because the law is exclusive. >> the ambiguity it is one of the contributing -- unless congress changes the law, that is the standard. >> we are looking at those changes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. werfel. i want to follow-up on some of these. shee know exactly when her primary on responsibilities with the affordable care act? >> i do not have an exact answer, but i think it is the

range of spring-summer 2010. >> you will wait -- you will be able to get back to us? >> we are working on that issue. >> the other day, the bonus was brought up. you said you would get back to me. do you have an answer? >> can you remind me which question? >> what kind of a bonus was paid? back to yourwent office to check on it. can you tell us today what that bonus was? >> i will ask my staff. i do not have that information at my fingertips. >> did you go back and look into it? went through all of my commitments to make sure we were getting the answers. i do not know yet.

>> you have not had a discussion about bonuses? >> there will several -- there were several issues raised about bonuses. i do not want to miss speak. . will get you the information >> does your staff know today? >> we will have to go back to the irs. >> so they do not know? >> this is -- we will get you the information. >> let me go forward. can you give us assurances that -- targetingside did not happen with regards to auditing, nlt waivers, candy -- penalty waivers, can you give us assurances that is not happening systemically?

am not aware of its past this time. >> have you investigated? >> i have been here for two weeks. i have not completed the review. >> you cannot have us the assurances. >> i would clarify that at this point in time, i am not aware of it. if i was, it would be stopped. >> you also talked about, we need to have more people on accountability. youiously, it you said need more layers of accountability. that was not something that was unique to just cincinnati. it involved a number of people in washington, the technical advisors. dozens of people knew about the problem.

how does more people actually fix the problem? we could end up with a solution and i would be very open to that solution. i am also interested in cost cutting. what i meant by more people was we have people who have different responsibilities, maybe an independent board or --ething like that, >> we need an independent board? one. have this is something i am exploring. i am being candid about different ideas. maybe that type of board can be asserted to do other reviews. if you have a situation where there are ongoing reviews, you might be in a situation where this was picked up more quickly. >> have you had conversations

with beth tucker and what she felt like was the issue? >> she is a critical part of the leadership team, yes. >> was she aware of it? >> she was not aware of it. we have collectively looks at the situation and agree the singling out of applications for extra scrutiny waste on political labels -- >> she was never aware until the report came out. >> this is part of the process. to the guiding principles. thorough, fair, and expedient. i have to be given the opportunity to do a thorough and fair and expedient -- about youring you personal conversations with her. >> based on my personal conversations, i am not aware at

this time that she knew the situation. >> with regards to nancy, she was the assistant to sarah, is that correct? people moved around, but she was the technical advisor. >> when to first go to cincinnati? she would've had to have flown to get there or pay mileage. we would have some documentation. when was the first time she went to cincinnati? >> i would like to double confirm, but i think it is around march 2012. >> when in march? >> i do not have that. that is critical. we have testimony that was marchin ways and means on 22.

if she went before that, it would indicate that we have people that sent her to check on testimony washat being given. that is critical. >> we will get you more precision on that. , mr. chairman, for your indulgence. was on they, david sunday shows and they were discussing the targeting of conservative groups and he made the statement that this was not at all political. i am curious, do you agree with his assessment of what went on in the tax-exempt division of we do notization? >> know the answer to the question. the audit report does not find any evidence. the audit report that i am

find anyn, it does not evidence of political motivation with respect to this targeting. >> has there been any group on who ist who was targeted a left-leaning group? yes or no? >> i can answer that question once i make sure i have appropriate redaction. >> are you aware? that has come forward and said they experienced the same type of targeting? >> we have started to produce documents to congress, to ways and means incident finance. there are additional helpful information coming to light to give more information about

different types of organizations that were on the list and based on that, the problem with that document is that -- terms, i have yet to see , i have on the list yet to see any terms that would left-leaning groups. they only seem to apply to right-leaning groups. i am back to the first question. do you agree that this was not political? i do not see how you can reach any other conclusion that--other than it was political? you are the guy who was cleaning up an agency, you need to know the motivation. the only logical conclusion was

that this was politically motivated. report did not find it. it would be inappropriate for me to speculate that there was political -- >> why is it inappropriate for you to speculate? left hasroup on the been identified for harassment. hundreds have been identified on the right. not one on the left, hundreds on the right, and yet you are still seen, i do not believe this was politically driven. >> i do not have enough evidence. could lookle people at the evidence and say there is enough evidence to conclude that it was politically driven because we have yet to find one group on the left. there a smart is relevant documents and information that needs -- there

.s more relevant information >> anything that shows groups on the left were targeted? >> i am unable to answer that question because i would be legally on allowed to answer that question because i have to go through a process to make sure i have an answer that i can leave the league -- illegally give you. i am notot asking -- asking tell me the specific group. is there any group on the left that has been targeted? >> would you define what is left and what is right?

i am serious. what is left and what is right? that is a hell of a question will stop -- that is a hell of a question. with we know of any groups any progressive or liberal in their titles? that is what i am getting at. >> i was brought to the irs to make sure we are enforcing the rule of law. what i will say -- >> i do not know how it violates the law. the hamilton county progressive institute was denied. i am not telling you to talk about them specifically. have you discovered any? name one. we have received no evidence that would validate his statement. >> all i can say is the

information is forthcoming. .e are running a process the answers will be available, but i cannot provide premature answers. i just cannot do it. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. werfel. i know you have only been there for two weeks, but this is a subject that is bugging the hell out of me. this argument that because we had some bad players and people not doing their jobs properly, that there is going to be a problem with addressing the responsibilities under the affordable care act. this is america. in this committee --

because we have a bad actor, we do not quit congress. we do not suddenly go off mission. we let them go and find somebody else who can do the job. everybody in this room has been through some kind of process like that. this is my point. i do not buy this affordable care act, because we have some bad players, we cannot do the job. this is america. if we had that attitude, we never get anything done. i am asking you, from what you have seen, i know you are going from top to bottom and you're doing what you got a do, tell me this, do you still confident

that doing the things you can do, that you can find the appropriate people and create the climate whereby we can get the affordable act responsibilities done pursuant to the law no matter how many times may want to do away with it, it is the law. with thearged constitutional duty of enforcing the law and making the law happen. you have a responsibility of dealing with the law. can you find the people who can do it? >> yes. >> can you carry out the responsibilities? --es but >> i swear to god, >> yes. swear to god, it burns me,

this attitude. a former was sharecropper with a second-grade education. about the things i loved my dad, god bless his soul, he used to always say to us, there is no such word as can't. get things done. he was able to raise seven children, educate all of them and build his church with my mom on a second-grade education. this is america. as i said to you earlier, you have a tremendous thatnsibility, but i pray you do not go in there with the attitude that because we have some bad actors, and because the climate was not what we wanted it to be, that we cannot carry out the mission of this country.

we are better than that. if we take that kind of attitude, i do not know what we will be able to accomplish. there is no member of the congress who has not had to let somebody go. who has not had to fire somebody. go about that? i am tired of that argument. >> you are absolutely right. we have a legal responsibility, a tough operational challenge. i have started to work through our aca work very closely. one of the first things i have done is i have had to put in a who is taking on the responsibility as a commissioner of services and enforcement which oversees the affordable care act. she is one of the most talented civil servants in the irs. she is in a normatively

effective track record of getting things done. , it is a lot about leadership. she will be able to recruit the right talent. hold individuals accountable. i will be very active in this area because it is one of our priorities. i am responsible ultimately to make sure we hit all of our deadlines. my commitment is to do everything we can to hit them. >> thank you very much. get any easier than this hearing. the good news is this one is nearly done. the bad news, you have agreed to come back and work with us. let me get back to -- you are familiar with the congressional act that created the taxpayers

bill of rights. >> i will not say i am an expert, but yes. if you you look at it, would get back to us and talk to us about -- i will get it back on the screen. 1996 act which amended the code for 1986 and so on, but it established taxpayer advocates and so on. it is an area in which that hopefully you would look at that and say, aren't there some things that were not upheld that you would fix by better management and some things that need to be put into symbolism of that act that would cause the ways and means committee to update it? the confidence we are asking

you to reestablish is literal and some of it is symbolic and some of it takes time and some weit, like today's hearing, have started that. >> i think the people of the they are shocked and appalled by what happened. they are embarrassed by some of the inappropriate spending and the anaheim situation. there are institutions within the irs who hold of the primary mission to help taxpayers navigate through the tax system in a way that is fair and understandable. i have spoken to our national taxpayer advocate and she is types oftake on the transformational changes necessary to make a difference. >> i appreciate that.

perhaps that somebody should begin asking, one of the challenges is in the opinion of the chair, you had to former who didals, one acting not do the job. they are not managers up to the task. i cannot go back through every commissioner, although i have met a number of them. your two predecessors, not so good. i think we have met them, we have seen them, the american people have watched them. in what disappointed happened on their watch. , you areof things aware of the investigation related to procurement about half $1 billion worth of open antracts originated within

hub zone in the district of columbia. >> i have had preliminary briefings on it. , in the opinion of the fraud wasresents perpetrated. it included misconduct by personnel within the irs and by the applicant. i certainly think that if it is within your power to immediately terminate any further procurement on a contract is costing the taxpayers every time you buy off a it more money than replacement contract would cost, your willingness to attack that.

symbolically, it is a big difference. do not know enough to comment conclusively or concretely, but i will commit to work with you on this, to see what i learn, share with you and make sure we have a good path forward. you with one mine small fact. when this applicant applied for -- i will him i knew with one small fact. with one smallu fact. when this applicant applied for a hub zone, this is an area that could use some job creation, the applicant said, i will create jobs in northeast washington and created only a few jobs with some college students whose parents were spending $30,000 to send them to catholic part ofty, and not

underprivileged portion of northeast washington, dc. they were making a few dollars looking at computers, providing no significant jobs, no jobs to the indigenous people of that region. they had no real presence there. of a set-aside to people on both sides of the mr. cummings and baltimore, those people did not get an opportunity to bid on that lucrative contract. but beating a dead horse, i think we are passionate about fixing that particular contracts. want to thank you for raising that issue. you are absolutely right.

whatever the law is with regard to hub zones, i want to make sure they have been properly addressed. people should play by the rules. the rules have been set up in a certain way. if people are not going by the rules, i have a problem with that. i would appreciate your response. i know you have to look into it. >> i absolutely will. >> this is a discovery point. -- i do not want to be unfair to anyone. this committee would like to dispense with all of our discovery on the broader case as soon as possible. i know you would like to have as much of that behind us. in order to do so, we have a specific request, which is documents have been requested by and even if they

were not requested by the ways and means committee, we would a essentially, sending unredacted all information requested by this committee to the ways and means committee because they have personnel cleared, they can hold those documents. look, wed a special can ask them to analyze, suggest rich actions -- suggest redaction's, we can expedite that. they can look through them for characters -- characteristics they need and they may need to look at what you would give to us redacted. we are looking hand-in-hand with the ways and means committee. if you could consider that anything requested by this committee is, in fact, a carbon copy to the ways and means committee, --

you give uswords, an information request. we have to redact it, we get it to chairman camp and senator bockius earlier because they do not need the -- senator baucus earlier because they do not need the redacted version. extenthe greatest possible, we would appreciate that. lex i understand the request. >> i understand the request. we will look into it and get back to you. >> we would like to prioritize the documents we need sooner rather than later. tothat is helpful to us understand what key search terms, the better clarity we have on that, the quicker the information starts flowing to you. >> i appreciate that. mr. meadows will be recognized. you are good?

i amnot going to be -- closing. i want to thank you, this is a good start. it is a tough matter. i feel like you are coming in the day and trying to bring back the reputation. no doubt something bad happened, it did not happen on your watch. you are the person we are looking to to take decisive action. i want to personally thank you to the extent you have so far. i tell my constituents, there are moments in life that are placed there to become a movement. a moment to a movement. i think we have a moment where

we have seen so much that needs to be corrected. i am very pleased to see, when you talk about the things you are most concerned about, to turn that into a movement to the irs a place for all americans and their families can feel their trust. it is painful for my constituents, a lot of them do not have bank accounts. when they send that check into the irs, or they they get that letter about an audit, the people on the other side are going to treat them fairly. and with courtesy and that they can feel a level of confidence. i thank you and i think the president for pointing it. thank theto president for appointing you to an acting position.

an appointment request for the gsa position. would make for the record that we like confirmed individuals. we will continue working with you. we stand adjourned. >> coming up, chris christie fills the states of vacant senate seat. eric holder testifies on capitol hill. later, the house oversight committee questions the acting

irs commissioner on spending on irs conferences. >> on the next washington journal, relations between the u.s. and china and the meeting between president obama and china's president. you can call in with your questions about national security issues and allegations of chinese cyber espionage. we will also look at a survey of u.s. counties that outline strategies to improve healthcare. our guest is with the robert wood johnson foundation. washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 eastern. >> in poor health, i do mckinley

suffered from epilepsy and because of that, her husband would sit next to her at state dinners. if she had a seal -- a seizure, she would -- he would shield her face from guests until the episode past. we will look at the life of ida mckinley live monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c- span three. appointed thestie state attorney general to the u.s. senate. the cp can -- became vacant upon the death of senator lautenberg on monday. jeffrey chiesa will serve in the senate until a special election is held.

>> i am honored to let you all know that i intend to appoint jeffrey chiesa to be new jersey's next united states senator. i have known just for 22 years. he has been an extraordinary public servant. graduate of the university of notre dame, catholic university of america law school, and outstanding private practice attorney, assistant united states attorney. ,hief counsel to the governor my first two years of governor, and now new jersey's attorney general. i said on monday that i was going to select the person who i thought would be the best person to represent new jersey between now and october 16 when on new jersey and get an opportunity to elect the person to succeed the late senator

frank lautenberg. , as i the last few days have gone to deliberate on this decision, it became clear to me that attorney general jeffrey chiesa would be the best person to represent the people of the state of new jersey. i intend to execute all of the appropriate documents to effectuate his appointment effective this monday, june 10, and i want to thank jeff and his family for their willingness to once again stepped in and serve the public in the state of new jersey. it is my honor to introduce remarks from jeffrey chiesa. >> good afternoon, everybody.

this is an incredible honor for my family and i. me somernor has given extraordinary chances to serve in public life. them i expected. this, probably, least of all. wonderful opportunity for anybody. i will use my best judgment and skill that i have to conduct myself in a way that will make everybody in new jersey proud and to do everything i can to advance the interest of the people who live here. to thank governor christie for placing his trust and confidence in me. it is extraordinary to me that i am standing here today. i want to thank my family because you cannot have the chances i have had and you cannot do the things i have had a chance to do without the support of your family. have beend children

incredibly supportive and i am incredibly thankful. i look forward to doing my best in this job over the next few months. thank you. questions? >> [inaudible] >> the attorney general has chosen not to seek the office of the united states senate. he will not be a candidate in the primary or general election. that is his decision. he has decided not to seek the office and i am comfortable with that decision. >> [inaudible] >> i went to jeff and jenny's house on monday evening. i sat and talked to them about this. hour and for about an

a half on monday night. they both asked for the overnight to think about whether or not this was something they were willing to do. jeff called me on tuesday morning and told me -- he called -- in fact, he did not call me, he texted me. i knew thislong, day might come. .enator lautenberg had been ill i did not just start thinking about this on monday. i have been thinking about it on and off for some. of time. in earnest, i started on monday morning after i got the news of his death. prettyay evening, i was certain about what i wanted to do. [inaudible]

>> yes. i made him the offer. he texted me the next morning and said, i am in. i called him and said great. are you going to run for it customer you just want to serve on on the and run basis? >> he said i have no interest in being a political candidate. fine with me. >> [inaudible] name anll have to active -- and acting attorney general. i am not there yet. the attorney general does not resign until monday. he has some very capable people in his front office that being -- that can be considered. we will make a decision.

>> [inaudible] what is goingdea to happen after october. in terms of what he wants to do next in his career. i made it very clear that they have sacrificed a great deal over time at my request. they can decide what they want to do after october 16. if they want to come back and serve in some capacity, that is something i am willing to consider. they have given me a lot. >> [inaudible] >> i do not know that answer, michael. i willnot be mocked -- not be nominating someone on monday. whatever happens thereafter will depend on my deliberations going forward.

the only republican who has entered the race [inaudible] do you think you will a clear shot? -- do you think he will have a clear shot? lex i would disagree with your characterization. i do not think steve has been a strong critic of mine since i have been an office. we have agreed on is more than i have disagreed on. i will not get into speculating about who was going to run. people have until monday at 4:00 to collect 1000 signatures. steve and i have worked pretty well together over the course of the last three or four years.

i am sure there are others still considering what is going on. some people were waiting to see what i was going to do regarding the appointment of the senator for deciding what they were going to do. >> [inaudible] taken the normal

courses i have taken terms of my interactions with jeff and see as many attorney general. he has a job he will be responsible form. it is his job to make those judgments and i trust him to make those judgments. i trusted him to do that as the attorney general. we have not had any conversations about any specific pieces of legislation. >> the first thing you have to do is to make sure the borders are secure. i come from a background of law enforcement. ande issues are new to me the details of them are new to me. i will get down there and meet with my colleagues. >> [inaudible] >> this is something that is new for me. my first concern is border security. that is because of the frame of reference i come from as a

federal prosecutor and as the attorney general. as to the other issues i need to take care of, those be part of the discussions. this is all pretty new. i need to learn about the issues before i can make any meaningful judgments. >> [inaudible] >> i am a registered republican. >> [inaudible] >> i do not know what the result would have been, but i know we would have been sued for 2014.

the democrats have made that publicly. it is the fault of the legislature for setting up less than clear statutory guidance. as a new jersey republican, what i know, these kinds of thing should not be left to the courts to decide. i cannot predict the result, i am a student of history, as are you. i thought the idea of making a decision that was in the best interest of the people of the state to give them a voice and choice and to do the best i could to keep it out of the courts and would serve the best interest of the people in the state. >> [inaudible]

>> there was no perfect decision to be made here. i went to my core principles. people have the right to make a choice of that is available. that is why i made the decision i made. as far as the ramifications politically, that is for anybody else to decide. everyone will debate the political effects until we see what they are. my consideration was to look at what my options were and to make the best and most legally defensible choice.

>> [inaudible] wait until you try to get one million votes. >> [inaudible] -- did this come completely out of left field? ,> it was unexpected, for sure but i knew when the governor called pretty late on monday and , i had ane meet inkling of what we might be talking about. there was no arm twisting. the decision is one for my wife and my family to make. he understands that.

it is the next ordinary opportunity. it is an incredible chance to serve. i'm am incredibly honored to have this one. there is no arm twisting. thankfully, i have my family support. >> [inaudible] >> 3000 bills are so introduced in every session. this is one of them that will be there as well. .s to the cost, let me be clear i understand i was confronted with a set of imperfect choices. decidingbelieve that

on letting people select that isson as soon as possible something that should be discounted. maybe an additional $12 million in cost. i wasaid on monday, going to insist on a primary no matter what. that was nonnegotiable. i was not going to have state party insiders selecting the candidates to go on the ballot. we would have to have a primary no matter what. 's death camenberg within one day of our primary, there was no way to do that. the framers of our constitution made it clear that they wanted

federal election separated from state elections. they made a conscious choice to only have state elections on odd numbered years. he did not want voters to be conflating federal issues and state issues. andframers emphasized that my decision was faithful to the intent of the constitution. there are probably not a lot of people who have read those things. i think the decision is consistent with that. the cost is not something that should dissuade us. >> [inaudible] >> i loved being attorney general. i do not know if i will ever

have a better job. ,aving lived here my whole life i felt comfortable doing the work. the experiences i have had, the i have had, allow me to do this job as well. these chancesd because of this governor. when he gave me that chance, and long as myo this, so family felt it was ok with them, because of the extraordinary generosity he has given me, if i felt comfortable and my family felt comfortable, it was something i should do. >> [inaudible] >> 1991.

click [inaudible] -- >> [inaudible] in my life people that i know better than jeff. i have enormous respect and admiration for him and his integrity and his honesty. everybody who has watched him in new jersey, especially people inside the statehouse, have come to the same conclusion. , i haveer saying to him rarely ever heard such a case of in my life.hon , i have a unique view because i have known him since he was a brand-new law you're 22 years ago. we have been together much of the time since then. i have appointed somebody who i

have great faith and confidence and and somebody who i know as well as almost my own family. >> [inaudible] contentiouss a place to work right now. -- the senate is a contentious place to work right now. [inaudible] >> it will be a new experience for me. as i said, all of the experiences i have had, i have tried to use my best ability and judgment and that is what i will do when i'm there. focusing on what is best for the people of new jersey. >> [inaudible]

>> no, i didn't. i went with the best person for the job. brings a great approach to solving problems. , you can interviewed dozens of people in this building. i doubt you would find anyone who would have anything bad to say about jeffrey chiesa. that is rare for someone who has held the positions he has held. someone who has been the state

attorney general for 18 months, both of those jobs can make you enemies. you do not find, you will not find anybody who has anything bad to say about jeff. that is a reflection on his integrity and his personality. sending that kind of person to the united states senate is something they need. i think it will be a good thing to have him down there. we have had plenty of people who have never run for office before who have run for the senate and ended up winning. jeffrity and hisit is not nece- has decided he does not want to run for the job. that is his choice. told me, i want to run for the job, i would have been incredibly supportive of that as

well. bu>> [inaudible] >> anybody who knows jeff knows he has a mind of his own. that is one of the reason i value our friendship so much. these old sayings about politics and people who get into executive positions, they need to have people around them who can tell them no and to tell them the truth. the reason i loved having jeffrey chiesa around me is because he is one of those old. everybody in the executive branch knows this. when there is bad news to be

they went many times to jeff's office first to try to get him to do it for them or to get his advice about the best way to approach it. they knew jeff was somebody who could tell me the truth coming even when he disagreed. i assume he will do the same thing in the u.s. senate. if he calls me and asks me, what do you think i should do? i will hang up. i have enough to do here. he would not make that call, but if he did, do what you think is right. that is exactly what he will do. you spoken to of senator menendez? >> no. >> i have not. >> [inaudible]

>> it is not going to change right now. period. the discussion at any point in my life would be made as a family. i have seen firsthand the impact that running for a significant office has. it is not just on the candidates, it is on your family. that first conversation would be between jenny and i and them it would include our children. am not running, so that will not change. i would maker -- it with them.

that is who would affect every day. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> welcome to the political world. >> [inaudible] 47. >> [inaudible] an election on the -- on october 16. the next day would be eligible to become the united states senator. -- the winner the next day would be eligible to become the united states senator. [inaudible] [laughter]

one.ck i am my own person. i will try to do the best i can to conduct myself in a way that will represent me and my family in a way that we can be proud and the people i represent. to havingward exchanges with all of the distinguished members of the senate come a but i will go down and use my experiences in my life to conduct myself in a way that will carry out my responsibilities. i am a conservative republican. a litany ofhrough issues right now. primarily, what i hope to do, i have a limited time. to contribute. i will try to contribute in every way that i can.

i want to understand the process, i want to understand the people i will be working with and develop relationships with them and do the best i can. >> [inaudible] >> the context of it was this is a bill pending in the lame ducks session that aimed to eliminate special elections and require that the governor replace a retiring senator with someone of the party of the retiring senator. we were talking about governor corzine's conduct when he replaced himself. my statement was, a responsible governor would spend money on election to replace himself.

that was the context of the statement. i was also defending keep in the statute the weight was which was to give the governor the option to call it a special election and to make sure that government has an unfettered right to pick whether he or -- whatever he or she want regardless of the party. the contents of the conversation that my friend john stuart posted one small part of, which was great and i saw it and it was hysterical, but has no relationship to the truth in the context of what we were discussing at the time, and it was a particular piece of legislation that would pare back to the flex ability and the options available to the governor. if that had been accomplished, you would have had two statutes that conflicted each other with no part of either statute so you would have gather and teed legislation just guaranteed legislation.

that was representing both statute, both conflicting statutes had the provisions that the governor does have the right as he deems it advisable to call a special election. what john did on television is typical of john. was funny. i laughed and it was really good. it has no relationship to the truth of my position. it would have been irresponsible for governor corzine to call a special election to replace itself in that contest. this is a much different context and at a much different time. he was replacing stuff -- replacing himself at a time where there was a primary six months later and a general election after. it was entirely different circumstances. good for "the daily show" but it does not make sense for what we are talking about. >> i want to thank all of you for coming today and i appreciate it. i want to thank the senator for his willingness to step forward and represent the state of new jersey and its people in the

united states senate. i look forward to him going to washington on monday and beginning his service. i have absolute complete confidence in the fact he would represent the people of new jersey with great integrity and honor and that he would contribute mightily during that time in every way he can to the decorum of the united states senate and to the wisdom of that body. i thank jeff and his family for their willingness to step forward and serve in this way. i look forward to watching him over the next months serve new jersey as the united states senator. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> today, the new jersey senator died monday at the age of 89 from competitions due to

viral pneumonia. he was the last world war ii veteran to serve in the senate. this evening, a military honor guard removed his casket from the u.s. capitol.

[inaudible] >> forward, march.

[inaudible]

[inaudible]

>> forward, march.

[siren] >> when you put on a uniform for maintenance job, and this is true if you are a sanitation worker or a building gender, you are consumed by the role -- building janitor, you are consumed by the role. it is like you are part of the background, like a machine. you are a human being wearing the uniform. the general world gets to overlook you.

and really not see you. it is like a cloaking device. those people who are fellow star trek ekes would recognize that. or harry potter's cloak of invisibility. it is frustrating in an interesting privilege. when i am wearing a sanitation worker uniform, i can observe people in ways they do not realize i am observing them. >> nyu professor and department sanitatione -- anthropologist robin nagle sunday at 8:00 on c-span's q and a. >> eric holder discussed reports that he approved the screening of phone records as part of a national security leak investigation. he testified the surveillance was directed at government officials and no journalist would be prosecuted. other questions focused on prisoners and guantanamo bay and

sequestration. in the second part of the hearing, adjustment -- justice department inspector general toss about crime airport security. maryland senator shares this senate appropriations subcommittee. >> the commerce and justice subcommittee will now come to order. we will take the testimony of the attorney general of the united states.

the committee wishes to welcome the attorney general, and we know he will be testifying on the department of justice's budgets, its priorities for fiscal year 2014, and also the impact of sequester this year and next year in terms of the impact of the department of justice, its mission, because of its impact on its employees. we will be listening to the doj inspector general testifying for the first time about oversight in terms of management issues. we are doing this -- every one of our hearings -- we invite the inspector general to come so we have a better sense of not only how this department spends money, but how we can be a more

efficient and get value for our dollar. today we will discuss how the department of justice's 2014 budget strengthens national security and counterterrorism, protects the safety and security of the rights of citizens, and how the department ensures it uses taxpayer money wisely. the department of justice enforces and defends the interests of the united states, our safety against threats, foreign and domestic, and providing leadership in controlling crimes and assuring fair administration of the justice of all americans. that is a lot that we ask a lot of the department of justice, employing more than 115,000 employees. 26,000 of them are federal agents, the fbi, dea, u.s.

marshals, atf. they have roughly over 20,000 prison guards and nearly 10,000 prosecutors, investigators, and legal experts. we get a lot for what we do. the u.s. marshals have arrested over 12,000 sex offenders, sex predators being taken off the streets because of the aggressive work of our marshals. dea put 3000 drug trafficking organizations out of business. the fbi dismantled 409 criminal enterprises. the u.s. attorneys collected $13 billion in criminal and civil penalties after the bad guys. they are the guardians of our justice system, and we want to make sure we let them know we value them. mr. attorney general, when we get ready to turn to you, for all those people that work at justice, administering justice, we want to say thank you. in maryland we have many agencies with many wonderful acmplishments, and i will put those into the record.

we ask a lot of the department of justice, and as we look at this year's budget, we know that the department of justice has got a request from the president of $27.6 billion. we also know that in fiscal 2013, we enacted $26.8 billion, but then we faced the sequester, we took the entire funding down by almost $1.5 billion. those are numbers that must have had a tremendous impact, and we are going to look forward. we look for community security, national security, oversight, and accountability. we know your highlights we know there have been limited and targeted increases in gun violence, requesting $1.4 billion, $379 million over the 2013 request to keep home schools and community safe. i like that we want to help states improve the quality of criminal records and also mental

health records. allow schools to hire school safety personnel and train local police on how to respond to these threatening incidents. while we are looking out -- [indiscernible] is our threat to cybersecurity. in the last month doj has charged cyber criminals. why rob a bank when you can do an atm heist? there is a growing nexus between organized crime and nation- states. our nation faces a digital pearl harbor. we know the justice department is requesting $668 million for fbi agents, computer scientists, federal prosecutors for the issue of cybersecurity, and we look forward to working with you about that.

there are many issues facing the budget. one of the biggest stresses on the budget is federal prisons. the bureau of prisons request is close to $7 billion. we have added 32 new inmates for a total of 224,000 people in our federal prisons. 224,000 people are in our federal prisons. that is a stunning number, and it requires a lot of protection. we are concerned about keeping the bad guys off the street. we need to deal with the present situation and also look out for the safety of our prison guards. we want to strengthen national security, and we will be talking about that as we move along, but we also know that for state and local law enforcement this is an

area of great concern because we know the department of justice, the fbi [indiscernible] the way our u.s. attorneys work, it is through state and local. there is a request of $2.3 billion in grants. we look forward to hearing more about that. we look forward to hearing from you in terms of how we can achieve both savings and we want to have a safer country, we need to have a smarter government in terms of how we use our resources, and yet at the same time, we want to protect all

american people. i would like to turn now to senator shelby. >> thank you, madam chairman. today we will hear from the attorney general of the united states, attorney general holder, about the department of justice and its 2014 budget request. we will also hear from the inspector general michael horowitz, who has taken a very active oversight role within the department, as he should. first, i want to take a moment to recognize the men and women of the department of justice who protect this country from crime and terrorism. they work hard to keep us safe in this country, and for that i think we all owe them a debt of gratitude. the 2014 budget request for the

department of justice totals $28.4 billion. that increase comes largely in the form of funding for new gun control measures, while the majority of law enforcement accounts basically remain flat. the budget also proposes a number of gimmicks to find additional so-called savings within the department. i believe this approach is misguided and look forward to working with chairman mikulski to put the department boss is on the right track in the 2014 process. the budget also proposes to remove language that prohibits the transfer of gitmo detainees to u.s. soil. this provision received broad a partisan support last year come, and i am troubled by the administration's recommendation it be removed.

the proposal is particularly disconcerting in light of the president's renewed declaration on guantanamo bay. the president has made no specific proposal for dealing with the current detainees. the president has not even attempted to remove those detainees his own administration has determined can be returned to their own home country. the proposal leads me to believe that the president is planning to move the gitmo detainees here to the united states. why else would the budget delete the transfer language? either this is a real proposal or it is a political posturing. in my view political posturing is unnecessary and detrimental to any real discussion about terrorist detainees. i am also adamantly opposed to

moving any terrorist detainees to the u.s., and i believe many of my colleagues would agree with me. such a move would necessarily place americans in harm's way. they are dangerous individuals and need to be isolated. gitmo revived this isolation. having been chairman, i would be remiss if i did not mention the controversy that has engulfed the department and the attorney general in recent weeks. these issues have cast a shadow of doubt upon the attorney general. he is the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government. as head of the department of

justice, it is his responsibility to ensure that the laws are enforced and the interests of the united states are defended. the controversy that has embroiled the department has called into question its ability to fairly administer law and justice. further, the questionable actions of the attorney general have diminished the integrity, impartiality, and efficacy of the position of attorney general. i believe it is the responsibility of this committee to provide the resources necessary to ensure that the department of justice can efficiently and effectively enforce the laws, protect our citizens, and administer justice. similarly, it is the responsibility of the department of justice, headed by the attorney general, to ensure it carries out its duties and that it is responsible and responsive to the citizens of the united states and that it operates with and tolerates no less than the highest degree of honesty and integrity. unfortunately, i believe until these issues are resolved and the controversy surrounding the justice department and the

attorney general's office is laid to rest, a hue of distrust will hover over the department. it is my hope that you will move swiftly to address these issues that have been raised by me and others to put this controversy to rest in a full and open manner so that the department which is so important and get back to focusing on issues central to its mission. thank you, madam chairman. >> mr. attorney general? >> i appreciate the opportunity to discuss this and provide an overview. thanks to my colleagues, employees serving in offices around the world, the department has made tremendous progress in protecting the safety and rights of the american people. nowhere is this clearer than in our work with regard to ensuring america's national security. since 2009, we have brought cases of security breaches and

obtained sentences against scores of dangerous people are relying on our tested federal article 3 civilian court systems. we have identified, investigated, and disrupted plots of terrorist organizations as well as by homegrown terrorists. we will continue to remain vigilant to emerging threats and take these efforts to a new level, with the president's budget request for vital national security programs and to respond to events like the horrific terrorist attacks on the boston marathon. as we continue to investigate this matter, i want to assure you and the american people that my colleagues and i are determined to hold accountable to the full extent of the law those who bore responsibility for this heinous act and all who threaten our people or who attempt to terrorize our cities. while the department of justice

must not waiver in its determination, we must be just as physical in our protection of the sacred rights we are equally obligated to protect, including the freedom of the press. in order to ensure the appropriate balance, i have launched a review of existing justice department guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters. last week i convened the first of meetings with representatives of news organizations, agencies, and groups to discuss the need to strike this important balance, to ensure robust first amendment protections, and to foster a constructive dialogue. i appreciate the opportunity to engage members of the media and national security professionals in this effort to improve our guidelines, policies, and processes, and will renew the important conversations that are as old as the republic itself

about how to balance our security and our dearest civil liberties. as part of the conversation, let me make at least two things clear. first, the department's goal in investigating leak cases is to identify and prosecute government officials who jeopardize national security by violating their oaths, not to target members of the press or to discourage them from carrying out their vital work. second, the department has not prosecuted in as long as i have had the privilege of serving as attorney general and will not prosecute any reporter for doing his or her job. with these guiding principles in mind, we are updating our in general guidelines to ensure that in every case the department's actions are clear and consistent with their most sacred values, and to the extent there's a problem, i think it is with our guidelines and with our regulations and not with the people of the justice department who have been involved in these matters. this conversation is not static, and it seldom results in easy consensus, and it is often difficult and emotionally charged, and it requires all

parties to approach these delicate issues in good faith so that today's leaders and concerned citizens from all walks of life can come together as our predecessors have done to secure freedoms, ensure the safety of our citizens, and to update and refine key protections in a way that is commensurate with the challenges and technologies of a new century and consistent with our most treasured values. my colleagues and i remain committed to working with congress for preventing and reducing gun violence. the president's budget requests supports these efforts and allows us to keep our promise to the families and communities of those senselessly murdered at sandy hook elementary school and in countless other acts of gun violence throughout the nation. we will continue to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform and strive to improve our broken immigration system in a way that is fair, that will guarantee all are playing by the same rules, and requires responsibility from

everyone, including those who are here in an undocumented status and employers who would attempt to exploit them. i am encouraged by these principles that are reflected in proposals that are currently under consideration by the senate. i look forward to working with leaders of both chambers of congress to strengthen, pass, and implement as possible reform legislation. the justice department will continue to move aggressively and appropriately to enforce existing immigration law to safeguard the most vulnerable members of our society, to ensure the fairness and integrity of our financial markets, protect the environment, and to invest in strategies for becoming both smarter and tougher on crime. i think we can be proud of the progress that the department has made in each of these areas in recent years, and i am encouraged to note the budget request includes the resources that we will need to continue this important work, including an additional $25 million for

the office for immigration to augment staffing and to improve the efficiency of our immigration courts, $2.3 billion for state and local and tribal assistance grants with a focus on funding evidence-based programs to combat fraud, and an additional $92 million to address cyber security needs and to expand on the historic achievements of the civil rights division in addressing bias, intimidation, and discrimination. our ability to continue this progress has been negatively impacted by sequestration which cut over $1.6 billion from the budget from the current fiscal year. earlier this year, the help of this subcommittee, i provided $150 million to the department of prisons to mitigate the effects of the untenable reductions and avoid furloughs of correctional staff each day from federal prisons around the country. in april, with your support and using similar authorities, i provided necessary funding to

the fbi, u.s. marshal service, atf, and u.s. attorneys and other components to prevent furloughs and maintain adequate operations. i want to thank the subcommittee for your full and immediate support of these actions. it could not have occurred without your assistance. i must stress these and similar solutions will no longer be available to alleviate fiscal year 2014 shortfalls due to joint committee reductions if they persist. i will work with the subcommittee and the congress to prevent this from occurring and to secure the timeliness of the budget request, which provides a total of $27.6 billion for the justice department. that level of support will be

essential in ensuring my colleagues and i have the resources we need to fulfill our critical duties. i want to thank you again for the chance to discuss this work for you today, and i will be glad to answer any questions you might have. thank you. >> thank you. we will go to the 5-minute rule, and i will stick to it as well, and we will do it, senator shelby, with the arrival of everybody. there are many questions to be asked because justice has such scope and incredible mission. i want to ask my first question related to what i consider an explosive situation. that is the federal prisons. i am concerned about the rising population, the fact that prison overcrowding, the fact that right now literally the federal prison budget is making up 25% of the entire department of justice budget, and that it keeps increasing year after year. the competency of the u.s. attorneys' offices, we are getting convictions of bad people. that is the good part. the other part is we have

224,000 people in prison. i worry about the safety of the guards and i know you do, too, mr. attorney general. we are in some ways a fiscally unsustainable path here, and i want to ask first of all, do you feel your request of $6.9 billion, which is again 25% of your budget request, adequate to meet the needs of meeting the ethical standards in the care of prisoners and at the same time protecting our guards, and then do you have thoughts on how we can reduce the prison population without increasing risk to our american people? we worry about gitmo, and it is a big issue, but i have worried about what is going on in our federal prisons here. i have a top-notch one in maryland, in cumberland, as you know, which i visited. can we hear your thoughts, sir? >> i share your concerns. the money we requested will support and allow us to run the system in an appropriate way. it includes finalizing the activation of two new facilities, one in new hampshire, one in alabama, and bringing on the activation for three other institutions which will increase our capacity. it also adds 2087 new positions, including 956 correctional officers. there we have a life-and-death issue. we have to have sufficient numbers of correctional officers to ensure that we have adequate numbers of people who can be deployed, not only to maintain order, but to protect their fellow officers.

i'm confident at this level that we have a sufficient amount of money to bring on that additional capacity and the additional officers. >> that is heartening to hear because we have legal and ethical standards in the care of prisoners. of the population of 224,000 prisoners, how many of those are repeat offenders and the recidivism rate? >> the recidivism rates runs at

about between 25% and 40%, slightly lower in the federal system than in the state system. one of the things we need to do is focus resources on reentry programs and rehabilitation programs while we have people in prisons so we make more effective our efforts at reducing that recidivism rate. >> you have a lot on your plate, and now we are going to have the

immigration bill, and we will have to implement. i want to come back to this because i want to keep america's streets safe. at the same time, the administration of justice is now going to be ever increasing. we cannot build our way out of prisons. again, i am for vigorous law enforcement and tough prosecution, but what i am asking you is, do you have within your establishment, within your justice department, a management mechanism to look

at how we can reduce recidivism? what are the other tools and techniques where we can begin looking at stabilizing or reducing the population without increasing risk to our american people on the streets? because it could go 25%, to 30%. we have other things to do with the justice department. >> the point you make is good. we not only have to focus on how we manage the existing system we have and those who are incarcerated, but need to focus on prevention activities as well so we reduce the number of people who are coming into the system. in that regard our office of juvenile justice and dealing with the office of justice programs, we have a variety of things we do -- >> i want a plan, and let's look at the prisoner as a prisoner, that they have done bad things and so bad that they are in a federal prison. and i look at this continuum, which is really a vicious circle. what then do we need to be funding for the prevention programs, and then once they leave -- and what happens when they are in our care and custody

and that begins to change them there for when they hit the streets again so they are not hitting up our people against back in the same prisons? what are those programs so when we do have funding, we are not only funding the prisons, but we are funding continuum of services to prevent people from becoming at this dead end and then what are some of the other programs you need to do? we need to look at this. the scope of the committee is such that we need your advice on what it should become a what those levels should be, so we begin to tackle this. it is both a humanitarian concern, a public safety concern on our streets. a mutual dear friend of ours has spoken of not the cradle-to- grave, but the cradle-to-prison cycle. this committee wants to be a partner with you on a bipartisan basis to begin to break that, and you know you are in the neighborhoods like me, where we are now spending more to keep a person in prison than we are sending them to school or to higher education. let's look at that continuum and work together on it. >> i think the way in which you have stated it is right. we want to work on prevention, rehabilitation while people are in prison, and we want to deal with reentry.

we also need to ask ourselves tough questions about the enforcement priorities that we have in the department and the way in which we have enforced our laws and the collateral consequences of some of those enforcement activities. i will make proposals later in the year about rethinking the ways in which we are conducting our criminal justice system prosecutorial efforts. >> thank you, madam chairman. mr. attorney general, the department as we all know has been mired in a controversy of late. it began with reports of an overbroad collection of

telephone collections of 20 a.p. reporters and editors, was followed by revelations of the department-led espionage investigation of a fox news reporter, and culminated with your testimony before the judiciary committee. these issues have led some members of congress and the public to question the department's adherence to the rule of law and your ability as the attorney general to lead. these controversies have become i believe a significant distraction for this department and have led to calls for an investigation into your actions and the actions of your department. others have called for your resignation. i hope you would agree that leading the department of justice is a full-time job.

i think you would also agree that these controversies have become a distraction for the department and for you as a leader. i hope you would agree that the american people deserve an attorney general who is completely focused on the fair and impartial administration of the justice and not distracted by controversies of his own making. i have observed over the years that effective leaders from time to time subject themselves to staff evaluation processes in hopes of improving their performance. how would you evaluate your performance to date and is there any room for improvement? have you or will you take actions to remove the department beyond this controversy and ensure that similar missteps in the cloud will not continue there? >> i want to assure you and the american people that in spite of the recent controversies that

you mentioned the department is fully engaged in the work of protecting the american people and all the ways that are unique to the department. i want to ensure the american people that i am engaged in that regard. i go through a self-evaluation process on a daily basis. i have not done a perfect job. i have done a good job, but i am trying to do better. some of the criticism that has been labeled or thrown at me and the department has caused us to rethink the way in which we will deal with these media inquiries, and we will make changes, and that is why we are engaged in a process with groups so we can formulate new policies, regulations, and hopefully that is behind us. >> i believe and i hope you would agree with me that the american people need to know that the administration of

justice, headed by the attorney general, is in the hands of a dispassionate and capable leader, and whether you will continue to be the chief law- enforcement officer of the federal government, the attorney general, is either a decision for you or the president to make. i understand that. i am interested to know what criteria you will use to determine whether you can continue to lead the department. what is the tipping point here? are you going to clear up this

controversy, or is it going to hover over us in the justice department, which is very important to the american people? >> the tipping point might be fatigue. beyond that, the tipping point there are certain goals i set for myself and for this department when i started back in 2009. when i get to a point when i think i have accomplished all the goals that i have set, i will sit down with the president and we will talk about a transition to a new attorney general. change is frequently a good thing for an organization, a new perspective. i am not a person -- this has been the honor of my professional life as attorney general, but i also have such respect for the department of justice and i want to make sure that it operates at peak

efficiency and that new ideas are constantly being explored. i am proud of the work that i've done, the men and women of this department have done under this leadership, and when the time comes for me to step aside i will do so. >> but the belief in integrity of the attorney general and the justice department is central to the well-being of this country, is it not? >> it certainly is. >> thank you. >> senator feinstein? >> thank you very much, madam chairman. i would like to sue police say that i believe in your integrity. i believe that you are a good

attorney general. i think you have had undue problems that are hard to anticipate. you have responded the best way you possibly could, and i want to say that, because candidly i do not like to see this hearing used to berate you. let me ask you this question. i chair the senate caucus on international drug control, and we issue a series of reports, and we have just issued one on money laundering. and what has come to my attention is that there is substantial failure of some united states banks to comply with anti-money-laundering laws, which fueled drug-related violence in mexico.

hsbc allowed over $670 million in wire transfers, and over $9.4 billion in fiscal money to enter the united states from mexico unmonitored. of that money we know at least $881 million in mexican drug proceeds answered the united states illegally. on december 11, 2012, hsbc entered into an agreement with the justice department and paid $1.92 billion in fines. similarly in 2010, wachovia agreed to pay money which, after enabling at least $110 million in mexican drug money to enter the united states. $1.9 billion in fines is a huge fine. the question i have of you is, do you believe these fines are going to change what has been current practice and, i suspect, that there are other banks doing this same thing? this is an enormous gap in our infrastructure. could you comment on that?

>> the concern you raise is a good one. we are being aggressive in our efforts. we have come up with robust financial penalties, but we can never get to a situation or this is seen as the cost of doing business, where a bank can simply pay a huge amount of money, and think that is the way it can absolve itself from wrongdoing. we have put in place as part of these agreements compliance measures, ensuring remediation, effect reform, imposing minor trades to make sure these kinds of things should not happen again. these sanctions we put in place go well beyond what a judge would be able to do if this were decided in a courtroom in your traditional setting. it is not to say he should not hold corporations criminally libel and i think wherever we possibly can old individuals liable for this kind of activity. >> this is the recommendation of our drug caucus, that individuals begin to be held responsible for money- laundering, when it is overt. i thank you for that response. there was an oig report on atf's gun dealer inspection program

that mr. horowitz is going to testify carried out, and i understand that report found that 50% of federal farms dealers had not been expected if in the last five years. you cited three reasons for this understaffing. a large geographic area some field divisions cover and an increase in gun dealers. it is my understanding the president has $51.1 million to ensure atf enforcement efforts and strengthen inspections. we hope now to get a director of that unit. the judiciary committee on which i served is coming before us this next week.

they project that this allocation would fund 60 additional inspector positions. your report concluded you would need an additional 199,000 hours to inspect all dealers within a five-year period, and the field divisions told atf headquarters in 2012 they needed 504 more investigators. the federal firearms dealer in my view is what makes any legal gun sales possible in the united states, because they require certain material. that 58% figure is really a distressing figure. what are you believe these additional inspectors could do to increase that 58%, and do you have any idea as to what level we could be confident that with these there would be inspections of federal firearms dealers within the five-year period? >> i think we would be able to deal that. the atf is an organization that has been resource starved over the recent past. actually, for a great number of

years, without senate-confirmed leadership it has also suffered. the concern you raised about doing these inventorying, having the ability to do inventories at the prescribed level will give us greater comfort and have an impact on our ability to monitor the gun trades so we make sure that the right people have access to weapons, and that is fully respecting peoples second amendment rights. we are talking about keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have been. without controls there is no way to tell. i am confident if we get the money that we have asked for, if todd jones is confirmed as the leader of the atf, that we can change that situation and make the american people more safe. >> i want to say this is important to me, and i appreciate it if an emphasis can be placed in that area. so thank you very much. my time is up. >> mr. attorney general, it

troubles me that the president has virtually unreviewable, unfettered authority to order the killing of any american citizen overseas who is suspected of terrorist activity without any kind of charge or trial or judicial review. we have all read this morning of the controversy over the nsa having access to phone records of american citizens. it seems to me that an american currently receives a greater degree of due process protections from the judicial branch if the government is seeking to listen in on his phone conversations or gets information about his phone conversations than if the president is seeking to take his life. that just does not make sense to me. why hasn't the administration proposed to congress a process that would provide some degree of independent judicial review for a targeted lethal strike against a u.s. person overseas, either an expansion of the fisa

court or a different kind of classified proceeding before a court, to ensure that there is some kind of judicial review rather than giving that authority to take an american life overseas only with the president? >> i would say that it is

incorrect to say that it is only in that the president has unlimited authority with regard to the use of drones, and we are talking about being more transparent. i sent a letter to chairman leahy that the president gave a speech to get more transparency with disregard. we operate under the statute, and when we are dealing with these matters we try to focus on capture or possible. we focus on whether or not the threat is imminent. we operate under the rules of law. as the president said in his speech, people cannot plot against the united states, people cannot kill american citizens and then use as a shield their american citizenship. these are steps that we take with great care. they are the most difficult of decisions that we have to make. the other things that keep me up at night and as a think about my role as part of the national security team in discussing

these matters. the concerns you raise are legitimate, but we are working within the administration to make sure when we take these ultimate measures they are done in appropriate ways, legal ways, have done in a way that is consistent with our values. >> i would say to you that the drone strikes have occurred outside the battlefield. we are not talking about countries that were engaged in hostilities ike iraq or afghanistan. i do not understand why you would not want the protection of some sort of judicial review of the target. i am not saying that the president is wrong to try to kill american terrorists overseas who are plotting to execute our citizens, but i am uncomfortable giving the president that authority without any kind of check. i am not comforted by the office of legal counsel opinions which i have read now for the legal basis. let me turn to a second point that you just made about a

preference for capture. i have not seen a preference for capture. if you compare the number of terror suspects who are captured in the previous administration versus this administration, there is a huge difference, as there is in the number of lethal strikes with drones that were undertaken. is the reason for the exceedingly low number of captures due to the change in the obama administration's position on detention and the fact that the administration does not want to send captives to guantanamo? isn't that really the reason? here we have a case of a terrorist who was convicted but who was driven around on a navy ship for two months because there was no place to put him. >> it is not a function of not wanting to take people there. as you indicated, he was captured and brought to face justice in an article 3 court. the desire to capture is

something that we take seriously because we gain intelligence. that person -- i am not sure how long he was on that boat -- it was not a joyride for him. we were gathering important intelligence from him in the intelligence community and then later on after he was read his rights and waived them from people in law enforcement. that was time well spent, and ultimately led to his plea in that case -- or the conviction in that case. it is not a function of us not trying to take prisoners to particular places. we try to gain intelligence and then we try to bring them to justice. >> my time has expired. thank you. >> that was an excellent line of questioning, senator. >> i want to take you to the verizon scandal, which takes us to possibly monitoring up to 120 million calls. when bureaucrats are sloppy, they are really usually sloppy.

i want to ask, could you share with us that no phones inside the capitol were monitored that would give a future executive branch, if they started pulling this thing up, would give them unique leverage over the legislature? >> with all due respect, this is not an appropriate setting for me to discuss that issue. i would be more than glad to come back in an appropriate setting to discuss the issues that you have raised. in this open forum, i do not --

good morning, c-span

>> there are chief financial officers and chief operating officers that are closely reviewing all expenditures that occur at the end of the fiscal year to make sure money is not being deployed for unnecessary or in efficient purposes. the goal is to make sure that the resources available are targeting areas that will have a positive return for the tax payers. if i seen expenditure, i do not automatically think that may not be a good expenditure. >> right. there's a difference between doing a criminal investigation and having a conference. >> absolutely. >> i have got limited time.

give us some advice. you come from omb. what would you recommend we put in place that would reduce the likelihood of that kind of crazy spending and the shopping spree mentality? >> one idea that comes to mind is that there should be more transparency about what goes on with federal spending across the entire spectrum. it would bring light and day to appropriators. >> the anaheim conference -- how has the irs addressed this concern?

if you have a ready answer day, you do not have to enter it again. >> we have either implemented or in the process of implementing. we are updating manuals. make sure there is robust accounting. make sure we know where the money is going. the irony is that we have knocked down in very significant ways the percentage of this activity. we put in new procedures to make sure when it does happen, that it is tracked more appropriately. >> i have got a bugaboo about the facts.

i think that a government does not need to be in the business of buying anything that resembles swag, and i think we spend a fair amount money. i'm sure it's very expensive. what would you say about swag? >> i'm in complete agreement. my choice to go to the irs is that i have history of responsibility and cutting waste and reducing error. i was pretty central to the efforts at omb to cut down on conference spending and swag and put in an executive order. restriction on spending on swag.

the types of things you saw going on in 2010 are significantly that likely the happen now. it will not happen while i'm commissioner for sure. >> thank you. the gentleman from oklahoma. >> we have had numerous conversations. you have done an excellent job. there is much to be done. it is an interesting feeling to walk into the irs and wonder, where to start? might as well start here. you mentioned in an earlier statement the record of lost trust. people call me and tell me i have always suspected i was being targeted. i was audited by the irs.

i have wondered about that. this has moved from nonprofit groups that we know now are targeted that asked for additional information to individuals who rise up and say i think i was as well. we're looking at this farther. questions will continue to rise. people will continue to contact our office. i have never been audited and i started getting involved politically and now i have. that is coming as well. >> i have a reaction to it. we have to fix the process. one of the process sixes that is -- fixes that i think is vital best fixes that is vital

-- i think is vital is more checks and balances and how decisions are made. there is an active oversight and checks and balances. there are controls in place to make sure fairness. >> right now there's not much comfort for it. you mentioned in your opening statement that the former director of collection policy is not the current director of the implementation oversight of the affordable care act. there is a reception held were 1800 people invited. the e-mail track coming in from the hotel reads this -- this is someone informing me. this is to be kept confidential. it is posted on the hospitality

board. this is only to be used for food. the beer and the wine will be paid via credit card paid at the end of the function. do not post this to the room. it cannot be shown as a charge. i have [person's name] permission to use a credit card. this confidential report was about 18 people that were there. $44 a person of booze and $65 a person was listed as food. one of those people is under administrative leave and review. do you know who the remaining people were involved in that?

>> we are working on that. >> 18 people were set aside for hospitality. do you know who 18 people were? >> i understand that is in the right range. we are still doing our review. >> are you familiar with any other senior level at this reception? >> it was held as part of this event in anaheim. we're still trying to determine who is invited. >> i'm not yet ready to articulate the statistics, but we are looking into that issue and will get you the answers. >> again, the confidential reception.

>> we were able to determine the two employees that may have, but there is significant evidence of violation of ethical code of conduct. >> you understand the issues of this. this is the oversight office for the affordable care act. what was this and was there in an appropriate use of funds here? a lot of things we need to connect. you have a timeframe of when you have that together? >> i'm not going to commit to one. i will get back to you expediently. >> i appreciate that. can you

give us a ballpark? you have got enough facts and information because you puts on on administrative leave at this point. we started asking about this -- within twoys. days. enough information has risen up quickly. we are trying to figure it out as you are gathering information. >> my team will update you as we go in the process we are about to undergo. there are facts gathering before someone is dismissed. that is a 30 day initial process. >> terrific. thank you.

>> mr. chairman and mr. werfel, good afternoon. the irs holds businesses and individuals to high standards when filing taxes. nonprofits must maintain certain standards for the tax exempt purposes. the irs has a measured a pattern of management failures. it is troubling and acceptable. you're one of the most powerful agencies in the united states. there are serious consequences than any business or individual commits fraud or suspected of doing wrongdoing with regard to taxes. what steps are being taken to

reform the agency now make sure you hold your selves to the same standard you hold american people? >> that is a very important and good question. it is important to point out that if you look at the irs on the day the report was issued on the irs today, there has been a replacement of leadership at various levels. the irs acting commissioner slot, commissioner of tax-exempt organizations, if you're familiar with the irs arc, i'm working my way down. i have brought on other people. david fisher is a high-ranking

official from the government accountability office. an expert in risk management and comes from gao. he is it chief risk officer of the irs. he is indispensable in these efforts to make sure we are changing the culture and the approach in the irs. other steps are accountability and continuing to review the information in the audit report. there are gross examples of mismanagement. you can make determinations and i am doing it as thoroughly as i can. some individuals can no longer hold positions in the public trust at the irs. i can keep going. i want to give you confidence that we have an action plan and things taking place to get it these issues.

it is hard. we are working diligently. >> i appreciate that. there's respect to the opening remarks by ranking members, i hope with your leadership we can take a step back and look at the whole of the agency and look at where we need to strategically reform and not just move players and actors within the agency, but fundamentally reform. that is one of the missions of this committee. i know that you touched on the importance of information being protected and impartiality, which is one of the reasons we are here today. i need to touch on one concern i have. being from nevada, i do not believe that anaheim or places like las vegas should be singled out somehow as because of the

place and the way the agency was -- the waste that the agency was involved with, which was wrong, but somehow the place should be targeted and prohibited from having conferences held. that is why we introduced a committee to protect cities from discrimination to prevent federal agencies from blacklisting resorts and casinos as conference destinations. it is not the destination that is the problem. it is the internal failure to spend appropriately. it doesn't matter where that occurs. i want that noted. i want to follow-up in my concluding question to ms. maloney. you said that you have to follow this primary regulation. >> i do. >> why do you have to follow the

law? >> i have to follow the law and regulation. >> exclusively. >> that is part of the challenge. >> the regulation is not in compliance with federal law. correct? >> i do not know that can answer that question. >> you said earlier that it is not the same as exclusive. >> it is not. >> therefore it is out of compliance with federal law. agencies must follow the law. we, as congress, set the law. we have not change the law. it is important that you implement the regulations accordingly. you have agreed to some bipartisan precipitation because -- participation because

the law is exclusive. >> the ambiguity that is created is a problem. it is one of the contributing -- >> unless congress changes the law, that is the standard. >> we are looking at those changes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. werfel. i want to follow-up on some of these. do we know exactly when she left to take on her primary responsibilities with the affordable care act? >> i do not have an exact answer, but i think it is the range of spring-summer 2010. >> you

to us? >> we are working on that issue. >> the other day, the bonus was brought up. you said you would get back to me. do you have an answer? >> can you remind me which question? >> what kind of a bonus was paid? i assume you went back to your office to check on it. can you tell us today what that bonus was? >> i will ask my staff. i do not have that information at my fingertips. >> did you go back and look into it? >> i went through all of my commitments to make sure we were getting the answers. i do not know yet. >> you have not had a discussion about bonuses?

>> there were several issues raised about bonuses. i do not want to miss speak. i will get you the information. >> does your staff know today? >> we will have to go back to the irs. >> so they do not know? >> this is -- we will get you the information. >> let me go forward. can you give us assurances that targeting outside -- targeting did not happen with regards to auditing, penalty waivers, can you give us assurances that is not happening systemically? >> i am not aware of its past--

of it at this time. >> have you investigated? >> i have been here for two weeks. i have not completed the review. >> you cannot have us the assurances. >> i would clarify that at this point in time, i am not aware of it. if i was, it would be stopped. >> you also talked about, we need to have more people on accountability. previously, it you said you need more layers of accountability. that was not something that was unique to just cincinnati. it involved a number of people in washington, the technical advisors. dozens of people knew about the problem. how does more people actually fix the problem?

>> we could end up with a solution and i would be very open to that solution. i am also interested in cost cutting. what i meant by more people was we have people who have different responsibilities, maybe an independent board or something like that -- >> we need an independent board? >> we have one. this is something i am exploring. i am being candid about different ideas. maybe that type of board can be asserted to do other reviews. if you have a situation where there are ongoing reviews, you might be in a situation where this was picked up more quickly. >> have you had conversations with beth tucker and what she

felt like was the issue? >> she is a critical part of the leadership team, yes. >> was she aware of it? >> she was not aware of it. we have collectively looks at the situation and agree the singling out of applications for extra scrutiny waste on-- based on political labels can be fairly described that way. >> she was never aware until the report came out. >> this is part of the process. i go back to the guiding principles. thorough, fair, and expedient. i have to be given the opportunity to do a thorough and fair and expedient -- >> i am asking you about your personal conversations with her. >> based on my personal conversations, i am not aware at this time that she knew the situation.

>> with regards to nancy, she was the assistant to sarah, is that correct? >> people moved around, but she was the technical advisor. >> when to first go to -- did she did cincinnati? she would've had to have flown to get there or pay mileage. we would have some documentation. when was the first time she went to cincinnati? >> i would like to double confirm, but i think it is around march 2012. >> when in march? >> i do not have that. >> that is critical. we have testimony that was given in ways and means on march 22. if she went before that, it would indicate that we have

people that sent her to check on things while that testimony was being given. that is critical. >> we will get you more precision on that. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for your indulgence. >> on sunday, david was on the sunday shows and they were discussing the targeting of conservative groups and he made the statement that this was not at all political. i am curious, do you agree with his assessment of what went on in the tax-exempt division of your organization? >> we do not know the answer to the question. the audit report does not find any evidence. the audit report that i am relying on, it does not find any

evidence of political motivation with respect to this targeting. >> has there been any group on the list who was targeted who is a left-leaning group? yes or no? >> i can answer that question once i make sure i have appropriate redaction. >> are you aware? that has come forward and said they experienced the same type of targeting? >> we have started to produce documents to congress, to ways and means incident finance. -- and senate finance. there are additional helpful information coming to light to give more information about different types of organizations that were on the list and based

on that, the problem with that document is that -- >> any terms, i have yet to see one term on the list, i have yet to see any terms that would apply to left-leaning groups. they only seem to apply to right-leaning groups. i am back to the first question. do you agree that this was not political? i do not see how you can reach any other conclusion that--other than it was political? you are the guy who was cleaning up an agency, you need to know the motivation. the only logical conclusion was that this was politically motivated. >> the audit report did not find

it. it would be inappropriate for me to speculate that there was political -- >> why is it inappropriate for you to speculate? not one group on the left has been identified for harassment. hundreds have been identified on the right. not one on the left, hundreds on the right, and yet you are still seen, i do not believe this was politically driven. >> i do not have enough evidence. >> reasonable people could look at the evidence and say there is enough evidence to conclude that it was politically driven because we have yet to find one group on the left. >> the tension is there a smart relevant documents and information that needs -- there is more relevant information.

>> anything that shows groups on the left were targeted? >> i am unable to answer that question because i would be legally not allowed to answer that question because i have to go through a process to make sure i have an answer that i can legally give you. >> i am not asking tell me the specific group. is there any group on the left that has been targeted? >> would you define what is left and what is right? i am serious. what is left and what is right? that is a hell of a question.

>> do we know of any groups with any progressive or liberal in their titles? that is what i am getting at. >> i was brought to the irs to make sure we are enforcing the rule of law. what i will say -- >> i do not know how it violates the law. the hamilton county progressive institute was denied. i am not telling you to talk about them specifically. have you discovered any? name one. we have received no evidence that would validate his statement. >> all i can say is the information is forthcoming. we are running a process.

the answers will be available, but i cannot provide premature answers. i just cannot do it. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. werfel. i know you have only been there for two weeks, but this is a subject that is bugging the hell out of me. i keep hearing this argument that because we had some bad players and people not doing their jobs properly, that there is going to be a problem with addressing the responsibilities under the affordable care act. this is america. everybody in this committee -- because we have a bad actor, we

do not quit congress. we do not suddenly go off mission. we let them go and find somebody else who can do the job. everybody in this room has been through some kind of process like that. this is my point. i do not buy this affordable care act, because we have some bad players, we cannot do the job. this is america. if we had that attitude, we would never get anything done. i am asking you, from what you have seen, i know you are going from top to bottom and you're doing what you got a do, tell me this, do you still confident

that doing the things you can do, that you can find the appropriate people and create the climate whereby we can get the affordable act responsibilities done pursuant to the law no matter how many times may want to do away with it, it is the law. we are charged with the constitutional duty of enforcing the law and making the law happen. you have a responsibility of dealing with the law. can you find the people who can do it? >> yes. >> can you carry out the responsibilities? >> yes. >> i swear to god, it burns me, this attitude. my father was a former sharecropper with a second-grade education.

one of the things i loved about my dad, god bless his soul, he used to always say to us, there is no such word as can't. you can get things done. he was able to raise seven children, educate all of them well, and build his church with my mom on a second-grade education. this is america. as i said to you earlier, you have a tremendous responsibility, but i pray that you do not go in there with the attitude that because we have some bad actors, and because the climate was not what we wanted it to be, that we cannot carry out the mission of this country. we are better than that.

if we take that kind of attitude, i do not know what we will be able to accomplish. there is no member of the congress who has not had to let somebody go. who has not had to fire somebody. how will you go about that? i am tired of that argument. >> you are absolutely right. we have a legal responsibility, a tough operational challenge. i have started to work through our aca work very closely. one of the first things i have done is i have had to put in a new individual who is taking on the responsibility as a commissioner of services and enforcement which oversees the affordable care act. she is one of the most talented civil servants in the irs. -- ans in a normatively

enormously effective track record of getting things done. for me, it is a lot about leadership. she will be able to recruit the right talent. hold individuals accountable. i will be very active in this area because it is one of our priorities. i am responsible ultimately to make sure we hit all of our deadlines. my commitment is to do everything we can to hit them. >> thank you very much. >> they do not get any easier than this hearing. the good news is this one is nearly done. the bad news, you have agreed to come back and work with us. let me get back to -- you are familiar with the congressional act that created the taxpayers bill of rights. >> i will not say i am an

expert, but yes. >> when you look at it, if you would get back to us and talk to us about -- i will get it back on the screen. 1996 act which amended the code for 1986 and so on, but it established taxpayer advocates and so on. it is an area in which that hopefully you would look at that and say, aren't there some things that were not upheld that you would fix by better management and some things that need to be put into symbolism of that act that would cause the ways and means committee to update it? the confidence we are asking you to reestablish is literal and some of it is symbolic and some

of it takes time and some of it, like today's hearing, we have started that. >> i think the people of the irs, they are shocked and appalled by what happened. they are embarrassed by some of the inappropriate spending and the anaheim situation. there are institutions within the irs who hold of the primary mission to help taxpayers navigate through the tax system in a way that is fair and understandable. i have spoken to our national taxpayer advocate and she is ready to take on the types of transformational changes necessary to make a difference. >> i appreciate that. perhaps that somebody should begin asking, one of the challenges is in the opinion of

the chair, you had to former individuals, one acting who did not do the job. they are not managers up to the task. i cannot go back through every commissioner, although i have met a number of them. your two predecessors, not so good. i think we have met them, we have seen them, the american people have watched them. they are disappointed in what happened on their watch. a couple of things, you are aware of the investigation related to procurement about half $1 billion worth of open contracts originated within a hub zone in the district of columbia. >> i have had preliminary

briefings on it. >> this, in the opinion of the chair, represents fraud was perpetrated. it included misconduct by personnel within the irs and by the applicant. i certainly think that if it is within your power to immediately terminate any further procurement on a contract is costing the taxpayers every time you buy off of it more money than a replacement contract would cost, your willingness to attack that. symbolically, it is a big

difference. >> i do not know enough to comment conclusively or concretely, but i will commit to work with you on this, to see what i learn, share with you and make sure we have a good path forward. >> i will enlighten you with one small fact. when this applicant applied for a hub zone, this is an area that could use some job creation, the applicant said, i will create jobs in northeast washington and created only a few jobs with some college students whose parents were spending $30,000 to send them to catholic university, and not part of underprivileged portion of northeast washington, dc.

they were making a few dollars looking at computers, providing no significant jobs, no jobs to the indigenous people of that region. they had no real presence there. and abuse of a set-aside to people on both sides of the aisle means mr. cummings and baltimore, those people did not get an opportunity to bid on that lucrative contract. i am beating a dead horse, but i think we are passionate about fixing that particular contracts. >> i want to thank you for raising that issue. you are absolutely right. whatever the law is with regard to hub zones, i want to make sure they have been properly

addressed. people should play by the rules. the rules have been set up in a certain way. if people are not going by the rules, i have a problem with that. i would appreciate your response. i know you have to look into it. >> i absolutely will. >> this is a discovery point. i understand -- i do not want to be unfair to anyone. this committee would like to dispense with all of our discovery on the broader case as soon as possible. i know you would like to have as much of that behind us. in order to do so, we have a specific request, which is documents have been requested by this committee and even if they

were not requested by the ways and means committee, we would appreciate a essentially, sending unredacted all information requested by this committee to the ways and means committee because they have personnel cleared, they can hold those documents. if we need a special look, we can ask them to analyze, suggest redactions, we can expedite that. they can look through them for characteristics they need and they may need to look at what you would give to us redacted. we are looking hand-in-hand with the ways and means committee. if you could consider that anything requested by this committee is, in fact, a carbon copy to the ways and means committee, -- >> in other words, you give us an information request.

we have to redact it, we get it to chairman camp and senator baucus earlier because they do not need the redacted version. >> to the greatest extent possible, we would appreciate that. >> i understand the request. we will look into it and get back to you. >> we would like to prioritize the documents we need sooner rather than later. >> that is helpful to us to understand what key search terms, the better clarity we have on that, the quicker the information starts flowing to you. >> i appreciate that. mr. meadows will be recognized. you are good? i am not going to be -- i am closing.

i want to thank you, this is a good start. it is a tough matter. i feel like you are coming in the day and trying to bring back the reputation. no doubt something bad happened, it did not happen on your watch. you are the person we are looking to to take decisive action. i want to personally thank you to the extent you have so far. >> i tell my constituents, there are moments in life that are placed there to become a movement. a moment to a movement. i think we have a moment where we have seen so much that needs to be corrected.

i am very pleased to see, when you talk about the things you are most concerned about, to turn that into a movement to make the irs a place for all americans and their families can feel their trust. it is painful for my constituents, a lot of them do not have bank accounts. when they send that check into the irs, or they they get that letter about an audit, the people on the other side are going to treat them fairly. and with courtesy and that they can feel a level of confidence. i thank you and i think the president for pointing it. -- thank the president for appointing you. >> i want to thank the president for appointing you to an acting position. we just got an appointment

request for the gsa position. this committee would make for the record that we like confirmed individuals. we will continue working with you. we stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> on the next "washington journal, those quote relations between the u.s. and china and the meeting between president, and china's president xi

jinping. we will discuss china's economy. you can call in with questions about national security issues and allegations of chinese cyber dean cheng of the heritage foundation. we will also look at strategies to improve healthcare. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. on c-span today, attorney general eric holder testified on capitol hill about the seizure of a fox news journalists phone records by federal investigators. later, live coverage of the national council on u.s.-arab relations on discussions about this. civil war. civil war.e syrian

>> when you put on a uniform for a job that is a maintenance job, and this is true whether you are a building janitor or a sanitation worker, you are subsumed by the role to the point where it is almost like you are part of the background, almost like a machine, so that you are a human being wearing that uniform. the general world gets to overlook you, and it really doesn't see you. a romulanled it like cloak device, those people who follow star trek -- or harry ,otter's cloak of invisibility which is both very frustrating and an interesting privilege. when i'm wearing the sanitation worker uniform, i can observe people in the ways that they do not realize i am observing them. -- nyuwhy you professor

nagle on c-bin span's "q&a." >> eric holder told members of congress today that the justice department has not and will not target the press in its investigation of national other questions focused on prisoners at guantánamo bay and the effects of budget sequestration. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> the commerce and justice subcommittee will now come to order. we will take the testimony of the attorney general of the united states. the committee wishes to welcome the attorney general, and we know he will be testifying on the department of justice's budgets, its priorities for fiscal year 2014, and also the impact of sequester this year and next year in terms of the

impact of the department of justice, its mission, because of its impact on its employees. we will be listening to the doj inspector general testifying for the first time about oversight in terms of management issues. we are doing this -- every one of our hearings -- we invite the inspector general to come so we have a better sense of not only how this department spends money, but how we can be a more efficient and get value for our dollar. today we will discuss how the department of justice's 2014 budget strengthens national security and counterterrorism, protects the safety and security

of the rights of citizens, and how the department ensures it uses taxpayer money wisely. the department of justice enforces and defends the interests of the united states, our safety against threats, foreign and domestic, and providing leadership in controlling crimes and assuring fair administration of the justice of all americans. that is a lot that we ask a lot of the department of justice, employing more than 115,000 employees. 26,000 of them are federal agents, the fbi, dea, u.s. marshals, atf. they have roughly over 20,000 prison guards and nearly 10,000 prosecutors, investigators, and legal experts. we get a lot for what we do. the u.s. marshals have arrested over 12,000 sex offenders, sex predators being taken off the

streets because of the aggressive work of our marshals. dea put 3000 drug trafficking organizations out of business. the fbi dismantled 409 criminal enterprises. the u.s. attorneys collected $13 billion in criminal and civil penalties after the bad guys. they are the guardians of our justice system, and we want to make sure we let them know we value them. mr. attorney general, when we get ready to turn to you, for all those people that work at justice, administering justice, we want to say thank you. in maryland we have many agencies with many wonderful accomplishments, and i will put those into the record. we ask a lot of the department of justice, and as we look at

this year's budget, we know that the department of justice has got a request from the president of $27.6 billion. we also know that in fiscal 2013, we enacted $26.8 billion, but then we faced the sequester, we took the entire funding down by almost $1.5 billion. those are numbers that must have had a tremendous impact, and we are going to look forward. we look for community security, national security, oversight, and accountability. we know your highlights we know there have been limited and targeted increases in gun violence, requesting $1.4 billion, $379 million over the 2013 request to keep home schools and community safe.

i like that we want to help states improve the quality of criminal records and also mental health records. allow schools to hire school safety personnel and train local police on how to respond to these threatening incidents. while we are looking at the new war with our threat to cybersecurity, in the last month doj has charged cyber criminals. why rob a bank when you can do an atm heist? there is a growing nexus between organized crime and nation- states. our nation faces a digital pearl harbor. we know the justice department is requesting $668 million for fbi agents, computer scientists, federal prosecutors for the issue of cybersecurity, and we

look forward to working with you about that. there are many issues facing the budget. one of the biggest stresses on the budget is federal prisons. the bureau of prisons request is close to $7 billion. we have added 32 new inmates for a total of 224,000 people in our federal prisons. 224,000 people are in our federal prisons. that is a stunning number, and it requires a lot of protection. we are concerned about keeping the bad guys off the street. we need to deal with the present situation and also look out for the safety of our prison guards. we want to strengthen national security, and we will be talking about that as we move along, but

we also know that for state and local law enforcement this is an area of great concern because we know the department of justice, the fbithe fbi [indiscernible] the way our u.s. attorneys work, it is through state and local. there is a request of $2.3 billion in grants. we look forward to hearing more about that. we look forward to hearing from you in terms of how we can achieve both savings and we want to have a safer country, we need to have a smarter government in terms of how we use our resources, and yet at the same time, we want to protect all american people. i would like to turn now to senator shelby. >> thank you, madam chairman. today we will hear from the attorney general of the united states, attorney general holdere

and its 2014 budget request. we will also hear from the inspector general michael horowitz, who has taken a very active oversight role within the department, as he should. first, i want to take a moment to recognize the men and women of the department of justice who protect this country from crime and terrorism. they work hard to keep us safe in this country, and for that i think we all owe them a debt of gratitude. the 2014 budget request for the department of justice totals $28.4 billion. that increase comes largely in the form of funding for new gun control measures, while the majority of law enforcement accounts basically remain flat. the budget also proposes a number of gimmicks to find additional so-called savings

within the department. i believe this approach is misguided and look forward to working with chairman mikulski to put the department boss is on theepartment's budget on right track in the 2014 process. the budget also proposes to remove language that prohibits the transfer of gitmo detainees to u.s. soil. this provision received broad a partisan support last year come, and i am troubled by the administration's recommendation it be removed. the proposal is particularly disconcerting in light of the president's renewed declaration on guantanamo bay. the president has made no specific proposal for dealing with the current detainees. the president has not even attempted to remove those detainees his own administration

has determined can be returned to their own home country. the proposal leads me to believe that the president is planning to move the gitmo detainees here to the united states. why else would the budget delete the transfer language? either this is a real proposal or it is a political posturing. in my view political posturing is unnecessary and detrimental to any real discussion about terrorist detainees. i am also adamantly opposed to moving any terrorist detainees to the u.s., and i believe many of my colleagues would agree with me. such a move would necessarily place americans in harm's way. they are dangerous individuals and need to be isolated. gitmo revived this isolation.