Transcripts For CSPAN Washington This Week 20140201 : vimars

Officers benefits which is so important to our first responders. I appreciate the attorney generals strong support for the goals of the justice and Second Chance reauthorization act and forensics reform legislation. Each one are going to improve the effectiveness of our criminal Justice System and id like to see them enacted this year. I know a lot of people in Law Enforcement would like to see them enacted. I appreciate the attorney generals recognition of the bipartisan efforts currently under way in this committee, to address the unsustainable growth of our prison population. The rate were going, there will be no money for Law Enforcement, it will be just in prisons, even to the extent of having geriatric units in these prisons. In a time of shrinking budgets, all levels of government, i think the problem we have in the expanding prison population presents devastating consequences for our other critical Public Safety priorities. If you do nothing and we just allow the federal prison population to consume more than a quarter of the departments budget, with eventually even more than that, that makes us less safe. Incremental changes to mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenders is a good place to start and im optimistic well be able to pass a bipartisan bill out of this committee to do that. So, thank you, attorney general, for returning to the committee to discuss these important issues. I also want to thank the men and women of the department of justice who work hard every day to keep us safe. I met with a lot of them. Youre the face of the department of justice. As you know, there are thousands of people whose faces will never be in the news but are out there every single day, throughout the country, and abroad, keeping us safe. We pray for their safety. We appreciate what they do. They deserve our gratitude and respect. Senator grassley. Before i read my statement, id like to say to general holder, obviously you and i were bit by different political bugs but and we have policy differences. Maybe we got more agreement than what you and i might realize at a particular time. And i think those policy differences are legitimate and we can live with them. In my statement, im going to make some comments about some administrative action where i think theres no excuse for and congress isnt being respected by your department and whether its you or people within your department, i think the very least we ought to have responses to things where there should be no political differences. Just wanting information. So i hope you appreciate the fact that if we disagree on policy issues, that it doesnt carry over to things that, when congress simply wants administrative action on your part. I thank you, chairman leahy, for this hearing. Its a very important hearing. Oversights very, very important. And i thank the attorney general for coming here. You take some beating by coming here. But at least youre fulfilling a constitutional responsibility of giving us information that we need in public. I have to start by pointing out to the chairman that we still havent received answers to our questions for the record from the last oversight hearing with the attorney general, which was almost 11 months ago. As ive indicated, i think this is unacceptable. The department should show sufficient respect for this committee to answer its questions, at least prior to the next oversight hearing. Now 11 months elapsed. We also havent received replies to questions directed to other Department Officials who testified at various hearings over the past year. This hearing also affords me the opportunity to call to your attention, general holder, the many letters that the department hasnt yet answered. Its unfortunate that we always have to start a Department Oversight hearing with the same request, to respond to Unanswered Questions from the congress. For instance, back in early november, i wrote you about the Justice Department council to health and Human Services on the Affordable Care act, h. H. S. Says that in consultation with your department, it decided not to apply the antikickback statute to the Affordable Care act. This is a clear violation of Congress Move to strengthen antifraud laws and youve helped us strengthen a lot of antifraud laws. Since i havent received an answer to my letter, im going to ask you about that today. Ive also written to you about the departments handling of cases in which the National Security Agency Employees abuse their signals intelligence authority. In august after news reports about these cases, i wrote to the n. S. A. Inspector general about them. In response, the Inspector General indicated that since 2003, there were 12 documented instances of n. S. A. Employees abusing these authorities, in many cases by spying on loved ones. Its good that the number of cases was very small. But even one case too many. According to the Inspector General, at least six of these cases were referred to your department for prosecution. So in october i wrote to you to request information about how the department handled these cases. I asked for a response by december 1. I havent received one. Its important for the public to know whether the department is taking these cases seriously. We need to deter this kind of behavior in the future. Given n. S. A. s powerful capabilities. In addition, this committee has spent a considerable amount of time considering various reforms to n. S. A. In his speech on this a few weeks ago, the president directed you as attorney general to work with the Intelligence Community to develop, quote, options for a new approach, end of quote, to the bulk collection of telephone metadata. Ill be interested in hearing how that is proceeding. The president has also asked you to do a review of the f. B. I. Whistleblower protection and recommend changes on how to improve them. The assignment was contained in president ial policy directive 19, which claimed to create protection for whistleblowers with access to classified information. The president gave you 180 days to complete the review and its now 10 months overdue. Theres a lot of lip service to whistleblower protection, but this is another example of how the actions dont match rhetoric. Im concerned about the president s directive. I recently had a whistle blower from the c. I. A. Contact my office. He was seeking to report alleged violations of the whistleblower protections in the president s directive 19. False statements to congress and concerns related to legislation. He tried to get permission to share the classified details with me. Yet a c. I. A. Lawyer wrote a letter denying permission, claiming Judiciary Committee members arent authorized to receive classified information from the c. I. A. , which is, of course, false. But it scares whistleblowers and it intimidates them into silence. This is one of several things that suggests to me that even with the president s directive we need stronger legislative protection for National Security whistleblowers. Another topic to discuss is the departments nonenforcement of controlled substance act. In august the department announced that it wouldnt challenge laws in colorado and washington, legalizing trafficking of marijuana. The Department Apparently believes that so long as these states create effective regulatory schemes, key federal enforcement priorities wouldnt be undermined. Those priorities include the diversion of marijuana into other states, increased use among minors, and more drug driving fatalities. However, im concerned that in many ways, this policy is based on willful ignorance of the realities in these states. Example, as a result of failure to adequately regulate medical marijuana, colorado has seen a sharp increase in Public Health Law Enforcement problems related to these federal priorities in a few years. Just a few weeks ago, a Senior Drug Enforcement Administration official told my and senator feinsteins caucus on the International Narcotics control that what was happening in these states is, quote, reckless and irresponsible. At a minimum, it is important that the department set firm criteria to meriwether or when its federal priorities are harmed, so much that the decision not to challenge these state laws is revisited. This is all the more important now that i understand you will soon announce Additional Guidance that will permit marijuana distributors in these states to use the Banking System to engage in what is under federal law money laundering. Im also concerned that this administration hasnt been faithful to the constitution on a number of areas, by unilaterally changing or ignoring laws passed by congress. In my view, many of these actions are inconsistent with the constitutions requirement that the president , quote, take care that the laws be faithfully executed, end of quote. However, your Departments Office of Legal Council is involved with this because they provide an independent check on executive action. The office of League Counsel is responsible for advising the executive branch on constitutional questions. Moreover, it reviews the constitutionality of all proposed executive orders. Last night, during the state of the union address, the president signaled that he will use executive orders aggressively to advance his agenda this year. Transparency should be brought to the office of Legal Counsels analysis of proposed executive orders so that the American People can see whether they are subject to a rigorous Constitutional Review. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please go ahead, attorney general. Chairman leahy, Ranking Member grassley, members of the committee, i want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the recent achievements in the ongoing priorities of the United States department of justice. Id like to thank the members of congress for coming together earlier this month to pass a bipartisan budget agreement that restores the departments funding to presequestration levels. We are reviewing this legislation to determine its impact on specific programs and components. But we anticipate it will provide for the hiring of additional federal agents, prosecutors and other essential staff. This will allow us to invest in innovative programs, to keep supporting state and local Law Enforcement agencies, and to continue building upon the outstanding work that my colleagues have made possible over the past year. As ive often said, the departments top priority must always be the protection of the American People from terrorism and other National Security threats. Since i last appeared before this committee, we have continued to strengthen key intelligence gathering capabilities, to refine our ability to identify and to disrupt potential terrorist plots. And to ensure that those charged with terrorismrelated offenses can be held accountable to the full extent of the law. As president obama noted in his speech at the Justice Department, roughly two weeks ago in carrying out this work its imperative that we continue striving to protect our National Security while upholding the Civil Liberties that all of us hold dear. On monday we took a significant step forward in this regard when the department acted to allow more detailed disclosures about the number of National Security orders and requests that are issued to Communications Providers. The number of customer accounts targeted under those orders and requests. And the underlying Legal Authority. Through these new reports methods, Communications Providers will be permitted to disclose more information than ever before to their customers. Allowing disclosure of this data will resolve an important area of concern to Communications Providers as well as to the public. And in the weeks ahead, as we move forward with the timely implementation of this and other reforms directed by the president , my colleagues and i will work closely with members of this committee and other congressional leaders to determine the best path forward. We also will continue enforcing essential privacy protections and other safeguards concerning data possessed by the government, as well as by the private sector. The department of justice takes very seriously reports of any data breach, particularly those involving personally identifiable or financial information. And looks into allegations that are brought to its attention. Now, while we generally do not discuss specific matters under investigation, i can confirm that the department is investigating the breach involving the United States retailer target. And we are committed to working to find not only the perpetrators of these sorts of data breach, but also any individuals and groups who exploit that data via credit card fraud. Beyond this important work, the department will continue to build on the progress that we have seen in confronting really a wide variety of other threats and challenges from combating drug and human trafficking, to addressing cyberattacks, protecting americans from Violent Crime, and taking really commonsense steps to reduce gun violence. Earlier this month the department strengthened the federal background check system by clarifying federal rules concerning Mental Healthbased prohibitions on firearm purchases. Under the leadership of our Civil Rights Division, we are working diligently with our federal Agency Partners to implement the Supreme Courts ruling in United States vs. Windsor, to make real the promise of equal protection under the law for all American Families and to extend applicable federal benefits to married samesex couples and we are vigorously enforcing federal voting protections around working with congressional leaders from both parties to refine and to strengthen the proposals that congress is currently considering to help ensure that every eligible american has access to the franchise. In addition, last year as part of our ongoing efforts to hold accountable those whose conducts the seeds of the mortgage crisis, we filed suits against bank of america and the ratings firm, s p. In november the department reached a 13 billion settlement with Jpmorgan Chase and company. This is the largest settlement with any single entity in American History to resolve federal and state civil claims related to the companys mortgage securitization process. Now, i think that these results demonstrate that no firm, no matter how profitable, is above the law. And they reinforced our commitment to integrity and equal justice in every case in every circumstance and in every community. This commitment is also reflected in the new smart on Crime Initiative that i announced this past august, to strengthen our federal criminal Justice System, to increase our emphasis on proven diversion, rehabilitation, and reentry programs, and to reduce unnecessary collateral consequences for those who are seeking to rejoin their communities. As part of the smart on crime approach, i mandated a significant change to the Justice Departments charging policies to ensure that people accused of certain lowlevel, federal drug crimes will face sentences that are appropriate to their individual conduct. And that stringent, mandatory minimum sentences will be reserved for the most serious criminals. Alongside other important reforms, this change will make our criminal Justice System not only fairer, but also more efficient. And it will compliment proposals like the bipartisan smarter sentencing act, introduced by senators durbin and mike lee, which would give judges more discretion in determining appropriate sentences for people convicted of certain federal drug crimes. I look forward to working with chairman leahy, the distinguished members of this committee, and other leaders who have shown a commitment to commonsense sentencing reforms, like senator rand paul, to help advance this and other legislation. I want to thank you all once again for your continued support of the United States department of justice and i would be happy to answer any of the questions that you might have. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. And thank you for mentioning sentencing, what senator durbin and lee and paul and ryan and others, who are all working together to try to get something that not only makes sense but can pass. The old onesizefitsall, we realize, one, it doesnt make us safer, two, it doesnt deter crime. But, three, it means were spending a huge amount of money on things that dont make us better and takes money away from good Law Enforcement that we need. Last week the privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board issued a report that concluded the n. S. A. s phone Records Program should end and i agree with that. For the recommendations, you and the director of National Intelligence will develop in the coming months, but executive action is not enough. I think congress has to act to ensure that this legal theory, thats what i consider legal theory, is not used by any administration to spy on its citizens. Now, d. O. J. s current interpretation of relevance in section 215 could allow the government to acquire virtually any database that might someday down the road for some reason, somehow, find useful. First, is there anything in the constitution that allows this to pass such an overbroad law . To allow us to search anywhere we want . And is there any meaningful limiting principle for the governments of section 215 . I think that you can look at what the government has been able to do in terms of surveillance, whether it is wiretaps, mail covers. There are a number of statutes that congress has passed that allows the government to engage in that kind of surveillance activity. I think the difference between those kinds of i think universally recognized programs in what we have seen under section 215, the Metadata Program, is that these other materials, the other programs are really kind of predicatebased. The Metadata Program is really an accumulation of material without necessarily a predicate. Although i will say that the query database, there has to be a predicate. I think that makes it consistent with what has been passed by congress before and constitutionally upheld by the courts. We can pass something and stuff has been constitutionally upheld but we can also Pass Congress could pass a law, for example, that would allow any Police Officer to seize anybody and lock them up for five years. We can pass such a law. Youre a former judge and youre attorney general of the United States. I think youd agree with me and everybody else that would not pass constitutional tests at all. So i ask again the question, does the constitution give us a right to pass a law to allow n. S. A. Or bureau of Land Management or anybody else to collect such untraveled metadata on american citizens . Id say 15 judges in the fisa court, two judges, one in california, one in new york, have looked at this question and made the determination that the 215 program is in fact constitutional. One judge in washington, d. C. , has decided it is not. But i think that really only deals with one half of the question. I believe that they are correct, that it is constitutional. It is an appropriate use in a constitutional sense of the governments power. But the question is, and what the president has posed to us, just because we can do something, should we do it . And thats what the director and i are going to be wrestling with over the next 60 to 90 days, to modify the program in a way the president has indicated. Another question i was going to ask, as you do that, are you going to be consulting with the privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board . Yeah. We will be Touching Base with them. Obviously they have reports that we can look at. But i think we want to make this a pretty wideranging interaction with those people who have been critical of section 215 and the other Surveillance Programs so we have as much information, both pro and con, before we make recommendations back to the president. There are news reports this past week that the n. S. A. And a British Intelligence agency are working together to collect detailed personal information from smartphone apps. Ill have questions that ill ask you in a classified form. What protections are in place to ensure the n. S. A. Doesnt do an end run around u. S. Surveillance rules, including the fourth amendment, obviously, by just going to another Foreign Agency and saying, hey, were prohibited from collecting this information on americans, would you do it for news is well, under executive order 12333, the Intelligence Community is not permitted to ask a Foreign Government to collect information that we ourselves would not be allowed to collect. And so any attempt to have a Foreign Government acquire information that we are not permitted to gather ourselves would be a violation of that executive order. Recently approved six test sites of drones. The f. A. A. Is developing plans to allow drones to be operated in commercial air space by next year. Weve also heard, though, in this committee that drones are already being used for a number of areas, homeland security, Law Enforcement purposes, that raises significant privacy concerns. I can almost feel what my reaction would be if i saw a drone flying around over my farm house in vermont. And what id be inclined to do, not knowing where its coming from or what it was. What plans does the Justice Department have to use drones within the u. S. For Law Enforcement purposes . And what kind of safeguards are being developed . The orwellian aspect of them i find very chilling. With regard to the use of these unmanned aerial systems, at this point the only component with the department that is using them in an operational way is the f. B. I. And i think we have to understand that if used appropriately they can serve a useful purpose. I dont think we remember the young child who was held hostage in a tunnel, i think it was in georgia or alabama someplace. Use was made of a drone in that case and proved decisive in resolving that situation in a good way. The Inspector General and the Justice Department has recommended that we come up with a uniform system of rules and regulations within the department to control how these devices are used and that is something that i support and something that we will be developing. That id like to work with you on the development. I think other members of the committee on both sides of the aisle because simply the fact that we have the technology, i can see it in the hands of some, boy, this is the latest and greatest thing, lets just go spy on everybodys backyard and everything else. And i think the reaction of the American Public would be pretty significant. As compared to the very specific targeted Law Enforcement, the missing child thing that you mentioned. And lastly and i apologize to senator grassley, but we talked about it, the federal prison population. This is something of concern to many of us here. More than 500 its grown in the last 30 years. Thats money that you have money that cant be used to hire more prosecutors or agents or providing assistance to state and local Law Enforcement. In fact, the Inspector General said the bureau of prisons budget is at the top of its list of management challenges for the department. The top of the list. What is this increasing prison population doing to your other priorities . Well, the budget takes up roughly 1 3 of the Justice Departments entire budget. And it precludes us from doing a variety of other things that i know members of this committee are interested in. And those are interests that i share. Our ability to help our state and local partners is impacted. Our ability to hire more prosecutors, more agents, more support personnel is impacted. We have to fund the prison system to make sure that the people who are in those systems are safe, that we provide constitutional care to people who are incarcerated. But unless we take a fundamental look, as has been suggested by you, senator durbin, senator lee, senator paul, unless we take that fundamental look, were going to have a prison system that impedes our ability to do the kinds of things the American People expect the Justice Department to do. And im very concerned about that and thats why i announced that smart on Crime Initiative back in august, and i think what i announced is consistent with what members of this committee have suggested as well. And thats why i want to work with you, to try to get a handle on what is, i think, a growing and potentially very dangerous problem. Please do. Because you have broad bipartisan support across the political spectrum to find our way out of this. And we need the advice. Senator grassley. Before my time starts, could i follow up on i have the same concern you do about privacy being violated by drones. But i want to point out that with airplanes in iowa and nebraska, e. P. A. Has some authority to spy on certain animal feeding operations. But they were spying on people they didnt have the right to regulate with airplanes. Were going to have a bigger problem with the government abuse of privacy, with drones now. So i just raise that as an issue. Not for you to comment on or not for you to comment on. General, in my opening statement, a couple of questions on something ive already discussed with you. I mentioned that i wrote you back in october, concerning the departments handling of cases referred to in which the National Security Agency Employees intentionally or willfully abused surveillance authority. But i never received a response. We need to know whether the Justice Department is taking any action or even whether you consider the cases serious. Can you tell me whether anyone at the n. S. A. Has been prosecuted for this conduct . And if they havent, why maybe they havent been prosecuted. I think the concern that you raise is a very legitimate one. And we will get a response to you in greater detail. But the fact that and there were those referrals. But the fact that members of the n. S. A. Who have access to this information, access to these techniques, these capabilities would misuse them for and i think youre right, as you said in your statement, for essentially personal use, to spy on people with whom they had relationships, is totally inappropriate. We will get you a fulsome response to indicate how those cases were dealt with by the Justice Department. I share the concern. Is it possible you could do that soon . Yes. We will do that soon. I will write that one down and make sure we get back to you on that. I referred to a president ial policy director 19, released 15 months ago. This follows up on my interest of making sure whistleblowers have protection. It mandates that you deliver a report to the president within 180 days. That would be april of last year. To assess the effectiveness of f. B. I. s procedure of handling whistleblowers. Why i raise this issue, because weve had whistleblowers rights violated like robert kolbus, jane turner, getting a runaround for years. Even after the Inspector General has found in their favor. However, to date theres been no public announcement that your review has been completed. Why you have not issued the report nearly 10 months after deadline . What you have learned from your review . Will you provide a copy to the committee of the review . Ill ill have to check on the status of that review. Im not sure what shape it is in and whether it is ready for dissemination. But i will look at. That again, i share the concerns you have about whistleblowers. I think people who have concerns about the way in which government is conducting itself have to have the feeling that they have places that they can go. And report these things in a way that does not do damage to the government itself. And so if there is not that feeling that they have mechanisms, established means to share those concerns, we then end up with people sharing things and i think in an inappropriate way, perhaps with newspapers, owe other media. So the concern you have is a very legitimate one and this is another one where i will have to get back to you and let you know where we stand. When you mentioned the concerns of the government, i appreciate that. Because governments got certain responsibilities. But when you got one individual against the government, it seems to me its pretty easy to see how that one individuals going to be run over if we dont see that they get their Constitutional Rights protected. I had a question on drones but i think youve answered that. Ill go to the office of Legal Counsels review of executive orders that i spoke about. I mentioned my concern that the president s been using executive orders to circumvent the will of congress and the American People. Im sure he doesnt feel that way. You probably feel he hasnt either. But ill tell you, its a big concern for people that come to my town meetings. It appears that he may continue to do this. He said so last night. In the interest of transparency and with transparency account comes accountability, would you disclose to the public the Legal Counsels analysis of all proposed executive orders so that the American People can see whether they are subjected to rigorous Constitutional Review . It seems to me that would be one of your responsibilities. It seems to me you would want the president to only do those things that are legal and constitutional. And if you wouldnt make these public, would you tell me why . First, let me say that with regard to the use of executive authorities, what the president has talked about was a desire in the first instance to work with congress, to try to pass legislation, but in the absence of that, to use the power that he has as president in the way that he described. What he has described is consistent with what other president s have done over the years. I think if one looks at a various number of studies that i have seen, this president has used far fewer executive orders than his predecessors. Im not questioning whether or not he can do it. I might have some question about the legality and constitutionality of it. And if hes got the constitutional authority, if hes got the Legal Authority, we cant do it. Were just trying to determine whether or not hes exceeded that authority. And your people making that determination, is there anything wrong with the public saying what the basis of it is . I think we can certainly look at the requests that are made. Well have to see exactly how the president proposes to use these executive authorities and to the extent that we can share the o. L. C. Determinations or whoever in the Justice Department is looking at and making these determinations. I would be inclined to try to share that with congress in an appropriate way. Will you at least, if you cant share it with me, will you tell me why you cant share it we me . Because i just dont want a big black hole here. The concern we generally have with regard to the dissemination of o. L. C. Opinions is that we want to have full conversations, fulsome discussions about these matters where o. L. C. Lawyers write both pros and cons about a particular issue were probably only interested in the outcome, not the debate within your agency. Just whats the outcome. Yeah, well, the memos will contain all of the arguments with a conclusory couple of pages or whatever. Well try to find ways in which we can share this information with you so that you and other members distribute American People feel that the president is acting in an appropriate way. To the extent that he makes use of this authority at all. As i said, his primary inclination and desire is to work with congress to pass necessary legislation that i think all the American People want to see happen. I think the chairman would give me a couple of minutes because he took 2 1 2 minutes. [laughter] im not sure about that. [laughter] the last question or maybe a half a question after this one would be this simple. This is a discussion i had with the secretary of health and Human Services in another committee. They announced that it does not consider Affordable Care act plans to be, quote, federal health care programs, unquote. That exempts them from the antikickback laws and undermines the clear intent of congress and the Health Reform law to make kickbacks a violation of the false claims act. So you got my interest in the false claims act as well. Secretary sebelius said that she maid this decision after consulting with your department. I asked secretary sebelius why these plans are any different than medicare advantage. She claimed advantage plans are different because payments are made directly from the Medicare Trust fund. So, i wrote to you about this last november. Id like to know when i might be able to expect a response. But more importantly, whether you agree with secretary sebelius that the Affordable Care act plans should be exempt from the antikickback laws. It doesnt seem to me like youd want to exempt anything from antikickback laws. And whats the departments advice to the h. H. S. Documented in writing . If it was, id like to have a copy of that. Thats something ill have to examine and see what we have there. But i will say that we have been very aggressive in enforcing the antikickback laws and recovered record amounts of money over the last few years. Id have to look at the particulars with regard to the Affordable Care act. I can understand that. See the applicability of those provisions. But presumably this is action, according to the secretary, that your departments already taken. There should be some sheet of paper around there that you can give to us. The half question i was going to ask you, you have one more day to decide whether or not the boston bombers going to be subject to the death penalty. Whats your decision . Well be announcing that by the deadline. Thank you. The amount of money the department of justice has collected finds an antikickback audit, i believe its 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 antikickback and such, we want to make sure that it is. I didnt know they tnt know that why did you have to tell them . I think every staff member in 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 the same answer, about racial profiling guidelines, and you say really soon were 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 dont 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 theres some white house involvement because were 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 terrorismrelated crimes through our judicial process since 9 11. In federal courts. In contrast, there have been six convictions and one plea agreement from guantanamos military commissions, two of 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 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. Im glad to hear this progress has been made but with 155 detainees, 71 of whom are eligible for evaluation, mr. Attorney general, we cant 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 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. Youre 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. 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 its 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 . Were looking to come up with 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 well 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 dont 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 dont 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 youll be able to find some u. S. District attorneys to help with that effort. Thank you. Welcome, mr. Attorney general. Appreciate your service. Im going to try to ask a series of questions, ill 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 id appreciate it. Id like to talk about the departments 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. Theres 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 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 . Ill be brief, i have concerns and those are expressed in the eight priorities we set out, three of them preventing diversions from states where its legal to other states, preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and 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 socalled telephone metadata as you mentioned. Its 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 . Thats correct. It does not include any information about the identity of the caller or the content of the call, is that correct . Thats correct. The privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board issued 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. Thats correct . Thats 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 Boards conclusion on this point is wrong . That is my view. Thats 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 thats consistent with the law but as i indicated i think thats part one of the analysis, part two is whether or 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 havent misused or abused it . Thats what the president asked us to look at. One more question about the eversight boards 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, thats true . Yes. Second. To ensure that liberty concerns are considered in the development of laws and policies in this area, thats true . I believe thats 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. Did the Oversight Board exceed its Statutory Mission in addressing this issue . Ill be honest with you, im 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 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 . Must 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 . Im not sure i think weve followed into a false analysis. Im not sure that the the only way to judge the validity or value of the program. Theres 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 dont 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 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. Im 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 to us by fisa, by the fisa court and then what n. S. A. Is doing internally. I think theres a great deal of oversight and that oversight has yielded issues that have been identified as problematic and been resolved. Thats right. One of the president s proposals is for Telephone Companies rather than the n. S. A. To store the metadata. Its been represented that Telephone Companies dont 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 have to maintain these records. That would have some number of employees with access. How can you provide a comparable level of supervision when this 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 were 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. Verizons 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. Do you believe the metadata would be more secure in the 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. Thats one of the tasks the president has give to me and the director. But theyre doing the job at n. S. A. I think theyve 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. It 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. Thank you, senator schumer. First on Autism Spectrum Disorders. I know youre familiar with the case of avanti okendall. Hes a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder he wandered away from his school this fall, about 50 of children with this condition wander, and his remains were found three months later. The heart of new york went out to him and his mother and grandmother. Ive 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 avantis death showed. Right after avanti went missing, showed. Right after avanti went missing, 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 alzheimers and families of those patients. The programs administered by the bureau of justice assistance. Now weve been doing this for alzheimers 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 alzheimers 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 thats used for alzheimers 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 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 theyre 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. Its a big, huge step forward. Now one other question on this. In order to ensure ha a permanent adequate stream of money for this, ive introduced legislation, we call it new york avantis law, named after this 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 thats what we spend on the alzheimers, to help fund the purchase of voluntary tracking device, training for parents, schools and local Law Enforcement as well as other innovative methods. What youre doing is great and will solve the problem immediately but to ensure its its 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 cant 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 issues that kids with autism issues face and given the way in which our nation has responded to adults with alzheimers issues that they ought to be treated in much the same way and so i cant commit but i can say that personally i think that a dedicated funding stream makes a great deal of sense. Thanks. Well 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 id like to turn to media shield. I appreciate the support for 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 havent been finalized and its more than six months after the department sent its report to the president. 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 well get through that and well 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 its 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 news media dialogue group, i think is what you called it, to, quote, assess the impact of the departments 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 weve mad a made a lot of progress. How soon do you think . I dont want to steel mr. Fallons news thunder here. We expect the first meet welcome in february. Thank you very much mr. Joan. Mr. General. And i will do two things now. Call on senator sessions and turn over the august process, engage in the august process of turning over the chairs gavel to the wonderful senior senator from minnesota, senator klobuchar. 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 when we had the Revolving Doors in the 1960s and 1970s and we as a nation turned against that. Weve 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 youve been a United States attorney, attorney general holder and youve 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 youve thought this through, i believe the your position is sound. Attorney general holder, when i became a United States attorney in 1981, the percentage of young 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, e, 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 its not socially acceptable and children shouldnt be using it and its 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, im heart broke ton see what the president said just a few days ago. Its just stunning to me. I 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 legalization its important for it to go forward. Thats 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 dont think its more dangerous than alcohol, he said. In fact its 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 marijuana as a panacea, and it 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 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 more significant. One seventh of all the cases we bring involve guns. I have the data on that, ill 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 . Ive 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 marijuana to minors, if there is indication of marijuana being distributed to minors that would require federal involvement. That was in the memo to the field. You think its 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 dont think its 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 are you aware that the drug 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, were doing great disservice to young people by giving them that message. Close quote. Do you agree with that . I think thats right. Thats why we have said that the distribution of marijuana to minors will involve will entail the very vigorous federal response. Are you aware, isnt it a fact, that if the laws are relaxed with regard to adults, it makes this drug even more available to minors . Im not sure thats necessarily true. Attorney general holder, isnt it true that if marijuana is legalized for adults, it makes it more available for young people . Im not sure thats true. I say that only because the the alcohol people cannot buy alcohol until youre age 18 or 1 21 but young people find ways to get alcohol because adults can have access to it. Im 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 president s universally prior to that . That marijuana is not is not harmful, did he study any data before he made that statement . I dont know. Did he consult with you before he made that statement . We didnt talk about that. What about this study from 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. Im sure they are good report bus that is exactly why one of our eight enforcement priorities is the prevention of marijuana to minors. Lady gaga said shes addicted to it and it is not harmless. Shes been addicted to it. Patrick kennedy, former congressman kennedy said the president is wrong on this subject. I just think its a huge issue. I hope that you will talk with the president , youre 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 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 were very appreciative of the fine leadership youre providing the department of justice. Let me talk with you for a moment 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 fourstar 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 division and 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 mikulskis 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 cant 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 were 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. I just wanted to flag for you this legal requirement that it be done within 120 days because im expecting that there will be a report within 120 days and im 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 dont want to be alarmist, but i think the concerns that you have expressed over the years is well founded. 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 120day examination that we have to do to come up with this multiyear plan is indeed a good thing and well 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 21st century in its conception inception 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 to be planned for on this. 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 oath they werent 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. Hasnt 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 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. Theres a memoranda of understanding you dont get to look at it unless they refer to you. But when an open and notorious ax appears tbhping, i dont think theres anything that says act appears tos be happening, i dont think theres anything that says you cant say, what is going on here, they say these statements can not both be true. Wed like to look into it. I think those refer referrals only come in extraordinary circumstances and its a question of the fining what extraordinary means. 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 lying to a federal official has no partisan component to it and id appreciate you looking at it from that point of view. Ive 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 cruz, 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 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 votes application. A few weeks later, the now notorious Cincinnati Office of the i. R. S. Began a series of gratuitous and invasive inquiry into mrs. Engelbrechts organizations. This investigation but so over the top that the federal government demanded, among other things, every Facebook Post and every tweet that shed ever posted. For more than three years the i. R. S. Denied true the vote and king street patriots the nonprofit status they requested and subjected both of them to 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 votes 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 theres smoke theres fire. The i. R. S. Finally, three years after they applied, granted true the votes tax exempt status it requested. But we now know that true the 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 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 cant imagine how this would be designed to instill Public Confidence in the investigation. Now f. B. I. Director the f. B. I. Director said this investigation was an important one for his agency. Now its 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 its true, and you can certainly confirm it or refute it if its not, they made the decision without even talking to 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 id 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 off, i dont 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 thats an open inquiry, its still going on. Press reports, i think if youre 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 its since it has not been concluded . Obviously all the options we have oare on the table given the fact that there has not been a determination to bring charges or decline the case. Dont you think its 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 . Im 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 thats what i would expect of them. Thats 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 the career people conducting the investigation. I dont 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 dont have any knowledge of what her involvement is but thats 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 ornyn. Im 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 weve called you. I appreciate that that has not always been the precedent in the department so i appreciate the fact that youve 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 parttime 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. Ive had federal judges call me repeatcally, ive 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 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 fulltime 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 that handled numerous complex cases and been one of the best u. S. Attorneys offices. I fear knowing half the people who worked there that worked for me when i was a prosecutor, theres a decline in morale, they need a boss. Im angry ability this. I am angry at everyone about this. When senator grassley and i both have a u. S. Attorney, 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 thats 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 theyre not controversial at all. They are simply waiting to go 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, senateconfirmed 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. And i would suggest that no one allows to go this long with a job share. I understand it but because our congress hasnt been eable to been able to approve people for the a. T. F. Or approve people, with a u. S. Attorneys office that needs a u. S. Attorney, we cant 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 cant hand they will responsibility of confirming a replacement or confirming that person for that job. So we deserve what we get if thats 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 minnesotas safe harbor model which has been very good for us in our state, just Getting Started but we had last month a 40year sentence against the head of one of these rings and if you could talk about the president s Interagency Task force, whats 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 2011, there was a 300 increase in people advertising super bowl specials. Can you talk about that . One thing i think you said, 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 icit sexual purposes. That is an ugly thing that this nation has got to confront, got to deal with but it is just indicitave of a larger problem that is the scourge of human trafficking, trafficing is a top priority for the Justice Department, its 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 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. Attorneys 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 thank you and the u. S. Attorneys office for the prosecution in duluth, minnesota, major head shop owner, theyve been going on, people literally laying on the streets from these sin at the drugs,these synthetic and were 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. Its an issue again that we need to confront. Theres this myth among young people that these synthetic drugs are not dangerous. We have to dispel that myth. Our d. E. A, Drug Enforcement administration, is really devoting a lot of time to dealing with these issues. Weve had a number of significant busts. But i think there also is an educational component to this that we really have to focus on 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 dont 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. Maryland, and regardless of whether you think under smith vs. Maryland and its project and its progeny a constitutional case can be made for the collection of this data as it relates to american citizens, wouldnt 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 its one of the reasons why in the interim, 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 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 regulations that can be changed. Whereas if we put that in law, that would provide greater protection. I think we want to try to work out who the 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. 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 dont know whether that might happen day from now, a year from now, 10 years or 20 years from how to. We have seen this movie before. We know how it ends and we know that its 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 its the president s preference to work with congress. And that wherever possible hed 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 cant get congress to act, hell go it alone. If Congress Wont act the way he wants congress to act, then hell issue an executive order any time he gets the chance. This brings to mind a concern that ive had as to whether or not sufficient analysis is being undertaken when these executive orders are issued. As you know, you know, the Supreme Court has since Justice Jacksons 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 thats 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 its a little unclear, its a little murky. Category three is where you have the president taking measures that are incompatible with congressional command. So, i would ask, number one, is 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. In in the absence that have kind of activity, as hes done with regard to raising of the minimum wage, hes used his executive authority or will use it to raise the minimum wage for those who do business with the federal government. 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 . Ill be honest with you, i dont remember looking at or having seen the analysis in some time. So im 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 great degree but youre 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 youre saying there is a federal statute that authorizes him to issue the executive order regarding the minimum wage . I think that theres 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, ive not had a chance to look at it for some time, exactly what the analysis was there. I dont know what category. Give than were talking about a statute passed by congress that delegates, devolves to the executive branch certain authorities, i would think that youre probably in category one there as well. Again, ive not looked at the analysis in some time. I appreciate your candor on that and i see my times expired. Id like to point out that this is, very important and its one of the 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. Its imperative within our constitutional system that we not allow too much authority to be accumulated in one person. And its one of the reasons why 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 whats happening and on what basis hes 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 youre your fathers 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 president s have 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 hes 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 youre saying, that because the number of executive orders issued by this president might be comparable to the number of executive orders issued by previous president s, that that means that he hasnt made more use of it than other president s 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. 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 its difficult to imagine whos got standing to challenge this and its 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 its all the more reason why its important in this case. Thank you very much. We have to separate then. I mean, with regard to the notion that theres a usurpation or that the president has acted in a lawless way. I think thats 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 hadnt planned to begin this way, but i want to begin by respectfully taking issue with my colleague, senator lee, and say that the use of executive orders in the past has been very sparing and 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 wellbeing 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 other method of analysis, at the end of the day, the president is simply executing the law. And using authority that has been granted to him by congress for the wellbeing of the American People. To protect their health and safety and to advance the national interests. In my view, and ive 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 hes going to be legislating or bypassing the congress. In county fashion he is using legislation that has granted him authority. Let me just say on the issue of sex trafficking, i welcome your comments on that score. Ive 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 leahys 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 all too often became a part of the 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 initiatives, a ban on straw purchases and illegal trafficking. The bill that was before us unfortunately failed to pass. But id 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 ive 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 see the caked blood, to see the carpet that i didnt understand when i saw it, carpet picked up and i realized that was thats 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 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 be reported 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 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 administration will also explore very vigorously 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 problem is on our campuses. I am attending an initiative in connecticut to try to raise awareness about it. And id like your commitment that you will work with me and others on this committee on this issue. Look forward to working with 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. Thinks thato one this issue merely involves rhetoric, there is a legal basis. Statutesix and other protecting women against ongoing assaults and