Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140408

The or that would allow the government to go to the providers before Getting Court approval. But as i understand, the administrations already put into practice the provider Court Approval. Weve had now the benefit of some weeks of experience with that and i wanted to ask you, have you noticed any problems with that . Have there been any difficulties . And if not, does it make any sense to move backward to a model where you can search without getting prior Court Approval . I think that the proposal that or the new processes that we are using have proved to be effective. We go to the court first in order to you know, the reasonable articulable suspicion, standard, get the information that we need. We only use two hops now, instead of three. And i think, ive not heard any negative reports. So i have to say that i agree with the legislative proposal that you have made, and is consistent with what the president talked about, about our need to have that emergency capability. For the ability, as we have now, in a variety of other fisa circumstances, the ability to get information on an emergency basis with collapse some subsequent Court Approval, and review. Just to ensure that we can have all the tools that we need to keep the American People safe, and to deal with those emergency situations, where they might arise. Thank you, mr. Attorney general. Mr. Chairman, do i have time for another question . [ inaudible ] then i yield back. And i just want im going to miss the vote. I want to defend dr. Harris. I think the Charter Schools tuitions, the voucher, is really important. Ive been in some of the schools in the district of columbia. It is making a difference. In my Old Neighborhood in philadelphia where mr. Fattah knows well, thats an opportunity for kids in the inner city to get an education. I was the first in my family to go to college. An education gave me, so i think mr. Harris, dr. Harris is passionate about that, and so, in defending dr. Harris, i think thats what he was concerned about. We dont have to go into it. Let me just make clear, my only point was, that what happened in the court case in louisiana was not about Charter Schools. Not our view of Charter Schools. We can certainly debate about Charter Schools, support them, whatever. Thats not of any consequence to me or the department of justice. We were seeking information about Charter Schools that dealt with a court order, a longstanding Discrimination Court order. I just want to mr. Chairman . I just think it probably would not be a need for a hearing action if there could just be a normal question and an answer. I think the fact that the rush kind of increased the heat unnecessarily, because i think that the answer would have been sufficient to dr. Harris question. And i appreciate dr. Harris. I told him privately hes been one of the most committed members of the subcommittee. I agree. But when we ask a witness a question, the witness has to have a chance to answer the question. And then we can have, you know well i agree with that. But i know he hes been one of the better members weve had. And i know hes passionate on the issue and i think we all, fwrangly, we want a Congress Full of people who care. Not just people who want to get here to do nothing. And he cares. And so i just wanted to defend dr. Harris. With that im going to stay. There is a vote on, but its previous question out of respect for the attorney general. Dr. Carter, and then judge carter well kind of go, but im going to stay so we can continue that way you wont have to thank you, mr. Chairman. I was going to ask if we were going to take a break for the vote or not. Well, i can catch you as you come back. You wont miss your time. So you can do what you think is appropriate. Well, i have a pretty extensive question here and i would hate to miss the vote. Okay. So id like to step out, vote and come back. Sure. If anyone, mr. Schiff do you want to ask your question now . You can do it. Because i think theres still six minutes left. Theres time for your final question. Okay. Okay. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate the candid discussion we had here just awhile ago. And i welcome mr. Attorney general. Appreciate your work, also. The question i have was around the immigration. And in your testimony youve referenced your work on addressing the immigration backlog. And youre applying some money to it because the cases that we have right now on adjudication by about 40 , 42 between 09 and 0 twelve but the number of Immigration Judges crew only by 11 . So, i understand that you want to use some of the money to upgrade and increase the number of Immigration Judges, and i understand that even if we upgrade them today, theres so many who are in line to retire, so my question is, you know, how many judges can be looking at, how will it reduce the backlog . And is there a plan to, you know, backfill with the ones in line for retirement . We certainly need we need more Immigration Judges to deal with the pending case load. If you look at the number of pending cases its continued to increase to 358,000, thats an increase of 56 since 2009. Our highest priority of cases deals with people who are detained to have criminal convictions. Now our proposal, the president s budget request, would allow us to add 35 new immigration judge teams at 17 million in order to do that. Those immigration teams would be able to adjudicate between 20,000 and 39,000 more cases annually. And so were looking at an increase of 35, and that would be the number that we would want to maintain, which would also mean that to the extent that people are retiring or leaving the bench we would want to replace those, as well, so that we have a net increase of 35, and try to get at that backlog. So the increase in the cases and the subsequent backlogs, is that as a result of paying more attention to the lower part of the morton memorandum where we say we want to go after folks who are law you know, not law abiding and leave alone the rest of the folks on that morton memo . Well, im not sure that i can say what exactly has generated the backlog, but it is there. Its extremely real. I mean you know 358,000 is an unacceptably high number. Sure. It leads to resolutions that occur way too far from a time from the time that we would like to have them occur. You know, asylum cases take significantly longer to resolve than cases in which removal is not requested, and so those are very time consuming kinds of matters. But its clear that we simply need more bodies. When i say Immigration Judges were actually talking about immigration teams. The judges and all the people who support them. So when we talk about Immigration Judges, and cases were talking about not only criminal, but were also talking about asylum issues, and deportation . Right. Were looking at the full panoply of things that Immigration Judges have to deal with. So if as many deportation cases that ive heard about does not go through a court process, it sounds like, and it feels like that theyre denied that process in terms of being adjudicated before theyre decided whether youre going to deport them or not. Whether they fit some of the executive orders that we say we can keep some folks here or not, or whether some of the folks are dream youngsters and their parents are being deported, whether we want to use put them through the adjudication process to see whether they should stay or not. Is that all part of the caseload or is that separate . Well, i think, you know, the caseload is varied. As i said there are asylum cases, there are cases involved detained aliens who have criminal convictions. There are, you know, unaccompanied minors that we have to deal with. We have a program that were trying to put in place so that they get adequate representation. There are a whole variety of cases that Immigration Judges have to deal with, and the issue at base is simply we need more Immigration Judges, and thats why that request is in the budget. Thank you. In that process did we provide any kind of training or assistance to those who are noncitizens in terms of having them understand the process of our judicial system so that theyre properly handled . And do we have hang considerations when theyre being worked with . Or going through the process so that they understand their rights and the things that are going on . I know that we have tried to make efforts to deal with the language issues that exist for people who find themselves in our immigration system. It is something that we have tried to focus attention to, and resources on. You cannot have a meaningful process unless somebody understands what it is they are what they are in the middle of. So weve had to try to increase our language capability, and that is also something that is that is costly because were dealing with, you know, predominantly maybe one or two languages but the reality we deal with a variety of language capabilities that we have to have. My sense about your stance on due process is that you want to do the best that you can. And thats costly, and im not sure that you get all the resources you need. Perhaps we can talk more about that later. On the rape kits, i understand there is about 400,000 to 500,000 kits sitting in the Evidence Room waiting to be processed. We have some sunding thats been set aside so that we can ask the fbi to be able to consider training local Law Enforcement agencies so that they can proceed and move on the backlog. And i understand that theres a constriction there, where the fbi requires all these tests to be certified. I think its called through codis. Isnt there a way that we can fund a process where local Law Enforcement can be trained, and then the kits can be uploaded to codis and be certified so that we can, one address the backlog, two, be more efficient, so that arrestees and victims can have their day in court . Yeah, we want to make sure that the information is ultimately we want to make sure that the tests are done in an appropriate way so that we can feel certain, we can feel secure that the information is ultimately put in to the National System is, in fact, good. That they are that we can run hits, see if we can hits against the information thats contained in the National System. The fbi certainly helps with training. The fbi has eliminated, i think, virtually eliminated, not totally, the backlog that we have on the federal side. There still is a backlog that comes to our state and local partners that we have to try to address. We want to do it in such a way that we get good, scientifically reliable tests that are done so that once they become a part of the larger database, we feel confident that the tests that are run against it will stand up, for instance, in court. And so that people are identified appropriately, cases can be won, convictions can be sustained on appeal. Because it seems to me that without that evidence, through the fbi, you cant do your job. To continue or the d. A. Cannot do the job to prosecute. And so it seems like at least we should have some sort of Pilot Program in this country where we can promote some way to make it more efficient, and spread that responsibility. It doesnt seem to me that the application of the rape kit is going to be that complicated. And certify in it maybe some training, but doesnt seem to me that would be that complicated, either. And so, i like to see if we cant Work Together on a Pilot Program that we put in to the process, and see whether we can address this very important aspect of the backlog. Because it is about speedy trials and making sure that the evidence doesnt get stale on the way. So hopefully we can Work Together and move this forward, and i believe that the chairman is also very interested in this kind of efficiency. We look forward to working with you in the creation of such a such an effort. Because there have to be ways in which we can be efficient, be creative, and at the same time be rigorous in making sure that the tests that are done are scientifically secure and will be evidentially sound and there have to be ways in which we can do that. And so, as we look at this backlog, we will try to make available the resources of the federal government to assist our state and local partners, and maybe through some Pilot Program, as youve suggested, we can do that. Mr. Chairman, the last comment would be if were successful in this, in the move forward, i suspect that youre going to need more help in terms of prosecution. Because the other half, once its determined, then the other half is going to be expensive, too, so understanding that we may have to think about how we cover that cost. Well, you raise a good point, sir. And that is one thing that i think we always try to think about as we make our budget proposals. We have to look at this comprehensive. Because the possibility exists that we could create substantial numbers of new cases. If we were to be successful in reducing the backlog which is a good thing. We want to have the capacity to process these cases, to try these cases. Which are at this point going to be mainly at the state and local level. And so that means that i think we probably want to have the ability through our grantmaking perhaps, to support those efforts. But we have to view this comprehensively. We cant simply fix one part of the system because it will have an impact on other parts of the system. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You could take some of the settlement money that was discussed and use it, and i think mr. Honda has put mr. Amodei . Thanks, mr. Chairman. General i represent most of nevada that does not include las vegas. And i want to sensitize you to the things thats been going on in the department of justice since the bush administration. And that is what i call discrimination against resort cities. There is presently pardon me . Discrimination against resort cities. There is presently in doj administrative guidance, not regulation, not a statute, stay away from places like, and it names a few places in my state and other states, for conferences, trainings, meetings, stuff like that. Now i understand with other agencies the sensitivity over the last few years, when people go to places, and pay for dance lessons, and exorbitant food costs and all that other sort of stuff, which is a bad thing. But i also know that, for instance, and im sure this plays out in other areas, that one of the primary factors in deciding where to have a training or a conference or a meeting should be value to the taxpayer. Youve testified here today, talking about scarce federal resources, and i want to sensitize you to some instances because there are a couple of organizations that are actually in reno, National Judicial college. Doj is involved with funding for training for judges in various areas. National council of family and Juvenile Court judges. Both happen to be located in reno, nevada. Have been for a long time. Dont know why they picked there. But its a long time ago before you or i were hanging out here on a regular basis. That have experienced, since the bush administration, guidance in doj add minimum policies that says you must avoid these locations. And as recently as two weeks ago, got a call from somebody who said, whos in the resort industry, we cant hold our meeting or our conference or our training in your facility because it happens to have a fasano attached. And so, my sensitivity lesson here, if i could is, is i sit here and look at this stuff and its like, listen, i expect that when we talk about, especially in an appropriations context, scarce federal resources, department of justice doing more with less, all that, that one of the primary drivers would be how much does it cost to go there . Because in many instances where these things have been canceled, and a lot of them have been doj cancellations, small, this is not the American Legion convention. Its 70, 100 folks. Theyve been canceled within a couple weeks, so youve got the airline costs, theyve been moved to a venue where rooms are triple the cost. And also, im not a convention person, but you know the price of a gallon of coffee and all that stuff . Where its like, under the guise of avoiding an appearance of, we did it in a casino, oh, my god, that the cost went up triple. To what . I think theyre capable of not using taxpayer money to gamble. I think they can figure out that they dont need to be paying for dance lessons or whatever they have. A ought to be capable of being able to make a decision based on whats the best value for the taxpayer. Because i dont see doj guidance that says, and i dont expect to see it, and i hope i wouldnt see it, that says hey by the way were not doing any more meetings, conferences or trainings in states that have legalized marijuana. Whats that got to do with value to theee taxpayer . Or states where, you know, some members have talked about, you know, unacceptable, civil rights backlog, or whatever. Where its like were not coming to your town because we dont like the whatever. Hopefully decisions are made on the best value of the taxpayer and there happens to be a place in nevada or oklahoma or wherever that if somebody says how come youre there, you can say because guess what rooms are 80 bucks a night, they got the best deal, it was the best price, and by the way, were not using taxpayer money to you know. Anywhere you go has got a bar in it. I mean are we talking about we cant go to your venue because theres you kind of get the gist. So in sensitizing that to you i would like to be able to provide you the guidance thats been in doj since before you arived and have a point of contact to work to say, listen, i want to make your management decisions for you. But when i see a discrimination thats been pretty ongoing in the 30ments ive been here, numerous cancellations, and not just doj but you guys are the ones that have it in writing that id like the opportunity to work with you. Its not at regulation or statu statute. I dont think you need a law but to sensitize somebody in doj, if you can defend it on the best value of the taxpayer and youre not giving out rolls of nickels for the slot machine, then let them compete with everybody else. Just off the top of your head, would that be something that we could work on . Sure. We have you might have seen cancellations of doj conferences as they probably happened around the country, because of sequestration over the last year or so. Where we had to bring down certain conferences. But we dont forbid the use of any location. We do counsel components to pick Cost Effective locations. But we have held doj events in nevada. Youre right about, you know, the judicial college, and the judges Training Facility that exists in reno. So, we dont have any at least as i understand it, any prohibitions that exist with regard to nevada or other with regard to nevada. So to the extent that you have those concerns id be more than glad to talk to you about those. Well provide you with the guidance that we have with whoever the appropriate point of contact is to say listen, not asking for any favors just want to compete straight up on a cost benefit value basis. Thats pine. Thank you. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Amodei. On there are a number of issues ill just submit for the record on the marijuana issue. But in february the treasury and Justice Department issued guidelines for Financial Institutions to allow them to provide services to marijuana businesses. At this point many of the Banking Industry seem unwilling to accept such business. And given they would be providing services to those previously classified as felons, and would have to be sure customers were within law is easy to understand their reluctance to stick their necks out. I do appreciate your agreeing to meet with the head of nida. We will be in touch with her office. Could you give me a call after you sit down with her . Sure. It was one of the most impressive testimonies on this issue. And it deals with, particularly young people, deals with the impact on well, anyway. Youre going to meet with her and we can sure, ill give you a call afterwards. Thank you very much. Aircraft. Personal aircraft. Last year we discussed a report on personal use of Justice Department aircraft. One aspect of this issue is that some of the flights have not been documented or reported since the General Service administration, gsa, the Agency Responsible for documenting such use of government assets was excluding nonmission flights by senior officials on security grounds. I recently report issued by gao recommended they change the procedure and identify when any such grounds are listed as justification for such use. Gsa has agreed to the recommendation. While changes in reporting have yet to be implemented, are you ensuring that all such flights by doj will be reported to the gsa . Yeah. This is one my staff keeps telling me to take it easy, you know. This is one that gets that sorry, guys thats okay. You can we want to hear from you. Show some emotion. Thats okay. Go ahead. My air travels really well documented. As former director muller, same thing. We answered five different requests in the past two years. Everything that has been rele e released to gao, to senator grassley as well. Theres this notion that weve taken its described as hundreds of personal trips. That was wrong. Gao counted flights, not round trips. And we looked at it and figured out from the time period that they were looking, took not hundreds, but 27 personal, four combined, official and nonpersonal trips. And none of the trips that i took or that the director took ever had an director took ever impact on the Mission Capability of those airplanes. But so we did have a reporting requirement that existed before. If they want to change the rules, ill be more than glad to share that information with the appropriate organization, but this is something that is really wide open. As ive said, we responded to senator grassley. Just so that people understand that were making appropriate use of d. O. J. Aircraft. A lot of the stuff is described as mission. And nonmission in the way in which that was defined was not correct. A non mission trip, for instance, the trip i took to newtown was described as a non mission trip. I dont see how anything could be more mission centered than having the attorney general of the United States deal with First Responders at newtown. So i got it off my chest. You got it off your chest. So you will be ensuring that all flights will be reported . Will do that, yes. On february 24th you asked congress to create a Strong National standard for quickly alerting consumers whose information may be under threat. What specific registrations do the administration and department of justice propose . I think first with regard to reporting breaches, that we should have a uniform standard so businesses understand when they have an obligation to report to the protoauthorities when there have been data breaches and so that the public is aware of these breaches. And also i think it would mean businesses would understand what category of things they need to report, and which category of things they need not be concerned with. A greater degree of uniformity so the American People can understand both the nature and extent of the problem and whether or not they are personally affected by a breach. And so we think a National Standard working with congress would be appropriate. Is there any legislation coming up . I think were going to try to work on a proposal. We would like to work with congress in dealing with that. Its something i talked about in a speech i recently gave or maybe in one of my weekly tapes. We are prepared to come forward. Have you been out to the fbi center where they list all the companies and individuals and everything who have been hit by the chinese . Have you seen that . Ive seen those reports. Have you been out to the center . Have i . Yes. Yes. You may want to go again. Its pretty impressive. But this is, as director muller said, former director muller, this is the chinese, russians organized crime. You may want to go out again and take a look at it. Its so comprehensive. If American People could see the list, they would be shocked. Last week you sent the committee a report. A new procurement practices for Technology Hardware and software to be used. It appears the implementation has been adopted and procurement offices are up to speed and helping to ensure u. S. Government systems are not vulnerable to cyber espionage. Your report indicated seven were canceled. Could you characterize the nature of the threat we are facing and the impact the standards are having . Well, i think the standards that were put in place have been useful to us, and we tried to follow them, as you have indicated. There were steps that we took to cancel, i guess things that had previously been contracted for. This concern that we have about cyber intrusions and Cyber Threats is something that has to be a primary concern, for any agency head. We factor those kinds of concerns into our pro kurmt of technology. We work closely with the fbi, and i think our standards are pretty high. We have sent out guidance to the field. So that we can comply, and we want to work with you and the Committee Going forward so that we can figure out how to best protect against these risks. Do you think it would be helpful to have, going back to the previous question, it would be helpful, would it be helpful for the government to notify the congress, notify one committee as to what agencies are subject to Cyber Attacks so that theres one place where we can see the intensity of what the chinese and et cetera are doing . Yeah. As i said, i think with regards to the private sector, there needs to be recording. I would put in the same concern or the same scheme, Government Agencies as well. So that to the extent there are breaches, those are shared, and we could work out where those would go. But yeah, a place, a repository where consumers, members of congress have the ability to see exactly where those what the targets are, what kind of information might have been compromised. I think we will do a much better job of understanding what the nature of the threat is and taking Counter Measures if we have a place, a repository of all this information. Maybe when the committee, every time an agency is hit they report to the fbi. I think the bureau is probably more involved than anybody else. That way ai think the privacy, if necessary, can be taken care of. It would at least give every other agency some understanding. If we could maybe carry that in fy 12 the committee rejected a proposal to reprogram 165 million to require in illinois. The department proceeded with the acquisition despite this extraordinary breach of long standing traditions of respect between the branches. Although, i understand politics. As i pointed out last year, the 165 million that could have been used instead for departmental operations in the wake of the sequester. Your request proposed 158 million off offset. Given the fight funding and need to move on in other sites in mississippi and west virginia, and need to maintain staffing to maintain services, how do you fit thompson in with this . And what activities are being cut to pay for the 158 million . Well, in terms of thompson, we acquired it the end of fis car year 2012 during the shortage of high security beds. Were presently 52 above our rated capacity. I think the way we describe thompson is weve gotten twice the prison at half the price. And we have an appropriation of 44 million to begin the activation of thompson. Thats reflected in the spend plan. The 4 million is retained in fiscal year 2015 for activation costs. And i think what were looking at is a slow rampup of thompson. We hope to hire a warden, i think, in may, that is the plan. Followed by the hiring manager of Food Services and medical staff. Ultimately hiring up to 290 staff and to begin bringing in the first inmates in the july august time frame. We think that was a very good expenditure, a good acquisition where we got a facility thats going to help us with those high security needs that we have, and do it in a costeffective way. Were you a boy scout . Yeah. Do you take your boy without pledge that you will make sure that this thing plays out . Theres going to be differences. That there will never be anybody from Guantanamo Bay there. I promise. Three fingers. Thats boy scouts. Were going to go to dr. Carter. Judge . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me congratulations the administration on the 49th consecutive month of job growth, averaging around 200,000 a month. And close to 9 million new jobs over this stretch of time. One of the questions before your department is how to protect american jobs in terms of intellectual property. And youve been doing a great deal of work in this regard, but obviously theres more work to do when we have, you know, in our the World Economic forum, they said that the u. S. Economy is innovation, is innovation based economy, that the essence of how we have created the wealthiest country in the world is through innovation and new ideas. And so protecting the intellectual property of american inventors and companies is critically important. The chairman has been focused a little aggressively on this question of cyber security. Not in the sense of nsa, but entities going into american companies, particularly law firms that work in patentrelated areas and so on, trying to steal secrets. To give our economic competitors an advantage. Not through their hard work, but through use liting the smarts of our own engineers and scientists. So if you could talk about this work in terms of intellectual property visavis the appropriations request, that would be appreciated. Sure. This is a priority for us. Our budget has 42 million spread among the criminal division, the fbi, the office of Justice Programs, and u. S. Attorneys offices. And this represents a 7. 7 increase over fiscal year 2013 levels. We really increased our enforcement efforts, not only to safeguard the Economic Growth and well being of our country, but also to protect Public Health and safety, which is also, i think people have to understand, that this intellectual property theft and the distribution of substandard parts or in medicines has the ability to have a negative impact on Public Health and safety. We have an intellectual Property Task force in the department thats chaired by the Deputy Attorney general. Where we try to is come up with a coordinated high level approach to figure out how to investigate these crimes. We also work with the White House Office of property enforcement coordinator, and we have theres a government wide strategy that was published in february of 2013, we had made the investigation in prosecution of trade secrets, really a pop priority. So we want to work with congress to ensure that our criminal i. P. Laws keep pace with the new technological and emerging trends that we see. These are laws that have to be looked at, i think periodically given the rapid pace of change that we have. Give tennessee new threats that we are confronting. And we would hope to not only have the budget requests met, but also look forward to working with members of congress to make sure our laws are kept up to date as well. Now after sandy hook there was a push for more states to supply data that they had not yet supplied in terms of people is who are already prohibited from purchasing firearms. That is people who meet one of the circumstances that prevent them. I know in my own state that hundreds of thousands of names that were not supplied were then supplied after sandy hook. Can you tell us in terms of state compliance with the submission of names . Thats something that just to be accurate maybe want to respond to you in writing after ive had a chance to look at what we think the compliance rates are. I think one of the things certainly of concern after sandy hook was where we stood with regard to the number of the amount of information that we were getting from the states. So i think, just as i said, to be accurate, i would want to make sure i have the ability to look at and just make sure that were giving you accurate information. We have certainly done what we could with regard to the grants that we made available to enable states to have the Financial Capacity to make this Information Available to the system. But i would want to, as i said, have an ability to look at where we actually stand in that regard. I went out to the joint Terrorism Centers in virginia, and it was amazing to see many of your agencies already there working together in terms of the effort, the National Security effort, and one of the things that we know is there was a challenge on whether someone on some of their lists could be prevented from the purchase of firearms given our laws, and i know there even was in one of the al qaeda training videos the notion that, you know, one could walk into a gun store and make a purchase here in america. Which, you know, so reconciling the rights of americans to purchase firearms, and your responsibilities to protect americans from harm, i know you face a lot of challenges. Is there any progress on this particular question of whether or not someone whose name may appear on, for instance, the nofly list or some other set of lists could be, in any way lawfully precluded . You know, thats something that we are still in the process of working through. There are investigative reasons, or at least arguments, investigative arguments made as to why you dont want to have those lists necessarily merged. There are different views within the various agencies. Thats something we are still trying to work our way through. In regard to your first question, i can at least share some information in regard to the numbers that we have. The records contained in the index has more than doubled from 5. 2 records as in early 2008 to 11. 4 million records at the end of march of 2014. The number of records provided by federal agencies increased 70 from 4. 1 million to 70 million records. And the states have posted an increase of 302 in the number of records from just over 1. 1 in 2008 to 4. 4 in 2014. State Agency Submission of records of persons prohibited from possessing a firearm from Mental Health reasons has increased by 678 from about 410,000 records in 2008 to 302 million records as of march 21st, 2014. So substantial progress has been made in regards to the acquisition of the information that is now a part of the system. Well, thank you. I think its obviously doesnt need to be stated, unfortunate that we need to have a sandy hook circumstance for states to supply this information. My own state had not supplies this information. But then after the incident did, but these are people under our laws should be prohibited from the purchase or ownership of firearms, but they cant be unless the names are in the data base. So im very pleased that the state of pennsylvania, and based on those numbers, a lot of other states have complied . And this shows the public that even though theres still a lot of work to be done, that some progress is being made in this front. I was looking over the actual budget questions in the president s budget submission and you have about 2. 1 billion for support for states in local and tribal governments, which is important, because a lot of the actual work done on these issues are done at the the state and local level, and i did want to mention i see theres a proposed 58 million in the budget, which would be a reduction of 30 million. This is an area that the Sub Committee will obviously disagree with the administration, and this is an area that i think is the only area that has seen an increase in each of the last four years. Its something we are very focused on. So but, were going to work through your appropriations request. We want to support the great work thats being done by the department. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman and attorney general holder. Welcome. Before i start, general, you and i are both lawyers. Youre the top lawyer in america, aording to what we address you, youre the number one lawyer in the federal system. And im just a small down district judge, but weve both been involved in seeking evident from witnesses. Theres a whole lot of difference between whether we seek evidence here and the way we would have an opportunity to seek evidence in the courtroom. Because quite honestly to answer one question, the witness can go in and there will never be another question asked. So im going to ask you a long question with a series of questions contained there in, which will probably be objectional in the court of law, but unfortunately thats the way it works here. F so i just wanted to point that out to you. Ive got questions about ft. Hood. If you were listening or watching, you saw that the reporters were continually asking when will the fbi be here . We heard reports that fbi agents were on the way. Im sure the agents were on the way from austin. So the fbi were coming. Some were here was the next press conference. And in the 14 recent shooting, who in your opinion will take the lead in the investigation of the 2014 shooting . The fbi or the cid . What will that when will that decision be made as to which one will do that . And who makes that call . You . The president . How is that decision made in 2009 . In 2009 . Who makes that call . Whe were d. O. J. And its resources pulled . Base upon pa political decision to classify that shooting . Who made the call to treat the 2009 shooting as a Workplace Violence as opposed to act of terror . Being a fine lawyer, im sure youre familiar what the definition of terrorism is under 2331 and 2332a and b. It seems implausible that two of our top agencies would not have a conversation about that. You know, i know that ultimately you made a statement that this was a d. O. D. Classification. Im asking you as the chief Law Enforcement officer of the United States, would you classify the 2009 ft. Hood shooting as a terrorist act or terrorism, as defined in 18 usc . Had the 2009 ft. Hood shooting occurred at head quarters, therefore fully under your jurisdiction, would you have characterized that as a Workplace Violence evans . And how have jurisdictions lines between the fdic and other Law Enforcement agencies been defined when criminal actions are taking place on the military post, and in light of the recent base shootings, should we clarify investigating these responsibilities . Well, with regard lots of questions. Sorry. The white house confirmed, i guess, on wednesday night that the department of defense was in the lead with regard to the investigation. It doesnt mean, however, that the fbi will not try to assist in any way that we can with regard to our forensic capabilities. We will assist in that regard. With regard to the Workplace Violence designation. That was based on a d. O. D. Assessment. I understand your concerns, but i would refer you to the department of defense for questions. And i think interestingly chairman wolf and Ranking Member appropriately raised the questions back with d. O. D. In a may 2013 letter, which acknowledged, and i quote, that the department of defense, an army have designated the attack as, quote, Workplace Violence. That determination was made by d. O. D. As opposed to d. O. J. Would you mind answering my question that i asked you . Had it happened at your headquarters, how would you have classified it . Well, again, you would have to look at the totality of the circumstances and understand well, for the sake of the question. Assume the exact scenario you that happened at ft. Hood in 2009. You have a person of islamic decent screaming. He was a member of your staff, and he starts shooting and he kills 13 or 14 of them. Would you still take that as the position of workforce violence act and therefore not under terrorism statutes . Well, again, these are fact specific things. And so, you know, it would depend on what the persons motivation was. Was the person a follower as hasan was . Was the motive for the shooting an attempt to follow the teachings, as opposed to some kind of workplace problems that you had with your colleagues . Yeah, i could see that that would be classified as a terrorist incident if it happened at the Justice Department. Again, it depends on the facts of the situation. I dont know all the factors that went into the d. O. D. Designation. It was not one that we made. It was one they made. I agree with you. F facts are important. Thats why finding out ab facts are important. I just happen to have a copy of the code here. You dont have to be involved with islamic situation at all to commit terrorism in the United States, do you . No. No. Its a defined statutory thing. Its pretty simple. It involves acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law, appear intended to, one, intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Ful two, influence the policy of a government by intimidation of coercion, or three, to affect the conduct of government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Doesnt say anything about relationships now International Terrorism does have a definition of somebody outside the country being involved. But, just first ask you, would you consider a terrorist act if it happened in your office . Again, i dont know. Im not as familiar with what happened at if the hood the first time as the people at d. O. D. Were, and im a little hesitant to, in essence, second guess the assessment they made. Im not asking you to second guess the assessment. Im concerned. If youre the top enforcement officer for the United States of america, and theres a clear definition in the u. S. Code, and this is expanded. I didnt read it all. But thats a clear definition of the u. S. Code and somebody started shooting people in your office, multiple people screaming out some kind of political comment, i dont care what it is, would you have automatically said, well this unfortunately is a civil workforce violence problem that we have here . I wouldnt say that at all. It certainly could be a terrorist act. It would depend on the facts. Those are the determinations we would have to make. Zblen a the truth is, if it happened, it wouldnt be of consequences as it related to your office, the tomorrow workforce violation has consequences under d. O. J. , but it doesnt have consequences and the term terrorism has consequences im sorry. D. O. D. Both those terms has major consequences on the lives of those involved. And thats the real issue i have been concerned about since day one. A simple declaration by the administration or the army, public or private, that says its a workforce violent act, takes two dozen people, and puts them in a category where they dont get certain benefits for the federal government as a result of them serving their country and being shot and killed or injured. Thats why im asking this question. Because i think we ought to at least acknowledge that theres a clear definition under federal law and, by the way, texas has one under state law that says, i any clearly, that the act was terrorism. Whether international or not is up for dispute. The act was terrorism. And so thats why i ask you for your help. I understand you dont wans to answer the question and thats fine. I think i used my time. If the judge would yield. If i have any time to yield. I join with you in your legislative effort with this regard. I agree clearly this was a terrorist act. I think the point is the first determination was made by the department of defense. As congress we can change that. We should. As was the case in 9 11 or the pentagon, you know, this was an act by the statement of the perpetrator himself. Thats right. And i agree. Im looking for reinforcement from the top lawyer of the United States. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i appreciate it. Thank you, judge. And following up on what judge carter said, i agree with him. And you were here last year. You stayed around and spoke to some of the individuals. I just saw an article today. And i listened to it going home last night. Kimberly was shot three times taken down hasan. Then she got laid off, yet, she never stopped fighting for the victims the military betrayed in the shooting. And your relationship with the president , probably you have a better relationship with the president than most of the cabinet members. Well, you do. You know, you do. Theres nothing youre not why dont you take this back there . It was not Workplace Violence. The people have been hurt. They still contact my office, some of them. One of the women has moved to northern virginia. Also our government, our government is responsible. The bureau missed some of it. There was communication. I spoke to a psychiatrist down in ft. Hood who said that he was telling attorneys from afghanistan they should basically say they were war criminal ls. And so the government missed it. I would ask on behalf of judge carter, if you would take it back, i think we cant change what took place in 2009. You see something and say if only. But i think you could go a long way to healing this. And so we did do a letter, and were not banking it. But we sent a letter on march 15th, 2013, with a lot of questions on this, and we never got an answer. I would tell you on behalf of judge carter. On behalf of those who were wounded and the loved ones lost, would you go back and speak with the president and secretary hagel who lives in my Congressional District that they would redo this in such a way now. Because the case is over whereby these individuals wounded and family members could be treateded in a much more appropriate way. Could you take that up with the president. This is a general question, sir. Im not asking you specifically what were going to call it. We have the closest chapter. We have to do it for the people. Do unto others. Jesus says do unto others as you would have them do to unto you. If you or i were in that circumstance, we would feel a sense of injustice. I think carter is trying to remit them. I think you would have the ability. Im not asking you to define what it would be called, but to see what can be done to heal this wound. If you can just say, i will look at it. I will talk to the president and get back. But it would enhance your credibility as you lead this department. It would be the right thing to do. And now that there has been a conviction all the arguments have been answered before. Again, this was a d. O. D. Assessment. So its more appropriate to talk to secretary hagel. Ill do that. Will you tell him member of congress ask you . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Welcome, mr. Attorney general. In another capacity, mr. Attorney general, i serve as a Ranking Member on the appropriations subcommittee with oversight on the security and exchanges commission. And hearing her confirm that the fcc is investigating High Frequency trading as well as the new York Attorney general is also looking at this. Can you describe potential concerns with the High Frequency trading in terms of violations of the law . Well, as i indicated in my opening statement, i confirmed that the department of justice is looking at this subject area as well. The concern is people are getting an inappropriate advantage, information advantage, competitive advantage over others because of the way in which the system works. And even milliseconds can matter. And so were looking at this to try to determine if any federal laws have been broken, any federal criminal laws have been broken. This is also something sh will be working at as well. You will be working together on it . There are barriers that you cant cross. Well make sure is that parallel investigations are done in such a way not to have negative impacts either. Now this new crime if you will, if it is a crime at the end of the day is all a direct result of the new technologies available for the people to do this in a second, right . Yeah, again, im really just getting up to speed on this. Well all are. Its all about technology and how things get routed and five, six, eight milliseconds before, you can do things others who dont have that capacity can. We have to determine whether or not its a violation of federal criminal law. At least the attorney general has to better understand the the facts of these kinds of things. Right. Thank you. Mr. Attorney general, im interested in discussing the innovation Ideas Initiative whn the executive office of immigration review that which committee funded last year and for which you are now requesting additional dollars. I think this is an important idea. Its extremely troubling to think that we are forcing people to go through removal proceedings with little to no understanding of the system. How is the department using the money appropriate rated last year . And what soort of impact do you expect it to have . Is and one of the reasons a question like this becomes a little more important, there was a sense that the president wants it to happen that we would have Immigration Reform in place by now, and now were not sure thats going to happen. So then these other associated issues, if you will or side issues become just as important as an Immigration Reform, or almost as important. And so i would like to hear your thoughts on it. Well, there are a variety of things we are trying to implement. We are, for instance, dealing with the problem of unaccompanied minors and how they are dealt with in the system. We have a program that we have put in place that that we are trying to staff up in such a way so that young people can navigate the system in a way that theyve not had the ability to do in the past. Theres a juvenile docket that we have established the throughout the country that hopefully will facilitate consistency and do the kinds of things that have to be done in the system in a more child friendly way. So thats at least one of the ways in which we are dealing with this issue, this whole question of unaccompanied minors. But i think more generally were looking at the system and trying to come up with ways in which we deal with people who have Mental Health issues. A whole variety of things so that we have a system that is consistent with our notions of due process so that people feel that they are being treated fairly, and so that we get appropriate results. If we follow the due process way in which we try to conduct our judicial proceedings, you get better results. You get more just results. These are the kinds of things we are trying to make a part of that effort. Okay, and i know that there are limitations as to council for people in deportation situation, but without asking you to go around the law or inside and outside the law, is there more we could be doing to provide some sort of legal counsel, and im searching for a better word, so that these cases are better handled . Because as you know and just mentioned, the issue is not just deportation itself, its the separation of families, and that has become now a major issue in the country, where mostly American People agree that the separation, the breakup of families is not what they intended to talk about when they talked about fixing our broken system. Yeah, i mean the what we want to try to do is come up with a way in which we have a system that is efficient, and that resolves the backlog that i was talking about before, as best we can, but at the same time, have a system perceived as and actually is fair, and, you know, the involvement of lawyers is something that always helps in that regard. The ability to speak to somebody familiar with the way in the system operates so that you understand what your options are, all of that breeds respect for the system, which is important, but also has a very substantive impact as well. Gives us the ability to come up with determinations that will stand, not only the test of time, but make sure that in terms of further proceedings, those are minimized, which ultimately leads to greater efficiencies and smaller costs that are expended. Okay. Do i have time for one more question, mr. Chairman . Yes. Last year the administration was good enough to present for the furs time ever language referring to a refer dumb on puerto rico, and the chairman and Ranking Member were excellent in making sure the language stayed in. As you can imagine, some folks wanted that language to disappear. Now its become law. And everybody is aware of it. What is the next step in terms of what has to happen . Is it something that you prod them along the commonwealth to accomplish . Or something they have to do on their own without your prodding . And i must say that i was very much taken surprised, pleasantly surprised by the fact that the language clearly states that you will have final say as to what the ballot looks like and what ballot, and that it meets constitutional requirements and public laws in this country. And you must be aware of it. Its the first time the federal government has played this role. Puerto ricans have spoken on this issue before. Weve theyve done it amongst themselves. This time the federal government is saying heres an opportunity. Say something. What is the next step now . Well, youre correct. The appropriaproe appropriatione grant pardon. It would resolve the political status in puerto rico. Now the funds are to be provided to the state Elections Commission of puerto rico, which has the responsibility of drafting the Voter Education materials in the ballot. Departments role is limited to reviewing those documents and then making the determination about whether they are compatible with the constitution, the laws and policies of the United States. But it is the departments role, the departments obligation to make such a determination. Right. And i must say in closing that to me there were two points in the language that were crucial. And as you know because you become an expert on it. There are about 5 million analysts on the island who analyze what it was the federal government said. And its going on right now, and i assure you once news gets out that i asked you this question, there will be another 6 million analysts throughout the states and commonwealth analyzing what you said and i asked and you said. There were two key words to me. One was resolve. And i hope that continues to be the talk. Because resolve means twaktly that. It cant mean, in my opinion, more of the same. And it asks that it means within constitutional requirements and in my opinion, without getting sbeeper into the subject, there was one possible presentation of an option that wouldnt meet constitutional requirements. All the others do. Im looking forward to what they come come up with, and what your response is. I must say that you deal with a lot of issues every day. This being a going on for 160 years, this may not be one of the biggest issues on the plate. In fact, i know it isnt. To us, to the community, in chicago, and in all of latin america, this is something being watched very closely. This is obviously a very serious matter. And puerto rico is a subject, or a place that generates, justifiably generates a lot of involvement by the department. I was in puerto rico a few months ago working with the governor on some issues. Our u. S. Attorney down there is doing a good job in trying to help the local authorities there with the violence problem that exists on the island. It is, you know, its a topic, its an area. Its a subject matter that justifiably takes up a fair amount of not only my attention, but people in the Justice Department as well. You need not apologize for that or think this is something inappropriate. This is something that i think appropriately is of concern to us in the department. Well, i would hope that we continue to work on it because my personal political dash having been born in puerto rico and raised in new york city in the bronx statement is that 116 years is a long time. And its good for puerto rico, but its also good for our democracy to be able to resolve this issue once and for all. For the record, i was born in hunts point. Yes, in the 15th Congressional District. There you go. Represented by me, mr. Chairman. An honor. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I by the way, a lot of the issues i was going to bring up the to you, attorney general already brought up, and so i will just go back to another one. Currently its the issue of marijuana and the enforcement of marijuana. Obviously as we have already talked about, marijuana is illegal according to federal law. Its classified as a schedule one controlled substance, and this label implies the drug has a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use in treatment. Now, im not an expert on that, but thats what current federal law is. So again, according to federal law, it is not a minor, benign substance. It is the same, according to federal law, as other schedule one control substances. Now attorney general, youve talked already about as to why the department of justice is dealing with it the way that youre doing. I dont want to relitigate that. But i know that youre aware, and its just the sad reality that a lot of folks in the country believe that this administration selectively enforces the law, i dont want to relitigate that either, but theres a perception out there. And thats something that we have to deal with. So heres the question. Again, youve talked about how it is because of Law Enforcement that that schedule one substance is being treated different than other schedule one substances. So to my point, would it not make sense that, that your department or sb in the administration would bring to congress a proposal to, as opposed to just selectively, and im not trying to say this in a negative sense, im just saying it is your department is dealing with it differently than other scheduled one drugs, as far as the enforcement. Would it not make sense to then change, at least recommend that you would recommend to make changes to either federal law as to the ill egality of marijuana or at least changes to the schedule one drugs so the American People would be certain that it is in fact, that you are actually enforcing the law, which obviously you say that you are, as opposed to selectively enforcing the law, for whatever good reasons it may be. So wouldnt it make sense to come to congress with some recommendations, some changes, if nothing else to give certainty and consistently and the American People would understand that the law is aplayed with certainty and consistency . I dont want to be argume argumentati argumentative. But with regard to the whole question of the scheduling of marijuana, i would be more than glad to work with congress, if there is a desire to look at and reexamine how the drug is scheduled. As i said, there is a great deal of expertise that exists in congress. Its Something Congress would have to change. And the administration would be glad to work with congress. F. Obviously congress can do what it may. Congress is not the one who decided to allow or to not go after folks in a couple of states who now are, you know, in essence selling marijuana. Thats not congress decision. That has been a unilateral decision by your department. So thats again my question. If thats the decision of your department, which is what is sfo see like, rightfully or wrongfully. This is not the moment to litigate that. But as selective enforcement. Congress handmade that decision. As far as congress is concerned, marijuana is illegal in federal law. That has not changed. And your role is supposed to be, among the roles to enforce that federal law, and not only is it illegal, but its a scheduled one controlled substance. You have made, i guess prosecution discretion to allow to not go after certain individuals, certain entities in colorado and washington for that violation of federal law. So again its not congress because we havent changed anything. What has changed is the policy of this administration verb sus previous administrations as to how to enforce that federal law. So based on the whangs that you have all made, shouldnt that come to congress and say, look, we believe that the law is wrong, this is how were enforcing it now. We believe this is why, and we think that the law should reflect the enforcement. Well, i would sigh if you look at at the end of the day if you look at the kinds of marijuana cases that we will bring, or that we are bringing, and what was brought by the Justice Department previously, im not sure that youre going to see a huge difference, the priorities that we talk about, prooefbsing the distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing cartels from being involved, preventing violence and use of firearms, a lot of marijuana enforcement happens at state and local levels, with regard to possession defenses. The kinds of cases brought previously by the Justice Department and that we would bring again now, im not sure that youre going to see a substantial difference, and to the extent that the scheduling issue is one that the Congress Wants to engage in, i think the administration would be prepared to do that. But i think, as i said, the responsibility for this resides in congress. Mr. Chairman, i dont know if i have time for one last question, and, again this may not be specifically to your department, but let me throw it out there anyways. Again, we know some states legalized marijuana other states legalized medical marijuana. Who knows what will happen there. And so is there a process, or will there be a process that you deal with to analyze what, if any effect these changes in the different states, you know, are going to have on, you know, you dont deal with health issues, i understand, but you do deal with potential issues of crime, of organized crime, or whatever it may be. Is there going to be an organized established . Is therel win going to be a bua process, a commission . If not, is that something that you all should be looking at to make sure that whatever impact, and we dont know what theyre going to be, if any, whatever impact it may be, that, you know, we dont all the sudden ten years down the road say, oh, we didnt realize this was happening and its too bad, but now its too late. Is that something that is formally taking place in the tr agency . Thats actually a very good question. And what i have told the governors of both washington and colorado is that we retain the ability to file federal lawsuits if we feel that the schemes that they have put in place, the regulatory schemes that they have put in place are contrary to or not operating consistent with what they say in terms of not having an impact on public safety. If there are Public Health concerns generated by new regulations. What i have told them is we will not hesitate to come in and file lawsuits, and we will within the Department Come up with ways in which we can objectively monitor the situations so we can make determinations about whether or not further federal action would be appropriate beyond the prom ul p gags of the eight enforcement agencies that we have and the letters of the Deputy Attorney general sent to the field. Lastly, those, which im glad to hear, are those is that process going to be something that you will be willing or be able to share with congress so that we can also see the information that youre getting . Im sure congress will look at other ways, too. But i think it would be helpful that we try to be on the same page so we at least have the same information . That would be helpful. My guess is the way it will happen is we will get Research Proposals from, you know, a variety of places, our office of Justice Programs would make determinations as to which ones to fund. The research is done. The reports are prepared, and they are publicly available. Obviously we would share them with congress. And on the basis of those determinations, basis of that research, make determinations about what further action, if any by the Justice Department is warranted. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Ooipg going to go mr. Culverson. I think we reached the threshold. I think frankly the administration is failing. First reporteded death linked to marijuana, colorado, since legalization. And the first reported death linked to marijuana since it was legalized. The medical Examiners Office said an Exchange Student fell to his death after eating a pot cookie. Levi, an Exchange Unit from the republic of congo died while visiting denver after dying from the balcony of a hotel in march, according to the denver post. The autopsy report, denvers fox channel 13 ruled the death an accident, saying his death was due, quote, to multiple injuries due to fall from balcony after consuming marijuana cookie and marijuana intoxication. End of quote. According to the report, 7. 2 grams of active thc per millimeter, per millimeter of blood in his system. The legal limit to drive. And were seeing reports i mean, i think were going to see reports ux you know, and youre a miranda rule leader here, too. And the president is. I know the president must wish he could take those statements back. We see accidents. We see car accidents. I mean, imagine a mom and dad out with their three kids and all the sudden Automobile Accident takes place and the guy is high on marijuana. So i think youre all failing the nation, and i think, he is right. You all the to quickly call a timeout on this and bring together some of the very best minds on the health issues, on Law Enforcement telling me a very difficult time monitoring this. With alcohol, the content is certain. I took frankly breaking with my leadership at that time. I pushed. 08. If my memory serves me we carried. 08. And they were angry. The restaurant people were angry. But we saved a lot of lives. Former congressman mike barnes, i think the door is wide open now, and so unless you all do something fairly dramatic, thats why i did a letter to the president yesterday asking him to meet tw the head on research, not upon what are your personal opinions and how do you really feel. On research. And hopefully the president is a good father. I disagree with the president on a lot of issues. But nobody can say hes not a good father. But both of you have a unique responsibility at this time. And i do predict that if the president , you do not do something, the door will be wide open, and ten years from now, 20 years from now when youre sitting on your rocking chair, youre going to say, i regret when i just see what is taking place to thp country on safety, i regret that when i had the opportunity, theres nothing more ex than an ex attorney general. I urge you to follow through with what he said with that. I think after you sit down youre going to have a better opportunity. Mr. Chairman you can provide that moral leadership to kind of deal with it. And i remember when the governor was here for the governors conference. You probably met with him two, three, four weeks ago. He urged the other governors to move carefully here. Be very slow, he said. Because this thing could have ramifications for the nation. I have 16 grand kids. I dont want them to be in this and so, you know. Im not going to but if you would do that and u then im going to Say Something and go ahead. First of all, i hope ten years from now i wont be in a rocking chair. Zblf its okay to sit in a rocking chair. You may want to sit there and just get up and do something. The point is when you leave here. When you leave here. President kennedy was in his 40s sitting in a rocking chair. I love a rocking chair. The point is, when you leave this opportunity, you will never again, you think youre in a great, a great opportunity to serve the country. You will never again have if youre a lawyer, billing 800 an hour, youre not going to have the impact that you can have now. You you can have it. I urge you to please do it. Well, more seriously, as i was discussing with congressman diaz, the enforcement priorities, if you look at the sixth enforcement priority that would, in fact, warrant federal prevention, federal prosecution, let me just read it to you. Preventing drunk driving and the exacerbation of other public adverse consequences associated with public marijuana use. And so we are saying, in essence, with regard to drunk driving but beyond that, kind of picking up on the incident that you talked about and that he spoke about more generally. If there are adverse Public Health consequences that we deem associated with marijuana use, this is an enforcement priority for this administration, for this Justice Department and that would warrant our intervention. Weve already seen it, the pain and suffering anding a any of this family back in the republican congo. They will never again have their son with them and i think the flesh hold has been met. Mr. Kol berson. I wanted to ask if i could to talk about initially prosecutorial discretion and the authority the responsibilities of the president and you as the chief Law Enforcement officer of the United States. There arent frankly many responsibilities set out in the constitution for the president. Its that hes of course the chief executive officer, responsibilities as commander in chief, make treaties, nominate ambassado ambassadors, other judges, councils, other offices created by the congress, fill vacancies, give Congress Information on the state of the union. And then the one i really wanted to zero in on, the critical one as chief executive office tore take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. In your opinion, could you talk to us about, in your opinion, talk to us about case law and precedent. What is the scope when it comes to criminal cases in particular, your prosecutorial discretion . Whats the scope of prosecutorial discretion . Thats an interesting question. You know, its a hard thing, i think, to define, maybe to quantify. But understanding that when the federal government moves to investigate somebody, prosecute somebody in a criminal case. In a criminal case. Right. Or even bringing a civil case, that has broad ramifications obviously for the individual. It sends a message out to the Broader Community about what priorities are that we have. And so discretion from any perspective is the wise use of the power that we have to do so that we act in a way thats consistent with our values, its perceived as being fair and breeds respect for the system, and actually is fair and does do things in a way thats consistent with our constitution and, you know, the precepts that led to the formation of the country. Each one you said earlier is highly fact specific. It depends on the case, the individual case. Well, it depends on the individual case. But i mean, with an umbrella of understanding about how prosecutors should generally conduct themselves. But in criminal cases you want to look at those individually. Talk us to about the authority of the administration, the department of justice just with a broad brush, sweep aside an entire category of cases on policy grounds, just not going to pursue them under prosecutorial discretion. When and where does that happen and whats the legal justification were for example, for refusing to prosecute a whole range of cases that has been mentioned with the controlled substances act or whether it be with individuals who have crossed into the United States unlawfully in violation of criminal statutes. Its a question of how you know, as i said with regard to the marijuana matter, we still enforce the controlled substances act, enforce it when it comes to the marijuana issue. The question is what are our priorities going to be, how are we going to use the limited resources that we have, what are we going to focus on in that enforcement effort. Those priorities define what is a reasonable use of our prosecutorial discretion. In some cases, for example, looking at the border of the United States, entering the United States illegally entering the United States unlawfully, theres criminal penalty for that. And in the loredo sector in the rio grand valley sector, i understand from talking to members of congress in that area, im sorry my good friend henry is not here, but he tells me that theres a limit set in place that youre not going to prosecute folks that bring in less than 100 pounds of marijuana. In the tucson sector, i know from my own experience, nobody was going to be prosecuted if they brought in less than 500 pounds. So every load the smugglers figured out immediately, every load came in just below it. Are there any other examples, to your knowledge, any legal precedent, any legal examples that you can point to us in other administrations where there have been policy decisions made is to just not prosecute a whole category of folks, for example, whether it be smuggling or in the case of individuals who are under a certain age who cross the border without permission as has been done with the administrations policy not to prosecute kids under a certain age, regardless of the merits of the policy. Whats the legal talk to us about, as the chief Legal Adviser to the president , whats the Legal Authority for that, to set aside and just not prosecute a whole category of folks . When has that been done in the past and whats the Legal Authority in i dont have any specifics in mind but i can tell you no specific Legal Authority in mind . I was going to talk about something else. I was talking about those two cases in particular. Set aside the policy matter. Obviously you want Police Officers to use their good heart and their good sense when theyre making a stop. For example, nobody wants to throw little kids in jail. Set that aside. Talk to us in general about any Legal Authority previous cases, prooef administrations that have made a policy decision not to prosecute a particular category of individuals. Well, what id say is, you know, i think what you just said is a good example. You want Police Officers to act in a sensible way. Common sense and good heart. You want your prosecutors to do the same thing. And the notion that somehow or another this administration has turned a blind eye to border enforcement is certainly belied by the statistics and frankly the criticism that the president has unfairly received over the recent past about the border efforts that we have been engaged in. You talk about those limits. If in fact there are limits i dont know whether they exist or not of 200 pounds per person carrying in and everybody comes in at 199, well a good u. S. Attorney is going the say guess what, were going to start prosecuting 199pound cases. Im not talking about vid cases, just the policy. Im not aware of, and im searched ive been serging for examples i understand in individual cases you want Police Officers and Law Enforcement officer to use their good heart and good judgment and common sense. Every case is different. Obviously thats within the bounds of prosecutorial discretion on an individual basis. Can you point to us any other Administration Legal precedent, case law where an administration has just decided as a matter of policy to get aside a whole category of cases that are eligible for prosecution but in a broad sweep . This whole category, were not going to look at them or prosecute them. When has that been done before . I cant give you specific incidents but im sure i can come up with exam. S. Administrations ma make these determinations all of the time. When i desize that were going to prosecute category a, were going to prioritize those and i have eight, ten,000 prosecutors, that necessarily means im probably going to have less capacity to do other cases. Certainly. Former attorneys general, former Justice Department folks who head up the criminal tuition, other enforcement divisions have made those determinations all of the time. For broad categories of individuals that fit broad definition of characteristics. Im talking about broad policy matters. What im trying to drive at, you said you cant think of specifics. It sounds like the Administration May be blazing a new trail here. Not at all. When has it been done before . What the administration is doing in its exercise of its prosecutorial discretion is totally consistent with the way that other attorneys general and other departments of jus have conducted themselves. Ive been through priority a, priority b, were doing this, i mean, ive been through these kinds of appropriate determinations by the Political Leadership of the department, looking at the situation that they confront, the needs of the nation at that time to make appropriate determinations as to how the limited resources of the department would be employed. In individual cases. No. Its an interesting question. I want to open an avid dispute with you just a little bit. You just described what we call selective prosecution. The attorneys everywhere in the world decide which cases theyre going to ask to go before a court as a priority. And you call that prosecutorial discretion, i disagree with that definition. And in fact, judges and prosecutors, when it happens and they get accused of refusal to prosecute certain categories of crime, they get accused of abuse of discretion. Judges get brought before the certain internal governing bodies on the issue of abuse of discretion and prosecutors do, too. There is quite a difference between the individual category of prosecutorial discretion, let me look at my case against that person, is this a case that i should be bringing to court or before a grand jury. Thats prosecutorial discretion. Exactly. To say as a broad category im not going to prosecute any drug cases in any county, which there have been judges an prosecutors have done, and theyve been sanctioned and sometimes removed from office by using that situation. Judge thats really what im driving at. If gentlemen would yield for a second. The truth of the matter is that the federal government doesnt go around prosecuting people for what might be called im not sure if any place youve ever been, places ive been a nickel badge of marijuana. You know, u. S. Attorneys, fbi agents are not coming on the Street Corner locking up a kid for possession of marijuana is not something weve focused on. The truth of the matter is there is a whole host of crimes, broad categories of which, right, that the federal government doesnt take we leigh that to state and local government to do. And when, you know, president reagan gave amnesty to 3 million people, right, that was a use of discretion by the administration. There are times because i think if i asked the attorney general how much would we have to appropriate to enforce every law in every state on every person, it would not be a sum that we could afford. So by virtue of that, there is some decisionmaking process that has to take place. If my friend from philadelphia id be happy to yield. Im talking about in general. Judge carter really hit it. Im talking about the drug laws in general or immigration. I understand it as a fact specific situation. Im really looking at judge carters question. When youve got a prosecutor or a judge that decides to set aside a whole category of individuals right, judge . Yeah. How many years were you a judge . 20. Two years as a judge. Youre aware that if a prosecutor said were not going to prosecute this entire category of people, and the law is real clear then sanctions are taken. Could i ask my friend to yield. Before you yield, let me say this. Certainly. I come from a place called philadelphia. The philadelphia different attorney three years ago announced he wasnt prosecuting possession of marijuana period and hes brought no cases on that issue for the following years. No one has sought sanctions against him. No one. Its on the state. It depends on the prosecutors have that discretion. Hes an elected official, elected by the people of the city of philadelphia. We might not notice this but the country is changing its view on marijuana, the same way it happened with alcohol. We had a prohibition. We had a major Law Enforcement effort. It obviously didnt work to stop people from drinking alcohol. So the country made a different decision. No its not great for people to do it, its dmef natalie not good for them to drive on the highways, it can impair their situation with their family but were going to let the americans make the decision. Can i make one quick point . Sure. Youve been so kind to yield to all of us. Thats because he is a kind person. He is a very kind person. I want to give an example in the federal system. When i started at the u. S. Attorneys office back in the late 80s, there was a Department Justice policy that we wouldnt prosecute cocaine cases less than one kilo. We didnt have the resources. A few years later we wouldnt prosecute cocaine cases unless they were over 5 kilos. Because they were left to the state . The state has dual jurisdiction but watz question of the federal government prioritizing its resources and deciding where it best used his prosecutorial jurisdiction. Prosecuted by the state. The federal attorney said ive only got so many resources, these are state cases. What im mentioning, is the amnesty was a statute. You know what, if we ever get a vote in the house, were going to do it too. That was Congress Enacting a statute. And my friend mr. Shift, who true will is, were very good friends. What youre referring to is the federal prosecutors left those case to the state. Thats what i wanted to ask. When you refused to prosecute five pounds or ten pounds of coke, did you then because the federal case always takes priority over the state case. Im fairly certain its illegal to have find pounds of coke or ten pounds of coke. Did those cases get turned over to the state courts to be prosecuted . Yes. The state district attorneys usually picked those up but of course they have their ore limitations and they set their own priorities that we will go after certain cases and not be able to prosecute others because we dont have the resource to do everything. This is a state practice as well as a federal practice. One that i dont disagree with because youve got to leave some to the state authorities and others when congress has changed the law or the people changed the law or for example in philadelphia im a big tenth amendment guy. I think all of these criminal cases ought to be handled by state authorities. I understand. The distinction, what im driving at, i think you can distinguish what theyre talking about and what other administrations, whats the precedent for other administrations, whats the legal precedent for not even prosecuting whole categories of cases . When has that been done. Youve been in the department of justice since 1976. You said you couldnt really think of any. Im trying to establish, are you blazing a new trail here or what . No, were not blazing a trail. Its determined by the amountings but the state pick those up. That would be true of the marijuana cases as well. In the sense that we make a determination that for whatever reason were not doing the cases unless these eight priorities are met, that doesnt mean that those cases wont be prosecuted. The state has the capacity to bring those cases. Right. Selective enforcement if the gentleman will yield for one moment ill give you an example. There was a date in our history that the president pardoned hundreds of thousands of people violated the law by avoiding the draft. Hes got the power of the authority of the constitution. No. Hes got the authority under the constitution. There was an election, this administration was elected, this attorney general was appointed and confirmed by the senate and is acting, serving as the pleasure of the president. And the president said smoking marnd is not a good thing. Hes not advising that people do it. What hes saying is that the country is moving. Yesterday the poll came out and said forget marijuana, 67 of the people think they schould go to treatment. We live in a democracy in which the public gets a vote. And we enact laws to reflect the opinions of our constituents. And the pow are of pardon is vested in the president by the constitution. I dont want you to think that no president has ever taken an action like not prosecuting a whole category. Thats what im getting at. Let me ask you a question. Would you have the federal government, the prosecution prosecute every single case we had the ability to prosecute . No. Exactly we cant. That is an individual case by case decision. Thats what im driving at. Mr. Holder, do you ever plead anybody out . Do i ever do what . Does the Justice Department ever plead anybody out . About 90 of your cases, right . 97 of the cases. You couldnt plead out a fivepound deal . I mean you decide youre too busy to prosecute a 5pound deal. Five pounds is a hell of a lot of cocaine when you measure it by the gram. Were talking about cocaine now. Thats what i was pointed to an example. Five pounds of cocaine was the cutoff, now it was it was five kilos. Im sorry. Thats even worse. Thats 10point thats is 1 pounds. But the facts are you plead out those cases. To say you dont have the people to do it, you plead out 90 of you case is. No. Thats not really the example were talking about here. Lets switch examples even in plea bargain cases you still have to investigate the case. You dont get a plea just because you ask for one. You dont get any plea if you dont have a prosecution it may mean you cant do all of the ten kilo cases. But you plead them out or hand over to the state. But the real question is were going to stop asking to yield. Lets get away from the stuff thats clearly illegal in the big debate where the state has no jurisdiction, immigration. Bingo. You have refused to prosecute immigration cases, made a statement as a Public Policy that you would not go forward on anything but major criminal violations, not violations of the immigration code but violations of the criminal code. Thats a policy that youve established. And right now 60,000 unaccompanied minors are coming across in the rio grand valley this year all of which, if they were american citizens would go before our Child Protective Services and probably be taken away from their parents rather than turned over to a criminal organization and nobody crosses the texas border from mexico without the assistance of the cartel. Nobody. Now how in the world havent you created a very dangerous situation by saying im not going to prosecute anybody thats living and working hard. But theyre safe. And then thats encouraged people to make this kind of decision for their children . This is atrocious. Well, judge, i will match the enforcement record of this administration against the enforcement record on the border of any other administration, any other one. Youre talking about deportations. Any other administration. I will agree with your figures when you eliminate the pass backs, okay . Lets look at the record. The turn backs. Because we turn back mexican nationals every day. Lets look at the record and see what this administration has done, what this president has done, what our border enforcement efforts have been like. And they are the equal of and better than what any other amendment has done which i suspect you probably were not as critical of. Thank you. Chairman wolfe thats one reason i love this subcommittee so much how generous you are with our time and the thoughtfulness of our discussion. It is heartfelt earnest discussion. In your mind youre not aware move any other instance in which an entire category of individuals the department of justice has refused to prosecute . The premise of your question is that its something were doing now. Its being done with immigration. We are again using or resources in appropriate ways. Were not saying the categories of people, categories of kinds of cases are not going to be prosecuted. Individualized determinations are always made. There are exceptions to rules that we come up with. We have the eight categories here. Al ka poen, couldnt get him on any of the stuff that he did so they brought a tax case. Thats an individual case. Im talking about categories. Thank you. But chairman carter is wrestling with this right now. Weve got vast numbers of abandoned kids being handed over to the cartels coming across the border. Its heartbreaking and its a terrible message to send not to prosecute a whole category of people because youve got these kids being abandoned. Its a heartbreaking situation. Just so my position is clear, i categorically disagree with your saying that we are not prosecuting vast categories of cases in a way thats inconsistent with the way things have been done by prior Justice Departments. I suspect judge carter will have a followup. If the gentleman will yield. I appreciate the chairman being patient. I can tell you in my subcommittee on the homeland security, we have sat and heard the conversation from all of the departments that its the policy of the government to only go after criminal aliens. Thats the department of Justice Policy to only go after criminal aliens. Its been given as a reason for resources, reason for moving right. Resources around the border. Yada yada yada. We heard it since it began when the democrats were in charge. This is when we decided that the people to go after were criminal aliens. And all other people that cross the border we were not going to pursue anything in court. Now chairman i dont know where i dont why forree eight years, six years people have been telling us a story but thats what they tell us. If the gentlemen would yield. Judge carter is in the majority in the house. Lets put this in perspective. The Senate Passed the Immigration Reform bill that has an enormous amount of resources to be provided for border security, tens of billions of dollars. The president supports this or would support a house alternative. The House Majority has yet to bring that bill to the floor, Immigration Reform that would increase border security. They refuse to bring it to the floor just on border security. I thank the gentleman for reminding me of that. Excuse me. So when you hear the passion emanating from the other team about how concerned they are about these issues related to the border, the first question is when are they going to bring, within their own authority, a piece of legislation to the floor of the house so that the house could act . One, this critical issue. If tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors are coming across the border, right, if all of this is going on, if the administration is somehow dur f in its responsibility, then the congress should act. The only instrument of the United States government has not acted on this matter is the house, which is in the control of the majority. So you to question this passion relative to the inact. Thats not the law yet. Thats all i was drawing at. Thats a great way to avoid the question. I thank you for that. I want to help the understanding of thats not the law yet. Chairman wolfe, thank you for your generosity with the time. Were going to vote soon. Mr. Chairman, should the rest of us get a law degree just for sitting in on this debate . You can audit the course and get a credit. You can audit the course. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney general, we all have to make choices. I think the greatest thing about the life that god allows us to lead is we get to make choices. When you choose to focus on one area, there is in the economics, theres something called the opportunity cost. If you choose to focus on one syria, you cant focus on something else. These are choices that have get made. Weve said as a nation the core responsibilities of the United States is to protect the American People from another terrorist act. We turn the whole fbi turn it around to prevent another attack. So there is a difference in some of the priorities of the department of justice today than the department of justice pre19 the pre9 11, right, under your leadership and under past attorneys general. Youve had to focus on this threat from alqaeda and others who seek to do americans, the American Public harm, right . So there is a difference on what we might do a whole range of these other items that more traditionally might have gotten more attention because youve got to focus some of your attention on people who are not trying to, you know, kind of violate some criminal law here in our country but really trying to kill us. There is a difference in your responsibilities. I want you to talk a little bit about the work on this National Security front, right . Because i think that there was a hearing a long time ago where we had a former speaker goi eer gi he was saying, we got to do this. I asked the question, there was a time under former american president , we would criticize china for arresting people without due process, without charges, with secret evidence that was never made public and so on. And the bush, sr. , complained about this process in china. I asked former speaker gingrich, what does this mean in our war on terrorism now . How are we going to reconcile being a nation of laws and you know, protecting ourselves, right . And he admitted in this hearing that we are in a different place. And this has been part of the controversy that youve had to confront in terms of reconciling our laws and our constitution with the fact that we are in a situation in which the geneva conventions and other normal con strants dont exist, at least for those who are adversaries. If you would talk a little bbt about how you try to reconcile these issues in you role, that would be helpful. Well, what ive often said is theres not a tension between keeping the American People safe and our National Security responsibilities and adherence to our values. We can do both, in fact if were doing it in the way we should be doing, we should be keeping the American People safe in a way thats consistent with our values. We have in our budget requests for what in essence is a new Justice Department, new in the sense that its different, as you say, from the Justice Department that existed before 9 11. Youre about absolutely correct that the fbi is a fundamentally different agent thn it was, the Justice Department is different. When i was the Deputy Attorney general in a pre9 11 Justice Department i didnt start my day by going to 8 30 briefings where i would get the raw threat stream for the past 24 hours as i do now, along with the Deputy Attorney general. Were much more a National Security agency than we once were. I spend huge amounts of time in the situation room trying to determine what the National Security response of the United States is going to be in a whole variety of contexts. So this Department Needs the budgetary requests that weve put forward to support this relatively new mission, were talking about something that is a decade old at this point. But were constantly trying to redefine or measures so we can be more effective and adhere to the values. I told you i visited the joint Terrorism Center when it opened in virginia. The chairman lets me go to virginia every once in a while and i was there. Its a whole range of entities, many from doj working together trying to youll find the needle in the hay stack, if you would. These post 9 11 there was all this concern about not connecting the dots, right . So what is your sense now in terms of doj as it interacts with the other intelligence apparatuses . Do you think there is appropriate interaction or are there still challenges . I think we are in a much better place than we were, in a better place now as this administration. There were certain concerns that were raced after the abdul incident in detroit where we didnt see the kinds of communication between the National Security agencies that we needed to have and this was of great concern to the president. So i think were doing bet ner that regard. I think we can always do better to make sure that institutional barriers, turf, consciousness is not something that gets in the way of information sharing and policy development. But i can tell you that when it comes to a whole range of National Security issues, i look at the people who i normally meet with. These are members of the intelligence community, the defense department, the Justice Department, representatives from the white house, National Security staff, these are the kinds of things that we take a whole government approach to. Didnt mean were perfect but i think were also sensitive to the fact that we need to become as perfect, you know, as we can. Were always trying to fine tune the efforts that were engaged in. Thank you, thank you, mr. Chairman. Prison rain elimination act, the budget requests pro cutting the grants by 16 . Whats your rationale for that . Im sorry