reviews the 2015 budget request. >> our guest on "newsmakers" this week is virginia's bob of thete, the chairman house judiciary committee. thank you for joining us. >> it is good to be with you and your viewers. >> john gramlich is the legal affairs reporter, josh gerstein is at national security for politico. taking the time today. i wanted to ask about the appearance before your committee this week. it was very contentious toward the end of the hearing where he was making a personal swipe at your committee. i wonder if you can talk about that and whether you think maybe he crossed the line in terms of the oversight. for anyoneways wise appearing before the committee and members of the committee to not make things personal and the remark by the attorney general, i do not think there are many people out there who believe he is a buddy of the attorney general. as a result, that was not well advised on his part. questionse in answer from 34 members of the committee on a wide array of issues. of concerns about the department of justice. we thought it was a good opportunity to raise those concerns with the attorney general. it was adpoint successful hearing. >> let me ask you one question more on that subject. attorney general holder was in new york earlier in the week making a speech in which he referred to divisivented and adversity he suggested the ministration had suffered. he referred to his appearance at the house committee saying what attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment ? what president has had to deal with that treatment? what do you make of it? welcomed the attorney general to the committee. when he left, the last words he said to me was that he felt he had been treated fairly by me in the conduct of the hearing. certainly with as many controversial issues related to executive overreach with actions of by the administration in general, the attorney general and particular, many people around the country and committee thing it is beyond the scope of what the attorney general is entitled to do in his sworn responsibility uphold the laws. those were bound to occur. important in the representative democracy that we have. need to be accountable to the american people. the best places for their representatives to be able to ask very sharp and pointed questions about the issues before the congress and the conduct of the government by this administration of which the attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer. >> i wanted to change gears and talk about a mitigation -- immigration for a moment. the bills have been waiting for action on the house for for some time. i am wondering what you take away from the fact that these bills have not been brought up? are they making a political call that you disagree with? >> no. we have taken a step-by-step approach to immigration reform. i have been very straightforward about this. we do not like the senate bill. the one into a dress all three areas of immigration. and finding an appropriate status for people who are not lawfully here but they wanted done in the correct order. this is what we have set out to do in the committee. we have taken the step-by-step approach. the leadership has adopted this approach. they have been very straightforward about the doing thisthat are and the understanding that it needs to be done. our system is broken him also not being enforced. we also have to follow regular order and have a majority. argue a substantial majority of the republicans in the house supporting this. would remind you that in the senate 70% of the republicans in the minority voted against the senate bill. .e are attempting to do that it is a challenge. it is also something that we are going to continue to work on it until we get it right with the step-by-step approach, putting enforcement first. the next that remains to be seen. the most recent was putting thatrd a set of standards give an outline only of how we would address all three of the that but also the process we would follow to accomplish that. that is to not conference with the senate bill but to conference with each of these separately. >> how does this affect your timetable? >> we should make sure we get it done right. the election is certainly a factor that is involved there. there's more than one election. there are primaries and the general election in november. whether this is before the session or after the election. in a new congress, that has not yet been determined. to work oninuing addressing all three of these issues of immigration reform. >> can i ask you the national security agency controversy? do you think this is a subject that the congress needs to tackle? are you comfortable with the news going forward? needs to bet tackled. this emanates from the fact that not just this administration but prior administrations have engaged in intelligence gathering activities that i and not comportfeel do with the law. result, we need to make sure that while we protect the ability of our government to prevent terrorist attacks, that is gathering appropriate intelligence. we need to make sure that american civil liberties are being protected. part of this relates to the trust of the american people. i asked the witnesses from these various government agencies involved in setting the policy why it was they had not simply told the american people that was their interchurch asian -- there to rotation and that they could get large quantities of metadata and apply tests to it in order to gather important intelligence gathering information. did they keep it a secret? they kept it secret they claim because they did not want the people that they need to gather intelligence about who would harm the united states about their methodology. asever, to expect a program massive as that one could remain secret in definitely i think is inappropriate. i asked why they did not think this would eventually become public and their answer was we tried. a very inappropriate answer. i think it has eerie seriously damaged the administration -- barry sears the damage the administration that this was released by edward snowden, who essentially stole the crown jewels of american foreign-policy. as a result, if the said this isn has how we're going to do this. there could have been a great national debate if this is appropriate or not. in an environment of great mistrust. >> can i ask you about the debate? it has arty begun informed legislation. this bill seems to go in a direction that a majority of the members of your own judiciary committee are not comfortable with. 29-34co did a tally members voted to basically do away with this 215 program. are you going to insist that any legislation come through the judiciary committee? >> absolutely. this is the jurisdiction of the committee. they have an interest in how this is gather. civil liberties that must be protected under our bill of rights, this is very clearly the jurisdiction of our committee. the underlying legislation in of then was the product judiciary committee. we are hard at work on that. we take into consideration the work of the intelligence committee. we are very interested in the by thene thus far president has outlined some approaches to that. working in a bipartisan fashion in the judiciary committee to fashion legislation that will go much more strongly toward protecting the civil liberties of americans while that intelligence can be gathered that is necessary to keep our country safe. >> would you schedule a market on the bipartisan proposal from your counterpart in the senate? are working very closely with the senate. we are working closely with the people who have written that legislation on finding the appropriate way to move forward in the committee. no decision has been made about that. we are working in a very collaborative fashion to find the best way forward. >> if i can ask you about criminal law. as you know, the subject of marijuana has been a very hotter virtual one. it keeps coming up in a variety of sessions. i am curious about your personal views on this. shouldbelieve marijuana be a schedule one substance classified in the same way as drugs such as lsd or heroin? is a dangerous substance that has many more drawbacks then benefits that some people derive from this year it the food and drug administration notwithstanding that some people believe this is an appropriate product to be used for medical purposes. they have never found any use for marijuana that was better for already approved prescription drugs. the evidence regarding the effect that it has, particularly on young people is concerning. changeot my purpose to the law with regard to marijuana. we are engaged in examining all of our criminal laws and what we call the over criminalization tax force -- task force and looking at guidelines and a wide array of other things that relate to prison overcrowding and so on. i have not signed off on the idea that the best way to deal with these issues would be to change the categorization of marijuana. do thing during the 1980's and 1990's and the war on crime some of the laws congress passed went too far and there are forle that are serving time primarily drug offenses on the order 25 or 30 years or maybe a lesser time of incarceration might be appropriate? all, the task force is looking at that very issue. i think it is very appropriate to look at that issue. if you look at it very carefully and look at what the five year, if you're talking about 25 or 30 year sentences, you're talking about something the judge and the jury found appropriate to do above mandatory minimum sentences. those are five year and 10 year sentences. if you look at those mandatory minimums, you will find the quantities of drugs that have to be involved are very large. particularly in the case of marijuana. thousands of pounds before you can be given the minimum sentences. with the other drugs that are very potent in much smaller quantities are much lower. if you look at it from the standpoint of what someone has to be engaged in dealing, you're talking about large quantities before you get the minimums. we are still taking a careful look at all of this process including the sentencing and the serving as sentences and what is appropriate relative to what we are trying to accomplish, get drugs off the street, criminals off the street. incarcerated on the streets, we do not want high rates of recidivism. that is something we need to be looking at in terms of our citizens and process and the cost, which is very substantial. the largest costs that they incur is the incarceration of people. states have some been successful in lowering the number of people incarcerated while the federal incarceration numbers still continue to rise. at whatoing to look others are doing. we are interested in what some states that both have lower incarceration rate and lower recidivism rates we want to talk to them and find out what they are doing. this is a legitimate issue to be examining. we should not jump to conclusions about what is right or wrong with the law. >> we have about 10 minutes left. >> i want to ask you about the control of the senate. your party has a good chance of taking over the senate. in which case senator grassley could be your counterpart. there was a flap recently in his home state about someone saying he did not have a legal background. the first non-lawyer to be the chairman of the judiciary committee. you are a lawyer. i wonder if you could just share your opinion on whether you think it is necessary to be a lawyer to chair the judiciary committee? traditionve the same and the house. we have great members of the committee who are very strong contributing members that are not attorneys. i think it is up to the sent it to determine who should serve. in the meantime, senator grassley is the one i had great respect for an enemy with them on a regular basis to discuss what we are doing in the house to get his assistance on inislation that is piling up the united states senate. there are now more than 200 bills would have passed the house that have not been acted upon in the senate. many of those are judiciary committee bills. i know from my conversations with him that he shares my interest in many of the issues we deal with in the judiciary committee. i would very much look forward to working with the chairman grassley in the senate. oflet me ask you about one the broader legal themes that comes up often in the dish very mad, federalism. -- comes up often in the judiciary committee, federalism. seem to go through the revolving door pretty often. even at the hearing this week, we saw republicans challenging attorney general holder over issues like immigration where republicans seemed to have the view that states should be allowed to implement measures that get into the area of immigration and over jobs where people seemed upset with wings he has done that arguably show respect for those taken by the like coloradoes and washington. do you agree both seem to suffer from convenience that they accept it when it is to their liking and look the other way when not? inthe separation of powers our law is both a vertical and horizontal. we think we have a very serious problem right now with the executive branch not enforcing the law. some of the things they do not want to enforce we would readily agree need to be change. they need to be changed by the congress. that has theody authority under article one of the constitution to enact the law. the duty is spelled out in faithfully to execute the law. that is the coral we have. when he said to extend the mandate we said that is a good and. the president said i don't like that. the question is by what authority is he delaying it? vertically,ned there are issues where the state disagree with the federal government. rule of lawole process that encompasses our competition -- constitution and the 10th amendment that has real areas thed in certain federal government has privacy. in other areas we have to work out the differences. when it comes to the laws themselves, it is the congress that need to adopt federal laws and not the administration to say we like what we are doing. a difference of opinion is a great debate. >> event chairman of the dish or a year and a half. maybe the bill you are most proud of having gone to the committee? very are working on issues important to the american people. we have discussed several on this program already. what we have not mentioned is legislation that i introduced last year to crack down on patent litigation abuse. patent trolling. with verythe house strong bipartisan support. i work closely with numbers on both sides of the aisle. when it passed on the floor of the house, about 90% of republicans and about two thirds of democrats gave it a very overwhelming majority going over to the senate. we were to very closely on the issue. we have expressed our concerns. like. is a bill they we coordinated even on the language in the house bill. we want a strong litigation reform bill. we had that discussion with the chairman and other members. we look for to them producing such a small villa we can work out the differences and send it to the president desk. if they do not, we are not interested in taking something. that does not adjust the problems we have in this country with a multibillion-dollar extortionate, patent trolling group of enterprises that are harming american businesses and hurting job creation. is making them difficult to put this on the market. it hurt big businesses and new startups as well. that is why we have such strong support. >> my understanding is that you are owing to hold some kind of hearing next month on the comcast/time warner issue. tell us what you are looking at. what do you think the standard should be for whether congress takes for that? >> hearings related to antitrust recognize that either the justice department or the federal trade commission is also reviewing. they have authority to approve or disapprove mergers and acquisitions. we will be taking a look at it from the standards that are in current law. it will relate to the merger if it were to take place. this is a big deal. this could have significant impact on competition in the united states. we will be looking at it from the vantage point and the impact it will have on consumers in terms of the choices they will have in terms of getting access in terms of this in the standpoint of what impact it has thehe competitiveness of companies that create the red ont that has ai cable systems and other means consumers can access. will it increase or decrease? disadvantagerly those? are ofof these things concern to us. it will be part of the focus of the hearing. >> with 30 seconds. -- we have 30 seconds. ort is your committee concerns over this direction? >> we want to make sure that the internet remains free in open. critical roleed a to make sure countries around the world that would like to regulate free speech another activity on the internet do not take control of the internet. self governing a entity with the united states department of commerce, has mostly succeeded in that goal. we want to make sure if they sever that link with the united states that they will be able to continue to succeed to keep the internet open and free and not to become bodies that would like to replace it and become the governing board for the internet. is a very bad idea. we're doing our duty legends. hearing today i think helped to raise important questions about what will happen if this pursued. >> thank you for your time. >> it is good to be with you. largerme ask you the accomplishments. he talked about frustration with legislation moving out of the senate. also nothe plans have met a warm reception. what with this committee have to look to buy the time the, -- byt comes down -- the a comes down? >> a pass on a boat like 320 52 591. .lik passed a vote if one thing it would have a compost that is one. >> you both asked about immigration. it is important for the gop and the approach to minority communities, particularly hispanics. what are you learning about leadership interest? >> there does not seem to be a lot of interest despite what the chairman said. i do not see it a key problem in moving legislation at the moment. it is a decision by house leadership that they did not want to have the paternal -- internal fight despite the fact that many strategists say the republican party needs to signal they are more open to the latino community for one example. i think the difficulty here once again, as may end up being the case of the nsa legislation, will be in line with what members of the dishes sherry -- judiciary committee concluded. >> in order for an immigration bill to pass in need a support of the majority of the majority. that is what i took. it is unclear if he is going to get that. >> would you further comment on the nsa legislation and it challenges? to me is very clear in the fact that he sees his committee as being the right committee to consider this. this is on the intel committee. this is a very interesting sort of revelation on his start. it does signal that there is some internal fighting as well. the whiteerences to house and president was one of the issues where he seemed most open to what the president's views were. my understanding is that is what the effort is right now and try to see if there is some legislation that could win the ofport of the white house the majority of the democrats and enough of the people on the republican side who are concerned about this. it is very complicated. the views of the different groups are not at all aligned. the judiciary committee has a much different makeup. the judiciary committee tend to be far more polarized. it is the polls let are much more important. thee are now getting to point where there is beginning to be a bit of a patchwork quilt in the states to the marijuana issue which would invite federal court review logically. int is the congress interest letting the process play out? at this point, in the dictionary and many at least -- in the judiciary committee there is a strong inclination toward oversight. republicans have a strong problem with the obama admits ration allowing states to go their own way and creating this split. it is a good question if they let the courts play it out. now they want to point to this inconsistency where on one hand the obama administration isn't knowledge and that mayor won or remains illegal on federal law and saying roughly half the states you can go ahead and legalize it. >> the summer to the immigration issue. court battleon the over that. the attorney general holder has said he has the option to sue colorado or washington or other states over their drug related laws. it is interesting that he did not say that they should go down th

Related Keywords

Colorado , United States , New York , Virginia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Americans , American , Jason Millman , John Gramlich , Barry Sears , Edward Snowden , Bob Goodlatte ,