[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 15, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-43
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-973 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (800) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-214 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
LAMAR SMITH, Texas Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio JUDY CHU, California
TED POE, Texas TED DEUTCH, Florida
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
MARK AMODEI, Nevada SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho JOE GARCIA, Florida
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
[Vacant]
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MAY 15, 2013
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 1
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 3
WITNESS
The Honorable Eric J. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, United
States Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 33
Material submitted by the Honorable Judy Chu, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 48
Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary..................... 99
Material submitted by the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 103
Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Committee on the Judiciary
Submission One............................................... 116
Submission Two............................................... 118
Submission Three............................................. 119
Submission Four.............................................. 188
Material submitted by the Honorable Darrell E. Issa, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, and
Member, Committee on the Judiciary............................. 121
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Eric J.
Holder, Jr., Attorney General, United States Department of
Justice........................................................ 216
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2013
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:08 p.m., in room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob
Goodlatte (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner, Coble,
Smith, Chabot, Bachus, Issa, Forbes, King, Franks, Gohmert,
Jordan, Poe, Chaffetz, Marino, Gowdy, Amodei, Labrador,
Farenthold, Holding, Collins, DeSantis, Conyers, Nadler, Scott,
Watt, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson, Chu, Deutch, Bass,
Richmond, DelBene, Garcia, and Jeffries.
Staff Present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff &
General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief
Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel;
Sarah Allen, Counsel; Caroline Lynch, Counsel; Kelsey
Deterding, Clerk; (Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director &
Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian; and Aaron
Hiller, Counsel.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Committee will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the
Committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the oversight of
the United States Department of Justice.
Welcome, Attorney General Holder, to your sixth appearance
before the House Judiciary Committee since your confirmation in
2009. We are happy to have you here with us today.
Last month, the City of Boston and the Nation as a whole
was gripped with fear as the historic Boston Marathon,
traditionally a day of celebration, was attacked by twin
explosions that killed 3 people and injured more than 250.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his older brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev set
off the explosions, then shot and killed MIT police officer
Sean Collier and seriously wounded Boston transit police
officer Richard Donohue while attempting to elude capture.
Tamerlan died after a fierce gun battle with police.
Dzhokhar eventually surrendered after sustaining serious
injuries himself.
I would like to commend the FBI and all of the Federal,
State, and local law enforcement agents who worked tirelessly
to identify the bombers and apprehend Dzhokhar. The Patriots
Day attack in Boston shows us that domestic terror threats are
real, ongoing, and can have deadly consequences. In 2010, FBI
Director Mueller and other intelligence officials warned us
that domestic and lone wolf extremists are now just as serious
a threat to our safety as al-Qaeda.
We have been fortunate that until April 15th of this year
previous domestic terror plots have been foiled. The bombings
in Boston remind us that the terror threat has not diminished,
but that it is ever present and evolving. It is critical that
Congress and this Committee in particular ensure that our
ability to detect, deter, and prosecute these threats keeps
pace with this evolution.
To that end, I look forward to hearing from you today about
ways that Congress can amend the Federal rules for criminal
cases to make sure that we are able to prosecute terrorism
cases while still allowing law enforcement to learn critical
information to stop future attacks. I am also concerned about
reports that in the years leading up to the Boston attack,
several different Federal agencies or departments received
intelligence about the bombers.
These agencies did not connect the dots, and this is not
the first time that this has happened in recent years. The
question that the Administration and we in Congress need to
address is whether there are any improvements that can be made
going forward to facilitate interagency information sharing so
that we can better thwart future domestic terrorists.
I am also interested today to hear about how the Department
intends to tighten its belt in a responsible way during this
time of fiscal uncertainty. I was pleased to hear that the
Department was ultimately able to prioritize its spending to
avoid furloughing Federal agents and prison guards in response
to the sequester, which reduced the Department's more than $27
billion budget by approximately 5 percent.
However, after learning of elaborate conferences with $12
cups of coffee, $10,000 pizza parties, and a vast array of
duplicative grant programs and the purchase of a $170 million
prison from the State of Illinois, I am confident there are
many ways the Department can root out waste and duplication
without harming critical missions. With our national debt at
more than $16 trillion, the American people deserve no less.
I am also deeply concerned about a pattern I see emerging
at the Department under your leadership in which conclusions
reached by career attorneys after thorough investigation are
overruled by Administration appointees for political reasons.
For instance, investigators from this Committee and the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee have uncovered
conclusive evidence that Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez,
against the strong recommendations of career attorneys, struck
a secret deal with the City of St. Paul in order to block the
Supreme Court----
Mr. Nadler. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. That is not
correct information. That is not what the Subcommittee found.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman will have his opportunity to
speak at a later time.
This secret deal undermined the rule of law and robbed the
American taxpayers of the opportunity to recover over $200
million in fraudulently obtained funds.
What is more, the New York Times recently reported that
political appointees at the Department, over the vehement
objections of career attorneys, decided to commit as much as
$4.4 billion in taxpayer money to compensate thousands of
farmers who had never claimed bias in court. A small group of
female and Hispanic farmers, based on claims similar to those
in Pigford, had made allegations that the Department of
Agriculture had discriminated against them in administering its
loan programs.
However, according to the Times, career attorneys within
the Department determined that there was no credible evidence
of widespread discrimination and that the legal risks did not
justify the costs and that it was legally questionable to
sidestep Congress and compensate the farmers out of the
judgment fund.
Just last week, we learned that IRS employees have
admittedly targeted conservative groups for additional and
unwanted scrutiny just because they chose to exercise their
First Amendment rights. This is outrageous, and Congress and
the American people expect answers and accountability.
Finally, just 2 days ago, it was revealed that the Justice
Department obtained telephone records for more than 20
Associated Press reporters and editors over a 2-month period.
These requests appear to be very broad and intersect important
First Amendment protections.
Any abridgment of the First Amendment right to the freedom
of the press is very concerning, and Members of the Committee
want to hear an explanation today.
I look forward to hearing your answers on all of these
important topics today, as well as on other issues of
significance to the Justice Department and the country.
And it is now my pleasure to recognize for his opening
statement the Ranking Member of the Committee, the gentleman
from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte.
Today is Peace Officers Memorial Day, and I would like to
begin by honoring those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in
serving our Nation, the fallen officers who selflessly defend
our streets and keep our communities safe. As flags across the
country fly at half staff, our thoughts turn toward these brave
law enforcement officers and officials, and I thank each and
every officer for their dedicated public service.
Members of the Committee, first, with respect to the
Government's subpoena of phone records at the Associated Press,
I am troubled by the notion that our Government would pursue
such a broad array of media phone records over such a long
period of time. At the same time, I know also that the Attorney
General himself has recused himself from the investigation, and
we will hear more about that.
Policy questions on this topic are fair, and I want you to
know that I intend to reintroduce the Free Flow of Information,
which passed the House floor with overwhelming support
bipartisan in both the 110th and 111th Congress, and we hope to
do so with the continued support of Members of this Committee
on the other side of the aisle.
This Federal press shield bill would require the Government
to show cause before they may compel disclosure of this sort of
information from or about a news media organization. It is a
common sense measure. It has comparable provisions in 49 other
States and the District of Columbia. I would also note that the
Free Flow of Information Act that protects the media against
overbroad Government investigation, that has been commented
publicly by many Members of the Congress, as well as the
Administration.
We have also learned that some employees at IRS appear to
have improperly targeted Tea Party groups as they applied for
tax exempt status. No one takes allegations of discriminatory
enforcement of the law more seriously than myself, and I thank
the Attorney General for opening an investigation to uncover
any criminal activity.
And then there is no issue more important than the
continuing mission to ensure the safety and security of the
American public. The Department and local law enforcement are
to be commended for their coordinated response in identifying
and apprehending the apparent perpetrators in the Boston
bombings.
I have no doubt, Mr. Attorney General, that your own
investigation into this matter will carefully review and
consider gaps in our counterterrorism efforts that need to be
addressed.
I also want to commend the Department of Justice and the
FBI for their commitment to the most powerful counterterrorism
tools in our arsenal, the Federal criminal process and the
Federal court system. Since September 11, 2001, Federal courts
have convicted nearly 500 individuals on terrorism-related
charges. Military commissions have at best a troubled track
record and have convicted only seven individuals and have never
successfully prosecuted a U.S. citizen.
Mr. Attorney General, your commitment to the rule of law in
this matter is to be commended not just because it is the right
thing to do, but also because it keeps us safer in the long
run.
And finally, I would like to recognize the dedication to
the enforcement of civil rights and voting under the law. Under
your leadership and under the leadership of the Assistant
Attorney General Tom Perez, the Department has obtained $660
million in lending settlements, including the three largest
discrimination settlements in the Department's history. Has
obtained a $128 million award recovery in an employment
discrimination case in history, secured $16 million as a part
of a settlement to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act
at more than 10,000 banks and other financial retail offices
across the country.
And last year alone, the Civil Rights Division of the
Department of Justice opened 43 new voting rights cases, more
than twice the number than in any previous year, filed 13
additional objections to the discriminatory voting practices
under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. And of course, all
this has been done with devastating reductions in the
Department's budget that I will put in the record and, of
course, sequester, which further aggravates this problem.
That means that the cuts will affect our first responders,
will mean fewer cases brought to court, fewer police officers
on the street, fewer resources dedicated to keeping our
citizens safe.
And so, I look forward to you elaborating on those issues
raised by the Chairman of the Committee and myself, and I
suspect that you will need more than 5 minutes to do so.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I return my time.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman for his opening
statement.
Without objection, other Members' opening statements will
be made a part of the record.
And without objection, the Chair will be authorized to
declare recesses during votes on the House floor.
We again thank our only witness, the Attorney General of
the United States, for joining us today. And Attorney General
Holder, if you would please rise, I will begin by swearing you
in.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. And let the record reflect that
Attorney General Holder responded in the affirmative.
Our only witness today is United States Attorney General
Eric H. Holder Jr. On February 3, 2009, General Holder was
sworn in as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States.
General Holder has enjoyed a long career in both the public and
private sectors.
First joining the Department of Justice through the
Attorney General's Honors Program in 1976, he became one of the
Department's first attorneys to serve in the newly formed
Public Integrity Section. He went on to serve as a judge of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the United
States attorney for the District of Columbia.
In 1997, General Holder was named by President Clinton to
be the Deputy Attorney General. Prior to becoming Attorney
General, he was a litigation partner at the Covington and
Burling law firm in Washington, D.C. General Holder, a native
of New York City, is a graduate of Columbia University and
Columbia School of Law.
General Holder, we appreciate your presence today and look
forward to your testimony. Your entire written statement will
be entered into the record, and we ask that you summarize your
testimony in 5 minutes.
The gentleman noted that may be difficult, but we will
appreciate as close to that mark as you can keep. And the time
is yours, General Holder.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ERIC J. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY
GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Attorney General Holder. I bet I can get it under 5
minutes.
But anyway, good afternoon, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking
Member Conyers. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before
all of you today to discuss the Justice Department's recent
achievements and to provide an overview of our top priorities.
Particularly in recent years, the Department has taken
critical steps to prevent and to combat violence, to confront
national security threats, and to ensure the civil rights of
everyone in this country, and to safeguard the most vulnerable
members of our society.
Thanks to the extraordinary efforts of my colleagues, the
nearly 116,000 dedicated men and women who serve in the Justice
Department offices around the world, I'm pleased to report that
we have established a remarkable record of progress in
expanding our Nation's founding promise of equal justice under
law and ensuring the safety and the security of all of our
citizens.
Now the need to continue these efforts and to remain
vigilant against a range of evolving threats was really brought
into sharp focus last month in the most shocking of ways when a
horrific terrorist attack in Boston left three innocent people
dead and hundreds injured.
In the days that followed, thanks to the valor of State and
local police, the dedication of Federal law enforcement and
intelligence officials, and the cooperation of members of the
public, those suspected of carrying out this terrorist act were
identified. One suspect died following a shootout with police,
and the other has been brought into custody and charged in
Federal court with using a weapon of mass destruction. Three
others have been charged in connection with the investigation
of this case, which is active and ongoing.
As we continue working to achieve justice on behalf of our
fellow citizens and brave law enforcement officers who were
injured and killed in connection with these tragic events, and
to hold accountable to the fullest extent of the law all who
were responsible for this heinous attack, I want to assure you
that my colleagues and I are also committed to strengthening
our broader national security efforts.
For the past 4 years, we have identified, investigated, and
disrupted multiple potential plots involving foreign terrorist
organizations as well as homegrown extremists. We've secured
convictions as well as tough sentences against numerous
individuals for terrorism-related offenses. We've utilized
essential intelligence gathering and surveillance capability in
a manner that is consistent with the rule of law and consistent
with our most treasured values.
Beyond this work, my colleagues and I are enhancing our
focus on a variety of emerging threats and persistent
challenges from drug trafficking and transnational organized
crime to cyber threats and human trafficking. We're moving to
ensure robust enforcement of our antitrust laws, to combat tax
fraud schemes, and to safeguard the environment.
We're building on the significant progress that's been made
in identifying and thwarting financial and healthcare-related
fraud crimes. And for example, in fiscal year 2012, our fraud
detection and enforcement efforts resulted in the record-
breaking recovery and return of roughly $4.2 billion.
Over the last 3 fiscal years alone, thanks to the
President's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force and its
Federal, State, and local partners, we have filed nearly 10,000
financial fraud cases against nearly 14,500 defendants,
including more than 2,000 mortgage fraud defendants.
As these actions prove, our resolve to protect consumers
and to seek justice against anyone who would seek to take
advantage of their fellow citizens has never been stronger. And
the same can be said of the Department's vigorous commitment to
the enforcement of key civil rights protections.
Since 2009, this commitment has led our Civil Rights
Division to file more criminal civil rights cases than ever
before, including record numbers of human trafficking cases.
Under new tools and authorities, including the Matthew Shepard
and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, we have improved
our ability to safeguard our civil rights and pursue justice
for those who are victimized because of their gender, their
sexual orientation, their gender identity, or their disability.
We will continue to work to guarantee that in our
workplaces and in our military bases, in our housing and
lending markets, in our schools and our places of worship, in
our immigrant communities, and also in our voting booths that
the rights of all Americans are protected.
But all of this is really only the beginning. As we look
toward the future, my colleagues and I are also determined to
work closely with Members of Congress to secure essential
legislative changes, including common sense steps to prevent
and to reduce gun violence and comprehensive legislation to fix
our Nation's broken immigration system.
It is long past the time to allow the estimated 11 million
individuals who are here in an undocumented status to step out
of the shadows, to guarantee that all are playing by the same
rules, and to require responsibility from everyone, both
undocumented workers and those who would hire them.
Like many of you, I am encouraged to see that these basic
principles are reflected in the bipartisan reform proposal that
is currently being considered by the Senate. The Department
will do all that it can to help strengthen that proposal and to
advance a constructive, responsible dialogue on this issue.
I understand that this Committee and other Members are
working on immigration reform proposals as well, and I look
forward to working with you as those efforts move forward to
enact comprehensive reforms.
However, I must note that our capacity to continue building
upon the Department's recent progress is threatened by the
long-term consequences of budget sequestration and joint
committee reductions, which will worsen in fiscal year 2014
unless Congress adopts a balanced deficit reduction plan.
Should Congress fail to do so, I fear that these reductions
will undermine our ability to deliver justice for millions of
Americans and to keep essential public safety professionals on
the job.
We simply cannot allow this to happen. This afternoon, I
ask for your support in preventing these cuts and ensuring that
the Department has the resources it needs to fulfill its
critical missions.
I thank you once again for the chance to discuss our
current efforts with you today, and I would be happy to answer
any questions that you might have. I see I didn't make my 5
minutes.
[The prepared statement of Attorney General Holder
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. Your consideration was very good, and you
were close. And we thank you for your opening statement. We
will now proceed with questions under the 5-minute rule, and I
will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
You, in fact, addressed in your remarks my first question,
which deals with the troubling information that was received by
the FBI and other agencies of the Government prior to the
Boston Marathon bombing, but it does not appear that all of the
information was received by all of the pertinent parties,
particularly the FBI, which had conducted an investigation
prior to Tamerlan Tsarnaev's trip to Russia, but not after.
And we would like to continue to work with you and know
what the Department is doing to adopt procedures for handling
hits in relevant databases and making sure that the information
between agencies is improved.
Attorney General Holder. Well, we certainly want to work
with you in that regard. There is an ongoing Inspector General
investigation, as you know, as to how information was or was
not shared in the context that you have described.
I think that, generally, FBI did a very good job in
acquiring information to the extent that it could. I'm not at
all certain that all of the responses--or all of the requests
that were made to a foreign country by the FBI were replied to
in an adequate manner, and I think that is at least one of the
problems that we have.
But this matter is ongoing by the IGs.
Mr. Goodlatte. In 2010--this relates to the aftermath of
the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. In 2010, you indicated strong
support for modifying the criminal rules to ensure that
investigators could obtain critical intelligence from terrorism
suspects.
Specifically, you said in 2010, ``We are now dealing with
international terrorists, and I think that we have to think
about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have in
somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more
consistent with the threat that we now face.''
Can you articulate how the Department would propose fixing
the relevant rules, and would you be willing to work with
Members of the Committee to ensure that our criminal rules are
up to the task of handling terrorism questions, particularly
this issue of how long the FBI or other law enforcement can
question somebody about imminent threats?
There is a Supreme Court case recognizing that, but it
collides with another Supreme Court case saying you have to be
presented within 48 hours. And obviously, that caused some
consternation about the completion of the questioning by the
FBI about future events, other conspirators, and the location
of bombs and other equipment related to this terrorist attack.
Attorney General Holder. Yes, I think you're right, Mr.
Chairman. There is a tension between the public safety
exception, as defined in the Quarles case and Rule 5 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure. There was a proposal that we
floated out there that I talked about. What I would prefer to
do would be to work with Members of Congress who are interested
perhaps in looking at the world as we see it now.
The Quarles case dealt with somebody who was asked, ``Where
is the gun?'' The reality is, as we deal with terrorist
suspects, there are much more broad questions that we need to
ask, much more detailed information that we need to know. Who
else was involved in this matter? Are there other explosive
devices that we need to know about? Are there other threats
that are going to happen not only today, but perhaps in the
next 2 or 3 days?
And so, it seems to me that the need for an extensive
Quarles public safety exception question period would be
appropriate. I think that this would require interaction
between the executive and legislative branches to come up with
something that would pass constitutional muster.
Mr. Goodlatte. It was recently reported by the Justice
Department or reported that the Justice Department obtained 2
months of telephone records of more than 20 reporters and
editors with the Associated Press, including both work and
personal phone lines. There has been a lot of criticism raised
about the scope of this investigation, including why the
Department needed to subpoena records for 20 people over a
lengthy 2-month period. Why was such a broad scope approved?
Attorney General Holder. Yes, there's been a lot of the
criticism. In fact, the head of the RNC called for my
resignation in spite of the fact that I was not the person who
was involved in that decision. But be that as it may, I was
recused in that matter, as I described, in a press conference
that I held yesterday. The decision to issue this subpoena was
made by the people who are presently involved in the case. The
matter is being supervised by the Deputy Attorney General.
I am not familiar with the reasons why the case--why the
subpoena was constructed in the way that it was because I'm
simply not a part of the case.
Mr. Goodlatte. It is my understanding that one of the
requirements before compelling process from a media outlet is
to give the outlet notice. Do you know why that was not done?
Attorney General Holder. There are exceptions to that rule.
I do not know, however, with regard to this particular case why
that was or was not done. I simply don't have a factual basis
to answer that question.
Mr. Goodlatte. And it has also been reported that the
Associated Press refrained from releasing this story for a week
until the Department confirmed that doing so would not
jeopardize national security interests. That indicates that the
AP was amenable to working with you on this matter.
If that is the case, why was it necessary to subpoena the
telephone records? Did you seek the AP's assistance in the
first place? And if not, why not?
Attorney General Holder. Again, Mr. Chairman, I don't know
what happened there with the interaction between the AP and the
Justice Department. I was recused from the case.
Mr. Goodlatte. I take it that you or others in the Justice
Department will be forthcoming with those answers to those
questions as you explore why this was handled what appears to
be contrary to the law and standard procedure.
Attorney General Holder. Well, again, there are exceptions
to some of the rules that you pointed out, and I have faith in
the people who actually were responsible for this case that
they were aware of the rules and that they followed them. But I
don't have a factful basis to answer the questions that you
have asked because I was recused. I don't know what has
happened in this matter.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you very much.
My time has expired. And I now recognize the gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I note that some of our Members have been outspoken in
opposition to the Free Flow of Information Act in the past and
have commented publicly about their outrage over the Associated
Press subpoenas. But now I am very delighted to learn that many
have changed their attitude on this, and I am particularly glad
to welcome the support of Chairman Darrell Issa as we move
forward with this legislation.
Mr. Attorney General, there has been criticism about Tom
Perez as Assistant Attorney General, and that he may have
mismanaged employees at the Civil Rights Division in the
Department of Justice. Are you able to comment on Mr. Perez's
track record as manager of the division and allegations that he
politicized enforcement of civil rights laws?
Attorney General Holder. Yes, I think that Tom Perez has
been an outstanding Assistant Attorney General for the Civil
Rights Division. I think he will be a great Secretary of Labor.
There have been reports done that looked at the condition
of the Civil Rights Division. The Inspector General has spent 2
years looking at the Voting Section. There have been--there's a
joint report by OPR, the Office of Professional Responsibility,
as well as the Inspector General. I guess that was issued in
2008. And I think those findings are really important.
They found that the enforcement of voting rights law during
this Administration was not based on improper racial or
political considerations. They found that the hiring practices
were not politically motivated. They found that there was no
basis to believe that the Voting Section politicizes its FOIA
responses.
Now there have been some indications that people in the
Voting Section in particular have not gotten along with each
other too well. There were a number of incidents, the majority
of which were in the prior Administration, that I think are not
really good examples of how DOJ employees are supposed to work
with one another.
But I think if you look at Tom Perez's record--record
numbers of cases brought against police departments that have
acted inappropriately, record amounts of money recovered in
discrimination suits, record numbers of voting rights cases
filed--he has done what we expect of a person who would head
the Civil Rights Division, which I think is the conscience of
the Justice Department. He's done an outstanding job and
deserves to be confirmed as Secretary of Labor.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
Now there has been a lot of discussion about banks being
too big to prosecute. And I would like to--I think this is very
critical because much of the sagging economy that we are
climbing out of is a direct result of Wall Street intransigence
and perhaps improper conduct and activity.
Now can you distinguish between cases that we might bring
against those on Wall Street who caused the financial crisis or
were responsible in large part? Have we an economic system in
which we have banks that are too big to prosecute? I mean, the
Department of Justice has got to look at this very carefully.
Attorney General Holder. Let me make something real clear
right away. I made a statement in a Senate hearing that I think
has been misconstrued. I said it was difficult at times to
bring cases against large financial institutions because of the
potential consequences that they would have on the financial
system.
But let me make it very clear that there is no bank, there
is no institution, there is no individual who cannot be
investigated and prosecuted by the United States Department of
Justice. As I indicated in my opening statement, we have
brought thousands of financially based cases over the course of
the last 4\1/2\ years.
Now there are a number of factors that we have to take into
consideration as we decide who we're going to prosecute.
Innocent people can be impacted by a prosecution brought of a
financial institution or any corporation.
But let me be very, very, very clear. Banks are not too big
to jail. If we find a bank or a financial institution that has
done something wrong, if we can prove it beyond a reasonable
doubt, those cases will be brought.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Attorney General, thank you for
coming.
I would like to try to pin down who authorized the
subpoenas for the AP. And the Code of Federal Regulations is
pretty specific on subpoenas for media. Did Deputy Attorney
General Cole do that?
Attorney General Holder. Yes, I have to assume he did. I
only say assume because you have to understand that recusals
are such that I don't have any interaction with the people who
are involved in the case. Under the regulations, the Attorney
General has to authorize the subpoena. In my absence, the
Deputy Attorney General would, in essence, act as the acting
Attorney General.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Do you know if Deputy Attorney General
Cole was also interviewed in the investigation that caused your
recusal?
Attorney General Holder. I don't know. I don't know. I
assume he was, but I don't know.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Why were you interviewed? Were you a
witness, or was this a part of your official duties as Attorney
General?
Attorney General Holder. No, I was interviewed as one of
the people who had access to the information that was a subject
of the investigation. I, along with other members of the
National Security Division, recused myself. The head of the
National Security Division was left. The present head of the
National Security Division, we all recused ourselves.
I recused myself because I thought it would be
inappropriate and have a bad appearance to be a person who was
a fact witness in the case to actually lead the investigation,
given the fact, unlike Mr. Cole, that I have a greater
interaction with members of the press than he does.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. How does that make you a fact witness?
If you are getting the work product, the assistant U.S.
attorneys and the FBI that are looking into a matter. You would
be a policy person in deciding whether or not to proceed with
subpoenas or, ultimately, signing off on an indictment.
Attorney General Holder. Well, I'm a fact witness in the
fact that I am a possessor--I was a possessor, I am a
possessor--of the information that was ultimately leaked, and
the question then is who of those people who possessed that
information, which was a relatively limited number of people
within the Justice Department, who of those people, who of
those possessors actually spoke in an inappropriate way to
members of the Associated Press?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Who else had access to that information?
Attorney General Holder. Well, this is an ongoing
investigation. I would not want to reveal what I know, and I
don't know if there are other people who've been developed as
possible recipients or possessors of that information during
the course of the investigation. I don't know.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I am trying to find out who authorized
the subpoena. You can't tell me if Deputy Attorney General Cole
authorized the subpoena. Somebody had to authorize the subpoena
because the Code of Federal Regulations is pretty specific that
this is supposed to go as close to the top as possible.
Attorney General Holder. Well, no, what I'm saying is that
I can't say as a matter of fact. But I have to assume, and I
would say I would probably be 95, 99 percent certain, that the
Deputy Attorney General, acting in my stead, was the one who
authorized the subpoena.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, okay. The Code of Federal
Regulations also is very specific that there should be
negotiations prior to the issuance of the subpoena with the
news media organization involved, and the AP has said there was
no negotiations at all.
Now there are two different parts of the regulation that
may be in conflict with each other One is more generic than the
other. But there were no negotiations whatsoever. And why
weren't there negotiations?
Attorney General Holder. That I don't know. There are
exceptions to that rule that say that if the integrity of the
investigation might be impacted, the negotiations don't have to
occur. I don't know why that didn't happen.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. But hasn't somebody in the Justice
Department said that the integrity of the investigation would
not be impacted with negotiations either under Subsection C,
which is generic, or Subsection D, which is more specific?
Attorney General Holder. I don't know. But let me say this,
I've just been given a note that we have, in fact, confirmed
that the Deputy was the one who authorized the subpoena.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay. Well, I think we are going to have
to talk to him about this. But, Mr. Attorney General, I think
that this Committee has been frustrated for at least the last
2\1/2\ years, if not the last 4\1/2\ years, that there doesn't
seem to be any acceptance of responsibility in the Justice
Department for things that have gone wrong.
Now may I suggest that you and maybe Mr. Cole and a few
other people go to the Truman Library and take a picture of
this thing that he had on his desk that said ``The buck stops
here,'' because we don't know where the buck stops. And I think
to do adequate oversight, we better find out and we better find
out how this mess happened.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, the
Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil
Justice, Mr. Nadler, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nadler. I thank the Chairman. I thank the Chairman.
And I want to talk about a dozen subjects, but I think I
will stick to three in the time I have.
I have no doubt, and we have already been hearing much hue
and cry about the Department of Justice probe of AP records.
But I think we should put this in context and remember that
less than a year ago, this Committee's Republican leadership
demanded aggressive investigation of press leaks, accusing the
Administration itself of orchestrating those leaks.
Then Members of this Committee wanted reporters subpoenaed,
put in front of grand juries, and potentially jailed for
contempt. Now, of course, it is convenient to attack the
Attorney General for being too aggressive, or the Justice
Department for being too aggressive.
But this inconsistency on the part of my Republican
colleagues should not distract us from legitimate questions
worthy of congressional oversight, including whether the
Espionage Act has been inappropriately used in looking at
leakers, whether there is a need for a greater press shield,
which I believe there is, such as measures my colleagues have
worked--some of my colleagues have worked to defeat in the
past, and Congress' broad grants of surveillance authority and
immunity that some of my Republican colleagues supported and
before today have been unwilling to reexamine.
Those are questions we need to pursue, and I hope that
today's rhetoric translates into meaningful bipartisan support
for looking into those questions.
Now to switch topics, this was brought up already. But the
Committee has engaged--this Committee has engaged in a
relentless, unfounded, grossly unfair attack on the leadership
and integrity of Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez. They
have questioned his management of the Civil Rights Division and
his efforts to get the City of St. Paul to withdraw its appeal
in a case challenging the use of disparate impact theory to
enforce civil rights law.
I would like to give you, sir, an opportunity to address
two questions. First, can you comment on Assistant Attorney
General Perez's track record briefly, because I have other, as
manager of the Civil Rights Division?
Attorney General Holder. I think he's been an outstanding
head of the Civil Rights Division. I think you look at the
giants of the Department in that regard, you think of John
Doar. I think he served 50 years or so ago.
I think 50 years from now, people will look back on Tom
Perez's time as Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights
Division and compare him to somebody like John Doar.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Second, my colleagues allege that Assistant Attorney
General Perez brokered a ``dubious bargain,'' an inappropriate
quid pro quo with the City of St. Paul, whereby he convinced
the city to withdraw its appeal in Magner v. Gallagher, and the
Department of Justice Civil Division agreed not to intervene in
a False Claims Act case against the city.
The minority's conclusion after more than 18 months
investigating it is that Assistant Attorney General Perez did
nothing wrong and, in fact, appropriately carried out his
duties as a steward of the Civil Rights Division. That, in
fact, the facts showed that it was senior career officials in
the Civil Division who overruled junior career officials in the
Civil Division and ruled that--believed that that particular
False Claims Act case was a very bad case, a weak case, and
that the Department should not join it, although they did not
prevent the complainant from continuing.
And that it was--there was nothing inappropriate in making
a decision not to take the Magner case to the Supreme Court
because bad cases--hard facts--what is it? Bad facts make hard
law, or the other way around. I forget. In your view, was there
anything inappropriate done with regard to this matter?
Attorney General Holder. I don't think so. I mean, I think
the city reached out. Consideration was given to the action
that was taken. Before Mr. Perez moved forward with what he
did, he consulted with the ethics people, legal and ethics
people and professional responsibility people within the Civil
Rights Division to make sure that the course of action he was
proposing was ethically sound.
It seems to me that what was done was in the best interests
of the people of the United States.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Let me ask with respect to Guantanamo. Congress has placed
several restrictions on the Administration with regard to the
transfer or potential trial of detainees still being held in
Guantanamo. What steps, if any, can the President take on his
own, assuming that Congress remains obdurate, to ensure that we
either bring these individuals to justice through trial or find
a way to release, transfer, or repatriate them?
I just take it as axiomatic that it is wrong and unworthy
of the United States to simply grab individuals whom we may
believe to be terrorists, never try them, and never release
them. It is wrong to hold people indefinitely for life without
any charges and, in fact, especially since 66 of them have been
declared by our own Government to pose no risk.
So what can we do avoid--it is 86 of them. I am sorry. What
can we do to avoid the situation where, without any claim of
right at all, the United States indefinitely holds 166 people
in jail with no due process, no trial, military or otherwise,
and no release?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I think the Congress has
unwisely put in place impediments to what the President wants
to do and what I have said I think is the wise thing to do,
which is to close Guantanamo. There are steps that the
Administration can do and that we will do in an attempt to
close that facility.
There are a substantial number of people who can, for
instance, be moved back to Yemen. The President put a hold on
that, given the situation that we had in Yemen at the time. But
I think that is something that we have to review.
I think we have to revitalize our efforts at getting a
representative to go to different countries in the way that Mr.
Dan Fried, who was an employee of the State Department, I think
did a very effective job finding alternative placements for
people where their home countries will not accept them.
I had the responsibility when I came into office of looking
at the population at Guantanamo and making determinations as to
who could be released, who needs to be tried, and then who
needs to be held under the laws of war. The task force that I
set up I think did a great job in that regard.
There have been subsequent actions by Congress that I think
have made it difficult, but not impossible, for us to move
people out of Guantanamo, and I think the President has
indicated that we will be taking renewed action in that regard.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair would note that the Committee has
requested the appearance of the Assistant Attorney General and
head of the Civil Rights Division, Mr. Perez, to testify and
answer the numerous questions that have been posed about his
activities, and he has refused the Committee's request.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Coble, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Coble. I thank the Chairman.
Attorney General, good to have you on the Hill today.
I want to visit Benghazi for a moment. Some recent days
ago, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared before
a Senate hearing, and she was asked about her comment
concerning misstatements or inconsistencies surrounding the
Libyan tragedy. She responded, ``What difference does it make?"
I took umbrage with that response when I heard it. And I
went to the House floor in early February to take further
umbrage. I can assure Mrs. Clinton that it makes a whole lot of
difference to the survivors of the four Americans who were
killed that fateful day in Benghazi.
Now having said that, Mr. Attorney General, can you give us
an update on where the FBI's investigation of Benghazi stands
today?
Attorney General Holder. I can't be definitive other than
to say that the investigation is ongoing, that we are at a
point where we have taken steps that I would say are
definitive, concrete, and we will be prepared shortly, I think,
to reveal all that we have done.
Mr. Coble. I thank you, sir. I just find Mrs. Clinton's
response to have been condescending and just laced with
insincerity. I am very impartial, but that will be for another
day.
Last month, Mr. Attorney General, in the wake of the Boston
bombing, you warned in a lengthy statement against acts of
violence or retaliation against Muslims and other groups. Can
you share with us a specific reason that supported your giving
this warning, A? And B, have there been actual instances of
retaliation linked to Boston that the--with which the
Department was aware?
Attorney General Holder. That was more a preventive
statement, I think, than anything. We have seen in the past
where people who were perceived as Muslims--might not have
been--and who were attacked as a result of incidents that might
have happened. And the statement that I was making was simply
for people not to let emotions, stereotypical action come into
play and so that people who were Muslim, perceived to be
Muslim, might somehow be physically harmed.
Mr. Coble. I thank you for that.
This--I am shifting gears now. My visibility is blocked
between you and the Attorney General. I like to see you. You
like to see me when you are responding. Now I am having a
senior moment. I forgot what I was going to ask you. It will
come back to me in due time.
Well, maybe it won't. [Laughter.]
I still have time. I still see the green light. So I am
going to try to get through here. Senior moment recovered.
The Simmons decision in North Carolina, which, if
retroactively applied, could result in the release of convicted
felons. Members of my staff have been in touch with members of
your staff, and do you have a comment on this? If not, you and
I can get together subsequently. Are you familiar with the
case?
Attorney General Holder. Yes, I am. The en banc decision in
Simmons establishes that certain Federal convictions and
enhanced penalties that depend on proof of a prior felony
conviction we now know is only a misdemeanor, and that has
caused some problems.
So we have to decide who is now entitled to post conviction
relief. We have to balance, I think, this notion of fundamental
fairness against the need for finality and protection of the
public from people who are really dangerous. And so, we want to
look at the facts and try to determine what relief is
warranted.
And the ability to work perhaps with you and members of
your staff in this regard I think would be something that would
be appropriate, and this is essentially, I think, a law
enforcement matter. But some guidance or the thoughts that you
have in this regard would be appreciated.
Mr. Coble. Well, I think thus far the exchange between your
staff and our staff has been favorable and effective, and I
thank you for that.
And Mr. Chairman, I hope you will note that the red light
has not yet appeared, and I am yielding back.
Mr. Sensenbrenner [presiding]. That is 26 seconds.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
On the Internal Revenue situation, I think we can all agree
that the published reports which suggest that IRS agents were
denying people their proper consideration based on politics,
that is the allegation. I assume you haven't completed your
investigation. But I think there is bipartisan agreement that
you shouldn't be able to do that.
Now you have publicly said you are having a criminal
investigation. There are obviously criminal laws against denial
of civil rights, 1983. There is also a specific IRS code that
says any officer or employee of the United States acting in
connection with any revenue law of the United States, who with
the intent to defeat the application of any provision of this
title fails to perform any of the duties of his office or
employment.'' And then goes in to show that is--if you violate
that, that is a 5-year felony.
Are there any gaps in the criminal code that would make it
difficult for you to pursue criminal sanctions if you find that
IRS agents were denying benefits under the Internal Revenue
Code based on politics?
Attorney General Holder. That actually is a good question,
and I'm not sure what the answer is. I think the provisions
that you have noted are ones that we are looking at--the civil
rights provisions, IRS provisions, potentially the Hatch Act.
And I think we're going to have to get into the investigation
before I can answer that question more intelligently.
But to the extent that there are enforcement gaps that we
find, we will let this Committee know and, hopefully, work with
this Committee to make sure that what happened and was
outrageous, as I've said, and hope--if we have to bring
criminal actions so that kind of action, that kind of activity
does not happen again.
Mr. Scott. I understand that certain officials in the IRS
have apologized. Does an apology immunize you from criminal
prosecution?
Attorney General Holder. No.
Mr. Scott. Under the Fair Sentencing Act, we went from 100
to 1 to 18 to 1 under the differential on crack and powder. Is
the Department of Justice reviewing sentences that were done
under the 100 to 1 for possible commutation?
Attorney General Holder. I put together a working group to
look at exactly who we have imprisoned in our Bureau of Prisons
and to make sure that we are holding the appropriate people for
appropriate lengths of time and to see whether or not there are
some changes that need to be made.
We have, for instance, over 133 people, I think, who are
above the age of 80 in the Federal prison system. I think I
have about 35 who are over the age of 85. Now there may be good
reasons why they should serve the rest of their lives in jail.
On the other hand, it may be that there's a basis for them to
be released.
So we are looking at this question overall as to what our
prison population looks like, whether the commutation policy
should be changed the IG had a very useful report about
compassionate release and how we should use that.
We can save money by releasing people a little before their
time, but we would only do so if it would not endanger the
public safety. So we're looking at the question really in a
broader way.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Now under the faith-based initiative, apparently although
since 1965, you could not discriminate based on race, color,
creed, national origin, or sex, apparently there is a new idea
about this, that some kind of exemptions are awarded that
allows some faith-based organizations to discriminate based on
religion with the Federal money. How do you decide who can
discriminate with Federal money based on religion?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I think what we want to try
to do is make sure that no inappropriate discrimination--no
discrimination occurs. You and I have talked about this since
before I was sworn in.
Mr. Scott. Well, there is discrimination going on, and you
award some kind of certificate or something that allows them
to--let me get one more question in.
The effects of sequester on the judicial branch. Public
defenders, court bailiff, and other court personnel are being
furloughed. What effect does that have on the administration of
justice?
Attorney General Holder. That's actually a very good
question. I met with the chiefs of all of the district courts
around the United States about 2 weeks or so ago, and they
asked me to perhaps be their voice. Judges don't get a chance
to speak in the way that I do.
And I think that as we consider this whole problem--and it
is a problem--of sequestration, that we take into account the
impact that it has on our courts and our probation offices. If
we want to have the court system that we need to have, if we
want to process criminal cases, if we want to assess people for
probation, incarceration, the courts have to have sufficient
funds to do so, and they are in a very bad way with regard to
the situation that exists now and certainly for the situation
that exists in 2014.
So as we're thinking about sequester fixes, I would ask
that everybody remember the court system and all of its
constituents.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes the former Chairman of the Committee,
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Attorney General.
You have announced a criminal investigation into
allegations that IRS employees have unfairly targeted
conservative organizations, and I am sure you would agree that
when the Federal Government targets individuals or
organizations because of their political beliefs that that is a
threat to our democracy and quite possibly a violation of an
individual or an organization's First Amendment rights. So far,
we have allegations, I think, involving four cities--
Cincinnati, Washington, D.C., two California cities, where IRS
agents might have targeted conservative groups.
And it so happens that a year ago, on behalf of the San
Antonio Tea Party, I wrote the Commissioner of the IRS asking
him to look into what appeared to be targeted actions by the
IRS against the San Antonio Tea Party.
My first question is this. Is your investigation going to
go beyond Cincinnati, beyond Ohio? Is it going to be a national
investigation that includes Washington, D.C., as well and
includes any allegations wherever they might occur?
Attorney General Holder. Yes, it would. The facts will take
us wherever they take us. It will not be only one city. We will
go wherever the facts lead us.
Mr. Smith. You haven't done anything to limit this to the
U.S. attorney in Ohio, for example?. You are going to go
nationwide?
Attorney General Holder. This is something that we will
base at least--we're at the beginning stages. But we're basing
it in Washington, and that way we can have a better impact
nationwide.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Without saying whether any criminal laws
have actually been broken, what are some possible criminal laws
that could have been violated if, in fact, individuals or
organizations were targeted for their conservative views?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I think it was Congressman
Scott who really put his finger on it. There are civil--
potential rights----
Mr. Smith. Right. But do you know of any criminal laws that
might have been violated?
Attorney General Holder. I am talking about criminal cases,
criminal violations in the civil rights statutes, IRS, that I
think we find there. There is also the possibility of 1,000--
false statements violations that might have been made, given at
least what I know at this point.
Mr. Smith. Okay. I think some of the criminal laws that
might have been violated--18 United States Code 242 makes it a
crime to deprive any person of rights, privileges, or
immunities guaranteed by the Constitution. 18 United States
Code 1346 makes it a crime for Government employees to deprive
taxpayers of their honest services. So that is a couple of
examples.
What civil recourse might be obtained by individuals or
organizations that were unfairly targeted for their
conservative beliefs?
Attorney General Holder. That I'm not sure. We probably
have to get back to you with an answer on that. I just don't
know what civil recourse they might have.
Mr. Smith. I think it is possible that they might be able
to recoup any expenses that they incurred trying to respond to
the targeted approach by the IRS. Does that sound likely to
you?
Attorney General Holder. It's possible. I know that in
other instances where somebody is tried in a criminal case and
acquitted, they can get their costs back at times.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Another subject, Mr. Attorney General.
Last week, you responded to a letter that I wrote you last
year in regard to the Anti-Lobbying Act, as amended in 2002.
And you said in your response to me, this is a quote, ``The act
prohibits the use of appropriated funds to influence an
official of any government.''
Does that apply to Health and Human Services grantees who
might use those dollars to lobby State and local officials?
Attorney General Holder. I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last
part. Appropriate money to?
Mr. Smith. I don't know if you understood the beginning of
that. You responded to my letter last week in regard to the
Anti-Lobbying Act, as amended in 2002, and you said that the
act prohibits the use of appropriated funds to influence an
official of any government.
And my question to you is does your statement and
evaluation of the Anti-Lobbying Act apply to Health and Human
Services grantees who may have used those dollars to lobby
State and local governments?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I think you might be
referring to what I have only read about in the newspapers
involving what HHS is doing as far as implementation of the
act, and I don't know whether or not what funds are being used
or whether that letter would apply to that effort. I just don't
know.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Would you get back to me then? If you
don't think your statement, which is pretty clear to me that it
would apply, would you get back to me as to why you think it
should not apply to Health and Human Services or other
Government agencies that might be grantees and they would use
that money to lobby local and State governments?
Attorney General Holder. We'll do that. And given the
relationship that you and I have, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Former
Chairman, we'll try to get back to you in a more timely fashion
than we did on that first one.
Mr. Smith. Than a year. That would be appreciated.
Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt?
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry.
Attorney General Holder. Mr. Watt, you're only supposed to
do that at your confirmation hearing, you know? [Laughter.]
That's when you roll out the kids.
Mr. Watt. I am just trying to get my line of questions. I
have been in the back listening, and Nico says you have done a
good job up to this point.
Mr. Attorney General, I am going to just ask you a couple
of questions related to intellectual property, which is the
Subcommittee that I am Ranking Member on. The Administration
has called on Congress to make illegal distribution by
streaming a felony. Can you describe the current tools at the
Department's disposal to combat copyright infringement, and how
would classifying streaming as a felony enhance the
Department's enforcement efforts in this area?
Attorney General Holder. I think what we're looking for are
just an expanded set of tools so that we can have a prosecution
and enforcement effort that's consistent with the nature of the
harm. All we can do now is bring a misdemeanor charge, and
sometimes these crimes involve thousands, potentially millions
of dollars where a felony prosecution might be appropriate.
We're not saying that we should only have a felony
capability, but we think that we should have a felony
capability, in addition to the misdemeanor capability that we
already have, that would take into account the nature of the
crime that we're looking at.
Mr. Watt. According to World Customs Organization, the
international sale of counterfeit goods is a multi-billion
dollar industry. Many of the sales are increasingly made over
the Internet, where criminals can hide their identities----
[Child talking.] [Laughter.]
Where criminals can hide their identities and elude
capture.
What steps has the Department made to educate the public on
the safety and security risk posed by these illicit sales?
Attorney General Holder. That was by the illicit?
Mr. Watt. What steps has the Department made to educate the
public on the safety and security risks posed by illicit sales
of Internet theft property?
Attorney General Holder. Oh, I see. That is a problem that
we have tried to really focus on in terms of educational
efforts. There are medicines that are stolen, intellectual
property stolen that put the public health at risk. We have
found some of our airplanes bolts that were inappropriately
made. And what we have tried to do as part of our enforcement
effort is to educate the public and to educate business about
the dangers that flow from the theft of intellectual property.
Mr. Watt. And are there increasing indications of links
between this problem and terrorism? Have you found any of those
links, and would you describe those for the Committee?
Attorney General Holder. Yes. I think that's actually a
very good question, and I think it's something that's very
worrisome. As we saw organized crime get into a variety of
businesses in order to support their efforts, we are now seeing
terrorist groups getting into the theft of intellectual
property, again to generate money to support what they are
trying to do for their terrorist means.
And so, it means that we have to broaden our enforcement
efforts, broaden the investigative efforts that we take to
examine the precise reasons why people are engaging in this
kind of intellectual property thievery and to consider,
unfortunately, whether or not there is a terrorist connection
to it. That is, I think, a relatively new phenomenon, but one
that we have to be aware of.
Mr. Watt. And are there steps that you would recommend that
Congress consider to check the growth of this industry?
Attorney General Holder. Yes. There's something that I
think we should try to work with Members of this Committee and,
more generally, Members of Congress about. I am particularly
concerned about the theft of intellectual property to support
terrorist activities, and it would seem to me that in those
instances, enhanced penalties might be appropriate. And so, I
think that is something that working with Congress we should
consider.
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Nico thanks you also. I yield back--we yield back the
balance of our time.
Mr. Goodlatte [presiding]. And a very effective line of
questioning, particularly on the part of Nico. We are glad to
have both of you here and----
Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, the press has asked what the
relationship is. So just for everybody's information, this is
my grandson. [Laughter.]
Mr. Goodlatte. And a very proud grandpa as well there.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Chabot, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Mr. Attorney General, let me start with a term ``tone at
the top.'' This was a principle----
Attorney General Holder. I'm sorry. Tone at the top?
Mr. Chabot. Yes. This was a principle referred to in
Sarbanes-Oxley and incorporated by reference in Dodd-Frank.
Do you believe that the same rigorous standards of conduct
in enforcement should be applied to public and private
entities? In other words, in short, do you think that the
Government should be held accountable to a separate set of
standards, a weaker set of standards than corporations, or do
you think the standards should be the same?
Attorney General Holder. I think the standards ought to be
the same, although I'd probably say that when it comes to
Government, given the public trust that is involved as opposed
to private interests, that there are probably higher standards
that ought to apply to all levels of those of us who serve in
Government.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. Let me follow up with that. The person at
the top in a business, and I think it would probably apply to
Government as well. Even if he or she didn't necessarily know
what the people under him or her was up to can be held
accountable, actually personally accountable, under Sarbanes-
Oxley, for example. Even if they didn't necessarily know what
the people under them were doing all the time.
Now this Administration currently has at least three
scandals swirling around it. One, misleading the American
people on Benghazi. Number two, the IRS discriminating,
targeting conservative groups for special treatment. And three,
seizing the phone records of Associated Press reporters. Now I
think you can debate whether that is actually a scandal yet.
Many people are calling it that, but I think all three probably
are.
When the story broke last week about these conservative
groups being targeted by the IRS for special treatment, one of
the spins by this Administration was, well, this was out in
Cincinnati. It was out there. It is not us here in Washington.
We didn't know anything about it.
Well, I happen to represent Cincinnati in the United States
Congress, and I have for 17 of the last 19 years. The 2008
election didn't go so well for me.
Now I know that you aren't the Commissioner of the IRS, and
you are not the Secretary of the Treasury, and I know that you
know an awful lot of stuff. And I would like to ask you, I
assume that you are aware that Cincinnati handles exempt
organizations all across the country. It is not just in the
local area. Is that--do you know that?
Attorney General Holder. I'm not aware of that. We're at
the beginning of our investigation. I don't know exactly how
IRS is constructed at this point. But if that's what you say, I
take you at your word.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. Now, and I know that you are not at the
conclusion. You have got a lot to learn yet. But do you think
that these were just some low-level IRS workers who decided to
harass or examine with great scrutiny conservative groups, Tea
Party organizations, patriot groups, 9/12 groups, groups who
might have had ``Tea Party'' in their name, or groups who were
concerned that the Government was too big and too intrusive.
Kind of ironic, isn't it?
And on the other hand, they would allow groups that had,
say, ``progressive'' in their names to proceed, as was supposed
to happen, in a reasonable amount of time. Do you think that
these were just some low-level folks, or do you think it goes
higher than that?
Attorney General Holder. I simply don't know at this stage.
We have not begun our--we've only begun our investigation, and
I think it will take us time to determine exactly who was
involved in these matters.
One thing I would say is that this whole notion of these
501(c)(4) groups, I think that some inquiry into that area is
appropriate, but it has to be done in a way that does not
depend on the political persuasion of the group.
Mr. Chabot. Now let me ask you this. Who does the
Cincinnati IRS office, for example, who do they answer to?
Attorney General Holder. I assume that, ultimately, they
answer to the folks here in Washington.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. Now Mr. Sensenbrenner referred a little
while ago to the Truman's ``buck stops here'' reference, and I
will just conclude because I am almost out of time by saying
that I believe there has been a pattern by this Administration
in not taking responsibility for failures, avoiding blame,
pointing the fingers in somebody else's direction. Would you
agree with that?
Attorney General Holder. No.
Mr. Chabot. I thought you might say that. I think a lot of
people do, including myself, and I think a lot of Members of
this Committee. And we might be divided, obviously.
But these are very significant things which have occurred
here, and I would strongly encourage this Administration to get
out front, get all the facts out, let the chips fall where they
may. I think that is in the best interests of the
Administration. I think it is in the best interests of the
country.
And I yield back my time.
Attorney General Holder. I would agree with that last part
of your statement. It is one of the reasons why I ordered the
investigation last Friday because it seemed to me that there
was the need for a review, given the potential criminal
investigations that exist that the Justice Department needed to
be ahead of this matter.
And I can assure you and the American people that we will
take a dispassionate view of this. This will not be about
parties. This will not be about ideological persuasions.
Anybody who has broken the law will be held accountable.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms.
Lofgren, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for your presence here
today.
I want to return to the issue of the freedom of the press.
You know, Mr. Sensenbrenner quoted certain sections of the Code
of Federal Regulations. But I would like to read the beginning
of that section, which says, ``Because freedom of the press can
be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and
report the news, the prosecutorial power of the Government
should not be used in such a way that it impairs a reporter's
responsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial
public issues. This policy statement is thus intended to
provide protection for the news media from forms of compulsory
process, whether civil or criminal, which might impair the news
gathering function.''
Now I realize there are exceptions and that you have
recused yourself. But it seems to me clear that the actions of
the Department have, in fact, impaired the First Amendment.
Reporters who might have previously believed that a
confidential source would speak to them would no longer have
that level of confidence because those confidential sources are
now going to be chilled in their relationship with the press.
Whether or not this impairment of the First Amendment was,
in fact, justified by the criminal case before you is not
something I am sure you are at liberty to discuss in a public
forum. But I still don't understand, number one, why and how
you recused yourself.
I am concerned. It says no subpoena may be issued to any
member of the news media or for the telephone toll records of
any member of the news media without the express authorization
of the Attorney General. Did you delegate that express
authorization in writing to Mr. Cole?
Attorney General Holder. No, I don't think the recusal--
we've looked for this. I don't think there is anything in
writing with regard to my recusal, which is, again, not----
Ms. Lofgren. No, but the question was what about the
requirement in the code that you expressly approve--now you
recused yourself, was that express authorization authority
delegated to Mr. Cole?
Attorney General Holder. Once I recused myself in that
matter, he, in essence--not in essence, he does become the
acting Attorney General with all the powers that the Attorney
General has.
Ms. Lofgren. Okay. Could you explain again, or maybe you
can't. Let me ask a hypothetical because I realize you can't
talk about this case. But the regulations say that these
records should not be obtained in a compulsory manner unless--
and that there would be negotiation with the news media unless
it would impair the negotiations.
Now the New York Times has got an opinion piece today
expressing the concern that how could this be the fact? I mean,
the records, the telephone records would not disappear if the
AP had been notified. I mean, they were in the possession of
the phone companies, never at risk for disappearing. How could
it ever be the case that the availability of this information
would be impaired?
Attorney General Holder. Well, this is both an ongoing
matter and an ongoing matter about which I know nothing. So I'm
not in a position really to answer that question.
But here is what I do think. I do think that at the
conclusion of this matter and when I can be back involved in
it, that given the attention that it has generated, that some
kind of after action analysis would be appropriate.
And I will pledge to this Committee and to the American
people that I will engage in such an analysis. But that would
be after the case is done and when I can appropriately be
involved in it once again.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, I think that is good, and I wonder if we
might also, Mr. Chairman, have Mr. Cole come before the
Committee since he is the one who knows this information. But I
don't know how long this case will go on, and since you have
recused yourself, certainly you would not be in a position to
tell us that.
But it seems to me the damage done to a free press is
substantial and will continue until corrective action is taken,
and I would hope that we might be able to further pursue this,
Mr. Chairman, and get some clarification on future action,
either through legislative efforts or through further revision
of the Code of Federal Regulation by the Administration because
I think this is a very serious matter that I think concerns all
of us, no matter our party affiliation.
And with that, I would yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The comments of the gentlewoman from
California are very pertinent, and the Committee would
definitely be interested in the appearance of the Deputy
Attorney General to answer questions regarding this matter.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
Bachus, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bachus. Attorney General Holder, is Deputy Cole willing
and able to appear before this Committee and answer the
questions that you cannot answer?
Attorney General Holder. I'm sure he'd be willing to. I'm
not sure he'd be in a position to answer the questions because
you'd be asking questions about an ongoing matter, and I think
he'd be in a difficult position to fully respond to the
questions that you might put to him.
Mr. Bachus. Will you urge him to make himself available,
make that a priority?
Attorney General Holder. I will certainly convey to him the
desire that has been expressed here today. But I really caution
the Committee that asking the lead prosecutor about a matter
that is ongoing puts him in a----
Mr. Bachus. Well, let me ask you this. You have heard Ms.
Lofgren, and there is a very high bar before a subpoena to
members of the press because of retribution, the fear of
retribution. As she said, you are supposed to explore, supposed
to negotiate, and we are not aware of any negotiation. You say
there are exceptions. You are supposed to try alternative
sources.
Let me ask you this, on what date did you recuse yourself?
Attorney General Holder. I'm not sure. I think it was just
toward the beginning of the matter. I don't know exactly when,
but it was toward the beginning of the matter.
Mr. Bachus. Doesn't--isn't that sort of an unacceptable
procedure that you wouldn't formally? Because the statute
actually says that the Attorney General shall approve the
subpoena. So shouldn't there have been some memorandum?
There was no memorandum, no email when you recused
yourself. I mean, was there any--was it in writing? Was it
orally? Who did you recuse--did you alert the White House?
Attorney General Holder. I certainly did not alert the
White House. We don't talk to the White House about----
Mr. Bachus. Who do you recuse yourself to?
Attorney General Holder. I would have told the Deputy
Attorney General, as I have done in other matters. In the
Edwards case, for instance, I----
Mr. Bachus. No, I understand. But do you not do that
formally or in writing?
Attorney General Holder. No.
Mr. Bachus. Do you see any reason for a formal or there to
be some memorandum so we know the time and date of your
recusal?
Attorney General Holder. Well, as I said, we have made a
preliminary examination to see if there is anything in writing.
But I know that I have recused myself in matters where I have
not put something in writing.
Mr. Bachus. Well, would you--do you think that it would be
best practice to memorialize that recusal?
Attorney General Holder. I guess it might be helpful.
Mr. Bachus. Well, it would be in this case because you
apparently don't know when you recused yourself. Is that
correct?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I don't know precisely. I
know that, as I said, it was toward the beginning of the
investigation.
Mr. Bachus. So it was before the subpoenas?
Attorney General Holder. Yes, I don't know when the
subpoena was issued.
Mr. Bachus. So it could have been after the subpoenas were
issued?
Attorney General Holder. No, I certainly recused myself
before the subpoenas were issued.
Mr. Bachus. Well, did you have any knowledge--you had
knowledge that there was going to be an investigation? Is that
correct?
Attorney General Holder. Yes, I appointed two people to
lead the investigation.
Mr. Bachus. Were you aware at that time that----
Attorney General Holder. I was criticized at that time for
not appointing independent people, as has been pointed out. And
I appointed two good U.S. attorneys----
Mr. Bachus. At that time that you made that appointment,
had there been any discussion of the press's involvement?
Attorney General Holder. Of the President's involvement?
Mr. Bachus. The press's involvement----
Attorney General Holder. I'm sorry. The President?
Mr. Bachus [continuing]. In the investigation of the leak.
You were aware that it was an investigation of a leak to the
press at the time you recused yourself?
Attorney General Holder. A leak to the President? I don't
know.
Mr. Bachus. A leak to the press.
Attorney General Holder. Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Bachus. My southern is probably---- [Laughter.]
Attorney General Holder. Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Bachus. Press.
Attorney General Holder. I'm sorry. Yes, a leak to the
press?
Mr. Bachus. You were aware of the involvement of the press
in an investigation that was----
Attorney General Holder. Sure. That was the basis of the
investigation, the leak to the press.
Mr. Bachus. So you knew at that time of the statute which
authorized you, and you alone, to authorize subpoenas and take
those actions?
Attorney General Holder. Sure.
Mr. Bachus. So you could have anticipated there would be a
subpoena to the press?
Attorney General Holder. No, not necessarily. There are
leak investigations that are done very frequently where
interaction with the press does not occur.
Mr. Bachus. For what period of time after the investigation
started were alternative measures that are called for by the
codes or negotiations with the press, between the time of the
investigation and discussion of subpoenaing press and the time
that the subpoenas were issued, what period of time was that?
Attorney General Holder. I don't know because, as I said--
--
Mr. Bachus. No idea?
Attorney General Holder [continuing]. I recused myself
early on in the matter and also gave a great deal of
independence to the U.S. attorneys who were involved in these
matters. They did not have to report back to Washington every
investigative step they were taking.
Mr. Bachus. At what point did you inform the White House,
or do you have any knowledge as when the White House was
informed by DOJ that they were investigating the press?
Attorney General Holder. My guess would be that the White
House found out about this by reading the newspapers.
Mr. Bachus. By what? Last Tuesday?
Attorney General Holder. By reading the newspapers or
watching television. We would not have had----
Mr. Bachus. Well, how long before----
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Bachus. Thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I think it is worthy to put on the record
that that is not enough time to be able to engage on some very
important issues, but I do want to take a moment of my time to
be able to thank the General for one of the most passionate and
driven efforts of the Department of Justice, and we are well
aware of it in Texas, which is the effort of the Department of
Justice to increase the number of human trafficking
prosecutions.
We are the epicenter of human trafficking in Houston. You
have come on more than one occasion. I want to cite my local
officials and the Human Trafficking Task Force and to indicate
to you, as the Ranking Member on the Border Security Committee
and Homeland Security, my Chairman and myself will be embracing
that topic. Hope that we will be able to join in with the
efforts of the Department of Justice.
Mr. General, I appreciate that, and I hope that this is an
ongoing effort.
Attorney General Holder. It is. It is a priority for this
Attorney General. It's a priority for this Administration.
Secretary Clinton was a big leader in this effort. I think
Secretary Kerry will be as well.
But it really involves not only the Federal Government, as
you indicate. It really has to have a local and State
connection, an international connection for us to be effective
because this is an international crime.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let me thank you very much. There is
so much that we could thank you for and your years of service,
and I think that should be noted when you come before a
Committee that has a responsibility, as you do, for upholding
the laws of this Nation.
I am going to have a series of questions, and they are sort
of yes/no answers, and I appreciate your cooperation. Let me
just start with the tragedy of the Boston Marathon. There is no
doubt that we have all mourned, and I think we, as those who
have the responsibility in this Committee, do well not to make
this partisan, not to point the fingers.
But can I ask you, can we look to, as you review the FBI
and coordinating their investigation, which I understand is
active, that we not reject the concept that it is important to
connect the dots? And that as you review it that you will hold
those responsible in terms of however you address it, whether
it is let us do this better, but for the idea of connecting the
dots.
Attorney General Holder. No, I think that's vitally
important, and that's why the Inspector General report--
Inspectors General inquiry I think is so important. It has not
only the Justice Department Inspector General, but IGs from the
intelligence community as well.
And so, I think we're going to really have a good sense of
who had what information when and whether or not it was
properly distributed.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you, and I would ask the Chairman
of this Committee that we have a full hearing on that topic
alone, only because as you well know, Mr. General, that that
was put in the 9/11 report, and I thank you for acknowledging
that. I think that is very important.
I want to move quickly to the IRS report and say to you
that the Inspector General gave a number of recommendations,
and if I am reading it clearly, they did not mention criminal,
but I want it to be on the record one of them was to finalize
interim action, better document reasons. I think we have all
made our bipartisan statements on it.
My point is that I understand, as the President has
directed Secretary of Treasury to act, that you have also taken
this to a higher level of a criminal investigation. Can you put
that on the record, please?
And I have a series of questions. So I just want to make
clear that you have not taken this lightly and that this is now
a Federal criminal investigation?
Attorney General Holder. No, that is correct. As I said, as
of Friday of last week, I ordered that an investigation,
criminal investigation be begun.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you have any limits on that? You are
letting it free flow and fall where it may?
Attorney General Holder. As I indicated in response to an
earlier question, the facts will take us wherever they take us.
Ms. Jackson Lee. In testimony before the Senate, you were
asked a question about the shield law, the protection of the
press. My recollection is that you said you support it. Is that
the case now?
Attorney General Holder. It was when I testified during my
confirmation. It continues to be something that I think that we
should pass.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And let me ask unanimous consent to put
into the record the letter of May 16, 2013, from Director--not
Director--Attorney General Cole, Deputy Attorney General Cole
to Mr. Pruitt. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection, the letter will be made a
part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Ms. Jackson Lee. Which it explains the expansive range,
which you are not involved in, of work that was done in order
to get information before proceeding as they did. However, will
we be able to believe that the Justice Department still holds
the protection of the First Amendment in high esteem and to
protect it?
And I am coming with some other questions. I am just trying
to get a yes or no.
Attorney General Holder. Yes, putting that case aside
because it is ongoing, I was not aware of it. But the Justice
Department has rules and regulations that have been followed,
will be followed about our interaction with the press.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentlewoman has expired, and
the Chair would advise all the Members of the Committee we have
28 more Members awaiting the opportunity to ask questions. And
the Attorney General will be generous with his time, but he
does have an obligation later today.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman for his answers.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentlewoman.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California,
Mr. Issa, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to start by playing a short voice recording, if
it comes out okay. Please play it.
[Audio presentation.]
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Mr. Attorney General, that recording, as was earlier in my
Committee, the Oversight Committee's report, is Thomas Perez,
an individual who is one of your deputies, arranging for
something not to be disclosed as part of his quid pro quo in
St. Paul.
Do you think it is appropriate for someone to--at a Federal
level to try to keep information out in order to disguise what
is actually going on?
Attorney General Holder. I am not sure I'd necessarily
agree with that characterization. I am not intimately familiar
with all that happened in connection with the inquiry that
was----
Mr. Issa. Okay. Well, let us just go through a hypothetical
that is a little easier. You have got a case that is going to
gain the United States people $180 million. You have got
another case you do not want to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
You trade those two cases because you do not want to have that
happen, and then you tell somebody, you know, we would like to
keep things quiet. Let us make sure we do not disclose it. Is
that right or wrong?
Attorney General Holder. Well, there are a whole variety of
reasons why we as a government, the Justice Department, decide
not to become involved in qui tam cases: the strength of the
evidence, questions of law, position of the----
Mr. Issa. Is it okay to trade a case you do not want going
to the Supreme Court for a dollar damage case? That is the real
question here.
Attorney General Holder. One has to look at this in its
totality and decide exactly if there----
Mr. Issa. Okay, I will take that as a, yes, it is okay to
do that trade in your mind.
Attorney General Holder. That was not a yes. I was trying
to answer the question.
Mr. Issa. Well, you know, Mr. Attorney General, I need a
yes or no before you go into the long dialogue. Otherwise, I am
wasting my time.
There was a quid pro quo. There was a trade of $180 million
worth of revenue to the American people in return for dropping
a case that your Justice Department did not want to go before
the High Court. To coin the phrases used, ``bad facts make bad
decisions or bad law.''
Now, I understand you, or at least Mr. Perez, did not want
things going to the Supreme Court. But let us go through where
we are today.
Attorney General Holder. Well, the decision not to take
over the false claims act case did not end the case.
Mr. Issa. Well, you may say that, but the plaintiff who saw
himself abandoned did not see it that way. But let me go onto
another line of questioning.
Attorney General Holder [continuing]. Had the ability to
try the case. I do not think it worked out well, as I
understand it. But the case was not over simply because the
United States had not become involved. We----
Mr. Issa. Right, but the case going to the U.S. Supreme
Court was over.
Attorney General Holder. We do not become involved in qui
tam 80 percent of the time.
Mr. Issa. The case going to the U.S. Supreme Court was over
as a result.
Attorney General Holder. The decision was made not to
pursue that case.
Mr. Issa. Okay. So the American people were denied the
Highest Court considering a case. That is an undeniable fact.
Let me go through some questions here.
Attorney General Holder. That is incorrect.
Mr. Issa. I have been working with----
Attorney General Holder. That is a fact that is----
Mr. Issa. Well, we will let the people decide whether they
were denied a Supreme Court decision.
Attorney General Holder. You are characterizing it as
undeniable, but it is not at all. And that is typically what
you do.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Attorney General, Thomas Perez falsely stated
to our Committee that he had apparently none, then 1, then 2,
then 34, then 35 emails that violated the Federal Records Act.
Your office has only, I think yesterday or today, allowed us to
see in camera the two and from on these emails. We have not
seen the contents.
But in seeing the two and from----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry, please.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman from California will suspend.
The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman. First of all, I
would like to know, I have been on this Committee for more than
I would like to count. Was there notice given of this recording
to be played? I have not in the life of the time that I have
been on this Committee heard a recording----
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentlewoman----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Was the minority noticed on this
recording? Is this a hearing about Mr. Tom Perez, or is this a
question about----
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentlewoman will suspend.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would be happy to yield to you. First, I
would like to know has notice been given? Was the Attorney
General's office given notice about a recording----
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentlewoman will suspend and the Chair
will answer her question.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would be happy to.
Mr. Goodlatte. There is no requirement under the Rules of
the Committee that a Member cannot use evidence before the
Committee as a part of the hearing.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, if I could clarify for the
gentlelady.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would be happy for the gentleman to do
so.
Mr. Issa. That recording was produced by the Justice
Department. It is a piece of evidence that came from the
Attorney General. So I would hope that playing back his own
evidence would not be unreasonable.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me, just if I can continue.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentlewoman may state a parliamentary
inquiry and that is all because the gentleman from California
has the time.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I do understand it, and I appreciate it.
So may I hear this again? Are you saying that evidence can be
presented, but the question I asked was the Attorney General
given notice that this recording would be played?
Mr. Goodlatte. There is no requirement under the Rules of
the Committee that a witness before the Committee be given
evidence of or notice of evidence that may be presented to the
witness at the hearing.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Continuing my further inquiry, as I think
I heard the gentleman from California make a point. But has
this been authenticated as the actual true voice for the
individual who is allegedly on it? Did the Committee
authenticate it?
Mr. Issa. If the gentlelady would yield. If the gentlelady
would yield.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Issa. Thomas Perez has owned up to this being his
voice. [Laughter.]
Ms. Jackson Lee. Then the only thing, if I might continue
my----
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentlewoman has not stated a valid
parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. Jackson Lee. If I may continue it so that I may----
Mr. Goodlatte. And the gentlewoman will suspend, and the
gentleman from California will be recognized for the remainder
of his question.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that I have just 2
minutes to conclude.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman's time will be restored to 2
minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Can I make a point of order, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentlewoman will state her point of
order.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The point of order is that Mr. Perez has
authenticated his voice. Is the General authenticating his
voice by answering the question? How is he authenticating Mr.
Perez's voice?
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentlewoman will suspend. That is not a
parliamentary inquiry, nor is it an appropriate point of order.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I am going to a point of order.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I demand regular order.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman for his courtesies.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentlewoman's point of order is not well
taken because there is no such rule that would require this
Committee to treat this like we were in a trial. This is an
opportunity for Members of the Committee on both sides of the
aisle to ask questions of the witness.
And the gentleman from California will continue his line of
questioning.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, our investigators have seen 34 of the
35 admitted emails that violate the Federal Records Act. They
have only seen the to and from. They have not seen the
deliberative contents, and they have not seen the remainder of
the 1,200 emails.
Mr. Cummings, my Ranking Member, joined in a letter
requesting that we have the full contents pursuant to our
subpoena of all 1,200. Will you make them available to the
Committee based on our bipartisan request?
Attorney General Holder. I will certainly look at the
request. It is not something that I have personally been
involved in, but I will look at the request and try to be as
responsive as we can. I am sure there must have been a good
reason why only the to and from parts were provided.
Mr. Issa. Yes, you did not want us to see the details.
Mr. Attorney General, in knowing the to and from----
Attorney General Holder. No, no. That is what you typically
do.
Mr. Issa. I knowing the to and from.
Attorney General Holder. No, I am not going to stop talking
now. You characterized something as something that goes to the
credibility of people at the Justice Department.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, would you inform the witness as to
the rules of this Committee?
Attorney General Holder. That is inappropriate and it is
too consistent with the way in which you conduct yourself as a
Member of Congress. It is unacceptable, and it is shameful.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman has the time, and the
gentleman may ask the questions that he deems appropriate.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In these email headers,
one of them was to Melanie Barnes, Domestic Policy Counsel. In
other words, it was to the White House. We have not seen the
contents. Secondly, one of them was to Sara Pratt at HUD. Now,
that is germane to our discovery of this quid pro. But more
importantly, it is to an AOL account. So communications went on
between two government officials, both of whom were
circumventing the Federal Records Act. Additionally, in these
emails we learned that Thomas Perez has yet another non-
government account which he uses for government use. So in
addition to his Verizon account, he has an RCN account.
Would you agree to make all of this available to us since,
first of all, it violates the Federal Records Act and your own
rules. Second of all, it is pursuant to a legitimate use of
Congress under which we would have it, and lastly, because you
have asked for transparency.
And before you answer, if you would, please, in the AP
case, you have appointed Ronald Machen the U.S. attorney. And I
am sure he is a fine U.S. attorney. But can he be considered to
be independent when, in fact, when this Congress held you in
contempt, he was the individual who recused on your orders to
prosecute the case. If he will obey your orders and not living
up to a contempt of Congress, can we believe that he is, in
fact, independent?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for regular order.
Mr. Goodlatte. We have regular order. The gentleman's time
has expired, but the Attorney General is allowed to answer the
question.
Mr. Johnson. It expired 45 seconds ago, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General Holder. Well, first off, I did not order
Mr. Machen not to do anything with regard--I will not
characterize it--the contempt finding from this Congress. He
made the determination about what he was going to do on his
own. So I did not have anything to do with that.
With regard to the email request, I think that if your
request is for relevant emails that have something to do with
the subject matter that you are looking at, that is certainly
something that I think we should consider.
With regard to the entirety of his email accounts, 1,200 or
1,300, I am not sure what the number was that you used. If they
do not have anything to do with the matter at hand, I am not
sure why they should be turned over.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, a point of inquiry. When Congress
issues a subpoena, in your understanding, is it to be
determined, or, for that matter, when the Justice Department
issues a subpoena, is it a decision of the recipient as to what
is germane, or is it a decision of the subpoenaing authority?
Mr. Goodlatte. That is a question beyond the scope of this
hearing, but it is----
Mr. Issa. Well, we have a few lawyers present.
Mr. Goodlatte. We have many lawyers present, and certainly
it is the opinion of the Chair that the subpoenaing party would
determine the scope of their inquiry. If the respondent does
not agree, then it would be appropriate for a court, and we
hope that a court will soon decide the appropriateness of that
subpoena because it is very disappointing that this has not
been responded to, and that the Congress found it necessary to
take the action that it took.
The time of the gentleman has expired, and the Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Firstly, General, I want
to thank the work of the Civil Rights Division. I guess Mr.
Perez was responsible for that for, first, working with the
Liberty Bowl Stadium in Memphis and working out our accessible
capacity seating arrangement, and also working on the juvenile
court issue, where the Division saw to it that our juvenile
court will be a model for the Nation and protect the rights of
young people, which was so necessary.
And I also want to thank you for working with Mr. Scott and
I to see that the Tax Division filed suit against Mo'Money that
took advantage of people with fraudulent tax preparations. I
thank you for that.
I would like to question you about a few issues that bother
me. One is the former Alabama governor, Don Siegelman, who was
the government of Alabama and probably the last Democrat
statewide official there in the past and maybe in the future
for a long time. And he tried to get a lottery in his State,
which I did in Tennessee, and I know how difficult it is. And
in so doing, he found himself in court and convicted and in
jail, and a case in which an unprecedented 113 former attorneys
general, Republican and Democrat, representing 44 of the 55
States have said his prosecution was a grave injustice. Just a
numerous amount of legal experts have said that it was a grave
injustice, and that the prosecution should never have taken
place because the U.S. attorney, a Bush appointee, was the wife
of the campaign manager of his opponent in a gubernatorial
election. And that while she recused herself, she stayed
involved.
I know there are procedural issues about a pardon or
commutation, but the President could pardon him now. Each day
he is in prison, in my opinion, is a grave injustice because
all that man did in appointing that individual to a board that
he was accused of doing, a man who had been on that State board
twice before, and he appointed him, was politics.
And I would like to ask you--I am sure you are aware of the
case--if you can assure me that you will review his case,
because, in my opinion and the opinion of 113 former attorneys
general, an innocent man is in jail being deprived of liberty.
Attorney General Holder. Well, he is not eligible. There
are procedural issues. He is not eligible to apply for a pardon
because he is currently serving a sentence. Commutation is not
possible because I understand he has an active appeal. So those
are the regulations under which we operate, and those are
potentially and obviously problematic with regard to the relief
that you are seeking.
Mr. Cohen. So you do not believe the President could issue
a pardon now? I mean, the procedures you have are limitations
you have put on your Justice Department. The President has no
limitations.
Attorney General Holder. No, that is true. The President's
pardon power is close to absolute, and so I think that is
right. I am talking about Justice Department regulations.
Mr. Cohen. And is the Justice Department, the head of your
division that looks over these is a Mr. Ronald Rodgers, another
Bush appointee? Is that not correct?
Attorney General Holder. I believe he was appointed in the
Bush Administration.
Mr. Cohen. Right. And he has been brought up by the IG, and
the IG has said he should be investigated because he gave false
information on a pardon request. He misstated what was the
facts, and I want to know if he is under investigation, and
have you looked into the IG's suggestions about Mr. Rodgers for
misrepresenting information transmitted to the White House?
Attorney General Holder. There was some difficulties in
connection--I do not remember what the individual's name was--
about information that was, I guess, related to the White House
from the pardon attorney's office. But I think corrective
measures have been in place so that that kind of mistake would
not occur in the future.
Mr. Cohen. Well, I hope not, sir, and I would have great
faith in you.
My concern is that there is nothing more important than
liberty, and taking your liberty is probably the most harshest
thing the government can do a person. And we have taken the
liberty of this gentleman, and I believe we need to look at
that case. When 113 former AGs and Republicans and Democrats
say it was a grave injustice, I think it needs to be looked at
and try to remedy.
And I think there are other cases. Mr. Scott brought them
up: the disparity in crack and cocaine. We change the law. All
those people in there who serve longer time than they would
have under the law now, the President could commute their
sentences.
And one of the greatest threats to liberty has been the
government taking people's liberty for things that people are
in favor of. The Pew Research Group shows that 52 percent of
Americans think marijuana should not be illegal, and yet there
are people in jail, and your Justice Department has continued
to put people in jail, for sale and use on occasion of
marijuana. That is something the American public has finally
caught up with. It was a cultural lag, and it has been an
injustice for 40 years in this country to take people's liberty
for something that was similar to alcohol.
You have continued what is allowing the Mexican cartels
power, and the power to make money, ruin Mexico, and hurt our
country, by having a prohibition in the late 20th and 21st
century. We saw it did not work in this country in the 20's. We
remedied it. This is the time to remedy this prohibition, and I
would hope you would do so.
I know my time is almost gone. I would like to ask the
Chair for just one brief moment.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman's time has expired, and we
still have more than 24 Members who have not asked questions of
the Attorney General, so----
Mr. Cohen. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Goodlatte. And the Chair would advise Members that if
they have additional questions, we understand. I have
additional questions, and I know most Members have additional
questions. They can submit those to the Committee in writing,
and we will submit all of them to the Attorney General so he
can have the opportunity to respond to those as well.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. But the Chair now recognizes the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, we get the
theatrics. We know we wait 650 days from the time IRS officials
become aware of the abuses of the Internal Revenue Service
until the Department opens an investigation. And then we say we
cannot comment because we have got investigations going. Saying
I cannot comment because of an ongoing investigation has kind
of become the Fifth Amendment of politics for this
Administration.
But I want to ask you not about ongoing investigations, but
what you know currently today as the chief law enforcement
officer of the Federal Government. This is a picture. I do not
expect you to be able to see it from where you are. It is
Tyrone Woods. His father gave it to me yesterday.
As you know, he and three other Americans were brutally
murdered in Benghazi, many people believe, because we had
inadequate security or we had an inadequate response. Many
people are concerned, of course, of the manipulation of facts
that took place after that. Yet this Administration, to my
knowledge, has continued to say that there was nothing the
Secretary of State could reasonably or should reasonably have
done to have prevented those murders, and certainly she has had
no personal repercussions.
This is an individual I think you can see better. This is
Brian Terry. He was brutally murdered, and so were about 150
innocent Mexican citizens, because of Fast and Furious, which
you have testified about here. And as far as I remember from
your testimony, there was nothing you felt that you should
reasonably have done to have prevented those murders. And you
have suffered no personal repercussions from that.
Just a few months ago, we had someone sit right where you
are sitting, John Morton, the director of ICE, after we had the
release of 2,000 illegal immigrant detainees, some of whom were
being held for aggravated felonies. And we were basically told
by the director that there was nothing that he should have
reasonably done to stop that, and he had no personal
repercussions.
Now we have all of this stuff we are hearing from the
Internal Revenue Service where we see these atrocious actions,
some against individuals who were simply teaching about the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And yet so far we have
heard nothing from the Administration about what they should
have done to reasonably have stopped these atrocities, and
certainly no personal repercussions yet.
So, General, my question to you today is, based on what you
know today, not ongoing investigations that we may never
conclude or we may never see or that we do see--we will not
have you back here--just what you know today, in any of these
situations, is there anything that you are aware of today that
any of the heads of the those departments or agencies should
reasonably have done to have stopped the situations that I have
just outlined that took place?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I know that Benghazi is
something that I am not as familiar with, but I am familiar
with Fast and Furious. And I will tell you that with regard to
that, once I became aware of it, I stopped the policy.
Mr. Forbes. No, no, I am saying anything you should have
done to have stopped them from taking place. It is too late
afterwards. I am saying anything you should have done
beforehand.
Attorney General Holder. Well hindsight is always 20/20. It
is always accurate, and it is an easy thing to stand up or sit
up where you are and do that. I have got to run an agency of
116,000 people, and we do it as best we can. When there are
mistakes that are made, we hold people accountable. We change
policies. That is what we do in the executive branch.
To the extent that there is fault, I have acknowledged that
as the head of the Agency, I am ultimately responsible for that
which happened in my Agency.
Mr. Forbes. And, General Holder, I appreciate the fact that
we say I am responsible, but when irresponsible actions take
place, nobody has any personal repercussions, On any of those
situations, did any of those individuals have any personal
repercussions from the actions that took place?
Attorney General Holder. Yeah. There were people that we
held----
Mr. Forbes. I am talking about the head of the Agency or
the Department. You did not have any personal repercussions,
did you?
Attorney General Holder. I held people accountable.
Mr. Forbes. You held people accountable. Let me say why I
am saying that, because if, in fact, you cannot say anything
that you should have reasonably done, the Secretary of State
should have reasonably done, the Commissioner should have
reasonably done, the Director should have reasonably done. If
there is no personal repercussions, should Americans not
realize that the only way we can stop these abuses from
happening with the Internal Revenue Service from this massive
amount of data they are going to get under the Affordable
Health Care Act, is to make sure that data never gets to the
Internal Revenue Service in the first place? Because if it does
and the abuse occurs, nobody is going to be held accountable at
the top, and also we are going to say afterwards there is
nothing that we should have reasonably done to stop it?
Mr. Chairman, with that, we actually have a piece of
legislation we are putting in today to make sure the IRS is not
involved in our health care decisions. And I hope we will get
it passed out of this House, and hopefully the Senate, so we
can make sure those abuses do not take place.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, the issue of
the AP investigation, or actually the investigation into the
illegal disclosure of classified information. To conduct that
investigation, the Justice Department has various tools, among
which is the subpoena. And a subpoena can be issued without
judicial oversight, and it was through a subpoena that the
Justice Department obtained phone records from the carrier that
related to certain personnel at the Associated Press. Is that
correct?
Attorney General Holder. Again, I assume that is correct. I
am not----
Mr. Johnson. Well, subpoena is what we know that the
information was compiled from. Now, we can or the Justice
Department has the lawful authority by way of subpoena power to
obtain those records. Is that correct?
Attorney General Holder. The Justice Department does have
that subpoena power?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Attorney General Holder. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. And so it is legal for the Justice Department
to obtain that information, but it certainly could cast a cool
breeze over the First Amendment rights of freedom of the speech
and freedom of the press. And that is why we have some special
rules with respect to the issuance of subpoenas by law
enforcement to obtain information from media sources. That is
correct, is it not?
Attorney General Holder. Yeah. Again, without getting into
the AP case, for lack of a better term, because the case is
really not about the AP. It is about the people who leaked.
Mr. Johnson. Correct.
Attorney General Holder. Be that as it may, there is a
recognition within the Justice Department that in dealing with
interacting with the press, you are dealing with a special
entity, and there have to be special rules about how that
interaction occurs.
Mr. Johnson. And those rules are by way of regulations, but
they are not by way of legislation, correct?
Attorney General Holder. That is correct.
Mr. Johnson. And that being the case, it might be a good
thing for Congress to visit that issue and to determine whether
or not we want to turn those guidelines and regulations into
law.
And now, you made an important distinction. You said that
the crime that is being investigated--well, you did not say
this, but I will say this. It is not the publishing of the
information, of the classified information, but it was actually
the leaking of the classified information which is the basis of
your investigation, correct?
Attorney General Holder. That is correct.
Mr. Johnson. But now, we also have an old law that would
allow for prosecution of anyone who published the classified
information. Is that not correct?
Attorney General Holder. You got a long way to go to try to
prosecute people, the press, for the publication of that
material. Those prosecutions have not fared well in American
history.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I would argue that the Espionage Act of
1917 would authorize the prosecution of anyone who disclosed
classified information. And perhaps that is another area that
we may need to take action on here in this Congress.
Now, I will note that in this Congress, we have had a lot
of bills, the most famous of which in my mind was the Helium
legislation. And we wanted to ensure that we had enough helium
to keep everything moving forward here in America, but we
certainly need to protect the privacy of individuals, and we
need to protect the ability of the press to engage in its First
Amendment responsibilities to be free and to give us
information about our government so as to keep the people
informed. And I think it is a shame that we get caught up in
so-called scandals and oversight of unimportant matters when we
should be here addressing these real problems that things like
the AP scandal illustrate us for us.
I will yield the balance of my time to you.
Attorney General Holder. Well, I would say this. With
regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure
of material, that is not something that I have ever been
involved, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy. In
fact, my view is quite the opposite, that what I proposed
during my confirmation, what the Obama Administration supported
during 2009, and I think Senator Schumer is now introducing a
bill that we are going to support as well, that there should be
a shield law with regard to the press' ability to gather
information and to disseminate it.
The focus should be on those people who break their oaths
and put the American people at risk, not reporters who gather
this information. That should not be the focus of these
investigations.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Holder, I thank
you for your testimony here today, and I have a number of
curiosities remaining.
One of them is this. Are you aware of any plans or any
discussion of an effort to transfer one or more detainees from
Bagram Air Force Base to the United States for trial?
Attorney General Holder. Nothing immediately comes to my
mind. I am not aware of that.
Mr. King. Then you have not been in discussions of such a
thing? Are you aware of any cases in the past where that has
happened?
Attorney General Holder. That is what is giving me some
pause. I am not sure if we have brought people back from Bagram
or not. I just do not know. Maybe I can get a written response
to that, but I am not sure about that.
Mr. King. And perhaps I am too precise, and I should
probably say the Afghanistan theater instead. Would that change
your response?
Attorney General Holder. I am thinking of cases that we
have brought of people here in the United States who committed
acts overseas, and I am just not sure, as I think about these
people, where those acts actually occurred. I am not sure if it
was Afghanistan. I just do not remember.
Mr. King. Do you understand the concept of my question, out
of the theater and the global War on Terror? Out of the theater
and the global War on Terror, and I use Bagram specifically,
but with regard to Afghanistan or that theater of war, then you
would assert that currently you are not in discussions about
transferring a detainee to the United States for trial.
Attorney General Holder. Not that I am aware of as we
speak. I would have to look into that, and if I have a contrary
answer to that, I will get you something in writing.
Mr. King. Thank you, General Holder. I would look back on
past testimony here before the Committee, and you and I have
had a couple of discussions about the Pigford issue. I think
each time, it will be the third time in the course of a couple
of years. And as that has unfolded before us, I would ask have
you read the New York Times article dated April 25th?
Attorney General Holder. Yes, I did.
Mr. King. And I would offer the opportunity to comment on
your review of that article.
Attorney General Holder. Yeah. I think that the article
missed a few things. There are steps that we have in place to
limit the amount of fraud that goes on there both in terms of
getting sworn statements from claimants from doing audits.
There are a variety of things that we have in place to ensure
that the kind of fraud that was described in that article--I
think the article made the fraud seem more widespread than it
actually is.
Mr. King. What about the surplus funds that remain that
have apparently been budgeted for the, I believe it is the
Native American case, about $400 plus million?
Attorney General Holder. Right.
Mr. King. What would your recommendation be to claw that
money back from there rather than to distribute it to locations
that apparently do not have the ability to utilize that?
Attorney General Holder. Well, first of all, it is not
going to the lawyers. There was some misapprehension about
that.
Mr. King. No, I think we understood that.
Attorney General Holder. Okay.
Mr. King. There is a component of it, around $60 million
and about $400 million that would be sitting there waiting to
be distributed to organizations that were supportive of Native
Americans.
Attorney General Holder. Right, and I think that is the way
in which the settlement was crafted. And so to the extent that
these kinds of organizations can be found, that is where the
money should appropriately go.
Mr. King. Now, would it not bring to your attention,
though, that if you cannot find a place to put the money, maybe
there was not a level of discrimination to the level that was
originally claimed if there are not enough claimants?
And let me broaden this question a little bit consistent
with this them, and that is that we saw with Pigford I and then
Pigford II, a testimony before this very Committee several
years ago from the head of the Black Farmer's Organization that
were 18,000 Black farmers. If one presumed that 100 percent of
them were discriminated against and we ended up with some
96,000 claims, and we have at least 15,000 plus payouts at this
point, and all of Pigford II to be determined yet that has over
66,000 claims within that universe, so totaling up around
96,000 altogether within Black Farmers, then we add to that
Garcia and Kiefsiegel and Love. And we see this number grow to
at least $4.4 billion, and I believe I quoted to you last time
$4.93 billion.
And are you aware of a single perpetrator of
discrimination--they all would have had to have been under the
payroll of the USDA. Have you investigated to identify a single
perpetrator of discrimination against minorities or female
farmers that always under the payroll of the USDA? Have you
identified even one?
Attorney General Holder. Well, there was certainly a basis
for the payments and the settlements.
Mr. King. That was the confession of the USDA.
Attorney General Holder. I am sorry?
Mr. King. It was a confession or a stipulation of the USDA
back in about 1996 where it began.
Attorney General Holder. Right. There was a determination
made, admissions made, that, in fact, this kind of
discrimination did occur. And it was on that basis that the
settlements were actually reached.
Mr. King. But does that absolve the perpetrators of $4.4 or
more billion worth of discrimination? Are they not still out
there? Should they not be dealt with? Should there not be a
means to try to identify the individuals that would allegedly
commit that kind of discrimination?
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired, but
the Attorney General is welcome to answer.
Attorney General Holder. We are talking about
discrimination that occurred many, many years ago in some
instances, and I am not sure that our time, our limited
resources, would be well spent trying to deal with identifying
those people as much as trying to make sure that people are
compensated and that these kinds of actions do not occur in the
future.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman for his questions.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from California,
Ms. Chu, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Chu. Mr. Attorney General, I would like to focus my
questions on hate crimes and racial profiling. First of all, I
ask unanimous consent to submit testimony from the Sikh
Coalition and a letter led by Representative Joe Crowley with
over 100 Members of Congress regarding tracking hate crimes
against Sikh, Hindu, and Arab Americans for the record.
Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection, they will be made a part
of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Ms. Chu. Thank you. Last week, an elderly Sikh man,
dedicated to his faith and his community, was doing what he did
every day, volunteering at his Gurdwara when a man viciously
attacked him. At 82 years old, Piara Singh was beaten with an
iron bar, puncturing one of his lungs, fracturing his face, and
breaking several ribs.
This is only the latest of a string of attacks on American
Sikhs in recent years. In the last 2 years alone, two elderly
Sikhs were murdered in Elk Grove, California, a Sikh cab driver
was assaulted in Sacramento, California, a Sikh transit worker
was assaulted in New York City, a Sikh cab driver was assaulted
in Seattle, Washington, a Sikh business owner was shot and
injured in Port Orange, Florida, and six Sikhs in Oak Creek,
Wisconsin were murdered, of course, in one of the worst attacks
in an American place of worship since the 1963 bombing of the
16th Street Baptist Church.
The FBI tracks hate crimes on Form 1-699. As you can see,
there is no current way to document hate crimes against Sikhs
on this form, even though Sikh-Americans continue to experience
hate crimes at rates that are disproportionate to their
population.
According to Sikh Coalition surveys in New York City and
the San Francisco Bay area, approximately 10 percent of Sikhs
believe they have been subject to hate crimes. Arab-Americans
and Hindu-Americans also face hate crimes, but they, too, are
excluded from tracking. If someone were to look at FBI data
today, it would be as though Sikhs, Arab-Americans, and Hindus
did not exist.
We have asked for revisions to Form 1-699, and there are
135 Members of the U.S. Congress that have signed on to this,
as well as the Civil Rights Division and Community Relations
Service of the U.S. Department of Justice in supporting
revisions to Form 1-699. Can you tell us what the status of
this is so that hate crimes against these population can
finally be tracked?
Attorney General Holder. We agree with what you are saying.
The Department recommended what is called the Advisory Policy
Board last year that the UCR be amended to include anti-Sikh,
anti-Hindu, anti-Arab, anti-Middle Eastern categories in the
ethnicity or race section. That board is supposed to meet again
in June, next month, where it will consider those potential
changes before they make them to the FBI director. But it would
be my strong recommendation that the form be modified so that
it captures Sikh, anti-Muslim, anti-Middle Eastern violence.
Ms. Chu. I truly appreciate that. And I would also like to
ask about racial profiling. Immediately after the Boston
bombing, fears of racial profiling and investigation by the
broader community surfaced. The first person of interest
following the bombing was a Saudi Arabian student who was
tackled by a fellow bystander because to them he looked
suspicious. He was questioned in the hospital after suffering
severe burns from the bombing and had his apartment searched.
But it turns out he was a victim of the bombing, not the
perpetrator. We have also seen other instances of racial
profiling by law enforcement at our Nation's airports, at the
border, at NYPD, and other local and State law enforcement.
DoJ's existing guidelines on racial profiling were issued
in 2003. It outlines provisions to ban racial profiling, but
includes broad exceptions. It also does not apply to profiling
based on religion or national origin. And it has allowed
profiling against Arab-Americans, American Muslims, American
Sikhs, and immigrants. And it also does not apply to State and
local law enforcement, and also lacks a meaningful enforcement
mechanism.
This guidance on racial profiling from the Department of
Justice has not been updated in a decade. I know that you are
reviewing this guidance, but what is the status of your review,
and when will you issue a new guidance to prohibit profiling
based on religion and national origin, and address my other
concerns?
Attorney General Holder. Racial or ethnic profiling is not
good law enforcement. It is simply not good law enforcement. In
fact, if you look at Al-Qaeda, what they try to do is find
people who they identify as having clean skins to try to get
past our intelligence and security apparatus.
The matter, as you said, the policy is under review. I had
a meeting as recently as, I think, the week before last, so I
think we are at the end stages of that review process. And I
would expect that we will have what the product of that process
is in a relatively short period of time.
But this is something that is actively under review that I
have been personally involved in.
Ms. Chu. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona,
the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil
Justice, Mr. Franks, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, we are
glad to have you here today. I am going to kind of shift gears
here a little bit and be a little bit philosophical, and kind
of reflect on the notion as to why we are really all here today
and why we are really all here in this place.
I think, as I noticed earlier, that Mel Watts' little
grandchild was symbolic in the sense of what we all hope to try
to protect in the future. I have a little boy at home, 4 years
old, and I think it is very important that we keep a
statesman's eye on the future and recognize with all the
politics that are inevitable with the challenges that we face,
we need to kind of keep an eye on why we are all here. You
know, this notion of America that all of us are created equal,
that all of us are God's children, and should be protected is a
pretty important thing. And I know as the Nation's chief law
enforcement officer in a sense that occurs to you as well.
And it just seems to contrast pretty significantly with
what we heard here in the last few months about a guy named
Kermit Gosnell, who ran an abortion clinic and aborted late-
term babies. And if they survived, he would proceed to cut
their spines with scissors. And somehow I do not know when we
are going to ask ourselves if that is who we really are.
I suppose the unique thing about it is that it is not all
that unique. While we might sanitize the clinics and other
places, about 18,000 babies a year 20 weeks or older are
aborted in this country, and that is the Guttmacher Institute's
quotes. And there are about 44,000 abortion survivors living in
the country today, so this is not as unique as it might be. And
though we might sanitize the clinics in the future, I do not
know how we can sanitize the horror and inhumanity that is
forced upon these little babies.
Now I guess my first question would be along the lines,
where is our President on this subject, but unfortunately I
already know that answer. He voted against the Born Alive
Infant Protection Act when he was in his home State several
times. And so I already know where he is.
So the question today is, as a law enforcement officer, you
know, we passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act on the
Federal level, and it says in part the words ``person, human
being, child, and individual shall include every infant member
of the homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of
development.'' Now, I am almost to my question, Mr. Attorney
General.
But I would just remind you that there was a lady named
Ashley Baldwin that worked for Kermit Gosnell, and she
described one of these little babies that was breathing. She
described him as around 2 feet long, who because of the
process, had no eyes or mouth, but was making this little
screeching noise. She said it sounded like a little alien.
Sometimes I just wonder if we really could back up as a
society and ask ourselves what it is going to take change our
minds on some of these kinds of tragedies.
So my question to you, and it is a sincere question, and I
hope you take it so. In 2002, Congress enacted the Born Alive
Infant Protection Act, and it provides that all Federal
protections, including from your office, sir, for persons apply
to every infant born alive.
So will you enforce the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as
Attorney General, and will you consider carefully what is
happening in clinics across the country like happened at the
clinic that Kermit Gosnell ran?
Attorney General Holder. Well, like you, I share many of
the concerns that you talked about. I am a father. I have three
kids. And I am interestingly married to a woman who is an
obstetrician, a gynecologist, very accomplished in her field. I
have responsibilities as Attorney General to enforce all the
laws that Congress----
Mr. Franks. Have you ever enforced this law even one time?
Attorney General Holder. I do not know.
Mr. Franks. Will you get back to us on that? Have you ever
enforced the Born Alive Infant Protection Act even one time?
Attorney General Holder. We can examine that and see
whether the U.S. attorneys since the law passed--you said in
2002?
Mr. Franks. Yes.
Attorney General Holder. How many prosecutions there have
been under that law.
Mr. Franks. Well, there has been 18,000 opportunities a
year since then approximately, so I am just wondering if you
have even enforced it once.
Attorney General Holder. I do not know whether there was
enforcement during the Bush Administration or the Obama
Administration since the passage of the law in 2002. I just do
not know what the statistics are.
Mr. Franks. Okay. Well, you know, I guess I hear the mantra
so often that, you know, that somehow this is choice. But to
stand by in silence while the most helpless of all children are
tortuously and agonizingly dismembered day after day after day,
year after year, Mr. Attorney General, is quite honestly a
heartless disgrace that really cannot be described by the
vocabulary of man. And I hope you consider that carefully, sir.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman for his line
of questioning and comments, and now recognizes the gentleman
from Florida, Mr. Deutch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Holder, in
today's hearing some of my colleagues have brought up to you
the news that the IRS engaged in allegedly improper targeting
of certain groups based on their political persuasions. The
revelation obviously is disturbing because any display of
political bias by the IRS is outrageous. And as the FBI carries
out the Department of Justice's request for an inquiry into
possible criminal activity at the IRS, it is absolutely
imperative that those responsible are held accountable.
However, my hope, Mr. Attorney General, is that this
inquiry into potential criminal activity will generate another
policy debate that this scandal beckons us to have here in
Congress. The debate that we need to have is whether there are
too many groups of all political persuasions, across the
political spectrum, that receive improper tax exempt status
from the IRS by claiming that they are social welfare groups.
Since the Supreme Court Citizens United decision, the
number of groups applying for this tax exempt status to the IRS
has more than doubled. In 2010, the number of (c)(4)s
registered with the IRS jumped to over 139,000, up from just
2,000 the year before. That is because these so-called social
welfare organizations do not have to disclose their donors.
They can still maintain their 501(c)(4) status even if they
write huge checks and even if they write them to super PACs.
In 2012, when a record $1.28 billion was spent by super
PACs and outside groups to influence the election, and a
quarter of that money cannot be traced to any source, the
evidence shows that many of the (c)(4)s are being established
for the sole purpose of funneling anonymous cash to super PACs.
Now the IRS should not automatically accept all
applications for tax exempt status when groups are increasingly
being established for explicit political purposes. So as part
of the investigation, part of the discussion, we need to know
whether the tax exempt status of any (c)(4), whatever its
politics, was either denied or revoked, not because of
politics, but because they are ripping of taxpayers by gaining
this tax exempt status.
Of course, the American people should be outraged that IRS
employees would scrutinize specific groups based on political
affiliations, but I am sure that my colleagues would all agree
that the American people, the hardworking taxpayers of this
Nation, should also be outraged that they are likely
subsidizing tax breaks for the makers of the malicious super
PAC ads that poisoned our airwaves during the 2012 election
season. The American people were disgusted by these ads, but to
think that these ads may have been subsidized by the American
taxpayers, that, too, I would suggest is a scandal.
Now, 50 years ago, General Holder, 50 years after the
Supreme Court's seminal decision in Gideon, recognizing the
provision of counsel for indigent defendants in criminal cases
is a requirement of the Sixth Amendment. Our Nation's indigent
defense system is in crisis. The crisis has been well
documented by the ABA, National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers, legal scholars, and other organizations. In fact, you
have spoken extensively on the indigent defense crisis facing
the Nation.
The current statutory authority under 42 U.S. Code 14141 in
which the Department of Justice can seek remedies for a pattern
or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional or
Federal statutory rights of children in the juvenile justice
system can provide an important tool to encourage systemic
reforms that protect the right to counsel for indigent adults
as well.
As you are aware, in December of last year, DoJ reached the
landmark settlement agreement with the juvenile justice court
of Memphis in Shelby Count, Tennessee that will lead to major
reforms in the juvenile system court system there.
The agreement was reached with the county and will
implement many of the ABA's 10 principles of a public defense
and delivery system to ensure that a system is in place that
will protect the constitutional right to counsel for children
in the juvenile justice system.
On April 26th, 2012, the Department issued a report of
findings describing the numerous failures to protect the
constitutional rights of juveniles. The juvenile court of
Memphis in Shelby County responded to the report by beginning
to voluntarily institute reforms to the system, and indicating
they would promptly correct the violations identified in the
Department of Justice report, which resulted in this
comprehensive settlement agreement. And I want to commend you
and your staff at DoJ for all of their hard work in this case
to ensure that the constitutional right to counsel for
juveniles is protected.
Now, this landmark settlement agreement was made possible
by your Department exercising its authority under 42 U.S. Code
Section 14141. The Department has been conducting similar
investigations and has found numerous violations in the
juvenile justice system elsewhere.
But I would like to ask you, since I along with Ranking
Member of the Crime Subcommittee, Bobby Scott, have introduced
H.R. 1967, the Right to Counsel and Taxpayer Protection Act,
which will permit the DoJ to seek similar remedies for patterns
of practice of conduct that violate the constitutional right to
counsel for adults in the criminal justice system, whether you
think the effectiveness of the section for juveniles would also
be helpful to take the kind of action that was taken there this
time to help adults?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I think your focus on this
issue is right. I mean, your time is limited, but focusing on
this whole question of indigent representation of juveniles,
adults, especially 50 years after Gideon, I think is precisely
what we should be about. It is something that I have tried to
focus on as Attorney General. We have started it in the Justice
Department an Access to Justice Office. I think the legislation
that you are talking about is something we would like to work
with you on because I think the need is there.
With regard to the first part of your question, the whole
question of these 501(c)(4)s, as I said, we are going to be
very aggressive, appropriately aggressive, and we will let the
facts take us where they may with regard to the potential
problems that existed at the IRS.
But I think that should not distract us as a Nation from
asking that broader question that you raised, and that is about
501(c)(4)s, and this is irrespective of what your ideological
bent is, whether you are left, right, progressive,
conservative, Republican, Democrat.
The use of the Tax Code in the way that it potentially
seems to have been used in these 501(c)(4)s is something that I
think we need to ask ourselves about. And I would hope that
what we are going to do in our criminal investigation will not
have a chilling effect or chilling impact on asking that
question about 501(c)(4)s.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Gohmert, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gohmert. Hello, Attorney General. Down here on the end,
thank you.
I remember we have talked about this before, but I want to
bring it up again. The Holy Land Foundation trial that occurred
in Dallas, convictions obtained in 2008, there were boxes and
boxes of documents that were provided to the people that were
convicted of supporting terrorism. And I would like to ask
again for Congress to be allowed to have copies of the same
things the people supporting terrorism got before they were
convicted.
Will you provide those documents without us having to go
through a formal subpoena process? The big ones they got.
Attorney General Holder. Yeah. Again, I have this note here
because I asked this question. We did, in fact, promise you
access to those documents that were made public in the case.
But now, what my people tell me is that we never heard from
your staff to make those arrangements. We will promise to make
them available to you. What I would just ask is to have your
staff contact mine, and we will----
Mr. Gohmert. Well, then we will work that out, all right?
Attorney General Holder. We can make that happen.
Mr. Gohmert. And also you had mentioned that the FBI did a
good job in following up the lead from the Russians about
Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Do you know what questions FBI agents asked
of Tamerlan to determine that he was not a threat?
Attorney General Holder. I do not know the specific
questions.
Mr. Gohmert. Do you know if they would have asked who his
favorite Islamic writer was? Are they allowed to ask those
questions?
Attorney General Holder. I know----
Mr. Gohmert. Whether you know or you do not know, were they
allowed to ask who his favorite imam was? Were they allowed to
ask about the mosque he was attending at Cambridge or had been
in Boston, from what I understand? Were they allowed to ask
those questions?
Attorney General Holder. I know a good deal about what was
asked of him in connection with the interaction that occurred,
but that is potentially part of this ongoing case. And that is
why I am a little hesitant to----
Mr. Gohmert. Well, it is also in trying to determine how
the FBI blew the opportunity to save people's lives by
accepting the Russian information and following up on it,
because what we have dealt with, and it should not have been
classified, but the information being purged from FBI documents
has been classified. And I have reviewed that information, and
I am aware of what has been purged in the efforts to avoid
offending anyone who is Islamic. I am not concerned about
offending anybody that wants to blow us up, but I am concerned
about religious freedom, which is another topic with the IRS.
But were you aware of the Cambridge mosque where Tamerlan
was attending back at the time that the Russians gave us that
information?
Attorney General Holder. Not at that time.
Mr. Gohmert. All right. Well, let me tell you. He was
attending a mosque in Cambridge, and obviously as you are not
sure about that, you would probably not have had anybody
provide you the organization papers for the Islamic Society of
Boston that was also the founder of the mosque in Cambridge, a
guy named Alamoudi that I am sure you know is doing 23 years
for being involved in terrorism, also working with the Clinton
Administration back before he was arrested and then convicted
and sent to prison for 23 years. But he started that mosque.
What kind of follow-up was done on the mosque at Cambridge
and the mosque at Boston where you had a convicted terrorist
that was involved in the organizing? Do you know what they did
about it?
Attorney General Holder. All I can say at this point is I
think that what the FBI did in connection with the information
that they received was thorough. There are questions of the
Inspector General----
Mr. Gohmert. Well, thorough is an opinion. I am asking if
you knew specifically about the mosque at Cambridge, who
founded it, that a terrorist founded it, the one that he
attended. And it sounds like from your answer you feel
satisfied it was thorough, but you do not really know what they
looked at. So let me move on then----
Attorney General Holder. My answer to the question is that
the FBI, as I said, I think was thorough. But there were
problems that were not of the FBI's making with regard to
their----
Mr. Gohmert. Look, the FBI got a head's up from Russia that
you have a radicalized terrorist on your hands. They should not
have had to give anything else whatsoever. That should have
been enough. But because of political correctness, it was not a
thorough enough examination of Tamerlan to determine this kid
had been radicalized. And that is the concern I have.
On the one hand, we go after Christian groups, like Billy
Graham's group. We go after Franklin Graham's group. But then
we are hands off when it comes to possibly offending someone
who has been radicalized as a terrorist. And I appreciate Ms.
Chu's comment, there were people concerned about possible
profiling. But I would submit, Attorney General, there were a
lot more people in America concerned about being blown up by
terrorists.
And I regret very much my time has expired.
Attorney General Holder. Well, let me just say this. You
have made statements as matters of fact, and, you know----
Mr. Gohmert. You point out one thing that I said that was
not true.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Attorney General may----
Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Chairman, I would ask a point of personal
privilege. He said I said something as fact that he does not
believe was. I would like to know specifically what it was so
that I can----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman from Texas should suspend
because the Attorney General has the opportunity to answer the
question. Once he has completed the question, if the gentleman
has a point of personal privilege, he can exercise it.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. But at this point, the Attorney General gets
to answer.
Attorney General Holder. The only observation I was going
to make is that you state as a matter of fact what the FBI did
and did not do. And unless somebody has done something
inappropriate, you do not have access to the FBI files. You do
not know what the FBI did. You do not know what the FBI's
interaction was with the Russians. You do not know what
questions were put to the Russians, whether those questions
were responded to. You simply do not know that.
And you have characterized the FBI as being not thorough or
taking exception to my characterization of them as being
thorough. I know what the FBI did. You cannot know what I know.
That is all.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And that is
simply the reason--I did not assert what they did or did not
do. I asserted what the----
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman----
Mr. Gohmert. I cannot have him----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Regular order.
Mr. Gohmert [continuing]. Challenge my character and my
integrity without having a chance to respond to that.
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chairman, regular order.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman will suspend. If the gentleman
believes that he has a point of personal privilege, he can
state it.
Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of personal
privilege. He said that I do not know that of which I spoke as
being true, and the Attorney General is wrong on the things
that I asserted as fact. And he has to understand the reason I
ask questions, specifically about what the individual Tamerlan
was asked was so I would find out, and the Attorney General
then sits there and acts like he knows that I did not----
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chairman, I would still assert regular
order as I did the first time.
Mr. Gohmert. So, Mr. Chairman, the point of personal
privilege is----
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chairman, I would still point out regular
order.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman from Texas will suspend.
Mr. Gohmert. All right.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman's characterization of the
Attorney General's answer is not an appropriate exercise of the
gentleman's right of personal privilege.
Mr. Gohmert. All right.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman may exercise that privilege.
Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Chairman, point of personal privilege.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman may complete his statement,
and then we will move on.
Mr. Gohmert. All right, thank you. The Attorney General
made statements that what I said was not true when actually the
reverse is what happened. I asked the Attorney General----
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chair----
Mr. Gohmert [continuing]. What was asked----
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chairman, regular order.
Mr. Gohmert. This is my point of personal privilege, and
then the gentleman can respond.
Mr. Richmond. No, it is not a point of personal privilege.
Mr. Gohmert. Yes, it is. So when you attack somebody's
integrity and say that they made statements that were not true,
then of course that raises a point of personal privilege. But
the Attorney General failed to answer my questions about what
was asked----
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. Richmond. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gohmert [continuing]. And cast aspersions on my
asparagus.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman is entitled to state a point
of personal privilege, which he has now done, and we will move
on.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. But he does not have under a point of
personal privilege the opportunity to characterize the answer
of the witness. So the time of the gentleman----
Attorney General Holder. All I was saying for the record
was that the congressman could not know, unless, as I said,
something inappropriate has happened with regard to the----
Mr. Gohmert. Or unless the Attorney General answered my
questions----
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. Gohmert [continuing]. As I asked, and then we would
have had the answers.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman will suspend.
Attorney General Holder. There could not be a basis for the
assertions he is making, not the questions, but the assertions
that he made unless he was provided information, and I would
say inappropriately, from members of the FBI or people who were
involved in the very things that he questioned me about. And I
do not think that that happened.
Mr. Goodlatte. Both the gentleman from Texas and the
Attorney General have had their opportunity to clarify their
positions.
And we will now turn to the gentlewoman from California,
Ms. Bass, who is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bass. Let me just begin by thanking the Attorney
General for your patience because it seems to me every couple
of months we go through this exercise with you. And I
appreciate your patience.
I have three questions. One, I want to join others in
expressing concern and frankly condemning what I understand is
the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS. Frankly, it
brought back memories from several years ago when I remember
liberal groups being targeted. And it was before my time in
Congress, but I certainly remember when African-American
churches were targeted by the IRS, and it frankly sent a chill
through the community.
I wanted to know if during that time if an investigation
was done, and, if so, what was the result, and what were the
consequences?
Attorney General Holder. I do not know what happened with
regard to those matters.
Ms. Bass. Well, I think it would be interesting to find out
if investigations had been done, because the way I am hearing
this characterized, it was as though this is the first time the
IRS has done something like this. And I certainly remember very
well this happening to liberal groups.
My second question is, if Congress had passed the Free Flow
of Information Act in 2007, how would the situation have been
handled with the Associated Press?
Attorney General Holder. I am not familiar with the Free
Flow of Information Act. All I can say is that I know that with
regard to the shield law that we proposed, that there were
greater protections that would have been in place for members
of the press, though some have noted there was a national
security exception.
But I think that in the view of the Administration, that a
shield law should still be something that we work on together
and that we can craft a national security exception that would
give the press adequate protection, while at the same time
keeping safe the American people.
Ms. Bass. What happened to the shield law?
Attorney General Holder. Excuse me?
Ms. Bass. What happened to it? You said it was--the shield
law?
Attorney General Holder. It was proposed, and then was
never passed. I do not think it was ever seriously considered,
but it was pushed. I certainly talked about it during my
confirmation hearings and I think during my first hearings as
Attorney General. The President was behind it. But it was never
passed.
Ms. Bass. So had that been passed, it would have alleviated
the situation that we just experienced with the Associated
Press?
Attorney General Holder. Again, I am recused from that
case, but I think it would certainly have had the potential to
have an impact on all national security stories.
Ms. Bass. Okay. Switching subjects completely and talking
about trafficking, an area that I am very interested in working
on child welfare issues is the trafficking, in particular, sex
trafficking of minors who are in the child welfare system. And
I wanted to know if anything is being done at the Federal level
to ensure that youth that are designated as victims in juvenile
courts are treated as victims as opposed to criminals.
And I wanted to know if, given existing Federal law
included in the Trafficking Victim's Protection Act, how can we
work with local jurisdictions to ensure that youth do not have
criminal records due to their victimization.
Attorney General Holder. I think that is actually very
important, and I think that what we need to do is come up with
mechanisms by which we identify best practices. Also in spite
of sequestration, we come up with ways in which we provide
local and State jurisdictions with the necessary funds perhaps
to reform their systems, because the reality is that too many
young people, who are victimized in the way that you have
described, can be characterized as criminals, as prostitutes,
when, in fact, they are simply victims.
Now, you would hope that prosecutors would exercise
appropriate discretion and charge only the appropriate people,
but that is not always the case, and that is why the
identification of best practices and raising the sensitivity of
people who exercise that discretion is so important. And I
think that the Federal Government should take the lead in that,
given that human trafficking generally is something that we
have identified as a priority, and sex trafficking of minors
specifically as a priority.
Ms. Bass. And maybe I can work with your office in the
future, because I frankly think that no juvenile should ever be
arrested for prostitution. I do not know how you can prostitute
if you are under the age of consent. I mean, to me, that would
be rape, and maybe there is a way that we can change it so a
child is never charged with that.
Attorney General Holder. I would look forward to that.
There are clearly going to be services that need to be made
available to such a juvenile, but that does not mean that that
juvenile should have to get them being part of the juvenile
justice system with all the stigma that is, therefore, attached
to that treatment.
Ms. Bass. Right, absolutely. And then finally, what is the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention doing to
prevent now foster youth from entering the criminal justice
system? So I am not referring to trafficking. I am referring to
what is known as crossover youth.
Attorney General Holder. You said?
Ms. Bass. Crossover youth, meaning crossing from the
dependency to the delinquency system. So the question is, what
is the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
doing to prevent this.
Attorney General Holder. Well, again, we are identifying
best practices. We make grants. We hold conferences. It is one
of the things that, sequestration, when we talk about cutting
back money and cutting back on conferences, I understand that.
But one of the things that OJJDP does so well, the Office of
Justice Programs does so well, through conferences is bring
together people to talk about these kinds of issues, identify
best practices, and then come up with determinations of what
practices we are going to fund.
So that is what OJJDP is doing in that regard. It is always
trying to find, again, best practices, identifying negative
practices that are occurring, and then trying to support those
things that are occurring and that are in the best interest of
our children.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. Bass. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. If she has additional questions, please
submit them for the record.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Jordan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jordan. Thank the Chairman. Mr. Holder, you announced
last Friday a criminal investigation into the IRS.
I really only have one question. Will you assure Congress
and the American people that your investigation will not impede
or slow the investigation Congress is doing into the Internal
Revenue Service? And here is why I am concerned.
We have heard you today say--we lost track. We are actually
keeping track of it and we started having a little tally how
many times you said ongoing investigation. But the point that
comes to mind for me is Solyndra. And I would argue that
investigation has netted nothing, no new information to
Congress, and has only impeded and slowed down our
investigation into that company that went bankruptcy and lost
taxpayer money.
Next week, Chairman Issa has announced Lois Lerner and
three other witnesses will be in front of the Oversight
Committee next Wednesday on the IRS issue. I know for a fact
Lois Lerner lied to me, she lied to our personal staff, she
lied to Committee staff, she lied in correspondence to Mr. Issa
and myself that we had sent her written correspondence.
And here is what concerns me, is because there is now a
criminal investigation. Next week when Lois Lerner, who lied to
Congress and, therefore, the American people, comes in front of
our Committee for us to get information about what took place
at the IRS, is she just going to throw up her hands and say,
you know what, the Attorney General and the Department of
Justice is doing a criminal investigation, I cannot really
comment now. And that is a, I think, concern that Members of
Congress have, and certainly the American people.
So again, will you do everything you can and what
assurances can you give the United States Congress that that,
in fact, is not going to take place?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I think the responsibility I
have is to investigate violations of the law. And I think what
we will try to do is to work with Congress so that we do not
get in your way, you do not get in our way.
Mr. Jordan. But the point is it has already happened. It
has happened with other issues. This is the big one. This is
people's First Amendment rights being violated. We want to know
what are you going to do different this time.
And let us just be frank, Mr. Holder. You do not have all
that much credibility. There are lots of folks on this panel--I
am not one of them, but there are lots of folks here who have
called your resignation. You have been held in contempt and a
host of other things.
So this is why this question, I think, is of paramount
importance.
Attorney General Holder. Well, to be frank then, your
characterization of Ms. Lerner as lying before Congress by
itself--I mean, forget about the investigation----
Mr. Jordan. We will be happy to show that. We are going to
show it next week, but we want her to be able to respond to us
and not say, oh, I cannot comment because Mr. Attorney General
has got a criminal investigation going. We will show that next
Wednesday.
Attorney General Holder. I understand that. But your
characterization of her testimony in and of itself and the way
you have characterized could--forget about our investigation--
could put her in the very situation that you say you do not
want to have happen. So it might----
Mr. Jordan. That is already out there. She has done
responded. We have it in writing. There is no news there. It is
a fact. I want her on the witness stand and be able to answer
our questions, and what I do not want her to do is say, oh, I
cannot because a criminal investigation is going on at the
Department of Justice.
Attorney General Holder. Based on what you said--forget
about the investigation--on the basis of what you said, she
could say I cannot answer this question because you think that
I have already lied, and I might be charged with a false----
Mr. Jordan. You know this. There is a much stronger
likelihood based on what you are doing than what I just said
here.
Attorney General Holder. Well, as I said, my----
Mr. Jordan. And you know that is the case.
Attorney General Holder. Our responsibility is to
investigate violations of criminal law. We will do that. We
will try to work with Congress in a way that we do not impede
that which you want to do. In the same way I would hope that
Congress will work with us so that you do not impede our
criminal investigation, and ultimately hold people accountable.
There is certainly a role for Congress to play in exposing
what has happened, but I think we have the ultimate
responsibility in holding people accountable, and that is
something that is uniquely the ability of the executive branch
to do, not the legislative branch.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana,
Mr. Richmond, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for coming.
Answer these two quick questions for me, and then I will go
into what I really wanted to talk about. But based on the
dialogue and the back and forth earlier, here is my question.
Is there any lawful way that anyone in Congress could know what
was asked and not asked by the FBI in their investigation
before the Boston bombing of those terrorists?
Attorney General Holder. There is no appropriate way, I
think, that any Member of Congress could know that.
Mr. Richmond. Earlier also a statement was made that people
or the government, some of us are so worried about offending
Islamists, but they are not worried about offending any person
that would bomb America. Certainly not all Islamists bomb
America, right?
Attorney General Holder. No, it is a small minority of
people of that faith who engage in these activities. And we are
not politically correct in the way in which we conduct our
investigations. We go after individuals. We do not go after
religions.
Mr. Richmond. The other thing, and I am looking at, I
guess, a July 12 letter from then Chairman of the Committee,
Lamar Smith, because I was not on the Committee. But the points
that strike me the most about the investigation into the leaks
which you have recused yourself, which is ``to conduct our
foreign policy and keep Americans safe, some operations and
sources of intelligence must be kept strictly secret. Concern
about these leaks know no party line. When national security
secrets leak and become public knowledge, our people and our
national interests are jeopardized. And when our enemies know
our secrets, American lives are threatened.'' It goes on to
say, ``These leaks are probably the most damaging in America's
history.''
Was that not a call for the Department of Justice to do any
and all things to ascertain where these leaks are coming from
in our national security interests?
Attorney General Holder. I was criticized at that time for
not appointing a special prosecutor. I said that I had faith in
the Justice Department and in the two U.S. attorneys who I
appointed to conduct those investigations. And that decision
was criticized as not being aggressive enough. It strikes me as
interesting now a year or so later--whatever the time period
is--that in some ways we are being criticized for being too
aggressive.
Now again, I do not know what happened in the case and what
happened with regard to, you know, the subpoena. But there was
certainly a clarion call from many that the Attorney General
needed to do more than he actually did.
Mr. Richmond. And there was also criticism that your
subpoena was too broad. And earlier today, you were challenged
and criticized for the fact that you said that you would answer
to the appropriate things in a subpoena. And the question was
asserted, well, do you answer everything that a subpoena says,
or do you answer to things that relevant to the subpoena. Would
that not be the same irony that, you know, you cannot have it
both ways?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I think Mr. Goodlatte,
Chairman Goodlatte, had it right that, yeah, you can subpoena
anything, but that people have the right once they receive a
subpoena--obviously the acknowledgment of it--to challenge that
which they are called to produce pursuant to the subpoena.
Mr. Richmond. And let me just take a second to thank the
Civil Rights Division of your office because earlier this year,
and why we certainly still need the Civil Rights Division, our
chief ranking African-American on the Louisiana Supreme Court,
who by far had the tenure, and ours is strictly a seniority
process to get to chief judge, was challenged by other judges,
and brought into court to challenge whether she could become
chief justice. And it was with the help of the Civil Rights
Division and other lawyers in Louisiana that the Federal judge
ruled that she, in fact, did have the tenure. And as long as we
still examples of that and we have a Justice Department that is
willing to step up, even though it may not be popular to some.
But part of faith in the justice system is that laws will be
applied equally. Everybody will play by the same rules.
And I would like to close with, as ugly and nasty as Fast
and Furious was, and the uproar that followed it, which I agree
with, every day in my community and communities across the
country, Federal agents and others will use drug dealers as
pawns to get the bigger drug dealer. And as that crack or that
heroine or those other drugs go back into our community and
create more crack babies, and put more young kids in harm's
way, I have not heard the same uproar. And I would just like to
put that out there so while we are having an uproar about
people putting things back into the community to get the bigger
fish, please do not forget the thousands and thousands of lives
and murders every year associated with the drug trade. Thank
you.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
And the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Attorney
General, for being here.
Yesterday I sent you a three-page letter with seven
questions on it. I know you have not had time to go over those,
so I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to introduce that
letter with the seven questions for the Attorney General into
the record to be answered at some appropriate time.
Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection, the letter will be made a
part of the record, and the questions will be submitted to the
Attorney General.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The questions referred to were submitted to the Attorney General
by the Committee as part of its Questions for the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Poe. Let me approach this kind of historically the way
I see things occurring, and then I have two questions at the
end of this dialogue.
Over the last several years, government action has become
suspect to many of us. In Fast and Furious, government action,
then we have not resolved that yet. We are in court, and we
still have not gotten a resolution on the issue that whether
the subpoena should be or should not be upheld. People died in
Fast and Furious. Then there is Benghazi, and there are some
bungling going on, and what happened, who is responsible. Four
Americans died.
But government action or inaction is suspect. Recently in
Health and Human Services Department, there are accusations of
improper use by people in office of their position to obtain
funds to support the new health care law. I do not know if that
is true or not. But government action.
And then the two that we are recently aware of, the AP
reporters, 100 journalists, their phone records being seized.
It looks like bruising the First Amendment at least to me. And
by the way, our staff filed, Mr. Attorney General, in 2007 the
shield law. I filed that bill as well. President Obama
supported in 2007, and I hope we can get that shield law passed
through both houses this time. But the most recent is with the
IRS and what has taken place not only with the IRS, but other
government agencies.
And let me give you a personal case, a real person. It is a
constituent of mine. Catherine Engelbrecht and her husband,
they run a business in Houston. Catherine Engelbrecht decided
just as a regular citizen to get involved in voter fraud and
started a group called True to Vote, and another group, King
Street Patriots. And here is what she said in a recent
interview: ``We applied for non-profit status in 2010. Since
that time, the IRS has run us through a gauntlet of analysts
and hundreds and hundreds of questions over and over again.
They've requested to see each and every tweet I have ever
tweeted, or every Facebook post I have ever posted. They've
asked to know every place I've ever spoken since our inception,
and to whom and everywhere I intend to speak in the future.''
That is part of her comments. We have learned that the IRS has
even asked this group and other groups for their donor lists.
The Federal Government's snooping of Engelbrecht's two
organizations included six visits from the FBI--set aside the
IRS--six visits from the FBI, unannounced visits by OSHA, and
even the ATF showed up several times to investigate this
organization. And the Engelbrechts, both Catherine and her
husband, have been personally audited. And keep in mind, Mr.
Attorney General, Catherine and her husband have owned this
family business for over 20 years, and never seen an auditor
until all of this occurred. And yet here we are today since
2010, they still do not have that tax exempt status.
I have requested over the years FBI, OSHA, and ATF FOIA
requests to see if they are under criminal investigation. These
organizations say, no, they are not, but why are they
continuing to be treated like criminals?
The IRS response, as we now know, they have apologized. I
guess they want this to go away by their apology. But
meanwhile, back on the ranch, today USA Today reported that
only one Tea Party group has been given tax exempt status, but
numerous progressive groups have been given tax exempt status
in the last 2 or 3 years. Not much of a coincidence as far as I
am concerned.
So based on my experience, you know, being in the
courthouse as a prosecutor, you as a prosecutor and judge, it
just seems like government credibility, because these are
government actions. These are not private actions. These are
government actions.
Do you not think it would be best that since now the FBI,
ATF, which is under the Justice Department, are involved in
some of these accusations of harassment, unequal protection
under the law, targeting specific groups because of
discrimination. I mean, those are the accusations. That we
should set the Department aside and say, look, we are going to
get a special prosecutor in here to investigate all of these
organizations, all of these departments, to see if they are
targeting specific conservative groups, for lack of a better
phrase, for their actions, and to see if there are some
violations under the Hatch Act, numerous law violations.
I am just asking you, do you think maybe that would help
restore some credibility in your Department if you set that
aside and said we are going to get a special prosecutor to
clear this whole air and find out exactly what is going on in
the government?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I would not agree with your
characterization that there is a lack of credibility in either
the Justice Department or any of its components.
Mr. Poe. Well, I am giving you my opinion that the Justice
Department lacks credibility and some of these departments
because of the action by the Federal authority. So that is my
opinion.
Attorney General Holder. Okay, well, that is fine. I will
mark you as a fan not of government.
Bill Clinton once said that, you know, the era of big
government was over. I would say that the need for government
endures. Government----
Mr. Poe. Just answer my question because I am out of time.
I am sorry, Mr. Attorney General. Just answer my question. Do
you think we need a special prosecutor to prosecute these
accusations?
Attorney General Holder. And I said, I think the need for
good government endures. You know, people talk about how
government and government agencies do all these negative
things, and then when it comes to Sandy, Katrina, wildfires,
tornadoes, terrorism, the thing in West Texas, then people want
government there.
And my point is that the notion that government has or that
the Justice Department has credibility problems, I think is
belied by the notion that people, I think, more generally have
of government, and the good that government does, and the need
for, as I said, for good government.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of gentleman has expired.
Mr. Poe. I will submit that question in writing then for an
answer.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman will submit the question in
writing, and we will submit it to the Attorney General.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from
Washington, Ms. DelBene, for 5 minutes.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr.
Attorney General, for being here and for all of your time.
A few weeks ago, there were news reports about documents
obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, that
revealed internal memos that said the FBI believed it could
obtain the contents of Americans' emails without a warrant if
the emails were sent to or received by a third party service,
like Hotmail or Yahoo!, Outlook.com, Gmail. Do you believe the
government has a right to obtain emails without a warrant? And,
well, first, I will ask you that.
Attorney General Holder. The authorities that we have, I
guess, in some ways, you know, defined by ECPA, and there have
been people who have testified on behalf of the Justice
Department, is how we update the abilities that we have so that
we have the ability to conduct investigations in as quick a
fashion as we can, given the new technologies that we face. And
how would we apply rules that exist with regard to obtaining
information without court orders in this new era? And so I
think that is the question that we wrestle with.
Ms. DelBene. Today this piece of paper, if I had a letter
here, would require a warrant for someone to have access, but
if it were a digital email, it may not require that same
warrant. And so, we are looking at whether there should be an
equal playing field and whether we need to update our law. You
were talking about the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
That was written in 1986, and much before much of the
technology that many folks use today was in place. And so do
you believe it is important that we update that law to reflect
the way people work today and the way communication work today,
so that we have those civil liberties protected in the digital
world?
Attorney General Holder. Absolutely. I think we have become
more and more an information society, and we still have and
should have expectations of privacy however it is that we
communicate. At the same time, I want to make sure that law
enforcement, in the way that it did 40, 50 years ago, has the
ability to acquire information. And how we strike that balance
I think is really important, and is really one of the most
important conversations I think that we can have in the 21st
century, and one that I think that this Administration would
like to engage with Congress so that we come up with a set of
rules that probably not perfect, but will meet somewhere in the
middle so that we can maintain privacy while at the same time
maintaining that ability that law enforcement has to have.
Ms. DelBene. There is a piece of legislation that I have
co-sponsored, along with Congressman Poe and Congresswoman
Lofgren to update the Electronics Communications Privacy Act,
and to have a warrant standard for online communications, and
for geo location information that people have on their cell
phones, you know. We look to have support from the Department
of Justice and yourself on those reforms as we look to update
the Electronics Communications Privacy Act, and have something
that is more current.
Attorney General Holder. I know that Senator Leahy has
introduced a bill very similar to that, and it is something
that I think that the Department will support. Our only concern
is with regard to, as I said making sure that in certain very
limited circumstances, that we have the ability, perhaps in
civil cases or in other matters, to acquire information. But
the more general notion of having a warrant to obtain the
content of communication from a service provider is something
that we support.
Ms. DelBene. And a warrant standard would be the same. I
know the current warrant standard for communications, there are
exceptions in emergencies and other cases. So we are looking to
have a similar warrant standard in the online world.
Attorney General Holder. And that is what I was talking
about when I talk about these limited circumstances where we
would want to make sure that we maintain the abilities. But the
more general proposition that you are talking about is one that
we support.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I yield
back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair very much appreciates the
gentlewoman's brevity, and now recognizes the gentleman from
Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. I appreciate
you being here.
I want to go back and talk about, if we could, about the
investigation of General Petraeus, which I understand the FBI
started in the sort of May/June time frame. When did you first
learn about the investigation into General Petraeus, who was
then the CIA director?
Attorney General Holder. Yes. I am not sure. Some months, I
think, or a couple of months after it began.
Mr. Chaffetz. The news reports say that that happened
sometime in the summer. Would that be a fair, accurate
representation?
Attorney General Holder. I think that is probably right.
Mr. Chaffetz. Do you know when General Petraeus was
notified or had any sense that he was under investigation?
Attorney General Holder. I would have to go back and look.
I do not know when he was actually made aware of it. I think as
a result of an FBI interview I think, but I am not sure exactly
when that happened.
Mr. Chaffetz. Do you have any idea when he would have
become aware of it other than that--I see that somebody is
trying to hand you something. Do you have a sense as to when he
became aware of it?
Attorney General Holder. This just says we will look into
it and get back to you.
Mr. Chaffetz. You need notes for that?
Attorney General Holder. I do not know. I just do not know
when exactly all these events happened.
Mr. Chaffetz. You know, one of the questions and the
criticisms here of your actions on this is that you knew about
this in the summer, and yet when did you notify the director of
the National Intelligence, Mr. Clapper?
Attorney General Holder. I do not remember when that
happened. I knew about it for a while before he was notified. I
do not know exactly what the time frame was.
Mr. Chaffetz. And when was the President of the United
States notified?
Attorney General Holder. It was much later. Again, I am not
exactly certain, but as I remember, like late fall, and perhaps
even maybe early winter. Again, do not hold me to these exact--
--
Mr. Chaffetz. And I appreciate that, and I am asking you
dates. But the concern is that you for months based on that
timeline, and I recognize it is loose here. But for months you
knew about it, but you did not notify the President of the
United States. Why is that?
Attorney General Holder. Because it was an ongoing criminal
investigation.
Mr. Chaffetz. You do not think that there was any national
intelligence lap over? I mean, was there any national
intelligence ramification?
Attorney General Holder. Not on the basis of what we were
investigating. If we had thought or if I had thought that what
we were looking at potentially would have been compromising of
General Petraeus or would have led to a national security
problem or breach, then I----
Mr. Chaffetz. But according to the Congressional Research
Service, let me read it from their report in April. ``While the
extramarital affair itself is not classified as an intelligence
activity, the investigation by the FBI originated with the
possible hacking of Director Petraeus' email account, an act
that had the potential of compromising national intelligence.''
As I have said before, he was not the head of the, you
know, Fish and Wildlife. This is the director of Central
Intelligence. Why would you not share that with the President
of the United States?
Attorney General Holder. Well, as we talked about it among
us at the FBI and at the Justice Department, we did not think
that we had a national security problem or a potential national
security problem.
Mr. Chaffetz. But why were you investigating him? Why would
FBI investigate him? It is not just an extramarital affair,
right? That does not raise to the level of FBI involvement.
There certainly had to be some suspicion that there was some
national intelligence implication.
Attorney General Holder. Well, the investigation began, as
I remember, because of complaints that one party made against
another about the use of computers and threats. That is how the
investigation----
Mr. Chaffetz. But when it involves the director of the
Central Intelligence Agency. Senator Feinstein, who is the
chair of Intelligence said, ``This is something that could have
an effect on national security. I think we should have been
told.'' Why not notify under the law the proper authorities
here in the United States Congress, specifically the head of
the intelligence committees? And why not notify the President
of the United States?
Attorney General Holder. Well, again, as I said, there is a
strong tradition and concern within the Justice Department not
to reveal--and the FBI--not to reveal ongoing criminal
investigations. But I think we were sensitive to the
possibility of a national security concern, but did not think
that one existed. And if we look back at that----
Mr. Chaffetz. But why not share that with the President of
the United States? Do you not trust him with that information?
I would think that is the one person who should absolutely know
about what is going on. And if it was a potential that our
director of the CIA had been compromised, that you were
investigating something, why not share that with President
Obama?
Attorney General Holder. Because, as I said, we do not
share ongoing criminal investigations. And if you look back,
the conclusions that we reached, in fact, were correct that we
did not have a national----
Mr. Chaffetz. Is this is an ongoing investigation?
Attorney General Holder. It is an ongoing investigation.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair thanks the gentleman for the line of questioning, and now
recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Garcia, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Over here, Mr. Attorney General. Mr. Attorney
General, thank you for being here and thank you for your time
today. And thank you for your long and distinguished career.
My first question, and I know you have answered some of
this, but maybe in a less hostile environment, it will give you
an opportunity to dazzle you with your brilliance and your
personal knowledge.
I, unlike the majority here, know Mr. Tom Perez and have
known him for many years as a dedicated personal servant. A few
weeks ago we ascended ourselves and began a confirmation
hearing for Mr. Perez here, a duty and a responsibility that
was beyond the purview of my office, but nonetheless we
participated in that.
But I would like to hear from you as someone who has worked
with Mr. Perez closely in his capacity in your office, if you
could tell us about him and your view on him as Labor
Secretary.
Attorney General Holder. Well, I think he is uniquely
qualified for this job given his experience in Maryland in a
similar position, given the way he has distinguished himself
over a long and storied public service career, certainly with
regard to the way in which he has conducted himself as
Assistant Attorney General, showing himself to be concerned
about and responsive to working class people.
He is a person who I think has the ability to see both
sides of an issue. He is not an ideologue as I think he has
been portrayed. He is both a good lawyer, I think, a loyal
public servant, who I think will distinguish himself if he is
given the opportunity to become our next Secretary of Labor.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. General. I wanted to ask two
more questions. One is on immigration, and thank you for
addressing comprehensive immigration reform in your comments.
I notice as someone who has been around immigration and
worked with the Immigration Service that the rules that we have
created have sort of bound us in certain circumstances, and to
some degree has limited the discretion of our immigration
judges, which are overworked, but sometimes do not have the
legal ability or the ability to resolve many cases which seem
to be simple.
If we could get your opinion on returning some of that
discretion to the immigration judges.
Attorney General Holder. Well, I agree with you. I served
for 5 years as a judge here in Washington, D.C., and we put a
great deal of effort into finding good people to serve on our
Article 3 courts and our immigration courts. And I think that
they should have requisite amounts of discretion so that they
can decide what justice is in a particular case, what is
justice for the person who is in front of them.
Obviously it is constrained by rules, regulations, and by
laws. But within that range, I think judges should have
discretion, perhaps a greater degree of discretion. Immigration
judges should have a greater degree of discretion than they
presently have.
We do a good job of selecting who these people are, and we
should trust, therefore, in their abilities and their ability
to use their discretion appropriately.
Mr. Garcia. Let us stay on that real quick and then I will
close with this and return the balance of my time.
I wanted to ask you about the cuts that sequestration has
had on immigration, the impact that it has had. I think it is a
reduction about $15 million in funding for immigration review.
Could you tell me a little bit about what impact that has had
on already overburdened case loads, and has that led to
prolonged detention, which, of course, adds a further burden to
taxpayers?
Attorney General Holder. Yeah, we just have numbers here.
There are serious problems with regard to this whole question
of sequestration. The immigration docket has gone up every
year. The resources that we need to deal with that have to be
dealt with, and sequestration runs in the opposite direction
where we are actually taking resources away from a growing
problem.
If you look at the immigration bill, there is contained
within it a provision for an enhanced number, a greater number
of immigration judges. The President's budget for 2014 asks for
more immigration judges to handle the problems of the growing
docket.
Sequestration is something that is more than simply people
getting on an airplane and getting to their destination, you
know, in time. Sequestration has a negative impact on a whole
variety of areas that are my responsibility: in the immigration
courts, with regard to ATF, FBI, DEA agents having the ability
to be on the streets and doing the things that the American
people expect.
We have had problems in 2013. This Department has far fewer
people than it did in 2011 when we put into place a freeze.
This is going to have an impact. You will see, I bet, 2 and a
half, 3 years from now lower numbers out of the Justice
Department, and some attorney general perhaps will be
criticized for that. And it will be a function not of a lack of
desire and dedication on the part of the people of this Justice
Department, but simply because there are fewer of them.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. General. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and
recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, Chairman. General, it is good to see
you again.
Attorney General Holder. You, too.
Mr. Marino. Let us focus for a moment on the Boston
terrorist defendant while he was in the hospital, if you would,
please. Why were charges filed at that particular time instead
of waiting for, just running the time more so on the public
exception of Miranda? I understand it was about 16 hours and
then charges were filed. Certainly the magistrate does not have
the right to go and do that in and of themselves.
So charges had to be filed. He was in the hospital, so as a
result, the magistrate was brought there, but also a public
defender was brought there. But why at that time? Why did you
make that decision or who made the decision to file charges at
that time?
Attorney General Holder. Well, let me just not talk about
that case, again, ongoing, but charges, I mean, there are rules
that we have. The Supreme Court has said that with regard to
detention, you have got, in essence, 48 hours to bring charges.
And what we did there was to do things that are, I think,
consistent with the rules, while at the same time, without
getting into too much, while at the same time using the public
safety exception in the best way that we could.
Mr. Marino. I do not want you to get into anything that
would jeopardize this prosecution. But there was time. You
could still have used the public exception rule to allow the
FBI to interrogate this individual before Mirandizing. Do you
agree with that?
Attorney General Holder. Yeah. The Justice Department and
the FBI agent never Mirandized----
Mr. Marino. No, no, that is not my question. I know they
did not Mirandize him because they did not have to because of
the exception. But it seemed to me that there was a rush to
file the charges that would then force the magistrate to inform
the defendant of his rights. Why did you not let that time run
longer so the FBI could question him?
Attorney General Holder. The charges were filed at about
from the time of capture--I guess capture--about 46 hours after
that. So that is----
Mr. Marino. But that is a benchmark, correct? The 46 hours
is a benchmark. I mean, I have read a case where it has been
days where the exception has continued.
All right. Was that discussed with Director Mueller? Did he
know prior to that that charges were going to be filed?
Attorney General Holder. Yeah. We worked with the FBI both
in Washington and in Boston. Everybody was aware, and the State
and local folks as well. Everybody was aware of how we were
going to proceed.
Mr. Marino. Why were State charges not filed? Then you
would have more time to question that individual before you had
to file Federal charges? As a former prosecutor both at the
State and Federal level, I mean, we use these tools to our
advantage.
Attorney General Holder. Well, after the bombing, the
decision was made, and I think correctly so. The Joint
Terrorism Task Force got together and made a decision that this
was going to be a Federal matter, a Federal investigation, and
that Federal rules applied.
Mr. Marino. All right. Let us switch gears here to your
recusal in this other situation. I got into a little argument
with the Justice Department on cases where I not only recused
myself, but I wanted my entire office recused. Now, you are in
a little different predicament here.
But I always followed it up with written documentation, a
letter saying why I am recusing myself, why I am recusing my
office, making sure there is a paper trail from here to
yesterday filed in my office and with the Justice Department.
Are you saying that there is no paper trail here when you
recused yourself and for what reasons?
Attorney General Holder. I do not think there is. As I
said, that is something that we were looking for, and nothing
has been found. And I am not sure. Somebody else raised that
point. As I have thought about it actually during the course of
this hearing, that that actually might be a better policy to
have in place for recusals.
Mr. Marino. I would think so to have those documents in
place. You also have the authority to appoint a special
prosecutor, whether it is another sitting U.S. attorney or
someone outside of Justice completely. So you have the deputy
who gave the approval, but yet is heading the investigation. Do
you not think there is a conflict of interest there and someone
else should be appointed to handle this matter?
Attorney General Holder. I am not sure I understand. That
somebody other than the deputy should be handling this?
Mr. Marino. Yes, as far as the investigation is concerned.
Attorney General Holder. I see what you mean. Okay. Well, I
made the determination and was criticized at the time for
making the determination that the prosecutors at the U.S.
attorneys in Maryland and the District of Columbia could handle
these cases in a fair and appropriate way.
Mr. Marino. I will be the last guy to criticize you about a
U.S. attorney handling a case no matter where he or she is.
Being one, I know the caliber of people that work at Justice.
So be that as it may, I see my time has expired. Thank you.
Attorney General Holder. Thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and
recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Jeffries, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Jeffries. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and, Mr. Attorney
General, thank you for your testimony here today, and thank you
for your great service to this country.
Let me just first note for the record my concern as it
relates to the AP matter that, one, the subpoenas that were
issued appear to be overly broad in scope, and hopefully that
is something that the investigation that takes place will
examine with close scrutiny. And second, that I think as many
of my colleagues have expressed, I am also troubled by the fact
that the negotiation or consultation with the AP did not occur
in advance of the decision to issue the subpoena, and
hopefully, again, that will be covered.
You mentioned earlier today in your testimony that racial
and ethnical profiling is not good law enforcement. I
appreciate that observation. As you know, in New York City we
are grappling with a very aggressive stop and frisk program
being administered by the NYPD where many of us are concerned
that African-Americans and Latinos are being racially profiled
in the context of these stop and frisk encounters.
As you may know, more than 3 million stop, question, and
frisk encounters have occurred in the City of New York over the
last decade. And approximately 90 percent of those individuals,
more than 3 million stop, question, and frisk encounters are
Black and Latino citizens of the City of New York. Are you
familiar with that fact?
Attorney General Holder. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And I think you are also familiar with the
fact that according to the NYPD's own statistics, approximately
90 percent of the individuals who possibly had their Fourth
Amendment rights violated because they were stopped,
questioned, and frisked without reasonable suspicion or any
basis to conclude that they presented a danger to anyone else,
approximately 90 percent of these individuals did nothing
wrong. According to the NYPD's statistics, no gun, no drugs, no
weapon, no contraband, no basis for the arrest or the encounter
whatsoever. Are you familiar with that statistic as well?
Attorney General Holder. I have read that. I do not know
about the accuracy, but I have certainly read that.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Well, that is the NYPD's own
statistics. Now, you participated in a meeting graciously--I
was not involved at the time--last year on June 7 with Members
of the Congressional Black Caucus who were from New York City,
as well as elected officials from many of the communities that
were impacted. And we are thankful that you granted that
meeting.
At that meeting, there was a request that was made that the
Justice Department look into what we believe is systematic
racial profiling in violations of the Fourth Amendment that has
taken place in New York City as a result of the aggressive stop
and frisk program. Almost a year has passed since that meeting
took place. Have you come to a conclusion as to whether it is
appropriate for the Justice Department to look into the matter?
Attorney General Holder. We have not reached any final
determinations, but this is something that is under review at
the Justice Department. I hope that we will be able to move
this along. I know there is a civil suit from which a lot of
information is coming out. But it is something, as I think I
said then, that we were prepared to look at, and something
that, in fact, we are examining.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And as we approach the 1-year
anniversary of that meeting, I would hope that we can come to
an expedited conclusion. But I appreciate the deliberateness
and the care with which, and the sensitivity taken toward this
matter.
I want to turn briefly to the IRS issue. Now, in 2004,
George Bush was the President, is that right?
Attorney General Holder. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And he was in the midst of a very competitive
reelection, correct?
Attorney General Holder. Yeah, I guess.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And in 2004, it was revealed that the
IRS went after the NAACP for alleged political activity in
violation of its status as a not-for-profit organization. Are
you familiar with that fact?
Attorney General Holder. Yeah, I remember that.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And it was subsequently uncovered that
they had done nothing wrong, but what was also determined as a
result of a FOIA request by the NAACP was that seven Members of
the United States Congress on the other side of the aisle had
written letters to the IRS requesting that the IRS investigate
the NAACP. Are you aware of that fact?
Attorney General Holder. I do not remember that, no.
Mr. Jeffries. Now, was a criminal investigation ever
launched in connection with the alleged political interference
that took place leading to an unsubstantiated investigation of
the NAACP? I know you were not at Justice at the time.
Attorney General Holder. I do not believe so, but I am not
sure.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. But I am thankful that you have taken
the step to launch an investigation into similar allegations of
alleged political interference, albeit not by Members of
Congress, and we look forward to the results of that inquiry.
Attorney General Holder. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, the
Chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee,
Mr. Gowdy, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr.
Attorney General.
Attorney General Holder. Good afternoon.
Mr. Gowdy. Do you think it is reasonable to evaluate how
effectively prosecutors and law enforcement are using current
firearm statutes as we debate whether or not we need additional
firearm statutes?
Attorney General Holder. Sure, that ought to be a factor,
but I think we are using the laws effectively.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I would have to take your word for it for
this reason. I wrote you 6 months ago and asked for statistics
specifically on two Code sections, 922(d) and 922(g), which
deal, as you know, specifically with the possession or transfer
of firearms by those who have been adjudicated mentally
defective or committed to mental institutions. I wrote that
letter in December. Thinking that being a low-level House
Member was not enough to garner any attention, I then got a
senator to co-sign the exact same letter with me, and we have
not heard back yet.
So you agree that it is relevant how effectively those Code
sections are being prosecuted as we evaluate whether or not we
need additional tools.
Attorney General Holder. Excuse me. I think we should take
into account what we are doing in terms of weapons
prosecutions. One-seventh of all the cases that we bring in the
Federal system are gun cases.
Mr. Gowdy. What percentage of current background check
failures are prosecuted?
Attorney General Holder. A much smaller number. There were
83,000 background check failures in Fiscal Year 2012. There
were 85,000 cases brought. A much smaller number of those
failures were actually brought. The purpose of the background
check system, though, is to prevent people from acquiring guns.
1.5 million have been stopped since the beginning of this
system, as opposed to the prosecution. And that is why----
Mr. Gowdy. I understand that, Mr. Attorney General. I also
understand a little something about a lack of jury appeal. I
know certain cases do not have tremendous jury appeal. But when
you are advocating for increased background checks, and it can
be argued that you are not a good steward of the current
background check laws that you have, I just frankly think it
undercuts the argument. But reasonable minds can differ on
that, I suppose.
I do not think reasonable minds can differ on 922(d) and
922(g), which deal with people--these are not my words, it is
in the statute--been adjudged mentally defective or committed
to a mental institution. If you want to search for a theme
throughout lots of our mass killings, I think we will find that
theme.
I want to read to you a quote that has been attributed to
you. If the quote is inaccurate, I want to give you a chance to
tell me it is inaccurate. I am not going to read the whole
thing. ``Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11
million unauthorized immigrants in this country is essential.
This is a matter of civil and human rights.'' Is that an
accurate quote?
Attorney General Holder. Yeah, I think that is a speech I
gave at the Anti-Defamation League.
Mr. Gowdy. All right. You would agree with me that persons
who cannot pass background checks should not have the civil
right, as you call it, of citizenship.
Attorney General Holder. Well, as I used that phrase, I did
not use it in the strictly legal sense.
Mr. Gowdy. But, Mr. Attorney General, with all due respect,
that is the problem with using the phrase. I mean, you are a
highly trained lawyer, and you know what the phrase ``civil
right'' means. And when you say that you have a civil right to
citizenship when you have broken the laws to come to the
country, that comment has consequences. And surely you have to
know that.
Attorney General Holder. Well, with all due respect, it was
my speech, and they were the words that I chose. And I did not
mean to convey, and I did not think that it would be taken that
way. Some have said that, many have not, that that meant that
there was a legal right or anything like that. It was in the
context of that phrase where I said civil and, I think, human
right. I think that is the word that I used there.
Mr. Gowdy. Right. But you can understand how it is
problematic for those of us, frankly, who are working on
immigration reform and do not come from districts where it is a
really popular political idea to have the Attorney General say
you have a civil and human right to citizenship, even though
you are in the country in violation of our laws. That is a non
sequiter. And it is hard for some of us to explain that. So I
do not know what you meant, I just know what you said.
Attorney General Holder. Yeah, and what I meant was that
you have 11 million undocumented people here who are, we must
admit, contributing to this country in substantial ways, but
oftentimes are exploited because they are in that undocumented
status. And we have to deal with the----
Mr. Gowdy. But, Mr. Attorney General, my point is all 11
million are not valedictorians, which is why every bill has a
background check provision. And all 11 million do not want
citizenship. So to call it a human and civil right, speaking
for a broad group of 11 million, with all due respect, it is
just not helpful to those of us who are trying to be part of
the conversation.
Attorney General Holder. And I did not mean to say by that
all 11 million either want to be citizens, you are right, or
will ultimately as the bills have been crafted, and I think
appropriately so, will pass the necessary background checks. I
am talking about the universe of people who we have generally
accepted as 11 million. And from that 11 million, and I suspect
it is going to be a large portion of that 11 million, will pass
background checks, will desire to become citizens, and then
will be entitled to the human rights that all Americans have
after they go through that period that allows them to acquire
citizenship, along that pathway.
Mr. Gowdy. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now
recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Labrador. Good afternoon, Mr. Attorney General. One of
your favorite phrases during this hearing and in many other
hearings where I have heard you is ``ongoing criminal
investigations.'' I also have heard you several times talk
about best practices and proprieties.
When you decided to recuse yourself, did you look at best
practices? I think you admitted already that it would have been
probably a better practice for you to put in writing. But there
is already a statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 591, that requires to
put in writing your reasons for recusal in certain
circumstances. Frankly, I have read it a couple of times. I do
not know if it applied to your situation right now. But do you
not think it would have been the best practice for you to just
put it in writing, especially when you are talking about an
issue of such significance?
Attorney General Holder. Well, as I said, and as I have
thought about it even during the course of this last couple of
hours, that I think that I am going to go back and actually
think about whether or not there is some kind of policy that I
should put in place, examine how often recusals have happened
in writing as opposed to orally. And I think that the better
practice, as I said, frankly, I think we probably ought to put
them in place.
Mr. Labrador. And I think you should look at whether 28
U.S.C. 591--again, I do not if that applies to you, but you
should really look at whether that applies to you or not or
whether there is any other law that would have required you to.
Attorney General Holder. Well, there are two things on my
to do list here.
Mr. Labrador. Okay. The second thing I want to talk about
is, we already discussed the targeting by the IRS, admitting
that they targeted conservative groups. Will you state today
under oath that the Department of Justice under your watch has
not targeted conservative groups for prosecution for political
reasons or to gain political advantage?
Attorney General Holder. Not to my knowledge. I have no
knowledge that has ever occurred.
Mr. Labrador. Do you know if the IRS leaked tax information
related to Mitt Romney during the Republicans presidential
primary or general campaign?
Attorney General Holder. I do not know.
Mr. Labrador. And if you do not know, will you attempt to
find out in your investigation?
Attorney General Holder. I am not sure I have a predicate
for that. I will be honest with you, I do not just remember
that.
Mr. Labrador. There were several claims during the campaign
that there was personal information from Mitt Romney's tax
records that were being leaked to the press, and I just want to
know if the IRS was the one leaking that information.
We also know that some of Mitt Romney's top donors were
targeted by the IRS and the Labor Department, including a
gentleman from Idaho. So if you could look at that as well, why
it was that specifically people who were giving who were some
of Romney's top campaign donors, that were actually,
immediately after they became public about how much money they
had donated, that all of a sudden the IRS and the Labor
Department was looking at them.
And I have an important question. We have heard about
numerous groups that were targeted that were conservative
groups. Can you tell me whether Obama For America, Organizing
for America, Occupy Wall Street, or any other progressive group
has been targeted in the last 3 to 4 years by the IRS?
Attorney General Holder. We are at the beginning of the
investigation, so I do not know what, if any groups, were
targeted. All I know is what I have read about in the press. I
am not in a position to say--we are at the beginning stages of
this investigation--which groups might have been
inappropriately looked at.
Mr. Labrador. Can you find out if it was only conservative,
because I think this is important. I think it is rather strange
that it is only one group, a political group, but not the other
kind of political group. Can you find out for our Committee
whether that----
Attorney General Holder. Well, I mean, the investigation
would be designed to find out which groups were looked at, make
sure that if they were looked at, it was done on an appropriate
basis, and if it was inappropriate, then to hold people
accountable. And that will be done regardless of whether or not
they are conservative or liberal, Republican leaning, or
Democratic leaning.
Mr. Labrador. And if you find out that they were only
conservative, can you find out why it was that only
conservative groups were targeted?
Attorney General Holder. Yeah.
Mr. Labrador. Now, I am going to read to you a quote that
you stated about your contempt of Congress from last year. In
February of this year you said, ``I have to tell you that for
me to really be affected by what happened,'' meaning the
contempt of Congress, ``I have to have respect for the people
who voted in that way. And I didn't, so it didn't have that
huge an impact on me.'' Do you not think that quote shows
contempt for the Republican Members of Congress that are here
that voted for this? And there were actually some Democratic
Members who also voted for contempt?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I have to say that the
process that we went through, or that you all went through, in
making that contempt determination seemed inconsistent with
both prior practice, and also consistent with not taking into
account the good faith attempts that we were making to try to
share the information that was sought. And I also thought that
it was telling that when the NRA decided to score that vote,
what was the NRA? What was the involvement of the NRA in that
vote at all?
It seemed to me then that this was something that was not
about me, not about--well, it was about me, but it was about
things beyond just the exchange of documents. It was an attempt
by certain people to get at this Attorney General. And that is
why I said that with regard to that process, I simply did not
and do not have respect for it.
Mr. Labrador. But you said you did not have respect for the
people who voted. And I think that same contempt may have led
also to people in this Administration thinking that they could
go after conservatives and conservative groups.
Thank you. I yield back.
Attorney General Holder. I am not the cause of people in
the IRS doing things that might have been illegal. I will not
take that----
Mr. Labrador. No, no, I am not accusing you of that. I am
just saying that maybe that same statement emboldened people to
think that they could also go after other conservative groups.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and yields
to the gentleman from Michigan for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
insert into our record the statement of the Lawyers Committee
for Civil Rights Under Law.
Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection, the document will be made
a part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. And the Chair would ask unanimous consent
that a letter sent to Attorney General Holder on November 13,
2012, pertinent to the investigation of the matter involving
former CIA Director David Petraeus, signed by former Chairman
Lamar Smith, and containing 15 questions, which to our
knowledge and to the knowledge of former Chairman Smith, have
never been answered. And we would ask the Attorney General to,
again, answer them. But we will put those as a part of the
record and resubmit them to you, General Holder. They were
pertinent to this hearing, and I think the answers to those
questions would be of interest to the Members of the Committee.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentlewoman from Texas has a unanimous
consent request?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I do, Mr. Chairman. I was happy to wait
until the end of the session. Are you----
Mr. Goodlatte. If you would like to do it now, we can.
Otherwise, we will go to Mr. Farenthold.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I will let Mr. Farenthold----
Mr. Goodlatte. Very well. The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Farenthold, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am batting
cleanup here, and I would like to express my appreciation for
Mr. Holder for sticking with us so long. I have got a big stack
of questions, so if you would keep your answers as short as
possible, I would appreciate it.
And I think we have covered a lot about the IRS and your
investigation. I think Judge Poe did a really, really good job.
I am appalled by what happened. I was appalled when the Nixon
Administration did it, and I am appalled when it is happening
under this Administration. I am a little concerned, you said
you had marked Mr. Poe down as not a fan of government. I hope
he has his taxes in order.
On the DoJ website, you all say the Department has
demonstrated its historic commitment to transparency, and upon
taking office, President Obama directed the Department of
Justice with a clear presumption in the face of doubt, openness
prevails. And on March 19th, you called for greater government
transparency in the new era of open government. Yet we had the
result of contempt of Congress. You, I think, called Chairman
Issa shameless. I would like to offer you the opportunity to
just give us the stuff we are asking for and be consistent with
that transparency.
Would you please just do it and make it easier for all of
us?
Attorney General Holder. We have been in good faith
negotiations. We went through mediation that the House
Republicans, as I remember, did not want to do. We have tried
to find ways in which we could share the requested
information----
Mr. Farenthold. We need the information, and we want to
protect it. But I do have a lot of questions, so I am going to
go on.
Let us move onto the Justice Department's action with
respect to the Associated Press. Do you think the massive
intrusion of freedom of the press could cause an intimidating
and chilling effect on whistleblowers and confidential sources?
And what do you think of today's New York Times editorial that
says these tactics will not scare us or the AP, but they could
reveal sources and frighten confidential contacts vital to the
coverage of government.
Attorney General Holder. Again, I will answer the question,
but separate and apart from the ongoing investigation. The
Justice Department does not want its actions chill sources,
have a negative impact on the news gathering abilities of
newspapers, television, stations----
Mr. Farenthold. You would admit it offends you as an
American that we are targeting the media in such a broad
fashion. Would that be a fair statement?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I am not going to, again,
comment on an investigation that I am----
Mr. Farenthold. Okay. In a hypothetical situation, we are
going to go after and subpoena hundreds of phone records for
journalists. I mean, just does that offend you as an American?
Attorney General Holder. It would depend on the facts. You
would have to know what the facts were and why the actions were
taken----
Mr. Farenthold. So you stated earlier that you recused
yourself from this because you were questioned about this
investigation. So as part of that investigation, are you aware
if any of your telephones were tapped or telephone records were
subpoenaed? I mean, you were subject to that investigation as
well.
Attorney General Holder. There were, yes. Some of my
telephone records were examined.
Mr. Farenthold. Okay. And other Administrations as well. I
guess my question is, it seems to me the media ought to be the
last resort. Did they subpoena them, or did you voluntarily
turn them over, the phone records?
Attorney General Holder. I am not even sure I remember. I
think I probably voluntarily turned them over? I voluntarily
turned them over.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. There is a difference obviously
then between subpoena.
All right. And let us go to Benghazi for a second. Gregory
Hicks, the former Chief of Mission in Libya, testified before
the Government Oversight and Reform Committee that as a result
of the appearance of Susan Rice on various talk shows, that the
President of Libya was offended and delayed the FBI's access to
the consulate in Benghazi by 17 days. Do you think this would
have a negative effect on the FBI's investigation and ability
to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi?
Attorney General Holder. I am satisfied with the progress
that we have made in the investigation regardless of what
happened previously. We have made very, very, very----
Mr. Farenthold. But not having access to an unsecured crime
scene for 17 days, that is bound to have had a negative impact?
Attorney General Holder. It has not had a negative impact
on this investigation.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. There was a story today that
Media Matters issued a defense of the Justice Department's use
of these subpoenas for telephone--are you all regularly still
consulting with Media Matters for spinning your PR stories? We
talked about that in an Oversight and Government Reform hearing
last year.
Attorney General Holder. I'm not sure I know what you're
talking about.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. And then, finally, I see I am
out of time. I don't want to break the rules. So thank you very
much.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Goodlatte. Oh, yes?
Mr. Issa. If I could just place, because of what the
Attorney General said, in the record House Republicans did not
object to mediation. The Attorney General's, the Government's
position was that the judge did not have--and still position is
did not have the ability to adjudicate this dispute at all, and
we said it was premature to talk about settlement as to the
actual document request until she made a determination that she
would and could decide.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Issa. And that remains the House----
Mr. Conyers. Could we have regular order? We are short of
time now. With all due respect to the distinguished Chairman.
Mr. Issa. I just think that a case under--that affects the
House and its ability to do its business needed to be properly
defined.
I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. I think that is now part of the record, and
both gentlemen's points are well taken.
Attorney General Holder. Well, let me just say this. There
was information that I just shared, but I perhaps should not
have. This was apparently something that the judge shared.
Well, all right. Let me just stop there.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
North Carolina, Mr. Holding, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Holding. General Holder, it is good to see you. During
my tenure in the United States attorney's office, I served with
four Attorney Generals, including yourself, and during the 2
years that our service overlapped, I always felt you were very
supportive to our mission in North Carolina and to the law
enforcement community.
I was somewhat surprised, taking you back about 2\1/2\
hours ago, you mentioned that you spoke to the chief district
judges here in Washington, and you gave a speech. And in your
comments, you criticized the length of Federal prison sentences
that were being handed out in some instances. And although I
don't have a text of the speech, maybe you could provide that
text.
I did see that in April, you made similar remarks to the
National Action Network. Specifically, you stated that too many
people will go to too many prisons for far too long for no good
law enforcement reason and that sentences too often bear no
relation to the conduct at issue, breed disrespect for the
system, and are ultimately counterproductive.
Now, candidly, I would expect to hear those remarks more
from maybe the chief Federal public defender rather than the
chief Federal law enforcement officer. And for the thousands of
cases that went through the Eastern District of North Carolina
when I was there, I can think of none that got a prison
sentence that was too long.
So if you could elaborate just a bit on which criminals are
you referring to that are getting too long of a prison sentence
in the Federal system?
Attorney General Holder. Yes, I view my responsibility as
larger than simply being the chief prosecutor. It seems to me
that an Attorney General--and not just me, the office of the
Attorney General has a responsibility to the system.
And the observations or the comments that I made in that
National Action Network speech, I don't--with regard to the
judges, I don't have a text. That was extemporaneous. Are what
I feel, that if you look at particularly people who got
sentenced to long prison sentences in drug cases that are more
a function of the weight that was involved in a drug case, as
opposed to that person's role in the drug scheme.
I think Judge Gleason is his name, in New York, has made
the same observation, and I think that, you know, these
mandatory minimum sentences that we--that we see, particularly
in drugs, particularly when it comes to drugs, I think are
unnecessarily long and don't actually go to the purposes of
sentencing, that is deterrence and rehabilitation.
Mr. Holding. But General Holder, you know as well as I do
that by the time a defendant ends up in Federal court, they
usually have been through the State process numerous times.
Attorney General Holder. Well, that's not always the case.
Mr. Holding. It's predominantly the case that they will
have been through the State system numerous times. And I think
particularly in light of prosecuting felons in possession of a
firearm. In the Eastern District of North Carolina in 2002, we
prosecuted approximately 50 of those cases. We ramped them up
to about 300 a year and consistently did 300 a year, average
prison sentences of approximately 10 years.
These are cases which you can do in large numbers and have
significant impact not only with prison sentences, but with
deterrent value as well. And I am concerned that the Department
of Justice under this Administration has slacked off on making
that a priority, of prosecuting felons in possession of
firearms.
And I am concerned that the numbers are falling, and I know
that this Committee has asked to get specific numbers of 922,
924 cases, and I don't understand why it is taking so long to
get them. Because unless you have changed the software in the
last 20 months since I was a sitting U.S. attorney, you can
have those statistics in a matter of minutes by culling them
through the line system.
So are the numbers falling, and will you please produce the
numbers to the Committee as soon as you can?
Attorney General Holder. We'll provide you with those
numbers, but there has not been a policy decision to
deemphasize those cases. I actually think that when it comes to
the use of mandatory minimums that felon in possession cases,
that's actually a place where mandatory minimums are
appropriate.
Mr. Holding. Are the priorities--prosecution priorities of
the Department of Justice under review right now?
Attorney General Holder. With regard to the gun cases?
Mr. Holding. All the priorities of prosecutions in the
Department of Justice, are the U.S. attorneys putting those
under review right now through the AGAC?
Attorney General Holder. Yes, I have a working group
working with the AGAC to look at our prosecution priorities,
yes.
Mr. Holding. And will you keep the Committee apprised of
what you determine that the priorities ought to be at the
Department of Justice for prosecution?
Attorney General Holder. I'd be more than glad to have a
dialogue with the Committee in that regard.
Mr. Holding. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate you being here, Mr. Attorney General. It is
the first time you and I have had a chance to talk. I have
listened here. One of the advantages of being on the bottom row
here, you get to hear everybody else ask questions and also
hear your answers.
And I think your answers today to me have been enlightening
in some ways and very discouraging in others. And I think some
of it is you have said on several times, and I will go back to
some of your statements today.
You made a quote when you were quoting I believe then-
President Clinton, talking about the era of big government is
over and a good government will endure. I think the problem
that I have here is that I agree with you. Good government
should be a limited form of government.
And I think what we have seen over the past week or so has
really shook the foundations again of discussing this issue of
limited government. When we understand this, and especially in
your agency right now, as we look at this, you have said on a
couple of occasions. I marked it down. You may have said it
more, if you did. So you started about the role of the
executive.
That is the role of the executive. That is what we are
supposed to be doing. Is that a fair statement that you said
that on several times today?
Attorney General Holder. Yes, I said that, but I think I
was saying that in reference to who in the Government ought to
be deciding matters----
Mr. Collins. I understand. It is the role of the executive.
Correct? But there is a role for Congress. Correct?
Attorney General Holder. Absolutely.
Mr. Collins. And that is why you are here today.
Attorney General Holder. Absolutely.
Mr. Collins. Because this Committee has oversight over your
department. Correct?
Attorney General Holder. I didn't show up here because I
really wanted to.
Mr. Collins. Well, that has been---- [Laughter.]
And that has been painfully obvious in some of the ways you
have answered some of the questions. So, I mean, as we come by
here, the problem is, though, is that is the checks and
balances.
Attorney General Holder. Absolutely.
Mr. Collins. Sure it is. That you come here, you answer
questions, and we are the constitutional oversight, to have
oversight, budgetary control and oversight of what goes on and
ask these questions. And these are not asking questions from up
here--at least from my perspective, as I have made comment
before. The people of north Georgia in the Ninth District in
which I am from, many times they just want the truth.
And they are frustrated right now that they don't get the
truth, and they keep hearing other issues that come up on
threatening to them and the very sanctity of what they believe,
whether it be the IRS or the issues with the reporters or a
litany of issues we have talked about today.
The question that I have is this being the Committee in
which is oversight that you need--that you come to, and this
will be maybe the first but probably not the only time we will
talk in this capacity, is it concerns me the lack of
preparation or at least perceived lack of preparation which you
come here today.
And Ms. Lofgren from across the aisle made a statement
about did you put it in writing? And we have had this
discussion about your recusal, and your answer to that was that
``I don't think I put it in writing. I am not sure.''
Did you not think those questions were going to be asked of
you today? That when you recused yourself from this, when you
were actually--did you just honestly think those would not be
asked today?
Attorney General Holder. I didn't think about whether or
not you were going to ask me that question at--one way or the
other, but I wanted to----
Mr. Collins. You are kidding me? You come to this Committee
today with these issues like they are right now----
Attorney General Holder. Would you let me finish,
Congressman? What I said--what I was going to say was that I
asked my own people whether or not----
Mr. Collins. Mr. Attorney General? Mr. Attorney General, I
reclaim my time for just a second.
Attorney General Holder [continuing]. There was a written--
--
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chairman, can you state your ruling again
on who controls the time?
Mr. Goodlatte. The time is controlled by the gentleman from
Georgia.
Attorney General Holder. He can have extra time. Let me
just answer the question.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Attorney General, you don't control the
time here.
Attorney General Holder. I'm willing to give--okay. That's
fine.
Mr. Collins. My question is this. As I come back to this,
did you not honestly----
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, could the witness have a
chance----
Mr. Goodlatte. The witness will have a full opportunity to
respond, but the gentleman from Georgia has the opportunity
first to ask his question.
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chairman, just to make a point. The
Attorney General stayed here extra time to make sure that
everyone had a chance to ask their question. Considering the
fact that he is still here past his time, why can't he answer
the question that is posed to him?
Mr. Goodlatte. He will get an opportunity to answer the
question just as soon as Mr. Collins finishes posing his
question, and we will give him extra time after Mr. Collins'
time has expired, just as we have done for the Attorney General
on several occasions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, may I just a moment? I would
appreciate it. I know that some of us have deep bass-like
voices, might sound that we are not being friendly and happy.
But I would appreciate a little civility in the questioning of
the Attorney General as we proceed to the conclusion.
I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman from Georgia may proceed.
Mr. Collins. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I will pose it. I just have just a simple question. It
was amazing to me that the question was did you not think that
you would be asked about maybe the timeline on when you might
have recused yourself because you also said at one point you
recused yourself before subpoenas. Or there was some question
even in your own dialogue about when you actually did this.
So I am just asking a simple question, as the others on the
other side, they got to ask their questions. I am now asking
mine. Did you not think that someone on this panel would have
asked you those questions?
Attorney General Holder. I did not know whether anybody
would ask me that question. But irrespective of that, I thought
that was an important factor, an important fact, and it was one
of the reasons why I asked my staff to find out, irrespective
of what was going to happen up here today, whether or not there
was in writing a recusal.
I asked that question myself, thinking that it was an
important question. I did not know. I don't know what you all
are going to ask me. So that's why I was saying I didn't know
whether or not you were going to ask the question.
But I thought it was an important one and one that I put to
my staff.
Mr. Collins. In light of the impartation of my time, I do
have one question on that regard. Have you recused yourself--in
using your recusal, have you put that in writing before?
Attorney General Holder. I'm not sure about that. In Mr.
Holding's case, the Edwards case, I recused myself in that
matter. I've recused myself in other cases because my law firm,
my former law firm was involved in those cases.
I'm not sure that those are in writing, but I do think, as
has been raised--I don't remember what congressman--that
putting these things in writing would--I think might be the
better practice.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Attorney General, I appreciate your
answers to the question. And this is an issue that needs to be
dealt with. It is just amazing, again, as you have stated,
there is a role of the executive. And there is a role of----
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chairman, point of order. Is that light
red right there?
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman's time was interrupted
considerably by a debate over whether or not he was entitled to
ask his question. So he can complete this question, and the
Attorney General can answer it.
Mr. Collins. And I did not interrupt the gentleman from
Louisiana in his questions. So I would just appreciate the
opportunity to close, and the opportunity to close is I
appreciate your answers. We are going to ask more of these
questions, and these are the roles that we both, in your role
and our role, play.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Attorney General Holder. Well, that's fine. And look, I
respect the oversight role that Congress plays. This isn't
always a pleasant experience. It's one that I recognize that
you go through as an executive branch officer.
The one thing I've tried to do is always be respectful of
the people who've asked me questions. I don't, frankly, think
I've always been treated with a great deal of respect, and it's
not even a personal thing. If you don't like me, that's one
thing. But I am the Attorney General of the United States, and
this is the first time you and I have met. So I'm certainly not
referring to you or any of the questions you've just asked.
But I think that is something that is emblematic of the
problem that we have in Washington nowadays. There's almost a
toxic partisan atmosphere here where basic role--levels of
civility simply don't exist. We can have really serious
partisan fights, disagreements about a whole variety of things,
but I think people should have the ability, especially in this
context, to treat one another with respect.
I've tried to do that. Maybe I've not always been
successful, but I certainly know that I have not been treated
in that way all the time.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, for
5 minutes.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, I am going to talk about credibility
and accountability because I think this is kind of something
that is underneath all of these issues we have been dealing
with. And as I understand your testimony today with this AP
case, something that bothers me is that by your own admission,
this is one of the most serious leak cases in the past 40
years.
Your comments yesterday, you said it put the American
people at risk. And yet, as you testified today, you don't know
when you recused yourself. You have no record of you recusing
yourself, and you didn't tell the White House that you recused
yourself.
And that bothers me because that explanation, one, I think
is insufficient and, two, it insulates you and it insulates the
President from any accountability about what happened. So is
this really the best you can do in terms of explaining what you
did for one of the most serious cases that you have ever seen
in your professional life?
Attorney General Holder. As I said, with regard to the
question of how recusals are memorialized, I think a written
response would make a great deal of sense. But the notion that
I would share with the White House information about an ongoing
criminal investigation is simply not something that I, as
Attorney General, unless there is some kind of national
security--serious, serious national----
Mr. DeSantis. Which there was. By your own admission, it
put the American people at risk. Correct?
Attorney General Holder. But we are talking about a limited
group of people who had access to this information, some of
whom were in the White House. And so, the notion that I would
share that information with the White House, I didn't share
this information with people in the Justice Department. I mean,
it was----
Mr. DeSantis. But the people in the Justice Department,
with all due respect, are not responsible for protecting the
American people. The President is. So we just have a
disagreement on that. Now in terms of----
Attorney General Holder. No, the Justice Department, we are
responsible for protecting the American people.
Mr. DeSantis. The buck stops with the President in terms of
a serious risk to the American people. I understand they have
duties to enforce the law. They are important duties. But
ultimately, the President is who we rely on.
Now in terms of with this Internal Revenue Service issue.
Do you agree--I mean, you are the head lawyer in the entire
country and your office, you are, due respect for your office.
Do you acknowledge that the IRS is a part of the Treasury
Department, and it is accountable to the President and that it
is not an independent agency?
Attorney General Holder. Technically, I don't know. I've
heard that it's an independent agency. There is some kind of
reporting responsibility within Treasury. Exactly how that is
defined, I don't know.
Mr. DeSantis. You have been in law for 40 years. You're one
of the most accomplished in terms of the positions you have
had, and you don't know whether the IRS is a part of Treasury,
whether the IRS Commissioner is responsible to the President,
or whether it is considered an independent agency? You really
don't know the difference between those?
Attorney General Holder. I didn't say that. I said the IRS,
as I understand it, is a part of the Treasury Department. The
IRS Commissioner is independent, but is appointed by the
President to a fixed term.
Mr. DeSantis. And can be removed at the will of the
President, correct, per Federal statutes?
Attorney General Holder. All executive branch employees can
be removed by the President.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. So then it is not an independent
agency, right? Is it--can we just understand what it is?
Attorney General Holder. I'm not sure where you're going
with this question. If you're trying to put what the IRS did
into the White House, that's not going to work.
Mr. DeSantis. No, is it an independent agency? Yes or no.
Attorney General Holder. It is an independent agency that
operates within the executive branch.
Mr. DeSantis. Well, that is completely begging the
question. See, the President and his press secretary have
said----
Attorney General Holder. No, that's an accurate answer.
Mr. DeSantis [continuing]. That it is an independent
agency, that it is outside the purview of the executive branch.
And my point is, yes, maybe the President is not micromanaging
every decision, but that IRS Commissioner is accountable to the
President, and the President can remove that individual.
If the agency was truly independent, then the President
would not have that authority to remove that individual. And
so, I think we need to be clear when we are making statements,
and you haven't made that statement before today. But the White
House press secretary and the President did, and I just don't
think it was accurate.
One more thing, with these Benghazi----
Attorney General Holder. Was there a question? Do you have
a question? Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Mr. DeSantis. With Benghazi terrorists, I know nobody has
really been brought to justice for this. I know the FBI was
over there investigating. At this point in time, is this your
purview to bring those people to justice, or is it a military
issue? Who is in charge of exacting justice for the terrorists
who killed four Americans?
Attorney General Holder. It's my responsibility. It's
ultimately, I think, my responsibility. And I mean, it's now,
what, 5--7 minutes after 5 p.m. on whatever today's date is.
And as of this date, this time, I am confident and proud of the
work that we have done in determining who was responsible for
the killings in Benghazi.
Mr. DeSantis. But there has not been any action taken to
bring them to justice?
Attorney General Holder. None that I can talk about right
now.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. Very well.
Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Attorney General Holder. Let me just say that in response,
add to that last response, that because I'm not able to talk
about it now does not mean that definitive, concrete action has
not been taken. That should not be read that way.
We have been aggressive. We have been--we have moved as
quickly as we can, and we are in a good position with regard to
that investigation.
Mr. DeSantis. Could I just--5 seconds to follow up, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Attorney General Holder. That is okay. That is okay.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Attorney General is going to give you 5
seconds.
Mr. DeSantis. Can you say whether the concrete action----
Attorney General Holder. He has to call me ``Mr.
Chairman,'' though.
Mr. DeSantis. Can you say whether the concrete action is
law enforcement based or in terms of military based being a
kinetic response?
Attorney General Holder. I can say that within the purview
of the things that we do in the Justice Department, definitive
action has been taken.
Mr. Goodlatte. Now the time of the gentleman has expired,
and the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas for her
unanimous consent request.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
courtesies. I am glad we are ending on a smiling note.
I have three documents. My first document is AA--this is
the title of it. AAG Perez Restores Integrity to the Voting
Section. OIG Confirms Nonpartisan. Merit-Based Hiring Has
Returned under AAG Tom Perez.
I would ask unanimous consent to put that in the record.
Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Issa. I would reserve. We haven't seen these documents.
Can the gentlelady make the documents available?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I certainly will.
The second document is Loving All Our Neighbors, Even Our
Muslim Ones. The title is, ``Don't be so lazy to assume that
the words of a group represents the entire group. They hardly
ever do. Perhaps a better idea is to meet them, learn about
them, and treat them as your neighbor.'' This is in USA Today,
and the date is April 23, 2013.
I ask unanimous consent to place in the record.
Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Ms. Jackson Lee. And I am asking to place in the record a
statement on Medicare prosecutions as relates to minority
hospitals and separating out monies that are not tainted by the
investigation to allow those hospitals to treat indigent
minority patients.
I ask unanimous consent.
Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection, that will be made a part
of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman for his courtesies,
and I am smiling. Thank you very much.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman from California had reserved
the right to object to the first request. So we are awaiting
the gentleman's question and whether he is exercising his right
to object.
Mr. Issa. Yes, this is not public information, nor is it
annotated. I would--I have no problem with the other two.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, the gentleman exercises his right to
object to your----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Can I have an inquiry further for the
individual? What is he indicating that it is not public
information? The OIG report, as I understand it, is a public
document.
Mr. Issa. Yes, and certainly if you want to put actual
portions of the OIG report in, that is fine. The record of
accomplishments, which is the second page here, as the
gentlelady would understand, if the gentlelady wants to put in
things about how great Thomas Perez is, we are perfectly
willing to say yes. And if the gentleman doesn't mind, my
putting in the entire report on his quid pro quo, his false
statements made to Congress, and the other companion
information which is the fruit of Committee work.
Mr. Goodlatte. Is that a unanimous consent request?
Mr. Issa. It is.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Then----
Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection, the gentlewoman's
unanimous consent request will be granted.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*See page 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And without objection, the gentleman from California's
unanimous consent request will be----
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Ms. Jackson Lee. And may I make--excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
The gentleman was generous enough to say--and I thank the
gentleman for his courtesies, he is generous enough to say that
he had a report. We have a report, and we would ask unanimous
consent for that report to be submitted as well.
Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection, the report that the
gentlewoman from Texas refers to will be made a part of the
record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Ms. Jackson Lee. And the report that the gentleman from
California?
Mr. Goodlatte. We have already covered that one.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. That the gentleman has
indicated an expanded report because he is putting in another
report, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, we are not putting in reports that
don't exist. We are putting in reports that already exist.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Jackson Lee. No, this one exists. This one does exist.
Mr. Goodlatte. And we have covered it.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. Attorney General Holder, we thank you for
the amount of time. As was noted by the gentleman from
Louisiana, you spent more time than was requested.
As you know, there is a lot of questions that Members have,
and a lot of Members are not satisfied with all the answers. A
number of questions are being submitted to you in writing.
There are questions existing from previous correspondence that
we would ask that you answer, and nothing would do more to show
the respect that you referred to for this Committee than for
you to answer those questions.
And as Attorney General of the United States, I think it
would reflect well on the respect that the Attorney General of
the United States is entitled to, to see those questions
entered, answered as a part of the separation of powers,
operation of checks and balances that exist in the oversight
responsibility of this Committee.
I thank you again.
Attorney General Holder. That's a fair point, Mr. Chairman.
That's a fair point.
Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection, all Members will have 5
legislative days to submit additional written questions for the
witness or additional materials for the record, if we don't
have enough already.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Eric J. Holder,
Jr., Attorney General, United States Department of Justice*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The Committee had not received a response to these questions at
the time this hearing record was finalized and submitted for printing
on November 22, 2013.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]