Mr. Gardner mr. President . The presiding officer the acting majority leader. Mr. Gardner i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 163 h. R. 720. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk calendar number 163, h. R. 720 an act to improve intergovernmental planning for and communication during security incidents and so forth. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. Mr. Gardner i ask consent the committee reported substitute be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 167 s. 1576. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk calendar number 167, s. 176, a bill to amend title 5 u. S. Code to prevent fahd by representative payees. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. Mr. Gardner i ask consent the committee reported amendments be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar numbers 172 and 173 en bloc. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection the senate will proceed to the measure en bloc. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the record all en bloc. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 185 s. 1347. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk calendar number 185, s. 1347 a bill to amend title 18 of the Social Security act and so forth and for other purposes. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. Mr. Gardner i ask consent the committeereported amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 187 s. 1362. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk calendar number 187, s. 1762 a bill to amend title 11 of the Social Security act and so forth. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. Mr. Gardner i ask consent the committee reported amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 192 h. R. 1531. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk calendar number 192, h. R. 1531 an act to amend title 5 United States code and so forth and for other purposes. The presiding officer is there objection to proceeding to the measure . Without objection. Mr. Gardner i ask consent the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Gardner mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that the e. P. W. Committee be discharged from further consideration of h. R. 2131 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk h. R. 2131 an act to designate the Federal Building in the United States courthouse located at 83 meaning street in charleston, south carolina, and so forth. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. Mr. Gardner i further ask that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Gardner mr. President i ask unanimous consent the e. P. W. Committee be discharged from further consideration of h. R. 2559 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. The presiding officer without objection. The clerk will report. The clerk h. R. 2559, an act to designate the p. F. C. Milton a. Lee medal of honor memorial highway in the state of texas. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. Mr. Gardner i further ask that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. Res. 228. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk Senate Resolution 228, designating september 2015 as National Ovarian Cancer Awareness month. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection the committee is discharged. The senate will proceed to the measure. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of s. Res. 230 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk Senate Resolution 230, designating september 25, 2015 as National Lobster day. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. Res. 248 submitted earlier today. The presiding officer without objection. The clerk will report. The clerk Senate Resolution 248, designating september 2015 as National Prostate Cancer Awareness month. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of all the nominations on the secretarys desk in the Foreign Service except for the list which is at the desk and that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senates action and the senate then resume legislative action. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adjournment of the senate, committees be allowed to file bills and reports on august 6 from 11 30 a. M. Until 1 30 p. M. And august 28 from 12 00 p. M. Until 2 00 p. M. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adjournment of the senate, that the record be kept open on august 6 from 11 30 a. M. Until 1 30 p. M. For the introduction of bills and resolutions statements and cosponsor requests. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Gardner i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its Business Today it adjourn until 11 30 a. M. Thursday august 6, for a pro forma session, with the only business conducted being that under the previous orders. Further, that when the Senate Adjourns on august 6, that next convene on tuesday september 8 at 2 00 p. M. Pursuant to the provisions of h. Con. Res. 72. Following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. Following leader remarks the senate begin consideration of h. J. 61 as under the previous order. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. Mr. Gardner if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. The presiding officer the Senate Stands adjourned until the senate today continued consideration of legislation to encourage private businesses and the federal government to share more informatir security threats. Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell hoped to finish up work by the end of the week. After the end of the week the senate goes into recess until labor day. Next, a senate Judiciary Committee mead and discuss the first seven months in the majority and what they consider their accomplishments. And then the u. S. Special representative on afghanistan and pakistan on government and Security Issues in afghanistan. Inspector general Michael Horowitz testified on access of denial to documented wanted by the federal office. This is about two hours. Before the two of us give our Opening Statements i have been told there are some people from Inspector General offices. I would like to have all of the igs or acting igs to please stand. I want to thank you folks for doing the job you do of making sure the laws are executed. We spend money according to the laws. Thank you very much for your hard work. You are a very important part of government being responsible. Thank you for being here. The inspect general act of 1998 created units in the executive branches and the american taxpayers rely on igs to kerry out three tasks. Conduct audits and investigations of programs. To promote the efficiency of programs and three to Keep Congress and agency heads informed about operation defish deficiency and the need for corrective action. To help achieve the goals for the inspect general act to access quote unquote all records belonging to their respective agencies. But two weeks ago, the Justice Department office of legal consult issued the legal opinion claiming the word all doesnt mean all. Today we will examine how this opinion is hendindering the inspect general acts. The ig act means what it says. The department of justice ig is legally entitled to all Department Records period. If inspect general deems a document relative to do his job then the agency should turn it over immediately without hesitation or review. According to the department of justice resign the department did exactly that prior to 2010. However in 2010 the federal bureau of investigations suddenly changed that practice after the ig uncovered embarrassing information about the fbis misuse of letters. The fbi claimed it had the right to refuse to provide the ig information in over a dozen categories including information related to wire taps grand jury and Consumer Credit. The fbi claimed its attorneys would review and have the attorney general or the Deputy Attorney general decide what could be released to the ig. Congress did not intend to create this sort of litigation style standoff inside a department. It is a waste of time and money for two deivisiondivisions of the same Government Department to be fighting over access to the departments own records. The departments Current Practice is opposite of what the law envisions. Under the law, an inspect general must be independent because agencies cannot be trusted to investigate themselves. If igs have to ask for permission from Senior Leadership they would not be truly independent. The ig act doesnt allow the inspect general to prohibit an investigation but only in certain circumstances. When that step is taking it must be done in writing to the ig and the ig must forward that written notice to congress. The fbi would have us believe that instead of written notice, being required to block an ig investigation, it needs written permission to comply with an investigation. This is not how the law was designed to work. The ig testified to congress multiply times about these problems since taking office 2012. So Congress Took action to resolve the dispute. We essentially bolded and underlined second 6a of the act and section 218 of this years appropriatio funds should be used deny the ig timely access to all records. Section 218 directed the inspect general to report to congress within five days whenever there was a failure to comply with this requirement. Now, in february and march alone we received four of those reports that the fbi refused to comply. I wrote to the fbi twice and have not received answers to most questions. So mr. Kevin perkins, the assistant director is here to account for these matters. And here is Michael Horowitz the inspect general of the Justice Department. I would like to find out from these two witnesses what the practice of the fbi was prior to 2010 and whether that practice complied with the procedures that the olc argues is mandatory. We have to realize the fbi cant be above the law. It has an obligation to replay with the inspect general act and also fbi employees cannot be legally spending their time withholding and reviewing documents before providing them to the inspect general but this is exactly what the fbi has been doing and olcs opinion endorses that practice. Olc needed 68 pages of tortured logic to support the claim that neither section 218 or the iga mean what it says. Authors of section 218 wrote a joint letter to the Deputy Attorney general that said the following the olcs understanding of seconds 218 and the committees intention is wrong. For olc to determine the intentions as anything other than supporting the olgs right to gain full access to timely and complete information is disconcerting. We expect all of the department and agencies to comply with section 218. With the full and immediate access to all records, documents, and other materials in accordance with the act. Isnt that as clear of a statement as you can get with the ig act being equally clear . Only a few page of the olc 68page opinion discusses this chatty. Most of the opinion analyzed three Legal Provisions whose disclosure law override the laws specific promise of inspect general access. Those three provisions relate to title three wire tap, title 6e grand jury and fair credit reporting. It is unclear why so much ink was spilled on these three provisions giving the fbi has sited a dozen records from inspect general. And there are nondisclosure previsions throughout the u. S. Code that could limit the inspect general access under the tortured logic of the opinion. That opinion argues that nondisclosure statutes like these trump the act unless Congress Make it extra clear they dont by specifically mentioning those statutes by name in the iga. Think about that for a moment. The ig act would have to mention each and every nondisclosure statute by name before doj would believe Congress Really meant to insure access to all records. That is simply unworkable. We dont even have a definitive list of nondisclosure statutes that might need to be listed. The Congressional Research service is studying that question at my request but listing specific exemptions that would be too unyielding. That is why we use the word all. It really is that simple. Members should be able to act the office of Legal Council about this and many other questions with opinions. Unfortunately, now, the department refused to provide a witness from olc today in response to the invitation the department sent the head of olc, mr. Thompson who is out of the country today. Personal from the inspect general from across the country are here as you have seen however to listen to this and help us understand this. I thank all of you for joining us. In mr. Thompsons absence the committee asked doj to provide an alternative witness but they claimed they dont have enough time to prepare for this testimony. After 14 months of working on the opinion that office was not ready to discuss it publically. That is very astonishing. I invited the deputy agriculture to testify about procedures she announced in may to improve the inspect generals access to record. When show was being confirmed i asked if she would appear before the congress and all of these people say yes but i think they ought to say maybe i will appear. She updated the proceedings to comply with the opinion but they add further delay to the situation. The committee notified her with advance notice and moved the date from last week to this week. Unfortunately, however, the Department Said she was unavailable to testify. Mr. Carlos you read an associate deputy inspect general is attorney general is here to take your our questions. That department followed the olc opinion and denied access to that inspect general. This is a sign of thing do is come in terms of effective olc opinion will have for igs to access documents across the government. We have three witnesses on the panel. Paul light, Danny Danielle brian, and brian miller. I want to thank them for joining us. Before i call on senator leahy, i want you to know senator leahy and i might have differences of opinions on issues before the congress but when it comes to his and i working together on oversight i think we are hand and glove and i think particularly i thank him for help when he was chairman of the committee to make amendments to the false claims act that needed to be made so congress could do its oversight and other issues as well. Thank you, senator leahy. Thank you. As the press overlooks the fact, and the public overlooks the fact that the press didnt cover or know these things, but they tend to overlook the fact that republicans and democrats do Work Together on a number of things in this body and senator grassley and i have on a lot of oversight. While you are doing your statement i am going to vote on finance with something they cant tell me when to come as soon as he is out of the room i am going to pass a whole lot of stuff. Senator grassley and i have done things on transparency and accountability for a long time. We are doing that today. For the past two weeks i have fought to protect our american jurisdictions over what is the corner stone act. We have had votes that will weaken the security act and i was against that. Senator cornyn of texas, the assistant republican leader and i worked closely on this. We have to assure our government is strong and protected but we dont hold this. We are an amazing country in having accountability and that makes us stronger. An inspect general is central to this mission and i applaud all who are here today and a lot of you work long hours and i meet some of you on occasion. I applaud the work you do. You play a crucial role insuring that federal agencies and their employees operate efficiently, effectively and effectively, and within the scope of the law. For no other agency does this watch dog work with the department of justice and the department of justice protects privacy, our libbererty and our constitutional rights. For any agency to be affected they have to have access to documents necessary to conduct reviews, audits and investigation. It has been referred to with this dispute between doj and inspect general over access to grand jury and other types of investigative material. Blocking what was once a free flow of information. I worked with grand juries a lot. I understand the questions of secrecy and understand the importance. In several important reviews, the igs had to fight for access to documents. I think this disputed the igs report of bulk collection of americas phone records under section 215 of the patriot act, and ongoing review of the dea bulk collection of phone records. The very First Independent review of a program was conducted in secret for decades with both democratic and republican administrations. To be an effective leader the inspect general needs full access to information. I want to thank Deputy Attorney general yates to work to find a resolution. Deputy attorney general yates and the office of Legal Council clarified the information. This is only a temporary solution. It leaves open the possible the doj could leave open information under certain circumstances. I think we need a more permanent solution. One that insures igs have what they need to do their job. I will work closely with senator grassley to craft the legislation. I see senator cornyn is here and i hope this hasnt brought about a recall petition for you in texas but i was praising you before you came in for your work. The 10 30 has started. Do you affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god . Thank you. Michael horowitz the first witness, the inspect General Department of justice. Mr. Kevin perkins will speak after him. Associate Deputy Director federal bureau of investigation. Mr. Carlos urlarte is an associate Deputy Attorney general and mr. Smith lastly. Go ahead mr. Horowitz. Thank you chairman, Ranking Member and members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to testimony today and thank you for your strong bipartisan support of the inspect General Community. The problem of our access to information is a relatively new one. Prior to 2010 neither the Justice Department nor the fbi questioned our Legal Authority to access all documents in its possession and we obtained grand jury wire tap information without legal objection and without the need tr for a legal opinion. It would be hard to imagine how we can conduct oversight if we were prohibited from reviewing information like grand jury and wire tap information. The oig always handles information with great care and we fully and completely care with all statutes limiting the use and disclosure of such information. Indeed, we have been provided with access to some of the u. S. Governments most Sensitive Information to conduct oversight and there has not been a single occasion in 27 years where we accused of mishandling such a situation situation. However in 2010 this is impacting our ability to conduct oversight. In may 2014 Deputy Attorney general kohl asked the office of legal for an opinion. The olc issued their opinion two weeks ago and concluded the following. First, the inspect general act does not entitle our office to access grand jury wire tap and Credit Information. Second, our office can only obtain such records if disclosure exceptions permit inspect general access. And third, in every instance the decision whether these disclosure exexceptionsceptionexceptions aply will be made by the Department Employees not the staff. There are circumstances where disclosure to the oig would not be permitted. The legal underpinning represents a serious threat to my independence and to all inspect general. A hallmark of the ig act that inspect general are entitled to independent access to all information in an agencies possession has been pierced. For the First Time Since the ig act was passed in 1978 the word all in section 6a no longer means all and placing agency staff in the position of whether to grant an inspect general access to information turns the principle of independent oversight enshirned in the inspect general act on its head. We are concerned agencies will produce in other categories subject to nondisclosure provisions. We understand hundreds of laws have been identified that contain similar restrictions in them. This potential uncertainty as to what Information Agency personal can provide could result in their becoming less forthcoming with oig because they could share information. It could deter whistle blowers from providing information to inspect general because of the carp the agency may later come the disclosure was improper and use that decision to retaliate against the whistleblower. The only means to address the threat to inspect general independence is for congress to promptly pass legislation that affirms the independent authority of Inspector General to access without delay all information and data in an agencys possession that an inspect general deems necessary to oversight function. The legislation should state what we in the inspect General Community understand is no law restricting information apply do is inspect generals unless the law states. And unrestricted inspect general access extends to all records regardless of location or form. Independent oversight by inspect generals make our government more effective and efficient. Inspectors general have saved taxpayers hundreds of billions since the inspect general act was passed in 1978. Refusing, restricting or delaying an inspect generals independent access to records and information may lead to incomplete, inaccurate, and significantly delayed findings and recommendations which in turn may prevent the agency from promptly correcting Serious Problems and deprive congress of timely information regarding the agencys activities. It may impede or otherwise in hibit investigations and prosecutions related to Agency Programs and operations. On behalf of the counsel of inspectors general, 72 federal inspect generals, we look forward to working closely with this committee and congress on a legislative solution. I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you for standing up for what the law requires. Mr. Kevin perkins. Morning chairman grassley, and members of the committee, i am pleased to appear before you to discuss the fbis efforts in insuring the inspect general has timely access to records to complete reviews, audits and investigations consistent with the law. The fbi takes seriously the responsibility to enable the inspect general of effective oversight and in all of our activities we have been transparent with the department inspect general, and congress concerning the challenges presented by conflicting statutory commands. I am not withstanding these chal challenge challenges and the fbi provided 136,000 emails to the inspect general in the last year. The documents were produced in response to 118 document requests submitted by the oig to the fbi which also contains 333 subparts. During this same time 20 new audits and 30 sessions at the fbi were initiated. To fufill with the requests the fbi dedicated almost a dozen individuals full time to these tasks. The fbi and oig worked to expedite access to materials consistent with the law. They took steps to make sure they receive documents in a timely manner. They moved the document collection and production function back to the inspection division. Since that time the fbi is consistently provided documents to the oig in advance of request of deadlines. They are working to complete the one remaining access of documents that was subject to prior notification under section 218 of the appropriation act. The ig received the requested emails and the majority of attachments contained there in with the final attachments slated to be delivered within the next week. The fbi has eliminated all backlog of documents going to the inspect general. We remain committed to work with oig and congress to make sure the inspect general has everything needed to fulfill the functions of the department. We work with the oig and members of congress that will allow the members to comply with the law and provide the documents needed as quickly as possible. Thank you for allowing me to appear this morning. I am happy to answer questions i appreciate all of the statisticic statisticic statistics you gave us but they dont equal all. Mr. Urlarte . I am pleased to discuss the commitment that the inspect general has access to all records to commit reviews. The department appreciates your critical oversight. As attorney general and inspect general have stated the department shares the belief that an effective, efficient and independent inspect general is critical to a functioning department of justice. The inspect general should be able to obtain all of the information needed to maintain their oversight role. On one Hand Congress enacted the inspect general act that grants each inspect general a right to access all records of the Agency Within the jurisdition. And on the other hand we protected individual rights to privacy and due process. Deputy attorney general then jim cole requested on three spick statutes that have restrictions on disclosure. First the federal wire tap act that restricts Law Enforcement officers from disclosing interception. And attorneys from the government are restricted from disclosing grand jury information. And the fair credit act reports that protects Consumer Credit information and since that time the department has continued to work with the inspect general to insure access to the materials it needs and directed all components of the agency to provide the inspect general in a timely fashion all of the documents needed to follow through with their investigation. Additionally these three categories constitute a small minority material thought by the inspect general. Deputy attorney general yates and the department have worked to find a solution and we continue to work with the inspect general with collaboration to expedite access to the records it needs. In april of 2015 Deputy Attorney general yates issued a ref random for the grand jury where it believes material is necessary to complete review consistent with controlling statutes. It noted the inspect general serves an important function in insuring the department of justice is run efficiently and effectively and that responding to the igs request is of the highest priority. On july 23ered they published an opinion and it prohibits the department to connect with many but not all of the inspect generals reviews. It concluded it doesnt override the limits on disclosure contained in the grand jury rules. The ig doesnt refer to the statutes or information they protect in the broad general language and doesnt contain clear statement that congress intended to override those statutes with carefully crafted limitations. On july 27 guidance with the opinion put providing wire tapping material directly to the inspect general and stated they may provide grand jury material to the inspect general consistent with the restrictions of the grand jury rules. And finally i want to reiterate we share the believe on effective, efficient and independent inspect general is critical to a functioning department. The attorney general and the Deputy Attorney general are committed to working with the inspect general and members of congress on legislation that enables to the department to comply with the law on insuring the ig receives all of the document documents it needs. To that end we had a number of conversations about a legislative solution so they get the documents. We hope to have a edge legislative proposal to discuss with the committee in the future mr. David smith . Chairman grassley Ranking Member leahy and members of this committee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today regarding the recent opinion issued by the office of Legal Council and their impact on the offices of inspect general to carry out our mission in addition to the description mr. Horowitz provided i want to provide you with specific examples of how the opinion impacted my office even before the opinion was released. This is not just a justice oig problem nor limited to Law Enforcement data. Earlier this year we began an audit of the International Trade Administration Enforcement and compliance business efforts. In april of 2015 the audit team determined the oig needed access to business proprietary information submitted to ita during proceedings and requested the data. Both ita and the department of commerce, office of General Council, raised concerns that providing the business proprietary information would be a violation along with the federal trade secrets act could expose the department to criminal litigation and penalties. The Departments Office of General Council reached out to the department of screesjustice Legal Council on this matter. Olc said they were coming out with an opinion expected imminently that would provide a framework to advise on this subject. In light of the potential criminal penalties, the Departments Office of General Council concluded it was advisable to wait until the opinion was released. The department of General Council stated that while ita may be able to release data to our office for an investigation specific to a proceeding there is no exception in the tariff act applicable to a tariff auditing. Trying to work with ita to obtain access to this information we proposed they anonmize the data why removing company names. According to ita all of the requests requests data fields would not work. We said we would provide a statement saying we understand the importance of safeguarding this information from unauthorized disclosure. The office of General Council stated that given the fact the olc opinion said it would release an opinion with a framework to use in resolving statutory conflicts with the act the department felt it was advisable to wait until the olc opinion was released. The office asserted the tariff act amendments that came into affect after 1978 did not reflect oigs authority to access the nfrjz. After two months of trying to get access to the information, we had no choice but to terminate our audit because of the departments refusal to give the information. Conflicting laws hampered oigs ability to complete the mission that is to provide efficiency and effectiveens and predentvent and detect fraud and abuse. As discussed above the tariff act and trade secrets act were sited as reasons for denying access to records. However, inspect general act authorizes access to all reports, documents, papers recommendations or other material available through their department. This access should pertain to all government records. I join with the inspect General Committee to urge the committee and congress to address these issues in light of the olc opinion and its impact on our ability to provide oversight of our departments and agencies. I will be pleased to take your questions. Thank you all very much for your testimony. We will have seven minute rounds for questions. Some of my purpose this morning is to find out whether or not igs have mishandled Sensitive Information. Are you releasing any Sensitive Information enact. No, i do not remember that during the igs tender. I am not aware of any instance in that but i can tell you that he should get everything that he needs to complete his review. Mr. Borowitz, isnt it true that you are subject to the same restrictions on public release of Sensitive Information as everyone else in the department . Yes that is correct and that is why we comply rigorously with them. I have to ask what is the issue. If the Inspector General has to protect Sensitive Information as well never violating any of the statutory restrictions, what would be wrong with providing the ig full access to everything under the same conditions prior to 2010 . Lets start with you mr. Perkins. To put it in the proper context, there was no policy change in 2010 that put things from one side to the other. There were process changes that took place at that point in time, but to put that in context i would even take it further back to ride around 2001 in the review, which was one of the first early on reviews conducted with a significant document requests and interview requests and a lengthy review process that was really charting new ground for the bureau. The point i would like to make here is that starting with that throughout the rest of the decade leading up to a Pivotal Point in 2009 in 2010 its an evolutionary process even beyond that to this day to wear today we have committed to a point, and i think the Inspector General is going to agree outside of the Current Issues of the opinion, that the process in place is the best it has ever been and continues to improve. With that aside it is part of an evolutionary process and we went forward with more and more investigations and document requests, questions were raised by the general counsels office, rb in compliance with the law doing the things properly, their review of bad raises concerns. I know that prior to the 2010 with grand jury materials, none of that was turned over until we were totally assured that those documents were appropriately placed. When that was done the documents were turned over. And we documented the process all throughout the decade leading up to that point. Moving forward it is a combination of the general counsel expressing concern whether or not we were acting within the law as well as the fact that as we ran into 2011 and 12 to the current day, increases in technology and improvements of how we search for documents vastly increase the number of records that were coming through the process. So it was a matter of volume at that point where is whereas in 2005 when we had a document rest, technology did not allow deep dive searches that we can conduct a day thus in my Opening Statement the hundreds of thousands of documents that are being produced today could not have been produced back then because of technology restrictions. Its a combination of all those things that have come together and brought us to the point where he are today. I am sure that you have given a sincere answer. It sounds like a lot of red tape that doesnt accomplish anything when the people that are supposed to get the information dont get the information and they havent had any documented wrongdoing on their part. I would ask you to respond sir. Thank you, senator. I would agree with you that we would like to streamline the process as much a spot will. I do think that the Deputy Attorney general has taken a number of steps to do that and we would like to go further from a policy perspective we do think that the Inspector General should get all the requests. What we are grappling with here is really a legal question about the interaction of these two different statutory schemes. On the one hand the very general nature of the access provisions in the very stringent restrictions under title iii rule 60 on the fair credit reporting act. Those relate to intercepted communications, grand jury proceedings and Credit Information about individual americans. And there is a carefully thought through restriction that congress included, even the sensitive nature of that material. For example the information about those proceedings is protected from disclosure because of the nature and how that could impact an individual that came before the grand jury as a witness or an individual who was brought in front and was a target of a grand jury never indicted. Those processes and procedures in the federal rules of criminal procedure are there to protect the secrecy of the proceedings in and the Due Process Rights of the individuals involved. And we need to think of very hard about that before moving forward with legislation. Again ,com,com ma we understand the general act of the provision in this but we are grappling with these conflicting statutory concerns and we think that we can work with the congress to get to the legislation that would address the issue. That is how we started the process that we started. I am going to end by asking mr. Borowitz to respond to what you just heard. Mr. Chairman, as i indicated in my statement and you indicated in your questions, before 2010 we had multiple reviews where we had grand jury information, title iii information, where we had credit and wiretap information, Credit Information, no one went to the office of Legal Counsel to give us that. We got in a timely manner, we got it promptly, we have had access to very significant information to the reviews of this matter, the 9 11 attacks, the president Surveillance Program. National security letter reviews, act reviews, pfizer related reviews and i could go on and on about the kind of work that we have done and the kind of oversight that we conducted before 2010 without anybody objecting to the access to that material based on any legal reasoning. It makes little sense to us what happened in 2010 that would all of a sudden change that when congress changed the laws and the department changed no policies, no practices were changed. We kept doing the same kind of oversight we have done. In the order of arrival, can you tell us since the individuals arrived, please go ahead. And before you go we are going to shut down this hearing. Mr. Tillis will take over for a short meeting that i have with the majority leader. Mr. Tillis. Thank you, mr. Chair. Gentlemen, thank you for being here today. Before i ask questions we had a Committee Hearing last week with the irs and we had some concerns again with what a cynical view would suggest is a serious roadblocks for getting the right information to congress so that we can perform our oversight duties and i think an increasing trend with the agencies, never getting access to the information that they need. One question that i have and i think that i will start with mr. Smith or mr. Horvitz responding to a comment that mr. Perkins made. Do you believe that this is the best it has ever been . And we will start with you and go over to mr. Borowitz. The process that there is that the department of commerce they are still evaluating the opinion. And i know that a letter from the irs, they are also looking at the opinion to block information to their Inspector General. Im not sure that there is a process at the department of commerce, other than to believe what the opinion is that its a general permission and this is the thick transpacific acts that are out there that do not state that they have access combat. And i know that mr. Perkins was referring specifically to the process within the doj. How do you feel about that . I would say that the process changes that have occurred recently, moving the lawyers out of the process is a good thing. Fewer lawyers is better. That has improved the process. Having said that we didnt have this discussion about whether the process was good or bad, we just got the records. And that is the bottom line. We shouldnt have to have a discussion. I shouldnt have to spend my time, frankly the Deputy Director and attorney general who has stated their support and made the changes, im sure that they have more important things to do than managing and figuring out what process is the best process. Give us the records that we were entitled to. Am i pronouncing your name right to. Yes, that is correct sir. You mentioned a couple of times the position that the department is taking right now found on your interpretation of the law. So my question, since we can change laws what should we do to be able to get back to a process that we thought was working relatively well prior to 2010. In other words, to the point of also saying that as a result of your interpretation you have come out with the current policy memorandum. What we need to change to get back to a pre2010 position, and is that something that the department would support . Absolutely, senator. I think i said that we are very committed to working with congress on a legislative solution here. We feel that it is workable and that its something that we absolutely support. As the Inspector General mentioned, we do not want to be in the position of dealing with these issues, we think that he should get everything he needs in the race everything about energy independence. To that end we started a number of conversations with the gentleman, mr. Horvitz. And i think that we hope to be able to have something that we can completely discuss with the committee shortly. Mr. Horvitz, the department of justice appropriations act of 2015 they attempted to address this, i think, by enacting section 218. What more do we need to consider to have this go through congress . We thought that it was a fix, but the Legal Counsels decision decided that it wasnt. They decided that the provision was ambiguous. So certainly from our standpoint , having interacted with the appropriators on that they thought that they were clarifying and not leaving an ambiguous position out there. So what we thought was a fix turned out not to be that because of the way that the decision interpreted that statute. How do we get, very quickly the ratio was two thirds nonattorneys until senator grassley left. Im not an attorney but it seems to me that this is a fairly straightforward thing. We know what your interpretation is and you can kind of reverse engineer that. So why are we not discussing here this is basic proposal legislation that i hope on a Bipartisan Legislation we can pass to fix this problem. Senator, i do think that legislation needs to say very expressly in section six of the provision act in order to get back to all, we need to have a language in the provision that says quite clearly and unequivocally and expressly that unless another law restricts Inspector General access to the records the Inspector General gets the records and that is apparently a result of what needs to be done. Thank you. Senator cornyn . I am sorry that the chairman is not here so i can tell him how important is hearing us. This could be one of the most important hearings that we have had in the United States congress in a long time. People forget the fact that we have a duty and a constitutional obligation to do investigations as well as oversight. What the olc does, i dont know why general lynch, the new attorney general, cant just change the underlying policy back to what it was in 2010 so complies with the Inspector General statue. How someone can come up with a legal opinion of 66 pages, 67, and say that the law since 1978 has somehow preempted these Carvel Carvel provisions with any legal theory that im aware of. Its the responsibility of a judge and lawyer to try to reconcile as well as harmonize the law. Not to say that this trumps it and we decided in 2010 that we were going to trump or preempt and this means all provisions of 1978. I find it very disturbing. But frankly it continues a trend that we have seen under the previous attorney general, at least the first one that i have ever been aware of for failing to disclose in a fast and furious investigation. But it strikes me unfortunately the department of justice has become so politicized that the warning the mandate of congress. I dont know why we should have to pass another law thing that we really meant it in 1978. We really mean it this time. Thats ridiculous. Well, i wish the attorney general would take a close look at this. There have been office of Legal Counsel opinions that have been withdrawn in the past that were obviously erroneous and this one should be. I hope that she will take a look at it. I have a lot of respect for the attorney general and i think she has the capacity to change the way the department of justice has been operated and i wish her luck, she will certainly have my support. But i also want to just mention the fact that the president has continuously failed to appoint the Inspector Generals in a timely fashion. The department of Veterans Affairs has needed the Inspector General for 582 days yet the president has not made an appointment despite letters from congress urging him to do so. The role that each of you plays is absolutely critical to the functioning of our democracy and for our capacity for selfgovernment. If any agency is in need of Inspector General its a scandal ridden ba. But at the department of interior it will be another 1714 days before president obama gets around to making an appointment. That is three times longer than he has been in office and it is simply unacceptable. And so what concerns me by one estimate nearly 40 of former opinions are not publicly disclosed in any way i wonder how they choose to reinterpret the law in a way that restricts the access and restricts the way that we intend this to be. I am very concerned about that and i hope that the chairman will pursue that further. And so the joint department of justice testimony states that to assist the department in the complex legal issues discussed prior to 2010 no one thought the issue was complicated at all. So what happened in 2010 to make what no one had before identified an issue so complex. Can you share the inside. I will open it up to all of you. What happened in 2010 to change the existing law . My understanding is that the memos and decisions followed several reviews on the handling of others that are hitting these reviews because there was no other changes, no other policy change or regulatory change. This includes all of them it says the same thing today, the grand jury title. It didnt change either. So theres certainly no legal issue that occurred in 2010. Based on the reasoning of this opinion, im not sure that congress is capable of passing anything. I dont know. Does anyone have anything different that we can include in that statute that would clarify this that all really does mean ill . Ive noticed that some people are chuckling and it is laughable. And its really completely unacceptable. This is unfortunately part of the politicalization that we have found under the previous attorney general that i think has just been a complete embarrassment. And mr. Chairman, i would yield back. Thank you very much mr. Chairman. This is certainly an important topic. Lets start with the gentleman. In your joint testimony you state that the department of justice has an unwavering commitment to ensuring that the office of the Inspector General has access to all records necessary to complete this investigation. Is it your belief that the department is currently turning over documents to the Inspector General in a timely fashion. From the time that we met earlier in my testimony i mentioned process changes within the fbi that allows for a greatly expedited review and a turnover of information into the Inspector General. I believe that we have worked our way through the vast majority of the backlog to where there is only a minimal amount left in which we are working closely with the Inspector General. I personally have worked with him as does the rest of the staff and his people. With the processes that we have put in place right now you will see and have seen a greatly expedited turnover of documents. Still it is somewhat hindered by the fact that cr we are found to follow the law and the opinion as is stated. And so there are continuing discussions on that matter and its nothing that we cant overcome. Would you like to add anything . Thank you for the question that the Deputy Attorney general has taken steps to streamline this process. Also taking steps for the memorandum in the july memorandum to streamline the profits to which he can get information even when it is restricted through one of these statutes and its in the process to minimize the role of the departments leadership to ensure that he can get what he needs. As i said before i think we want to take that one step further and work with the Inspector General to have a clear guidance in terms of the legislation so that we can step out of that role entirely. Do you agree with the assessment that there has been improvement in what can we do legislatively . Is certainly the Deputy Director of the fbi has taken steps over the last several months to try to improve the flow of information. They are certainly welcome. The problem as mr. Perkins indicated that the opinion leaves open it doesnt meet all in the ig act in the question is where does that stock. The fbi has identified 10 other categories. And so just yesterday unfolded our review use of this statute that the committee has very much completed this with title iii Credit Information. And that includes other areas that we have identified legal concerns about. So while the process has improved we are getting redacted information and it is not resolved. There are three types of information. We know its highly sensitive and confidential and we certainly had some data breaches lately not only in the government sector but also in private or. What do you have in place to prevent data breaches. We very much work with the agency that is providing information with these other components on how to make sure that we have protected the information and we comply with the grand jury statute and the same with the others and as we know the president Surveillance Program following 2001 probably the most sensitive review at the highest level of classified or protected information. And we didnt know we were getting access to. Remind. We have had further protections in this and so we were always prepared and always willing and protecting the information. The network itself is separate from these areas is a branch off the Departments Network and we have stronger controls in place to try to prevent any kind of intrusion. We also protect the information and evidence, locking it up, making sure that we follow all the rules and requirements and we understand we have an extra duty not only to protect the sensitive informatiinformati on but the information on witnesses and whistleblowers and the like. Xircom instead of going off this issue of confidentiality i respect the sanctity of the grand jury some witnesses may not testify, others may not be forthcoming before there is probable cause. Do you have any concern that providing this material beyond this could undermine the institution of the grand jury . I think in the context of the Inspector Generals work we have found a way to get him that information consistent and certainly in providing as we follow the same restrictions that the prosecutors have to follow and so i agree with you about the importance of the grand jury process and thats one of the reasons this has been a difficult issue to grapple with but we do think that we can work with them to get this information consistent with those interests. Even when they are talking about this those individual cannot go farther. Thats right. In other words, should Inspector General be allowed to disclose this to the public . It should apply and we regularly proceed pursuant to the restrictions. With all of the information what we do before any one of the reports goes out and send it to the department and component in this case it would be the fbi and they tell us if they think that there are restrictions in there and what the restrictions are so that her legal judgment can be formed by what they believe and we have always complied with the law. Theres never been an instance since we opened our doors in the beginning of 1989 where we have in any way violated nonowner grand jury but any other provision of law. Would anyone like to add to that . No. Okay, thank you very much. In light of the change and the procedure is that were outlined and we got the memo from attorney general yeates last week. How do you think that this will affect the investigation and getting access to the Office Documents . Certainly my hope is that the change in procedures are going to make this appear more confident. Because the hope is that we will be able to cut down on who is reviewing it and how long that review occurs. The challenge is having been a federal prosecutor, if you look at this opinion and we will focus on grand jury information it allows Department Lawyers and prosecutors to produce material to them if they find it meets the standard and i will tell you that that would be a difficult call for me to make to decide whether the information that the ig is asking for would help the department as a whole further its criminal oversight investigation. So i could first see circumstances where these are bumped up to higher levels which could cause delay and the question is how will this all work Going Forward and i think that our view is and our goal is that the process is going to speed up but as i said earlier that the issue i mean, its one of the issues as well. But are we getting everything that we need how are the decisions being made. Who is making them. What dont we know in terms of the process and why do we even need this process and why is this even in place. As i said just yesterday that the enhanced process that has been put in place results in us getting in part of this. There are other parts of information that the fbi has legal questions about. Mr. Smith, do you have anything to add to that. Yes, sir, i do. We are very concerned that other officers may use this opinion to routinely delay requests in getting this information. We would not want to see the department of commerce establish a legal review Protocol Office that would have to review every single request just in case there was a statute out there that did not specifically say that the ig can handle this. We feel that that could hinder the work and slowdown in the process and affect the information we are given. In her opening comments you made comments about the whistleblowers. How do you think that that will affect them . Its a significant concern for us. All no longer means all employees throughout the federal government, whether its at the Justice Department or other agencies now before they could come to us with information knowing that under this section that we had a right to access them, they may think twice. Should they come to us with that. How many objections does my agency have two producing this. The department of commerce has an issue we have an epa ig that has an issue with access to information. Because their agencies are looking at their law and they say that we are not sure that you get that information. And that is a very substantial concern. Its nice that a lot of lawyers can sit around and write many pages about this to try to deal with the niceties of the legal issue. But we are trying to talk about those that are identifying waste and fraud and abuse. They want to come with information and they want to fix it. And they have to wonder what does that mean for me. And if i come to the Inspector General for my agency, will i be retaliated against 2. Mr. Smith, i would agree. I would not necessarily call it retaliation because then the agency could save you should not have given that in the first place because it says right here that they dont have rights to it. So there wouldnt even be a whistleblower protection that we were not entitled to. Sir, i understand that the department has indicated they want to work with us to solve the problem. I believe that our committee invited the department to meet with our staff and the ig on friday after the opinion came out. For whatever reason the department declined to join the meeting. How many times has your boss met with the Inspector General to discuss potential legislative fixes to this problem . Senator, thank you for the question. I can tell you that the Deputy Attorney general personally has been committed to finding a solution to this problem. This is the general problem and has been one of the issues that she took up right when she got to the department and was the topic of conversation during some of her earliest meetings with the Inspector General. She has regular meetings with the Inspector General. Since we have identified this problem and began to work towards a solution i have a meeting to talk about specific solutions and we have regularly been briefing him on this issue and wants to find a solution because she agrees that this is essential to her duty and running the department of justice. Sir, how would you describe the working relationship and the time to completion . Are you working well together . We need to accelerate the process, what more do we need to do . We have had productive meetings. As chair of the council Inspector General, we are working with the legislative committee and others through a proposal that the department has put together. We anticipate getting back to the department very quickly because we want to be back here at the end of august before the committee and working with the staff to have a legislative solution ready to go. And Inspector Generals are stuck in not getting independent access and going back to our earlier point, millions of Government Employees have uncertainty hanging over them as to where they can go with problems that they see it resolved in the waste and fraud and abuse. This is more complicated than it seems. But if we all seem to be in agreement that we need to correct this, and we have a 67 page opinion, it seems to me if we put about as much work and focus into this fix then we will have something to act on and thats all we need to do. If we fail to do it its a failure on the part of all parties to fix what is a flash of the obvious something that needs to be fixed. We thank you for your testimony and we appreciate your time today. We are going to bring forward the next panel. We thank you. [inaudible conversations] thank you. Actually before we have the panelist sent we will have you remain standing so you can be sworn. [inaudible conversations] welcome. Please raise your right hand. The testimony that youre about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth so help you god . Just. Thank you, you may be seated. The panelist that we have right now are the executive director of the project on government oversight, professor paul white is a professor of Public Service at the Robert Wagner graduate school of Public Service at new york university. And mr. Miller is the former Inspector General for the General Services administration and currently works as a managing her of having to be the solutions expert. Founded in 1981, we are a independent watchdog to champion government reform. The chairman and others have said that the ig serves as the Congress Eyes and ears within the executive branch. But in order to serve and by extension the American Public and ig office must have unrestricted view of the agency oversees. I would argue that they hesitate to provide an id for review that could be the most important for them to have. The very purpose of having an independent ig is undermined if the office has to seek the agencys permission in order to carry out the mission and agency debt restricts access and turn them in congress to oversee the executive branch and hold it accountable. The chairman and other leaders on both sides of the aisle have rightly condemned the opinions through the first panel. They cannot possibly be effective watchdogs that they are forced to negotiate with the target of their investigation for access to their records. A former deputy general counsel of the house of representatives said that the opinion treats the doj as though it were above the law. They can now use the midas touch approach. We are particularly concerned about the exposure of agency malfeasance. The opinion could have a Chilling Effect on whistleblowers with other offices who would want to provide the ig with evidence of wrongdoing in sensitive operations but would understandably fear that communication with the ig would itself be a prosecutable offense. They followed it would also thwart their ability to investigate claims of retaliation, as was the case when the fbi delayed access to records in two recent investigations. In essence they handed control over to the subject of investigation to decide whether or not it wants to operate. As it turns out this is not the first time that the olc has challenged the authority of federal watchdogs. Prior to the passages, they have the proposed reporting requirement of the offices to congress as well as the agency head that would violate the separation. In another opinion they hope that the gao would be restricted by law from accessing intelligence information. As you have heard the effect of the latest opinion is already beyond them now to demonstrate that it is already having immediate and dangerous consequences for officers across the federal government will. I would like to take the opportunity to talk about requiring two include any misconduct to an internal investigative unit. The office of professional responsibility or opr. Based on data we found that opr documented hundreds of cases of restlessness or intentional misconduct by the doj attorneys over the past decade. However, opr does not really identify information in its record unlike the Inspector General, meaning that we have no way of knowing if anyone was held accountable. It is hard enough for them when they have to fight with Department Leaders for access to Agency Records and even harder for them to hold the doj accountable when its legally restricted from investigating an entire category of alleged wrongdoing by personnel. The attorney general further has the authority to prohibit the ig from carrying out investigations that would require access to information concerning sensitive operation. Top officials at other agencies including the secretary of defense, secretary of treasury the Postal Service board of governors and the secretary of homeland security, have similar powers under the law. Although these provisions require the agency heads to affirmatively stopped and ig investigation rather than the higher them to ask permission this provision gives us pause. We only know of one instance invoked of this provision by the attorney general, but we believe that the congress should ask them how long this has been invoked by other agency heads. We have another of other recommendations in the written testimony and i will highlight only a few. Obviously congress should clarify all that have been involved, they should also be given the explicit authority to investigate misconduct throughout the agency, including allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. The senator also addresses problems that people face matching data and anything that is an important improvement and finally as was mentioned by the senator, congress should continue to put pressure on the white house and agency heads to fill the vacancies with independent unaggressive watchdogs, thank you for inviting me to testify today and we look forward to strengthening the independence and ensure that oversight is fair and effective. [inaudible] it is such a pleasure to testify before the committee and the chairman in particular who is from iowa and i am from south dakota. So i trust you will be gentle although we dont think its this way. I have a couple of statements number one i am extremely familiar with the legislative record of this act. Dating back to 1976 that particular statute establishing this, which is now mentioned in the opinion. So i know this history. I am not a scholar but a legislative historian. And i will say that the olc opinion is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. When i teach my classes at nyu i tell my students that they have an a and i will give them that if they can hold it. Youd be surprised, perhaps perhaps not, but how many people seek to give it back. And i think that in this particular case they have given it back. They have worked hard to construct the opinion. [inaudible] they work very hard. Mike conclusion is that there are no conflicting statutes at hand. That the act is playing in intent, it contains provisions that require the ig is to Pay Attention and also use integrity with regard to any statutes that could require nondisclosure. And that the nondisclosure issue is not at all in conflict with access to information. There are plenty of Disciplinary Procedures in place for the attorney general to stop an investigation if he or she should see the need to prevent disclosure by the ig. That to me raises the question of why the senate and house would have given the attorney general such extraordinary power to prohibit in the language of the 1988 special provisions to prohibit an investigation issue a subpoena by the ig if the ig didnt have that information by rights under the statute. Why did they in 1990 urge them to exercise extreme caution if Congress Requests information and if they at that point in time do not believe that they would have such information. It makes no sense to me. Nevertheless we all know that this opinion is going to spread through the ig community and the department and agencies, like crop circles in my home state and cornfields, and it has. But i do not think it is a sophisticated and heavily negotiated act having drafted plenty of legislative reports when i was here as a staffer and congressional fellow, i urge you to please go lightly on the ironman biggerstaff has an advanced legislative report on that. The pivot point on this entire opinion at least for me is in the attorney generals Statutory Authority to supervise or direct control the inspectors general. That is where this comes from. You may simply amend the statute to read that this particular authority does not include withholding. Let me just conclude, and i mean we can talk in a question and answer about this that the key conclusion in this opinion is that section number six permits withholding. My ability here works. And that includes every last legislative report. I cannot find the world. The attorney general has the authority to prevent the disclosure of Sensitive Information. That renders this opinion of little interest unnecessary unless it is taken up by other agencies and the department of justice and used to prepare propel complex negotiations that will complicate the violence that prohibits or encourages this to prevent rot and waste and abuse and this is an easy fix and i urge you with that you might soon or may currently attempt to answer. Next point not a legal scholar but i am a historian and i know this record better than my reading of the opinion. And it draws the wrong conclusion. First that i would give my students this as we move through this. Thank you, professor. Thank you so much. Mr. Miller . Chairman, distinguished members of the committee thank you for testifying to be here and our longstanding interest in oversight in our support for the inspectors general. It is a pleasure to keep so many of my former colleagues here behind me. And so after serving in the department of justice for about 15 years, i had the honor of serving as Inspector General of the General Services administration and i served until last year in 2014. And i consider myself fortunate to have served with so many principal and Public Servants and others who work in the community. I am concerned about the impact of the opinion and concerned about the policy and we heard something very curious a while ago. Even the officials and at one point the representative of the Deputy Attorney general stated a different policy, that this information should go to it. That not even the doj is supporting this opinion. And generally everyone and we need to have oversight of how they spend money or how they keep this most Sensitive Information and sewed to withhold what it has, we have devastating results not just for this but those that can make i. T. Jobs much more difficult. The American People expect that the Law Enforcement department that obtains this information keep that information confidential. But they also perceive as agencies to make sure that they are using that information in the proper way and not misusing our most private information. And so i think that that is the policy that has been stated in the previous time and the one that everyone agrees to even if we heard the representative of the Deputy Attorney general correctly, even he stated that. And so in order to have this review in this includes determining what information is needed. Is the judgment of the ig conducting the investigation that matters and not the judgment of the agencies investigated. And it makes them control the judgment of the ig. And that is backwards to deny them what is needed to reach a conclusion is misguided. And it just doesnt work, it is a disaster. And they must have all the information to make an conclusion and finding. And the result of the current procedure at the doj will stall the doj investigations while they meet for Agency Officials on the ig access to this information. And the investigation that doesnt get information will stall. The igs job is hard enough already and they already have problems getting information from Agency Officials. It is often raised to block the inquiries and many of those get worked out because they are simply unfounded and based upon privacy issues and personally identifiable information concerns or Financial Information concerns. Ultimately they get the information but it slowed down. And in fact back in 2009 and 2008 we were having difficulty getting unrestricted access to electronic databases of gsa. And the process was much similar to this in that what the agency wanted to do was shift the burden to the ig. To prove why we needed the information. The auditors were filling out on this and try to explain why we have a need to know. And what i found out about the delays i had a series of meetings with the administrator and we ultimately work it out. But it was a difficult issue that we had to work through. And there will be a legislative fix to clarify that all have unrestricted access to all electronic databases