tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 29, 2014 4:00pm-6:01pm EST
4:00 pm
we'll bh announcing that by the deadline. >> the department of justice has anti-kickbacks an audit, i believe it's a record, i congratulate you on that. >> it was the grassley amendment that brought us into this world in terms of bringing members of congress and their staff into the affordable care act which we are now under and if it was not complete when it came to anti-kickback and such, we want to make sure that it is. >> i didn't know -- they tnt know that why did you have to tell them? ini think every staff member the congress who are now paying more for their health care know it is the grassley amendment that did it. >> mr. chairman, if i can address two questions related to the wheels of justice. each year when you appear, mr. attorney general, i ask you the same question and you give me
4:01 pm
the same answer, about racial profiling guidelines, and you say really soon we're going to work on this. this year, i would like to ask you, how quickly an we expect new racial profiling guidelines when it relates to issues of religion, national origin and whether it applies to national security and border security cases? >> i don't want to repeat the words really soon given what you said so i will say that they are forthcoming and that -- in the holder lexicon, forthcoming is shorter than really soon. we are working with those -- there has been a review under way. we are, and i mean this sincerely, we are truly in the final stages of this, the proposal is just being circulated for comment within the department and my hope would be that it would be out the department very soon. obviously there's some white house involvement because we're
4:02 pm
talking about a 2003 executive order but i would hope that we would have an ability to talk about the modifications that i think are appropriate in a forthcoming way. >> thank you. wheels of justice question number two. 155 detainees remain at guantanamo. i want to say for the record, this has been the subject of a lengthy debate here in congress. the president made his intentions clear when elected to close guantanamo, and yet resistance in congress has thwarted him from accomplishing that. for those who want an establishment of the record, over 500 people have been convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related crimes through our judicial process since 9/11. in federal courts. in contrast, there have been six convictions and one plea agreement from guantanamo's military commissions, two of
4:03 pm
those convictions have been overturned. the most dangerous terrorists who have been convicted through our judicial system reside in our prison system and the worst of the worst in maximum security. we spend, on average, $78,000 a year in facilities like florence, colorado, maximum security, to hold the most dangerous criminals in america, including the most dangerous terrorists and there has never, ever, ever been a -- an escape or a question that they would escape. we are spending, for the 155 detainees in guantanamo, on average, not $78,000 per year by $2.7 million a year, per detainee. it is an outrageous waste of taxpayers' dollars. we are going to start a process to start reviewing the 155 detainees in the hopes that we could dispose of some, dismiss
4:04 pm
some, transfer some, it took a long time to get started. the wheels of justice unfortunately went very slowly. the president issued an executive order in march of 2011. the first periodic review board hearing at guantanamo took place in november of last year. and earlier this month, the board recommended the transfer of the first detainee in question. the second periodic review board hearing occurred yesterday. i'm glad to hear this progress has been made but with 155 detainees, 71 of whom are eligible for evaluation, mr. attorney general, we can't live long enough to go through this process. at $2.7 million a year per guantanamo detainee, can we get this process moving in an orderly, faster way? >> i think we can. the president has indicated from the day he took office that he wanted to close guantanamo
4:05 pm
facility he put me in charge of an niche review that was done within a year. that categorized the people in guantanamo, those who could be tried in military commissions or article 3 courts, those who could be released and those who had to be detained. we did that. we did that. i will say with all due respect, congressional restrictions placed on us thwarted our attempts to close guantanamo in a more timely fashion. you're right. we are now in the process of going through this review board process that is largely based on the work we did in that earlier task force that i was the head of. we are trying to do all we can to close guantanamo and i am actually grateful for the loosening of the restrictions in the latest act that makes it easier for us to effectuate that closure -- closure.
4:06 pm
but this is commg that for the -- this is something that for many reasons, that facility has to be closed. >> the sooner the better, from my point of view. i wish more members of congress felt the same way. you were in chicago in november of last year. at the installation of the u.s. attorney for the northern district, zach fardon, a unanimous choice of senator kirk, myself, and our bipartisan review panel and you made some encouraging statements about commitments that were going to be made to chicago to deal with the violent crime problem and murder issue, giving credit where it's due, mayor emanuel and his superintendent of police, mr. mccarthy, have made extraordinary progress in this regard but we need this help. can you be more specific in terms of the resources and personnel that you will make available to help us fight these problems with violent crime? >> we're looking to come up with
4:07 pm
ways to increase the number of federal agents who are in chicago on either a temporary basis or permanent basis, also looking for grants we can make available to the city. i am going to be speaking to mayor emanuel tomorrow. the purpose of the conversation, at least one of the things we'll be talking about, are the specific needs he can identify that we might be able to help with. i will also be talking to the u.s. attorney there to get his perspective on this as well. i think that we want to do as much as we can but i don't think that that should obscure the fact that the city administration, working with the new u.s. attorney, i think has made significant progress. i don't think necessarily get all the credit they deserve for a pretty dramatic decrease in crime in chicago. but there is federal assistance we want to try to make available. >> my time is up but i hope with the new appropriation bill you'll be able to find some u.s.
4:08 pm
district attorneys to help with that effort. thank you. >> welcome, mr. attorney general. appreciate your service. i'm going to try to ask a series of questions, i'll try to cauch them so you can answer yes or no so we can get through a lot of stuff, so if you could do that i'd appreciate it. i'd like to talk about the department's refusal to enforce the controlled substance act. marijuana is widely available across the utah border in colorado. federal, state, and local law enforcement have seen success in going after marijuana growers on public lands in utah. there's a direct link between the u.s. marijuana trade and large scale drug trafficking organizations that threaten the safety and well being of our country. legalization in colorado threatens the success that we have been seeing in tackling the
4:09 pm
problem. controls on legal marijuana are unlikely to deter drug cartels from ramping up their operations on public lands in utah and elsewhere. especially since the -- since demand in colorado is wildly exceeding supply. i think this policy shift sends a mixed and dangerous message to both the law enforcement community and fellow citizens. do you share my concern that legalization in one state can encourage more illegal marijuana production on public lands by drug cartels and others in bordering states? >> i'll be brief, i have concerns and those are expressed in the eight priorities we set out, three of them preventing diversions from states where it's legal to other states, preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and
4:10 pm
preventing use on federal property. these are three of the eight things that would precipitate federal government action and enforcement of the c.s.a. >> now general holder, the debate about n.s.a. surveillance is in full swing. the illegal and selective leaks last summer were hardly the best way to start this debate and i think they undermine rather than enhance but here we are. a lot of attention is being focused on the n.s.a.'s collection and analysis of so-called telephone metadata as you mentioned. it's worth reminding ourselves what that information is and what it is not. it includes the telephone number calling, the number being called, and the date, time, and length of the call, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> it does not include any information about the identity of the caller or the content of the call, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> the privacy and civil liberties oversight board issued
4:11 pm
its report last week. excuse me. concluding that the patriot act does not provide legal authority for the n.s.a.'s metadata program. in an interview last week, you noted that at least 15 judges on dozens of occasions have said that the program itself is legal. that's correct? >> that's correct. >> to be clear, is it your position that the collection of metadata under section 215 of the patriot act is legal and that the oversight board's conclusion on this point is wrong? >> that is my view. >> that's mine too. as someone on the intelligence committee and who helped put this through. in your judgment has the n.s.a. abused or misused its capability to collect and analyze telephone metadata? >> i think the n.s.a. has acted in a way that's consistent with the law but as i indicated i think that's part one of the analysis, part two is whether or
4:12 pm
not we are getting from the acquisition and retention of that data material that is sufficient to deal with the civil liberties and privacy concerns others have expressed. >> but they haven't misused or abused it? >> that's what the president asked us to look at. >> one more question about the eversight board's conclusion about the legality of the program. in creating the board, congress authorized it to do two things. first, to ensure that the need for executive branch actions and protecting us from terrorism is balanced with the need to protect privacy, that's true? >> yes. >> second. to ensure that liberty concerns are considered in the development of laws and policies in this area, that's true? >> i believe that's true also. >> these responsibilities certainly call for recommendations and conclusions about policy but i dent see how they include opining on legal issues such as the legality of the metadata program.
4:13 pm
did the oversight board exceed its statutory mission in addressing this issue? >> i'll be honest with you, i'm not as familiar as perhaps you are as to what their statutory mission is. i will accept as legitimate the concerns that they expressed though i do not agree with their legal determination, their legal analysis. >> i think they exceeded the statutory mission but so be it. so year clear on what, in my opinion, on the very limited information that the n.s.a. collects and analyzes, we are clear that the metadata program is legal, and that the n.s.a. has not abused or misused its authority to collect and analyze this information, as far as you know. >> there have been some compliance issues that have been identified by the courts or by the justice department, sometimes by the n.s.a. but those have all been corrected, once brought to the attention of the n.s.a. >> is my next question is how to
4:14 pm
know whether the program is valuable. the president's -- the report said that the metadata program was not esen torble preventing a specific terrorist attack. is that the right standard? muss there be proof that this program alone prevented an actual attack in order for it to be valuable for national security and for it to continue? >> i'm not sure -- i think we've followed into a false analysis. i'm not sure that the the only way to judge the validity or value of the program. there's a mosaic of things that we take into consideration in determining if we are acting in an optimal way. there are questions enge that can be legitimately be brought and that we are going to consider about the continued need for section 215 but i don't think the only way you can test the validity or the need for 215 is whether or not it prevented x number of attacks. >> on march 5, 2012, in a speech
4:15 pm
-- the chairman is granting me a little more time so i can fin herb this line of question. >> without objection, the gentleman will be given two more minutes. >> i'm grateful to him. in the -- you discussed surveillance programs under the foreign intelligence surveillance act. the justice department conducts oversight reviews at least once every 60 days and report to congress twice a year. i understand the surveillance program under patriot act and under fisa are different but would you say the metadata program enjoys similarly rigorous oversight to that which you described for collection under section 702? >> i think there is sufficient oversight of section 215 between what the justice department lawyers are looking at as we are looking at materials presented
4:16 pm
to us by fisa, by the fisa court and then what n.s.a. is doing internally. i think there's a great deal of oversight and that oversight has yielded issues that have been identified as problematic and been resolved. >> that's right. >> one of the president's proposals is for telephone companies rather than the n.s.a. to store the metadata. it's been represented that telephone companies don't support this idea but suppose they do. today only 22 individuals at the n.s.a. have access to this metadata. 22 people. but there are dozens of phone companies, each of which would ave to maintain these records. that would have some number of employees with access. how can you provide a comparable level of supervision when this
4:17 pm
data is stored in numerous different locations and is accessible by far more individuals than it is today? >> one of the things the president asked the director and i to do is come up with an alternative way in which information can be stored and the issue you have raised is one that has to be resolved. i think that the n.s.a. has done a good job in the way it has stored the information. if we're to move to a deferent scheme i think we have to answer the question of how can we put it in a different place and maintain the integrity that -- of the process that i think the n.s.a. has tone a pretty good job of. >> i agree with that and i have additional concerns about the security of the metadata at the phone canes. verizon's own data breach investigation reports privileged abuse and misuse by insiders played a role in data breaches over the last year. a company can only do so much to protect against outside threats to its networks, look at target and neiman marcus.
4:18 pm
do you believe the metadata would be more secure in th hands of the private sector than the n.s.a.? >> i think we have to find out if we can do it, if we can maintain security, do it in a different setting than we presently do at the n.s.a. that's one of the tasks the president has give to me and the director. >> but they're doing the job at n.s.a. >> i think they've done a good job. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate the extra time. >> thank you, senator hatch. now i yield myself seven minutes. plus whatever else i might need. t is very good to be here. i want to thank the attorney general for the good work he does. i know he is aided with great, great skill by two former schumer employees who work for you, elliot williams who has been gone for a while and brian fallon who we miss very much and is doing a good job for you.
4:19 pm
>> thank you, senator schumer. >> first on autism spectrum disorders. i know you're familiar with the o'kendall. ti he's a child with autism spectrum disorder he wandered away from his school this fall, with this f children condition wander, and his remains were found three months later. the heart of new york went out to him and his mother and grandmother. i've met with them and know their grief and heartache, shared by many parents with autism, you can imagine, when a child wanders away and many of them are nonverbal, very, very heart wrenching situation and a dangerous situation as unfortunately asv -- avanti's death showed. right after avanti went missing,
4:20 pm
i called on the department of justice to expand a current grant program you have in place which has provided support for the use of tracking devices to agencies who work with patients diagnosed with alzheimer's and families of those patients. the program's administered by the bureau of justice assistance. now we've been doing this for alzheimer's patients. justice department funds the program. so it seems almost obvious, you know, like a hand fits into a glove, that we could do this and people with alzheimer's as you know, wander as well. it seems like just a perfect fit to do the same thing for children with autism who tend to wander. now i understand that the program that's used for alzheimer's is not available for families of children with autism. so have you been able to identify any other streams of assistance pursuant to my request? >> well, i think the concern that you have is a very good one a legitimate one and the fact
4:21 pm
that you brought it to our attention is something that is going to help a lot of kids who deal with this issue and we have made the determination that the burn grant program can be used for the purchase of these devices, these transmitted bracelets, i think they're called. >> sometimes bracelets, sometimes around the ankle, even in the clothes because occasionally kids with autism want to take off the bracelet. >> but the grant money can be made and will be made available for purchase of these devices. >> localities and police departments can start applying immediately? >> yes. >> that is great news and will help in a lot of situations. i appreciate that. it's a big, huge step forward. now one other question on this. in order to ensure ha a permanent adequate stream of money for this, i've introduced legislation, we call it new york avanti's law, named after this
4:22 pm
lovely boy. it will create a new, specific, d.o.j. grant that will be available to local law enforcementing schools and nonprofits that aim to assist children with autism spectrum disorder and will authorize $10 million, i think that's what we spend on the alzheimer's, to help fund the purchase of voluntary tracking device, training for parents, schools and local law enforcement as well as other innovative methods . what you're doing is great and will solve the problem immediately but to ensure its -- it's permanent. we all know at some point there will be a different attorney general, many years away, and so legislation would ensure this. i know the way it all works. you can't commit to specific legislation until it -- until you see the details but do you agree with the general principle of trying to enact this in statute and ensure the revenue for years to come. >> yes. given the unique nature of
4:23 pm
issues that kids with autism issues face and given the way in which our nation has responded to adults with alzheimer's issues that they ought to be treated in much the same way and so i can't commit but i can say that personally i think that a dedicated funding stream makes a great deal of sense. >> thanks. we'll get you the legislation and you can put it through the long, la boirs you executive branch traps, it probably has to go through 47 different agencies, but get the support for this legislation which we hope will be forthcoming. now i'd like to turn to media shield. for eciate the support freedom of information. additionally the revised guidelines of obtaining evidence for members of the news media are a step in the right direction. however, they haven't been finalized and it's more than six months after the department sent its report to the president.
4:24 pm
when will the revise guidelines be finalized and when will they go into effect? >> i would expect we would have them available for comment within the next couple of weeks. i hoped that we would have them done by this hearing. there was a little glitch toward the end but i think we'll get through that and we'll have them available for public review and comment within weeks. i will say that in spite of the fact that they are not yet issued, we are working under them as if they were in place and we are also looking to people the board that we are putting together as part of the review process. mr. fallon has been working on that. >> then it's in good hands. does that include, you know, you mention this media review committee. has that been established? has it been convened? is it officially working? unofficially working? give us the status of the review committee and the media -- the
4:25 pm
news media dialogue group, i think is what you called it, to, quote, assess the impact of the department's revised new media policies. has that been established? >> there will be two bodies, one within the department oassist the attorney general about making requests to access information about the news media and another one that would involve outciders who will assist us on a periodic basis to give us an update on how are we going with regard to the reforms we have put in place and to consider other unwiths. mr. fallon has been working to come up with the appropriate people for that outside board and i think we've mad a -- made a lot of progress. >> how soon do you think? i don't want to steel mr. fallon's news thunder here. >> we expect the first meet welcome in february. >> thank you very much mr. joan. and i will do two things now. call on senator sessions and
4:26 pm
turn over the august process, engage in the august process of turning over the chair's gavel to the wonderful senior senator rom minnesota, senator klobacha. >> and you finished within your time. very well. attorney general holder, you mentioned gun violence and crime. i would just note, i watch your statistics that your prosecutions, total prosecutions of gun crimes declined 5.2% this year from last year and i think prosecution, vigorous prosecutions do make a difference and i would encourage you to keep those numbers up and -- as you go forward. a lot of our members are discussing how to deal with the mandatory sentences. i would just say, i was there
4:27 pm
when we had the revolving doors in the 1960's and 1970's and we as a nation turned against that. we've created a system that requires certainty in punishment, swifter trials and the result is a very great drop in the crime rate. so to my colleagues, we just have to be careful as we go forward. i know you've been a united states attorney, attorney general holder and you've seen it as a judge, a u.s. attorney, and i think we just have to be careful. we need to have good data as we go forward to analyze how we can find some areas where crime and punishments could be reduced and i do agree with you about the n.s.a. and the metadata question, i think you've thought this through, i believe the -- your position is sound. attorney general holder, when i
4:28 pm
became a united states attorney young1, the percentage of people in high school, high school seniors, according to the university of michigan, authoritative national survey, was 50% plus had admitted using an illegal drug previously. in the previous year. that was a dramatic thing. and the nation energized itself. nancy reagan had the just say no program. in my district, this was done all over america, groups formed, the partnership for youth, the coalition for a drug free mobil, we met, i was involved with it and we created and worked to create in the country hostility to drug use. to create the impression that it's not socially acceptable and children shouldn't be using it
4:29 pm
and it's wrong and the trend started the other way. by the time -- within 10 years, less than 25% of the high school seniors under that study admitted using illegal drugs. i invested a tremendous amount of my time, citizens all over america invested huge amounts of their time, volunteer efforts, financial contributions, to break the cycle of drug use among young people that were threatening the very viability of our education system and the future of so many. it was just a very serious thing. so i have to tell you, i'm heart broke ton see what the president said just a few days ago. it's just stunning to me. find it beyond comprehension. this is the atlanta -- this is "the atlantic" article surveying what the new yorker, the president's interview with the new yorker said. the headline is, obama on pot
4:30 pm
legalization -- it's important for it to go forward. that's the president's quote. he goes on to quote from that interview, he said the following things about smoking marijuana. quote, i view it as a bad habit and vice, not very different from the cigarettes i smoked as a young person. i don't think it's more dangerous than alcohol, he said. in fact it's less dangerous than alcohol, quote, in terms of its impact on the individual consumer. and he goes on to say, well, those who argue for legalizing and it as a panacea, solves all these social problems, i think are probably overstating the case. this is just difficult to me to concede how the -- to conceive how the president of the united states could make such a statement as that. so first, do you support the president's view in that regard as the chief law enforcement
4:31 pm
officer in america? >> well, a couple of misimpressions. we are prosecuting the same number of people we did from 2007 to 2013, there may be fewer cases but that means the cases we bring are nor significant. one seventh of all the cases we bring involve guns. >> i have the data on that, i'll submit it for the record, people can decide the number of gun cases are down according to data from the department of justice. but what about the president's view on this important subject? do you agree with it? >> i've not read the article but as i understood what the president said in its totality was that he thought that the use of marijuana by young people was not a good thing, one of our eight priorities is the prevention of distribution of isijuana to minors, if there
4:32 pm
indication of marijuana being distributed to minors that would require federal involvement. that was in the memo to the field. >> you think it's a bad habit but not much worse than smoking? >> well, i mean -- >> in your opinion. give us your opinion. >> i think that the use of any drug is potentially harmful and included in that would be alcohol. >> the president said i don't think it's more dangerous than alcohol. close quote. do you agree with that? >> as i said i think any drug used in an inappropriate way can be harmful. alcohol is among those drugs. >> using marijuana against the law is that appropriate use? >> well, as i said for young people to do that is something that violates federal law and something that we said would be something that we would continue to use our federal law -- the drug aware that
4:33 pm
czar the president appointed has said this in december, young people are getting the wrong message from the medical marijuana legalization campaign. if it continues to be talked about as a benign substance that has no ill effects, we're doing great disservice to young people by giving them that message. close quote. do you agree with that? >> i think that's right. that's why we have said that the distribution of marijuana to minors will involve -- will entail the very vigorous federal response. >> are you aware, isn't it a fact, that if the laws are relaxed with regard to adults, it makes this drug even more available to minors? >> i'm not sure that's necessarily true. >> attorney general holder, isn't it true that if marijuana is legalized for adults, it makes it more available for young people?
4:34 pm
>> i'm not sure that's true. i say that only because the -- the alcohol -- people cannot buy alcohol until you're age 18 or 1 but young people find ways to get alcohol because adults can have access to it. i'm not sure that we will see the same thing here given what we have said with regard to our enforcement priorities. >> did the president make -- conduct any medical or scientific survey before he waltzed into "the new yorker" and opined contrary to the position of attorneys general and presidents universally prior to that? at marijuana is not is not harmful, did he study any data before he made that statement? >> i don't know. >> did he consult with you before he made that statement? >> we didn't talk about that. >> what about this study from
4:35 pm
the american medical association, october 2013, heavy cannabis use in adolescents causes persistent impairment in neurocognitive performance and i.q. and use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood, and other disorders or this report from last december, the study found that marijuana use verse abnormal brain structure and poor memory and that chronic marijuana use may lead to brain changes resembling schizophrenia. the study also reported that the younger the person starts using marijuana, the worse the effects become. would you dispute that -- those reports? >> i have not read the report bus if they are from the a.m.a. i'm sure they are good report bus that is exactly why one of our eight enforcement priorities is the prevention of marijuana
4:36 pm
to minors. >> lady gaga said she's addicted to it and it is not harmless. she's been i dicted to it. patrick kennedy, former congressman kennedy said the president is wrong on this subject. i just think it's a huge issue. i hope that you will talk with the president, you're close to him, and begin to push back, pull back from this position that i think is going to be adverse to the health of america. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator. senator whitehouse. >> thank you. welcome back to congress, attorney general. thank you for the terrorism work that you are doing as our attorney general. as a former u.s. attorney and friend of the department, i not only have my own opinion but i have other folks who are observers of the department and i think we're very appreciative of the fine leadership you're providing the department of justice. let me talk with you for a
4:37 pm
oment about cyber. our effort to address the cyberthreat in the -- on the military side have been quite distinct and have led to the establishment of a cybercommand with two four-star generals -- with two four star generals in charge, one double headed to lead n.s.a. on the law enforcement side, our advancement has been, to put it mildly, incremental. the responsibility for cyberthreats within the department of justice themselves is divided between the dwegs and
4:38 pm
the national security division and the enforcement responsibility is divided between the f.b.i. and secret service though the f.b.i. has a dominant role and by the way, does a terrific job. in the spending bill that was just passed thanks to chairman mikulski's exemplary legislative talents, there is a provision that requires the department of justice within 120 days to put forward a multiyear strategic plan for this. you know i have had this discussion with the department of justice and the department of justice has said we can't talk about this because o.m.b. is not in the room and they will whip us unmercifully if we talk about budget stuff without their presence because it will look like we're submarining the prerogatives of the white house over budget issues so we brought o.m.b. in. and those discussions have gone forward at a moderate pace.
4:39 pm
i just wanted to flag for you this legal requirement that it be done within 120 days because i'm expecting that there will be a report within 120 days and i'm hoping that you and o.m.b. will both put considerable effort into it because if you look out four or five years at the rapid rate in which the cyberthreat is growing, in which it is morphing into more complex and varied threats, and at all the ways in which it can affect the lives of ordinary americans, i think that we are both underresourced and inadequately structured to deal with that program, that problem in the long haul. so what assurances can you give me about how you guys are going to handle this responsibility for a multiyear strategic plan on cyberwithin 120 days? >> i don't want to be alarmist, but i think the concerns that you have expressed over the years is well founded.
4:40 pm
this nation needs to be afraid. where we could be after a cyberattack. when you see the proliferation of cybercapabilities to criminal organizations, to nation -- to nation states. our nation is at risk. our infrastructure is at risk. we as a nation have not, i think, adequately responded to it. i think the 120-day examination that we have to do to come up with this multiyear plan is indeed a good thing and we'll take it very seriously and respond within that time frame, bringing into it o.m.b. and i think bringing members of congress who have expressed an interest, you, for instance, into this process as well, at least to be a part, so we have your views in formulating what this plan is like. but we as a nation have nod dedicated the attention, the resources to a problem that is
4:41 pm
21st century in its conception -- conception and will be with us for, i suspect, throughout the duration of the century and is only going to get worse. the danger to us is only going to be heightened. >> i spoke to the f.b.i. cyberdivision i guess yesterday morning and used the example of the united states air force, which before the opportunity and threat of air warfare was fully appreciated began as a subcomponent of the army cigna corps and then obviously it had to grow and then it became the army air corps and finally we got a u.s. air force. i think a similar process needs on this.nned for the other issue i wanted to raise with you is this -- many of us have been shocked by the discrepancy between the filings that political organizations have made at the internal revenue service, promising under
4:42 pm
oath they weren't going to spend any money on political activities, and at the same time filing declarations under oath at the federal election commission that they have spent tens of millions of dollars in political activities. i suspect that those discrepancies reflect false statements that could be prosecuted under 18 u.s.c. section 1001. there have been no cases from the department in that respect because the i.r.s. hasn't referred anything. i think the i.r.s. is frightened of the power behind the big political machines so they have chickened out and pitched it in. but now they decided to take a look at those rules. i would ask you to assign somebody on your staff to track the i.r.s. process, make sure that you are comfortable with where those rules are coming out and make sure that if there are open and notorious conflicts between foreign statements -- between sworn statements from these organizations it leaves room for the department of
4:43 pm
justice to step in and get before a grand jury and find out if they are the prosecutable false statements they appear to be oner that face. >> i think that is something worthy of examination. i think the problem exists in that under the tax reform act, this is information called tax return information that is always guarded very zealously. there's a memoranda of understanding -- >> you don't get to look at it unless they refer to you. t when an open and notorious ax appears tbhping, i don't think there's anything that says on can't say, what is going here, they say -- these statements can not both be true. we'd like to look into it. >>ic those refer referrals only come in extraordinary circumstances and it's a question of the fining what extraordinary means.
4:44 pm
i think that an examination of this issue makes a great deal of sense. this is not an ideological issue. this is one that groups on the left, on the right, i think should be held to the full letter of the law. >> the crime of lie og a federal official has no partisan component to it and i'd appreciate you looking at it from that point of view. i've gone over my time and i yield back. >> very good. senator cornyn. >> thank you, madam chairman. good morning. good morning, general holder. i want to introduce you to a constituent of mine and senator uz, katherine engelbrecht in houston, texas. she founded two organizations to improve elections. she leads a coalition of citizen volunteers who work as election monitors, who provide resources
4:45 pm
for voter registration drives and are dedicated to rooting out election fraud. yet the federal government has targeted katherine and her organizations with harassment and discrimination. in spring of 2010, true the vote and king street patriots both filed for nonprofit status. like so many organizations, they just wanted to participate in the political process. when the i.r.s. failed to respond in january, 2011, i wrote a letter inquiring about the status of true the vote's application. a few weeks later, the now notorious cincinnati office of the i.r.s. began a series of gratuitous and invasive inquiry nto mrs. engelbrecht's organizations. this investigation but so over the top that the federal government demanded, among other things, every facebook post and every tweet that she'd ever posted.
4:46 pm
for more than three years the i.r.s. denied true the vote and king street patriots the nonprofit status they requested them to cted both of this kind of harassment. this kind of abuse of power was not limited to the i.r.s., however. according to c.b.s. news within two months, or within months of true the vote's filing, two arms of the justice department targeted her. the f.b.i. made calls to king street patriots and attended some of its meetings. and the a.t.f. has twice audited her business. coincidence? maybe. but where there's smoke there's fire. the i.r.s. finally, three years after they applied, granted true the vote's tax exempt status it requested. but we now know that true the
4:47 pm
vote was just one of the conservative organizations targeted were discrimination, harassment and intimidation by the federal government, the i.r.s. in particular. i.r.s. officials at the highest levels targeted the leaders of conservative organizations based solely on their political beliefs. in this case, the intimidation tactics were shocking. threatening to bankrupt an american family and the business they built simply because they dared criticize the federal government. this is chilling. and it should be unacceptable in the united states of america. the president, his credit, agrees that this is a terrible abuse. he called the i.r.s. scandal intolerable and inexcusable and called for those guilty of this misconduct to be held accountable. but when your department was asked to step in and
4:48 pm
investigate, no one has been held accountable for this abuse. in fact, your department installed a political donor of the president's to lead the investigation. according to -- appointing a political donor to investigate a political activity is, i think, calls the entire investigation into question and i can't imagine how this would be designed to instill public confidence in the investigation. the b.i. director -- f.b.i. director said this investigation was an important one for his agency. now it's been peculiarly reported that the department will not pursue criminal charges against any i.r.s. official even though the f.b.i.'s investigation has not yet been concluded. and shockingly, the department made this decision, if it's true, and you can certainly confirm it or refute it if it's not, they made the decision without even talking to
4:49 pm
katherine englebrecht. i talked to her yesterday, she verified she has not heard a word from the department of justice or the f.b.i. so i would like to know, general holder, what you have to say to her and to other americans who spent thousands of dollars defending themselves against harassment by the internal revenue service for daring to exercise their constitutional right to participate in the political process. and i'd like to ask you whether you will agree to make sure that your department consults personally with every victim of this type of intimidation by the federal government. and if you can tell us what kind of accountability can the american people expect from this abuse of power. >> well, what i would say first
4:50 pm
off, i don't remember the exact words that i used but shortly after the president made the statements that you made, i expressed similar concerns and i actually, i was the one who ordered the investigation into this these matters. they are being handled by the criminal division in the justice department, the civil rights division in the justice department, the treasury inspector general and the f.b.i. as you indicated. this is a matter that's an open inquiry, it's still going on. press reports, i think if you're referring to with regard to how the case is ultimately going to be decided is a press report. the reporters who have made those assertions are not people privy to what is actually going on in the investigation. it is something, as i said, that is open. the investigation is proceeding. >> is there still potential for criminal charges to be brought in connection with the investigation since it's -- since it has not been concluded? >> obviously all the options we have oare on the table given the
4:51 pm
fact that there has not been a determination to bring charges or decline the case. >> don't you think it's the response thovelt department to actually contact the people with the most information about what exactly happened like this victim of this abuse of power, like katherine? >> i'm not familiar the woman who you referred to but i have confidence in the career people at the f.b.i. and the other investigative agencies to conduct a thorough, comprehensive investigation and that's what i would expect of them. that's why matters like this take as long as they do. >> would you please in conclusion, i know my time sup, would you commit here to me, publicly, to contact katherine and get her side of the story? or have somebody on your staff do so? >> the determination as to who gets interviewed will be made by
4:52 pm
the career people conducting the investigation. i don't want to cast any doubt on what you said, she seems leek a logical basis of -- she seems like a logical person to talk to on the bay sofse what you said, i don't have any knowledge of what her involvement is but that's something i leave to the people who are, as i said, career professionals to make determinations as to who needs to be interviewed. >> i hope the department would talk to the victim. >> thank you, senator car nyone. . m turning the gavel over i also want to express again to the attorney general my appreciation not only for being here but being available to so many of us on this committee on both sides of the aisle whenever we've called you. i appreciate that that has not always been the precedent in the department so i appreciate the
4:53 pm
fact that you've always been available. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to make sure my republican colleagues are aware of the fact that the state of minnesota has not had a full-time u.s. attorney for 882 days. this came about because our u.s. attorney was appointed to head up the a.t.f. after the mess with fast and furious, he did an able job, he is now, through the vote of the senate, the director of the a.t.f. but during that time, for two year, he was a part-time u.s. attorney and in fact he was at the a.t.f. much more than the u.s. attorney. during that time the drug prosecutions have gone down remarkably. i've had federal judges call me repeatcally, i've had the f.b.i. director call me in minnesota repeatedly and we now have a very good candidate supported by law enforcement, re-- supported
4:54 pm
by the republican congressman, but now is on hold because the senate decided not to take up unanimous nominees and it is being blocked. we have a situation where over 100 people are working now for 882 days without a full-time boss and i just think it is absolutely outrageous when minnesota -- outrageous. when minnesota became a state, we got our u.s. attorney through president zachary taylor in two days and we have not had a full-time boss for 882 days. this is the office that prosecuted the second biggest white collar case next to madoff in the last few years. this is the office that dealt with what have been the additional terrorist for 9/11. this is the case of the office of the office that handled numerous complex cases and been one of the best u.s. attorney's offices. i fear knowing half the people who worked there that worked for me when i was a prosecutor,
4:55 pm
there's a decline in morale, they need a boss. i'm angry ability this. when senator grassley and i both a candidate, when senator grassley has criticized the minnesota office because of the crime numbers, we need a u.s. attorney. >> i agree with you. and the point you made at the end is one that's extremely relevant and one that i hope the senate will consider. this is not simply a united states attorney for minnesota. we have a united states attorney in iowa who needs to be confirmed. we also have other people in the justice department who are awaiting confirmation and who are on the floor. and who traditionally, these are people who are not very -- they're not controversial at all. they are simply waiting to go
4:56 pm
through the normal senate process which is usually by unanimous consent. i would hope that we would get to the point where that process can be begun again so we can have installed, senate-confirmed people in these positions buzz it does matter having a senate-confirmed person either as united states attorney, assistant attorney general, it matters. so that is something that i hope we would be able to work our way through. >> i appreciate that. that no one uggest allows to go this long with a job share. i understand it but because our congress hasn't been eable to approve people for the a.t.f. or approve people, with a u.s. attorney's office that needs a u.s. attorney, we can't take responsibility to do that job and because of that no one should ever allow their u.s. attorney to take another job at the same time. we can't hand they will responsibility of confirming a
4:57 pm
replacement or confirming that person for that job. so we deserve what we get if that's what happens. i want to turn to something else which is sex trafficking, something that senator cornyn and i have a very strong bill with a lot of support, bipartisan support, literally takes minnesota's safe harbor model which has been very good for us in our state, just getting started but we had last month a 40-year sentence against the head of one of these rings and if you could talk about the president's interagency task force, what's going on, the super bowl is approaching this weekend, which is a concern which many have raised in terms of the uptick in the number of sex trafficking ads in dallas in increase e was a 300% in people advertising super bowl specials. can you talk about that. >> one thing i think you said,
4:58 pm
something our country needs to take note of. where super bowls locate, you see a decided increase in human trafficking. you see young girls, women, brought into these areas for ill list sexual purposes. that is an ugly thing that this nation has got to confront, got to deal with but it is just indecktive of a larger problem that is -- the scourge of human trafficking, trafficing is a top priority for the justice department, it's a top priority for me as welch we need to stop, we need to have effective mechanisms to investigate and hold accountable people who would engage in these activities, we need to see the young women who are involved in this as victims, not as criminals and come up with rehabilitative services for them. we have a proposal, a proposal that you have made, with regard to getting trafficking experts
4:59 pm
together to look at this problem and come up with ways in which we are more effective in dealing with this issue. it is one that i fully support. we also have to deal, i think quite frankly, with the way in which this is advertised in the media. there are certain publications that make it known that young women -- ads that are published are available for these inappropriate sexual purposes and that is something that we need to deal with as well. we as a nation are not dealing with this nearly as effectively as we can. we have specialists in our u.s. attorney's offices trying to deal with he issue but we need to help our state and local partners as well. >> thank you. last thing, synthetic drugs, something that senator schumer and senator grassley and senator feinstein and i have worked on, with others in this room. this is the new drug on the scene. we have had several people die in our state and i did want to
5:00 pm
thank you and the u.s. attorney's office for the prosecution in duluth, minnesota, major head shop owner, they've been going on, people literally laying on the streets from these sin at the exdrugs and we're waiting for sentencing, but it was a major prosecution and the shop has been shut down, the guy in charge, they just found something like $700,000 in bags hidden in his bathroom and i just want to thank you for that work. >> it's an issue again that we need to confront. there's this myth among young people that these sin thetic drugs are not dangerous -- sin thetic drugs are not dangerous. we have to dispel that myth. our diarra drug enforcement administration is really devoting a lot of time to dealing with these issues. we've had a number of significant busts. but i think there also is an educational component to this hat we really have to focus on
5:01 pm
young people about the dangers of these drugs that are marketed in such a way to make them think that there are no dangers in using them. >> very good. thank you very much. i believe senator lee is next. >> thank you, madam chair and thank you, general holder, for joining us today. i appreciate the support you expressed earlier for the smarter sentencing act. i appreciate the opportunity to work with senator durbin on that and welcome the support of my colleagues. as we try to move forward in a way that makes our law enforcement efforts more effective. and make sure that we don't continue to escalate our federal prison population at a rate of about tenfold as we have over the last 30 years. one of the -- i wanted to talk to you first about metadata. regardless of how you read smith vs. marmede, and regardless of whether you think under smith vs. maryland and its project anyway constitutional case can be made for the collection of this data
5:02 pm
as it relates to american citizens, wouldn't you agree that at some point, when you amass an enormous volume of metadata on american citizens, and you retain within the federal government the capacity to search that data, targeting potentially specific americans, that gives the u.s. government a lot of power to peer into things that are by their nature very private. >> yeah. and it's one of the reasons why in the sbir im, before we come up with whatever our proposals are going to be, the president has indicated that in querying that database now, we should only do so through the judicial authorization. that may be something we want to enshrine in the program. that is what the president has asked us to do in the sbir im. unless there is -- interim. unless there is an emergency situation. >> so you would make that tantamount to a warrant in other words. because right now what you have are internal operating procedures, internal
5:03 pm
regulations that can be changed. whereas if we put that in law, that would provide greater protection. >> i think we want to try to to work out whoot mechanism might be so we would afford the appropriate amount of protection while at the same time not having the negative impact on the operational abilities of people who need to potentially get access to that information on a pretty quick basis. although there may be billions of records in those bases, i think the number from last year was in terms of the numbers of queries that were made was about 300 or so. >> i understand. that i think for purposes of this discussion, even if we were to assume that all of the men and women serving us within the n.s.a., even if they are acting in good faith and abiding by their own rules, at some point there is a very grave risk of abuse. i don't know whether that might happen day from now, a year from now, 10 years or 20 years from how to. week of seen this movie before.
5:04 pm
we know how it ends and we know that it's not pleasant. this will be abused unless we put in place some very significant restrictions. i heard you mention a few minutes ago in response to some of the questions asked by senator grassley that it's the president's preference to work with congress. and that wherever possible he'd like to get congress to agree with him, to pass legislation that he would like. but of course the other side of that coin is something that the president referred to repeatedly last night in his state of the union address. which is that if he can't get congress to act, he'll go it alone. if congress won't act the way he wants congress to act, then he'll issue an executive order any time he gets the chance. this brings to mind a concern that i've had as to whether or not sufficient analysis is being undertaken when these executive orders are issued. as you know, you know, the
5:05 pm
since justice as jackson's concurrence in certain cases, when that jackson concurrence was adopted by the majority of the court, it has tended to separate out executive orders into three categories. you know, in category one you have a situation where congress acts pursuant to authorization by congress. and that's where his authority to act with an executive order is at its strongest. category two is where you have the president acting in the absence of either a congressional authorization or a congressional prohibition. justice jackson described this as sort of a twilight zone where it's a little unclear, it's a little merky. category three is where you have the president taking measures that are incompatible with congressional command. so, i would ask, number one, is
5:06 pm
this analysis undertaken each time the president issues an executive order? and, number two, was that kind of analysis undertaken when the president, for example, announced on july 2 of 2013, that he would not be enforcing the employer mandate of the affordable care act throughout the duration of 2014? even though by law the employer mandate was set to take effect, as of january 1, 2014. >> before the president exercised the executive authority that he discussed last evening, and again i want to preface that with i think the pretty clear indication from the president that he wants to work with congress on behalf of the american people. absence that have kind of activity, as he's done with regard to raising of the minimum wage, he's used his executive authority or will use it to raise the minimum wage for those who do business with the federal government.
5:07 pm
those kinds of activities by the president are done after consultation with the justice department and an analysis is done to make sure that the president is acting in an appropriate and constitutional way. and those three categories that you talked about, that we all studied in law school from justice jackson, are among the things that obviously are part of the analysis. where the president's authority is greatest, a that twilight zone, and then where the president's authority is weakest. >> so in which of those three categories would you put the president's decision to delay the enforcement of the employer mandate? is that category one, two or three? >> i'll be honest with you, i don't remember looking at or having seen the analysis in some time. so i'm not sure where along the spectrum that would come. >> how about the executive order that he proposed last night with regard to minimum wage? would that be category one, category two or category three? >> again, from -- without having delved into this to any
5:08 pm
great degree -- >> but you're the attorney general. i assume he consulted you. >> there have been consultations done with the justice department. from my perspective,, i think that would put us in category one. given the congressional involvement in the matter, the ability of the president to regulate things that involve the executive branch and how contract something done. seems to me that the president is probably at the height of his constitutional power in that regard. >> so you're saying there is a federal statute that authorizes him to issue the executive order regarding the minimum wage? >> i think that there's a constitutional basis for it and given what the president's responsibility is in running the executive branch, i think that there is an inherent power there for him to act in the way that he has. >> and with regard to the employer mandate? >> again, as i said, i've not had a chance to look at it for some time, exactly what the
5:09 pm
analysis was there. i don't know what category. give than we're talking about a statute passed by congress that delegates, devolves to the executive branch certain authorities, i would think that you're probably in category one there as well. again, i've not looked at the analysis in some time. >> i appreciate your canleder on that and i see my -- candor on that and i see my time's expired. i'd like to point out that this is, very important and it's one of the reason wise -- reasons why it could be very helpful for you to release legal analysis produced by the office of legal counsel or whoever is advising the president on these issues. it's imperative within our constitutional system that we not allow too much authority to be accumulated in one person. and it's one of the reasons why
5:10 pm
we have a constitution, to protect us against the excessive accumulation of power and i think the president certainly owes it to the american people and you owe it to the president, as his attorney general, to make sure that when he does act by executive order, that he do so clearly and clearly state the basis of his authority so that the american people can be aware of what's happening and on what basis he's claiming that authority. i look forward to hearing your explanation. perhaps you can submit something to us in writing after this hearing about his basis for making some of these decisions, particularly with regard to the delay of the employer mandate. thank you. >> let me just say that i have great respect for your legal analytical skills. clear you're your father's son. but i also want to assure you and the american people that the president will not act in a way that is inconsistent with the way other presidents have
5:11 pm
acted in using their executive authority. he has made far less use of his executive power at this point in his administration than some of his predecessors have. and he will only do so, as i indicated previously, where he's unable to work with congress to do things together. and that is the desire of the president, to work with congress to deal with the issues that confronts the american people. >> i respectfully but forcefully disagree with the assertion, if this is what you're saying, that because the number of executive orders issued by this president might be comparable to the number of executive orders issued by previous presidents, that that means that he hasn't made more use of it than other presidents have. when you look at the quality, not just the quantity, but the quality, the nature of the executive orders that he has issued, he has usurped an extraordinary amount of authority within the executive branch. this is not precedented.
5:12 pm
and i point to the delay, the unilateral delay, lawless delay in my opinion, of the employer mandate as an example of this. and so at a minimum i think he owes us an explanation as to what his legal analysis was. particularly given the fact that it's difficult to imagine who's got standing to challenge this and it's difficult to imagine who, if given -- if acquiring the standing to challenge this, could do so in a timely enough manner so as to avoid a mootness problem in the case. so it's all the more reason why it's important in this case. thank you very much. >> we have to separate then. i mean, with regard to the notion that there's a usurpation or that the president has actsed in a lawless way. i think that's totally inconsistent with what the president has done and what his desires are to do. >> very good. >> thank you, madam chairman. i want to begin, i hadn't planned to begin this way, but i want to begin by respectfully taking issue with my colleague,
5:13 pm
senator lee, and say that the use of executive orders in the sparing and very cautious and in fact in my view, the numbers of executive orders, which have been far less than any recent president, reflect that very sparing and cautiousness in my view too cautious and too sparing, and i applaud the president's apparent determination to use his authority more aggressively and more vigorously in areas that matter so much to the well-being of the american people, particularly when it comes to economic opportunity, as well as to immigration and veterans issues. the basic concept here is that the president is using his authority. whether you adopt the construct of three categories or any
5:14 pm
other method of analysis, at the end of the day, the president is simply executing the law. and using authority that has een granted to him by congress for the well-being of the american people. to protect their health and saving -- safety and to advance the national interests. in my view, and i've expressed this view through the subcommittee that i chair on regulation, in some instances the delay in using that authority has been more on the side of caution than on the side of how aggressively it should be used. so, i think your position that any use of executive power will be in accordance with the law and its legal authority, clarifies the point that i think has been missed in a lot of the reaction to the president's speech, where some of his critics have said that he's going to be legislating or bypassing the congress. in county fashion he is using legislation that has granted
5:15 pm
him authority. let me just say on the issue of sex trafficking, i welcome your comments on that score. i've proposed a resolution, bipartisan resolution with my colleague rob portman, who is not a member of this committee, basically saying that there should be more vigorous enforcement of these laws, particularly around the time of the super bowl. because the trafficking on websites like backpage.com tends to increase during this time. so i welcome your comments. and let me just add briefly, to take senator leahy's comment, i want to thank you and the department of justice for really over these past years viewing these legal issues on their merits, on their legal merits, putting politics aside. the justice department went through a dark period in my view under a previous administration when politics
5:16 pm
all too often became a part of e analysis and i want to thank the career justice department employees who work so hard and long under you to make sure that the rule of law is preserved. let me turn to a part of the president's speech where i might have hoped he had said more on the issue of preventing gun violence. the mention by the president was very brief. but i hope and i hope you will join me in the view that the president remains completely committed to ending gun violence in this country, adopting commonsense sensible measures like background checks and mental health anywherity -- initiatives, a ban on straw purchases and illegal trafficking. the bill that was before us
5:17 pm
unfortunately failed to pass. but i'd like your commitment on behalf of the administration that he remains resolutely and steadfastly in support of these initiatives. >> yes, we do still have that commitment. the worst day that i've had as attorney general of the united states was the day that i went to newtown to thank the first responders, crime scene research officers who were there and they took me on a tour of that school. and if people had the ability, if the american people, if legislators, members of congress had had the ability to be with me on that day, to walk through those classrooms and ee the caked blood, to see the carpet that i didn't understand when i saw it, carpet picked up and i realized that was -- that's where bullets had gone through and picked up the carpet. if people had seen the crime scene search pictures of those little angels, i suspect that the outcome of that effort that
5:18 pm
we mounted last year would have been different. our resolve remains the same. my resolve is as firm as it was back then and i think what we should also understand is that the vast majority of the american people still want those commonsense gun safety measures that we advanced last year. our commitment is real and we will revisit these issues. >> and on the subject of the use of the president's authority, my hope is, and i would urge that he take whatever action is possible, as he has done in a number of steps already, and as you have done in trying to clarify the mental health issues that have to the system, my hope is that additional measures, executive actions are contemplated under that authority. >> the president -- it is his intention to again try to work
5:19 pm
with congress. but in the absence of meaningful action to explore all the possibilities and use all the powers that he has to frankly just protect the american people. >> thank you. one last subject. i am hoping that the ministration will also explore very viglouisly what it can do to stop -- vigorously to -- what it can do to stop sexual assaults on campus. i applaud the president's initiative and you were part of a task force that was appointed. the council on women and girls very recently emphasizes how pressing and pervasive this roblem is on our campuses. i am attending an initiative in connecticut to try to raise awareness about it. and i'd like your commitment that you will work with me and others on this committee on this issue. >> look forward to working with
5:20 pm
you on that very important issue. the statistics are very alarming. 20% of all young women are either sexually assaulted or an attempt made at a sexual assault. usually who are in college, usually this happens in their freshman or the early part of their sophomore years. we are going to try to use those kinds of statistics and the work of this task force that the president has put together to try to deal with that issue and we will look forward to working with you and other members of congress in trying to come up with meaningful ways that we can deal with an issue that has too often been, if not ignored, not given the attention that it deserves. >> and just so no one thinks that this issue merely involves rhetoric, there is a legal basis for action in title 9 and other federal statutes for the federal government to be involved in protecting women against the ongoing assaults and other kinds of harm that they suffer on our campuses.
5:21 pm
>> yeah. and the justice department is using all the tools that we can. we've worked out an agreement with the university of montana, using our civil rights statutes where that problem was not being adequately addressed and we worked out, to the credit of the university, we put in place a consent decree and other universities as i now understand it are talking to the university of montana to see what measures they have put in place and it is our hope that this kind of thing will expand and cover more college campuses. >> thank you very much. thank you for your testimony today. and for your and the department of justice's service to our nation. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator graham. >> thank you. good morning. >> good morning. >> people on both sides of the aisle are asking you to do some very worthy things. this is a great area for you to be involved in. tell me how sequestration over the next decade effects your ability not only to do more but do what your tasked to do today in terms of fighting crime and terrorism. >> were sequestration to remain
5:22 pm
in place, we simply would not be able to do the kinds of things that the american people expect of us. we have 4,000 fewer people in the justice department now than we did in january of 2011, as a result of sequestration. or the expectation of sequestration that forced me to put into place a hiring freeze. and we simply have, with fewer investigators, fewer prosecutors, our ability to do the job is just very negatively impacted by sequestration or has been negatively impacted by sequestration. >> it's one thing to become more efficient eventually. it becomes a lack of ability. so i hope we'll all remember that. over the next decade, do you see threats to our homeland increasing, decreasing or staying about the same regarding terrorist activity? >> that's an interesting question. i would say that in terms of the threat from core al qaeda, the threat i think is likely to be less severe. i am more concerned about
5:23 pm
homegrown violent extremists who get radicalized in a variety of ways that you're very familiar with. and what they might try to do. where you have one or two people -- >> so two threats. homegrown terrorism which i agree is definitely on the rise. the likelihood of being attacked by someone here who has been radicalized as an american citizen is -- boston is maybe the future, you have to remember, the pakistan taliban are the ones who trained the guy in new york. it's not just al qaeda. >> the affiliates are out there. >> they're out to get us. i want people to understand that privacy's important but understanding the threat to us is also important. about the i.r.s. do you agree with me that the i.r.s. on is at the agency, targeted people who were political enemies of the president, per received to be political enemies of the president, and made it harder for them to organize and express themselves?
5:24 pm
isn't that the basic allegation? >> it is certainly what generated my desire to have an investigation done. >> this is not the first time that's happened in washington. i mean, -- >> i'm old enough to remember -- >> right. and things do happen. but i guess how we handle it is important. senator cruz has written you a letter. please pay good attention to. because nor cornyn suggested that the -- senator corn en suggested that the victim -- cornyn suggested that the victim, the person trying to organize in houston, has not been talked to. is that snob >> because the investigation's not completed -- >> how could you investigate a matter if you don't talk to the people who are claiming to be the victim of the offense? it would be almost impossible to say that was a thorough investigation, wouldn't it? >> you certainly have to talk to the victims. my only point was the investigation's not over. >> but at this point in the
5:25 pm
investigation, could you, you of the w many victims tea party organizations that claimed to have been abused by the i.r.s., how many people have been actually talked to? the victims themselves. by anybody in the justice department. >> this is an ongoing matter. i'm not necessarily sure i want to get into the specifics of what -- >> if the answer were none, that would be stunning, wouldn't it? at this late date. >> you say late date. the investigation's been going on for some time. i'm not sure how much longer it's going to go. >> i don't mean to belabor this but do you know if any of the victims have been talked to by the department of justice about what they alleged happened to them? >> again, i don't want to get into -- i've been breeched -- briefed on this matter on a couple of occasions. i don't want to share -- >> the idea of a special prosecutor seems to make sense here. the gentleman that you've appointed, i'm sure he's a fine
5:26 pm
man, he made a donation to the president and that bothers some people, i understand why it would, don't you think it would be better off just to have somebody clearly disconnected from the politics of president obama, certainly doesn't have to be a republican, but just somebody that can't be seen as maybe having a political allegiance to close this matter, either through prosecution or dismissal? do you think the country would be better served if we did that? >> i think the investigation's being done by career people who have constitutional rights to engage in political activity. the men and women of the justice department have, from time immemorial, put aside whatever their political leanings are and conducted investigations in a way that -- >> i understand -- right, you've got political appointees and career people. i respect both. but we've got a run to run here. a democracy. and when a group of people apparently with a great reason to believe that their own government made it difficult for them to organize and
5:27 pm
express themselves politically, that sort of goes to the heart and soul of the democracy and it would be better for us all if somebody with an independent viewpoint looked at that. >> i don't think there's any basis to believe that anybody who is involved in this investigation would conduct themselves in way that is inappropriate or would be shaded by their political activity. >> the person -- what that tells someone in south carolina, the person investigating the abuse of power by the obama administration against conservative groups was a donor to the president? >> i would say that people have constitutional rights. >> i totally agree. i'm just saying, from a perception problem, for lack of a better word, i mean, you know, to me it just is a no-brainer. i'm glad that someone outside the nixon administration eventually looked at watergate. i'm not saying this with is watergate. i'm saying on its face it's not
5:28 pm
a good moment. so, let's go to benghazi. can we expect any prosecutions any time soon against alleged perpetrators in benghazi? >> we have been working very hard in connection with that investigation. we're dealing -- the work we're doing is in a very challenging environment. we have identified people who we believe are responsible for -- >> is one of them a mr. katala? >> i don't want to comment on anybody specifically. >> let's just say that he's commonly identified in the press as one of the planners of the of the attack, a man who participated in the attack. in libya. that's what the press reports are. i have reason to believe they're right. he has been sbher viewed by cnn -- interviewed, cnn, "times of london" and "reuters." why can't we grab him if the press can talk to him openly in a hotel in libya? >> i will say that we are
5:29 pm
determined to hold accountable the people who were responsible for that attack and we will take and use all measures of the american government in order to effectuate that desire. >> a few more questions. the f.b.i. interviewed the survivors of the attack in the state department. on the 15th and 16th and 17th of september. i've asked for those f.b.i. interviews. because i want to know what they said about a potential protest. the deputy director, now retired, of the f.b.i. says that none of the survivors told the f.b.i. agents in germany, 15, 16, and 17 sent there was anything other than a terrorist attack. would you allow us to have access to those interviews? >> i'm not aware of what happened in those interviews. you said these three days of interviews. i'm not aware of what happened. >> when did you first get notified what have happened in benghazi? did you believe it to be a terrorist attack?
5:30 pm
>> i have to think about it. i'm not sure when i first heard about the attack. i'm sure at some time shortly after -- >> did the f.b.i. ever brief you after these interviews? do you remember being briefed by the f.b.i. about what they've learned in benghazi? >> after the attack or -- >> yes. >> i've been briefed by the f.b.i. on a number of occasions with regard to the -- both the attack and the investigation into the attack. >> the last interview was done on the 17th of september, can you look back a in your notes and recall and tell us when was the first time you were informed by the f.b.i. about what they had found about the attack? is that possible? >> i'm not sure i understand -- when -- >> my time is up. but the point i'm trying to make, when did the attorney general of the united states, were you made aware of the fact the f.b.i. had interviewed the survivors of the attack? when did they tell you about the interview? and about what they found? >> i'd have to look at the records on that.
5:31 pm
what we tried to do initially was to work with the libyan government to get the f.b.i. into libya to look at the crime scene. we then -- that was our primary concern. our initial concern. and then from there, interviews were done of people who were in facility at the time and who survived. >> you can go back and look and let us know in writing when you were first made aware of the f.b.i.'s results? i'd appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator. senator franken, i do want to note that senator franken and i both jointly recommended andy as the u.s. attorney. we started our process way before todd jones had even been confirmed, despite some pushback, in doing that. it's now been 189 days since we recommended him. senator franken. >> thank you, madam chairman. would associate myself with e chairwoman's remarks and
5:32 pm
andy is an outstanding nominee. we passed him through the committee here. mr. attorney general, thank you for your service. i want to talk about a matter that's pressing right now. it's very urgent right now. minnesota and a number of other states are experiencing a severe shortage in pro pain and the cost of pro pain -- propane is skyrocketing. this is a real crisis. i just spoke an hour or so ago with the secretary of energy. one of the things that the administration can do is to work with the industry to make sure propane is getting to the regions of the country that really need it. i think there are about 25 states that are in crisis here. but one of the potential challenges of getting companies in a room to address the crisis
5:33 pm
is there may be a concern over antitrust violations. however unintended. and i know this issue may not yet be on your radar, but will you commit to working with me to make sure that any of those issues can be addressed and avoided in the midst of this crisis? >> yes. we will certainly do that. we'll try to do all that we can to make sure that the relief that people need with regard to the provision of propane occurs. and we'll look at what we can do to be as flexible as we can. >> to allow these companies to meet. i was pleased to see that you visited a veterans treatment center in roanoke last week. we have some very successful veterans treatment courts in minnesota and across the country. but not nearly enough to meet the demand. can you tell the committee what you learned from your visit to
5:34 pm
a veterans treatment corps and why you think it's worth while for the federal government to invest in these programs? >> well, first i think that we as a nation owe a debt to people who have served. and have done so, putting -- obviously putting their lives at risk. they oftentimes come back with issues that were generated as a result of their service, that puts them in conflict with the law. they break the law. and they should be held individually responsible. but i also think we need to come up with ways in which we deal with those underlying issues that generated or caused that involvement with the law and what i saw in roanoke and something that i think we want to try to expand was a very difficult thing. you talked to these veterans and they said it would be a lot easier simply to plead guilty to 30 days in jail, a year in jail, and be done with it. as opposed to going through a six-month program where you have to report every week,
5:35 pm
where you're subject to random drug tests, where you have to prove that you have a good living situation. that you have employment. it's very rigorous. but the recidivism rate is tiny compared to what other people go through and so we save money by not incarcerating people unnecessarily and we enhance public safety by decreasing the number of recidivist crimes. what i saw in rone he can -- rone he can i think was very heartening -- roanoke i think was very heartening and something we need to expand. >> i appreciate that response. this is a very important issue to me and to a lot of members of both the house and the senate on a totally bipartisan basis. i have a bill, the justice and mental health collaboration act , which would authorize federal funding for veteran treatment corpses, along with a whole
5:36 pm
bunch of other things. i mean, we do have too many people incarcerated for -- who haven't committed violent crimes, who are there because of mental health issues or are there for addiction, who would be better off not being in prison. and who are paying way too much money to keep incarcerated and who have more recidivism because of being put in prison instead of being put in treatment. this is about mental health courts, this is about veterans courts and i'd like to submit records of support that i have received from the american lieging, -- legion, the wounded warrior project, the amsets -- amvets and i'd like to submit articles that discusses this issue. do you object? >> no objection. they're in the record. >> thank you. attorney general holder, on monday the department announced
5:37 pm
that it would let companies disclose the number of certain surveillance orders they get and the number of customers affected by those orders. i think this is a step forward for transparency and i want to thank you for your work on this. but i respectfully -- i don't think that's enough. enough transparency. the disclosures do not apply to the largest surveillance program that's been declassified, the 215. the call records programs that affects hundreds of millions of americans and what's more, company disclosures are optional and voluntary. and unless the government tells the american people how many of them have had their information collected under all of these programs, the public will not know the full scope of surveillance. i have a bipartisan bill with
5:38 pm
senator dean heller of nevada that would force the government to give the american people a good idea of how many of them have had their information collected under all these programs and how much of it has been queried, how much of their information has been looked at. senator heller introduced this bill with me and chairman leahy has co-sponsored it, along with several other colleagues on this committee. but the government has opposed this measure and refused to disclose this information on its own. this is surprising to me because i think it's common sense that if the public knew this information, it would be able to make a better decision both the as to purpose, the efficacy of this program and to what extent -- i think it would -- and i think the president said it last
5:39 pm
night, it would help gain trust . so, my question is, when will the government give the american people a good idea of how many of them have had their information collected and viewed or queried or accessed under this program? >> one of the things we want to try to do, i think you're right, that the action that we took on monday was a first step, it was only a first step. there is i think a need for a greater transparency, for people to understand the nature of the programs that are being run. we always have to understand, though, that the value in these done, s, that they are they are intelligence programs and therefore they have to be kept secret. so how we strike that balance is something that the director and i will be working on in conjunction with other people and we would certainly invite your involvement in that process. so that we ultimately come up
5:40 pm
with a system that is effective and keeps the american people safe, but at the same time gives the american people a degree of assurance they're only dol doing that which is necessary to make those programs effective. and to the extent that we can share information, as we did on monday, about what actually is being collected in terms of numbers, to the ex tents that we can do that, i think that's something that we want to try to -- we want to try to encourage. >> thank you. my time has expired. i'd like to submit some questions for the record. thank you, madam chair. can >> thank you very much. senator cruz. >> general holder, thank you for being here. i'd like to talk to you about abuse of power and the integrity of the department of justice. eight months ago the inspector general of the department of treasury concluded that the
5:41 pm
i.r.s. had improperly targeted conservative citizen groups, tea party groups, pro-israel groups, pro-life groups. the day that was made public, president obama described what had occurred as, quote, intolerable, inexcusable. and he said, americans have a right to be angry about it and i'm angry about it. likewise, that's thank same day you said the i.r.s.'s targeting of conservative citizens groups was, quote, outrageous and unacceptable. that was eight months ago. in the eight months that have transpired, lois learner, the head of the oves that targeted conservatives improperly, has gone before congress and pleaded the fifth which as you know means she raised her hand and said, if i testify i may incriminate myself in criminal conduct. for a senior government
5:42 pm
official to plead the fifth is a major occurrence. in the 280 days since that inspector general report, nobody has been indicted. not a single person. in the 280 days since that inspector general report, it's been publicly reported that no indictments are planned. today in this hearing, you were unwilling to answer a question, whether even a single victim of the targeting has been interviewed in the 280 days that have transpired. and most astonishingly, it has now been publicly reported that the lead lawyer heading the nvestigation was number one, appointed from the civil rights division, which has historically been the most politically charged division in the department of justice. and even more astonishingly is
5:43 pm
a major democratic donor and donor to president obama, indeed between 2004 and 2012 he has personally given $6,750 to president obama and the democratic party. i must tell you i find it astonishing that the department of justice appointed a major obama donor to head this investigation. so the first question i want to ask is, did you know that the lawyer in charge of this investigation was a major obama donor? >> well, first off, the characterization of this lawyer as the lead lawyer on the case i think is not correct. this is an investigation being done by the civil rights division, as well as by the criminal division of the justice department. and if i had to assign a lead in this, i would say that the criminal division of public integrity section is actually got the lead. it's also involving the f.b.i., as well as the inspector general from the treasury department.
5:44 pm
>> general holder, with all respect, you did not answer the question i asked which is did you know that this lawyer was a major obama donor? >> no. i don't know anything about the political activities of any of the people who are involved in this investigation. >> now, previously when you were asked about this, you made a reference to the fact that she has a first amendment right to be involved in politics and that's surely right. no one's talking about restraining her first amendment right to be involved in politics. but the department of justice ethics guideline says that if a lawyer, quote, believes your impartiality might be questioned, you must either disqualify yourself or see the ethics officer. and indeed it goes on to say, in a case where your impartiality might be questioned, you may obtain a formal opinion that the department's interest in your participation in this matter outweighs the concern that the
5:45 pm
integrity of the department's operation would be questioned. now, i have to tell you the fact that a major obama donor is playing this leadership role, has resulted in the integrity of the department being questioned. is it your position that out of the 117,000 employees at the department of justice, the only lawyer available to head this investigation was a major obama donor? >> first, we have 112,000 people. but beyond that, the people who are assigned to this case were done distribute assignments were done by career people within the department to make sure that the best people with the greatest amount of experience would handle this matter. your repeated reference to her as the lead lawyer, as i said, i think is not necessary -- is not borne out by the role she's actually playing. i don't have any basis to believe that the people who are engaged in this investigation
5:46 pm
are doing so in a way other than investigations are normally done. that is by looking at the facts, applying the lall to -- the law to those facts and reaching the appropriate conclusions. i don't have any basis to believe that anything other than that is occurring. >> i will say a lot of american citizens have a basis to believe it. given that 280 days have passed, no one's been indicted, 280 days have passed and many, if not all, of the victims have not even been interviewed. 280 days have passed and apparently the anger and outrage that both you and the president expressed has utterly disappeared. indeed last night in the state of the union address, the president did not so much as mention the words i.r.s. so that anger and outrage sees very little manifestation in actual action. now, i would also point out -- >> i would hope that the president would not discuss an ongoing investigation. i don't know if you've ever conducted an investigation, senator, but the fact that it's -- i'll just take you to a word, 2380 days, is not unusual
5:47 pm
for -- 280 days, is not usual nor complex investigations. we want to make sure that what we do is comprehensive and we get it right. >> many of the victims have not -- >> -- do things on a short basis, i ask people simply to do them right. >> many of the victims have not been interviewed. has the investigation examined the meeting between the head of the i.r.s. and white house political operatives to determine that a degree of political influence that was exercised from the white house over this political targeting? >> as i said to i think it was maybe senator graham, i'm not going to discuss an ongoing investigation and what steps have been taken in connection with that investigation. and that is not something i'm only doing for this inquiry. this would be an answer you would get from me for any investigation that the justice department was involved in. it is not appropriate for an attorney general of any justice department to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation. >> has any investigation been
5:48 pm
done about whether individual donors to governor romney had been audited and targeted by the i.r.s. at a greater rate than donors to president obama? i will tell you as i traveled country i have heard from dozens of financial supporters for governor romney who told me that they have never been audited in their life and within a week, a month of it becoming public that they were raising money for mitt romney, they discovered they were being audited. now, those are anecdotal stories but it would be relatively simple to examine the prosecution rates of obama donors versus romney doan arnsdz if there were sharp -- donors and if there was a sharp differential, if romney donors were being audited at a higher frequency, that would raise substantial basis to investigate further. has the investigation inquired
5:49 pm
as to that? >> senator, you know, i will say -- i'll give you the same response to the questions that you're asking that are in many ways very similar. i'm not going to discuss what we have done in an ongoing investigation. this is a matter that is presently being investigated, interviews are being done, analysis is being conducted and it would be inappropriate for me to talk about the matter in the way that you have asked. >> my time has expired. but let me say this in conclusion. which is i sent you last a he can -- last week a letter laying out this record. laying out the abuse of power. laying out the obvious conflict of interest. in my view, the integrity of the department of justice has been severely compromised. predecessors of yours in both parties, democrat and republican, when faced with serious charges of abuse of
5:50 pm
power for partisan gain have made the right decision and appointed special prosecutors. eliott richardson appointed archibald cox to investigate allegations of president nixon's abuse of power. no one would have trusted john mitchell to investigate richard nixon. likewise janet reno appointed robert fisk to investigate allegations against president clinton. i would call upon you to carry out the tradition of independence that attorneys general have honored that office with for centuries and protect the integrity of the department of justice, given the political sensitivities, given the fact that individual citizens believe they are being persecuted by the federal government for partisan reasons . it would further justice and further the integrity of the department of justice for you to appoint a special prosecutor with a meaningful degree of
5:51 pm
independence, to investigate and find out what happened and i would suggest that any special prosecutor should have integrity beyond reproach and not be a major obama donor. >> well, let me just say this. the -- a lot of what attorney general reno did with regard to the appointment of independent council was pursuant to a statute that no longer exists. the regulations that now exist were put in place under my supervision when i was a deputy attorney general in the clinton administration and so i'm familiar with both the regulation and when it ought to be applied. i don't think that there is a basis for us to conclude on the information as it presently exists that there is any reason for the appointment of independent council. i have faith in the career people who are handling this matter to do so in a way that is free of any kind of partisan or ideological tint.
5:52 pm
to come to an assessment of the facts and the law based only on the facts and on the law. and the notion that somehow this has caused a loss of faith in this justice department i think is inconsistent with the facts. >> thank you, attorney general holder, for your testimony today and for your service. i wanted to first focus on an area of shared concern and interest. the department of justice's questioning highlighted today has a broad range of responsibilities for promoting justice and public safety for our country. one of particular interest to me is strengthening and sustaining the vital connections between federal, state and local law enforcement and in your opening statement you emphasized your gratitude for the appropriations this year which makes possible strengthening that relationship. in delaware in particular the justice re-investment initiative is one example of this partnership that's making a real difference. sustaining federal support is going to be critical to ensure
5:53 pm
thatting that newly enacted state reforms actually translate into reduced recidivism, saves lifes and saves dollars. can you comment at the outset for me why it's important for the federal government to invest in state and local law enforcement training, information sharing, funding assistance? why does this make a difference? >> i think there are at least a couple of by a cease. one, to try to increase the capacity of our state and local partners. the reality is the vast majority of criminal law enforcement is conducted by people who are state and local law enforcement agencies. so helping them just do their jobs makes a great deal of sense. but i also think that what we see is innovative practices being done by our state and local counterparts. that we want to try to support experiments almost and see which things work and then try to push those out to other parts of the country. if we want to have a truly safe country, with safe communities,
5:54 pm
with really innovative law enforcement practices, the federal government i think has the unique capacity through our funding mechanisms to funnel money to agencies that have particular crime problems that they're dealing with or have innovative solutions to crime problems that many communities around the nation are facing. >> thank you. i'm a strong believer in the capacity of the federal government to find specific programs and combine research, training and funding assistance to sort of catly thically leverage those, either unique practices or important and special programs. i want to draw your attention to two of them that we've discussed before. the victims of child abuse act has in the past funded child advocacy centers that are a really important tool and senator klobuchar discussed with you earlier the critical importance of strengthening our enforcement against sex trafficking. i think these child advocacy centers have played a central role in that. and the bulletproof vest
5:55 pm
investment act which mass made -- which has made cutting-edge vests that protect officers, particularly in smaller departments where they could not field them selves. regrettably both of those were zeroed out in the president's 2014 budget and through actions on the appropriations committee, funding was restored and i think we're continuing to work in partnership to ensure that they are carried forward and deployed. i know that you have spoken in support of these programs in the past. and budgets are difficult and they are also an important tool to convey our values and our priorities. would you just comment on how to these specific programs can help state and local law enforcement, particularly in ways that are not possible if done alone at the state or local level? >> well, i think child advocacy centers, things that i have been familiar with since my time as the united states attorney here in washington, primary tool, a good tool for people in law
5:56 pm
enforcement to successfully prosecute cases that involve children who are victims. but beyond that, it also helps the healing process for young victims who -- so they don't get revictimized by the process that they go through and once through with the process can try to get on and to heal. for too long we did not understand the unique needs that children had and child advocacy enters i think have really gone a long way -- centers i think have really gone a long way to increase our sensitivity to that regard. we do not have budget numbers yet for fiscal year 2013. we have them in a macrosense but not the micronumbers. i will be advocating on behalf of these child advocacy centers. i think they are proven to work and given who they assist, i think that as we're trying to decide what our priorities are,
5:57 pm
the protection of our most vulnerable citizens, our children, has to be a place where we put our money. which -- with regard to the vests, we talked about this before, a concern -- you've raised a very legitimate concern that we not make the provision of vests dependent on the size of the community. officers who are on two, three-man police forces are just as at risk when they're making a stop on a highway in the middle of the night as is somebody who works on the new york police department. and to the extent that we can, we want to get as many of these vests out there as we can. >> the recent report from the presidential commission on election administration. confirms an issue i've raised previously that there's a widespread lack of compliance with section 5 of the national voter registration act, the so-called motor voter law. in fact, a report very specifically says that d.m.v.'s, which are supposed to
5:58 pm
play an absolutely central role in registration, are the weakest link in the system. many state d.m.v.'s disregard the law, others have erected impediments to the seamless transfer of voter registration data from motor vehicle to voter registration. do you see this report as a call to action for enforcement of section five by the department and what's your plan to make sure this important law is enforced? >> i think we need to look at that report. i think that was a very -- ghtful and potentially very consequential piece of legislation. and for it not to be enforced and for it not to be paid attention to would go against what i think is really important and which is to somehow, in an appropriate way, without any fraud, expand the franchise. and make it easy for people to get to vote.
5:59 pm
so to the extent that issues have been identified in that report, we'll look at them and help -- that will help shape our enforcement efforts. or just to bring -- when i say enforcement efforts, that doesn't mean we'll have to bring cases but just to bring to the attention departments in various states that are not doing this, we bring to their attention sometimes just best practices. we can hopefully modify things that are inconsistent with the act. >> let me if i might ask, a last question about fisa reform. the president has publicly recently instructed to you develop options to reform the section 215 bulk collection program in ways that would better respect and defend civil liberties in this country. is it the department's position that section 215 can be used meta lk collection of data beyond phone records? including location information, financial records or other internet records? and how do you view the best
6:00 pm
way moving forward to ensure the public, that the framework for making these decisions is right? do you support more disclosures of the legal rationales for various aspects of the surveillance program? >> i think that we have to ask some pretty frank questions about the bulk collection component of section 215. . and make a decision what we are getting from that program sufficient amounts of good information, usable information to balance the very legitimate concerns that people have expressed about the potentially wide-arranging nature of the program. come into this with an open mind. there are certain programs, section 702, for instance, that has to be guarded at all costs. i,
77 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News ArchiveUploaded by TV Archive on