Transcripts For CSPAN Justice Department Oversight 20140414

My job here on the judiciary , you know, ato these hearings, is to raise my mr. Cohen, he seems like a really smart guy and a really great guy. He earns i can say about him, he earned, sort of, what he gets. To ask the tough questions. You see, they have 107 lobbyists on capitol hill. They are swarming capitol hill, their lobbyists. But i have wondered thousand people write me their objections. The first thing i would do is stop this deal. But it is not up to me. It is up to the sec and the doj. Senator franken weighs in on the proposed comcasttime warner cable merger. Monday on the communicators. On tuesday, attorney general eric holder testified before the house Judiciary Committee. He discussed the Justice Department to use of forecutorial processions marijuana and the nsa surveillance program. This is three hours and 45 minutes. Good morning. The Judiciary Committee will come to order and without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess of the committee at any time. We welcome everyone to this oversight hearing of the u. S. Department of justice and i will begin by recognizing myself for an Opening Statement. Welcome, attorney general holder, to your seventh appearance before your confirmation since your confirmation in 2009. We are happy to have you with us today. Over the last year, we have witnessed an extraordinary level of executive overreach by the Obama Administration. Time after time, this resident has pushed the limits beyond their constitutional boundaries. He has repeatedly declared that rather than face faithfully executing the laws, he will refuse to take no for an answer. And that where congress will not act, i will. The house Judiciary Committee has worked diligently to oppose these broad assertions of executive power and remind the American People that our constitution gives congress the power to make the law and charges the president with its faithful execution. Our work continues today because the department of justice has undertaken its own form of outreach in several instances. This is despite the fact the legal opinions from the Justice Department under president carter, reagan, george h. W. Bush, clinton, and george w. Bush, all agree that while the president does not have the ability to execute laws that he determines are unconstitutional, the president may not refuse to enforce an act of congress for policy reasons. Unfortunately, the department of justice, under attorney general holder, has done just that. 19, 2000le, on october nine, attorney general holder announced that the Justice Department would stop enforcing the federal marijuana ban against persons to comply with state medical marijuana laws. The Justice Department decision not to enforce the controlled substances act in states whose laws violate federal law is not a valid exercise of prosecutors real discretion, but a formal, departmentwide policy of selective nonenforcement of an act of congress. On august 12 of this year, the attorney general directed all federal prosecutors to declined to charge the drug quantity necessary to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence. If a defendant meets certain criteria. The attorney generals directive, along with contradicting an act of congress, puts his own frontline drug prosecutors in the unenviable position of either defining their laws or violating their oath of can door to the court. Candor to the court. This Justice Department has continued to play fast and loose with taxpayer dollars. Every year, a Justice Department Inspector General compiled a list of the top management and performance challenges facing the department and every year since 1999, including this year, the issue of rent management has been included. Rather than learn from its mistakes over that 15 years and use more thanvely 200 grants, they have made a number of concerning changes to these programs. This type of change smacks of cronyism and opus and opens up to malfeasance. It is a direct conflict with Congress Intent when a creative when it created competitive grants. Secondly, i am concerned that this administration has begun a profound change in how forensic studiedstudy is without congressional approval or oversight. The Justice Department has permitted the National Institute of standards and technology to establish brandnew scientific area committees which will replace the longstanding working groups inferencing science that have operated for years under the department of justice and are the backbone of forensic science. We have learned that these new committees are rewriting forensic standards without input from experts contrary to congressional intent. Last summer, the department of justice announced that it would break from its tradition of having all of the safety officers benefit program frames ojp general the counsels office before an approval or denial was made. Instead, they have delegated this task to a counsel who reports to a little pointy. Counsel determination regarding the legality of a claim can also be overridden by the head of ojp and the department of justice has reduced the evidence needed to establish a claim. These changes will allow payments to be paid that are not supported by the law and they highlight the departments continued recklessness regarding taxpayer dollars as well as the continued disregard for the limitations congress places on how grant money should be spent. All of this demonstrates a pattern on the part of the Obama Administration to ignore or rewind rewrite the legislation that prayed that places limits for clinical purposes. The Justice Department has a responsibility to provide legal advice, including constitutional analyses, to the executive branch. I find it ironic that the department has chosen, on multiple occasions, to act in contravention of the constitution. I would be interested in hearing the, if any, legal Guidance Department has provided to the administration on these executive overreach is. I looky general holder, forward to hearing your answers to all of these important topics today as well as other significant issues to the Justice Department and the country. It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. Conyers, for his Opening Statement. Thank you, chairman goodlatte. Welcome, attorney general holder. Jurisdiction of the department of justice, there are many topics worthy of discussion today. I hope that you will get a chance to accommodate chairman goodlatte in all of the numerous criticisms, flaws, and other things that he raised in his Opening Statement because we do want an honest appraisal of this. And im sure that you are up to giving us one. The first topic is enforcing Voting Rights for all americans. Voting discrimination of all time of all kind is alive and well in this country. It ought to be our committees overwhelming priority to take up thee resolution 3899, Voting Rights amendment act, without delay. Your work in sentencing reform is remarkable. In a country where nearly half of all federal inmates are serving time for drug offenses, the harshest crimes should be reserved for violent offenders. As you stated before the Sentencing Commission last month, our focus reliance on onorporation incarceration is not just financially unsustainable, it comes with human and moral costs that are impossible to captivate to calculate. We should note that the departments efforts to engage state and local agencies, juvenile Justice Systems and theunity leaders to end school to prison pipeline and ensure that every young person has the opportunity to reach his full potential, regardless of. He color of his or her skin we should celebrate the departments commitment to Marriage Equality as more and more of this country makes called one what you of the defining civil rights challenges of our time. General, your leadership on these and other issues has been invaluable. Throughout your tenure, you have been asked to do all of this and more with fewer resources. If you can give us any guidance as to the effect of the proposal,ryan budget we would like to engage with you on that topic as well. I would like to focus the balance of my time on the one overriding issue, our collective effort to roll back government surveillance of the United States citizens. Debate has recent focused on how to end the National Security agencys bulk collection of telephone records under section 215 of the usa patriot act. Ending that program and correcting the deeplytroubling legal argument at its foundation are of paramount importance. The president s proposal and the proposal advanced by some on the House Intelligence Committee deals only with section 215. In other words, they focus on one program used to access one database collected under one legal authority. To me, the problem is far more complicated than that. In his january 17 speech, president obama committed to much more. First, the president instructed you, mr. Attorney general, to institute reforms that place additional restrictions on the governments ability to retain, search, and use in criminal cases. The content of communications ofercepted under section 702 the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. On march 28, in a letter sent to senator wyden, the director of national intelligence, james clapper, confirmed that the government mines this data for information about United States certain persons. Implicates in content, not metadata. Under any other circumstance, the government would require individualized suspicion and probable cause to seize these communications. Were neverendments intended to authorize that door surveillance of the United States persons and the department of justice should work with this committee to correct any impression to the contrary. Asks the attorney general to amend how we use National Security letters. So that gag orders will not be indefinite and will terminate within a fixed time. Asiew this modest amendment necessaryimum change to the regime in light of what the public now knows about government surveillance. Yet this committee has received no indication that this reform is underway at the department of justice. And i hope that we will hear news of this development in your testimony or soon. President he is anized that there inevitable bias within the Intelligence Community to collect more information about the world, not less. That bias is consistent with their mission to maintain National Security. But National Security is not the only value we hold dear. We must also be vigilant against government overreach and protect our Constitutional Rights to privacy and free association. In the congress, this committee has always been the proper form for a discussion about civil rights. In the National Security context. In the executive branch, that rule falls to the department of and specifically specifically, mr. Attorney general, to you. This country would be well served by your continued leadership on this issue. In years past, the department of justice and the house Judiciary Committee have worked together to draft, pass, and intimate the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, the usa patriot act, and the pfizer amendments act. We should renew that Partnership Without delay. Act move the usa freedom through this committee with all necessary speed. I thank you and i look forward to your testimony, attorney general, and i yield back. The chair thanks the gentleman. Without objection, all other Opening Statements will be made a part of the record. Our only witness for joining us today. If you would please rise and we will begin by swearing you in. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god . Yes. Lex let the record reflect that the attorney general responded in the affirmative. Thank you. 2009, general holder was sworn in as the 82nd attorney general of the United States. General holder has enjoyed a long career in both public and private sectors. First joining the department of justice or the attorney general on her program in 1976, he became one of the departments first attorneys to serve in the newlyform Public Integrity section. He went on to surge as a to serve as a judge in the superior court of the district of columbia. 1997, he was named by president clinton to be the general. Torney prior to that, he was a litigation partner at covington and berlin llc in washington dc. He is a graduate of Columbia University and columbia law school. General holder, we appreciate your presence and look forward to your testimony. Thank you. Conyers and the rest of the committee, i am here to speak on behalf of my hardworking colleagues about our continued commitment to the cause of justice and emissions that we share, securing our nation and protecting the American People. This is and always will be our top priority. Over the past year, the department has done important work in this regard, strengthening our ability to safeguard americans National Security, disrupt potential terrorist plots, and those who attempt to harm our nation can be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Last month, the department achieved a major milestone when we secured the conviction of the soninlaw of Osama Bin Laden and a Senior Member of al qaeda on terrorism charges. These cans such as safely occur in the city i am proud to call my hometown. Ability ofubted the our threecore system to administer justice swiftly in this case as it has hundreds of other cases involving terrorism defendants. And it would be a good thing for this country to finally put to thatthis political debate has otherwise questioned the experience that we have had. Last week, the senate Intelligence Committee voted to declassify portions of its report into past interrogation practices. I agree that as much of the report as possible should be made public. Of course, allowing for reductions necessary to protect National Security. I was pleased that the committee voted to send portions of the report forward for declassification. Having prohibited these practices upon taking office, the president believes that bringing this program into the light will help the American People understand what happened in the past and can help guide us as we move forward. So that no administration contemplates such a program in the future. Beyond our National Security work, the department will continue to build on the progress we have made on a range of threats and challenges. The resources of the department have been made available to help conduct a thorough investigation into last weeks horrific mass shooting at fort hood. Going forward, my colleagues and i will do Everything Possible to achieve justice for our brave men and women in uniform and prevent these far too common tragedies from happening again. More than ever before, the Department Law enforcement work must connect with new and emerging technology, including currencies such as bitcoin. Poseal currencies can challenges for Law Enforcement given the appeal that they have among those seeking to conceal illegal activity. This potential must be closely considered. We are working with our financial regulatory partners to account for this emerging technology. Those who favor Virtual Currencies solely for their ability to help mask Drug Trafficking or other illicit conduct should think twice. The department is committed to innovating alongside this new technology in order to ensure investigations are not impeded by a criminals ability to move funds anonymously. As Virtual Currency systems developed, it will be imperative to Law Enforcement interests that those comply with Money Laundering statutes and know your consumer and trolls. Controls. We have a department, commitment to integrity. Nowhere is this stronger than in our work to strengthen americas criminal Justice System through the smart Crime Initiative i announced last august. We are taking initiative on a number of evidencebased reforms. Including mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent, lowlevel drug finds drug crimes. This commonsense change will ensure that the toughest penalties are preserved are reserved for the most dangerous or violent drug traffickers. Members of this committee have shown tremendous leadership in the effort to out of five this approach into law. I would be proud to codify this approach into law. I would be proud to join a bill which would give judges more discretion in determining more appropriate sentences for people convicted of certain federal drug crimes. I pledge to keep working with leaders like you and senator rand paul and others to address the collateral consequences of certain convictions, including federal disenfranchisement policy. We will never be able to simply arrest and incarcerate our way to becoming a safer nation. We need to be both tough and smart in our fight against crime. This struggle must extend be on beyond to include civil rights violation an financial and Health Care Fraud crimes that endanger the lives of hardworking americans coasttocoast. Last november, the Justice Department sued a victory in the struggle when we obtained a 30 million settlement with jpmorgan chase, the largest settlement with a single entity in American History to resolve federal and state civil claims related to the mortgage securitization process. As part of our goals, we also p. Ed a lawsuit against s and the 1. 2 billion dollar agreement we reached with toyota last month, the largest criminal penalty imposed on an automotive company, we are making good on our determination to protect consumers and address fraud in all of its forms. Moving forward, we will continue to build upon these and other important efforts and keep working alongside members of congress, including Ranking Member conyers and representative lewis to address the void that was left by last Years Supreme Court decision invalidating one of the Voting Rights acts core provisions so we can protect that basic right of core citizenship. I want to thank you once again for the opportunity to discuss these and other priorities with you today. I look forward to working closely with you to build upon these Public Safety and Law Enforcement, schmitz and law thatcement accomplishments my colleagues have made possible in recent years. We will begin the questioning. I will start with this. The department of justice is charged with providing legal advice to make sure the president and executive agencies operate within the bounds of the law and the constitution. Of course, it is not just the Justice Department. Laws, Immigration Laws, welfare laws. Doesnt that take care clause require the president to enforce the law even if he does not like the law in question . President has a constitutional responsibility to enforce the laws. That is clear. The Justice Department has an equal responsibility to defend statutes that congress passes. Mades the determination is , and this happens very infrequently, that there is no basis to defend a statute. Such an event happened with regard to the defense of marriage act and the ability he had, in a unique circumstance, to make a determination that a heightened scrutiny standard should apply to the constitutional determination of that statute. On that basis, we made the decision not to defend the decision that was ultimately upheld by the supreme court. I am concerned with some of the directives that have been issued by you and others in the department of justice. Is there any limit to the president s prosecutorial discretion . The discretion must always be exercised in a responsible and constitutional way. There is a vast amount of discretion that the president than the attorney general has. That discretion has to be used in an appropriate way so you are acting consistently with the statute but also making sure you are acting in a way that is consistent with our values and the constitution and protecting the American People. Could the president conceivably decide that, with regard to the particular law, that the discretion is to not enforce that law at all even though the law is on the books . All, thatenforce at in acategorical statement hypothetical circumstance, it is a difficult question to answer. The determination, as i was referring to before, of not defending the constitutionality of the defense of marriage act, it is one that was very controversial at the time. Currently, under the modified , theon 215 order government is no longer determining whether there is reasonable articulable suspicion that the target pertains to foreign terrorism. Those determinations are being foreign Intelligence Surveillance court. How is that structure being implemented under the modified order and how is the fisa court approving the queries under the modified order . Are doing so pursuant to the orders of the president , which i think are entirely reasonable. It does not have an impact on our ability to make good use of that tool. You go to court, present the case we make using the reasonable articulable suspicion standard. We now limit the action that we take to two hops. The way in which we are now proceeding is consistent with andpresident s direction our obligation to keep the American People safe. Court approving those queries of the data under this modified order . The court is presented with a ast, a statement of statement by the department that we feel that reasonable articulable suspicion has been met and then we make a determination about whether they agree or disagree. The order is then signed. Subject, to another this question about the application for grants. The office of violence against has recently announced changes to its grant limitation process for 2014, which limits the grant applicants for a number of the offices competitive and discretionary grant programs, specifically limiting six of those programs to only applicants who have been prior recipients. This concerns me greatly, both from a standpoint of the appearance of favoritism, and from the standpoint of not looking for new and innovative ways to combat violence against women. I wonder if you would comment about why this policy has been permitted to take hold. Just giving you an opportunity to respond to that. Our grantmaking is headed by our office of justice rogans. Do is seeke tried to places,m a variety of grant proposals, support those proposal that we think are and then donefits something that has not necessarily been done before. Use evidencebased means to determine the effectiveness of those programs. On that basis, make further determinations about funding. I am not aware of any determinations that are made to exclude from rant making or ,rant seeking institutions that on any basis, we take into account those grant applications that are made, use neutral criteria to determine whether or not they should be supported, and then, as i said, look after and see what happens on an evidencebased basis and decide if the program should be supported or intends to be replicated in other parts of the country. My time is expired. I would like to pursue that matter with you after this hearing and we will get you some specific concerns we have. I am concerned that new applicants are being excluded. And that current applicants are being renewed not in a competitive environment. That is thethink practice. To the extent that your concern is a legitimate one, that is something i will look at and get back to you. That is not the way, i understand, that we are proceeding. If i am wrong, we will get back to you and that practice with the corrected. Hanky. The gentleman from michigan, mr. Conyers, is recognized for his questions. Thank you very much. Nike for your statement, mr. Holder. It is important that we come together in the Judiciary Committee and work out some of these differences or misunderstandings, as the case may be. I would like to turn your attention to section 215, the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, pfizer fis a. We are going to try to reach consensus on section 215. We will amend that statute to correct the mistaken argument that relevance means everything. Some have a suggestion have suggested that section 215 can be reformed without requiring an individualized judicial determination and relevance for reasonable, articulable suspicion before the government may demand certain Business Records. Consensus on our committee is that prior judicial review is necessary. How do you stand on that . I think that the proposal that the president has made in the interim steps that we have of a are an indication basic fact that we have to understand. Section 215, as we know it, is proposed to be ended by this administration. That is a simple fact. What we would like to have in its place is a system where the information is stored, the information is acquired in a offerent way, the amount information that is actually held by the government is substantially reduced. The debate that we have had as a nation has been a good one. , ih the president s proposal think it is a good step forward. We want to work with congress to try to perfect the proposal. We want to work with congress to ultimately, with a statutory ultimately com eup with a statute come up with a statutory change so we can ultimately get to the section 215. Thank you. Let me see if you feel that we have to have this relevance may demandgovernment certain Business Records under 215. Is ais committee, there consensus that prior judicial review is necessary. Do you share that view . Fisc anding to the specifying the reasonable are to global suspicion articulable suspicion, i think we are making a particularized requests. It is something that is more predicatebased been consistent in the past. I think that is a step that deals with many of the concerns that have been expressed. Thank you. On january 17, you and i were both present at the department of justice for president obama making a series of commitments to reform even more than 215. And that the department of justice reforms that have placed restrictions on the governments ability to retain, search, and use criminal cases, communications between americans and foreign citizens, incidentallycollected under 702. On have you or anyone in doj considered some of these reforms and if they are necessary . I am charged with the responsibility of doing, along with the director of national intelligence, clapper, is look not only at 215, but the other tools that we have. Section 702 is one of them. We have begun the process. We are not finished with the work that were doing. Our hope would be to come to proposal and the to work with congress to make alreadyt 702, which is substitute subject to oversight, just make sure we have the necessary procedures in place so that we are ensuring persons outside the United States are targeted to minimize the acquisition ofention and dissemination incidentallyacquired information about u. S. Persons. This is a process that we are still engaged in. We are not yet in a position where we can come to congress with a concrete proposal. Once we are at that point, we will be coming back to congress with that proposal. Thank you. I have three other questions. I will send them to you and we will keep in communication. I yield back. I recognize the gentleman from wisconsin. Thank you very much, mr. Attorney general. Thank you for coming here. I would like to ask you a series ,f questions about perjury which i believe that the director of national intelligence, james clapper, gave to the senate. The u. S. Attorneys manual specifically permits disclosure of information concerning Ongoing Investigations in matters that have already received substantial publicity. Director clappers perjury beeners perjury, has covered extensively. I have articles from the new york post, the washington post, and the huffington post. Are you willing to discuss whether or not the Justice Department is investigating director clapper for his statement before the senate . I think that we received a weter from you and, as explained in our response, we are not in a position to confirm what the department is investigating. We are reviewing the material that you and other members of the committee have provided to us and i assure you that we will take any action that is appropriate. The first letter i sent to you was several months ago. Have received a response to that. I sent you another letter last week to clarify this. Let me refresh your memory. Senator wyden asked the rector clapper whether the nsa was collecting data about millions of americans. Notclapper said, no sir, wittingly. Senator wyden advise the director that he was going to ask those questions. After director clapper responded in the matter that he did, senator wyden gave him a chance to correct his testimony, which he refused to do. Mediar. Clapper told the that he gave the least untruthful answer. I think we all know that lying to congress is a federal offense. The only way for the courts to do their job is to get testimony and apply the facts. Of the offenseg of perjury is that it was made under oath, which it was. It was knowingly false, which director clapper admitted, even after he was given a chance to change the testimony, and is also material to a government investigation, which i would assume includes an investigation that is being made by congress. Do you personally believe that mr. Clappers testimony fits this description . As i indicated, we are not in a position to confirm whether the department is investigating any particular matter. , inill take into account making any determination we make, the material that you submitted to us. Is there any circumstance that you would prosecute a member of the administration for lying under oath to congress . Sure. What would that be . The person lied and the of the otherde all legal requirements of the perjury statute were met. Erector clapper has admitted that he has lied. I outlined the elements to convict someone of perjury. I will remind you, it is being made under oath. It is knowingly false and material to a government investigation. If you want to delay this or ,weep this under the carpet wouldnt it be pointless for congress to pass new laws if theg Data Collection Justice Department and other officials are at liberty to lie about enforcement . Not sure i totally understand the question, but i can tell you this. We take our responsibilities seriously to investigate allegations of perjury. There have been prosecutions brought by this department over the years in that regard. With regard to this specific matter, it is something that we are looking at the materials that have been presented to us. Action will be taken that is appropriate. That 25m to recall years ago, around contra, there were prosecutions. North anday current his superior ended up getting off was because congress was a little too eager to provide the community. There is no immunity that has been given at all here. I am interested in making sure that Everybody Knows that they have to tell the truth when they appear before congress. What more do you need besides an admission from general clapper that eli . Lied . That he my time is up. Men andhair thanks the recognizes the gentleman from new york for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me state to the attorney general that i share your ing suspected try terrorists and i applaud and congratulate you on the successful prosecution of Osama Bin Ladens soninlaw. Monthsnviction came 13 after his death and he now faces life in prison. Uncertain when the military Commission System will be get will be getting around to a trial. I hope with the conditions of abu ghraib that we can stop wasting time on a military system and secure the conditions of the guilty terrorists in our courts. I want to thank you again for resetting your commitment to that system. Manywing the failure of savings and loan institutions in the late night the late 1980s, 1100 cases were referred to prosecutors resulting in Bank Officials going to jail. By stark contrast, no senior investing no Senior Executive has been charged or proseced. Just last month, the doj Inspector General concluded that Financial Crime is the lowest criminal threat. They did not use additional funding that congress provided to pursue these purposes and the doj mistakenly inflated its by 90 . By nine this report is very troubling. Why didnt the doj or fbi devoted same type of resources that were devoted to the savings and loan crisis in the 80s . What steps are you taking to pursue mortgage fraud was misspent . Totaly, in light of this failure to prosecute highranking Bank Officials for the fraud that led to the 2008 crash, what steps are you taking to ensure that the full range of possible criminal charges will be investigated with regard to General Motors and its faulty ignition switches that have been that have resulted in 13 deaths years after they knew take it question mark i rate exception to a lot of the conclusions that are contained in that report. If you look at the report itself, a number of mortgage fraud convictions nearly doubled in the fiscal year 20092010. Yearase further in fiscal 2011. This reflects a rapid mobilization of the department to combat mortgage fraud during this critical period. If you look at the results that we have had over the past year or so, including the 13 billion resolution with jpmorgan, that makes clear our determination to hold people accountable. The National Mortgage settlement resulted in one he billion dollars in relief and assistance 20 billion in relief and assistance. If you look at Holding Institutions accountable, in 2013, we have gotten guilty rbs,s pleas from ubs, wakeman, we have charged individual from the following companies jpmorgan, morgan stanley, credit suisse, galleon, sac capital, stanford financial group. The notion that we have not been doing what we should have been doing with regards to the mortgage fraud problem is a nice talking point and i do not mean to say that is what you are saying, but it is used by some as a talking point. It seems to be inconsistent with the facts. It is essentially what im saying. Going after a company which can pay a fine out of the shareholders is not the same as prosecuting someone other than small fries, the higher ups in this. Companies who oked let me get to my next question. The review group appointed by the president to review this section concluded, among other things, that a single legal standing should apply to nsls. Otherwise, you simply switch from one to the other. That we should follow this recommendation . We have to understand the different nature of these. Nsls are a tool to obtain nerolidefined types of records from a narrow set of institutions. By contrast, 215 allows the government to obtain any tangible things. Has a much wider breadth of material they can be obtained, the need for additional supervision is more obvious. Used to get information build cases in the same way that grand jury subpoenas so you do not agree with the recommendation of the president s review commission . I have stated my position. , the last question is president , when he campaigned in 2008, said he was going to rain in the use of the state he has mildly done that by saying that only the higherups can do it. They still use state seekers case andto object to a completely stop a case from being heard. That people cannot get their cases into court and rights cannot be vindicated. That the judicial system cannot consider any allegations. A ninth panel said that the problem with this, and executive cannot be its own judgment i would observe that this because it may classify some of its own actions and block any judicial review by incantation of the magic word stay seeker. Is it wise to trust the ranch with such power so that rights can be violated and no one can get into court to challenge those rights . We have fundamentally changed the whole implication of the state seekers privilege. I have put in place a series of measures so that determination can only be made after review by a Highlevel Committee and signoff by the Deputy Attorney general and myself. Understanding that we were never to use the state seekers privilege to hide things that were embarrassing or to hide government misconduct. There is a reality we also have to face. There are certain cases that bring into the public realm things that would harm the National Security. , i am notso note that sure what opinion you are referring to, but i know another opinion, the ninth circuit judge noted very approvingly of the changes that we had made in the Justice Department with regard to how we deal with the question of the implication of the state seekers privilege. I am proud of the work that we have done. We can justify every time that it is usedd it and extremely sparingly by this administration. The chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina for five minutes. Good to have you back on the hill. Of 2013, the Justice Department announced it would not challenge recentlypassed state laws legalizing the production, trafficking, possession, and Recreational Use of marijuana. Banksj issued guidance to regarding the proceeds of illegal marijuana trafficking. There is a Public Safety component to this the cousin the dispensaries have lots of cash. What is the only Public Safety issue that the dispensaries have an excessive amount of cash . Is there also not a Public Safety issue involved with trafficking, distribution of a substance that is still illegal under federal law . The notion that somehow we have retreated from our enforcement of the controlled substance act with regard to marijuana is not accurate. What we have done is to clarify in a pronouncement of the deputy , eight factorsl that we will take into determination before we use our limited resources with regards to marijuana and marijuana laws. It is not inconsistent with the way the Justice Department was acting before. Low level possessors of ,arijuana, never federal cases in any case, it involves trafficking of marijuana that goes to minors, drugged driving, violence with cartels. We remain committed to enforcement of the marijuana laws. I thank you, sir. And the responses for the questions on the record of our last hearing, which we received last week. 11 months after you appeared here, you stated that congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and it is illegal distribution to sell marijuana, a serious crime which provides a significant amount of revenue to largescale criminal enterprises. It is the responsibility of the department of justice to enforce the controlled substances act in all states. Giving given your apparent commitment to enforcing federal law, why is the department now encouraging banks to help dispensaries launder money . This may be subject to interpretation, but even though transactions may well have been strikeit can still that. I meant to say it a different way. Given the federal disclosure that could well amount to Money Laundering, could it not . I did not hear the end of your statement. Pardon . I did not hear the end of your question. It may well be subject to interpretation, but federal involvement in these proceeds were legally exchange at the time of purchase. Could that not amount to Money Laundering . Decided in the statement that we issued was described, a public where, as arn result of the changes made in washington and colorado, you have institutions that would have large amounts of cash on hand. We wanted to come up with ways that cash would not necessarily be in one place and would be allowed to be placed into banks. That is why those rules were changed. Makehe individual banks to determinations about whether or not they wanted to accept those deposits given the eight factors that we set out in our overall marijuana enforcement policy. Many people, in response to colorado and washington, these are illegal transactions. They are legal at the state level, but they continue to be illegal at the utter level. Do you concur with that . Again, there are a lot of that are technically violating the federal law. We do not prosecute every violation of the federal law. We do not have the capacity to do that. We make determinations about how we use our limited resources. Those eight factors set out things that are most important about our marijuana enforcement efforts. I think that we will still be good stewards of the controlled substances act. We will prevent marijuana from getting into the hands of minors. We will prevent violence in the trafficking and sale of marijuana, or venting cartels from profiting. Those are the things that i think are worthy of federal consideration. Thank you. My red light has eliminated. I yield back my time. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. I want to followup on some of the questions that have already been posed relative to surveillance. Ofhave had a lot conversation in the country about phone records. I want to talk about section 215 and 214, for that matter. Data your view that other held by third parties, for example, financial records or emails or records of what an individual searches for on the internet that are held by third parties, is it the same legal posture it toyou mean to compare the board telephone a program . Yes. The governments view is that it is constitutional to collect bulk phone records because they are Business Records. There are other records that are held by third parties, for ofmple, emails, searches the internet, financial records, that are, i believe, covered under to 15. I just want to know if that is your understanding as well. The way we are trying to 215, is that it has to be supported by reasonable suspicions. Are theseuestion is, other records in the same legal posture as the phone records . I need a yes or no. Obviously, there governed by the same. Then you have answered my question, thank you. Sectiono talk about seven 02. Mr. Clapper sent a letter to ron wyden on march 28, indicating there have been queries of u. S. Persons of communications that he says were lawfully acquired under section 702. Look at what the fisa court said two years ago in 2011, the observed that the nsa acquires more than 250 million Internet Communications each year, pursuant to section 702. That was in 2011. Beant to probe how it could that we would collect this data, looking at foreign persons, on a 51 basis of confidence that the person is a broad, and then feel for u. S. Persons. How does i comply with the Fourth Amendment in your judgment . I think everything has been done is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. That only goes part of the way. The president has said just because we can do certain things doesnt mean we should do them. , were looked at 215 looking at section 702 heard i think we will have modifications that we will propose there, as well. Let me ask you, in terms of whether you think we have legal or constitutional limits in receiving information on american citizens in the United States that have been collected , fortained from our allies example britain or canada or australias security forces. Is earning prohibition ossa to smillie in our receiving information from allied agencies . There is aure constitutional prohibition, but we do have good relationships with our allies. We share information with them when that is appropriate. Let me ask you, in terms of other public data, we are in a situation in this country, really in the world, where there is a digital record made of us wherever we go. You walked on the street, every atm machine has a camera. Camera. Eleven has a what is the departments you in terms of the need for a judicial review to obtain those digital to data mine them for information about american citizens . I think the department has different standards depending on the nature of the information that is taught. The privacy implications that at play or are part of the determination, we tried to do things in a way that are consistent with our obligations, obviously under the fourth ,mendment, but go beyond that so we dont turn ourselves into a state that we do not want to ultimately be. The question is, do you feel that the department has to get a warrant or not to obtain and data mine such information . That is a broad thing. It depends on the nature of that which we seek. We go back to when i was a young prosecutor and you wanted mail covers, for instance. Theres a whole variety of things you can do without the courts. That is still the case. I see my time has expired. Im good to follow up if i may, mr. Attorney general, with some specific questions i hope i can get answers to. We hope the attorney general respond to those questions. Recognizes the derailment from ohio. Thank you, mr. Attorney general. On july 5, 2013, 15 members of this committee wrote you to inquire whether the department of justice was consulted regarding the constitutionality of the administrations decision to delay the employer mandate. If so, what the departments position was regarding its constitutionality. S Committee Still is not has not received a satisfactory response. You stated publicly on the record to senator mike lee of utah at a senate Judiciary Committee hearing held on january 29, 2014, about two months ago, that the Justice Department had indeed provided. Uch illegal analysis at that same hearing, he speculated publicly, regarding what you recalled was contained in that legal analysis. Since you have previously speculated publicly on these hades, and since you have time since that meeting back on january 29, 2014, to refresh your memory regarding the specific nature of that legal analysis, could you now please describe the specific nature of that legal analysis on the Affordable Care act . I would say this, i have looked at senator goodlatte sent me a letter that contained within it my colloquy with senator lee. It seemed to me that that was a conversation that was more general than the one you have discussed. And department does not disclose the content of theidential legal advice to president or other governmental decisionmakers. The treasuryt of has explained to congress with the legal basis was for the decision to delay enforcement of the employer mandate. I think i would refer you to that document. 115 members of this committee send you a request based on the legal analysis of something, dont you think we deserve a response . I apologize if there has not been a response to that inquiry, but i think it is certainly worthy of a response. Thank you. Let me move on. The president made the unilateral decision to delay the Affordable Care acts employer mandate for one year. Despite clear statutory language instructing that the condo to use that the penalties shall afterto months beginning december 31, 2013. When Congress Puts Effective Dates inlaws, to need to further state that the Effective Date cannot be waived or modified the executive branch, or is the president required to follow the law and also follow the dates that are set by congress . Duty, president has the obviously, to follow the law. When that include the dates that are contained in the law . There wasnt anything confusing about them are contradictory about them. Does the president have to follow that law . It depends on the statute. It would depend on the statutory interpretation. A statute we are talking about was the Affordable Care act. Is in some hypothetical law. That is the law. And as indicated, the Treasury Department has looked at it and determined there is a shouldnt he followed a lot when it says a specific date . My question is, if that isnt the way president s can operate, will we have to put in their what i stated . The Effective Date cannot be waived or modified by the executive branch, meaning the president. We have to put that language in there from now on . Or should that be assumed that doesnt have to change it if we dont put that language in there. I can only talk about the statutes that actually exist in the ones that come into the department or other branches of the executive. Thank you, im almost out of time. As attorney general, youre charged with faithfully executing the law. Remarks to the state attorneys general in february, he exhorted them to be suspicious of state laws that defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Why, when youre the top Law Enforcement official in the country, would you tell your counterparts in the 50 states not to defend laws constitutionally passed by those dates, regardless of whether you agree with that policy are not . With all due respect, i think you have some really bad information. I didnt say that people needed to be suspicious of particular laws. Im paraphrasing what you said. That is not a great paraphrase. We will go back and look at the language. Was, the decision cannot be based on politics or policy. You guys would never do that. The time for the derailment has expired. The attorney general can finish his answer. I was going to say, there have to be bases in law, constitutional concerns. 1953, thee used, in Congress Passed a law that said separate but equal was appropriate. There is a fugitive slave law. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. Gentlewoman from texas. Thank you for your presence and service. Just the number of vast changes that are for the good that we have been able to experience. A number of my colleagues have asked about the nsa. Im going to either write a letter on that or ask the question if i get enough time. I ask unanimous consent to introduces leverage record. They letter ive sent to mr. Holder in january of 2014. Would, mr. Holder, jasper texas jasper, texas, had another incident. Man by the name of alfred wright, a 28yearold africanamerican, whose body was found 19 days after he was first therted missing, and community had allegedly been searching for 17 days. His body was somewhat mutilated, but certainly did not look like it had been in the wild for 17 or 19 days. Truck, it was overheated, he was in front of a store and suddenly he went missing. We have a Justice Department investigation. Theres been no word whatsoever. Theres been a lot of chatter, a familyupset nes members. How speedily can we move that investigation . I would also encourage, even though i understand we cannot taint an investigation, but i would appreciate if there would be some dialogue. I dont believe that dialogue with those who represent those individuals is a violation of the investigation. We will certainly take into account the letter that you have indicated, the levy of talked about. I was just checking to make sure, but my the u. S. Attorney is looking at this matter. I am not in a position to discuss this further at this time. Ive been told that the u. S. Attorney has been in touch with the family. It is something we are taking seriously. I appreciate it. If i could get a briefing through the doj here in washington, i understand specifics cannot be discussed, that would be helpful. Thank you. Let me move quickly to another letter that i have received on letter involved a shooting in bel air, texas. Unfortunately, a young man, a family owned the home, he was confronted by police on his own steps and shot on his own steps under the allegation that he had stolen a car. Neighborhood that didnt look like him. The unfortunate part about it is that it ended is very raw missing baseball career. The problem is, as the response came back that there is not going to be an investigation, probably because incidents are not ordered frequently out of keller, texas. I would like the Justice Department to get back with me on how that could be pursued. The fact that you have one incident means that it is a community that does not report please abuses. You have a situation that has not been addressed. This case was sent to you. Three members of this committee sent a letter to our major leaders of Civil Rights Organization to comment on the now iny process that is place. Mr. General, could you emphasize how important this process is, based upon the change in law that this committee had on the crack cocaine. How is it being implemented with the federal bureau of prisons. How successful do think it is, how much more work to need to reach these individuals who are doing it . The me ask this followup question so that i will not be left out. I will send you a letter regarding the investigation of the highspeed trading. Understand what the basis of the law on that. The other question i want to ask beside the clemency, theres a proposed merger between comcast and time warner. I want to know how vigorous youre going to be in this very massive and impactful potential merger. On the clemency, please, mr. Attorney general. Matter, thency clemency process to talk about is of concern to us. We have requested in our budget the ability to hire seven new people for our Attorneys Office that would include for attorneys. We can process these matters at a greater rate with them. We have begun an initiative to identify additional clemency candidates. There are people who dont have ties to gangs or cartels. Theyre not thats a Public Safety. Death sentences that i think would all generally agree are excessive in nature. Clemency is something that ought to be considered. The Deputy Attorney general gave a speech in new york where he saw it the help of a private bar in addition to the resources we have saw so we could try to make this clemency process a better and more. One. Fulsometer and more one. The opportunity of the general from alabama, mr. Backus, be recognized for five minutes. I hope youre feeling better. Im getting there. Good. When you appeared here last may, i asked you about the Associated Press case. To supply anyle details because you said you had recused yourself early on. A data thathere was or whether there was a formal process. At that time i indicated to you, i think you agreed with me, that there would be a need there should be a need when you recuse yourself from a case, to have a formal, written entry. Have you adopted such a policy . Im not sure we are formally done so, but in my own mind i have recuse myself and other matters, i would do so and put a ready together of some sort that would indicate what the basis was for that recusal. I know you indicated there was conflict of interest, or appearance of conflict of interest. Because ofeve that that in other cases it is essential that there be a formal submit, orre you whether a something in writing with the date and time on it . I think you raised it during the hearing last year. It is a good idea. Mildly concerned is as opposed to good idea, why doesnt the Justice Department adopt a formal process and do that . Yes, you are required by law to sign off on any subpoena involving the media. Just assumed a matter like that, there ought to be a formal recusal. Requestg to renew my that you do that. Time, i became aware in a press conference about the same time, you said the Associated Press case was one of one of the worst leaks you have seen throughout your career. You still believe that . Yes. That my understanding Information Published on monday was going to be the subject of an announcement by the white house early tuesday morning. This is something that happened a year or two before. In yemen. I was wondering why a days delay would be something the white house would announce the next day. Why would it have been so serious to secretly subpoena. Rom verizon all the records am i wrong that the white house was going to reveal his information of a redneck state . I hope were talking about the same week. When i was discussing was something that impinged, had a negative impact on our ability the case is closed, is it not . Yes, but we still have to methods that were am i wrong that the white house was going to disclose the article the very next day . They asked the ap to delayed one more day . It was only after the fact of the leak had existed. Ok,been no leak all right. What im saying is, the white house is going to reveal that information the very next day. It, the planber was not to reveal it on any day, but for the fact that the leak had already occurred. One time i also asked you, and i think it was informally, whether or not there were any other Media Outlets doing that. Of time or since that time, less to say during a. Of time, that were targeted by the Justice Department. You said you werent sure. Outletsere other media which were targeted . We know of the rosen case. We know the ap case. Ine there other examples which Media Outlets were secretly targeted . I see what you mean. I would not agree that any Media Outlets were targeted. What happened in a couple of was a terminations made to try to get information. We went through a process after the firestorm. I know about that in july. What im asking you, were any other media targeted by secret others, toverizon or look at information other than Associated Press and the rosen case which we know of. Other . As i said, the processes we have in that i madee extent a determination that changes needed to be made, had in fact been made. We had a good series of meetings with the media. To do have any a time for the german has expired. Thus for the gentleman has expired. Thank you for being with us today. Torture,uestion about and just simply, we have heard that torture worked in certain situations. Do you get retroactive immunity if it worked for conducting illegal torture . To get retroactive immunity if we do what . If it worked. For information. What is a legal significance of getting information if it worked . Im not sure i understand the question. Some people say it worked. Is it ok if illegal torture worked . Inif somebody had engaged actresses of torture that violated federal law, the fact that it worked would not be a bar to potential criminal liability. Thank you. , if you call it interrogation, does that make it ok . Know, slapping a label does not change things. Thank you. I want to switch subject to mandatory minimums. You mentioned legislation is pending. What can the executive branch do to alleviate the egregious harm inflicted by an unjust mandatory minimum . Inwhat i have tried to do our smart on Crime Initiative is to make sure that we are using the people in the field, are assisting u. S. Attorneys. This was before a particular assistant u. S. Attorney. I have great faith in the men and women of the department to make those determinations in an appropriate way. Are you recommending the executive branch using the power of pardon to deal with some of these cases, to . Yes. We think that the clemency process, the president agrees with this. The clemency process has to be a part of this overall look at our criminal Justice System area thank you. This act requires localities to come together, first of all to assess how much theyre spending on incarceration and other angst that would be prevented with a good comprehensive evidencebased locally tailored program. As money is being saved to reinvest the money to keep the programs going, as the department of justice has the department of justice taken a position on this act . We are supportive of the youth promise act. Thank you. On Voting Rights, we are all disappointed by the shelby decision. We are trying to fix it. What can we do to cover jurisdictions where there is not a formal finding of prior discrimination . There anyway that we can prior finding of recent discrimination. Is there anyway we can cover jurisdictions without that finding . Or think what we shared with a member of this committee and other members of congress was a in which, framework over his occurred of time, the number of violations could make the particular state or to justicen subject Department Review if there was a desire to change a voting procedure. I think that would respond to the supreme courts concern expressed in the shelby case. Could we have someone be process to have a precleared if it is a suspect change, if there is no where finding of discrimination . Beyond what we had proposed, there are other parts of the Voting Rights act that allow the department to look at ividualized determinations actions that a particular state or jurisdiction might take. Those cases are not easily proven. In terms of preclearance, is there anyway you can stick them with preclearance if you do not connect that with prior findings of discrimination under the shelby case . I think it would be difficult. I think what we try to come up with what we tried to come up the was a process by which Voting Rights act would be spread beyond those states that had been covered before. It would focus on the requisite number of violations of a separate of time that would move over the years. They would not become old in nature. What could be done to improve the injunctions process . The time for the gentleman has expired. The attorney general can answer briefly the gentlemans question. If he can do it for the record. He can comment on how we can improve the process injunctions of the localities dont have to suffer irreparable harm. If you could respond to that for the record, i would appreciate it. Im having a hard time hearing the questions. Maybe the mics are not on or something. We will check that. In the meantime, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. I said, for five minutes. The student is attorney general, it can you hear me . I can always hear you. [laughter] you agree that the sanctity of the act is one that is important for all of government, would you agree . Sanctity . The independence of the Inspector General is clearly an intent that congress has signed into law. A good Inspector General needs a degree of independence. Your Inspector General, you would agree that he is a good attorney. Is a very good Inspector General. I have known mike for a good number of years. Last night, he said at the beenmmittee that he has interfered with. He has had to go specifically to you or your deputy to get permission to have access to records. The second time. Can you tell me why you would require your Inspector General go through aic process, get specific access to materials on his investigations and the delays that come with it . First it is important to note that the knowledge that the ig has gotten all the documents they believe are necessary he said in time in the cases that were helpful to you, that you approved it. Isnt it a form of soft intimidation by any stretch of the imagination to force an independent individual who is supposed to have unfettered access to these documents in their investigations, which could include an of highranking individuals working for you, to have to ask for that by definition a carson to disclose and to essentially beg for permission to have access to documents . Is that correct . This is not a policy choices been made by me or any other attorney general. There are legal restrictions that are unique to the Justice Department such as wiretap information or grand jury information that require the jeopardygeneral or the attorney general to grant Inspector General access to that information. It is a legal restriction. You can grant him broad access just as you grant certain individuals brought access. It is not something where he needs to apply or needs to go through a process, is it . Im not sure exactly what the processes, but i dont think it has any negative impact on any investigation he has tried to conduct. It has a negative impact heard it has caused delays. Ultimately, he went through the. Rocess, but, well i think it speaks for itself that this is not the treatment that igs normally find. It is one that is inconsistent with the act. To director bo go todd jones cost testimony last week before my committee. Under thee admitted department of justice observation that the atf had use mentally disabled persons with some consistency around the ,ountry in their investigations often having to train them on what a machine gun was in and send them out to buy the machine gun after they have taught them what it was, and then arrested them for buying it. Fact his agents were not able to tell that somebody had an iq of 50. As a result, it really wasnt something that was a target, it just happened. First of all, have you looked into this pattern by atf abusing mentally disabled individuals in their investigations . Im familiar with that. What you come to call the storefront operations, i am greatly troubled by them. Is asking Inspector General to look at these. Theyre no longer any storefront operations in existence. Any conduct you talk about from my perspective is very troubling. I appreciate that. What are the possible to have the Civil Rights Division lead looking at the question of the use of the mentally disabled . Im sure the ig will look at it and make determinations. They will typically make recommendations heard i appreciate the igs independence in this matter. Is that thising targeting of conservative groups is being done under the Civil Rights Division. Is being done by the Inspector General of the Treasury Department and others. Why would be an appropriate investigation . The public section is involved. To get the lead, since the actions of lois lerner and others clearly go to the question of Public Integrity . It is hard to say who had the lead. Us, so it istold hard for us to know who has lead heard as i said, criminal, civil rights, fbi, treasury, ig. As i look at the investigation and think of who is in the lead, i think of the Criminal Division is having a primary responsibility. I spoke to the assistant attorney general of the Criminal Division. The people doing the work on the ground for the Criminal Division are people with integrity. Rest spect to for the necessary tos as Tax Information that would allow you to know the individuals that were targeted and so on . I have access to Tax Information pursuant to the investigation that we conduct. A chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. I have some questions rotary lightning round if you dont mind. First of all, Shelby County tennessee, memphis has an election coming up. Early voting starts april 16. We have had a whole list of problems with the Election Commission. We have written you over the last couple of weeks. We have a letter which my staff member will give 20 your staff members. We would like your assurance to look into having monitors. Thereve been elections thrown out because they let people vote that should not allowed to vote in certain elections. People have been refused the right to vote and all kinds of problems. Willou assure us that you look into having monitors in Shelby County to see that elections are done fairly . I think we received a letter from you last week regarding an upcoming election. We are reviewing that information. The pastor had not gotten a letter. It is been two weeks going through the legislative liaison. Thank you. Going back to policy. As you well know, i am concerned about our drug policy in this county and the weight affects minorities. Donereciate what you have and some of the statements you made have been most forward. He recently talked about changing marijuana from schedule one and said you would like to work with congress and congress should take the lead. You is mygest to understanding under title 21 that you have the authority to to thee a request secretary of health and Human Services to do a study to look into marijuana schedule one and that you could change it. In my humble opinion, and i think the majority of people in this country, theres no way that marijuana should be schedule one. It is not the same classes heroin and lsd the same class as heroin and lsd. Basisis certainly medical that dr. Sans jacob has shown in ays broadcasting dr. Sanj gupta has shown. That is fallacious. It is nothing like heroin. That is absurd. I would like to ask you why would you not act as the president suggested where congress wont. I predict congress will not act in this area. Tortoisesnerally like. In wages andation minimum wages, why wont the Administration Act with a pen and the phone to help people out with taking this out of schedule once it can be studied. We are all in favor of research. I think we actually have acted in a responsible way in how we have made the determination and how were going to use our limited part of the smart on Crime Initiative. The directions are given to people in the field. Toy reflect a sensitivity the resource restraints that we have, the decision between federal and local Law Enforcement responsibilities. I think we have acted appropriately. On schedule one, all you have to do is ask the secretary to make a scientific and medical evaluation. After that, you can go further and make a determination whether it should be schedule one. Schedule one says you cant do research. Why will you not ask the 21,etary under title chapter 13 to initiate the program to get marijuana out of schedule one . Is obviously not schedule one. Well, what is obvious to one is not obvious to another. I think, as i said, given the responsibilities that i have if the secretary would make a study to determine it, when not initiate the opportunity for the secretary to make the study . And base it on science . Until you do it, it is not going to happen. As i said, within the world in which i have my merry responsibility, i think we have acted in a way that is appropriate. Shall request from the secretary a medical and fed evaluation. As all you have to do is requested. It doesnt take away from your limited resources. I am satisfied with what we have done. Have you looked at having a group of commutations to people who were convicted under cracked, under the old determination of 100 to one instead of the 18 to one because and set leasing law. And have all those people in a group commutation be what forward . The time is expired. We will bethink looking for group competition, well be looking for individuals who would be deserving of clemency commutations. Given the nature of their conduct, their lack of ties to violence or to drug dealing gangs or cartels. We have begun an initiative to identify additional clemency recipients, something i know is important to the president. We have come up with ways in which we can make individualized determinations about who should receive clemency. Thank you. Chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. Mr. Attorney general, thank you for taking the time to be with us. Surpriset comes as no that a great many members of this body, i think a great many individuals across the country believe and are very concerned about the overreach they perceive coming from your office, the Internal Revenue service, and the white house. We had perhaps suggested that the house budget may in some way curtail that, if in fact that is the case. Many of us who going to vote for that budget will now not just vote for, but embrace it wholeheartedly. We are so frustrated to not get answers and to control some of that overreach. One of the areas is what you have been talking about, the clemency situation, and pardons. Attend youuty do pretty attorney general actually solicited petitions for pardon and for clemency in the streets that he gave to the new york state association. Any dusty reference the fact of overcrowding of prisons. Some ofmentioned that these individuals are truly dangerous people who threaten the safety of our communities in need to be taken off the streets for a long time. Is,ess my first question can you give me any president of previous attorney generals offices who have solicited additions for pardons of clemency limited to a particular category of crime . He didnt mention individuals who might have been convicted of whitecollar crime or Campaign Finance laws, or a host of other areas that have been over we have avery pardon Attorneys Office that deals with the whole range of federal crimes or which people have been convicted and then she usief the concerned to is he actively was soliciting. Asking the Bar Association to bring for those petitions. He only talked about drug offenses. He didnt mention any of those others. My question is, any president that you know of any other administration has ever solicited petitions for clemency to oneon, limited particular category of crime . I think with the Deputy Attorney general was responding to, and which i support, im not putting it on him. We are dealing with a particular problem. That is that i think the pendulum swung a little too far and 80s. When washington, d. C. Was murder capital of the country, we went a little too far with regard to some of the senses. Can ask about that . One of the things he goes on to list is just he says we are looking for additions for nonviolent, lowlevel drug offenders who are not leaders are significant ties to gangs and drug cartels georgia street and face life or your life sentences. My question to you is, give me an example of someone who would fall in that category, because im sure as you know, under 18 355 f, a category would not of been subjected to mandatory minimums anyway. That was 1984. Prior to that time, anybody convicted would you subject to parole. Demand example of someone who wouldve been a nonviolent, lowlevel drug offender, not a leader or involved in organized gangs or cartels, no extensive criminal history, who wouldve been facing a life for nearly sentence . A drug mule would bring drugs from new york and got stopped at the bus terminal here in washington dc with a whole bunch of drugs in a bag could get charge, not only with possession of the drugs, which wouldve resulted in a huge sense, but couldve been charged with being part of a conspiracy with all the drugs that were involved with that conspiracy. That person did not engage in Violent Crime and was nothing more than drug mule, couldve gotten a life sentence. He could have, but he would not have got a mandatory life sentence, what he . Isnt it true that the prosecutor, the jury and the judge him or handling the case wouldve had a much better opportunity to determine that sense and somebody in your office five years down the road . Well, except that the jury and the judges hands were tied at that time by the sentencing guidelines, or by mandatory minimums that were tied to the amounts that were involved, as opposed to the conduct that a particular person engaged in, that is the wrong that we are trying to redress. I think if you look again and give you some examples, i know my time is about to expire, that wouldnt have complied under 18 3553 f, which wouldve gotten him out of those mandatory sentences. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield that. , thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Holder, good to see you today, sir. The u. S. Has the highest world,ration rate in the , 27. 4 billion is your budget request for the department of justice. He. 4 billion of that 27. 4 prisonsis for federal and detention facilities, is it not yet i believe that is correct. So about a third of your peopleis to incarcerate World Highest rate in the , not just the civilized world, but in the world. That is disturbing. Of the people who are incarcerated, about 40 of them are africanamericans. Is that a fact . Would you disagree with that . I think that number is about right. I dont know the precise number. Hispanics. are i believe it is also correct. Yeah. But, now, has a line item in the billion for 8. 4 federal prisons, has it been increasing or decreasing . It has been increasing. Youre are correct about one third of our budget now goes to our bureau of prisons. Given the state of our system, that is deservedly so. We have to support the people who work in the facilities. As we spend more money, as it has increased over the years, we have less money to hire agents, prosecutors, or to provide grant money to our state and local partners. Theres a high amount of money we have, and more and more the costar federal bureau of prisons. The less we have to do all the things we want the people in the Justice Department to do. As it goes to the federal bureau of prisons, what percentage of those funds go to private, forprofit detention facilities . At another number of that i dont know the number of that. Fourth, be a third, a half . I would have to get you that information. I think that is pretty important. To private, forprofit facilities house federal detainees and inmates at a higher cost than the federal , or at at can do it lower cost, in general . Again, im not familiar with what a relationship is in terms funding schemehe that goes to a private facilities that we might use. I dont know the answer to that. Let me ask you this. Your agency is responsible for investigating and prosecuting not just blue collar criminals, but whitecollar criminals as well. ,ith the whitecollar criminals ,orporate theft, for instance those corporations have a much greater ability to fight back because they have resources. Has the fact that your agencys been trimmed over the years, theto five strumming of your budget, or cutting of it, actually, has it affected your ability to go after these corporate criminals . I would say to date, no. But i will tell you that if sequestration were to reappear , 20 16, whatever it might show up, the capacity of the Justice Department to do that which American People expect us to do, from a range of things, from National Security to whitecollar enforcement to Violent Crime enforcement, would be negatively impacted. Cost, at allat all costs, avoid the mistake that was sequestration. We will hear from the gentleman from iowa, mr. Kane, for five minutes. I appreciate you coming here. I recall a Previous Exchange in previous hearing between us. I believe as a question to the effect of are your priorities directed by the president or are you an independent department. I believe your response was generally you are independent orders dont take direct from president. I see youre nodding your head and relative agreement. I have been here too long. You guys can quote too many things ive said previously. That is fine. I think that is an appropriate response. Like to go through a list of some of the things that pop into my head that im thinking about here. One of them is relatively new. It has been back in the news fairly recently. That is a senator ted stevens issue. I understand that prosecution took place before he took office, but it has been reported that as recently as march that an fbi agent was severely theiplined and that discipline was imposed for improper actions in the investigation and prosecution of senator ted stevens. I think it is clear that it is very likely he lost his senate seat over that investigation, that investigation, and subsequently was killed in a plane crash. Overreach by carmen ortiz in the case of aaron swartz, who committed suicide. Third, as a knockout game has been reported in the news to be primarily black on white crime, i dont know of any prosecutions there, except for the federal investigation and prosecution of Conrad Behrendt who was the anomaly is a white on black crime of the knockout game. Next, 20,000 allegedly was sent to the campaign. I assume there were thousands in america who were likely engaged onsimilar act and went prosecuting. Governor Bob Mcdonnell for charges brought against him. They think this is overreach and outside the definition of the law. Im thinking about governor chris christie, who, when the situation of the bridge, known as bridge gate came up, within a week there were federal investigators investigating her insanity issue. Those are things that put down while i was listing to testimony. Heres the other side black panthers prosecution canceled about the time he took office. Near where you are and said he provided the lowest penalty allowable under law. We know that wasnt true. It was the minimum county provided under law. Your for Jim Sensenbrenner bring up the James Klapper issue in his testimony, the conflicting testimony under oath. Im thinking of governor jon corzine. I dont know where prosecution there is taking place. Lois lerner. She would be a candidate. Entiream thinking of classes of people that are been exempted by this administration , i to the point of understand this is immigration enforcement. Many have not been removed because they are unlawfully present. It is because classes of people have been created by this administration exempt from the law, at least in fact. And then Marijuana Companies exempted from enforcement of the of as well as a suspension federal marijuana laws. Texas says i want a voter id. They get labeled as a poll tax and a racist plot. My question is, have you prosecuted anyone in this administration . Have you investigated anyone in this administration . It looks me like those folks on the other side of the aisle are getting extra scrutiny, and those on your side of the aisle are getting no scrutiny. First, im not ready, and any cases that are pending. I was sadly say that we have followed the facts and the law and making our prosecuting determinations and making our investigatory decisions. This is an administration, this is a Justice Department that ive run and im proud of. The men and women who are career makeyees in the department their decisions based only on the facts and the law and conduct themselves in a way that is in the best tradition of this department. I will put my record up against any other attorney general, and in the Justice Department, and any hint that we have engaged in anything that is partisan or inappropriate in nature, i totally 1000 reject. You havent really responded to the question of whether you ave investigated time has expired. At this time i would nice pajama from puerto rico. I have two questions i would like to ask and they give you an opportunity to respond. The first issue is that dojs response to the drugrelated violence in puerto rico. Consolidated appropriations act approved in january requires ondcp to court made reparation and publication of the caribbean border pattern narcotics strategy with a focus on puerto rico. It should recommend additional steps. Supply of drugs entering puerto rico and the. I. Strategy is essential, but it is not enough. The strategy must be implemented with the right resources and personnel. I have made a secret of the fact that inc. The dojs response to the crisis has not been sufficiently robust. Unlike dhs, doj has been reluctant to search personnel to puerto rico. At the same time, doj does deserve credit for executing and mo you with the Puerto Rico Department of justice to that certain crimes that would otherwise be tried in state in federaltried courts instead. Often using state prosecutors for that by doj purpose. My question, the first question is, are you satisfied the doj has appropriate level of personnel from dea, fbi, atf and the u. S. Attorneys office in tracking Violent Crime in light of the severity of the problem there . The second issue i am raising involves the consolidated fact, it includes a provision that i thought long and hard to secure that provides funding to the Election Commission to conduct the first federally sponsored status inside puerto ricos history. This is a response to 2012 that voters said they do not want puerto rico to remain a territory. More voters expressed a desire for statehood and any other option. Hearing lastm that week, the law requires doj to ensure the Voter Education materials at the ballot repaired by the Elections Commission are compatible with u. S. Law and policy. The law also states that the purpose of the plebiscite is to resolve puerto ricos status once and for all. Ive introduced legislation that proposes to structure the. Ederally sponsored plebiscite eminentlyture is fair. Those who support statehood can vote yes and those who oppose it for any reason can vote no. Those who are opposed for any reason can vote no. Cosponsors and a companion bill has been introduced. Thisoring given the flow that we see of drugs through the caribbean and through puerto rico, the levels of violence that we see, there is a need for additional resources. We are a resource draining institution. We simply are. With the Police Apartment and met with the government to talk about ways in which we could be greater assistance and we are trying to do what we can. Unfortunately, we have to be creative. I wish that i had more resources. Places where i think that we can make great. Sage of that when it comes to the voting theiative, as i indicated, role of the department is limited to the documents in that this is compatible with the constitutional laws and policies of the United States. We are making sure that the materials are appropriate. That, i quickly say wouldnt you agree that, if the vote involves up or down statehood, that is consistent with u. S. Law and there is nothing wrong with that, in terms of u. S. Law and policy . If that was presented to us. That is one we would seek to answer. The task we are given is to make sure that these materials are consistent with the constitutional laws and policies. I think the gentleman from puerto rico. I recognize the gentleman from arizona, mr. Franks. Thank you and thank you for being here. General holder, you have risen to the very pinnacle of that profession and those of us on this panel has spent a lot of our life in search of the right laws and a respect for law. I would hope that there would be, in light of that, on both of our parts, a consensus on this thing called rule of law. The congressman answered that the employer mandate was delayed by the administration, despite the statutory language. Apply afterhall december 31, 2013. The lawtimony was that did not apply. Iso not know if that dumbfounding or heartbreaking. I really do not. That languageead clearly, i think we are in trouble. Minas questions you may be superfluous and maybe a hopeful. Nd hopeless exercise the religious freedom restoration act declares that the federal government may not substantially burden a person in their exercise of religion, unless they had a compelling reason to do so. You and i know what those words mean. Our federal agencies like yours bound by statutory old requirements statutory requirements that i just described. Are they bound by the requirement whe . Sure. If there are statutory mandate from congress, those are the sorts of things that have to be used when we propose rules, regulations, things of that nature. Minus question is, did hhs consider the religious freedom restoration act and comply with hhshen it promulgated the mandate that require many religious employers to arrange and pay for Employee Health insurance that includes contraception and sterilization . Withe act is consistent this. The way in which religious organizations expressed their concerns, this is something that is subject matter of an ongoing case. I do not want to get too much into it. I think of the policy that the administration has taken is consistent with the act that you reference. Are onlf but we different planets if that is the case. I dont knowu about that. It sounds like we are on different planets if that is the case. Occurred, didthis you provide legal opinions involving the hhs mandate . The department does not generally disclose that. We wrote you a letter like this and the response that we got back was unresponsive. I did not hear you. I wrote a letter and your response was a total nonresponse. Much like this. Before the litigation occurred, did this ever come up . I can give you a hard answer. The department does not disclose the content. That is something that this department and other departments of justice have always followed. I am not countering the policy. Im asking you if you have done anything prior to that legal opinion regarding the religious employer exception before the case was filed to stop i do not think you are going to answer the question. Could you provide any copy of any opinions that address the application of religious freedom restoration acts . Including the need of or lack there of religious employer exception. Do you have anything that gives some idea of what your opinion of the statute is . To the extent that there are legal questions, you can ask hhs what the basis was for them to legislation that is of concern to you. Thank you. I recognize the gentlelady from california. Thank you. Holder, the existing guidance on racial profiling that was issued in 2003 outlines provisions to ban some forms of profiling. However, the guidance does not apply to profiling based on religion and natural origin. On religion or nationality is increasing. My understanding that the doj is engaged in a review of this in the past two years. In april 20 12, 70 members of the house and senate sent you a letter about the issue. You testified before the Committee Last year and indicated that doj was nearing the end of the review. Still, we have yet to see the updated guidance. What is the status of the review and how we addressed the issue of racial profiling based on National Origin question mark whats the review has been underway for an extended length of time. Long. A little too we are near the end of the process. I would expect that we have made great deal of progress. We will complete the review and be in the position to share with members of congress and the ofrican people the result the review. This is something that will happen on my watch all stop on my watch. Do you have a time . When will this happen . Say exactly when. We are far closer to the end than we were before. This is a painstaking process will stop i am hopeful process. I am hopeful will stop i am hopeful. We are anticipating this and looking forward to it. This includes an exception for counterterrorism and National Security. There have been incidences where there is profiling of muslims for other little other than their faith. This occurred under the mosque outreach program. Information oned the religious views and practices of muslims in california and share surveillance with other Government Agencies without any apparent evidence of wrongdoing. Of course, it would be a great step forward and doj guidance on racial profiling was amended to include a ban on discrimination on the basis of religion or National Origin. Im concerned about the National Security exception on these protections. Include anyisions changes to the National Security exemption . The doj ensure that the rights of americans are protected . It will be for others to decide whether the changes are appropriate or go far enough. The National Security exception has been the focus of the effort that has been underway for this extremely long time. Once announced, that will be the primary topic that will be discussed, with regards to the Justice Departments responsibility. Ok. Switching gears, i would like to ask about the doj executive Office Immigration review. Noncitizenso many in immigration courts do not have attorneys and lack a basic understanding of the immigration or process. Proposing toe you give noncitizens better access to information so they can move through four Proceedings Court proceedings . We are trying to make the system better. Aboute a backlog of hundred 58,000 cases. 58,000 358,000 cases. We are assembling teams to get this down to a better level and come up with ways that we can make sure that people who find themselves in the system have adequate representation doing a variety of things. We are trying to deal with the problem of unaccompanied minors. There are a whole range of issues that we are trying to deal with. We are trying to be as creative as we can. We simply need, at some level, more money to put in place these teams to reduce the backlog and otherwise find ways that we can deal with people with Mental Health issues, unaccompanied minors, the problem of people who appear and do not have counsel or do not have adequate counsel. These are all issues that are problematic. For point out a need comprehensive Immigration Reform that deals with a whole friday of things and would help us a great deal with regards to the Justice Department and what they have to do. And, what the Justice Department component is to the problem. We recognize the government from texas for five minutes. Thank you. Holder, april 27, 2011, request, lamarr smith sent a letter to the Justice Department and asked for the documents that have been used to prosecute them. Since then, we have had an ongoing back and forth. Letter fromy, in a june 13, 2013, i asked for the documents and was fairly specific to make sure that i got the documents that the department of justice handed over to people convicted of supporting terrorism. They are terrorists. We have given them the documents, the Justice Department has. They have now been put on this and sent to illinois. They are easily provided. Not to members of congress. After sevennse, months, i am told that there is a link. Here is a link that will have 500 publiclyavailable exhibits that were admitted into evidence and i was told to check the Public Access to Court Electronic records. I have read, in the fifth 9600 summaries, of transcripts of conversations that the Justice Department had that were made available to attorneys. I do not understand why your department can provide documents lawyers, and not provide them to members of congress. Again, is, can we please get the documents of the 9600 summaries of transcripts and the documents that were produced to the terrorists and not some link. Documents that you made available to terrorists. I renew my request. We promise to provide you with i read you what you promised and it is inadequate. I realize that contempt is not a big deal to the attorney general. You dont want to go there, ok . I dont want to go there, about the contempt . You should not assume it is not a big deal to me. Never think that was not a big deal. Dont ever think that. I am looking for evidence. Normally, we are known by our fruits. Yourrtment department has not been forthcoming. Let me move on. There are other questions. The documents we were prepared to make available then, we are prevailed we are prepared to make available now. This is about the gun lobby. We are trying to get to the bottom of fast and furious. A couple hundred mexicans died and we cannot get the information to get to the bottom of that. I do not need lectures from you about contempt. I dont need lectures from you. As a former judge, i never had to ask questions of someone held in contempt. We waited until the contempt and then asked questions. Being think that marriage between a man and a woman violates the rights of a samesex couple. Somebodys personal beliefs . No. How about if they have a business . If it is a private business and the owners of the private business believed that marriage is between a man and a woman. Are they violating civil rights . That is a matter under consideration by the courts. We have taken a position on that and i would not want to get into something that is pending. It is your opinion that matters on whether you tell the attorneys general how to act in the states or how you approach businesses or individuals that have this biblical view that the president had when he was a senator in 2008. I thought it was rather important. Let me ask you the time of the gentleman has expired. Unfortunately. The chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. Terrible. Under your leadership, general holder, doj has reached settlements with banks. There is a settlement with jpmorgan for the packaging and reselling of toxic mortgage assets. There is a settlement with widespread foreclosure abuses. There was another settlement with jpmorgan for bernie made off and his ponzi scheme ma doff and his ponzi scheme. I want to return to something that was brought up earlier. I would also like to return to a theme this morning. Another hearing three years ago. We first learned that the doj was launching a lawsuit against Deutsche Bank for defrauding taxpayers. The billiondollar lawsuit was resolved in a 200 million settlement. Haveugh it is awkward, we an exchange that is necessary to walk through. We have a Justice Department that pursues charges that could result in jail time. You responded that, if there are individuals that works individual liability, that is something we would pursue. I pointed out that, under sarbanesoxley, will be subject one would be subject to prison up to 10 years. That is for potential claims. You responded that there are others. There are a variety of tools that we have. We will try to make use of all of them as we continue the investigation. Ofsked, given the vast array options, when would we expect to see cases filed . You said, all i can tell you is that we are looking and we will pursue aggressively. We will share information with the American People. The possibility that the cases could be brought is a case where criminal prosecutions will result. Not a single highlevel executive with these Financial Institutions has faced from the prosecution and many of the settlements the doj has reached have absolved individuals of ever facing criminal charges. I prefer to focus on actions. Firms nearly brought down the United States economy. They did not happen by accident. To believe that this activity happened without the knowledge of any executive at any of these Financial Institutions. It is difficult for Many Americans to have full faith in the criminal Justice System when not of the decisionmakers of the companies have them prosecuted, taken to court, tried before a jury. I have one more quote from a judge who is a senior judge. He said that companies do not commit crimes. Only the agents do. Prosecuting the company will inevitably punished the many employees and shareholders who are innocent. Under the law of most u. S. Jurisdiction, a company can not be liable unless one agent amid the crime in question. Why not prosecute the agent who committed the crime . We have seen many settlements ab some of salt banks solve banks. Not commit crimes. Only their agents do. Ill ask what i asked her years ago, is the department pursuing or going to pursue ,he crimes that Many Americans Many Americans are still recovering from today. It is still the position of the Justice Department that there is no institution that is , no personprosecute too important to prosecute. There ared that individuals prosecuted from jpmorgan, goldman sachs, morgan stanley, ubs, stanford financial group. All cases have been brought against those companies. There is an agreement that we as ad out with jpmorgan carveouts that allows us to pursue criminal charges against individuals. And all finish ie cases that you listed, and appreciate the individual claims being brought, none of the executives or decisionmakers at the companies are being held accountable. The time is expired. I think the gentleman will the last or holder, in several months, i sent you ank the i th gentleman. In the last several months, i sent you letters. Condo that you called outrageous and unacceptable lastminute conduct that you called outrageous and unacceptable last may. Not what witnesses may have said. Basic information. Experts tell us it is more than appropriate to get this information. I want to ask you quick questions. Bill taylor is the attorney for ms. Lerner. She sateported that down for an interview with the Justice Department. I want to know a few things. When did you interview lois lerner . Where did it take place . Who were the personnel who conducted the interview . At any time during the interview, she exercised her fifth amendment rights and refuse to answer questions . This is an ongoing matter and i will not answer these questions. Did youe ask you this, interview lois lerner . This is an ongoing matter and i am not going to comment on an ongoing matter. You will confirm that that took place . Im not point to comment on an Ongoing Investigation. This frustrates me. Im not asking you to tell me what she said. Did you talk to her . Give me the date. Did you interview her in june, july . When did you do it. This is an ongoing matter that the Justice Department is actively pursuing and it would be inappropriate to comment. How is telling this committee and the American People the day you interviewed ms. Lerner, if in fact you get, and where that how will that compromise the investigation . You dont understand the nature of what we are doing. You cannot. You are not part of the investigation. Some of us have made a that shesenator cruz is not the lead investigator. You gave some specific information about the process, was conducting it, who is doing what. You open the door to basic questions. You said that she is not an investigator and i am asking you asicck things, b things. You think a door is open and i do not think any door has been opened. Did someone from the Justice Department leaked to the wall street journal that no criminal charges will be filed in the investigation case . I have no idea who pulled back to the wall street journal. This is from a 2014 report in the wall street journal. Officials. Ment do you know who said that . No. Have you investigated who leaked the information . No. You have not . Have brought more cases during this administration. Han any other administration you have not investigated the lease of the wall street journal. If you look at the leaks that occurred to answer the question . Can you answer the question . Look at allf you the leaks in washington, d. C. With all due respect, have you investigated the leak . We look at a number of cases and the ones that we have focused on our generally focus on National Security. Those are National Security cases. It is not necessarily something that we investigate. Canor the American People, you answer one more time how you investigate a leak . When you deal with it is a yes or no. I am not going to answer this way. Is, would be the basis somebody is providing information about a determination. The time has expired. The gentleman from louisiana. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me thank you, attorney general holder, for your support. It will do wonders across the country and curb the schooltoprison pipeline. Let me start with something that is not necessarily under you. But, it overlaps. There is an article that details more than 650 cases of misconduct in the last 12 years. Officeu. S. Attorneys with federal prosecutors and so forth. This highlights the fact that opie are falls under you o op r falls under you. If you remember the issues with the u. S. Attorneys, we have asked for the report to be made public that has not been made public. My question becomes, your stance would benate bill that put under the Inspector General in an independent area. We plan to file a corresponding bill. Can you give me your feedback on that . Of any not supportive action. The office of professional responsibility has had a long and distinguished history of looking at these matters and recommending, where appropriate, punishment that has been carried out. They have unique expertise and there are specific matters that only the opr can handle. I have Great Respect for the Inspector Generals office. Well, can i ask a question . Rhy would we not make op reports automatically public when they conclude investigations and so forth . That would be my general question. We are prohibited by a number of things. Chiefly the privacy act. Ability because of the restrictions of the privacy act to make available some of the findings that we have done. We try to be more transparent over the years and we produce summaries of reports. We have made them available. We sometimes share the reports with congress and congress has the capacity to do the report. They will, in a way that the executive branch does not. Est a report and we can get it . I believe that is true. A Committee Chair has to make the request. Can those be made public . I am not sure how that works. Or, what we do with referrals to other bars. I am a lawyer. Prosecutorial misconduct should be public. Part my concern today is that the department of justice delete and say what ever it wants when it wants. Im not commenting on guilt or innocence. But to have your name tied into a federal investigation three weeks before your election and say that it goes towards you a fax the process. They become a subject of the investigation. I think we are on a slippery leak information before election time. We are influencing the election process. It is a formal filing in public. It involves a particular person. We understand your concern. We do those will stop we do a lot of things for a specific length of time. I understand the concern and a criticism has been leveled at the decision. Look at it in reverse. Waits Justice Department until after the election and reveals the information, we would be charged with Holding Information that would have been relevant for voters to have. We bring cases when they are ready to go and sometimes, it is awkward and it is the best way in which to do these things. Of what the political fallout will be. Thank you. , i have senteneral you a couple of questions that i will ask you again about. It has to do with the trafficking statute of the United States that prosecutes interstate and international traffickers that come. Have beenonsumers prosecuted by your office under 51 . The child abuser, however you want to look at it will stop we have statistics that deal with that. I do not think we break them down in the way that you have requested. I think we have an issue there. With regard to our ability to give you a precise number in regards to the category of people that you have talked about. I think we can give you a General Number about 1591. I do not think that we can break it down into component parts. I understand. Can you give me the total number of people prosecuted by the statute. I do not have the number in front of me. I will pledge to give the number to you, in due time. Ok. Thank you. I want to move over to the issue of the nsa Data Collection. If i understand the law correctly, the nsa does their thing and may refer a case to the Justice Department for prosecution. They give you the evidence to prosecute. Is that a fair statement of how that works with the nsa . Investigation in a terrorist case, for example, and if they want to prosecute it, they send it to your office and you prosecute it. Is that correct . Get information from a lotnformation of places, including the nsa. Cole was here and we talked about the nsa collection of americans. Asked him how many prosecutions could be attributed to the bulk Data Collection program. He said, may be one person. Would you agree or disagree with his statement that may one person has been prosecuted based the massive amount of information that has been collected or not . I do not know. It is a small number. It could be one. A small amount of individuals. Moving over to another issue involving privacy. Emails. Current law, as i understand it, if a person has an email, that email, when it gets over six months old, it is stored in the cloud and the Justice Department does not need a war to go in and tetrieve the email warran to go in and retrieve the email. Yes. That is not a policy i think we should continue. Changedicy needs to be so that warrants would be appropriate, regardless of the amount of time that has passed. I agree with you on that. Goesenforcement officer into a private email account and should have to get a warrant. Do you agree with that . It should not be a function of time. We have our partisan bipartisan opinion on the issue. The last question is about the domestic usage of drones. By Law Enforcement. And, targeted surveillance. The faa makes the rules and regulations about who makes drones, who can use it for what purpose. Do you think it would be better for congress to intervene and employee legislation that protects the right of privacy for citizens or do you suggest, as the attorney general, that the faa control who gets a drone or not. The only component in the department that uses the vehicles at this point is the fbi. The atf is in the process of working through to see if they want to make use of these. The Inspector General has recommended policies on how these vehicles are used and i think that would be appropriate. We are in the process of trying to work through the rules and regulations to handle the usage of these kinds of vehicles. The time has expired. Mr. Jeffries is recognized. Thank you for your appearance here today. Earlier today, during the hearing, in an exchange with one of my colleagues related to concern over the Affordable Care act, you were characterized as the president s Legal Advisor. Do you remember that . Yes. I think it is erroneous. Have you heard of the White House Council . Yes. Would you agree that the white House Counsel is the constitutional advisor . Yes. You have to understand that these questions are fired at you. You are right, im not the Legal Advisor to the president. I am the attorney general of the United States. Thank you. The characterization was brought up earlier today that suggested the, under your leadership, department of justice has engaged in prosecutorial decisions based on race or party affiliation. Do recall this . Do you recall this . Yes. My colleague raise the question of the matter and related to a. C. Candidate who lost the election after being linked to Justice Department activity. Was that current mayor a democrat, mr. General . Yes. He is a black democrat. Yes. Mayor of charlotte was indicted. That is correct. Was a democratic . Yes. He is africanamerican, as well. Yes. There are myriad examples and i have limited time. They are a responsible and not evidencebased. Be wellittee would served by staying within the four corners of the facts. I want to do with gun violence issues. It is one that affects the district i represent in brooklyn. We have a gun violence problem. 50 of the guns in the world. Americans have died as a result of gun violence. We have a legislative track that has been barren of activity. Then, there is an executive track. The president , in january of 2013, announced a series of initiatives. I want to explore where we are at, in terms of that activity. At, in where we are terms of that activity. Dangerous individuals are not possessing weapons i can do harm. Harm, is that right . A lot of guns come from pennsylvania. Chicago has gun violence problems and a lot of their guns come from indiana. Los angeles has gun violence problem and a lot of guns come from arizona. Justice Department Engagement is significant. Where do things stand, in terms of the review in 2013 . I do not know the exact number. It was 17 or 21 things that came out of the review for the president asked us to review and we have now completed all of the things that the president asked us to do. Which, i think, was as far as we could go using only the executive power that we had. There is still a need for legislation to deal with the commonsense measures that would help you with the gun violence problem in this country. We have tried to do what we could, with background checks. There is still a need to close the gun show loophole. Also, to deal with the large clips. These are things that are overwhelmingly supported by American People and make sense. They would keep American People safe. A need for congressional action and let me say, in the interim, i think it is important and i would like to work closely with the department of justice and atf to deal with the on the ground problems that we have in america today, short of american action. The children i represent, some of whom are dying in brooklyn from illegal guns from other parts of the country, to not afford for us to wait. The gentleman yields. Thank you for being here. It is an honor to be here. Just a question you was may 15. I followed up with a letter. I communicated with your legislative staff through my staff. My question for you involves general petraeus and his time as a director of the cia. My understanding at that the fbi went to his home and took arguments and other items. There is some feedback that the fbi is a bit frustrated that there has not been a prosecution moving forward. And,ou give me the status is there any friction with the fbi on this case . This is an Ongoing Investigation and i am not at liberty to say much more about it than that. I have been briefed on this matter and i did not detect any what is an ongoing matter. We are talking about two years later and this is still over his head. Is it fair to have somebody who has been touted as one of americas great having this hanging over his head for two years . When you anticipate closing this off . I sat with general petraeus. He is a true patriot. I have to get to more specific questions. Hangss a concern. It over his head and it does not seem fair to have it hanging over his head for so long. When did this happen . To his home and extracted these documents. I cannot comment on the Ongoing Investigation. He found out about this in the summer of 2012. You are going to get back to me and i have not heard back from you. Well, both the question you andd is a long time ago when i was first aware of this is a long time, at this point. It was 2012. There are a number of mandatory reporting statutes that were not complied with and that is a concern. Senator feinstein said that a decision was made not to brief us. This is an operationally sensitive matter and we were not briefed. I do not know who made the decision. This was quoted in nbc news. Why not inform the congress . When i do the necessary requirements under the law why not do the necessary requirements under the law . With regards to our decision and how we would interact outside of the justice not think, on do the basis of the allegations that we were looking at, that there was any basis of concern for National Security. That,re is a news report in spring of 2012, general petraeuss schedule was compromised. Is that true . I do not want to go into an Ongoing Investigation. When will this be complete . Is a matter that is ongoing and we are working diligently to resolve. Do have any idea what the president was told . It is a matter that is is ongoing and we are working diligently to resolve. Do you have any idea when the president was told . Do you know when mr. Brennan was informed . I dont remember. Im not sure. I have the greatest respect for ya. I appreciate the time you take with me. I sent you a followup letter. I worked with the staff. It appears that you took no time to go back and ask these basic things. We are talking about the head of the cia. Somebody who is revered in this country. Two years later, it seems suspicious that it continues to linger without any sort of relief. I think the congressional understanding of how you deal with the requirements to inform the congress to summon that concerns me and concerns the Intelligence Committee will stop that is what we would like some help understanding over the course of this. The things that you referenced, i can tell you that it,matter and the fact of has been handled in a diligent way. The report says that, it seems that once the investigation involving petraeus and his private email account, it was likely to discover in which e, i want to make two quick points. Thesociate myself with comments of mr. Deutsch. There is urgency in prosecuting these Financial Institutions will stop i appreciate and applaud the work that you have done to hold these institutions accountable and urge you to continue to help us restore the Public Confidence in the judicial system. Up on, to quickly follow the National Security question, we wrote to you and i look forward to every response. I urge you to look at the issue. If you look at the history of ters andlet section 215 all usage of the letter should including focus on is like to supporting state and local efforts to combat the problem. Beortunately, this seems to a concerted strategy involving firearm violence. Gun violence has claimed the lives of 360,000 individuals in the United States and more than 35,000 children and teenagers. States and municipalities are working to address the complicated problem and i would like to ask if the department of justice has made an effort to study the effectiveness of two particular strategies for addressing this issue. One is more locally focused. Some states have enacted laws that require Mental Health professionals to report certain and identify information about individuals were seriously mentally ill or pose a danger to themselves or others. New york and connecticut are two of them. Obviously, i would be interested to know if these are effective strategies. Particularly, california. They have had it for decades. The second involves a local innovation involving my home state that i know that you know about. You visited providence and you had the opportunity to meet with the street workers at the institute the study and practice of nonviolence. Thatis an Organization Works closely with the Police Department and is using former gang members to combat violence. They have been her wrote in their work heroic in their work. The Justice Department figure out ways to identify best practices. What is effective and how to support them with funding streams because they spent so much time on the brink because they do not have the resources. They are doing good work. I would like to hear your thoughts. You raise good points. You raised due to Mental Health reasons, it is prohibited under federal laws. This regulation is open for Public Comment until the beginning of this month. It deals with the question of menstrual adjudicated mental institution. We have put that out for comment and we are seeing what we get back. An expansion, potentially, of who, under Mental Health, is as qualified or prohibited from getting a firearm. T regulation is disqualified or prohibited from getting a firearm. That regulation is out there. With regards to the program you described, those other kinds of things that we are trying to identify. Things that are unconventional, creative, sometime raise eyebrows in these efforts. Ultimately, they are successful. We tried using evidencebased approach. We do not go in with any preconceived notions. I am familiar with what you are describing and it is consistent with what we have seen in other states, as well. We have truly turned around. And, if they can be used in a positive way and have a positive impact on those who might otherwise duplicate the mistake that they made, those the kinds of programs that we want to support. Again, that is why our budget request is so important. We need the funds and the capacity to fund and support these innovative and creative efforts. Not all of them are going to be successful and not all of them we are going to support. Want to give the people were trying to do innovative and appropriate things a chance. Mr. Dowdy is recognized. Y is recognized. I appreciate the fact that you cannot comment on pending investigations and i would not ask you that. I wish that the president would follow your advice. When he said that there is not corruption on elevation television, while talking about an Ongoing Investigation, he undermined confidence and your department. You cannot comment on it and he should have taken a pass and said the same thing that you said when you were asked. I want to thank you. I think you are coming to ourleston on friday to see u. S. Attorney and the work that the women and men of our Attorneys Office in charleston is doing. In, the u. S. Attorney carolina is a wonderful friend of mine. We met on the up suicides of a Death Penalty case. Sides of apposite Death Penalty case. He is a progressive and a wonderful friend. We hold out a hope that the law will trump politics and it is the greatest equalizing force in our country. It is the greatest Unifying Force in our country. I want to thank you for going to charleston and ask you some questions about will flaw rule of law a prosecutorial and prosecutorial discretion. Have to enforce it . The president has a constitutional responsibility to enforce the laws. Right. You agree with me that, if a you are in a situation. Given the hypothetical that you have espoused, i think there was obviously there would be responsibility to enforce the law. A do agree there is difference between enforcing the law and following it . Im not sure i understand here is this distinction i would make. Your department has been asked statutes. Title 18 you have discretion. You can discuss you can decide these facts cannot get a conviction. But if you were to make a report to us by certain date, you have to follow that law, you are following it. The case law has made a distinction between enforcing law,aw and following the where discretion is not involved. You have to follow the law and could not cite discretion as a son not to follow the law. I would agree, but i would disagree to the extent that Congress Passed a statute that says the department was obligated to bring every case under title 18. Every other Corruption Case under the particular statute. That would violate the separation of powers. I agree. If congress were to tell you youd have to make report, or you have to do something by x date, and impose a duty on executive branch itself, prosecutorial discretion is not going to get you out of that, or discretion consumes all of the law. If you have the ability to vote to both not enforce and not follow law, then we have a lot. If congressmen were to impose a reporting item, i would understand that. We would have the obligation to fulfill that requirement. You issued a memo directing thatrtain circumstances, the drug was not the judge was not informed about drug amounts. It is a memo. Prosecutors should decline to charge the quantity necessary to trigger mandatory demo. We already have a safety valve. Congress has artie passed a law that if you meet these requirements the minimum is not applicable. Why would you skew what congress has done an trumpet with a memo . Im honestly trying to understand how you can respect the law and disrespect the statute that congress has passed . Of you that we had based on a review that i ordered in january we have to dohat something about the prison population that we have heard we also have to come up with ways in which we come up with a system that is more effective, and keeps American People safe. Discretion in the hands of the men and women who serve as assistant u. S. Attorneys to make an appropriate determination based on the conduct of that person what an appropriate sentence is. I asked for 30 seconds just to follow up. Attorney general, i would ask you under this general heading of respect for the rule of law that you would talk to likeminded members of the committee and say we need to expand the safety valve. We have a law that does what your memo purports to do. If we ever get to the place in the society where a memo is on equal footing with the law think we are in trouble. I would encourage you to come to rent all and others who are likeminded and fixed the statute, not the memo. As indicated in my opening these are all the kinds of things we want to work with congress about. I think there are ways where ultimately the best of all possible fixes is a is to work between the executive and legislative branches. It is something we are desirous of doing. I do think the policy pronouncements that have made in recent months are consistent with the law and also are consistent with good Law Enforcement. Go ahead, you can continue. I think the best thing would be for the two branches to get together and come up with a common approach. The gentleman from idaho is recognized. Mr. Holder, thank you for being here today. I want to follow up on what my good friend has been saying. I hope you know that i am from idaho. One area where we agree is on the smarter sentencing act, which i have introduced in the house with my colleague on the committee, congressman bobby scott. I understand that the president is supportive of this legislation. However, the concern that i have is to try to get my likeminded friends to agree with me on certain pieces of legislation, even if it is outside the scope of what they usually think about. This is something i think you would agree republicans have not always agreed with democrats on. It is something i have been working on for the last year or so, trying to get republicans on board. You make my job much more difficult when you unilaterally write memos and try to do the same thing through a memo that were trying to accomplish through this legislation. When you say that you are not seeking mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent criminals, you are working around Congress Instead of with congress. Im extending to work with you to help pass the smarter sentencing act. Could you please help me try to pass the smarter sentencing act by not going around the law and by trying not to work through executive action only, but working with congress. Could you do have from a . It is making my job much more difficult. We certainly want to work with you, as indicated to congressman gaudi. I think the policy and the raising of this issue in this pizza i gave atin the speech i the aba in seven cisco is what generated the conversation that we are now having. In San Francisco is what generated the conversation that we are now having. What is an appropriate charging decision. As opposed to a previous policy that existed that required every assistant u. S. Attorney to charge the most serious offense that could be proven almost regardless of what other factors were in existence. Youre telling them not to charge certain crimes. Exhibitinge youre faith, youre actually telling them dont charge certain crimes. If they dont follow your orders, i think it is going to be something i have never been an assistant u. S. Attorney owdy. Im veggie change issues. We have not had as many deportations in the history of the United States. My understanding is that the of the deportations are from the border and not the interior. Is that correct . I dont know that. When i look at the number of orders of removal and the dojs fy 2012 yearbook, i see they 2009 by 30 . Since theyre down by 42 since 2005. How do you explain the administrations claim that we have record deportations, but youre on statistical yearbook says that they have dropped and continue to drop in 2013 . It on other statistics in front of me, but i know that the president has been, i think, unfairly labeled the deported chief area i agree with you. I think it is been unfairly labeled because we are playing tricks with the numbers. Your accounting people who were stopped at the border that in the past for not being counted as deportations, i think that is been a trek of my friends on the other side to try to claim that theres been a Record Number of deportations. I dont think that i dont think the evidence bears that out. Someone was trying to say this somehow betrays consistency. What is done with regard to the partitions. I think there is necessarily any tension. The label that is been placed on him is an unfair one. Thank you, yield back my time. We recognize the gentleman from texas. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I understand that this committee has a constitutional duty of over the department of justice. That is why we have mr. Holder here today. Think i can be a part of eroding the constitutional balance of power favoring the executive over the legislative. Should mr. We holder should be here. He is in contempt of this body. I have called for his resignation. Ive sponsored articles of impeachment. This week i will be introducing legislation that would prevent federal employees who are held in contempt of congress or who fail to fully comply with congressional subpoenas not the. The taxpayerfunded salary. Im going to try to get that enclosed with the appropriations bill that will be going through. To maintaining the constitutional balance of power and the authority that this legislative branch has. I dont think it is appropriate that mr. Holder be here if an american citizen had not complied with one of the Justice Department subpoenas, they would be in jail, not sitting here in front of us testifying. I realize there are questions to be asked. I will yield the remainder of my mr. Gowdy. Gowdy. Methamphetamine, that would get you a mandatory minimum five years. Congress also passed a statute minimalyou had a theinal history, mandatory sentencing would not apply. Assistantells the a u. S. That does not, count. You areesnt mean that a bad guy or a drug dealer and youve got 15 ounces of methamphetamine, that you cant beat it with a maximum sentence, you cant be hit with a mandatory minimum. Hand whyr exercisexers just of prosecutorial discretion and not prosecute the case. . You have absolute unfettered toity to tell you this tell your assistant u. S. Attorneys that you will not prosecute the case. If you dont prosecute it estate da well. That is the first part of the memo that was sent out to the field. Youre going to see men and women in charleston on friday that if a judge asked them questions, they have no choice but to answer that question honestly, whatever the question the judge asks, you either answered honestly or youre going to jail. What a grand juror asked the question . , or drugs were involved . A grand jury is about to draft indictment. They want to know. It is more than 50 grams, which triggers a mandatory minimum 10 years. Youre not putting assistant u. S. Attorneys in a position . The document we have does not specify an amount. This is the reason we are not specifying the amount that is contained in the charging document. We are being totally truthful with those 23 members of the grand jury. One other point. In our safety valve, it is required that the defendant cooperate with the government rate and your memorandum in your memo, the opposite is true. In cooperation with the government is very important when youre working narcotics cases. Why did you not require that . The military sent did not say it said prosecutors should decline to if the defendant meets the following criteria. If i got the memo from you and ,he defendant met the criteria im going to go to guy who signs my paycheck. There is a conflict between the two, that is my point. You have discretion on whether to follow the law or not. That is my point. I would disagree in the sense that taking into account , it ise constraints incumbent upon those of us in the executive branch to make the maximum use of the resources that Congress Gives to us. That means we are always making choices about the kinds of cases that we bring, how we deal with the cases that we bring your arty expending the alreadys you are expending you dont have the right to say in mandatory minimum cases, dont tell the grand jury with the drug amount is. I think youre putting your assistant u. S. Attorneys in a tough position. As is always the case, i could be wrong. Gentleman fromhe North Carolina. Thank you for being here. A quick follow up on a previous question. Irs,e investigation of the there is a person who is leading that investigation, like a first chair, if you will. There has to be. That is highly run an investigation. Is that prosecutor a member of the of the integrity section or the Civil Rights Division . That would be done by civil rights as well as Public Integrity. Us which he would Tell Division the first chair is in, but you wont. Time that you issued the memo regarding charging the drug rates, part of that had to do a compassionate release and expending the criteria for eligibility for compassionate release. Historically, it has been incredibly difficult to get compassionate release. Some of the new criteria are circumstances in which there is been the incapacity of a Family Member or circumstances in which the spouse has become incapacitated. I think there is a pretty broad eligibility criteria. Do you estimate to be eligible in the federal system . I dont know. I believe these numbers are correct that we have over 100 people and the federal system that were over the age of 80. Thesebe criteria that im looking at our party brought. A lot of inmates have children and spouses or partners. This would apply to them. That has to be a pretty broad number. Have you put into place any methods to track these people after they are released under compassionate release . Thingse are the kinds of that we will put into place to make sure that the determinations are appropriate. It is only the responsible thing impact occurred to the extent that we release people that engage in other activities, the crimes you put in the memo that you will consult with the u. S. Attorneys offices on this case of compassionate release, but the authority to grant them is with the director of the bureau of prisons. Is any judicial restraint that could be on these compassionate releases . By statute the bureau of prisons has to petition the court for the release. To switch gears, i am concerned about the distribution of tobacco products. Counterfeit cigarettes, illegally gotten cigarettes that are put into the system. Counterfeit tax stamps. We all know that cigarette smuggling is often a Funding Source for terrorism, or organized crime. We also know that atf is charged with the investigation of tobacco related crimes. Is the t in atf. I appreciate their focused on but i would like to know, and maybe you could have some staff briefed my staff on what the dha and atf are doing to crack down on tobacco smuggling crimes. Youd need to properly engage in enforcement of this. We can certainly do that. You are a former u. S. Attorney. In fact, there have been a couple of instances where there was a tobacco terrorism connection. You know that. We will provide you we will have our staffs interact. I will ask for followup on the release. Whatever system you have for tracking these people as there are released into the system under these new criteria, any further lee illegal conduct they might engage in. That is fine. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Interesting to know what ive seen in my short time, but also looking at history. One of the things he comes across today is for much a lack of trust in who is prosecuting and who is not. I happen to be in another committee this morning. This is what started the whole theres going to be a day of reckoning. That has tainted everything that has come forward. From iowafriend talked about the prosecution cases. This gets into an issue here in there is a process to that is working together, even through difficulties. Even to the point of we cant seem to understand that you are an advisor to the president. And was mentioned earlier then mockingly mentioned by my friend from new york. Even on your own budget request, it says the mission of osc is to assist the president. If this is not your role and if this is not their role, i think we have found some money for you to put in other ideas so we can fund this program. If so, are you saying to this committee that you are not a Legal Adviser to the president on a lot of different issues . Out and away it was used in that question. The question was posed as if i were the person pulling the strings for the president. To the president. I have a particular area of responsibility with regard to that device. Terms of the person who on a theres anis independence that exists between the Justice Department and the white house. In the conversations going on, it needs to be understood. I think it goes back to this issue of oversight and discussion. I have a bigger concern over what seemed to be a lack of inrsight from your office atlanta, went to but go back. O the issue of the storefront this was at a time when the current administrator was not in charge. You are in charge of atf, correct . Yes. What concerns me is there seems to be for fast and furious to the storefront operation, why there seemed to be no concert oversight from your office, especially when there is not a director terry why were the seemingly able to operate programs. I come from Law Enforcement. The actions of one do not represent all shared i agree with you. Why was this program from your perspective not better managed . I think it was poor management, poor decisionmaking. Bears think that congress some of the responsibility. By not approving a Senate Confirmed person to run atf. Youre saying that if we that confirm somebody you put somebody in an interim role that they cant make good decisions, that they use handicap person out to recruit funds . Atlanta and Fulton County are and atf is not acknowledge that they have the guns . Whyhat is the factor in some things did not happen and atf. If you look at the leadership that todd jones has been able to bring to the organization as a Senate Confirmed head of that organization, there is a gravitas that he has the people who preceded him simply did not have. It is only a factor. During the time he was not there, these were going on. That is one of the things that is overridden these hearings, a simple lack of administrative trust. Also in other areas where it is viewed and we cant seem to Work Together on getting things done. T was discretion discretion does not mean you cant follow the law. Discretion is always there. That is the concern that i have. Whether it is atf, whether it started years ago. When you look at prosecution and the issues going on and we cant seem to get answers that are not just blown off. I dont understand that, especially when an agency like the atf that artie had problems, by the leader would not have taken a better handson role. Can you explain that to me . We have provided documents and evidence. You. Want to know from sure, it concerns me. The notion that you would use mentally unstable people attack to them and do ridiculous things like that, it is absurd very people will be held accountable. But how would they be held accountable . Once as findings are made and people are identified, they will be held accountable. The same way things happen with regard to other things. The chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. I want to follow up. Youre been asked by senator leahy about the obamacare employer mandate delay. You cited the irs analysis. If we can provide it for you. It is were simple. Ne sentence it basically says the secretary regulations in enforcement of this title. Again, that is 7805 alpha. How would that trumpet obligatory statutory mandate . And the aca, it says that this mandate shall take effect. It is not discretionary. This is providing authority to implement statutes and to prescribe rules to that effect. How this be used to trump that deadline . The deadline has been suspended twice. The second suspension had additional gloss added. Now instead of 50 employees, now it is 5200 employees. What would you cite within that isulation now it 50hundred employees. What would you cite within that regulation . The department came up with the analysis and the basis for the delay seems not a question of trumping, it is consistent act and the action taken by the administration in that regard was appropriate. Lemaitre vascular another issue. We had this issue with obamacare plans being canceled. It was obviously politically difficult for the president s party in particular. When a provision worked was there was a grandfather provision. As soon as eac was passed him you could be covered if you have existing coverage. A new coverage any new have thewould not grandfather clause applied. The president came out to the people said this have plans to predate Affordable Care act, they can keep the plans they have. Today, were going to extend the principle. If the grandfather clause limited to plans that predate the implementation of obamacare, where the executive branch that the authority to extend the coverage of the statute to plans that were not covered by the law . Again, i dont know what the basis is for that action. Am confident that the terminations that were made within the administration are consistent with the law. You ought to pull back a little bit. We have 7. 1 Million People who signed up, people who have health care. Wa all due respect lets pull back a little and see the people who do not have health care before now have it. People who had preexisting conditions are not covered. Younger people like my kids were unemployed consider my plan. There are substantially greater numbers of pupils in other categories. Lets look at that, look at the totality of that before you start to pick up these things. These are legitimate questions. Constitutional system. As one of the things that makes our country unique from others. Architecture is designed ultimately to protect individuals. Stayinghat a blur now on the parent plants, that is nothing to do with the executive action that was taken in this instance. We try to determine whether the president has gone beyond, in this case by rewriting provisions of the statute. Your something referred to other analysis. Most of us on this committee find that analysis has been wanting. We dont think it has been good. Final thing. Prosecution, it was a straw donation reimbursement scheme is the allegation. The fbi did say this was uncovered during a routine review of sec filings. How would it even be possible if all youre doing is reviewing to know the sum of those two nations have been reimbursed . Wouldnt you need to have targeted one of those donors and done Additional Investigation . By reviewing the filing, that is not going to be sufficient. Comment on the Ongoing Investigation. I can certainly tell you that information comes to the fbi in a variety of ways. On the basis of the receipt of that information, determinations are made on what cases are going to be investigated. The chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. Smith, for five minutes. This federal law prohibit the sale or possession of marijuana . Very islly, yes not under the controlled substances act of 1970 which defines it as a title i drug . Yes. Whenever state law conflicts with federal law, this federal law take precedence . That is generally true. It is not always true. Would it be true in the case of the controlled substance act of 1970 . Has an interesting question. If a state decided to the possession of a particular substance, theres an argument to be made that the federal government could bring againsty clause suit but theres an argument that could be made that the state cannot be forced to criminalize something. Is an interesting question. Is it similar to the arizona immigration case . There, it is clear that the responsibility for the enforcement of Immigration Law is something that is clearly federal in nature. Theres not a dual responsibility as there is with regards to certain criminal laws. At that was interesting Justice Kennedy wrote the thatity opinion said states may not pursue policies that undermine federal law. The controlled substance act as a federal law. The state of colorado is undermining that federal law, correct . No, what we just said is that we are looking at the way in which law is being enforced or how were going to enforce the law in colorado and in washington as well. Were good to apply those eight factors that we have put together and were going to use our limited resources to go after people who engage in the ,rafficking, use of marijuana that have an impact on those eight factors. So my former colleagues in the house and senate say the state of missouri does not want to participate in the affordable could you would use to the state of missouri . Certain states have made that determination by not expanding medicaid. Notuck my constituents do sign up they will not be penalized . That is not the way it is written. I always visit my schools back home. I talked to the kids. I wish to bring home the theme of being a responsible citizen to society and to obey the laws of the land. ,ne of the laws of the land federal law from 1970, which is 10 years before i was born, says that the sale of marijuana is a violation of federal law. What he sues kids in classrooms and they ask why you choose to enforce certain laws and some laws you dont . Regardt, i was hit with to enforcement priorities, this will bring about federal concerns. Concerning the distribution of marijuana to minors. We have limited resources. I dont think youre meaning to suggest that the federal government should prosecute every marijuana case that exists in the United States, which technically we would have the ability to do. That is not what youre proposing, right . Aloft the land is the controlled substance act of 1970 that says all marijuana is a violation even one marijuana cigarette. Youre saying we should prosecute every case . Am asking why you fail to enforce the laws of the land, attorney general. We are enforcing the law. Does a lossy that under 1970 that the sale or possession of marijuana is illegal . We are enforcing the law those eightith enforcement priorities. My question for you, which you havent answered, is would you have us prosecute every case in the United States of america . You answer my question, ill be more than happy to answer yours. Outtake that as a no. No. Will take that as a these are important to my district. One is the pepper spray for federal prisons, and number two is the dea Prescription Drug issues. I think you may recall that we have had a couple of discussions on the pepper spray. In august of 2012, the bureau implemented a pilot evaluation of the pepper spray at seven highsecurity institutions. In february of 2013 after six months review. , data indicated that oc spray significantly reduced incident containment times. As a result of these findings, the program was expanded to include all highsecurity room ,ersons in the federal system Detention Centers and jails. In my district, the 10th district of pennsylvania, we have the highest number of federal prison workers of any district that i know of in the country. I hear from Prison Guards about their concerns for their safety. These concerns have only risen since the tragic death of eric , who was working in a patent in a penitentiary and was brutally attacked. You were to give us a comprehensive report on the result of the spray. Giving us the results of the report is really not that critical to me. My question is, why have we not what the pepper spray into effect throughout the federal those for not only officers, but also individuals that work there . To, as aould get back result of that trout program, this has been ruled out. If that is not the case, i want to be able to respond to in a way that is accurate. Let me help you. I think it has been rolled out for the official guards who are responsible and have supervision over the inmates. Where it has not been rolled out does was aple supervisor in the kitchen in one of the prisons. He is not really a prison guard, but he was brutally attacked. Was one person supervising about 20 people in the kitchen. She in counseling or any other situation, they have all been trained. I think they should all have it. I would appreciated if you would kick that into gear as soon as possible. I understand what youre saying. We have a new and different relationship with the union and the people they represent. That ishing worthy of investigation. Underscored im going to switch over to Prescription Drugs and dea. I commend you for your effort. I was troubled by some language that you chose a noting your departments in four should enforcement initiatives. Inferred, you seem to equate legitimate supply chain businesses to elicit not kardex cartels. I found that disappointing. This mindset is actually dangerous to legitimate business. As a matter of fact, how i am reading this, this is why , myoduced the bill legislation will encourage more doj andation between legitimate companies trying to work with you to prevent Prescription Drug abuse. The dea is going to the Drug Companies and saying you shouldve realized the amount of drugs youre sending out to this particular individual, you shouldve made the determination that that individual was abusing drugs and then these legitimate businesses are being held responsible for that. If the doj in this area and the dea talk with these companies, sit down and put together guidelines. They have asked heard that told me they have asked what the guidelines are. Prosecutor at the state and federal level, shipping companies and even pharmaceuticals brought information to our attention, saying hey, we think there may be an issue here want to this address. Im asking you to set guidelines up so they can work closely with eliminate,an if not significantly curtail the abuse of Prescription Drugs. Can we do that . I certainly did not mean to made,in their marks i that companies are legitimately producing these very useful products. They cannot be held responsible for the distribution chain down the road where people steal and a whole variety of things. I dont want to cast that wider net. To the extent that there are concerns that people in industry, i would more than. Elcome the conversation is, this is the thing that concerns me, their people have legitimate needs for these kinds of prescriptions and substances that relieve pain. We cannot omit in our legitimate stop opioid use which potentially leads to heroin involvement. We cannot lose sight of the fact people. Re are sick yourself notd having something to do some evening, i would love to discuss issues concerning Mental Health and criminal Justice System. I yield back. Holder, heres a 34th member to ask questions of you apparently thank you very much for joining us today and answering a lot of questions from a lot of members of this committee. All members will have five days to submit additional written questions and general holder, we hope you will answer those questions in writing in a reasonable. Of time. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Next, q a with oklahoma senator tom coburn. Your calls0 a. M. , and comments on washington journal. Today, experts and authors will discuss human rights in north korea. Live coverage at the Brookings Institution begins at 3 00 eastern on cspan. The first thing i would do is cable tvhe largest secondlargest cable tv company. That is where i would start. My job here on the judiciary , at these hearings, is to raise my concerns. Mr. Cohen is a really smart guy and a really great guy. My job was to ask some tough questions. They have 107 lobbyists on. Apitol hill they are swarming capitol hill, their lobbyists. Hundred thousand people, more than a hundred thousand people write neither objections. So the first thing i would do is stop this deal. I would not let this go through. Is up to theme, it fcc and the doj. Senator franken on the warnerd comcast time merger. This week on q a, the republican senator from oklahoma talks about his health, his relationship with president obama and his thoughts on the state of congress and the countrys financial situation. Senator coburn announced to retire at the end of next year. Time we could borrow money against the future of our kids. Its time we quit mortgaging their future. Its time we start taking responsibility for the actions of the federal government. Does that happen . No. Why not . Its human nature. If youre going to do that, if youre going to actually really solve the problems, you have to go against your own political best judgment for being here. Which means you put at risk as a politician what you desire to