcement of federal laws. thanks to countless employees and partners, we achieved extraordinary results. nowhere is it more clear than in

our work to protect america's national security. the department has bought cases and secured convictions against numerous terrorist. we have identified and disrupted multiple plots by terrorist groups as well as homegrown extremis history article 3 -- as well as homegrown extremists. article 3 works. last summer, the department created the national security cyber specialist network to spearhead these efforts. the network is comprised the prosecutors and other specialists across the country who work closely with the fbi and other partners to investigate militias cyber activity and to bring criminal prosecution as part of our government white effort to deter and disrupt cyber threats to our national security.

the department has taken significant steps to ensure enforcement of antitrust laws to protect the environment crackdown on tax cut schemes. in cooperation with the department of health and human services over the last fiscal year, we secured $4.2 billion in recoveries related to health care fraud and abuse. as a result of our commitment to achieve justice on behalf of the victims of the 2010 oil spill, we secured a guilty plea and a record $4 billion criminal fine and the penalties from bp. the court settled -- settled a settlement. on, february 20 we commence trials of civil claims against bp and others. we are working closely with authorities to take our fight against fraud targeting

consumers, investors, and home owners to new heights. we have about 10,000 financial fraud cases, including 2900 mortgage fraud defendants. last month the department filed a civil suit against standard and poor's, seeking at least $5 billion in damages for alleged conduct. we are striving to boost the capacity of our law enforcement allies and provide access to the tools, training and equipment they need to do their jobs as safety -- safely and effectively as possible. we are working to promote the highest standards of integrity. this commitment to integrity and equal justice has also driven the department's civil-rights division in an effort to address

discrimination from the housing and lending markets, schools, workplaces, border areas and to our voting booths. the division has caught -- has bought more civil-rights cases. we have also led efforts to implement the mac to shepherd a crimes prevention act -- the matthew shepherd crimes prevention act. we are fighting to preserve the principles of equality and justice. in the days ahead as congress considers ways to make fair and effective changes to america's immigration system, these same principles must guide our efforts to strengthen our borders. they must continue to inform our actions as we adjudicate

immigration cases, and force existing law and hold accountable lawyers -- accountable those who employ illegal workers. i must note that our ability to complete this work and continue building upon the progress i have outlined will be hampered unless congress adopts a balanced deficit-reduction plan that ends the reductions that last week said in a motion to $1.6 billion of the department's budget. these cuts are already having a significant negative impact on employees and programs that directly impact the safety of

americans across the country. our capacity to respond to crimes, investigate wrongdoing, has been reduced. despite our best efforts to limit the impact of sequestration, unless congress quickly pass a balanced deficit- reduction plan, the effects of these cuts may be profound. i urged congressional leaders to act swiftly to keep our citizens state. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you and i apologize again. we are watching the clock because we have to go to speak combination.gcaan you mentioned the cuts at $1.6 billion across the board. i worry what that will do to

critical grant programs in small, rural states like vermont. i do not mean that to be parochial but in smaller areas in every state, has a disproportionate effect. i hope you would be able to continue to work on programs like the bulletproof vest partnership program and victims assistance program. >> we will try to do the best we can. the cut is 9% out of our budget over the course of seven months. it will take $100 million out of our grant making capacity. we will try to minimize the harm and make sure the mission we have is not compromised. i have to say, you cannot take $1.6 billion out of our budget and expect us to be as effective as we once were.

>> -- is it safe to say this will affect national security? >> i fear that it could. we will try to suggest things so we have agents with the need to be. -- to adjust things so we have agents where they need to be,. . people will have to undergo furloughs. >> thank you. and we talked about the memos on targeted killings. i've been asking about that for some time. you and i have had discussions about this. i realize the decision is not entirely in your hands. it may be brought to a head from a subpoena by a letter from this committee.

you mentioned 9/11 and drones. is there no scenario a puppet to use an armed drawn on u.s. soil to strike an american citizen? >> what i said in the letter as the government has no intention to carry out and joan strikes in the united states. strikes in therone united states. we have the ability to use our law enforcement capacity. i gave his speech at northwestern with regard to the use of these legal forces. one of the critical things with the possibility of captor was difficult, in foreign lance --

of capture was difficult in foreign lands. entirelyof drones iis hypothetical here. what i try to say in the letter to senator paul was that. >> i may want to meet with you and discuss particular ppoints. last year the committee had a provision that would amend the act to prohibit prosecutions based on the violations of the terms of use agreement. we were concerned [indiscernible] -- innocuous, but such as

violating the terms of use agreement. i think i supported the franken amendment. can the doj review its guidelines for computer fraud and abuse cases and consider revising the base upon the conduct in violation of the terms of agreement? >> we are always revising. there are issues in statutes. we always want to correct that. we constantly monitor that and we want to make sure we use those tools in appropriate ways and only asked for jail time where that is absolutely needed.

that is something we can look at . >> thank you. last november, voters chose to legalize personal use of 1 ounce of marijuana in several states. last year i asked the director of the aphis -- office of national drug control policy how the administration prioritizes resources to determine policy. in light of the choices made by voters, there will be other states that do the same things. are you prepared to note the federal government's policy in response? >> i have had the opportunity to meet with the leadership from colorado and washington. we had a good communication. we are considering what the federal government's response

could this new statutes will be. i expect we will have an ability to announce our policy relatively soon. >> this is simply an editorial comment but if you're going to because of budget cuts prioritized on matters, i with to just more serious things than minor possession of marijuana. that is a personal view. senator grassley raised the fact that secretaries are prohibited from flying commercial for security reasons. a recent report confirms a counter-terrorism -- [indiscernible] you and director muller have complied with reimbursement

orders in all cases. is it to your predecessor views the aircraft -- used the aircraft personal travel twice as much as you have? >> yes, we took a look at the numbers. my predecessor took 54 trips. these plans are always he's first and foremost for mission purposes as well as official travel. the planes are used 92% of the time for those two purposes. that includes chips made on the plains -- trips made to afghanistan, guantanamo, haiti, ottawa. thuis notion -- this notion that

these planes are being misused is belied by the fact. >> i was in haiti right after your trip on a government plane with republican and democratic members of congress high. i understand the reason why they are there too. who's next? >> good morning, general holder. i wrote you a letter on january 18, 2013, about the prosecution of aaron schwartz who was prosecuted in massachusetts for allegedly breaking into the computer networks act mit and

downloading without authorization thousands of academic articles from a subscription service. he was charged with crimes that would have carried a penalty of up to 35 years in prison and $8 million fine. superseding indictment which was -- i wrote aed 0 letter raising questions of iosecutorial zeeal and would say misconduct appeared have you look into that matter and reached any conclusions? chwartz's death was a tragedy. he was always the bright young men and had a good future in front of him. as i talk to the people will look into this matter, the

reports about what he was facing in not consistent with the interaction between the government and mr. schwartz. the plea offer was pleaa -- was made 3 months before. after the indictment, an offer was made that he could serve four months eric after that, a plea offer made from a range of 0 to 6 months. there was never an intention for him to go to jail for longer than a 5 month range. that was what the government said specifically to mr. schwartz. those offers were rejected. >> he committed suicide, correct? >> he did. >> this subscription service did not support the prosecution. does it strike you as odd the

government would invite someone for crimes that carry penalties of up to 35 years in prison and then offer him 3 or 4 month prison sentence? >> that is a good use of prosecutorial discretion to look at the contact regardless of what the maximum were and to fashion a sentence consistent with the nature of the conduct. what the prosecutors did a in wasering 3, 4, 0 to 6, consistent with that concept. >> you do not consider this a case of prosecutorial overreaching? >> no. >> i would suggest if you are an individual american citizen and you are looking at criminal charges being brought by the united states government with all the vast resources available, it strikes me as disproportionate and one that is

being used inappropriately to try to bully someone into pleading guilty to something. i would appreciate it if you would respond to my letter in writing dated january 18. i know senator grassley listed other letters your department has not responded to. would you commit to responding to that letter and answering the questions in writing? >> we will get responses to that letter. i think it will probably encapsulate what i just said in terms of how we viewed the case. >> i want to make sure you have done it thorough investigation in the matter and you're not just speaking off the cuff. >> it is not off the cuff. a good examination has been done. the prosecutors were talked to in people in the department

responsible for those inquiries. >> one of the reasons i'm skeptical is because the prosecution of senator ted stevens. the prosecutor is in that case overreached, without the permission that with the ben -- that should have been divulged under the rules of ethics. i'm concerned that average citizens like aaron schwartz, people who do not have status or power, could be bullied and we have seen members of the united states senate like ted stevens who have been on the receiving end of prosecutorial conduct. >> what we did in that case was not consistent with a high standard i expect the people who work in the justice department. that is an example of how this

department conducts itself and where we make mistakes, but we do to try to protect them -- try to correct them. i would not hesitate to do what i did for example in the stevens manner. >> i respect that. unfortunately in both these cases, both the men are dead. i know we are going to take up various gun legislation. i want to ask you -- i have a copy of the speech you gave to the women's national democratic, club degenerate 30th18 -- january 30, 1995. "it is not enough to have a catchy ad on monday. we need to do this every day of

the weakened brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way -- day of the week and brainwashed people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way." >> i was talking about young black men who have had all kinds of images thrown at them. at that time, washington, d.c., was the murder capital of young black men. i said we need to counter those images and i used the word brainwashed to get those young black guys to think differently about the possession of guns. >> do you think the aggressive prosecution of gun crimes as part of the answer as well -- is part of the answer as well? >> absolutely. i also think preventing people from acquiring guns and using them in inappropriate ways -- i

saw an ocean of young black men who should have been a feature of this community go to this jail because they have guns, use them inappropriately, killed people. i thought in that speech -- what i tried to do with to come up with ways to talk to these young guys and convince them that acquiring guns and using them to sell drugs, robbed people was wrong. in addition to strongly prosecuting them, when i was a judge, i send people away for possession and use of guns for extended periods of time. >> in conclusion, the fbi figures revealed from 2010 that more than 76,000 people attempting to buy guns built background checks. we do not know how many of these people have committed crimes the bureau of atf -- have committed

crimes. out of 76,000 failed background checks, your department pursued a guilty verdict in just 13 cases. how is that consistent with making violation of crime in deterrence at the likelihood of prosecution is so slight? >> the primary purpose of the background check is to make sure people who should not have guns denied get them. since 1998, 1.5 million people have been turned away. of all the federal gun prosecution's bring, one seventh are gun prosecution's. those caeses for people are denied the opportunity to get a gun are reviewed for prosecution and purposes and determinations are made as to whether they

should be prosecuted. one of the things i want to look at is whether or not we need to bring more of those cases. if we are going to be cracking down on ugun crime, there are reasonable explanations as to why we have those numbers but i want to make certain we are prosecuting all the people we should who had been denied -- failing one of the background checks systems. we have limited resources and we have to try to figure out where we want to use those. one has to look at why the gun was denied and determination on whether or not we should use those sources to bring prosecution against that person. >> a crime not prosecuted does not produce the kind of deterrence we would want to prevent other people from committing similar crimes. do you agree with that?

>> you are several minutes over. >> you have been very indulgent but i would like a simple answer to the question. >> deterrence comes in a number of forms. some are deterred by the prospect of jail, others by the prospect of having filled out a form and then having been turned down. it depends on the individual. those are the kinds of factors be taken to account when making determinations as to whether a prosecution should be appropriately brought. >> take very much. i want to say welcome attorney general holder and thank you for your service. it is apparent you have a very hard job and a hard time. i want to say something to you on the office of legal counsel opinions. our job is vigorous oversight of the intelligence community.

we cannot do this unless we see the legal underpinnings for certain kinds of activities, particularly clandestine activities. i believe the committee is fully united on that point. i believe the administration will have to come to terms with this. i would like to ask you to spend time and take a good look at it. i have been sitting here reading the white paper you sent to this committee on the subject of lawfulness of the illegal operation directed against a u.s. citizen, a senior operational leader of al qaeda. this is committee confidential but it is not classified. the fact of the matter is it is a 16 page, very hostile and

aggressive opinion yet it cannot go into the public domain. i cannot ask you about some of the factors of this opinion even here and i think that's a mistake. i think the world we are now living in is so different and precise that the legal underpinnings for action really are important. it is one thing for a president to ask for a legal opinion prior to something that is ongoing. it seems to me that after words, we should have the opportunity to assess the legality of that and if necessary, be able to clarify law, change a law, the whatever a constitutional legislative body does. i would just ask you to take a look at this. we have now -- i just got a

note. it has been release now because it was leaked first. >> that is one way of getting it out. >> i think that gives you an idea of the situation we are in from an intelligence point of view, it is vital. you get down to different committees. let's say that predator is taken out of the jurisdiction of intelligence and put in the military agreed that transfers the jurisdiction to armed forces. let's say it is used in some way that brings the jurisdiction to this committee. i think we now have to look at that arena and make some decisions as to the administration being more forthcoming with the legal device that underpins lawmaking.

[applause] >> please don't. would you agree. >> the president has heard you and others who are raised this concern on both sides of the aisle. i think what you will hear from the president in a short period of time -- we have talked about a need for greater transparency in what we share, what we talk about. i a m confident that if the american people had access to for instance -- some of this stuff could not be shared but opinions,those olc there would be a greater degree of comfort and. this government does the things reluctantly but we do it in conformity with international law, domestic law and with our values.

i think there is going to be a greater effort at transparency. and number of steps are going to be taken. i expect you will hear the president speaking about this. >> right now we have someone exercising a hold on john brennan said what we are talking about is your eating dinner in your house or at a cafe and walking down the road in this country and can be targeted for elimination. i do not believe that is true. it is one thing after a major attack like 911 where we saw a great people take down a plane because they heard his claims were being crossed into buildings and there was a likelihood this one was going to crash into the u.s. capitol, so people on the plane to get down. then there was discussion as to whether a president should order

a plan taken down with american citizens if it was going to jeopardize a greater number of american citizens. this to some extent is something we have to grapple with in a legal way as well. in reading the opinions i have just read, i believe they are very sound opinions. i believe the opinions are very sound opinions. i also believe those withdrawn from the bush administration and obama administration, they are not, in my view, a good opinions. they were opinion is designed to divide whatever the president or the administration was asking for. i think this is where transparency is important. years after, we have an opportunity to look and make judgments as to whether our democracy and our values are being operated by the executive

in a proper manner. >> i think there is a greater need for transparency, a greater need for appropriately sharing information, and we are struggling with how to do that. it is something the president feels strongly about. over the next few months, you will see an effort on the part of the administration to be more transparent. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for being here this morning. i would like to address three areas and i would like to start at the topic you were discussing, the topic of drums. -- drones. in your response yesterday, you suggested there may be

circumstances in which is permissible to use drones to target a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil. you pointed to deed -- two, pearl harbor and 911, both average -- both of which were extreme military attacks on the homeland. if an individual is sitting quietly at a cafe, in the united states, in your legal judgment, does the constitution allowed a u.s. citizen on u.s. store -- u.s. oil to be killed by a drone? >> sitting in a cafe having a cup of coffee? >> if that individual is not posing an immediate threat of death corporate bodily harm? >> i do not think you could arrests that person on that basis. >> the person is suspected to be a terrorist. have abundant evidence. he is involved in a terrorist

spot. he is not planning a bazooka at the pentagon. the united states government uses drones to take out individuals when they are sitting at a cafe. a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil is not posing an immediate threat to life or bodily harm, does the constitution allowing drawn to kill and citizen? >> i do not think that it be inappropriate use of any kind of legal force. we would deal with that in a way we would typically deal with that situation. >> my question was not about the appropriateness or discretion. it was a simple legal question. does the constitution allowed a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil who does not pose an imminent threat to be killed by the u.s. government? >> i do not believe that -- again, all of the facts. on the facts you have given me, this is a hypothetical, i do not think in that situation the use

of john or legal force would be appropriate. -- use of drones or legal force would be a corporate. >> in that, which was deliberately simple, you could not give the answer now. i think it is very simple. if that individual did not pose an individual threat, it would be a deprivation of life without due process. >> i said the use of lethal force, drones, guns, or what ever else would not be appropriate that circumstance. >> you keep saying appropriate. my question is about whether it would be constitution or not. you are the chief legal officer of the united states. do you have a legal judgment on whether it would be constitutional to kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil in those

circumstances? >> a person that was not engaged. this is a hypothetical. the way you have described this person sitting at the cafe not doing anything imminently, the use of lethal force -- legal force would not be appropriate, would not be about -- would not be something -- >> i find it remarkable you will not -- >> i thought i was saying no. >> while, then, i am glad. after much gymnastics, i am glad to hear is the opinion of the department of justice that it would be unconstitutional to kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil if he did not pose an immediate threat. i wish you had given that statement in response to the letter asking you it. i will be introducing legislation in the senate to make clear the u.s. government cannot kill a u.s. citizen on

u.s. soil absence of an imminent threat. based on that representation, i hope the department will support that legislation. >> that is consistent with the letter i sent. i talked about 911 and pearl harbor. those are the instances where i said it might possibly be considered. other than that, we would use our normal law enforcement authorities in order to resolve situations along those lines and use the normal things you would do. >> i like to move on. in 2010, congress and heard evidence and the department of justice declined to enforce laws against member of the new black panther party. -- the department of justice declined to enforce voting

discrimination laws against members of the black panther party. in 2011, the department of justice released a statement saying that the department would no longer defend the constitutionality of the defense of marriage act, which passed with overwhelming both houses of congress and signed into law. last year in 2012, the department of homeland security announced that it would no longer enforce our nation's immigration laws against individuals designated by the president. my question to you is are there any other laws passed by this congress that the department of justice does not intend to enforce? >> it is the tradition of the department to always enforce laws where there is a reasonable basis to argue for the enforcement of those laws. i have sent memos or letters to the speaker of the house where we have declined to support laws and enforce laws that congress has passed for a variety of reasons. with regard to doma where we declined to defend that statute that courts subsequently have agreed with us applying that standard of heightened security

that in fact, doma was unconstitutional. >> there was a bit of a slight of hand. you said courts goode on the merits of the issue, that is different from saying there is no reasonable basis to defend the statute. department'sot the position every case that the department loses a case i will will not defend the statute. what process does the department engage in to determine which federal laws it will follow and which it will not? >> there is a presumption that we will apply and support any law that congress passes. it is the rare instance that we will not. doma was one of those and there wasn't a reasonable basis to defend the statute applying the heightened scrutiny statute. >> let me very briefly address one other area.

many attention has focused on the fast and furious program and the tragic consequences of that. was the white house involved in any way whatsoever indecision making concerning fast and furious? >> no. >> given that, last year, my understanding is you asserted executive privilege against handing over documents concerning fast and furious. executive privilege protects communications and advice with the president. if the white house was not involved executive privilege does not apply to those documents. if executive privilege does apply to those documents, it

necessarily implies that the white house and the president personally was involved. which of the two is it? >> you are cutting too fine a line. the president, the white house is not involved in the operational component of fast and furious. there were conversations between the justice department and the white house about the operation after all of the operative facts had occurred, after all of the cover -- controversial actions were taken and got into the situation where we were talking about the congressional investigation of fast and furious, there were communications between the white house and justice

department. >> did i understand you correctly -- my time has expired. is it your position that executive privilege only applies after the details of fast and furious became public and subsequent communications but no executive privilege that is applicable before it becoming public because as you said, the white house was not involved in any way, shape or form? >> the executive privilege protects the white house and executive branch agency and to my knowledge, there are no communications that deal with the operational components of fast and furious between the white house and justice department. >> so the executive privilege does not apply? >> there is nothing there for executive privilege to apply to. >> senator whitehouse.

>> thank you for the initial statement that the administration has put it under a separation of powers framework. there is a lot of work ahead of us to work out the details but it's an important for the administration. and thank you for your executive order which was a vital step and remain disappointed that we didn't pass legislation to address this pressing issue. senator graham and i are continuing to work on supplementing the executive order with bipartisan legislation that i think is vital for our country. let me chime in on the question of getting the response to the request for the record that was

made last june when you were last here and which we still have no response to. i understand that it's tied to o.m.b. but presumably they could put it into the calculation of when letters are prepared for you. >> not only o.m.b. there is something within the department where we need to be more responsive. but executive branch agencies, equity in these responses. it's not strictly o.m.b. >> pretty long run for getting an answer. >> i agree with that. >> we are looking forward to having a hearing on the resources of the department and the strategy of the department

on cyber prosecutions and on the actions against -- the case was good and i understand there have been awards given to the participants, which i commend you for. but i would have it would have been a model for a great number of other type of legal efforts to clean them out of the web and hasn't been pursued as a model or strategy. and to my knowledge, there hasn't been a single cyber prosecution brought against a hacker like we know china is doing that comes in purely through the web, raids an american company for its intellectual property, takes the property out and uses it as industrial espionage. i know there have been cases made for espionage and sometimes involve cyber, but there has been a tangible link of some kind, somebody with the cd in their pocket leaving the

factory. so i think anybody who has been in the trenches understands how immensely complicated and resource-intensive these cases are and at a time in diminishing budgets it's time to focus the real light to focus on how important these cases are and would you be willing to work with us and send appropriate d.o.j. officials to a hearing. >> that could be particularly useful as we try to explain the issues that we confront in bringing these cases, the resource issues that we have. but also to hear suggestions. with regard to how we might do these cases so i think that kind of interaction would be something we will send witnesses to.

>> appreciate it. similarly, we are looking at the enforcement of campaign finance laws. there appears to be a considerable zrep answery between in -- zrepssi, between applications made to the i.r.s. status and the identity once it's out acting in that political world and we would like to look further into that and would ask cooperation from the department from a witness at a hearing to that question. >> we will be glad to participate in that we have as

one of our enforcement responsibilities the campaign finance laws. there is an election crime section within the public integrity section. this is something that we do. and we would be more than glad to interact with you and have a hearing in that regard. >> good. and the last thing that i'll raise, the margolis memorandum needs to be retracted by the department. it is a continuing burr under my saddle that we could expect of the members of the department of justice, particularly those at the office of legal counsel who are often the best and the brightest that the legal

profession has. they are on to a supreme court seat and immensely talented people and the notion that they don't have to meet the same stands of diligence and candor that an evidence lawyer does hustling into the courthouse in providence with five files under his arm is to me something that i'm just going to continue to press on until that gets resolved. i'll mention that to you once again now and we'll continue to follow up. i bring it up every time from a person from the department of justice comes to see me and whenever candidates for nomination -- for confirmation come to see me. i know it brought a resolution to an unhappy period in the department but it did so by cutting acorn that should not have been cut. and i think the standards should be higher, not lower. i appreciate very much your service to our country, as former member of the department of justice. i look at real dismay what is happening to it prior to your tenure. and i continue to express pride and enthusiasm and increasing morale as the leadership you have provided. >> very kind. you and i can have a conversation about the margolis theory memo. you and i can have a more detailed conversation about that to the extent you have those issues. i would like to hear what they are. >> thank you very much, senator whitehouse. senator flake is not here. senator klobuchar is not here. senator graham is here. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. we have been talking about the war on terror ever since you have been doing this job. and i want to congratulate you and the president. i think you have thought hard and long under difficult circumstances. i want to applaud your efforts with the drone program. it has helped us in afghanistan

and pakistan and i just believe this is a tactical tool that this president should be using and using it responsibly. is al qaeda actively involved recruiting american citizens to their cause? >> i certainly know of efforts that al qaeda has made. >> we don't disclose that the al qaeda organization is actively involved in seeking american citizens' support. in every war we have had, unfortunately americans have sided with the enemy, few in number. we had american citizens helping the germans who tried to blow up infrastructure in the united states. >> those cases were tried right down the hall from my office. >> it's a long standing proposition that an american

citizen who joins the forces of our enemies can be considered an enemy combatant, do you agree with that? >> yes. >> the point i'm trying to make, hypothetically, if there are patriot missile batteries around this capitol and other key governmental infrastructures to keep the capitol from an attack, it would be lawful for those batteries to launch, is that correct? >> to launch -- >> against the

threat? if there was intelligence that an airplane was coming towards the capitol or the white house that had been hijacked, it would be ok for our military to act, wouldn't it? >> yes. >> it would be an imminent threat and the military has the legal authority under the constitution and the authorization to use military force to strike back against al qaeda, is that correct? >> yes. >> when we say congress gave every administration the authorization to use military force against al qaeda, we didn't exempt the homeland, did we? >> no. >> wouldn't it be crazy to

exempt the homeland and say for some reason the military can't defend here? >> that's right. the question is what forces do we use. >> and i totally agree with you that the likelihood of capture is very high in america and we have a lot of law enforcement agencies available and that we would put them out front, but certainly most law enforcement agencies don't have patriot missile batteries. so that's a good example of where the military can provide capacity to protect the homeland against a terrorist act that law enforcement can't.

>> that would be the real case, but in the letter that i sint to senator paul is one of the reasons i referenced september 11. >> let's go back in time. what we would all give to have those patriot missile batteries available on september 10, 2001 in new york city and washington? it would have meant we would have lost a plain load of american citizens but saved thousands more. that's the world in which we live in. and i want to stand by you and the president to make sure that we don't criminalize the war and the commander in chief

continues to have the authority to protect us all and i've got a lot of my colleagues who are well meaning, but there is only one commander in chief in our constitution, do you agree with that? >> >> that's true. one of the most difficult decisions to give that order. >> and i want you to know from senator graham's point of view that you have the authority and authorization to use military force to take such action and i know you will if put in that position. about where this war is going, we are winding down afghanistan, do you think the al qaeda threat is over? >> no. the al qaeda threat as we knew

it traditionally focused in pakistan, core al qaeda has been greatly weakened, but there are nodes in different places on the arabian peninsula and north africa. >> what would your message to any american citizen thinking of col baiting with al qaeda at home or abroad, what would you say to them? >> if you align yourself with al qaeda, you are taking arms against your nation and you then will be subject to the full weight of the american military. >> and law enforcement community. >> and law enforcement. whatever tools we have.

>> i want to say i believe article 3 courts have a robust role on the war on terror and i want to say that military commissions have their place also, do you agree with that statement? >> sure. >> let's turn to another topic where we probably won't agree. this committee will be taking up legislation about banning assault weapons. are you familiar with the ar-15?

>> i'm familiar with it, yes. >> just generally speaking. >> i might have shot one at the f.b.i. academy. >> you are aware over four million have been purchased by american citizens? >> it's a very popular weapon. >> any weapon can be dangerous, i will be the first to admit that. can you imagine a circumstance

where the ar-15 would be a better defense weapon than a double-barrel shotgun. where you have a natural disaster or some catastrophic event and those things do happen and law and order breaks down because the police can't travel, there is no communication and there are armed gangs running around neighborhoods, can you envision a situation where if your home happens to be in the crosshairs of this group, that it might be better to have an ar-15 than a double-barrel shotgun? >> we are dealing with a hypothetical. >> am i unreasonable to say i would prefer an ar-15? >> when you are dealing with a hypothetical -- >> i'm afraid that world existed, to some extent in new orleans. if there is a cyber attack against america and the power grid goes down and the dam is released and chemical plants discharged -- >> i don't think new orleans would have been better served with ar-15's.

>> if my family was in the cross-hairs of gangs roaming around neighborhoods and new orleans or any other location the deterrent effect of an ar-15 is greater than a double-barrel shotgun but the vice president and i have a disagreement on that. can i ask one more question? >> there was 76,142 people filled out a background check. 1,362 denied the background check because they were fugitives from justice. how many of those fugitives were apprehended?

>> i don't know what the numbersr but each of the cases are individually examined and determination is made as to whether or not prosecutions should be brought or where the prosecutions are. if you are talking about somebody who is a fugitive, i would agree with you, that should be a priority prosecution, but that person may not be there. >> i would suggest that 76,000 people failed a background check. only 62 were prosecuted and less than that number were convicted. obviously, we have some work to do when it comes to the current background system. thank you for your service. >> there have been questions asked about drones in the u.s. this committee will be holding a hearing on march 20. senator franken. >> i want to thank you, general holder for the department of justice's action in the proposition 8 case and the supreme court, brave decision on your part and powerful statement of the department's commitment to seek equality under the law for all people. in your testimony, you talk about the department's civil suit against s and p and you say the quote is you are seeking billion dollars in damages for alleged conduct that goes to the heart of the recent economic crisis, and i totally agree with that. i think the credit rating agencies because of -- the basic conflict of interest that is inherent and the issuer pays model where the issuer of a security chooses and pays one of the big three it was, moody's, s

and p and some degree, fitch and the rating agencies gave out a.a.a. ratings to junk because they wanted to keep the business. and in the d.o.j. case, as part of the evidence, emails from between people at s and p saying look, we know this isn't deserving of a a.a.a. but we have to give it that. >> i don't want to go beyond the indictment. but that information or those kinds of emails are contained in the indictment. >> this is a statement by d.o.j. s and p falsely represented that its ratings were objective and not influenced by sap's relationship with jefment banks but its desire led it to favor the interests of these banks over investors. >> we believe our evidence will show that. >> now you say this goes to the heart of the recent economic crisis. isn't that because once they ran out of mortgages to securityize and subprime mortgages, and they gave a.a.a. ratings, right? >> i'm not an expert but when you start talking about the bets on bets, that is correct. but i'm not an economist or financial guy. >> i understand that. when you say it goes to the heart of the recent economic crisis, what i'm saying is is that this house of cards that collapsed would have been one card high if they hadn't given a.a.a. derivatives and derivatives on derivatives. >> the asergs you are making are correct that the financial system made bets on bets giving ratings to derivatives that were not necessarily deserved. i'm not talking s.a. -- s. and p now.

>> this prosecution, it goes to the heart of why our economy collapsed and what it was was that the credit rating agencies had -- there was a conflict of interest they had because they knew if they gave a a.a.a. rating they would get more business. that's essentially what the case is about. >> that's the essence of the government's theory. >> senator wicker and i wrote an amendment to dodd-frank which said -- that gave s.e.c. the ability to address that, to

eliminate the conflict of interest and that passing the amendment was -- in a bipartisan way, 64 votes, it got to conference and became a study that said that if the s.e.c. finds this conflict of interest still exists that they will address that conflict of interest and get rid of it. that's happened. and i think that is absolutely crucial that the s.e.c. act on that. so i wanted to just use your testimony get on my little soap box -- big soap box here, but i think it's absolutely crucial. i want to ask you about an entirely different matter, last fiscal year, 14,000 children arrived at our borders alone

and subsequently entered our immigration courts system. since 2008, the department of health and human services has been in charge making sure that these children have access to legal representation. unfortunately, experts report half of these children are getting lawyers. my office has started to hear stories of eight-year-old kids, six-year-old children going before immigration judges by themselves without representation. attorney general holder, experts have suggested that transferring the job of getting these kids lawyers to be transferred out of h.h.s. and into the department of justice i'm considering this proposal closely.

do you support doing this? >> we want to work with you in coming up with ways to ensure that children do have legal representation. if this is something that is better housed in the justice department, it is something we are willing to consider. but this is going to be a resource issue. we shouldn't give this responsibility to the justice department. as part of the immigration reform pack acknowledge we are considering it is inexcuseable that young kids and you are right, six, seven-year-olds have immigration decisions made on their behalf, against them, and they aren't represented which counsel. that is not who we are as a nation. >> i hope our offices can work together. you are absolutely right.

this is unconscionable. thank you, mr. chairman. senator grassley? >> once again, thank you for coming up here. i want to follow up on your response to senator cruz and i think he talked about introducing a bill. do you believe that congress has the constitutional authority passing a law prohibiting the president to use lethal force against american citizens on u.s. soil? and if not, why not? >> congress has the ability to pass -- >> whether the legislation -- well, congress has the constitutional authority to pass a law prohibiting the president's to use lethal force against american citizens on u.s. soil? >> i'm not sure such a bill would be constitutional. i would have to look at the legislation, but i would have that concern. >> but your basis is is because

of article 2? >> i believe so >> one last question in that area, given the belief that it would be constitutional to use lethal force against american citizens on u.s. soil in some instances as you said, would that theory extend to permitting the executive branch to use enhanced interrogation techniques against american citizens on u.s. soil to avoid a catastrophic event? >> i don't think those techniques should be used against anybody. they are ineffective and inconsistent with how we think of ourselves as a nation and outright torture. >> on another issue in regard to a letter you wrote to chairwoman mikulski on the budget control act in cutting $1.6 billion from the current level which would have serious consequences. specifically the letter detail cuts to the f.b.i. suggesting furlough of 775 special agents, most important assets to the national security and law enforcement. but the reality is as of yesterday, the department of justice was advertising for over 100 job openings on u.s.a. jobs web site. these include positions such as cook supervisor, dental hygienist, law librarian. and the department's web site

has over 50 attorney positions listed since january 14. the memorandum was being issued by o.m.b. so i'm skeptical about your description of severe negative impacts on the impact including the estimated loss of federal agents fighting national security. further, your letter to the chairwoman failed to discuss cuts to conference expenditures, which more than doubled between 2008, 2010 and failed to discuss reductions in travel or other nonmission expenditures. what has a high priority when it comes to sequester? how do you reconcile the fact

that the department is actively recruiting for hundreds of positions, including cooks and dental hygienists but you threaten to furlough 775 f.b.i. agents working on violent crimes? >> if the sequestration stays in effect, we are going to have to furlough f.b.i. agents. what i have told the people in the department is that hiring has to stop. doesn't mean that we should stop the process of going through the interviews so when the sequestration is over and funds are returned to us, we have the ability to fill gaps that we will have through

attrition. we want to be in a position on the other end to have people in line to take positions that might be available but there won't be anybody brought on into the department of justice while sequestration is in effect. i made that clear to the heads. you can do the interviews and all that stuff and maybe have a person that you want to have in place once we are on the other side of sequestration. >> how does your direction to the chairwoman comply with o.m.b.'s memorandum to cuts? >> well, what we are talking about is just interviewing people and making sure that these are potentially people we might want to hire. the costs are minimal. >> how about cutting the 700 or so f.b.i. agents? how does comport with the memo of o.m.b. on minimizing? >> we have a certain amount of flexibility in the way the sequester is structured. you look at the various components within the department and there is little or nothing i can do with regard to the f.b.i. has taken in terms of a cut and we are the resources that we have, the money in the department of justice is in our people. we don't have airplanes. we don't fly huge amounts of

planes. we don't have planes like the defense department. when it comes to reducing costs, i can furlough people and do things on the other side, conferences and things of that nature. the main we we have to reduce costs is with regard to furloughing our people which will have a negative impact on our ability to do our job the american people expect us to do. >> the o.m.b. memo requested proposals from the department and i asked you for a copy of these. would you provide these draft proposals to the committee so we can review what cuts the department requested and what o.m.b. recognized? >> i'm not sure i understand your question. >> o.m.b. sends you recommendations and then you send back what you are going to do. i want those documents so i can compare the -- what you recommended to what o.m.b. said should be -- have a higher priority. >> i'm not sure -- >> called

passbacks. >> i'm not sure what the administration's position. but draft correspondence between an agency and o.m.b. about decisional matters would be the kinds of material we would seek to protect. >> my time is up, i heard in an interview that you said for the people that voted for the effort contempt effort against you that you didn't have respect for people like that. i'm extremely disappointed. i voted for you based on the fact that giving you the benefit of the doubt and disregarding previous cover cyst. it seems to me your comments show a disregard and that is quite shocking and i don't think you should have said it and you owe the people an apology. >> let me just say what i don't

respect is the process. it was an effort that had a predetermined result. whatever we did in good faith was met by passing political determinations and that is a process that i don't respect and the people who pushed it are people as i said before, i stand by that, the people who pushed it i don't respect because it isn't consistent with cabinet members weren't treated when the gun lobby decided to score that vote, it was clear how the vote was going to turn

out and it became something other than what it was portrayed to be and i don't respect. >> how can they take it up. >> history has shown in the past there was a much greater period of time for those kinds of negotiations to occur. if you look at what happened with harriet meirs and josh bolton, you will see the period we were given to try to respond to and negotiate was much, much shorter. there was a desire to get a certain point and they got there. >> i would say i agree with your answer. senator klobuchar. >> thank you. thank you, attorney general holder. i told you the other day senator lee and i are heading up the antitrust subcommittee and holding a hearing on the merger. but i'm wondering your views on some of the areas where we will see more potential action in antitrust, whether it's transportation, whether it's in health care industry, whether it is with communications where there has been a lot of action in that area and what direction

do you see the department taking with antitrust? >> you have hit many of the areas that are going to be our focus. communications. and talking about spending time with regard to airline mergers. health care. all things that impact the american consumers. what we have tried to do in the antitrust division is focus our efforts in such a way that we benefit the american people with regard to lower prices, more competition and wherever we find the agricultural field, wherever we find instances there is inappropriate activity being taken that will have a negative impact on the american consumer, we will be there. >> i look forward to that hearing. second thing i want to talk

about was the issue of -- i have seen increases of it in my state. we met at an electric company in minnesota about this. senator graham and i have a bill to up some of the penalties when copper and other metals are stolen from critical infrastructure. we are seeing nearly a billion dollars in damage across our country. the most striking example, 200 bronze stars were stolen from a grave in minnesota, from the graves of veterans and people are getting desperate to steal this metal. electric companies have been broken into 10 times in st. paul that experienced hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages. and one of the fears is because people have died because taking one pipe can do millions of dollars in damage. and i wanted you to comment on that. >> as i said to you, this is

something that had not entered by consciousness and i have talked to a couple of people in the department who indicate that what you said was, in fact, true, that this is a growing problem and it is one that i think we need to devote resources to, attention to. this is not something that i was frankly aware of. but given the nature of what people have told me within the department, which is the potential harm not only in the theft of the material, but the problems that the theft actually present sip tates, houses blowing up, gas lines being ruptured, that this is something that we have to -- it's a new problem that we are going to have to focus on. >> briefly on this, i wanted you to know i'm continuing work on drug courts.

a former congressman talked about this in the last congress about how drug courts have transformed the way we handle criminal cases. they are incredibly important as a prosecutor. i know you cared about this. we have a groundbreaking court and we have one in hennepin. the "new york times" had a story last weekend about federal judges administering drug court programs. if you want to comment briefly on that. >> i think that we have to try to use drug courts to a greater extent. they have germly proven to be successful. what we try to do is to use the criminal justice system in an appropriate way. sometimes people have to go to jail. a great number of people need to kick their habit. and if we can use the criminal justice -- the penalties of the criminal justice system as a hammer to keep that over people's heads and keep them in treatment, we have seen amazing success rates and a much lower residism rate and saves us money over the long haul.

and something that is worthy of a greater support. >> in our state, we have one the lowest rates in the country and we we have one of the lower crime rates. i think it's important and i hope you'll support and the administration will support continued funding. we do have bipartisan support for it. areast's one of those where we have to understand that whatever we invest up front, we are going to reap more money in savings down the roads. it is clear. >> and last thing i wanted to mention, you and i were in selma, alabama and part of the weekend was the way the police chief in montgomery handing over to john lewis to apologize. and you gave a beautiful speech on sunday. and i wanted to follow up with

some questions about that. we know the supreme court recently heard the voting rights act case. can you talk about the implication of a court decision for voting rights? >> i can't comment too much because it is an independent case. the united states were a different place. the south is a different place, and yet the need for section 5 i think is still evident. if you look at the cases we brought in the last 18 months, two years or so, in texas, south carolina, florida, the ability to preclear things that those states wanted to do, the findings made by the three- judge panels that supported the justice department's position, given all the progress we have made, the problems persist and

section 5 which is a critical part of the voting rights act should remain a tool that we have the ability to use. >> also just to note, i'm reintroducing the same-day registration bill and we have been able to have elections with the highest if not one of the highest voter turnouts in the country and i don't know if you know that is a long-term solution? >> we need to try to expand the number of people who participate and make it as easy as we can being mindful for the potential for fraud but come up with ways, same-day registration, portable registration and expanding the number of days people can cast ballots, that is the thing that dines this nation, our ability to vote, our ability to shape the congress that represents us on the state level as well. that's how people decide the future of our nation. and efforts to restrict the vote i think have to be fought, efforts to expand the vote, ability of people to vote have to be supported. >> thank you, attorney general, for your good work.

>> last month, i joined a bipartisan group of senators in sending a letter to your department asking for any and all memoranda you might have that seek to provide legal justification or legal framework for making decisions regarding the targeted killing of american citizens using drones. the letter noted that senior intelligence officials have indicated that your department's office of legal counsel had prepared some written, but nonpublic legal opinions that articulate the basis for that authority. and notwithstanding that request, neither i nor members of this committee have received the o.l.c. memoranda. now somebody indicated earlier during this meeting that they thought that that memo, that the o.l.c. memo might have been leaked. it is not my understanding that

it has been. what has been leaked is something that has been released by nbc news. it carries a heavy nbc watermark on it. it appears to provide a narrower perhaps more condensed legal analysis than what is available in the office of legal counsel memoranda. i turn back to the white paper in a minute, don't you think that this committee has an important oversight role over the department of justice's role in this analysis? >> yes, i do.

and i have heard the committee expressly desire to see these memoranda and i will be bringing that to the attention of the appropriate people within the administration. i'm not unsympathetic to what you are saying. >> you are the attorney general and they will respect the process. are you saying you will make that available to us as members of the judiciary committee? >> i will bring that desire and my view to those are in a position to make those kinds of determination. i'm only one of those people. >> i understand. you do have clients within the government and you have to consult with them.

i would strongly urge you to make that pitch quickly and that's important for us to review that as members of the judiciary committee which has oversight over your department. one of the reasons i think that is so important as i reviewed this department of justice office of legal counsel -- not sure where, but the white paper, as i review that, it raises more questions in my mind than it answers. the gist of this white paper as i see it says that the u.s. government may in fact target and kill american citizens using drones where there is an imminent threat, imminent threat of a national security sort to the united states, its citizens, its installations and so forth.

that is a fairly familiar standard in the law and yet as you read on in this white paper, it becomes apparent to me that the definition of imminent used in this paper is different than almost any other definition i have seen. on page 7 of the white paper, the white paper goes so far as to suggest that imminent doesn't mean too imminent. specifically, it says that this condition, that of imminent, does not require the united states to have clear evidence that a specific attack on u.s. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. but i have to ask, mr. attorney general, what does it meanf it doesn't mean something imminent? >> part of the problem is what we talked about in the previous question. i think the white paper becomes more clear if it can be eed in conjunction with the underlying o.l.c. advice. in the speech that i gave at northwestern, i talked about imminent threat and i said it incorporated three factors, a relevant window, opportunity to attack, the possible harm it would cause to civilians and heading off all future disasters and attacks against the united states.

that's part of it. and without taking the position one way or the other, it is one of the strongest reasons why the sharing of the opinions -- the advice, the o.l.c. advice of this committee makes sense. >> you can understand my concern, as a lawyer who really knows a lot about these things you understand if that were the standard could be manipulated and give americans a lot of pause. i strongly encourage you to make that available to us. there are other aspects of the white paper that trigger this concern and i would like to find out if your response is the same. the white paper notes that the president must find in order for a drone attack on a u.s. citizen to occur, that the president must make a finding that capture of the individual is not feasible. but then the white paper goes on to state that capture is by operation of the memo's analysis, not feasible, if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window.

it makes no definition of the relevant window of opportunity. meaning whatever it is that the president decides it is. and can you understand how that could be cause for concern? and isn't that fraught for manipulation? >> there is a certain degree of objectivity there in the sense that people become potentially captureable overseas venues at certain times and they become -- that window of opportunity creases to exist when they move or we lose track of them. so that i tend to understand. >> so do i understand you saying that the office of legal counsel memorandum which we might have the opportunity to review would provide further clarification on this point and would answer some of the questions that we

have about the vagueness of that standard? >> i'm not sure. i'm just not sure. >> let me ask one other question, on another related point. in the last few months members of your department including assist ant attorney general perez have stated that the department of justice is considering certain reforms to the voter registration system. for example, perez stated that it should be the government's responsibility to automatically register citizens to vote compiling from data bases that exist. these statements and others can be read to suggest that there might be an increased role for the federal government to play in voter registration. voter registration is something as you know has been carried out exclusively by the states so it raises some federalism-

related concerns with regard to the traditional role in running elections. is it the department's view that is it the department's view that it has current statutory authority to promulgate regulations that would centralize voter registration in the federal government or increase the federal government's role in elections? >> the department of justice trying to incentivize states to come up with mechanisms so they would come up -- i mean, this is something that is of primary responsibility of the states. i think the federal government can help the states in the carrying out of that responsibility. >> you would agree that the federal government lacks statutory authority to centralize it? >> yes. but there are certain times when the federal government -- there are statutes that allow

the federal government to become involved in the election processes that are normally carried out by the states. >> thank you, attorney general. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> great to be with you again. let me start with one question that has been fairly uniform across this entire committee today from chairman leahy to senator lee about the killing of the target. i share the frustration and concerns about transparency on targeted killings and one specific question on that. would you as we go forward support any form of judicial review in this context including the limited sort we have in fisa. would this move it forward? >> that is worthy of consideration. i want to make sure that the inclusion of a court did not, for instance, have some kind of

inhibitting impact in the operations, but i think as john brennan testified during his confirmation hearings that is something worthy of consideration and something we ought to think about potentially making a part of the decision-making process. >> i look forward to working with you on that. you can hear unanimous concern about transparency and how to move forward in a way that protects both our constitutional liberties and our security as a nation. we just spent a great weekend together in selma and wonderful to meet your wife and hear her family's role in an important piece of american history. as we sit wondering what will happen to section 5, i'm concerned about section 5 of the national voter registration act, the motor-voter act, something that isn't currently under review. i'm hoping that the department is going to take up its

enforcement obligation more actively. my sense is there have been very few actions taken on motor-voter and could make a positive contribution to voter participation. is the reason that there really hasn't been an active d.o.j. action a resource issue? we heard about sequester, or things we need to be doing to ensure that the critical part of this is used more actively? >> we have taken certain actions and we fide lawsuits against rhode island and louisiana, something going on in florida, these are matters that i think -- i'm not sure we are underenforcing it, but you hear this from all of the agencies that appear before you, we could use more when it comes to resources. it's a vital tool.

and to increase the number of eligible citizens that can vote and make sure they are accurate in federal elections. this is something we want to know and one of the things we talk to tom perez, my guess would be we would like to do more -- i need more people. i think that's what he would say. >> we would be happy to have that conversation given the critical importance of voting. and as you have discussed with other members of this panel today, should there be a change in the section 5, i would love to work with you if there is room going forward for expedited proceedings and making sure that the voting cases get heard and strengthening or placement of the voting rights act. another area where i think resources is a critical issue and there may be a solution.

in intellectual property, i come out of manufacturing and manufacturing relies on trade secrets protection as much as on patenting for critical steps in manufacturing. and there has been a barage of assaults and theft of theft of intellectual property. there was a report documenting just widespread and you have spoken to this theft of american intellectual property. but the number of prosecution around trade secrets has been very light and i understand the limitations of resources. would a federal private right of action help accelerate perhaps some of the assertion of rights and the ability to pursue justice on behalf of american manufacturers? >> that is something we should talk about and discuss. my instincts take me in the direction where you are and perhaps something we ought to do. but i would like to work with

you and have the appropriate people from the department sit down and meet with your staff and talk about that possibility. but i do think the theft of intellectual property, trade secrets has a devastating impact on our economy, threatens our national security and is worthy of our attention. this is a problem that is large but is getting larger and something as you look over the horizon this is an area we will have to devote more attention as a nation. >> i'm glad to hear you say that, probably the most greatest widespread theft in human history and it does have negative impacts. let me point to a few programs that have a positive impact and with a modest investment of federal resources have a positive impact on public safety. we were suppose to have a

hearing today from kentucky and delaware about the initiative. you feel, the weather has led to its cancellation. it is a place where bipartisan bills at the state level have led to critical investments in improving criminal justice systemses. the partnership is something i value highly. i had a police officer from that was shot twice in the chest and survived. their lives were saved by this program and we should reauthorize this program and i look forward to working with you on that. the victims of child abuse act and the choiled advocate centers it funds, that you're familiar with, i think they are an enormous resource. they are interviewed once and it

has all the relevant folks there. the ones that i visited in new castle county, the circumstances that leads to these interviews are tragic, the resource by our law enforcement community is terrific. i'm hoping i could rely on your support for restoring funding for this small but powerful program in the f.y. 12 budget. any thoughts on the centers? >> i was one of the people that started the children advocate centers. i know the positive impact it has on victims of crime. the decision to eliminate this funding was a difficult one. the office of justice programs, as i talked to them after i spoke to you has come up with ways in which they think they

can prioritize grant making and training to help in that regard. but i'm going to, you know, i think as we look at the budget for the next year that given what we get from the advocate centers and the relatively small amount that is involved that this has to be part of the next budget. i'm not satisfied with where we are now on the present budget. i think that was a mistake. >> thank you mr. attorney germ. i look forward to working with you. all of us here recognize we have forced far too many of the cuts we made in the last two years just in the narrow area of domestic discretionary area that has affects on criminal justice, infrastructure and education. i look forward to finding a brooder solution. i'm grateful for your service.

>> thank you. >> [inaudible] >> senator blumenthal. >> good morning. thank you for being here and thank you for your leadership of the department of justice in scenarios that are so important. i want to thank you you and the president for your leadership on gun violence prevention, in particularly his and your commitment to the victims of newtown that are still grieving and hurting and your personal involvement trying to ease those continuing trauma that still affect themselves as repeatly as yesterday in our telephone conversation. i want to fose for the moment on gun violence prevention. as a law enforcement

professional, not just as attorney general but one that has been a judge and a prosecutor, we both agree that this ought to be the goal. yet, enforcement of some of these laws is em peeded by gaps in those laws, such as the absence of background checks on firearms, which now enables about 40% of all firearm purchases to go without any check whatsoever. you would agree with that, wouldn't you? >> we have loopholes as we describe them that makes the enforcement of existing laws difficult and render those existing laws not nearly as effective as they might otherwise be. >> those laws prohibit purchase of firearms by categories of

people, convicted felonies, drug addicts and domestic violence abusers. purchases of firearms and ammunition. both firearms and ammunition. right now there are no background checks as to purchases of ammunition, none whatsoever. as a matter of common sense as well as law enforcement professionalism, i think you would agree those laws are better enforced with background checks as to ammunition purchases. would you agree? >> i think -- i would like to discuss this with you some more. one of the concerns i have is a resource concern. i think theoretically what you're talking about makes sense -- i don't mean to diminish it.

i think it would have a positive impact. but the system i worry about being overburdened and making sure we would have the resources to do that. >> by way of background, i've asked two of the u.s. attorneys who have been active and aggressive and enforcers of these laws whether these laws can be enforced effectively without background checks on ammunition. to both both of us without a background check you do you have any effective way of enforcing that law, the prohibition of enforcing that law? his answer, no. when you're asked by my colleagues, why aren't you more aggressively enforcing these laws, why don't we have more

prosecution? the simple answer is there is no real way to enforce these bans on ammunition purchases or firearm purchase unless there are background checks. i understand and recognize with your point about resources. if we're serious about these gun violence prevention laws that keep ammunition and firearms out of the hands of criminals we need to strengthen the system so that we make these laws something more than just something that is a feel good set of words on a statute. >> you're slewly right, senator. that is -- absolutely right, senator. that is part of what the president has proposed to make more resources available a so it can be used in a way to support existing laws. people who say you don't enforce the laws don't want to give us the tools to enforce those very

laws. >> exactly. i want to thank you you and the president for that comment on resources. as a major component for the background check of ammunition, i'm looking for ways to modify this proposal so as to perhaps make it voluntary and give licensed dealers the access that they need to the system. as you know right now, they are barred from checking. they see somebody come in, a potential adam lanza who is buying hundreds of rounds, they have no way of checking whether he is a drug abuser, a domestic abuser, akon victed felony, a fugitive, anyone in those prohinted categories. they are at a loss for basic information to try to protect the public. the best intention can't help

them help you enforce the law. i'm hoping we can work together on this provision. i'm sympathetic on the resource issue. if it were my say alone, those resources would be available right now. >> let's see if we can work something out so you have that ability. >> thank you. let me move to another subject and i appreciate your answers on that one. wrongful foreclosures. among the military mortgage holders, there has been recent reports, just a few days ago in "the new york times," 700 members of the military had homes seized and other borrowers who were current on their mortgage payments had homes

seized. those improper evictions are dwarfing the numbers that were previously known. it is a sign of larger problem. a sign that the recent settlement may be based on untruthful information. more than an ample basis for an investigation for wrongful improper statements under federal law, punishable criminally. i would like your commitment, again, to work with me and others here to work on the possibility of investigation based on those disclosures that undermine the good faith and fairness of the settlement and the government's involvement in it. >> i will make that commitment. when i saw that in regards to military service members, i did

a take for something that is for veterans to make them aware of basic fraud that goes unreported by them. i tried to encourage them to share information of the chain of command. also make sure there is a mechanism from the defense department to the justice department that we're aware of trends they may exist along the line that you are describing. i will work with you on that. >> thank you. one final area that i think that should be an interest to you, sexual assault in the military is prosecuted and punished under its own system and yet, it is a predatorry criminal act that, in my view, should be punished with a severety and aggressiveness that is lacking right now.

as a member of the armed services committee, i'm seeking to help increase the completeness and fairness of this system to protect men and women from sexual assault. sometimes the most severe sexual assault imaginable. you have resources, a perspective as a prosecutor, obviously, the best prosecuters and investigative agency and i ask for your help with your expertise and prosecution of these laws. >> those are primarily the responsibility of the defense department. secretary panetta focused on that and i suspect that secretary hagel will as well. if we can help in that effort we want to do all we can.

i think about the young people who put their lives on the line in service to our nation, young women in particular and look at numbers that you see repeatedly year after year. that is a disturbing thing to think that you volunteered for your nation and as a result you become a victim of sexual assault. that is not acceptable. >> i want to make clear that my asking for your assistance is not to den grade the good faith and efforts of secretary hagel and the joint chiefs and all the military leadership to making this system work better. they are, in my view, thoroughly committed to that goal. thank you. >> thank you. >> it's been my experience that any time i call attorney general holder on any issue i was able

to contact almost immediately and i appreciate that. i appreciate that you came here today, i realize we're under horrible snow conditions, i think it is half an inch now. i had -- i head a weather report that for home that we had a weather report and snow would be gusting no more than 5-6 inches. in other news today, that the 5-6 inches would be interrupting a presidential press conference. one more question and we'll wrap up. >> this won't take seven minutes.

i did run over seven minutes, like we had several people here run over three minutes. on the issue of bank progs. i'm concerned that we have a mentality too big to jail spreading from fraud cases to terrorists cases and i site msnbc. that is background for this question, i don't have recollection of d.o.j. prosecuting any high profile financial criminal convictions in either companies or individuals. assistant attorney general brewer said that one reason why the d.o.j. has not brought out prosecutions because it reaches out to "experts" to see what the

prosecutions would have on the financial markets. so senator brown and i requested on details on who these so-called "experts" are. so far we have not received any information. maybe you're going to but why have we not been provided the experts that the d.o.j. consults that we requested on january 29. we need to find out why we're not having these high-profiles cases. then i have a formalup. >> we did not, as i understand it, retain experts outside the government in making determinationses. if we can put that aside, the concern that you have raised is one that i share. i'm not that you can talking about hsbc now. i'm concerned the size of these

institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we're hit with indications that if you do prosecutor, if you bring a -- prosecute, if you bring a negative charge it will be have an impact on the world economy. that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large. this is a general comment. i think it has an inhibiting impact to bring resolutions that i think would be more appropriate. ic that is something that we all need to consider. the concern that you raise is one that i share. >> then do you believe that the investment bankers who were repackaging and selling bad mortgages were committing a

criminal fraud? or is a case of just not being aggressive and effective enough to have the information to prove that they did something fraudulent and criminal? >> we looked at those kind of cases and i think we've been appropriately aggressive. these are not easy cases to make. you sometimes look at these cases and you see that things were done wrong. the question is whether or not they were legal. the people in our criminal division and in our attorney's office has been as aggressive as they could be. i know in some instances that is not a satisfying answer to people but we have, as i said, as aggressive as we could have been. >> if you constitutionally enjail a c.e.o. a major corporation you're going to send

a wide signal to stop active ty that people think they can get away with. thank you very much. >> you're absolutely right. the greatest turn in effect is to prosecute the individuals in the cooperation that are responsible for those decisions. we did that in the u.b.s. matter that we brought and we try to do that when we can. the point you make is a good one. >> thank you. again, i appreciate you being here. i'll probably see you at the signing of the violence against women act. >> tomorrow. >> we had to leave out the important law enforcement and i hope you work with us when we do immigration reform. that will complete the whole legislation.

it would protect victims but it will help law enforcement have a better chance of prosecuting people who have shown violence against women. >> mr. chairman, thank you for you leadership on that. >> you were every step of the way. the fact that we could get a strong bipartisan help and i know that the senator from minnesota talked to a lot of people on the other side of the aisle. it was nice to have senators do things together and the country is better off for it. we stand in recess for it. >> we the public have the right to know how many civilians have been killed and where. what about secondary strikes to

rescue workers. we just came back from pakistan and we met family who is lost their loved ones, 176 children killed by drone strikes? how can we say that is legal? if it is a mistake, who is going to pay for that mistake? attorney general we have the right to get answers for this, not just the people no congress but we the public. you're doing the drone killing out of our name. >> three out of four americans killed by mistake. you admitted. >> is it true that the c.i.a. -- [inaudible] is there more to "the new york time" senator feinstein said that she was unaware.

>> is that legal to kill every male military aid, what happens if another country tried to do that here in the united states? the precedent that we're setting that we're a world of chaos. because this hearing is over we the public finally get to say something. because during the hearing we could not hold the signs above our shoulders. we need to stop justifying killing drones. stope justifying killing drone strikes. we're making more enemies and we're playing in the hands of extremists like al qaeda.

this is a national security threat and we're the citizens speaking up for our national security because our government isn't doing anything to make us secure. you're making us more hated around the world, which means more attacks against us. >> target of assassinations is not what this country stands for. this is an outrage against our way of life. how are they supposed to do any kind of oversight? >> senator lee said he was disappointed. why does want he issue a

subpoena? >> the president wants transparency, who is keeping this away from the president, who is above the president? >> for more than a year they asked for the memos and the administration didn't give them. when they said they would hold off brennan's confirmation the administration handed over the memos. senator lee wants the memos he has to issue the subpoena. >> we the public need to see these memos. >> why this administration, who said they would be the most transparent have not been transparent. it is more than just the memos, we want to see how they can justify how they kill americans,

what about 176 children that have been killed by the drobe strikes? are those mistakes? will somebody be held accountable for those mistakes? those mistakes will continue. we want to know why the c.i.a. has the right to use lethal drones. it is not a military organization. it should not have the authority to use lethal weapons like drone. >> i would like to ask senator graham about killing americans, which he seems to condone. senator graham was one of the torture component is now acomponent for drones that are killing american citizens. we have a lot to hold the congress accountable for. not shutting down the government to get after these memos. there are ways to go after getting the memos. >> can you go out in the

holloway. we don't allow press conferences in here. >> senator feinstein said after the hearing she was unaware of reports that the c.i.a. was counting military mail as militants when they were justifying drone strikes. six months after this was reported after "the new york times." six months. senator feinstein, unaware of what was reported in "the new york times" on drone strikes. >> that is not an area of her official responsibility. >> we appreciate your attention. >> the senate judiciary committee will debate on a gun safety measure. it is one of the four measure the committee will work on and

we'll have live coverage tomorrow morning here on c-span at 10:00 a.m. sally jewelry who is the president of c.r.i. will take questions. that is live at 10:00 eastern. >> i leave that the united states has many fantastic qualities. i do believe that maybe many people have the possibility of pulling them -- themselves up by the bootstraps. every year that is less and less probably. but the united states especially in its foreign policy, which is what i worked on for years and years is not the great nation. it is an interventionist state, it is aggressive militaryly. we mess with other people's politics in ways that i can't

imagine americans tolerating. imagine if son come invaded us to bring their type of government like we did in iraq, for example. somehow we still in this country have a myth that people are thrilled when we invade them. that's insane. i believe 99% of the time we create new enemies. >> self-described as left liberal she has made a career as an advocate for world peace. more on sunday night's "q and a." >> on filibuster john brennan, president obama's nominee for c.i.a. director. a kentucky senator rand paul has been leading the filibuster for more than 10 hours now. paul read from articles about

the expanded use of the unmanned weapons that have become the center piece of the president obama's administration against al qaeda suspects. the filibuster started at 11:45 a.m. when senator paul outlined the reasons for the filibuster. >> i would like to filibuster john brennan's nomination. i will speak as long as it takes until the alarm is sounded. areo american should be killed by a drone on arican soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court. that americans could be killed in a cafe in san francisco or in a restaurant in houston or at

their home in bowling green, kentucky, is an abomination. it is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country. i don't rise to oppose john brennan's nominion simply for the person. i rise today for the principle. the principle is one that as americans we have foughtong and hard for and to give up on that principle, to give up on the bill of rights, to give up on the fifth amendment protection tt says that no person shall be held without due process, that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted. this is a pcious american >> that was kentucky senator rand paul earlier today and the filibuster on the nominee john

brennan. speaking live is ted cruz of texas. you can see on c-span2 and c-span.org. >> today is the day that c-span is pleased to announce the winners of its 2013 student camp competition. it is our annual student documentary contest. we ask you can people to use video to tell what is important to them. they must include c-span cover range along the way. our theme was what is the most important message to the president? we received a record-number of entries, almost 2,000 of them from 44 different states. we're giving away $55,000 in cash prices. what is interesting to see what issues are on the mind of young people. here are some of the top issues, economy, education, environment, gun control, and immigration.

our top prize winner was most interested in something related to the economy. his issue was unemployment and his name is josh stokes. he attends high school in madison, connecticut and watches c-span on comcast cable. here's josh getting the good news earlier this week. >> hi, josh. i'm calling from c-span about your documentary unemployment in america that you submitted for this year's student cam competition. >> ok. >> we received a record number of entries and after the many rounds of judging you have been selected as the grand prize winner. congratulations. >> thank you. >> as this year's grand prize championship you will win $5,000. >> oh my gosh. >> josh, can you tell us why you selected unemployment as this year's most important issue for the president to consider?

>> i think i chose it because my dad knows a lot of people who are unemployed so it was easy to find someone to do a documentary about. >> you had many interviews and you interviewed an unemployed man who really could illustrate the point of the effect that issue had on people in this country. can you share something you learned about unemployment throughout the entire process. >> i think i learned it affects more than just people earning money. >> what was your favorite part of creating the documentary overall? >> i think the whole process, filming, editing, i loved doing that. >> great job once again. congratulations on being this year's grand prize winner. >> thank you.

>> thank you, jor. >> have a good day. >> here's a flavor of the documentary that josh put together on unemployment. >> come to my home down and you might find it hard to believe that unemployment is one of the biggest problems facing america today. two hour train ride will take you to the heart of the united states, downtown manhattan. population, over one million. >> this is the worst economic recovery in 70 years. >> is jobless rate has leveled out at 8%. >> since 2001, america has lost several factories.

>> and your congratulations once again to josh stokes for his top prize. now for the high school and middle school entries. first prize goes to alan who is 11 years old but he's in the 10th grade. he chose his topic as the national debt and his video was called "free the count." the first prize in middle school goes to a team. they are in knoxville, tennessee. the three competitors will be sharing a $3,000 prize.

among the entries there was 75 winners and they are available to see on our website. in the month of april, we'll show the top 27 entries on the c-span network. >> on the next "washington journal", castro a member of the foreign affairs committees. he'll take your question about immigration and automatic spending cuts. you can call in with your questions to a california republican, a member of the budget committee and chairman of the natural resources. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> sherman did not want those thousands of freed slaves,

refugees and there is this infamous terrible case of him pulling up the bridges during the march to the sea. part of it because he did not want to feed them. he had as many as 20,000 black refugees. he want nod black troops in his army and he had no black troops in his army. you can meet people in this county where this is where sherman turned left. when he got into savanna he didn't know what to do with all of these people. he let the germs to put out the word and they invited black minute stores to talk to him -- ministers to talk to hill. they set aside 200 miles along the coast down to jacksonville,

florida. for the exclusive settlement of freed people with promissory notes on a piece of land, which is the dream all of them have. it won't last because andrew johnson, successor to lincoln -- >> give that land back. >> skull legislators on the sacrifices of slaves. part of history tv on c-span 3 this weekend. the house of representatives voted wednesday to keep the federal government funded through the end of the fiscal year. the legislation passed 267-141. we'll show you some of that footage.

>> the house has passed a bill to keep the government operating past march 27. >> this bill is probably going to be rewritten when it gets to the democratic-controlled senate. the appropriation committee members were anxious to replace it with an prormingse bill which will put all of the 12 appropriation bills for cabinet agencies, independent agencies into the bill. however, the senate leadership has decided that is going to be too complicated. they will try to offer some of those bills and send it back to the house. the house republicans said today they are open to negotiating a redistribution of the spending cuts that are in this bill, but they are firm in their statement that we cannot increase top line number, which is $982 billion

rate for this fiscal year. >> for the bill to pass the house, is a republican bill how do senate republicans measure this bill that is coming to them? >> i think they will be just as happy to go along with this bill. think there might be spending priorities they would join the democrats with. but i think that the democratic leadership has calculated it would be controversial for them to put certain aspects of spending appropriation plan into effect and republicans would block that. there's going to be the usual dance in the senate where majority leader harry reid tries to find a bill with 60 votes -- that will get 60 votes to pass a republican filibuster. >> how does this continuing resolution address the cuts that

are already in effect or went into effect on march 1? >> they implement the sequester and they assume that the sequester has taken place. this bill is originally written at the spending level of $1.43 trillion trillion. this is not entitlements like medicare and social security. there's a clause that says the sequester will take effect we're suspending levels down. so the sequester is in and that is what prompted a lot of complaints on the floor because it does nothing in their minds to stop the sequester, which they say is a meat ax approach to cutting. >> what is the process from here in the senate? what is the end game? >> the end game is to try to get a bill that will pass both houses. there might be incline as we

call it between the two chambers. the senate might pass something that the house doesn't want. they will try to pass something that they won't agree to. at the minimum the senator is going to try to get a bill that will clear a filibuster. at this point, there might be negotiations between the house and senate leadership that both chambers can pass in time but everyone is sage they don't want a shutdown. i think people are motivated to avoid that. >> what about the whouse, what is their priorities in this continuing resolution? >> i they issued a statement of policy on this. the president said he would sign something if it was sent to him and this did not include the language that if this passes we would add vice the president to veto it. they say they are disappointed

in the fact that there are many things in the bill, basically, what it is they don't like the fact that most cabinet agencies and the defense departments are forced to deliver services and promise initiative at 2012 fiscal year levels. there is no increase in flexibility in terms of moving the money around. they want to have the flexibility, if they can get it. >> thanks for the update. >> a pleasure. consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i rise to present h.r. 933, the department of defense and military construction and veterans affairs appropriations and full year continuing resolution for fiscal year 2013. our nation faces a three-pronged threat to its finances. as we deal with sequestration,

the debt ceiling, and most immediately, a looming government shutdown. this bill takes the risk of a government shutdown off the table. funding the governme for the remainder of the fiscal year while helping maintain our national security and providing our troops and veterans with consistent, adequate funding. first and foremost, this bill contains fiscal year 2013 appropriations bills for the department of -- department offings defense an veterans affairs. these bills crafted by chairman bill young, chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, and very handily done, these bills passed the house with broad, bipartisan support last year, they've been negotiated on a bipartisan basis by the house and senate

and agreed to by the senate committee. they do not add a cent to the overall top line of the c.r. and i want to take a minute here to thank bill young and his subcommittee who did such a tremendous job of balancing the interests of the country but with the overriding concern for e security of the country as they drafted and passed on a bipartisan basis the defense appropriations bill. last week, i had the opportunityto ask the joint chiefs of our military if they supported this c.r. package. and the answer was an absolute, whole-hearted yes. in fact, each one of them was asked it was critical and each one of the joint chiefs said, this is critical. -- critical to the defense of

the untry. this legislation addresses severe funding constraints that would put our national security in dire straits. military hospitals would not be built, veterans would not be cared for adequately, and our readiness would be seriously jeopardized. with sequestration now in effect, this bill allows the peagon some leeway to do it best with what it has. the bill provides $518 billion, the same top level -- top line level as last year. within this top line, accounts have to be reprioritized to ensure adequate investment in critical programs such as operation and maintenance while finding savings in lower

priority areas. the legislation right sizes spending that would otherwise have been wasted. for instance, we eliminate funding for unneeded spare parts and save funding from outdated programs and projects related to operations in iraq. -- in iraq no longer needed. in addition, the bill provides $71.9 billi in discretionary funding for military construction and veterans affairs. to ensure that our veterans get the care they've earned and that the quality of life in our military is continued. this includes an increase of about $2.5 billion in veterans funding, offset by savings in military construction. the remainder of the bill, mr. speaker, funds the rest of the federal government until the end of the fiscal year on

september 30. nearly all funding will remain consistent with current levels, except for the very few exceptions that are needed to prevent catastrophic changes to government programs or to ensure good government. these include provisions allowing critical law enforcement entities to maintain current staffing vels, additional funding for embassy security, and critical weather satellite launches and an extension of the current pay freeze for federal employees including members of the congress. we've also required every single federal agency to provide spending plans to congress to ensure transparency oversight of taxpayer dollars. nearly all the funding in this bill is subject to the

president's sequestration bringing the grand total for discretionary spending to around $984 billion. the bill is designed to help with the damage caused by continually putting off the regular annual appropriations bills but it does not solve the many serious problems caused by these automatic spending cuts in sequestration. a full year continuing resolution is not the way this congress should be appropriating taxpayer dollars. each year, we should assess the needs anexcesses of our government and make decisions accordingly in the regular appropriations process. we must return to regular order , pass individual spending bills on time and fulfill our constitutional duty to fund government programs wisely and effectively. to do all of this, we have to have a partner in the senate

and we have not had that for these several years. our hope springs eternal that the senate will help us get back to regular order. in light of the circumstances we face, we must make a good faith effort to provide limit bud fair and adequate funding for vital government programs and services through the end of the fiscal year. it's up to congress to make these decisions to set the course for our financial fure. we must act now to make the most of this difficult situation and that starts with avoiding a government shutdown on march 27 and providing for our national defense and our veterans. this c.r. package is the right thing to do, the right time to do it, and it's the fair thing. so i urge, mr. speaker, my

colleagues, to show our nation that we can get our work done by supporting this bill. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. low -- mrs. lowey: before us contains a defense bill and a military construction vetans affair bill adjusting the f.y. 2012 funding levels to meet f.y. 2013 needs. it is unacceptable that federal agencies and departments covered by the 10 remaining bills would be forced to operate under full-year continuing resolutions based on plans, spending levels enacted 15 to 18 months ago. congress' failure to do our job and pass responsible annual spending bills limits our

ability to respond to changing circumstances, implement other laws enacted b congress and eliminate funding that is no longer necessary. specifically, this bill will delay plementation of the affordable care act scheduled to begin enrolling participants in october. without i.t. infrastructure to process enrollment and payments, verify eligibility and establish call centers, health insurance for millions of americans would be further delayed. last year's levels will hamper enforcement of dodd-frank protections against improper practices in the financial sector. the bill underfunds head start, child care, essential for many working parents who would otherwise have to quit their jobs. the bill fails to strike

outdated language allowing h.u.d. to use public housing ency reserves to fund operations or provide a requested increase to make up for the shortfall resulting in the lowest per unit operating subsidy since 2007 despite rising housing costs. the bill we consider today even denies increases for health care fraud and abuse control and social security disability reviews and s.s.i. eligibility determinations, both of which return more money to the treasury than they cos and the continuing resolution excludes loanuarantees for jordan necessary to help an important ally stabilize his economy. the effects my colleagues, of

these outdated plans and spending levels in the continuing resolution are compounded by congress' failure to replace sequestration with a balanced, sponsible, long-term debt reduction plan. the congressional budget office estimates that sequestration would cut economic growth in 2013 by a third. that's jobs, that's people's lives. last year, our fragile economy struggled to create a total of $2 -- of 2.2 million jobs. c.b.o. says sequestration will wipe out, get rid of, 750,000 jobs, more than a third of all the jobs created last year. now i want to make it very clear, my colleagues, this bill

reaffirms sequestration. the terrible impact of those indiscriminate cuts will begin to take effect. this summer, we can expect significant flight delays, long lines at airports due to furloughs and air traffic controllers, and a hirg freeze and reduced hours for transportation security officers. yesterday, the labor-hhs subcommittee heard testimony from the directors of the national institutes of health and c.d.c. on the detrimental effects these irresponsible cuts will have, inclu degree clining medical research. fewer child vaccinations, reduced protections against epidemics, just try and explain that to dear friendand neighbors who have children with autism. seniors who are dealing with alzheimer's. friends who have heart,

cardiology issues. just try and explain what the national ititutes cuts in research will do in addition to the impact and research on these issues. these are real people who are going to be laid off and impede our future research. all americans rely on timely and accurate weather warnings and forecasts from the national weather service, reduced resources will compromise critical satellites, radar, computer analysis, and modeling. now i am pleased that two bills, the defense bill and the military construction and veterans bill, are the f.y. 2013 bills that were agreed on by the house and senate but my colleagues, let's not forget that sequestration will still strike our national defense even if this bill is enacted another $46 billion will be

subtracted from defense spending. most of the civilian work force will face significant furloughs, readiness will still face cuts, and defense health care will need to make some very tough choices with scarce resources. mr. speaker, i cannot mr. speaker, i cannot support this bill because it fails to take responsible steps to support the middle class and really -- in really tough economic times or responsibly address the long-term fiscal health of our nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady from new york, mrs. lowey, reserve? the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to the very distinguished and hardworking chairman of the house armed services committee the gentleman fromcalifornia. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. >> i thank the gentleman, the chairman of the appropriations committee, for yielding, and thank him for the great work he's done for getting this bill to the floor. likewise the chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee. they have done yeomen work to help provide for a national defense. mr. mckeon: i agree with much of what the gentlelady from new york, my good friend, said. sequestration is bad. and if we don't pass this c.r., we'll feel worse than the effects of the sequestration, we'll shut down the whole gornment. nobody wants to see that. and so i commend her for what she says. this is not perfect. but it keeps a lot of people working. i think it's very, vy important that we get it done. as chairman of the house armed services committee, i'm happy to see us voting to include a full year appropriations -- defense appropriations bill, as well as full year military construction

and veterans affair bill. this is very important. at least we have one committee that can do regular order still, and i think that is very important. enacting a full year d.o.d. appropriations bill is the first step toward restoring funding for our military which has been whip sod by the dual combination of the sequester and the c.r. we are operating under. none of our currently serving overseas, the chief of the army, navy, air force, marines, including the chief of -- all of the svices, in their time have ever operated under a real budget. most of the members of congress haven't served under regular order in seeing how we have really done. so this is a step forward to get us back to regular order. a full year appropriation will allow the service chiefs to cancel programs that we have

already canceled in the defense authorization act. it allows them to restore critical shortfalls in their operation and maintenance accounts, and add back a certain amount of training and flying hours. this legislation does not by any members solve sequestration, but it gives our commanders much needed flexibility and gives us time to work on a house budget that restores funding for our military. let me give you just a couple of quick examples of why we need to pass this package and encourage the other body to return to regular order. because straight c.r. still pipes funding in certain accounts, the chief of staff of the army is looking at having to curtail 37,000 hours of flying for helicopter pilots at forerutger in alabama where our helicopter pilots go to be trained. that's about 500 to 750 pilots who will not be trained. units preparing now to deploy to

afghanistan are not receiving the same training as those who are there now fighting. that is shameful. we need to restore those accounts. this puts those who are preparing to go at greater risk once they arrive in theater. a full year d.o.d. appropriation which we'll be voting on today, the general will have the authority to restore a lot of those flying hours and critical training for those who are preparing to deploy. just another little example, admiral greener, chief of naval operations has said that if he had the funding that would come from the appropriations bill that we are voting on, he would have the flexibility to move money between accounts. and the navy would be able to keep a carrier strike group and amphibious ready group in the middle east and the pacific through next year. that is crucial to our national

security. i would encourage all of our colleagues to support this bill. it's not the perfect but it takes us a long step toward helping secure our national security. i thank the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee for their great work, yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. mckeon, i just want to emphasize again that the general and the recent appropriations hearing onhe defense bill testified that sequester would be a disaster for the military, and it's unfortunate that we are not ridding ourselves of the prospect of the dister that the sequester bill will result in. i'm delighted to yield two minutes to my distinguished leader, mr. hoyer.

the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their comments to the chair and not to other members of the house. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i agree with the gentlelady who has jt spoken. i want to say to my friend, mr. mckeon, this is neither regula order nor rational policy. it ought to be rejected. this c.r. does nothing address the irrational cuts to defense and nondefense that the sequester will require. it could be very harmful to our economy and to our national serity and place the most vulnerable in america at great risk. we should not allow, my colleagues, our government to shut down. but we cannot do business this way. lurching from one manufactured crisis to the next. when we make agreements, we ought to stick to them.

and the agreement was, as the chairman has tried to put forward,nd i want to congratulate him for that, that we would spend on the discretionary side of the budget at about $1.43 trillion. that is not what this bill cost. -- does. it breaks the deal. nobody expected sequester to take place. and we ought to obviate it because it will hurt defense, our national security, and our domestic security. mr. speaker, we made an agreement. we ought to keep it. that's not what we have this c.r. while the defense funding in this package is something i would like to vote for, and the procedures incorporated in the bill i would like to vote for -- let me say as an aside, that is regular order. because when we usually pass c.r.'s, we do it for house passed bills levels, senate passed bill levels, conference levels, but not at a level a

year ago. the reason they amended defense anveterans and milcon is because it is irrational and they recognize it's irrational as it relates to the national security. you ought to recognize the irrationalnessf the rest of the budget. i ask for another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute. mr. hoyer: while defen funding in this package is something i would like to vote for, it would continue to support the critical national security programs, important in my district but more important than that, important in our country. if congress face to face every manner of manufactured crisis every other month, we cannot govern rationally and it will hurt our people, our economy, and our security. when dysfunction rusts the wheels of congress, it is the american people who suffer. our defense community and the industries will also suffer greatly from the uncertainty that result. i want to vote for appropriation

bills that keep the promise we made to each other. i want to vote for appropriations bills that enable us to limit the negative impact of sequestration on our defense community and the most vulnerable in our society, but this c.r. does not do that. this vote will do nothing to lessen the effects of the see quester whose impact is already being felt -- sequester whose impactlr being felt in my district and throughout the country. that is what tells mto vote no on this c.r. i represent 62,000 federal employees, i do not want this government to shut down. that is an irrational policy even in see questions her. -- sequester. may i have additional 30 seconds. it demands we vote no on this and pass a c.r.hat object veeates sequester. i urge my colleagues to defeat this c.r. so we can send a message to those who control this chamber that we have a responsibility to our country and to our people to adopt a

balanced fiscal plan to reduce our debt and deficit, invest in the growth of the economy. that is not what this bill does. i urge its defeat. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentuy is recognized. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i now yield four minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. culberson, the chairman of the military construction and veterans' affairs subcommittee on appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. culberson, is recognized for four minutes. mrculberson: thank you, mr. chairman. why are house conservatives so determined to cut the budget and move towards a balanced budget? every five years the chair of the joint chiefs of staff get together and they do a strategic review of the threats facing this nation. the last review they determined that the greatest threat facing our nation was the natnal debt. that it would ultimately consume us and cause its collapse.

just a few days ago celebrated texas independence day, but for the debt that the republican texas accumulated, we would have continued as an independent nation. that debt caused the collapse of the republic of texas. house conservatives are deeply concerned that the debt, deficits will ultimately crush the united states of america just as it did the republic of texas. how do we even begin to get our mind around it and understand it? think in these terms, if in our personal lives you always pay your mortgage and taxes first. i deduct my mortgage and taxes out of my paycheck. we all do. you have to pay your mortgage and taxes first. america's mortgage and taxes are social security, medicare, medicaid, interest on the national debt, and veterans benefits. those are things we must pay first. that's our mortgage and taxes. when we pay our mortgage and taxes first as a nation, it consumes all our income. all that's left is about $185 billion. we pay social security, medicare, medicaid, interest on

the national debt, veterans benefits, that's it. all you're left with is $185 billion america, to run the government for the entire year. that will only run the federal government for about 10 days. so we as a nation are living on a credit card that will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. a devastating heritage to leave to our kids, and this is why house conservatives are so determined to balance the budget. but we recognize how essential national security is. we recognize how vital it is that our men and women in uniform vow cuss on their mission. -- focus on their mission. focus on defending america around the world. we don't want them to worry about whether they have enough equipment, gas, am mow, they have the best facility in the world, best health care in the world. that's why chairman rogers, chairman you have put together this bill. i'm proud to be a part of it. for my piece the military construction and veterans' affairs portion to make sure that our men and women in unifm can focus on their mission and not look over their shoulder and worry for one moment that they have the full

support of the congress, the full support of the american people, to do what they have to do to putheir lives on the line to defend this great nation. this bill is essential because it funds the military at a level for fiscal year 2013 that is sufficient increase that will allow them to absorb these automatic budget cuts, the sequester terminology is confusing to folks, but it is essentially an automatic spending cut across-the-board that all of us as conservatives would like to see -- we want to see those cuts go into place, but we would like to shift them away from the military and move them into other areas, but we've got the situation where conservatives only control 1/3 of 1/-- basically one half of one third of the federal government. we are outnumbered. we are doing our best to get movement towards a balanced budget in a way that is prudent, that won't raise taxes, that protects our military and the veterans and essential needs of this nation.

chairman bill youn has done a superb job in putting together a defense bill that at this level of funding for the defense department we determined yesterday from the military chiefs that the chief of staff of the army said by passing this bill today we will solve at least a thirdf the problems that the army would face as a result of the automatic spending cuts by funding it fiscal year 2013, when the cuts kick in, it's a far softer blow to the military than it would be if we were stuck at 2012 levels. . the chief of naval operations said the difference was night and tai. by passing this bill, it will cushion the blow on the navy dramatically. i look forward to working with my colleagues from all over the country and continue to work to soften the blow on the military but this is essential to make sure our men and women in uniform have everything they need to do their job. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves, the

gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i would like to rend my colleagues that the defense bill will be suect to the $46 billion as a result of sequestration which general odierno says will hollow out the force. i'm honored to yield two minutes to my colleague, mr. david price, the ranking member of the appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. price: there's a blizzard of evidencagainst this continuing resolution, yet the republican majority keeps skidding ahead like an out of control snowplow. instead of avoid seg quest ration with a balanced deficit reduction package this c.r. will lock in these devastating cuts, impairing vital government function, redeucing the paychecks of thousands of american workers and undermining our economic recovery the c.b.o. says it will cost three quarters of a million jobs. earlier this week, mr. speaker, i heard a panel of economist

speculate about what future generations will say about what we're going through now. 20 or 30 years from now. they're likely to be baffled, they said. how could a great nation do such damage to itself. how could political brinksmanship and rinled ideology go so far? in fact that's exactly what my constituents are already asking as they begin to pay the price for this house's failure to do what we were elected to do. just yesterday, the members of the military construction and veterans subcommittee heard testimony from senior officers of each service about the impact of sequestration on their opingses. their message was, don't be fooled. we may be giving them marginally greater flexibility by including the full year 2013 bills for defense and veterans in this continuing resolution but we are not sparing them from t sledgehammer of sequestration. this approach also begs the

question, why not pass full-year bills for all departments? the homeland security subcommittee proced a compromise full-year bill that coulhave easily been included in this bill. stopgap funding measures only perpetuate economic uncertainty and only prevent us getting to the heart of our fiscal challenge. mr. speaker, we owe this body a better appropriations process and we owe our people a budget that accelerates the recovery and protect ours economic future instead of simply serving a rigid political ideology. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from ktucky. mr. rogers: i yield now to the vice chairman of the house armed services committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the chairman yielding. mr. speaker, i've got to observe that iish that all of the members on bothides of

the aisle who decry sequestration today had voted with those of us who wanted to target cuts rather than having this across the board approach. this bill, like sequestration, is not what any of us would like if it were up to -- would like. if it were up to me, i would replace the money it takes out of defense and rea the domestic spending as well. imperfect as this measure is, i believe it is absolutely essential that we pass it today and i want to focus for just a second on defense. even if you spend the money on a continuing resolution, it make an enormous difference what vehicle one uses. in a regular appropriations bill you can have the

flexibility to meet the current needs with a c.r. you are locked into last year's levels and that brings in inefficiencies and waste. so just to get the same amount of equipment, for example, it takes more money under a c.r. than it does under a regular appropriation bill. you just had to question -- had the question posed, why do this just for defense? why treat defense differently and have a full appropriations bill for defensend mil cobb and veterans and -- and milcon and veterans and not the rest of it. number one, because we ca both the house and senate appropriators have negotiated a defense appropriation bill. it is there for us to take so chairman rogers has picked it up and included in this -- it in this c.r. a second reason is, the house and senate passed and the president signed into law, the defense authorization bill there is no other area of government that has done that.

if you look at what already is the law, passing an appropriation bill to implement it makes sense. a third reason is that defense took a disproportionate share of the cuts under sequestration. defense is 18 noveget federal budget. it had to absorb 50 noveget cuts. it took a disproportionate share and therefore some relief from the constraints put on by the continuing resolution makes sense, especially for defense. i'd say a fourth reason to treat defense differently is because defense is he first job of the federal government. we senour soldiers and intelligence community personnel to all parts of the world to ristheir lives to defend us. and it seems to me that the least we could do is give them the flexibility and support they need to do their job. therefore i think it is absolutely essential for the country's testifies that we pass this appropriation bill and i urge all members on both

sides of the aisle to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserv. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: may i ask how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york has 17 minutes. and the gentleman from kentucky has 12 1/2 minutes. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distguished ranking member, mr. serrano from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. serrano: as the ranking member of the financial services and general government appropriations subcommittee, i want to outline several areas of concern in this section of the bill. several agencies under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee requested vital changes to the fair fiscal year 2013 budget to help them address pressing needs and blunt the impact of e sequester. unfortunately, all of these changes were rejected by the

other side. for instance, no other a-- no asigs -- no additional money is provided for the securities and exchange commission to continue the inchation of the dodd-frank legislation. we need a strong cop on the beat to prevent financial misbehavior this bill does not help in this regard. under this bill, no additional money is provided to the i.r.s. to help them catch tax cheats or help americans with questions on their tax forms. moreover no additional money is provided to help the i.r.s. administer new tax credits under the affordable care act, something that will only lead to more confusion. once again, republicans are attempting to extend the federal employee pay freeze for the rest of the year. have we -- had we had a full omnibus bill, and i think with a little work we could have had such a bill, we could have addressed many of these concerns. unfortunately this c.r. is inadequate to the needs of our federal government and to the american people and does mot

provide all agencies with the needed flexibility to best deal with the sequester. for that and other reasons, i urge opposition to this bill and i thank the gentlewoman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemayields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania who chairs the transportation and infrastructure committee, mr. shuster,, for the purposes of a -- mr. shuster, for the purposes of a colloquy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: ipt to engage in a colloquy on the medium air defense strategy, maiad. it prohibits funds from being ligated on the mias program. there's been some confusion on the word of the program before us. i would like to intervi it is your intent that the prohibition created in the ndaa is law and not changed or overridden by anything in this

bill. i yield to the chairman. mr. rogers: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would confirm that the gentleman is correct. prohibition in the ndaa is law and nothing in this bill or report overrides that fact. the language in our report was conferenced last year when the outcome of program in the ndaa was not known. chairman young works closely with the armed variouses committee and it's not our intention to change or override any provision of that bill. the prohibition in their bill is the law. i yield back. mr. shuster: i thank the gentleman for making this clear and yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back, the geleman from kentucky reserves, the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to ms. kaptur, the distinguished ranking member of the energy and water subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: i rise to express my appreciation that we are considering this continuing resolution today and not on the precipice of another government shutdown. chairman rogers and ranking member lowey have been tireless in their efforts to bring a semblance of regular order to the appropriations process and in turn this house. however, i must express my disappointment we are not advancing a government-wide, fully inclusive bill with adjustments to address the pressing needs of the american people across all departments and agencies. despite my appreciation for consideration of this bill by being unable and unwilling to pass all our individually negotiated appropriation bill the congress is doing a great disservice to the american people in not providing the firm guidance necessary for several programs to operate effectively. as ranking member of the energy and water subcommittee, i would like to express my disappointment further that necessary adjustments to 2/3 of

our jurisdiction are not included. for example important areas of cybersecurity as wl as reducing the local cost share for the army corp projects related to the revitalization afterurricane sandy. further, the weatherization assistant program ♪ included this vital program is facing significant funding challenges and many states are either out of federal funds entirely or will be out of all federal funds. in order for the program to continue to provide service as blizzards blanket the country and for low income americans to continue to receive savings for heating their home, it would be a real job creator across this country. further the bill does not include the administration's request to increase funding for the advanced manufacturing program for our nation to meet the fierce global competition for manufacturing jobs. the united states must regain its position in global manufacturing. we cannot prosper as a nation

of service providers only. i would like to highlight the national nuclear security administration as an example of where a c.r. does not provide the necessary oversight for government. might i ask for an additional 15 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 15 seconds. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentlelady. the agency is plagued by crost increases on nearly every task under its juste diction. fwiven the nature of a continuingesolution, congress is unable to meaningfully weigh in on issues such as these. i appreciate inclusion for the united state corporation and i hope that congress can improve on this bill and i commend our chairman, mr. rogers, and ranking member nita lowey of new york who has been such a phenomenal lead . i yield pack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is

recognized. mr. rogers: i yield myself one minute and i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. issa, for the purpose of a colloquy. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, it is my understanding that the office of management and budget submitted a list of proposed anomalies for the pending continui resolution. is it correct that -- and can you tell me the date that the office of management and budget submitted or transmitted that list? mr. rogers: if the gentleman will yield, you're correct, o.m.b. did submit a list of proposed anomalies on february 18. . mr. issa: can you also tell me if that prosed list included any changes in the provisions in current law regarding what is commonly called six-day delivery and requires a level of service by the post office at the 1983 level? mr. rogers: if the gentleman

would yield. o.m.b. did not proposany change to the provisions in current law regarding six-day mail deliverry. mr. issa: i thank the gentleman. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yield back. mr. rogers: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. lowey, has 13 1/4 minutes. and the gentleman from kentucky has 10 1/2 minutes. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i'm delighted to give two minutes to my friend, the distinguished chair of the labor, health, human services, education subcommittee -- chair, ranking member. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. >> i rise in strong opposition to this continuing resolution. ms. delauro: it makes permanent, deep, and harmful across-the-board cuts. cuts that will cross our country hundreds of thousands of jobs, will hamstring our economic recovery. 750,000 jobs according to the

congressional budget office, and federal reserve chairman ben bernanke. if you vote yes, you vote for $400 million in cuts to head start. 70,000 children will lose access. you vote to slash $282 million from job training programs. you vote to cut $730 million from title 1 grants. 2,500 schools will be forced to stop providing this crucial aid to one million children. you are voting to cut over $580 million from special education grants. thathifts the cost of 300,000 students with special needs to state and local education agencies. you vote to cut $150 million from childcare at a time when only one in six of the children eligible for childcare assistance are receiving it. ,000 more kids will lose this aid. you vote to start implementation

of the affordable care act at a time when the health reforms we passed are being implemented. you vote to cut funding for vaccinations and cancer screenings. thesecuts only add to the deep cuts that have already been made. $12 billion since two have been made to labor, education, and health programs. in addition to which the budget control act added another $9 billion and this resolution will add a $7 billion more in cuts to what are critical priorities for this nation. we cannot shortchange all of these fundamental priorities. it is time for this institution to exercise its moral responsibility, use our budget as a vehicle for job creation and economic growth. i urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from connecticut's time has expired. the gentlewoman fr new york

reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to the chairman of the house oversight and government reform committee, mr. issa of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. issa: i thank you, mr. speaker. on february 6 the postal service announced a plan to move to a modified six-day delivery schedule beginning in august. under this plan the post office will continue high quality delivery six days a week using its express and priority mail system. this will include packages and mail under that system and will include vital medicine for our seniors. this change will enable the postal service to save $2 billion a year or more. as the chairman of the authorizing committee, i want to clarify that the authorizing language is consistent with six-day delivery provision in the c.r. under this system announced by the postmaster on february 6. specifically thiprovision

would not prohibit the postal service from implementing this plan of modified six-day delivery service. i want to confirm further that the president himself had previously called for five-day deliverry. the postmaster is maintaining six-day delivery t using priority and express mail to do so. this is fiscally responsible and consistent with the administration not putting an anomaly into the c.r. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: i'm very pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished ranking member, mr. farr, of the agriculture subcommittee of appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. farr: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, madam chair, for yielding. i have been in congress 20 years and on the appropriations committee not quite that long and never in my life have i seen us in such disarray. this institution has failed to lead the nation.

it's failed to get its own act together. we can't do this in a transparent and normal process by adopting bills. we are operating on these emergency isss like continuing resolutions, sequestration. we've got the nation totally confused. the entire administration of government in the united states confused as to what tomorrow's going to bring. we don't know whether we are going to have enough money or give you back some money, are you going to lay off people, cut their salaries? we are in mass confusion and our states and local governments are depending on us getting our act together. i'm surprised that we are failing to address the needs of this nation. yes we have a huge debt. everybody in this congress has a huge debt in their own life. it's called a mortgage. we figure out a 30-year plan or 15-year plan to pay it off. dointhis by c.r. is totally irresponsible. i ask for a no vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i

reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to mr. bishop, the distinguished chair -- ranking member of the milcon subcommittee of appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fr georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, today this body is voting on two updated bills that reflect the needs of f.y. 2013 and 10 outdated plans with outdated spending levels that were enacted over a year ago. we need to complete the proce on all the bills not just two. governing by continuing resolution is not governing. furthermore, the legislation before us today does nothing to address sequestration. the failure to address sequestration will be

devastating on military construction. for example, the modernization efforts will be delayed. the navy sequestration will affect 10,000 navy owned and three thousands leasted homes by delaying housing construction and improvements. the air force has made it a goal to delay inadequate housing and sequestration will devil ray that call and cause airmen to continue to live in substandard housing. the most troubling aspect of sequestration to me is the impact it will have on the department of defense's school recapitalization efforts. a comprehensive assessment of d.o.d. dependent schools and construction requirements indicated that 149 out of 189 schools had overall condition rating of poor or failing that required significant recapitalization. sequestration will only exacerbate this problem. these reductions in military construction will only result in substandard facilities by service members and job losses in the construction industry and slow economic growth. i remain hopeful that a balanced solution will win over rigid

ideological discussions in the coming weeks so we can restore the irresponsible cuts. sequestration is bad. this c.r. does not address it. and the none defense related cuts. this is bafor head start, job training. title one. childcare. and loss of w.i.c., and i could go on and on. this c.r. is not the way to govern. however we need to come together across partisan lines and need to find middle ground so we can do what is needed for the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 9 1/2 minutes. the gentlelady from new york has 8 1/4 minutes. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of

the defense subcommittee on appropriations. the gentleman from new jersey it is recognized for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for four minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of the resolution. urge its adoption. i woul like to commend the chairman of the full appropriation committee, mr. rogers, and the chairman of the defense subcommittee, mr. young, for their determination and perseverance in bringing the completed defense and military construction v.a. bills to the floor for our consideration. this afternoon and this morning. since before the end of last it fiscal year, they have been committed to completing the fiscal year 2013 bills in committee and to bring it to the floor and on to the president's desk for his signature. why? because they understand the damage that would be done to our national security if the department of defense was forced to operate under the funding

levels and restrictis placed on them by the fiscal year 2012 bill. by passing this package today, we'll be giving our military leadership additional flexibility to protect their mission and capabilities in this constrained fiscal environment. i would also add that the passage of these matters -- measures today reinforces congress' authority to set policy for the department of defense in important areas such as t air force realignment, retirement of navy ships, etc. and also to make sure we don't cede these sort of decisions only to the executive branch. i'm also pleased that the package also allows additional funds for nuclear weapons modernization to ensure the safety, security, reliability of our nation's nuclear stockpile. this is important aspect of our engy and water appropriations bill. finally i would remind our

colleagues that this legislative package does nothing to alter the sequestration that took effect last friday. simply put, that is a problem, a major problem. five members of the joint chiefs of staff presented their chilling testimony before our subcommittee last week. the chairman referred to earlier. describing how national security would be put at risk if they were forced to make deep reductions in spending for personnel and equipment modernization programs. maintenance will sumplet training for nondeploying soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and guardsmen will virtually stop. hardworking civilians will face unnecessary furloughs. the army chiefs of staff testified before our full committe, the general told us of his worry, and i quote, if we do not have the resources to train and equip the force, our young men and women will pay the price potentially with their lives, end of quotation marks.

the marine commandant reminded us that america's allies d enemies are watching to determine whether our country remains able to meet its commitments overseas. he said, and i quote, sequestration used solely as a budget issue would be a grave mistake. so while this measure before us helps our men and women in uniform, the meat ax of across-the-board sequestration hangs in the air over the defense and domestic programs alike. it is now -- it has now been over 300 days since this house passed its first sequestration reacement bill. that was last year. still the president and the senate democrats haven't budged and their only solution appears is to raise taxes for the second time in eight weeks. it's time for real balance. more tax increas won't help working families, create jobs, and protect our troops.

while allowing sequestration to continue, it will hurt many working families, terminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, both public and private, and put our men in uniform at risk. this resolution takes us forward . i support it. it's important for national security. and i urge its adoption. mr. rogers: would the gentleman yield -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rogers: i yield an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. rogers: would the gentleman yield? mr. frelinghuysen: i yield to the chairman. mr. rogers: while we are waiting for the senate to send us a bill , while we are waiting for the president to send us something to relieve us of sequestration, we have no choice but to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government operating. sequestration, i hope we can deal witin the future, but now we are dealing with whether or not to shut the government down. is that not correct? mr. frelinghuysen: that is correct, mr. chairman. let's keep the government open

for business. mr. rogers: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman om new jersey yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, before i yield to my next speaker, i would like to thank mr. frelinghuysen for addressing sequestration and the devastating testimony of all those representing our distinguished armed forces, but i'd also like to clarify again that this continuing resolution reaffirms sequestration. it does nothing in language or deed to make any effort to cancel sequestration. we on this side of the aisle would be very pleased to continue to work with you on regular order to go every bill, casting away waste, fraud, and abuse, but to do away with sequestration, and i know my distinguished chair and i could work it out so we would not have sequestration. this bill, stion 3002

reaffirms sequestration. with that i am -- mr. rogers: would the gentlelady yield? would the gentlady be so kind as to talk to the mrs. lowey: i yield. mr. ronellers: would the gentlelady talk to the senate to send us over something to deal with sequestration, and two, would the gentlewoman ask her prident to send us something to deal we sequestration? mrs. lowey: i would be happy to do that, but i have read this very carefully and this deals with sequestration. we have a bill that does away with sequestration which my good friend, mr. frelinghuysen says, and i was at the hearing too, would hollow out the forces. why don't you submit an amendment and get d of

sequestration? mr. rogers: if the gentlewoman would yield, last year we voted twice to get rid of sequestration and it died because the senate wouldn't take it up. mrs. lowey: i would be delighted to yield one minute to our distinguished leader who has provided important leadership on cutting out waste, fraud, and abuse in our budget. the speaker pro tempore: the norlte leader is recognized. ms. pesi: i thank congresswoman lowey for yielding me time in this debate. i listened to mr. frelinghuysen and i heard him say how awful sequestration would be and i completely concur with him on that i also heard him say this bill, nothing in this bill does anything on sequestration. well if it does nothing, why sit in the bill? is it to get votes on the republican side because there's not support on the republican side for the line of

investments that were called for in the budget control act? if that's the case, then let's be clear about it and put it forth. but if it has nothing to do with sequestration, mr. frelinghuysen, why is it in the bill? is it a waste of time? of space? sit a topic of discussion that is fruitless because it has nothing to do with se west ration? but it's in there because it sends a very serious message. why are we in this place? we're in this place, in this chametpwhofere house of representatives, represent the american people. we recognize that a thriving middle class is the back bone of our democracy and that we are here to meet the needs of the american people and strengthen that democracy. with the legislation before us today, we undermine, we undermine all of -- underlined

all of the efforts. with the sequestration, which is reaffirmed in this legislation, we go down a path that's harmful to our economy and to our national security. don't take it from me, the federal reserve chairman ben bernanke told congress last week on more than one occasion that the cuts of this size made this quickly would hurt hiring and income. cost the economy 750,000 jobs, keep deficits larger. why are we in this place? we are in this place because the republicans have said that they would not pose any -- close any tax loopholes except to lower rates. not to lower the deficit, but except to lower rates. so here are, because they will not close any loopholes, to relouis -- reduce the deficit twombing reduce the deficit another way.

for example, they will not close the loophole for tax breaks for corporate jets. instead, they want to cut four million meals on wheels. four million meals on wheels. instead of closing loopholes for big oil, they want to cut investments in little children's education. instead of closing tax loopholes for corporations that send jobs overseas, imagine that, that's my personal favorite. tax cuts for corporations that send jobs overseas. they want to lose 750,000 jobs here in our country. instead of ensuring that millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share, our military readiness will be impaired and health care for our military families could be cut. on a personal bas, we have teachers educating our children of our military families who will be harmed by this. we had psychiatric nurses who meet the needs of our returning

vets with ptsd and other challenges who may be furloughed because of this what do we say to them? oh it's more important to have tax breaks for corporate jets and millionaires, billionaires, we had an opportunity today in our previous question to bring to the floor the proposal advanced by mr. chris van hollen our ranking member on the budget committee. mr. van hollen's proposal is responsible, fair, and balanced. it cuts spending responseably. it ends unnecessary and wastefulax breaks fospecial interests, which i just named. it advances the buffett rule, ensuring that millionaires pay their fair share. i mention that because this is over and above, i mean i mention it because it's yet again another time where the republicans, at least on four occasions, shut down the opportunity to debate an

ternative to what the republicans are proposing. this is on top of all that we are already trying -- already agreed to. many of nuss a bipartisan way voted for the budget control act which cut $1.2 trillion in spending. that was in addition to over $300 billion already cut last year. that is in addition to the president and meers of congress saying we are prepared to make further cuts, waste, frud, abuse, and some things maybe are not wasteful, they have just not a priority anymore. we found a better way to do it. so maybe they're duplicative or obsolete but nonetheless we can't afford them any more. let's subject every dollar to harsh scrutiny. you have to subject spending to tax breaks. when you give tax breaks to big

oil, as incentive to drill, you're spending taxpayer dollars. what's interesting about this, in what the republicans are supporting, they are so totally out of sink with the american people. republicans, rublicans acrs our country are opposed to corporate jet loopholes. they want to close the corporate jet loophole and republicans support that. they want to eliminate oil and gas tax breaks. republicans by majority support eliminating that. republicans say we should limit deductions for millionaires and billionaires, they say we should end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. republicans by and large support that. even republicans in the senate say we must look at closing loopholes not just to lower rates for corporate america but in ordero lower the deficit.

instead of going to our children, our seniors, our workers, and all the rest to make those cuts. so we are in a situation here today that is created not because the republicans passed two bills last year. i know the gentleman -- the gentlemen are speaking on the floor but they know that that last year is over. the congress is ended. those womens have no weight. the cutting, the spending cuts we agreed to last year are for over 10 years. the bill that the republican passed last year ended at the end of the last congress. how to make a law. just read the look. and i recognize that you would hardly recognize that civics lesson if you see what's happening on the floor here today and over the last period of time. but i have enormous, enormous respect for the chairman of the appropriations committee. we sat on that committee together for a number of ars. i apeciate that he wanted to

bring a bill to the floor that honors the budget control act. i disagree with the tactic of putting a reinforcement of the sequester into the law. it exists. we have to do the sequester unless we can head it off. unless the safety of our troops and their training, our national security, the educion of our children, the safety of our neighbors, unless that takes precedence over protecng tax breaks for corporate jets, businesses that send jobs overseas, the list goes on and i mentioned it now mo than one time. so i urge my colleagues to think carefully about this vote. this isn't a vote to shut down government or not. that vote will come another time. the senate isn't going to accept this bill. the senate is not going to accept this bill. we'll send back another bill and see how many votes there are on the republin side to

keep government open because we have absolutely no intention of having the government shut down. we'll see how many republican votes there are for that, for a bill, that it will be a better bill than this, although -- and what that will do to the economy. think of what it does in the lives of those four million meals not delivered, those seniors not getting the meal or children not getting head start or beyond that, the education of the children. teachers teaching children of military families who will have to lose their jobs or be furloughed. this has an impact right at the kitchen table of the american people system of we have to think very seriously about what we are doing here. but whatever we do, let's have

it beyond the level. this is the bill that reinforces the sequester. if it didn't, it wouldn't be in the bill. so this bill, i think, has no merit and it will not have my support. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the minority leader yield back. e gentlewoman reserves. mr. rogers: may i inquire how many speakers remain on the gentlelady's side? i have one remaining speaker. mrs. lowey: we have three remaining speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise with grave concern over the continuing resolution we are

considering today. while we support efforts to prevent a government shutdown. there's no question that our men and women serving in afghanisn deserve our support. but so do our children here in america. yet the c.r. underfunds head start by $70 million even though both the house and nate fiscal year 2013 bills provide significant increases to the program in the regular budget process. in addition to undfunding programs like the affordable care act and the supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children, the c.r. does nothing to stop the budget cuts for any agency, including defense. i hope we can work together to replace these indiscriminate, meat ax cuts with a balanced approach to avoid compromising our future through lack of investments in education, infrastructure, defense and public safety. sequester cuts will be like slowly turning up the heat to

boil a pot of water. thankfully the house is bringing the bill to the floor in time to act. it would take a balanced approach to deficit reduction wi targeted spending cuts and closing tax loopholes for the wealthy to use the revenue and spending cuts to pay down our debts. mr. speaker, taking an indiscriminate meat ax approach there to the sequester, to reducing our deficit in a balanced way isrresponsible and we must work together and i implore our friends on the other side of the aisle to come together and work together with us toward compromise so that we can avoid gravely harming our domestic priorities including women, children, families, and think middle class. it is still possible and there is still time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the ntlewoman yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. lowey: i am delighted -- i am delighted to yield two minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the defense appropriations committee, mr. -- the speaker pro tempore: the the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i want to thank the members of all of the subcommittees for their efforts throughout the years but particularly those on the defense subcommittee as well as our staff. i do spend to support the measure. but do ask a question. where are the other 10 bills for the department of agriculture, the department of transportation and others with less than six months left in the fiscal year? for some of my colleagues who would vote for no appropriation measure ever in their life, i

ask, what is there to fight over with the national institute of standards? for the copyright royalty tribunal or me mine safety and health administration? i am grievously concerned, mr. chairman, that we no longer legislate in this body but we lurch. we lurch from crisis to crisis. i find it inexplicable that some of my colleagues woul vote in a heart beat far continuing resolution to run the government looking backwards last year at exactly the same amount of money for a similar appropriation bill with all 12 bills so that we could make disions and exercise our constitutional responsibility. continuing resolutions run the most powerful nation on earth, like we did last year.

we are absent any legislative decisions, and it be an be a vocation of our constitutional responbility. i push further and say we have a mandate. in article 1, section 9, there is one sentence that says no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. it is time that congress begins to appropriate measures and runs this government and country and stops lurching. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. chairman, i yield myself one minute and would ask mr. visclosky if he might rejoin us at the crophone. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one minute. mr. rogers: on the point the gentleman just approached and that is the passage of bills. it's one of the most frustrating things of my life is that we cannot get the senate to pass any

appropriations bills. as the gentleman knows, because he helped pass the defense bill for this year and all years, we passed through the house committee all 12 bills. we sent them to the senate and we -- all we got back was a resounding slor, they didn't do anything. and when the senate doesn't appropriate, in spite of the ct we passed all of our bills over here, we have to pass a continuing resolution and that is where we are. and i lament that as does the gentleman, and i know that he joins me in wanting us to pass through regular order each individual bills, brings it to the floor -- bring it to the floor, have the colleagues vote on it. mr. his clouse key: if the gentleman will yield? i would concur of the gentleman's remarks and woul note that -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. visclosky: it includes the

united states senate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes -- three minutes to the gentleman from iowa who chairs the transportation, housing and urban development subcommittee on appropriations, hardworking member, mr. latham, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for three minutes. mr. latham: i thank the speaker. i thank the chairman of the fullommittee for the opportunity to address this. i've been sitting here listening and hear the minority leader come to the floor and talk about children, about old people, about teachers, all these things that she voted to cut the spending for to fund. i mean, how can you support a bill, support the sequester, insisted on by the president of the united states as his idea that he brought forth to try

and resolve the differences at that time, something that he supports, he insisted on, the minority leader voted for tse cuts that she now bemoans. it's vas nating when you look at the -- it's fascinating when you look at the reality of th situation. there are some that did not support this because of the way the sequester would take place. they can say it's not going to happen. the fact of the matter is it's law. because the minority leader insisted on it. to come to the floor and talk about these cuts today, something she supported, is really quite fascinating oit -- to anyone listening or watching this debate today. mr. speaker, i tell you it is very frustrating. as someone who went through the

entire process last year with my ranking member, mr. albright. we had three days on the floor of the house. open rules with amendments. we passed our bill. the transportation, h.u.d. appropriions bill with a large bipartisan and yet the senate does nothing. that's why we're here today. the house of representatives, under the chairman's leadership, has moved bills, has done our work and the frustrating we have is that we don't have a counterpart on the other side of this great building to actually do their job so we can finally get resolution of these very difficult spending problems. mr. speaker, it is very importantoday that we move this bill. this is the best alternative. it would give us certainty for the rest of the year so we can

address the big issues that are before us and this nation about spending, $16.5 trillion of national debt, about $1 trillion annual deficit that's got to be addressed. and by doing this it will give us the opportunity to maybe forge a large compromise, to forge a big deal that will actually set a course for this country. i think the reason all of us are here is because we have children. i have five grandchildren. i do this because i believe we need to change direction and this is the necessary step to do this. with that i ask everyone to support this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky has one minute remaining. the gentlewoman from n york has a minute and a quarter remaining. mrs. lowey: i'm proud to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished member of the appropriations committee, ms. barbara lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for a minute and a quarter. ms. le let me thank my

ranking member for yielding and for her tremendous leadership. first off, let me make this point. this bill actually this c.r. reaffirms sequestration and it could have been canceled. at a time when the pentagon enjoyed a decade of unchecked spending, this cushions the effects of sequestration. again, it reaffirms sequestration. at the same time, the big ig -- the bill ignores the impacts on the american public. these cuts would not only hurt low-income families first and hurts them the most, but also communities of color and the millions of americans who still are struggling to find a job. the sequester would impact my congressional district and my home state of california and every single household in america. it also underfines the vital program to protect the vital health, safety and promotes and develops our work force and

educates the next generation. while all of us believe that it's important to keep the government functioning, governing through a continuing resolution is really no way to run the federal government. we need to rein in pentagon spending and spend our security dollars wisely on a proven program that can meet the day's national security needs. but we must begin nation building here at home. the american people deserve better than that. not only is this resolution a fiscal disaster. it is morally wrong. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one minute. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, this is all about whether or not we shut down the government. this is a bill to keep the government operating. while we debate then how we deal with sequestrati. this is not a sequestration bill. this is a bill to continue funding the government for the balance of the fiscal year and to help the military cope with the reconstructions so that our nation is adequately defended

by our men and women in uniform. i urge the adoption of the >> we will talk with freshman democratic president of castro. he will take your questions about immigration and automatic spending cuts. you can also come in with your questions to representative tom mcclintock, a california republican, a member of the budget committee, and chairman of the resources subcommittee on water and power. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> she has been read since 1841 her grandson first published an edition of her letters that went through four editions in the 1840's. it was -- she was a best seller

through the 19th century. people knew her. she has always been famous. >> our conversation about abigail adams is available on our website. c-span.org/firstladies. >> attorney general eric holder was on capitol hill today testifying before the senate judiciary committee. attorney general holder was asked by several republican senators whether it is constitutional to kill u.s. citizens on american soil if they do not pose an imminent threat to the united states trade will have that hearing next. on the senate floor today, a kentucky senator rand paul filibustered president obama's nominee to head up the cia. senator paul question the cia's use of drone strike against u.s. citizens. here is part of his remarks. >> i rise today to begin to

filibuster the cra nomination. longer speak. i will speak as long as it tak takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no american should be killed by a drone on american soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court. that americans could be killed in a cafe in san francisco or in a restaurant in houston or at their home in bowling green, kentucky, is an abomination. it is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country. i don't rise to oppose john brennan's nomination simply for the person. i rise today for the principle. the principle is one that as

americans we have fought long and hard for and to give up on that principle, to give up on the bill of rights, to give up on the fifth amendment protection that says that no person shall be held without due process, that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted. this is a precious american >> attorney-general holder testifying today. senator patrick leahy is the chairman. the hearing is to 0.5 hours. -- 2.5 5 hours. >> the attorney general is here.

the session will be in order. mr. attorney general, if you would join us, please. because the session has begun, nobody will stand and what people behind them with placards or otherwise. this is a meeting of the united states senate judiciary committee. everybody here is a guest of the senate and we expect you to be aware of all your fellow guests. i realize some have differing

views. everybody has an opportunity to be here. i would hope that nobody would be so arrogant that they would feel that the should have the ability to block the view of others. this week is the anniversary of bloody sunday. when voting rights marchers including congressman john lewis were beaten by state troopers as they attempted to cross the bridge in selma. attorney general holder spoke this weekend about living up to founding ideals and the power of our legal system. laz protect rights of all americans. that is what this attorney general and justice department is dedicated to doing. in 2009, the attorney general worked with us in congress to pass landmark hate crimes

legislation to address crimes committed against americans because of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. i'm glad to see the justice department is enforcing the law. this week the president will sign historic legislation building on the violence against women act. and the trafficking victims' protection act to protect all victims of abuse. i know the justice department will implement those laws. insuring all americans have the right to vote and have their votes matter. this community played a key role in realizing the voting rights act six years ago. after nearly 20 hearings, thousands of pages of testimony, before the house and senate judiciary committees, we found

that modern day barriers to voting persist in our country. we passed the bill. president bush signed the extension. i remember talking with president bush the day of the be signing it. republicans and democrats came together to craft the legislation because of its need. i commend the attorney-general and fbi director miller and all those working today to keep americans safe. a follow-up attack to 911 has not occurred. part of that is vigilance. senator grassley will understand why do not going to this in

specific. i thank the attorney general for reaching out on issues of our national security. [indiscernible] i remain troubled the committee has not yet received the materials are requested regarding the legal action of the targeted killing of united states citizens overseas. [indiscernible] should have been provided to members of this committee. i am glad to see at least it was provided to senator feinstein's intelligence committee. -- i am glad to see it was provided to a sinister feinstein's senator feinstein's intelligence committee. some of the votes will be cast against a nominee that has come out of her committee. a nominee coming out of the inability to get that memo here. we have worked together effectively to help keep

americans safe from crime and health crime victims rebuild their lives. we have worked to strengthen federal law enforcement. crime rates have experienced a historic decline. i remember hearing senator coons in delaware where we saw parole officers, members of the community coming together [indiscernible] overglazing of the fact we have to work together. congress passed a recovery act. the justice department has

broken records over the last several years for fraud recoveries. the committee has worked to ensure the criminal-justice system works as it should. this month is the 50th anniversary of the supreme court decision. i remember as a young lawyer reading a book on that, broken records over the "gideon's trumpet." we need to do more to ensure justice for all. i was glad to see the announcement of a joint initiative to help improve forensic science across the country. i appreciate the attorney general and joining me in recognizing the problem of our

growing prison population, having devastating consequences. there is also a human cost. we have to find more constructive ways to solve it. turning away from mandatory minimums for nonviolence would be a good start. the senate confirmed attorney general eric holder four years ago. the credibility of the department among the american people has increased dramatically. the department among the americani e that hard-working agents, prosecutors, many who have been there from both administrations has improved considerably. i apologize for the allergies and the voice. having devastating consequences.

that>> before i speak, could you inform us how you will handle it when we vote? >> apparently we have a vote scheduled for 10:30. i would encourage us to -- for time, we keep the committee meeting going and try to get out and vote as quickly as possible and come back as quickly as possible. go ahead. >> welcome, general holder. this hearing affords us opportunity to clear the deck on many outstanding questions we have yet to receive from the

department. example -- we have not received questions for the record and the last oversight hearing held nine months ago. we also have questions for the record from department officials at various hearings that remain outstanding. there are a number of inquiries that have not received a response on important issues. i cannot go through all of them but an example, i have not received a response to a letter i sent on the impact of budget sequester. another letter outstanding on the failure to prosecute individuals at hsbc for money laundering. that was sent in december. i have an outstanding request related to investigation if fast and various -- of fast and furious. it is unfortunate we have to always start hearings with the same request of the attorney general to respond to the

unanswered questions. that said, i have a number of topics i want to discuss with the attorney general, including the latest letter to senator paul, arguing in favor of the president's ability to use force to kill american citizens on u.s. soil without due process of law. this letter is extremely concerned, not just in its content but classify but they -- but doubled with the classified memoranda. this oversight hearing also comes on the heels of an extremely important hearing paul, arguing in favor of the president's ability to use before house judiciary on the topic of target killing of americans using unmanned drones. this is an issue chairman leahy already referred to. i have asked repeatedly the attorney general about our electors on this matter that have gone unanswered, including our most recent letter to president obama seeking access to classified memoranda of the

rise in the targeted killings of americans abroad -- memoranda on the target the killings of americans abroad. i joined chairman leahy in discussing the importance of the damage -- of the judiciary committee obtaining these documents, despite opinions of this administration and the previous one to the contrary, congress has a significant role to play in conducting oversight of national security measures. we have the right to receive classified information through appropriate channels to determine if the activities of the executive branch are appropriate. this committee has president has precedent of obtaining highly classified information. for example, her in overseeing the fisa amendment act -- for example, in overseeing the fisa amendment act.

and as part of the oversight conducted by the committee reviewing the enhanced irrigation techniques. -- enhanced interrogation techniques. in light of the march 4, 2013 to senator rand paul, with the attorney general argued the president could use lethal force on u.s. citizens on u.s. soil in an effort to protect the u.s. from a catastrophic attack, it is imperative we understand operational boundaries for use of such force. the letter deals with "extraordinary circumstances." american citizens have the right to understand when their life can be taken by their

government as in due process. posh absent due process. -- absent due process. providing these memorandum for review would go a long way toward complying with the president's election promise to have the most transparent administration ever. move on to another issue -- gun violence. tomorrow the committee begins mark up. we have held three meetings it into the past 2 months. both times the department testified we heard a reiteration of the department's's support of a ban on semiautomatic rifles with certain features. both times when i asked whether in the deficit in official opinion determining whether a ban was constitutional in light of the second amendment, i heard no opinion has been issued. we are martin of the bills tomorrow. it would be good to hear out --

-- we are marking the bill tomorrow. it would be good to hear on the attorney-general in advance of the mark up. these companies settle for pennies on the dollar and the costs become the costs of doing business for these institutions. it has led many to believe financial institutions too big to fail are also too big to jail. while this distinction was mostly reserved for financial crimes, and portion, a position i find flawed, this policy appears to have seeped into other misconduct enforced by the department. december 2012, the department

entered into a deferred protection agreement. dpa with the bank hsbc. that is a global bank, violating federal laws designed to prevent drug lords and terrorists from laundering money in the united states a deferred prosecution agreement for a company entered into a involved in mone- laundering for drug lords and terrorists. i sent a letter to the attorney-general extras -- expressing my outrage on december. i asked why no employees were prosecuted. senator brown of ohio and i sent a letter in january seeking the right to know. the response was will fall and failed to answer our questions. this is a leadership problem, and the one that needs to be fixed quickly -- and one that needs to be fixed quickly.

but also want to hear from the attorney general about -- i also want to hear from the attorney general about a concerning new studies. i requested the gao conduct a report. the department executives reimburse the government for part of the trip but only the cost of regular coach fare. this is less than the thousands of dollars an hour that these planes cost. the report found that between fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2011, total flight time was 60% of the time. but accounted for millions of dollars of tax payer expenditures -- they accounted

for millions of dollars of taxpayer expenditures. in light of sequester and the dire fiscal situation the federal government faces, in mo- laundering for this trouble was concerning yet it was especially concerning getting the justification provided to congress in 2010 was for counterterrorism measures. the g-20 general and at shiite director are now -- the attorney general andy fbi director had the discretion to use commercial air travel. this report raises a number of troubling questions in light of the proposed spending reductions because of the sequester. most pressing of which is should the executives at the

department be using these claims for non mission travel on a jet purchase for counter-terrorism missions? i yield the floor. >> we will -- again, i would add i realize some in the audience feel very committed to their positions and feel whatever their position is is far more important than anybody else in maybe sitting here. i ask you not to block other people. please welcome everybody whether they agree with us or not. we have a responsibility to the people who are also trying to [indiscernible] they feel they have an important reason to be here. attorney general, earlier this week worked with senator collins

to produce a bill to adjust the problems of fire arms trafficking. and struck purchasing. -- straw purchasing. the current law need to be strengthened and fixed and close the gaps that makes it too easy for by the criminals, gangs and drug trafficking organizations to obtain guns. do you agree there is a need for specific statutes criminalizing gun trafficking and straw purchasing? chairman. there is no question there is a need for a stand alone trafficking bilbray what we now have is a hodgepodge -- stand alone trafficking. what we have now is a hodgepodge. it is not likely to induce cooperation from people we are charging. the trafficking bill is something we really support. >> mr.

attorney-general, i realize -- i forgot to give a chance to give your opening statement. statement. [laughter] >> chairman leahy, ranking member and distinguished members of the committee, i appreciate this opportunity to provide an overview of the justice department's recent achievements in the park -- the accomplishments my colleagues have made possible. i look forward to working with you all to take on critical efforts to a new level. before we begin this discussion, i must acknowledge three correctional workers employed by over the last week had made the old men sacrifice. -- ultimate sacrifice. officer erik williams, the gregory bineski and the tenant oswaldo.

i am determined to ensure those responsible to the acts that led to the deaths of these brave individuals are led to justice. we are committed to honoring the service of these officers by doing everything in our power to treat the women and men in law enforcement safe. in this regard, i am proud to report the department has made progress in battling by the crimes, financial fraud, upholding the civil-rights of all, safeguarding the most vulnerable members of our society and protecting the american people from terrorism and other national security threats. since the horrific tragedy in newtown, the urgency of our public safety efforts have come into sharp focus. earlier this year i joined president -- vice-president crichton -- vice president biden. in january, president obama

announced a comprehensive plan that includes 23 executive actions of the justice department and other agencies working to implement common- sense legislative proposals. i am pleased to join the president, vice president and countless americans in calling on congress to enact legislation adjusting gun violence. including measures to require universal background checks to impose tougher penalties on gun traffickers, to protect law enforcement officers, to ban high capacity magazines and military-style assault weapons. and to eliminate misguided restrictions that require federal agents to allow the importation of dangerous weapons and because of their age. i am pleased to'echo the s call for the senate to confirm todd jones -- i am pleased to echo the president's call for the senate to confirm todd jones.

we are determined to combat domestic violence as well. i am pleased this bill will finally close in loophole that left many native american women without adequate protection. the justice department looks forward to implementing this historic legislation. we are committed to become smarter and tougher on crime and remained aggressive and fair in our enforcement of federal laws. thanks to countless employees and partners, we achieved

extraordinary results. nowhere is it more clear than in our work to protect america's national security. the department has bought cases and secured convictions against numerous terrorist. we have identified and disrupted multiple plots by terrorist groups as well as homegrown extremis history article 3 -- as well as homegrown extremists. article 3 works. last summer, the department created the national security cyber specialist network to spearhead these efforts. the network is comprised the prosecutors and other specialists across the country who work closely with the fbi and other partners to investigate militias cyber activity and to bring criminal prosecution as part of our

government white effort to deter and disrupt cyber threats to our national security. the department has taken significant steps to ensure enforcement of antitrust laws to protect the environment crackdown on tax cut schemes. in cooperation with the department of health and human services over the last fiscal year, we secured $4.2 billion in recoveries related to health care fraud and abuse. as a result of our commitment to achieve justice on behalf of the victims of the 2010 oil spill, we secured a guilty plea and a record $4 billion criminal fine and the penalties from bp. the court settled -- settled a settlement. on, february 20 we commence trials of civil claims against bp and others.

we are working closely with authorities to take our fight against fraud targeting consumers, investors, and home owners to new heights. we have about 10,000 financial fraud cases, including 2900 mortgage fraud defendants. last month the department filed a civil suit against standard and poor's, seeking at least $5 billion in damages for alleged conduct. we are striving to boost the capacity of our law enforcement allies and provide access to the tools, training and equipment they need to do their jobs as safety -- safely and effectively as possible. we are working to promote the highest standards of integrity. this commitment to integrity

and equal justice has also driven the department's civil- rights division in an effort to address discrimination from the housing and lending markets, schools, workplaces, border areas and to our voting booths. the division has caught -- has bought more civil-rights cases. we have also led efforts to implement the mac to shepherd a crimes prevention act -- the matthew shepherd crimes prevention act. we are fighting to preserve the principles of equality and justice. in the days ahead as congress considers ways to make fair and effective changes to america's immigration system, these same principles must guide our efforts to strengthen our borders.

they must continue to inform our actions as we adjudicate immigration cases, and force existing law and hold accountable lawyers -- accountable those who employ illegal workers. i must note that our ability to complete this work and continue building upon the progress i have outlined will be hampered unless congress adopts a balanced deficit-reduction plan that ends the reductions that last week said in a motion to cover $1.6 billion of the department's budget. these cuts are already having a significant negative impact on

employees and programs that directly impact the safety of americans across the country. our capacity to respond to crimes, investigate wrongdoing, has been reduced. despite our best efforts to limit the impact of sequestration, unless congress quickly pass a balanced deficit-reduction plan, the effects of these cuts may be profound. i urged congressional leaders to act swiftly to keep our citizens state. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you and i apologize again. we are watching the clock because we have to go to speak on the halligan combination. you mentioned the cuts at $1.6

billion across the board. i worry what that will do to critical grant programs in small, rural states like vermont. i do not mean that to be parochial but in smaller areas in every state, has a disproportionate effect. i hope you would be able to continue to work on programs like the bulletproof vest partnership program and victims assistance program. >> we will try to do the best we can. the cut is 9% out of our budget over the course of seven months. it will take $100 million out of our grant making capacity. we will try to minimize the harm and make sure the mission we have is not compromised. i have to say, you cannot take $1.6 billion out of our budget

and expect us to be as effective as we once were. >> -- is it safe to say this will affect national security? >> i fear that it could. we will try to suggest things so we have agents with the need to be. -- to adjust things so we have agents where they need to be. if these budget cuts stay in effect, people will have to undergo furloughs. they will not be on the job. >> thank you. targeted killings. i've been asking about that for some time. you and i have had discussions about this. i realize the decision is not entirely in your hands. it may be brought to a head from a subpoena by a letter from

this committee. you mentioned 9/11 and drones. is there no scenario a puppet to use an armed drawn on u.s. soil to strike an american citizen? >> what i said in the letter as the government has no intention to carry out and joan strikes in the united states. -- any drone strikes in the united states. it is hard for me to imagine a situation in which that would occur. wwe have the ability to use our law enforcement capacity. i gave his speech at northwestern with regard to the use of these legal forces. one of the critical things with the possibility of captor was

difficult, in foreign lance -- of capture was difficult in foreign lands. the use of drones is entirely hypothetical here. what i try to say in the letter to senator paul was that. >> i may want to meet with you and discuss particular points. last year the committee had a provision that would amend the act to prohibit prosecutions based on the violations of the terms of use agreement. we were concerned

[indiscernible] -- innocuous, but such as violating the terms of use agreement. i think i supported the franken amendment. can the doj review its guidelines for computer fraud and abuse cases and consider revising the base upon the conduct in violation of the terms of agreement? >> we are always revising. there are issues in statutes. we always want to correct that. we constantly monitor that and we want to make sure we use those tools in appropriate ways

and only asked for jail time where that is absolutely needed. that is something we can look at. >> thank you. last november, voters chose to legalize personal use of 1 ounce of marijuana in several states. last year i asked the director of the aphis -- office of national drug control policy how the administration prioritizes resources to determine policy. in light of the choices made by voters, there will be other states that do the same things. are you prepared to note the federal government's policy in response? >> i have had the opportunity to meet with the leadership from colorado and washington. we had a good communication.

we are considering what the federal government's response could this new statutes will be. i expect we will have an ability to announce our policy relatively soon. >> this is simply an editorial comment but if you're going to because of budget cuts prioritized on matters, i with to just more serious things than minor possession of marijuana. that is a personal view. senator grassley raised the fact that secretaries are prohibited from flying commercial for security reasons. a recent report confirms a counter-terrorism -- other mission travel always takes precedent.

[indiscernible] you and director muller have complied with reimbursement orders in all cases. is it to your predecessor views the aircraft -- used the aircraft personal travel twice as much as you have? >> yes, we took a look at the numbers. i took trips -- 27. my predecessor took 54 trips. these plans are always he's first and foremost for mission purposes as well as official travel. if you combined mission purposes as well as official travel, the planes are used 92% of the time for those two purposes. that includes chips made on the plains -- trips made to afghanistan, guantanamo, haiti,

ottawa. thuis notion -- this notion that these planes are being misused is belied by the fact. if they are fairly viewed. >> i was in haiti right after your trip on a government plane with republican and democratic members of congress high. i understand the reason why they are there too. i am giving the gavel to senator feinstein and recognize senator grassley. who's next? >> good morning, general holder. >> good morning. >> i wrote you a letter on january 18, 2013, about the prosecution of aaron schwartz who was prosecuted in

massachusetts for allegedly breaking into the computer networks act mit and downloading without authorization thousands of academic articles from a subscription service. he was charged with crimes that would have carried a penalty of up to 35 years in prison and $8 million fine. superseding indictment which was actually filed -- i wrote a letter raising questions of prosecutorial zeal and i would say misconduct appeared have you look into that matter and reached any conclusions? >> mr. schwartz's death was a tragedy. my sympathy goes up to his family and his friends, those who were close to him.

he was always the bright young men and had a good future in front of him. as i talk to the people will look into this matter, the reports about what he was facing in not consistent with the interaction between the government and mr. schwartz. the plea offer was made 3 months before. after the indictment, an offer was made that he could serve four months eric after that, a plea offer made from a range of 0 to 6 months. there was never an intention for him to go to jail for longer than a 5 month range. that was what the government said specifically to mr. schwartz. those offers were rejected. >> he committed suicide, correct? >> he did. >> this subscription service did not support the prosecution.

does it strike you as odd the government would invite someone for crimes that carry penalties of up to 35 years in prison and then offer him 3 or 4 month prison sentence? >> that is a good use of prosecutorial discretion to look at the contact regardless of what the maximum were and to fashion a sentence consistent with the nature of the conduct. what the prosecutors did a in offering 3, 4, 0 to 6, was consistent with that concept. >> you do not consider this a case of prosecutorial overreaching? >> no. >> i would suggest if you are an individual american citizen and you are looking at criminal charges being brought by the united states government with all the vast resources

available, it strikes me as disproportionate and one that is being used inappropriately to try to bully someone into pleading guilty to something. i would appreciate it if you would respond to my letter in writing dated january 18. i know senator grassley listed other letters your department has not responded to. would you commit to responding to that letter and answering the questions in writing? >> we will get responses to that letter. i think it will probably encapsulate what i just said in terms of how we viewed the case. >> i want to make sure you have done it thorough investigation in the matter and you're not just speaking off the cuff. >> it is not off the cuff.

a good examination has been done. the prosecutors were talked to in people in the department responsible for those inquiries. >> one of the reasons i'm skeptical is because the prosecution of senator ted stevens. the prosecutor is in that case overreached, without the permission that should have been divulged under the rules of ethics. i'm concerned that average citizens like aaron schwartz, people who do not have status or power, could be bullied and we have seen members of the united states senate like ted stevens who have been on the receiving end of prosecutorial conduct. >> what we did in that case was not consistent with a high