S. HRG. 112–795 

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 12, 2012 

Serial No. J–112–79 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–674 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 112–795 

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 12, 2012 

Serial No. J–112–79 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 3 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ........................ 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 348 

WITNESSES 

Holder, Eric H., Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 5 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Eric H. Holder to questions submitted by Senators Leahy, Kohl, 

Feinstein, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Grassley, Sessions, Coburn ...................... 51 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Holder, Eric H., Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 339 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Judith C. 

Appelbaum, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Washington, DC: 

June 8, 2012, letter .......................................................................................... 344 

June 18, 2012, letter ........................................................................................ 346 

Michael Chertoff, Paul Wolfowitz, James Cartwright, J. Mike McConnell, 

Michael Hayden and William Lynn, III, June 6, 2012 joint letter .................. 350 

U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa, 

June 14, 2012, letter ............................................................................................ 352 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 

TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Kohl, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, 

Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Coons, Blumenthal, Grassley, 

Sessions, Kyl, Graham, Cornyn, and Lee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. I am glad to see everybody here. We will let 

Senator Grassley get in, and I think everybody is going to give us 

a little room here in the front so we can see the Attorney General. 

And I welcome our Attorney General, Eric Holder, back to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

The mission of the Department of Justice has always been to protect and safeguard all Americans—to keep Americans safe from 

terrorism and other national security threats, to keep our communities safe from crime, and to safeguard the rights and liberties 

that make us American. When Attorney General Holder took over 

more than 3 years ago, he inherited a Department that many felt 

had lost its way and its focus on its core missions. His leadership 

has helped to restore the Department, and it has made great 

strides in each of these areas, and I see it when I walk through 

the halls of the Department of Justice and the reaction of those 

who work there, many from both Republican or Democratic administrations. 

The Department’s success in holding terrorists accountable and 

helping to disrupt threats to national security has been remarkable. The results can be seen in the growing number of convictions 

and the lengthy sentences handed down by our Federal courts. 

At the same time, however, we must ensure that our national security tools are used in a way that is consistent with our Constitution, our laws, and our values. I remain concerned that Congress 

has not yet received all of the information it has requested regarding the legal rationale for the targeted killing of U.S. citizens overseas, and I renew my request that the relevant Office of Legal 

Counsel memoranda be provided. I do appreciate the memorandum 

provided by the White House, but I want the final memorandum. 
2 

Moreover, as Congress considers reauthorizing the surveillance 

provisions enacted by the FISA Amendments Act, I will work to ensure that the constitutional rights and privacy interests of all 

Americans are protected. 

While remaining focused on safeguarding our national security, 

the Department has also had historic success in keeping our communities safe from crime. At a time of economic crisis and shrinking State and local law enforcement budgets, many expected violent crime to explode. Normally, it would have. But, instead, crime 

rates across the country have continued to decline. One bright light 

throughout our country. The commitment of the Department, along 

with the President and the Congress, to continue Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement has been critical to these 

successes. The Department’s tough and effective stewardship of 

Federal law enforcement has helped to keep crime rates low. 

The hard work and good advice of those in the Department who 

work every day to help women victimized by domestic and sexual 

assault was also crucial in helping those of us in the Senate craft 

a bipartisan Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill, one 

that protects all victims. The professionals at the Department who 

do so much to help victims of trafficking have also helped us to 

craft strong bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Act and legislation to reauthorize the Second 

Chance Act to help prisoners become productive citizens. 

The Justice Department has worked hand in hand with us on 

fraud prevention and enforcement. As a result, we have seen record 

fraud recoveries and increased fraud arrests and convictions over 

the last few years. 

I also appreciate how under the AG’s leadership the Civil Rights 

Division has been restored and transformed. Beyond combating discrimination in mortgage lending but also protecting the rights of 

our men and women in uniform against employment abuses and 

wrongful foreclosures, we have seen the Department fiercely safeguard the civil rights of all Americans. I know that the restoration 

of the Civil Rights Division has been a tall order, but the Department’s crown jewel—and it has been the crown jewel in the past 

in administrations of both parties—is, again, enforcing Americans’ 

civil rights law in a fair and evenhanded manner. 

I applaud the Department’s continued efforts to ensure that 

Americans do not have their constitutional right to vote taken 

away by efforts at voter suppression and disenfranchisement. Such 

barriers recall a dark time in our American history and one that 

we do not want to return to. We will never forget when Americans 

were attacked by dogs, blasted with water hoses, or beaten by mobs 

simply for attempting to register to vote. We remember a time 

when recalcitrant State officials used discriminatory devices such 

as poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and literacy tests to exclude 

American citizens from our democracy. We cannot backslide on 

what we have done to protect every American’s right to vote. 

Now, in this Presidential election year, when there may be a 

temptation to try to score political points, I urge the members of 

this Committee to help the Department better fulfill its duties to 

protect Americans and safeguard their rights. 
3 

And, last, I thank the men and women of the Department of Justice who work hard every day to keep us safe and uphold the rule 

of law, and I thank Attorney General Holder for his extraordinary 

service under trying circumstances. 

I yield to Senator Grassley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

General Holder, for coming, and I trust that you will be able to provide us with candid responses to our questions. 

Nearly a year ago, three whistleblowers testified before the 

House Government Oversight Committee about the use of a practice called ‘‘gun walking,’’ Operation Fast and Furious. Guns from 

that operation ended up at the scene of the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Here we are, 1 year later, and the Terry 

family still is waiting for answers. They are still waiting for justice. 

The FBI does not have the shooter in custody, and the Justice Department is still defying a congressional subpoena for information 

about how all this happened. 

Since last year at this time, a lot has happened. The United 

States Attorney for Arizona resigned and admitted leaking sensitive information about one of the whistleblowers to the press. The 

chief of the Criminal Division of the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office 

in Arizona refused to testify, citing the Fifth Amendment right not 

to self-incriminate. Then he resigned. 

The head of the Criminal Division in Washington, Lanny Breuer, 

admitted he knew about gun walking in an earlier case called Wide 

Receiver. He stayed silent for 8 months while the public controversy over gun walking grew. 

Even more evidence arose recently that senior people at Justice 

were familiar with the details of the case. The House Committee 

obtained affidavits in support of wiretap applications in Fast and 

Furious. We cannot discuss them in open session because the Justice Department has indicated that they are under court seal. But 

there is now a public dispute as to what the contents of the application show that senior DOJ officials knew or did not know. One 

side says the applications show immense detail. Anyone reviewing 

them would have to have known that guns were being allowed to 

be transferred and trafficked across the border. On the other hand, 

the Attorney General says he recently reviewed them, and he does 

not believe that they show evidence of gun walking. 

However, when we interviewed the Acting ATF Director on July 

4th last year, he told us something very, very different. According 

to former Director Melson, he read affidavits for the first time on 

a plane on March 30th last year after this controversy had arisen. 

Director Melson said that when he read the affidavits, he was 

alarmed. He said, ‘‘I was surprised at the number of guns being 

purchased with our knowledge and not being interdicted, primarily 

because of the number of guns that could, as a result, land in Mexico’’ He said he immediately drafted an e-mail warning, ‘‘You better 

back off... the statement in... this February 4th letter to 

Senator Grassley, because I don’t believe that we can say that in 
4 

light of the information that our agent was swearing to before a 

Federal district court judge to get a wiretap.’’ 

We have been seeking that e-mail since last summer to corroborate Director Melson’s testimony, but the Justice Department has 

not produced that e-mail. That e-mail should have led the Justice 

Department to withdraw its initial letter to me of April 2011 instead of December 2011. We still do not have a decent explanation 

why it took so long to acknowledge the truth. 

I also wrote to the Attorney General 4 months ago asking him 

to seek the court’s permission to share the affidavits with Congress. I received no substantive reply to my request. However, now 

I have had a chance to review some of the details of those affidavits. All I can say is that Mr. Melson was right and the Attorney 

General was wrong. Anyone reading those affidavits should have 

been alarmed. 

We learned just last Thursday from the Attorney General’s testimony in the House that the Department has gathered 140,000 

pages of documents for its own internal review. Yet the Department has only produced to Congress a mere 7,000 or so pages of 

documents. And, of course, compared to the 140,000, that is just a 

spit in the ocean. 

This constant stonewalling is why the House Committee is forced 

to move forward with contempt proceedings. I think the American 

people deserve a better explanation than they have received so far 

and especially the Terry family does. 

Now, on another matter, in the past month there have been a 

number of damaging classified national security leaks to the media. 

Every leak is damaging to national security, but the most dangerous ones threaten ongoing operations and risk the lives of men 

and women who are working abroad. Unfortunately, as I pointed 

out in May of last year, Attorney General Holder’s statements say 

one thing and the Department’s actions in prosecuting those who 

leak classified information say another. 

For example, it was reported in the press last year that the Department had dropped the prosecution of former Department of 

Justice attorney Thomas Tamm who admitted that he leaked classified national security information to the New York Times. 

Another example of DOJ’s failure to prosecute their own is related to the anthrax attacks. As part of that investigation, leaks 

were made to the press regarding the involvement of Dr. Steven 

Hatfill. Those leaks ultimately led to taxpayers’ funding a settlement of nearly $6 million. 

Based upon conflicts between the Attorney General’s past statements and actual Department practice, I am concerned about the 

decision to appoint two political appointees to investigate the recent matter. Further, despite attempts to package these as special 

prosecutors, the Attorney General’s decision treats the grave national security matter like a regular criminal investigation. 

It has also been reported that the National Security Division at 

the Department has been recused from involvement in leak investigations, a signal they could possibly be involved as a source of the 

leak. 

Given the potential conflicts of interest with the Department investigating itself, the past failures of the Justice Department to 
5 

prosecute their own admitted classified leaks and the Attorney 

General’s own tepid response to my past questions about leak prosecutions, I believe the only way to truly get to the bottom of these 

dangerous leaks is to appoint an independent special prosecutor. 

Further, given the Department’s past failures and the double 

standard of internal discipline that we have seen as a part of the 

investigation of discovery failures in the prosecution of Senator Stevens, I want to hear from the Attorney General why he assigned 

this matter to two U.S. Attorneys as a regular investigation and 

how we can have confidence the Department is to prosecute their 

own. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. OK, Mr. Attorney General. We are glad to 

have you start. As one who is most familiar with the anthrax matter Senator Grassley speaks about, insofar as I received one of the 

very deadly anthrax letters, so deadly that the envelope I was supposed to open killed people who touched it, I am well aware of the 

investigation of that during the last administration and what happened during the last administration, so I will not ask you to defend the actions of the last administration that Senator Grassley 

has criticized. Please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, thank you. Chairman Leahy, 

Ranking Member Grassley, and distinguished members of the Committee, I appreciate the chance to appear before you today to highlight some of the accomplishments that have distinguished the Department’s work under this administration. 

Now, I am proud of all that has been achieved by the 116,000 

men and women who serve the Department in offices around the 

world. Their dedicated efforts—and those of our Government and 

law enforcement partners at every level—have allowed me to fulfill 

the commitments that I made during my first appearance before 

this Committee as Attorney General. I pledged that my colleagues 

and I would work tirelessly to protect the American people from 

terrorism and other threats to our national security; to ensure that 

every decision would be guided exclusively by the facts and by the 

law; to move aggressively in combating violent crime and financial 

fraud; to seek justice for victims, protect the environment, and 

safeguard the most vulnerable among us; and to uphold the essential civil rights of all of our citizens. 

Now, I am proud to report that the Department has made extraordinary—and, in many cases, historic—progress in each of 

these areas, and nowhere is this more clear than in our national 

security efforts. Over the last 3 years, the Department has secured 

convictions against scores of dangerous terrorists in our Article III 

courts. Our Article III courts. We have prevented multiple plots 

hatched by terrorist groups abroad, as well as extremists here at 

home. And we have gathered essential surveillance and intelligence-gathering capabilities in a manner that is not only consistent with the rule of law, but with our most sacred values. 

Last month, we secured our seventh conviction in an al Qaedasponsored plot to conduct coordinated suicide bomb attacks in the 
6 

New York City subway system. Less than 3 weeks ago, we obtained 

a guilty verdict in the case of a former U.S. servicemember who 

planned a bomb attack against American soldiers at a restaurant 

in Killeen, Texas. And on the same day, a Federal judge sentenced 

another Texas man to 20 years in prison for attempting to join al 

Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. 

I would also like to briefly discuss the steps the Department has 

taken in response to recent allegations regarding possible unauthorized disclosures of classified information. These allegations are 

of great concern to me personally, and I know they concern all of 

you. 

On Friday, I assigned two experienced, independent United 

States Attorneys to lead separate criminal investigations being conducted by the FBI of potential unauthorized disclosures. Now, 

these United States Attorneys are fully authorized to consult with 

members of the intelligence community, to follow all appropriate 

leads wherever they do lead, and ultimately to prosecute any criminal violations to the fullest extent of the law. They will do an independent and thorough job. 

But let me be clear: Unauthorized disclosures of classified information could jeopardize the security of our Nation and risk the 

safety of the American people. They will not be tolerated. The Department will continue to take any such disclosures extremely seriously. And as our investigations unfold, I will provide information 

to members of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, as appropriate. 

In addition to our significant national security achievements, the 

Department has taken decisive action to combat a wide range of financial and health care fraud crimes, and I am happy to report 

that across the country this work is paying dividends. Last year 

alone, the Department’s Consumer Protection Branch, in cooperation with our U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, secured more than $900 million in criminal and civil fines, restitution, and penalties, and obtained sentences totaling more than 130 years of confinement 

against more than 30 individuals. By working closely with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and a bipartisan 

group of 49 State Attorneys General, we achieved the largest joint 

Federal-State settlement in history, totaling $25 billion, with five 

of the Nation’s top mortgage servicers. Through the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, we have obtained sentences of up to 60 years in a wide range of fraud cases. And we 

have created two new working groups to enhance civil and criminal 

enforcement of consumer fraud and to bring State and Federal authorities together in investigating and prosecuting misconduct by 

institutions that contributed to the financial crisis. 

Now, alongside key partners like the Department of Health and 

Human Services, we have also made tremendous gains in our efforts to fight against health care fraud. Over the last Fiscal Year 

alone, utilizing authorities provided under the False Claims Act 

and other statutes, we recovered nearly $4.1 billion in cases involving fraud in health care programs. That is the highest amount ever 

recovered in a single year. And for every dollar that we have spent 

combating health care fraud, we have returned an average of $7 to 

the United States Treasury, the Medicare Trust Fund, and others. 
7 

Put simply, our resolve to protect American consumers has never 

been stronger. And the same can be said of our efforts to safeguard 

our citizens and law enforcement officers from violent crime. 

Through innovative programs such as our Defending Childhood 

Initiative and National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention, we 

have developed comprehensive approaches for addressing the 

causes and the consequences of violence among, and directed toward, our young people. We have strengthened partnerships between Federal, State, local, tribal, and international law enforcement officials, and as a result, we are working more effectively 

than ever before to confront gun-, gang-, and drug-fueled violence. 

In cooperation with our counterparts in Mexico and other countries, 

we have orchestrated coordinated strikes against violent drug cartels, arrested thousands of cartel members, and seized billions of 

dollars in assets. And we are implementing strategic plans to address the shocking rates of violence that plague American Indian 

and Alaska Native women. 

We are also using every tool at our disposal to protect America’s 

law enforcement community. Violence against law enforcement officers is approaching the highest level that we have seen in nearly 

two decades. As the brother of a retired police officer, I am proud 

that the Department has taken robust action to address this crisis. 

Throughout my tenure as Attorney General, I have met frequently with law enforcement leaders to ensure that the Department understands their concerns. This has led to the development, 

implementation, and enhancement of a host of very important programs, from the VALOR Initiative, which is providing our law enforcement partners with the latest in training and cutting-edge 

technologies, to the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program, which 

Chairman Leahy has long championed and which has helped more 

than 13,000 jurisdictions purchase lifesaving bullet- and stab-resistant equipment. We also have worked closely with Members of 

Congress to advance important legislation, from the historic hate 

crimes prevention bill to the reduction of the unjust crack/powder 

cocaine sentencing disparity—a landmark achievement that many 

of the members of this Committee helped to make possible—to our 

ongoing efforts to ensure the reauthorization of the Violence 

Against Women Act and our strong support for the renewal of essential authorities such as those included in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments of 2008. 

The Department has also taken essential steps to uphold civil 

rights protections. Over the past 3 years, our Civil Rights Division 

filed more criminal civil rights cases than ever before, including 

record numbers of human-trafficking cases. And we have taken actions to make certain that in our housing and lending markets, in 

our workplaces and military bases, in our immigrant communities 

and our voting booths, in our schools and in our places of worship 

that the rights of all Americans are protected. 

Now, in advancing this vital work, my colleagues and I are grateful for your continued support. We are eager to move forward together to achieve our shared priorities. And I would be glad to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holder appears as a submission 

for the record.] 
8 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Attorney General, later this year, the surveillance provisions of 

the FISA Amendments Act are set to expire. This is a concern to 

many of us here. We have the Chair of the Senate Intelligence 

Committee also as a member of this Committee, and these tools 

give the intelligence community the ability to acquire extremely 

valuable foreign intelligence information about non-U.S. person targets overseas. Although the statute expressly forbids the targeting 

of U.S. persons as well as the so-called reverse targeting, we have 

to remain vigilant in oversight of these broad surveillance tools. 

I am glad to see the FISA Court has been active in its oversight. 

I applaud the administration’s effort to police itself, but I think we 

can do more. As one who helped write the original FISA statute, 

I have watched it very carefully. In my experience, independent audits by Inspectors General helped build the confidence of the American people in the activities of our Government. 

Would you agree with me that these kinds of independent Inspector General audits can be an important part of assuring compliance and accountability, especially if the results of the audits are 

made public? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, we certainly think that the reauthorization is extremely important. This is the highest priority 

that the intelligence community has. Our hope would be that we 

can do this reauthorization in a way that happens well before the 

expiration of these acts. There are civil liberties protections that I 

think we have to be concerned about. The use of the FISA Court 

has been of great assistance in that regard. 

With regard to the use of Inspectors General, I certainly think 

they can play a role in helping us make sure that these authorities 

are used in an appropriate way. 

Chairman LEAHY. One of the things we have done in the FISA 

legislation in the past, of course, is to have sunset provisions on 

various aspects of it, which has forced whoever is in the administration as well as Congress to review it again. And from what I 

have heard from FISA Courts and others, the sunset provision has 

been a good carrot stick way of making sure there is full compliance. Would you agree? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I think that is right. I think we 

look at this and would hope that we could have a sufficiently long 

period of time so that there is some degree of consistency as our 

people are trying to use the Act. But we do think an extension of 

about 5 years would be appropriate. 

Chairman LEAHY. In 2006, Members of Congress stood together 

on the Capitol steps. We wanted to reaffirm our commitment to 

achieving full democratic participation by reauthorizing the Voting 

Rights Act and the legislation reauthorizing Section 5. I was proud 

to stand with President Bush when he signed that. But having 

done that and having had this strong bipartisan support, we now 

have restrictive voting laws spreading across the country. The recent action in Florida that purged Florida’s voter rolls of legal voters is only one of many efforts under way in States across the country that I think pose a threat to our attempt to have national, fair, 

and open elections. 
9 

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, since 

2001 nearly 1,000 voter ID bills have been introduced in 46 

States—1,000 for 46. Last year, voter ID legislation was advanced 

in 34 States. Only three States, including my home State of 

Vermont, do not have a voter ID law and did not consider voter ID 

legislation last year. Yet we have consistently had probably the 

most honest elections in the country. 

According to one study, recently passed laws make it significantly harder for more than 5 million eligible voters to cast ballots 

in 2012 and found that enactment of strict voter identification laws 

directly impacts the 21 million citizens who do not have access to 

a Government-issued ID. The majority of these are young voters, 

African Americans, those earning $35,000 or less per year, and the 

elderly. I think of my own parents when they were alive; they 

would not have had a Government-issued ID. 

So as we head into a critical national election, is the Department 

of Justice going to vigorously enforce the Voting Rights Act and 

make sure that Americans are not denied what is probably the 

greatest right we have as citizens—the right to vote? 

Attorney General HOLDER. The right to vote is the lifeblood of 

our democracy. It is what makes this Nation exceptional. In the 

work that I have been doing, the Department has been doing, the 

speeches that I have been giving, I am not advocating for a party. 

I am advocating for a principle. The principle is the right to vote. 

The arc of American history has always been bending toward the 

expansion of the franchise, and the question I think we have to ask 

ourselves—and this is on both sides of the aisle—is: Do we want 

to be the first generation to restrict the ability of American citizens 

to vote? We have a bad history in that regard, but since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, I think the most important 

civil rights legislation that has ever been passed, we have seen an 

ability on the part of people who had been too long excluded from 

participating in our democracy, the opportunity to do just that, and 

we are a better country for it. 

We will be strong in our defense of the Voting Rights Act. We 

will be strong in our defense of the rights of Americans to vote. 

And we will examine on a case-by-case basis the statutes that are 

passed, and those that contravene the 1965 Voting Rights Act we 

will oppose, as we have. 

Chairman LEAHY. Some of us are old enough to remember those 

dark days, and we have at least one member of the House of Representatives who nearly died during those dark days. And I do not 

think any one of us wants to go back to that time. 

In April, the Senate passed legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act with a strong bipartisan vote of 68–31. 

The bill was based on years of work with professionals in the field. 

We had law enforcement officers, judges, victim service providers, 

those in the Department of Justice who work every day to help the 

survivors of domestic and sexual assault all over the country. We 

had 1,000 State, local, and national organizations supporting it— 

1,000—because of the important steps they take to protect all victims. 

Unfortunately, when it went over to the other body, to the 

House, they took a different approach. They stripped out critical 
10 

protections. They left many victims more vulnerable to these devastating crimes. As I have said before, a victim is a victim is a victim, and it is hard to say we will include some but not others. 

Will you and the administration work with me and the 67 other 

supporters of the Senate-passed bill to urge the House to re-evaluate its approach and ensure that we can reach all victims, not just 

some victims but all victims, of these horrific crimes? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Let me be very clear. We support the 

Senate version of the reauthorization of VAWA. Every time the Violence Against Women Act has been reauthorized, it has been expanded. It has been made more effective. And the expansion that 

is proposed in the Senate version is a logical extension so that, as 

you say, Mr. Chairman, all victims can come within its protections. 

It is better for us in terms of law enforcement. It makes for a society that we say we want to have, and the expansions with regard 

to the groups whom this bill, the Senate version of the bill, wants 

to include are, in fact, some of the most vulnerable: women who are 

immigrants, Alaska and Native Americans, people from our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered community. These are the 

very people who in the 21st century, in 2012, need to have the protections of VAWA extended to them. So we support the Senate 

version of that bill. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I want to followup on FISA, and thank you 

for requesting the reauthorization, and I agree with you. Are there 

any changes in the FAA needed either to enhance intelligence-gathering capabilities or to protect the rights of U.S. citizens? And, second, isn’t it true that the current FAA authorizes the Inspector 

General to conduct oversight of the program? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is true that there is that component 

that the Inspector General has to do, and I think there is an annual report—I believe it is done on an annual basis. It may be 

every 6 months, but I think it is on an annual basis that the Inspector General does report. I think that as we have looked at the 

bill and the potential reauthorization, we are essentially in a good 

place. We would want to work with this Committee and Members 

of Congress to look at any concerns that might be raised in terms 

of new tools that we need, civil liberties protections that perhaps 

need to be advanced. But our hope would be that this work would 

begin as soon as possible and conclude well before the expiration 

of the Act in December. 

Senator GRASSLEY. On Fast and Furious, I have had a chance to 

review some of the details of the wiretap. I happen to disagree with 

your claim that they do not have details about the tactics of Fast 

and Furious. ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson described reading those same wiretap affidavits in March of last year. He said he 

was alarmed that the information in the affidavit contradicted the 

public denials to Congress. He immediately sent an e-mail warning 

others ‘‘back off the letter to Senator Grassley in light of the information in the affidavit.’’ Yet the Department did not withdraw the 

letter to me until December 2011. 

In July 2011, we asked for that e-mail from Acting Director 

Melson. We need to see it to corroborate his testimony, yet the De-
11 

partment is withholding that e-mail, along with every other document after February 4, 2011. 

On what legal ground are you withholding that e-mail? The 

President cannot claim Executive privilege to withhold that e-mail. 

Is that correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, let me just say this: We have 

reached out to Chairman Issa, members of the leadership on the 

House side, to try to work our way through these issues. We have 

had, I think, sporadic contacts, and I am prepared to make compromises with regard to the documents that can be made available. 

There is a basis for the withholding of these documents if they 

deal with deliberative—— 

Senator GRASSLEY. But not on Executive privilege, right? 

Attorney General HOLDER. The tradition has always been by 

members of the Justice Department, whether they were led by Republicans or Democrats, to withhold deliberative material. But in 

spite of that—in spite of that—I want to make it very clear that 

I am offering to sit down—I myself am offering to sit down with 

the Speaker, with the Chairman, with you, whoever, to try to work 

our way through this in an attempt to avoid a constitutional crisis 

and come up with ways, creative ways perhaps in which we can 

make this material available. But I have got to have a willing partner. I have extended my hand, and I am waiting to hear back. 

Senator GRASSLEY. When Acting Director Melson reviewed the 

affidavits, he testified that he was alarmed at the number of guns 

being purchased with ATF knowledge and without being interdicted. When did you decide to read the affidavits for yourself? And 

why did you decide to do that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I read the affidavits and the summary 

memos I think after my last House hearing—not the one from last 

week but I think the hearing before that. It had become a topic of 

conversation, a topic of questioning, and I frankly had not known 

what was contained in them. And so I had my staff pull them together and spent an extended period of time reading those affidavits and the summaries. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, how is it that you can look at the details in those affidavits, as several members now have had a 

chance to do, and see nothing wrong when others reviewed them 

and saw very major problems? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I look at them and—I cannot 

talk about the contents of them. These are matters that are under 

seal. But I will align myself with what Ranking Member 

Cummings said in his letter, looking at the same materials and 

reaching the same conclusions I think that I do. You reach conclusions on the basis of hindsight, and I think I try to put myself in 

the place of the people who are actually looking at that material 

at the time it was given to them. And on that basis, I think that 

Congressman Cummings’ view of that material is correct. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Debate over the wiretap applications has become a matter of he said/she said since they are sealed and not 

publicly available. I wrote to you 4 months ago asking you to seek 

permission from the court to share the affidavits with Congress. I 

have received no substantive reply. You did acknowledge my letter. 
12 

Will you seek the court’s permission to release the affidavits so 

people can read them and decide for themselves what they mean? 

And if there are any problems with something sensitive, couldn’t 

the judge make an independent decision and remove any truly sensitive information before release? And if you have any concerns— 

and I hope you do not have any concerns—wouldn’t that address 

your concern? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, that would be a truly extraordinary act. We have done some just preliminary research, and it 

has not happened very frequently. We have only found a limited 

number of cases where the Justice Department has sought to have 

wiretap information made available. 

But I will put that on the table as something that we can consider. We want to make sure that if we do share that information, 

it does not have an impact on ongoing investigations. 

But as I said, I am willing to consider that as a possibility to try 

to avoid what I think is an impending constitutional crisis. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Have the wiretap applications already been 

produced to the defendants in Fast and Furious? And if so, why 

shouldn’t Congress and the public get to see what the indicted gun 

smugglers get to see? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I frankly do not know where we are 

in terms of what has been provided to the defense. I just do not 

know the answer to that question. 

Senator GRASSLEY. On another issue, it has been reported that 

the National Security Division has been recused for at least one investigation stemming from the national security leaks. Is this correct? And if so, how is there not a conflict of interest on the part 

of the Justice Department? And, second, why should we have confidence that these leaks investigations will not be dismissed without prosecution just like maybe the Tamm case? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think that this Committee and 

the American people can have great faith in the two people who I 

have asked to lead this investigation. Rod Rosenstein and Ron 

Machen are two great U.S. Attorneys who have shown a willingness to take on difficult cases. They are both familiar with these 

kinds of cases. Ron Machen is doing a lot of work right now in connection with the D.C. Government. Rod Rosenstein is a person appointed by President Bush and who was so impressive that President Obama asked him to stay on as United States Attorney for 

Maryland. 

I think in those people we have people who have shown independence, an ability to be thorough, and who have the guts to ask 

tough questions, and the charge that I have given them is to follow 

the leads wherever they are, whether it is in the executive branch 

or some other component of Government. I have great faith in their 

abilities. 

Senator GRASSLEY. My last question. In the Tamm case and the 

FBI anthrax leak, you and your Department relied upon the advice 

of career prosecutors to dismiss the cases. Here you have instructed 

political appointees to do the work. Why did you assign political appointees as opposed to career prosecutors in this investigation? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, the people who have to lead 

these investigations have to be, I think, sufficiently high in the De-
13 

partment to be able to command career people, to be able to interact with the investigative agencies, and the logical people are 

United States Attorneys. This has been done on any number of occasions where Pat Fitzgerald on at least a couple of occasions has 

been asked to do this. We have moved away from the independent 

counsel model, which proved to be not particularly successful, and 

what we have seen since that time is the use of U.S. Attorneys to 

try to run these matters—U.S. Attorneys who themselves were not 

involved in the underlying matters. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Kohl. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you. 

Mr. Attorney General, at our last oversight hearing, we discussed 

the Justice Department’s plans to close four of its seven Antitrust 

Division field offices. Since then, the chiefs and assistant chiefs in 

six of the seven field offices wrote to you to ask that this decision 

be reversed. The letter stated that, ‘‘If the four affected field offices 

are closed, it will be difficult for the Division to continue aggressive 

criminal enforcement in the 21 States and territories served by the 

four field offices.’’ 

In April, I wrote to you asking you to reconsider this decision. 

These offices are essential to detecting and prosecuting local conspiracies affecting consumers and local governments and have 

brought in $97 million in fines in the last 5 years. Closing the Atlanta and Dallas offices will result in no Antitrust Division presence in the southern half of our country. Moreover, we have been 

informed that $6 million of the $8 million in purported savings will 

result from the expected reduction of half of the attorneys and staff 

now working in these offices, which would seem to show a lessening in priority for antitrust enforcement in the Department. 

So, Mr. Attorney General, what is your response to the concerns 

expressed by the career leadership in six of the seven field offices? 

Wouldn’t closing four of these offices be perhaps penny-wise and 

pound-foolish? And will you agree at least to re-examine your decision? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, the Antitrust Division and the 

work that it does has been a priority for this Justice Department. 

I think we can look at all the things we have done and see that 

that, in fact, is true. We are looking in this time of budgetary constraints to come up with ways in which we can be efficient and be 

effective, and that is the reason why we decided to implement this 

plan. 

We have seen that these cases become more complex, antitrust 

cases become more complex, more complicated, and it is our view 

that they can best be handled by the reduced number of offices that 

we have with larger teams. 

I also want to stress that the people who are members of these 

offices are going to be offered jobs within the Justice Department. 

No one will be losing their jobs. People can move to other places. 

All of the people who are in support capacities in these offices will 

be given jobs in the U.S. Attorney’s Office that is closest to them. 

So I think there is a programmatic reason for this, a budgetary 

reason for this, and there will be no loss in our desire to be as ag-
14 

gressive as we have been with regard to the enforcement of the 

antitrust laws. 

Senator KOHL. Well, almost all of the money to be saved would 

be in the reduction in staff, and yet you are saying those people 

will be given opportunities to relocate. So it does not look as though 

we are talking about any appreciable reduction in cost and fewer 

offices. And that is why I am asking you at least to reconsider this 

decision so that we can be clearer about the efficacy of doing it. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, we do save money in terms of 

efficiencies. There are rents, obviously, that we do not have to pay. 

There are ways in which we can use people in places where we now 

have vacancies, have the people in the antitrust office fill those vacancies so it has a budgetary impact that is at the end of the day 

positive for us. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Attorney General, for nearly 2 years, we have 

been working with DEA and industry stakeholders on legislation to 

allow nursing home residents access to medically necessary drugs 

they need to manage crippling pain. We have reached agreement 

on most of the bill, but there are still a few outstanding differences 

between industry and DEA that we continue to work through, specifically related to the penalties nursing homes would face for 

minor technical errors. I am very much aware you appreciate the 

gravity of the problem we are seeking to address, and I appreciate 

your personal attention to it over the past year. But the longer this 

remains unresolved, of course, the more nursing home residents 

will continue to suffer. So I would like to know that we have your 

continued commitment to work with us to reach a mutually agreeable solution. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, you do. Senator, I thought you 

and I worked pretty effectively on dealing with some of the concerns that you very legitimately raised earlier. I want to make sure 

that we follow through in that same spirit and ultimately get a 

handle around any issues that remain. I know that you will be 

leaving the Senate, and I would hope that you and I will have an 

opportunity to conclude this and be in a good place before that happens. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you. Well, in connection with that, let me 

ask you about your future plans. By the end of the year, you will 

have served as Attorney General for nearly 4 years. We know your 

position is very demanding and that you are responsible for some 

of the most serious issues and challenges facing our country, and 

we particularly do commend you for your outstanding service. 

Can you tell us, should President Obama be re-elected, will you 

want to and will you continue to serve as Attorney General in a 

second term? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think you have got to ask 

President Obama that question. 

Senator KOHL. In the event that he asks you to. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I have enjoyed my time as Attorney General. It has been a tough job. It is one that takes a lot 

out of you. Some raise concerns about whether I was tough enough 

for this job. I think that people hopefully will see that I have done 

this job in a way that is consistent with our values. I have stuck 

by my guns. I have been criticized a lot for the positions that I 
15 

have taken. I have lost some. I have won more than I have lost. 

And I am proud of the work that I have done, but more than that, 

I am proud of the 116,000 people in this United States Department 

of Justice. This has been the highlight of my career to have been 

Attorney General of the United States, to work with you all, and 

to serve this President. What my future holds, frankly I am just 

not sure. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you. Mr. Attorney General, many of us 

were troubled, as I am sure you also were, when the Second Circuit 

Court of Appeals overturned the conviction of a former Goldman 

Sachs programmer who stole valuable computer code worth many 

millions of dollars from that company. The court ruled that he did 

not violate the Economic Espionage Act because the stolen computer code was not a product intended for sale, as required by the 

statute. 

Is this ruling a major setback for prosecutors’ ability to go after 

the theft of trade secrets under the Economic Espionage Act? Does 

it give a free pass to anyone out there who wants to steal a company’s proprietary and highly valuable computer codes? And do you 

believe that this decision requires some statutory fix? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, there is no question that that 

decision, which we have to respect, was a setback. I think that we 

need to assess that case, as we are in the process of doing, and 

then maybe get back to this Committee and other Members of Congress to see if there is a fix that we might put in place to deal with 

that issue. But there is no question that—again, I have to respect 

the decision of the court, but there is no question that it has a potential for a negative impact on our enforcement efforts. 

So I think you are right to raise that concern, and I would hope 

to be able to work with this Committee in dealing with concerns 

that we might be able to identify. But the analysis of that has been 

ongoing. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Kohl. 

I am going by the list given to me by the Ranking Member’s staff 

for order. Senator Kyl will be next and then Senator Feinstein. 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Attorney General, I would like to ask you questions in four 

areas relating to what you delicately described as the ‘‘potential unauthorized disclosures,’’ the so-called leaks. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure. 

Senator KYL. First, what exactly are you investigating; second, 

the potential for needing to get evidence from reporters; third, 

some questions regarding the conflict of interest; and, fourth, why 

two prosecutors. Let me go back and just go through each of those, 

if I could. 

When I say what exactly is the Department investigating, we 

have all read about four specific areas of leaks. I wonder if all four 

of those are part of this; if there are others: one related to the 

bomb making in Yemen, the alleged double agent being involved 

there; the killing of bin Laden is second; third, the President’s per-
16 

sonal direction of drone assassinations; and, finally, the computer 

worm activity. Those are the four that I am aware of. 

On the matter of journalists, you said that you would commit to 

follow the evidence where it leads. I presume that means leaving 

no stone unturned. And the question is: Does that include requiring 

journalists to reveal their sources if the information cannot be obtained otherwise? And here it would be very helpful if you could 

tell us do you think the Department of Justice guidelines in dealing 

with members of the media are adequate. These are what you follow. I am well aware of that. Are they adequate for your purposes 

here? What are the circumstances that warrant requiring testimony from the media? You said these leaks will not be tolerated, 

and I want to know, is there an exception if journalists will not voluntarily give you information? 

Third, on the conflict of interest, could you describe for us the circumstances that would cause recusal, specifically, as Senator 

Grassley noted, the recusal of the Department of Justice’s entire 

National Security Division? I know the references back here to 

Title 28, Section 600 of the C.F.R. But since the reporting—and I 

have got several of the articles here—is that the leaks came from, 

and I am quoting now, ‘‘participants in Situation Room meetings,’’ 

that boils it down to a very small and very specific group of people, 

all of whom by definition work directly with the President. We 

have all seen photographs of the day on which bin Laden was 

killed, and the people in that room are all people that we recognize. 

So the question really here is: How could there not be a conflict 

of interest if the evidence points to one or more of those people 

who, according to the reporting, were the sources? For example, 

would it be a potential conflict of interest if the evidence pointed 

to Tom Donilon or John Brennan? And I presume, finally here, that 

the President and Jay Carney and David Axelrod are not part of 

your investigating team. So how could they say with great assurance ‘‘this case does not present a conflict of interest’’ ? How do 

they know that? How could they prejudge that at this point? 

And, finally, I am curious about why two prosecutors. Is there a 

division of responsibility there? Do the two of them have to agree 

on everything? Could you just expand a little bit on that for us, 

please? Thank you very much. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Senator, you have packed a lot into 

that question. Let me see if I can take these. 

With regard to NSD, the National Security Division, the recusal 

is not of the entire Division. It is only that portion of the Division 

that might have had exposure to the subject matter of the investigation, and that is something that happens as a matter of routine. It does not mean that these people did anything wrong. It is 

just that their section might have had access to the material that 

was inappropriately disclosed. So these career people who are not 

in that category can be a part of the ongoing investigation. 

With regard to the question of the press, we have in place, as you 

indicated and as you know, regulations that have to be followed 

within the Department, and I think those are adequate. We have 

to come up with ways in which we exhaust all the alternative 

means before we actually seek testimony from members of the 
17 

press, and that ultimately has to be signed off on by the Attorney 

General himself or herself. And I think that is appropriate. 

We have tried more leak cases, brought more leak cases during 

the course of this administration than any other administration. I 

was getting hammered by the left for that only 2 weeks ago. Now 

I am getting hammered by the right for potentially not going after 

leaks. It makes for an interesting dynamic. So I think the mechanisms that we have in place are indeed good ones, and we have 

shown in the past no hesitancy to employ them. 

Senator KYL. On exactly what you are investigating, can you expand on that any or be a little bit more precise on that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I do not want to necessarily go 

into that which we are looking at. Some of the programs are extremely sensitive, and I think as the Deputy Attorney General testified when he was before, I guess, a Subcommittee of this Committee last week, to acknowledge an investigation of a particular 

item could necessarily be seen as an acknowledgment of the existence of that program or that effort, and I do not think that in this 

forum that is an appropriate thing to do. But that is one of the reasons why I have pledged to make sure that I keep the Intelligence 

Committee as well as the Judiciary Committee abreast of what it 

is that we are doing. 

Senator KYL. How about on the conflict of interest matter? We 

are boiling it down to ‘‘participants in the Situation Room meetings,’’ a pretty small, very readily identifiable group of people. 

Doesn’t that inherently present a conflict of interest given the high 

level and those people’s direct involvement with the President? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I read that article by—I believe it is 

Mr. Sanger. 

Senator KYL. That is what I am referring to here, yes. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Sanger, who I believe it was on an 

interview or maybe it is in the article, I do not remember, and he 

talked about information coming from sources other than the White 

House. But let me be very clear. Our investigation will follow the 

leads wherever they take us. Mr. Machen and Mr. Rosenstein have 

the ability, the independence, they have the moxie—— 

Senator KYL. But my question, with all due respect, is: Doesn’t 

that present an inherent conflict of interest? I mean, if you have 

got people in that room—and I mentioned two to be very specific 

just so you could have an anchor there with regard to the answer, 

the National Security Adviser, for example. I mean, doesn’t that inherently present a conflict of interest if part of the National Security Division is recused because they might have had access to— 

I mean, here clearly you are talking about specific individuals, and 

I am saying if the evidence led there, wouldn’t that be an inherent 

conflict? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well again, I do not want to necessarily get into hypotheticals. We want to look at the evidence as 

it develops. But I think you have to also look at the alternative. 

The alternative would be to appoint an independent prosecutor or 

special counsel under regulations that I actually wrote after the expiration of the Independent Counsel Act. That would necessarily 

mean having to find somebody, having to staff them up, having to 

find office space—all the things that we did during the independent 
18 

counsel days. And the need is for us to operate with some degree 

of haste, some degree of speed, and that is why I picked these two 

really good U.S. Attorneys to handle this issue. 

Senator KYL. My time is up. The other two things I had asked 

are: I presume that Jay Carney and David Axelrod are not involved 

here, and so do they really have a basis for knowing ‘‘the case does 

not present a conflict of interest’’ ? And could you describe the reason for the two individuals? 

Attorney General HOLDER. The two? 

Senator KYL. You have appointed two, not one but two individuals to do the investigation. I am just curious as to what the rules 

are with respect to division of responsibility or are they both looking at the very same things. What are the rules of engagement 

there? And could you specifically tell us whether either David 

Axelrod or the President or Jay Carney have a valid basis for 

reaching the conclusion that the case does not present a conflict of 

interest? Can they really say that at this point, knowingly? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I would say on the basis of what 

I know at this early stage of the investigation, there is not a basis 

for a conflict determination, but it is something that we are monitoring on an ongoing basis. Director Mueller and I have both set 

up in place at the Justice Department and the FBI a mechanism 

so that we can be advised on the possibility of a conflict, and if at 

some point the people who have been given that responsibility indicate to Bob, to Director Mueller, or to me that we are in a conflict 

situation, we will act appropriately. 

Senator KYL. Anything on the last point? I am just curious. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am sorry. The last? 

Senator KYL. About two prosecutors rather than one. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Oh. I do not want to go into the division of their responsibilities only because—and I am not being 

cagey here or cute—only because it means that I would necessarily 

have to talk about things that frankly I do not think should have 

ever been leaked and I do not think should be confirmed in this 

setting. But I will be very honest—I will be certainly more fulsome 

in my interactions with the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee in a different forum. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, and I do appreciate you giving me 

a heads up before you appointed both these prosecutors. I think 

they are tough, honest prosecutors—one a Bush administration appointee, one an Obama administration appointee. More importantly, both are the epitome of professional prosecutors, and I think 

it was a good choice. 

Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEAHY. Speaking of somebody who has a direct interest in all this. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, General. It is good to see you. I am aware that around 

noon, a sense of the Senate resolution will be introduced to set up 

a special counsel, and I just want to say that at this time I would 

oppose that legislation. 

The Attorney General called me on Friday and indicated that he 

was assigning two United States Attorneys to investigate these 
19 

leaks, so I looked up the credentials of these two United States Attorneys, and I would like for the purposes of the record just to review some of the credentials. 

One of them is Rod Rosenstein. He is the United States Attorney 

for Maryland. He is a Republican, but he served in both Republican 

and Democratic administrations. He served in the Ashcroft Justice 

Department as Principal Deputy Assistant AG for the Tax Division 

from 2001 to 2005. From 1995 to 1997, he worked for Kenneth 

Starr as an associate independent counsel. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of the Clinton White House officials who had obtained FBI background reports. 

In 2005, he was nominated by President Bush and unanimously 

confirmed to serve as United States Attorney for the District of 

Maryland. On his nomination, President Bush said this: ‘‘Rod 

Rosenstein is a highly accomplished and well-respected attorney 

who is widely praised by lawyers and judges alike for his intellect, 

ethical standards, and fairness.’’ 

Ronald Machen is United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. He has served as United States Attorney for the District 

since February 2010. His nomination was favorably reported by 

this Committee by voice vote, and he was confirmed by the full 

Senate by unanimous consent. He served as an Assistant United 

States Attorney from 1997 to 2001. He was then a partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering before becoming U.S. Attorney. He is a 

graduate of Stanford University and Harvard Law School. 

Now, the reason why I oppose the special counsel is that a special counsel takes a long time. If you look at the special counsel in 

the Scooter Libby case, it took 4 years to complete. Now, by comparison, we have been told from the Washington field office that 

they are already conducting interviews to find out who leaked the 

AQAP bomb plot, and, of course, now the two United States Attorneys have been announced to lead the leak cases. 

I really think this is the appropriate way to go. I am going to 

support it. I am hopeful that members of the Intelligence Committee and this Committee will support these leaks being investigated in this way. I think to have a fight over how we do this now 

will set back any leak investigation. These are two scrupulous men. 

They are both independent, and I have no reason to believe why 

they cannot work with the FBI and assemble a very strong prosecution team where warranted. So I am very pleased to support 

that. 

On the subject as to why FBI agents were recused—and you 

pointed this out, Mr. Attorney General—this was really in an abundance of caution, so that no one that had anything to do with the 

investigation particularly of the bomb as it left Yemen will be involved in the investigation. Is that a correct analysis? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I do not believe anybody from 

the FBI has been recused. Some attorneys or some of the personnel 

in NSD have been recused in that way. 

I will also say that, in an abundance of caution, both the Director 

and I have been already interviewed in connection with the knowledge that we had of those matters—at least of that matter. 
20 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. I mentioned to the Ranking Member as he left, on the subject of IG reports, I very much agree with 

what he said. And the Committee has extensive language in the report on the bill that we are now about to put together on the subject, and there is an abundance of IG requirements, and requirements, Mr. Attorney General, on your Department to produce various reports. It is twice yearly. Let me just read a couple of things. 

Section 702 require semiannual assessments by the Attorney 

General and the DNI provided to Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. In addition, the Inspectors General of 

the Department of Justice and certain elements of the intelligence 

community are authorized to review the implementation of Section 

702 and must provide copies of any such reviews to the Attorney 

General, DNI, and congressional committees of jurisdiction. And it 

goes on with more. 

I can tell you this: At our last meeting of the Intelligence Committee, we had a binder this full of their reviews. We have also just 

recently had the Inspectors General before us, and I can tell you 

I found them very forward leaning, straightforward, and really felt 

that they are capable of exercising strong investigations and making conclusions regardless of where those conclusions may fall. So 

I think that is good. 

Let me talk to you about something—Senator Grassley and I 

head something called the Senate Caucus for International Drug 

Control, and it has been very interesting because in the course of 

so doing, we have had the opportunity to look at Mexico, the Caribbean islands, Afghanistan, Guatemala, a number of different places 

with respect to drugs. And the Senate passed a bill that Senator 

Grassley and I did called the Targeting Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2011, and the bill lowers the threshold from current 

law, which says that drug traffickers must know that illegal drugs 

will be trafficked into the United States to instead require reasonable cause to believe that illegal drugs will be trafficked into the 

United States. 

Under current law, our ability to prosecute source nation traffickers from South America is limited since there is often no direct 

evidence of their knowledge that drugs were intended for the 

United States. Our legislation changes this, and I hope the House 

passes it and sends it to the President for his signature. 

Could you please tell us how this bill could enhance your ability 

to extradite drug kingpins to the United States? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, Senator, I am not totally familiar with the bill, but I really do like the portion that you have just 

described because you do point out a problem that we have in getting at these drug kingpins and the degree of knowledge that we 

have to prove in order to be able to get them back into this country 

where we have shown over the years, through Republican and 

Democratic Justice Departments, where the greatest capacity to incapacitate these people, put them in jail for extended periods of 

time. And I think that your emphasis on nations other than Mexico 

is really, really important and something that we have not necessarily done as good a job as I think we could have. 

I have been in the Caribbean. I have talked to my counterparts 

in Central America. As the Mexican Government becomes more 
21 

successful, these cartels are looking for other ways to get their 

drugs into the United States, and I think that your focus on these 

other places and the mechanism that you have talked about I think 

can both be extremely useful, and I look forward to working with 

you with regard to that bill. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. It has passed the Senate. We 

need to get it past the House. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. I agree. 

I am advised that Senator Graham is next. Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Attorney General Holder, for coming. Is the National Security Adviser part of the White House, in 

your view? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Every time I see him, that is where 

he is. 

Senator GRAHAM. OK. Have you read Tom Ricks’ review of Mr. 

Sanger’s book—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, I have not. 

Senator GRAHAM [continuing]. About the Iranian program and 

about the Kill List and the other things that we are talking about? 

He says, ‘‘And throughout, Mr. Sanger clearly has enjoyed great access to senior White House officials, most notably to Thomas 

Donilon, the national security adviser.’’ 

‘‘Mr. Donilon, in effect, is the hero of the book as well as the commenter of record on events.’’ 

I do not know what Mr. Donilon did, but according to this review 

and from my reading of excerpts of the book, somebody at the highest level of the Government has been talking about programs that 

I think are incredibly sensitive. 

On a scale of 1 to 10, how serious do you consider these leaks? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think they are extremely serious. 

Senator GRAHAM. Would it be 10, 9, 8, 7? 

Attorney General HOLDER. You know, I am not sure what a 10 

would be, but I would put them up there on a scale. 

Senator GRAHAM. I cannot imagine—well, if there is something 

worse, I would hate to see it. So my point is that I think our concern on this side of the aisle is that there are clearly people around 

the President leaking stories that involve highly classified information, and here is the concern we have. You have got one program 

called Fast and Furious that has been an embarrassment to the administration, and it has been like pulling teeth to get information 

about Fast and Furious, who knew what and when. And when you 

have programs on the national security front that seem to show the 

President is a strong leader, you can read about it in the paper. 

So my concern, I think, is a lot of us believe if there was ever 

a need for an outside special counsel, it is now. What do you say? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, as I said, the two people who I 

have appointed to look into these matters are first-rate prosecutors 

who will do, I think, a great job. And as we look at the history of 

what U.S. Attorneys who have been appointed in these kinds of 

cases, I think we can feel a great deal of comfort. 

Senator GRAHAM. Let us look at the history of—do you believe it 

was a good thing to have a special counsel in the Valerie Plame 

case? 
22 

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure. 

Senator GRAHAM. And one of the reasons it was a good thing is 

that the chief of staff of the Vice President wound up being prosecuted, and I cannot think of someone closer to the White House 

than that person. 

Do you think it was a good thing to have a special counsel in the 

Jack Abramoff case? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, again, we are talking about special counsel here, and we can get hung up on terms, but—— 

Senator GRAHAM. I mean, do you think it was a good thing for 

the country to have a special counsel appointed in the Jack 

Abramoff case? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, let me go back to the Plame 

case first so my words are not misunderstood. The Plame case involved a person who was a United States Attorney, the same thing 

that I have done here. That was the person who got that designation, and these people are now appointed as regular U.S. Attorneys 

because it is possible that some of these acts occurred in their districts. If, however, we have proof that things happened outside 

their districts, I can appoint them under Section 515 as special 

counsels. 

Senator GRAHAM. You are fighting the very concept that Senator 

Obama wrote a letter to the Bush administration. Vice President 

Biden was on TV morning, noon, and night urging the Bush administration to appoint a special counsel in the Valerie Plame case, the 

CIA torture tapes case. Senator Obama wrote a letter to the White 

House signed with a bunch of his Democratic colleagues urging Attorney General Gonzales to appoint a special counsel in the Jack 

Abramoff case because of extraordinary circumstances, the access 

this man enjoyed, and as a result of this investigation, some highranking Republicans wound up being compromised or, in fact, 

going to jail. 

So my point is that the political intrigue around Valerie Plame 

and Jack Abramoff is no greater than it is here. We are talking 

about people surrounding the President and the national security 

apparatus at the highest levels, and you are resisting doing what 

Senator Obama and Senator Biden suggested was in the public interest. Why? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I as Attorney General am seized 

with the responsibility of looking at allegations, controversies, and 

making the decision on the basis of what I think is best for a successful investigation and potential prosecution. 

Senator GRAHAM. Mr. Attorney General—and I hate to interrupt—you know I like you. We have, I hope, a good relationship. 

But you are being subpoenaed—I mean, you are being—you may 

be held in contempt by the House. Thirty-nine Democrats have 

asked for more information. I am just suggesting, given your problems in the House and the political intrigue that is around this 

case, and given past behavior of Senator Obama and Senator 

Biden, who are now President and Vice President, you would be 

doing the country a great service to appoint someone new that we 

all could buy into. I am sure these people are fine folks, but, quite 

frankly, I am very disturbed about the inability to get information 
23 

regarding programs that are embarrassing and the tendency of this 

administration to tell the whole world about things that are good. 

So I just think you would be doing the country a great service 

if you followed the advice and counsel of Senator Biden and Senator Obama. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think what is most instructive is to 

follow that which we have done in the past and that which has 

worked. And if you look at—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Did the Valerie Plame and Abramoff investigations work? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, certainly the Plame investigation was—but, again, we are talking about—— 

Senator GRAHAM. What is the downside of a special counsel, 

somebody new other than these two people that all of us could buy 

into? 

Attorney General HOLDER. But, Senator I think you are missing 

something here. The special—— 

Senator GRAHAM. I think you are missing something here. I 

think you are missing the fact that this is a very big deal, and you 

are handling it in a way that creates suspicions where they should 

not be. And all I am asking for is for you to find a lawyer in this 

country that all of us could say, virtually all of us could say that 

is the right person to do this job, rather than you picking two people and telling us about how great they are. I do not know these 

people from Adam’s house cat. There are a lot of lawyers in this 

country I do know that would follow the evidence wherever it leads 

and wherever it takes the country. I am asking you for your legacy 

and for the good of the country to reconsider your decision and appoint somebody that all of us have confidence in. And I am asking 

no more of you than Senator Obama and Senator Biden asked in 

investigations that I think are no worse than this. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do know these people, and they are 

good lawyers, they are tough prosecutors, and they are cut out of 

the mold of Pat Fitz—— 

Senator GRAHAM. So the answer is you are not going to change 

your mind? 

Attorney General HOLDER. And they are cut out of the mold of 

Pat Fitzgerald, who—again, what you are missing here in terms of 

that special counsel or whatever title you want to give—was a sitting U.S. Attorney. Nothing was done differently than what I have 

done with regard to these people. It is the same thing. 

Senator GRAHAM. Mr. Attorney General, what you are missing is 

the biggest double standard in recent times, that the very people 

who are in charge of a White House that I believe has compromised 

national security unlike any time in recent memory, when they 

were in this body with investigations no worse, I think could not 

be considered any worse than this, were advocating to the Bush administration to appoint somebody new, appoint a special prosecutor 

that we could all have confidence in, and suggested that the Bush 

administration was trying to conceal and protect themselves by not 

doing what they were urging. And here the shoe is on the other 

foot, and you are not willing to embrace the idea that—— 

Chairman LEAHY. The Senator’s time—— 
24 

Senator GRAHAM [continuing]. It would be better off for the country if you would pick somebody that we all could buy into from the 

get-go rather than picking somebody—two people that you say are 

great that I do not know anything about. 

So at the end of the day, I cannot believe that this is even a debate given the national security implications of these leaks. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I—— 

Chairman LEAHY. I would say to my friend—and I did let him 

go way over his time so he could get his—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Not nearly as much as my other colleagues. 

Chairman LEAHY [continuing]. Speech in, but I would note that 

with the time of that request for a special counsel, that was after, 

as I recall, Attorney General Gonzales had testified that he really 

considered himself part of the President’s staff and not an independent Attorney General, unlike Attorney General Mukasey who 

appointed a Federal prosecutor to investigate the firing of U.S. Attorneys, another to investigate the destruction of CIA tapes. 

Senator GRAHAM. If I may respond, Mr. Chairman, there is no 

doubt in my mind that if the shoe were on the other foot, you and 

everybody on that side would be screaming that I have to appoint 

a special prosecutor that all of us could buy into. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, I—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Now, given the record of the way you have behaved—— 

Chairman LEAHY. My problem—my problem with buying 

into—— 

Senator GRAHAM [continuing]. Your colleagues Obama and Biden 

when they were Senators, this cries out for corrective action. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, and I have seen the talking points that 

the Republican candidates have, and you have probably used them 

better than anybody else. 

I will yield to—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, how about—— 

Chairman LEAHY. I will yield to Senator Durbin. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Mr. Chairman, if I could just correct 

the record here, the Abramoff case was handled by the Public Integrity Section of the United States Department of Justice. The 

Plame case was handled by a sitting U.S. Attorney. 

Senator GRAHAM. Specially appointed with powers and protections outside the system that we are all concerned about. You have 

a chance here to lead the country in a new direction, follow past 

precedent, and the fact that you are not going to do this disturbs 

all of us up here on our side of the aisle. 

Chairman LEAHY. I think before we prejudge what these U.S. Attorneys are going to do, let us see what they do. I have been willing 

to criticize both Democratic and Republican administrations if they 

are not going forward with adequate prosecution. Let us see how 

they do. If they are not doing their job, then I will be among the 

first to say so. 

Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me say at the outset that the Senator from South Carolina 

is my friend and we agree on so many things, but I do take exception to your statement about this administration compromising na-
25 

tional security more than any administration. I really think that 

was over the line. And I would like to remind those who are following this that we have listened to speech after speech after 

speech by the Minority Leader and other members of this panel 

about how impossible it is to prosecute would-be terrorists in Article III courts and they should be referred to military tribunals. And 

you can correct me, but I believe the track record at this moment 

under this administration is that over 400 would-be terrorists have 

been stopped in Article III courts and 6 in military tribunals, that 

our country is safe today because of the decision of the administration, when appropriate, to send cases to Article III courts and others to military tribunals. And to suggest that this particular investigation somehow compromises national security is not borne by 

the evidence. 

I would ask the Attorney General to respond. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think that is right. In terms 

of the Article III system, it has proven to be effective both in this 

administration and in the prior administration. We have proven 

the ability to get intelligence out of people. We had successful prosecutions. We have been able to conduct these cases safely without 

putting anybody at risk in the immediate area. 

You know, we need to have faith in what we call the greatest judicial system in this world. And it is. And those who have lost faith 

in that system or its ability to handle these kinds of cases run 

headlong into the facts as you have just outlined them. 

Senator DURBIN. And if I could just return to the specific instance here, I recall very well when Patrick Fitzgerald was chosen, 

a sitting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District Illinois, who conducted a lengthy investigation of the Valerie Plame-Scooter Libby 

situation. And if I recall correctly, it started with the premise 

someone had outed Valerie Plame, who was serving the United 

States trying to gather information to keep us safe. And that was 

the premise. Talk about a breach of national security. That clearly 

was. And the decision was made to stay within the Department of 

Justice, to turn to Patrick Fitzgerald of the Northern District to 

conduct this investigation. And I think he did an excellent job, a 

worthy job for a man of his character. I am sorry he is retiring. We 

talked about this on the phone. 

But when I hear the suggestion that you cannot find two U.S. Attorneys, sitting U.S. Attorneys, who can do as good a job on this 

critically important issue, I am troubled by it, because these U.S. 

Attorneys have all been approved by this panel. This Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed their qualifications before giving them 

this authority. And I would like to ask you, do you believe it is necessary, as Senator McCain is going to request in just a few moments on the floor, that we delegate an outside special counsel— 

in other words, outside the Department of Justice—to serve the 

cause of justice in this important investigation? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, I do not. I think that we have the 

capacity, we have the people, we have the mechanisms within the 

Department of Justice to really look at these kinds of cases. We 

have handled leak cases within the Department. As I said, I have 

been criticized for being as aggressive as we have been, and I have 

great faith in the abilities and the integrity of these two gentlemen. 
26 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. I had not planned on getting into 

this, but I wanted to respond to some of the things that had been 

said and asked. 

Let me go to a parochial issue first relating to my home State 

of Illinois. We have a prison in Thompson, Illinois, owned by the 

State of Illinois, that has, in fact, been vacant for 10 years. Our 

State has tried to negotiate an agreement with the Bureau of Prisons, which faces its own overcrowding challenges, to come up with 

an appropriate purchase price, and they have agreed on one that 

has been approved through the State government as well as 

through the Bureau of Prisons. 

One of the contentious issues related to whether or not Guantanamo detainees would be transferred to the Thompson prison. You 

sent a letter that suggested—it did not suggest. It stated, ‘‘Consistent with current law, we will not transfer detainees from Guantanamo to Thompson or otherwise house Guantanamo detainees at 

Thompson.’’ That letter was sent several years ago. 

I want to ask—this question continues to re-emerge as to whether or not there is some equivocation in that statement. So I would 

like to ask you, and I am sorry to say this, under oath, which you 

are in testimony before this Committee—I would like to ask you as 

Attorney General, will you pledge that under no circumstances will 

the Obama administration seek to transfer detainees from Guantanamo to Thompson regardless of what the law permits? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is an accurate statement of our 

position. We want to acquire the Thompson facility. It would really 

be a welcome addition to our Bureau of Prisons and increase the 

capacity that we need for those kinds of prisoners, and we will not 

move people from Guantanamo, regardless of the state of the law, 

to Thompson. That is my pledge as Attorney General. 

Senator DURBIN. And for the record, this matter has been discussed and debated for over a year, with reprogramming requests 

through the Department of Justice. It has received the approval on 

the Senate side, but it has been held up by one Republican Congressman who has raised this issue over and over again. I hope 

that you testimony under oath will finally satisfy whatever questions remain in his mind. 

Let me ask you about another issue, which, frankly, came home 

to me as I traveled recently to former Soviet republics, new nascent 

democracies in Ukraine, Georgia, and other places. And I would 

ask our U.S. Ambassador at each stop, ‘‘What is the first thing I 

should raise here on behalf of the United States when meeting 

with the President of this country? ’’ And he would say, without 

fail, ‘‘Elections. Make sure you make it clear to them that if they 

are going to be a true democracy, they literally have to have clean 

and fair elections, giving the opposition an opportunity, making 

certain that people who are eligible can vote.’’ 

Mr. Attorney General, I have held hearings now in two States as 

part of the Constitution Subcommittee, in Florida and in Ohio, over 

recent State laws that limit the opportunity of the residents of 

those States to vote in the November election. In both instances, 

I have called election officials of both political parties and asked 

them point-blank: What was the evidence of voter fraud in Florida 

and Ohio that led the State legislature to limit the early voting pe-
27 

riod, to restrict voter registration, to put other requirements in the 

law to restrict the opportunity to vote? And without fail, in both 

States they said there was no evidence that led to that State decision. 

Now, this group, ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, 

has been campaigning across the United States to change State 

laws. This comes into a voting rights question which you are well 

aware of that is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. And I might add that some of the evidence that is coming out 

now makes it clear, for example, in the State of Florida, they 

launched a controversial project that may disenfranchise voters. 

They are purging voter registration lists of ‘‘non-citizens.’’ We can 

all agree that only eligible American citizens should vote in elections, but Florida’s process for deleting people from its registration 

list has been so careless, it is replete with errors. 

The State created an initial list of suspected non-citizens in Florida who would be ineligible to vote. Of the 2,700 names on this list, 

87 percent were minorities. The overwhelming majority of people 

on the list were registered Independents and Democrats. Perhaps 

more to the point, almost all the people on the State’s list of suspected non-citizens are actually American citizens. 

I raise this point because, as we preach to the world the requirements of democracy when it comes to elections, the question is 

whether we are practicing them in the States of Florida and Ohio 

and so many other places. 

In light of the Department of Justice’s conclusion that Florida’s 

voter purge is unlawful, what steps is your Department taking or 

prepared to take if Florida’s Governor and Secretary of State continue to ignore the Department of Justice order to stop purging its 

registration list? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We have sent two letters to the State 

of Florida. The most recent one was last night. I have given the authorization to our Civil Rights Division to go into court to sue the 

State of Florida to stop these purges, which are clearly in violation 

of the National Voter Registration Act, which requires that there 

be what is called ‘‘a quiet period,’’ 90 days between any action that 

you might want to take and the holding of an election or a primary. 

My expectation is that suit will be filed within the next 24 to 48 

hours. 

We have done all that we can in trying to reason with people in 

Florida through the provision of these letters. We are now prepared 

to go to court. 

Senator DURBIN. I hope that is not necessary, but what is at 

stake is critical. If we are going to preach to the world the requirements of democracy and then not practice them at home, we are 

going to flunk our own human rights scorecard at the Department 

of State. And I think we have got to stand up for those elements 

in our society who have political power who are trying to restrict 

the right of American citizens to exercise their right to vote. 

Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you. 
28 

Mr. Attorney General, would you agree with me that, given the 

gravity of these national security leaks, it is important that the investigation be nonpartisan and independent? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Nonpartisan, independent, sure, and 

we can do that with the people who I have appointed. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, these people report to you, correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. They report to me as the past people 

who were in the similar situations reported to whoever the sitting 

Attorney General was. 

Senator CORNYN. If this were a special counsel, in the past, for 

example, specifically the Valerie Plame case, Acting Attorney General Comey delegated all investigative authority of the Attorney 

General to the special counsel, and it operated independent of the 

supervision or control of any officer at the Department of Justice. 

Isn’t that correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is correct. Jim is a good friend, 

James, Mr. Comey, was a good Deputy Attorney General. I do not 

know why he did that, but the regulations that are in place make 

very clear that somebody appointed pursuant to those regulations 

is supposed to act within the chain and follow Justice Department 

rules. It is in contrast to the Independent Counsel Act that was let 

to expire, I guess toward the end of the Clinton administration. 

Senator CORNYN. You hired Mr. Manchen first as Assistant U.S. 

Attorney in 1997, correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure of the date, but I did 

hire him as an Assistant U.S. Attorney here in Washington, D.C. 

Senator CORNYN. And would it surprise you to know that he is 

a political contributor to President Obama’s campaign and, indeed, 

served as a volunteer in Obama For America and assisted in the 

vetting of potential Vice Presidential candidates? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am confident that he has the ability, 

the capacity to investigate this case in a nonpartisan, independent, 

thorough, and aggressive way. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I would suggest the question that that 

raises by your answer is whether you have the independence and 

ability to conduct the investigation if, in fact, all of this comes back 

through you and given your track record. I just want to go over—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, my track record I think is consistent—— 

Senator CORNYN. I did not ask you a question. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, no, you made—— 

Senator CORNYN. I will give you a chance to respond in a moment. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, my record I think I will stand 

on, and I have shown a capacity to investigate people within this 

administration. We have brought leak cases. Let us focus on those. 

We have brought—— 

Senator CORNYN. No, let us not—let us not filibuster the time. 

Let me talk about your record. 

You misled Congress in February 2011 and claimed that there 

never had been a gun-walking program and then had to retract 

that in November 2011. 

You misled Representative Issa in May 2011 saying you did not 

learn about the Fast and Furious program until the spring of 2011. 
29 

And then you had to admit to Senator Grassley that you learned 

about those tactics in January 2011. 

You claimed in a press conference in September 2011 you had no 

knowledge of the Fast and Furious gun-walking program while it 

is clear that your inner circle, your high-level Department of Justice employees received briefings and memos on Fast and Furious 

gun walking, including Lanny Breuer, Deputy AG Grindler, and 

others in early 2010. 

You claimed that the Fast and Furious wiretap applications did 

not detail gun-walking tactics. I have read them. Senator Sessions 

has read them, and Senator Grassley obviously has read them. Yet 

they do raise plenty of details, raise a red flag about this tactic. 

You have defied the lawful and legitimate oversight responsibilities of the House of Representatives and of the Senate. You have 

resisted producing documents. You produced about 7,600 documents out of a pool of at least 80,000 documents that would be responsive. 

And you failed to respond to my letter of August 2011 where I 

asked you about gun-walking tactics that occurred in my State. 

So 16 months after Fast and Furious was uncovered and Brian 

Terry lost his life in the service to his country at the hands of a 

drug cartel member who shot him using a weapon that was allowed 

to walk under this program, there has been zero accountability at 

the Department of Justice. 

You will not appoint a special prosecutor in the face of a potential conflict of interest. You will not tell the truth about what you 

know and when you knew it on Fast and Furious. You will not cooperate with a legitimate congressional investigation. You will not 

answer my questions about gun walking in Texas. You will not 

take any responsibility for the failures of your inner circle. And you 

will not acknowledge that your top aides knowingly misled Congress about over 8 months. And you will not hold anyone accountable. 

So, Mr. Attorney General, I am afraid we have come to an impasse. The leaking of classified information represents a major 

threat to our national security, and your office faces a clear conflict 

of interest, yet you will not appoint a special counsel. 

You will not support a truly independent investigation, and you 

will not take the threat seriously. Meanwhile, you still resist coming clean about what you knew and when you knew it with regard 

to Operation Fast and Furious. You will not cooperate with a legitimate congressional investigation, and you will not hold anyone, including yourself, accountable. 

Your Department blocks States from implementing attempts to 

combat voter fraud. In short, you have violated the public trust, in 

my view, by failing and refusing to perform the duties of your office. 

So, Mr. Attorney General, it is more with sorrow than regret— 

than anger that I would say that you leave me no alternative but 

to join those that call upon you to resign your office. Americans deserve an Attorney General who will be honest with them. They deserve an Attorney General who will uphold the basic standards of 

political independence and accountability. You have proven time 

and time again, sadly, that you are unwilling to do so. 
30 

The American people deserve better. They deserve an Attorney 

General who is accountable and independent. They deserve an Attorney General who puts justice before politics. And it is my sincere 

hope that President Obama will replace you with someone who is 

up to that challenge. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Attorney General, you certainly have the 

right to respond to that. The Senator from Texas has accused you 

of perjury, which is a criminal offense. I realize that his—I remember his strong support of one of your predecessors, Attorney General Gonzales. I had a different view of that. I felt that you were 

a more appropriate person to be Attorney General. So feel free to 

respond. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, with all due respect, Senator, 

there is so much that is factually wrong with the premises that you 

started your statement with, it is almost breathtaking in its inaccuracy, but I will simply leave it at that. 

You know, we want to talk about Fast and Furious. This is, I 

guess—what, the ninth time? This is now the ninth time that I 

have answered questions before a congressional committee about 

Fast and Furious. If you want to talk about Fast and Furious, I 

am the Attorney General that put an end to the misguided tactics 

that were used in Fast and Furious. An Attorney General who I 

suppose you would hold in higher regard was briefed on these 

kinds of tactics in an operation called Wide Receiver and did nothing to stop them. Nothing. Three hundred guns, at least, walked 

in that instance. 

I am also the Attorney General who called on an Inspector General to look into this matter, to investigate this matter. I am also 

the Attorney General who made personnel changes at ATF and in 

the U.S. Attorney’s Office that was involved. I have overseen the 

changes of processes and procedures within ATF to make sure that 

this does not happen ever again. 

So I do not have any intention of resigning. I heard the White 

House press officer say yesterday that the President has absolute 

confidence in me. I do not have any reason to believe that that, in 

fact, is not the case. 

And in terms of what it is that we have turned over to Congress 

in this regard, let us put something on the record here. We have 

collected data from two hundred and—this is with regard to Fast 

and Furious. You guys want to keep talking about it. We have collected data from 240 custodians. We have processed millions of 

electronic records, looked at over 140,000 documents, turned over 

7,600 pages over the course of 46 separate productions. We have 

made available people from the Department at the highest levels 

to be interviewed. And I have also indicated, I guess earlier in my 

testimony, to the extent that all of that is not enough to satisfy the 

concerns that have been raised in the House committee, I am willing to sit down and talk about the provision of more materials. 

I have sent letters in that regard, the Deputy Attorney General 

has sent letters in that regard, and have not had responses, which 

leads me to believe that the desire here is not for an accommodation but for political point making. And that is the kind of thing 

that you and your side I guess have the ability to do, if that is 

what you want to do. It is the thing that I think turns people off 
31 

about Washington. While we have very serious problems, we are 

still involved in this political gamesmanship. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, Mr. Attorney General, the problem we 

have is that you will not allow Congress to do its job when it comes 

to oversight, and you thwart a legitimate investigation into programs like Fast and Furious. For example, you sent a fallacious 

letter, a false letter, in February 2011 to this Committee in response to Senator Grassley’s inquiry, claiming that nothing like 

Fast and Furious existed and that it took until November 2011 for 

you to send Lanny Breuer over here and apologize for misleading 

Congress during that interim. And, finally, you refuse to produce 

any documents that post-date that false letter of February 2011 to 

either the House or the Senate. 

So I am happy to have a conversation with you about what the 

facts show at another time and another place, but I would stand 

on the record. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, with regard to that letter, let us 

talk about that. I was not involved in the creation of the February 

4th, but what I as Attorney General made the decision to do was 

to make available, and we did make available, all the deliberative 

material that went into the creation of that letter, which is unheard of—deliberative material, which was something that the Justice Department has always tried to protect. We made that available. And as I said and I will say yet again, to the extent that there 

are issues that remain unresolved, materials that people want to 

get, I am willing to inject myself into the process, to listen to those 

requests, and to make available things that to date we have not decided would be appropriate. 

As I said, I want to avoid this constitutional crisis. I will not, 

however, compromise the integrity of ongoing prosecutions or put 

at risk witnesses or people who we are working with. But aside 

from those two concerns, I am willing to work with Congress in 

this regard. 

Senator CORNYN. I would just say—— 

Chairman LEAHY. The time—I think we—— 

Senator CORNYN [continuing]. Stonewalling Congress is not a 

constitutional crisis. 

Chairman LEAHY. In fairness to the others, we should go forward. I would note that I appreciate the fact that while the gun 

walking began in the Bush administration with Attorney General 

Gonzales, you stopped it. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Welcome, Attorney General. I wanted to make one point and 

then ask a couple of questions. The point that I would like to make 

is that it is my belief as a former United States Attorney, as somebody who has been involved with the Department of Justice, that 

it should be our baseline expectation that every Attorney General 

and every United States Attorney should be willing and able to follow evidence in a criminal prosecution wherever it leads. And in 

that regard, the Department of Justice is a somewhat different entity than other elements of an administration in which political 

control of the Department of Agriculture or something might be 

more appropriate, but that within the Department of Justice we be-
32 

have differently. And I worry that where this discussion is going 

is setting the bar too low with a presumption that then will become 

the standard that United States Attorneys are not capable of investigating the executive branch of Government, which I think is factually wrong, runs against the history of the Department, and the 

Department has put a lot of effort into building in safeguards and 

checks and balances to make sure that those pressures stay out of 

the Department. 

I can remember that for a long time there was actually a rule, 

I think based on a letter from Senator Hatch, that only very few 

members of the White House were allowed on a criminal matter to 

contact anybody in the Department of Justice, and it was a very 

small number on either side. Now, during the Bush administration, 

they opened that up so that hundreds of people, including Karl 

Rove, could have direct access to Department of Justice folks on 

criminal investigations. And after I pointed that out to Attorney 

General Gonzales, I think they retreated on that. But there have 

been all these fences built over time to protect the unique role of 

the Department of Justice. There have been high points and there 

have been low points. 

I think a high point was when Acting Attorney General Comey 

went all the way to the Oval Office to stand up for the Department 

of Justice’s independent view that the warrantless wiretapping program was being conducted illegally and that if the White House did 

not back down, he and a considerable number of senior members 

of that Department were all going to resign. And faced with that 

pressure from the Department of Justice, the White House blinked 

and they reconstituted the program. That is all a matter of public 

record. 

A less happy event was when the Inspector General’s investigation into the politicization of the U.S. Attorneys under the Bush administration actually led into the White House and Attorney General Mukasey refused to conduct an investigation once it touched 

the White House. Even though there is no Executive privilege as 

between the White House and the United States Department of 

Justice, I think that may have been the first time that I am aware 

of that the Department of Justice has backed down on pursuing 

evidence relevant to an investigation because it touched on the 

White House. And I think that was an unhappy and not representative of the best traditions of the Department of Justice. 

So I think I stand with you in arguing that not only should the 

Department of Justice be able to do these kinds of investigations, 

if they are not, we have a real problem on our hands. But it should 

be the default proposition that our Attorney General and our 

United States Attorneys have the ability to do that. And if we do 

not think they do, we should not confirm them. So that is a point 

that I wanted to make. 

Cyber—let us change to that topic for a minute. Two points on 

this. One, we are looking at trying to do something serious in terms 

of legislation to help protect our Nation from the cyber attacks that 

are increasingly prevalent and increasingly sophisticated and increasingly dangerous. The core target for foreign and terrorist elements is our critical infrastructure, our electric grid, the servers, 

the process, the financial transactions for our financial sector, the 
33 

communications networks and so forth, which are privately owned 

but provide essential, as I said, critical infrastructure. 

On June 6th, we have a letter that was written to both Majority 

Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell that describes the 

cyber threat as ‘‘imminent’’ and that it represents ‘‘one of the most 

serious challenges to our national security since the onset of the 

Nuclear Age 60 years ago.’’ The letter continues that ‘‘protection of 

our critical infrastructure is essential in order to effectively protect 

our national and economic security from the growing cyber threat.’’ 

It continues further, this is not only in italics but in bold italics, 

‘‘We do feel strongly that critical infrastructure protection needs to 

be addressed in any cybersecurity legislation.’’ 

It concludes, again in bold italicized text, ‘‘Any legislation passed 

by Congress should allow the public and private sectors to harness 

the capabilities of the NSA to protect our critical infrastructure 

from malicious actors.’’ 

They say at the end, ‘‘We carry the burden of knowing that 9/ 

11 might have been averted with the intelligence that existed at 

the time. We do not want to be in the same position again when 

cyber 9/11 hits. It is not a question of whether this will happen. 

It is a question of when.’’ And it is signed by Michael Chertoff, who 

was George Bush’s Director of Homeland Security; Mike McConnell, who was both the head of NSA and the Director of National 

Intelligence; General Michael Hayden, who was in charge of the 

Central Intelligence Agency; and Paul Wolfowitz, who was the Deputy Secretary of Defense. 

What is your position on whether or not the legislation that we 

are working on should address or should not address the problem 

of America’s critical infrastructure? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think it absolutely must address 

that. There is a bill that has been working through the Senate. 

There are four Senators who are behind it. I do not remember 

which four exactly, but I think that that is a good bill because it 

looks at this problem comprehensively. 

If one looks at the threats that we monitor and the use by state 

actors as well as groups to try to get at our Nation’s infrastructure, 

I do not want to alarm the American people, but I think the passage that you read from that letter accurately states the concerns 

that we have within the administration. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent that the full letter be made a part of the record of this proceeding. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Attorney General HOLDER. This is a problem that we must address. Our Nation is otherwise at risk. And to ignore this problem, 

to think that it is going to go away, runs headlong into all the intelligence that we have gathered, the facts that we have been able 

to accrue which show that the problem is getting worse instead of 

getting better. There are more countries that are becoming more 

adept at the use of these tools. There are groups that are becoming 

more adept at the use of these tools, and the harm that they want 

to do to the United States and to our infrastructure through these 

means is extremely real. 
34 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, everybody else has gone 

several minutes over their time. I will not. But I do wish to—I will 

do it in a question for the record. I just want you, Attorney General, to know that I am not satisfied with the answer I got from 

the Department with respect to the Margolis memo that holds the 

Office of Legal Counsel to a lower standard in terms of its duty of 

candor than a regular trial lawyer or a regular, you know, guy with 

three files under his arm going into the Garrahy Judicial Complex 

in Providence, Rhode Island, is held to. I just think that is absolutely wrong, and I will pursue the question again in questions for 

the record. I think that the answer that was prepared for the Department in response to my question sidesteps the issue in a way 

that does not address it, and I really am determined to get this addressed. 

Thank you very much. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I will look at that response. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

We will go next to Senator Sessions, then to Senator Schumer. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Mr. Attorney General, I do believe that we have voter fraud in 

America. I do believe that States and cities and counties have a 

duty to maintain rolls, voting rolls, of integrity, and purging the 

rolls is just a way of saying you are going through the rolls to make 

sure dead people are not on it; people who have moved to other 

States and are voting in other States do not remain on it; people 

that are not citizens are not on it. And if you do not have voter 

ID, I would just observe that somebody can walk in to a voting 

place where they know there is a registered person on the rolls who 

is not a citizen, not alive, or is in another State and just say they 

are John Jones and vote for that person. And that is a danger to 

the integrity of the ballot, and civil rights requires that people be 

able to vote, but only vote once if they are lawfully entitled to vote. 

So I am just disturbed really about the approach that you have 

taken on that. I think Florida has every right, in fact a duty, to 

try to maintain clear rolls that have integrity to them. 

Mr. Attorney General, in the Patrick Fitzgerald appointment as 

an independent counsel, he was United States Attorney, but the 

letter from the Acting Attorney General told him that, ‘‘You will investigate this, and I direct that you exercise that authority as special independent counsel without the supervision or control of any 

officer of the Department.’’ In other words, every United States Attorney serves at the President’s pleasure. They are under your supervision. And if they are going to investigate cases that reach certain levels, any person in that position needs the protection, I 

think, of independence. 

Now, I think you can abuse the independent counsel statute. I 

do not think it should be used every time some matter comes up. 

But let me just point out a few things about this case. 

First of all, these leaks could very well be criminal. They were 

leaks dealing with the fact that we had informants inside terrorist 

organizations. There were a lot of things that I think go beyond 

any reasonable standard, far more serious, in my view, than the 
35 

Valerie Plame case because she was sitting in an office in the CIA 

and not out in the field somewhere at risk, presumably. 

Look at this. The New York Times articles quote Mr. Donilon, his 

National Security Adviser, quotes Mr. Daley, his Chief of Staff, 

former Chief of Staff; Ambassador Munter, the Ambassador to 

Pakistan; Dennis Blair, the former Director. It on more than one 

occasion makes reference to ‘‘Mr. Obama’s aides say.’’ Greg Craig, 

the White House counsel, is referred to; Jay Johnson, the Defense 

Department counsel; Rahm Emanuel; John Brennan; Harold Koh, 

State Department Chief Counsel. These were all talking to the 

New York Times. Somebody provided information that should not 

have been provided. These are some of the closest people you have 

in Government to the President of the United States, and so it is 

a dangerous thing. 

Also, I would note that in the article, the New York Times writes 

this: ‘‘Still, senior officials at the Department of Justice and the 

Pentagon acknowledge they worry about public perception.’’ That is 

a troubling statement to begin with because you should do the 

right thing, but the point I would make is the New York Times is 

talking to people, senior officials at the Department of Justice. So 

can you see how in a matter of this seriousness that it might be— 

that it would be that people could feel that an independent counsel 

should be appointed? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, the extraordinary grant of 

power that Jim Comey gave to Pat Fitzgerald is really extraordinary. I am not aware of any kind of grant like that with regard 

to any other U.S. Attorney who was put in this position, and I do 

not know exactly what Mr. Comey’s rationale was for that. 

As I have indicated previously, I think that we have an ability 

with these two people whom I have named to follow the evidence 

wherever it leads us. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, they are appointed by the President. 

They serve at the pleasure of the President. They serve under your 

supervision, and the President’s top aides, former top aides, some 

of your senior officials at the Department are people that were 

talking to the New York Times and need to be interviewed in an 

aggressive, independent way, not as a friendly fellow Department 

of Justice employee but as someone that could be subject to a 

criminal charge. And I think that is why people believe an independent counsel could be appropriate in this matter. 

You note there are two United States Attorneys. As I understand 

you, each would have separate responsibilities to investigate separate parts of the matters that may come up? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I do not want to go into the details of what it is they will be investigating, but they have separate 

matters that they will be looking at. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, my time is about up, and I will not belabor it. But I take this as a very serious matter, the question of 

the leaks, how important they are. I believe lives have been placed 

at risk. I have raised it in the Armed Services private or closed 

hearings dealing with these matters in months past. It has been 

a pattern. I do not believe we have seen a greater series of leaks, 

and I believe it is time to bring it to a conclusion. I believe an aggressive investigation is required, and I believe from now on mem-
36 

bers of this administration, previous administrations, and subsequent administrations should fully understand they will be held accountable if they violate their oath to protect the legitimate secrets 

of the United States. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, Senator, I do not disagree with 

you except maybe with regard to who actually should do this. I 

think what you have said about the seriousness of these leaks, the 

potential harm to our country, the need to hold people accountable, 

I agree with all of that. 

Senator SESSIONS. Based on the article, couldn’t it be that you 

provided the leaks? It just says ‘‘senior Department of Justice officials.’’ It could be your Deputy. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I can tell you that I did not, and 

I can also tell you that I have been interviewed already, and I can 

tell you that that interview was not some kind of pro forma, takeit-easy interview. It was a serious interview that was done by some 

serious FBI agents. The same thing happened to the Director of the 

FBI as well because we were people who had knowledge of these 

matters, and we wanted to make sure with regard to the investigation that it began with us. And so that has happened, in addition 

to, I guess, the couple hundred other interviews that—well, maybe 

not a couple hundred, maybe a hundred or so interviews they have 

already conducted. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Senator SCHUMER [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Sessions, and 

now I will recognize myself. 

First, I want to say this. It is not the focus of my questions, but, 

Attorney General Holder, I want to tell you that I agree with Senator Feinstein that appointing these two U.S. Attorneys to investigate leaks is the proper way to address our current and immediate concerns. 

Now, some of my colleagues have brought up the case of Valerie 

Plame. As you know, I was very much involved in that. And the 

initial leak in Mr. Novak’s column talked about senior administration officials, and what was begun then was just what you have 

begun—a DOJ investigation. It was not until several months later 

when it became clear that the White House was actually 

stonewalling, not giving the information that was asked for, that 

an independent counsel was called for, a special counsel was called 

for. So the analogy to the Plame investigation does not hold because we do not know who leaked it. We do not know if it is senior 

administration officials. You can name a lot of people in the book, 

as my good friend from Alabama does. Who knows who it is? And 

to have Justice investigate is the right way to go. 

If we find that some high administration officials are not giving 

proper information or whatever to your investigators, that kind of 

lack of cooperation might then merit a special counsel, but we are 

not at that point yet. And so this analogy to Plame, when even at 

the beginning senior administration officials—the actual source 

said it was senior administration officials, and still a special counsel was not called for and was not appointed, makes eminent sense. 

So you are handling it correctly, and I hope you will not feel politically pressured into doing something that would go beyond that because you are doing the right thing. 
37 

Now let me move over to three other quick issues, if we can try 

to get through them. The first involves the Lockerbie bomber. As 

you know, holding all the terrorists who planned and executed the 

Lockerbie bombing accountable is of utmost importance, particularly in New York where we had so many people die in that, including a whole bunch of students from Syracuse University. I 

knew of a family who lost someone. They were from Our Lady Help 

of Christians parish right near where I was raised in Brooklyn. 

It was reported a few weeks ago that Director Mueller was in 

Libya to discuss further investigating the bombing. As you know, 

al-Megrahi, the only person held accountable, has finally passed 

away, but it is very likely he did not act alone. And these people 

lost loved ones—husbands, wives, sons, and daughters. And to 

know that other people are living freely, particularly when there is 

a different Libyan Government now, is unfair. 

So does the DOJ—I hope the DOJ will renew the investigation 

into Lockerbie, and I would like to know if you think they should 

do that and if you believe individual, other individuals, can be 

brought to justice. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, this is something that we still 

see as an open investigation. You are right that Director Mueller 

did go to Libya. I met with the Prime Minister from Libya here in 

the United States and pressed the point with them that we wanted 

a full accounting with regard to Pan Am 103. 

This is a matter that certainly Megrahi was involved in. I think 

there is still a basis to believe that more investigation is warranted, and we are pressing the Libyan Government in that regard. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. And Justice would keep an investigation open as well if the evidence turned out—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. We consider this an open matter. 

Senator SCHUMER. Great. Glad to hear it. Next—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is open in the U.S. Attorney’s Office 

in Washington, D.C. 

Senator SCHUMER. That is the right place for it. We do not need 

a special counsel or anything else. OK. 

Sex offenders: The Adam Walsh Act mandates that the U.S. Marshals Service provide assistance to State and local enforcement in 

locating and apprehending sex offenders who do not comply with 

registration requirements, and one of the primary vehicles the 

Marshals Service has for providing this assistance is the National 

Sex Offender Targeting Center, which is comprised of subject matter experts versed in a variety of aspects regarding sex offender investigation and management. 

As the Targeting Center has become more successful in tracking 

down sex offenders who fail to register, they have received a growing number of requests for assistance from State and local police 

to investigate other sex crimes. But here is the problem: In many 

instances, the Targeting Center is being asked for help in cases 

that are arguably outside its current authority, which is currently 

limited to investigating sex offenders who fail to register. State and 

local officers often want Federal help to identify and apprehend 

suspected sex offenders in cases where the issue is not a failure to 

register and it is currently not clear whether Federal help can be 

made available. Let me point out quickly three cases in my State 
38 

where the help could have been used very well by local law enforcement. 

In Utica, there is the case of Robert Blainey. He is a serial rapist 

of children. He failed to show up for a parole hearing, and he likely 

could have been apprehended much more quickly had the Targeting Center been involved in assisting local police. He was not, 

and he went on to do further horrible crimes. 

On Long Island, during the investigation of the Gilgo killer, who 

is believed to have murdered ten people associated with the sex 

trade over the last 15 years and dumped their bodies along Ocean 

Parkway out there by Gilgo Beach, the Targeting Center could provide more comprehensive assistance that the Suffolk County Police 

Department needs and wants. 

And in New York City, a sex offender named Jose Perez, who 

committed sexual assault on over 12 victims before he was caught 

by police, would have likely been captured earlier had the Targeting Center’s resources been available. 

In each of these cases, local officials would have requested assistance from NSOTC if it were available to them and the center 

would have been able to help with behavioral assessment of the 

perpetrator, linkage analysis between particular crimes, and risk 

assessments to determine where future crimes would occur. 

So I find it wrong that assistance is not available, and I want 

it to change, and I intend to introduce legislation allowing the National Sex Offender Targeting Center to provide investigative and 

analytic support to State and local enforcement in cases where 

these agencies ask for Federal help to track down sex offenders. 

Would you support such legislation? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, let me just say that I want to 

thank you for raising this issue and also appreciate the support 

that you have given the Department’s efforts in this regard over 

the years. We have always been able to count on you, and I think 

Congress has also given us a lot of tools to help in this regard. I 

have not seen the bill that you are referring to, but I would be glad 

to examine it and work with you on this very real problem. It is 

an issue that we as a society have focused on I think far too late 

and far too little. And so I would be glad to work with you on the 

bill. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right, and the basic idea is something you are 

sympathetic to letting them share. I am not asking you to support 

a specific piece of legislation that you have not seen yet, but the 

basic idea you would be supportive of. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator SCHUMER. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. We will turn to Senator Lee, who has been 

waiting patiently. Go ahead. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Attorney 

General Holder, for joining us today. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Good morning. 

Senator LEE. In our meeting today, you have used the term ‘‘constitutional crisis’’ several times, and—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. You know, when I think about that, 

maybe ‘‘constitutional conflict’’ would be a little better. 

Senator LEE. ‘‘Conflict’’ ? OK. 
39 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is making it a little more—— 

Senator LEE. One way or another your use of that term reflects 

a concern that I share, to make sure that Government is operated 

within the confines of what the Constitution allows. 

I, like many of my constituents, have some concerns with regard 

to how this President and his administration have viewed certain 

constitutional restrictions. Some expressed concerns early on in 

this administration with the President’s expanded use of so-called 

czars, individuals accountable only to the White House while performing functions that one could argue could and should and in the 

past have been performed by Senate-confirmed, Cabinet-level personnel. 

In the area of religious liberty, you had an unprecedented and 

fairly radical position taken by the administration in the HosannaTabor case that was rejected unanimously, 9–0, by the Supreme 

Court. 

Also under the category of religious liberty, you have got a contraception and abortifacient mandate that failed to take into account the conscientious objections of religious institutions, reflecting, I think, a somewhat callous disregard for religious liberty. 

Then you had the President taking military action in Libya without a declaration of war, without any kind of congressional authorization. Many found that constitutionally problematic. 

The President’s signature legislative achievement, the Affordable 

Care Act, contains an individual mandate that many consider constitutionally problematic, and that, of course, is before the Supreme 

Court right now. 

Then there is one issue that I find extraordinarily troubling but 

that has not gotten as much attention, which is the President’s use 

of the recess appointment power. 

Now, every President has made recess appointments, to my 

knowledge, but this President did something different. He did 

something that no other President has ever done, to my knowledge, 

which is that on January 4th of this year, he made recess appointments at a time when the Senate did not consider itself to be in 

recess, at a time that the Senate, according to its own rules and 

operating procedures, had been adjourned for a period of time less 

than 72 hours. This is a concern to me, and, you know, the concern 

is compounded by the fact that in the 23-page, single-spaced memorandum authored by your Office of Legal Counsel, your Department seemed to be adopting a rationale that would, in effect, say 

that the President may decide when the President deems the Senate to be in recess, regardless of what the Senate’s own rules say. 

So I want to ask you, in light of this position, are you concerned 

that in the future, appointments historically requiring the advice 

and consent of the Senate may be made simply unilaterally by 

Presidents of either party without the advice and consent of the 

Senate? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, I do not think so. If you look at 

that OLC opinion, I think that the rationale, the analysis that they 

did, I think is constitutionally sound. These pro forma sessions that 

were put in place where somebody would gavel the Senate for a 

couple minutes, whatever it was, were seen by the OLC opinion as 

not keeping the Senate in session, and it—— 
40 

Senator LEE. Even though we enacted substantive legislation on 

December 23, 2011, just a couple weeks before these recess appointments were made. That was a pro forma session, was it not? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, they look at the period from 

January 3rd to January 23rd and made the determination that 

there was a 20-day gap there, and within that 20 days, there was 

an ability for the President to make those recess appointments. 

Senator LEE. No, wait a minute. But the recess appointments 

were made on January 4th, only 24 hours or so after the Senate 

had been in recess. So was this an act of clairvoyance that just predicted how long the President thought the Senate would be in what 

he considered to be a recess? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I may have my dates wrong, but what 

I think the OLC opinion says—and it can speak for itself—is that 

the necessary time period did exist for a recess to be said to have 

occurred and the President could have acted constitutionally. 

Senator LEE. OK. The President commented not too long ago that 

he believed that it would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step 

of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a 

democratically elected Congress if, in fact, the Supreme Court invalidates the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate or perhaps 

the law as a whole. In that same statement, he also bemoaned the 

concept that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn 

a duly constituted and passed law. 

Does this reflect a change in this administration’s position with 

regard to Marbury v. Madison that other administrations have not 

taken? 

Attorney General HOLDER. You might remember that I was given 

a homework assignment by a Federal judge. I had to write a threepage paper single-spaced, answering—— 

Senator LEE. Did you get a good grade on that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I have not gotten the grade yet, but 

I did answer the question. It was the one that you put, which essentially said that this administration understands the Presidents 

as a constitutional lawyer understands that Marbury v. Madison is 

still good law, and I explained in that three-page, single-spaced letter that this administration still believes that Marbury is good law. 

Senator LEE. Now, Professor Laurence Tribe, who I believe has 

been a friend of this administration and a close ally of this President, commented that Presidents should generally refrain from 

commenting on pending cases during the process of judicial deliberation, adding that even if such comments will not affect the Justices a bit, they can contribute to an atmosphere of public cynicism 

that I know this President laments. 

Do you agree with that statement? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think that the Supreme Court 

and the Justices are strong-willed people, and they do not live in 

a hothouse environment. Even while these matters are being considered by the Court, the fact that we have robust conversation 

amongst ourselves, even those of us who are in official positions, 

I think is fine. 

There is some deference. You should only go so far with regard 

to your comments. I frequently will myself comment about something and say, ‘‘Well, this is a matter before the courts and I really 
41 

should not go any further than that.’’ So having some idea of where 

you draw the line I think is appropriate. But to say we should not 

discuss anything that is before the Supreme Court or the courts 

generally I think maybe goes a little far. 

Senator LEE. Absolutely. I would agree wholeheartedly with that. 

I am certainly not suggesting in any way, shape, or form that the 

President ought to say nothing, but I think there is a difference between saying nothing and suggesting that it would somehow be appropriate simply because a law was passed by a democratically 

elected Congress, and a duly constituted quorum at that, that the 

Court is somehow powerless to invalidate that, even if it transgresses certain constitutional boundaries. But, alas, I see my time 

has expired, and I thank you for joining us. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. You know, hearing a couple of these questions, 

I just might say parenthetically I remember Strom Thurmond in 

the years he was Chairman of this Committee would always say to 

judges up for confirmation remember basically to avoid arrogance 

and to show the kind of temperament one should. And when I saw 

what I thought I had rarely ever seen such judicial arrogance as 

a judge saying, ‘‘You shall respond to this with a three-page, singlespaced letter.’’ I am surprised he did not say what color ink. It is 

something out of Monty Python. It was just—you wonder, Good 

Lord, what Promethean height does this person live on. Aside from 

the issue, it just came across—I have heard from judges, lawyers, 

Republicans, and Democrats, what a childish thing. But that is just 

my view. And on recess appointments, as I have said before, I 

would be happy—I always have concerns about recess appointments. The easy way out of this is if Republicans would agree to 

hold an up-or-down vote on each one of these people. Let us debate 

them, renominate them with an up-or-down vote. 

I would say to my friend from Utah, if your side is willing to 

agree to an up-or-down vote, I would be happy to pick up the phone 

and urge the President to renominate them. 

Senator LEE. If the Chairman is talking about filibuster reform 

through a permanent rules change, then perhaps that is something 

we ought to discuss with regard to judicial nominees. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, I am willing to discuss that, too. But on 

this one, on the particular one that is concerned—and I must say, 

again parenthetically, I appreciate and admire the Senator’s concern. He has expressed it. He has stated it very clearly. He has expressed his concern on nominations coming up, but has not hindered the work of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think he has 

been very responsible. I may disagree with him, but he has been 

extremely responsible in his opposition. 

I would just remind everybody again, we avoid all this if we 

could have, as we had in my experience with every President that 

I have been here with from President Ford straight through, just 

have up-or-down votes. 

But having said that, Senator Klobuchar has been waiting here 

very patiently. We will go to Senator Klobuchar, then Senator 

Franken, then Senator Blumenthal, then Senator Coons. Obvi-
42 

ously, if there is another member of the Republican side who has 

not been heard who comes back, they can go. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Attorney General, for being here. And thank you for 

thoroughly answering the questions about the security leaks. If you 

have noticed, there is some disagreement here about who should be 

investigating them, but there is clear agreement that these leaks 

were wrong and should not have happened. So I do appreciate the 

fact that you are investigating them, and we look forward to hearing those results, and thank you for moving forward on that. 

But I also do not want to lose focus on some of the important 

issues you raised in your earlier testimony, so we are going to go 

a little bit from the international front to the domestic front, from 

the leaks to the streets here, with some of the work that you do 

in the Justice Department. 

One of the things that I know has been a positive for this country is the work that we are doing with drug courts. We have one 

in our county where I was a prosecutor, and what we saw is that 

as long as it is done right and there is accountability with the offenders and there are check-ins and things are monitored, you actually can save money. You save money from potential drug violence, but you mostly save money because you do not have the incarceration costs if people can actually kick the habit of drugs. 

Right now we have 2,500 drug courts across the country. The House has actually approved $45 million in funding for Fiscal Year 

2013, and the Senate, unfortunately, has approved only $35 million. And when the bill gets to the floor, I think we should get a 

match between the House and the Senate on that appropriation 

and use that House number. 

Could you talk about why this is cost-effective or why you actually get your bang for your buck with drug court money and why 

it is important to continue them? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I think that the points you make 

are all good ones. I went to a drug court graduation here in Washington, D.C., about 2 or 3 weeks ago, and it is a process that people 

go through. It is not a straight process. People, you know, have setbacks along the way. But once they graduate, the recidivism rate 

that we have seen here in Washington, D.C., reflects what you see 

in other parts of the country. People are much less likely to reoffend, to use drugs, or to commit other crimes in order to support 

a habit. It is something that is a great public safety measure, and 

as you also point out, it is something that helps save us money. 

And so I think the support of drug courts and other measures 

have been proven. We have the proof now. It is something that we 

think is going to work. We can statistically show that they work. 

These are the kinds of things that we need to support. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I think the number is 1.2 million people in the criminal justice system the DOJ identified back in 2008 

could be best served by drug courts. So you are talking here about 

a lot of people. 

You mentioned VAWA in your testimony. I have been very involved in that and worked with that when I was also a prosecutor. 

And one of the things that the bipartisan Senate bill contains is 

the tribal court, allowance for tribal court prosecution in a narrow 
43 

set of circumstances for non-natives who are in relationships with 

people on the reservation. Could you talk about why you think it 

is important to keep that in the bill, if you do think it is important 

to keep that in the bill? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do. I think that the bill that the 

Senate has passed as a whole is the best way in which VAWA can 

be reauthorized, and I think that that particular provision is an 

important one given the rates of violence that we see that women, 

girls, are subjected to in terms of domestic violence on tribal lands. 

The ability to have those cases tried in tribal courts I think will 

go a long way to serving as a deterrent and preventing reoffending 

and changing the culture of what we have seen on tribal lands. It 

was something that for me was extremely shocking when I heard 

what a female baby born on tribal lands can expect to have to deal 

with through the course of her life, and it is one of the reasons why 

we have focused so much attention. Our former Associate Attorney 

General Tom Perrelli spent a great deal of time focusing on this 

issue, and so I think that, as I said, the bill as a whole is a good 

one, is one I hope the House will pass, and I think that particular 

provision is particularly important. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I know that DOJ has been working a 

lot on the issue of rising violence against officers in general with 

the death rate we saw last year, but according to the National Law 

Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund report, in 2011, of the officers 

killed, nine that were killed by firearms were killed while responding to domestic disturbances, including Officer Shawn Schneider in 

Lake City, Minnesota, someone who literally put his life on the line 

for the victim. A 17-year-old girl was saved. He was killed, shot in 

the head. 

So your testimony points out a number of programs that you 

have initiated to lower the incidence of violence against law enforcement. Have you seen this link with domestic violence, anything you would want to add? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. One of the things that really is 

disturbing is that though we have seen this historic drop in the 

crime rate, we have seen an increase in the number of officers, law 

enforcement officers, who have been killed in the line of duty, and 

we have seen, unfortunately, I think, in the last year an increase 

where we have a greater number of officers who were shot as opposed to who died in traffic accidents. And very frequently you see 

this is when people, law enforcement officers, are going into a residence, whether to serve a warrant, to deal with a domestic violence 

complaint. The VAWA program tries to share techniques that these 

officers can use. We tried to come up with bulletproof vests, stabproof vests to try to protect them. This is an ongoing concern of 

mine. We had a law enforcement summit I think last year. We 

have another one coming up in the next, I think, 2 months or so 

at the Justice Department. I will be bringing in people from State 

and local counterparts to talk about this ongoing problem. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. And as you know, the Committee just reauthorzied the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Right. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. The last thing I wanted to ask about is just 

the economic espionage issue. I think normally we think of foreign 
44 

espionage as being directed against the Government or the military, and obviously that happens. However, there seems to be increasing attempts by foreign actors to target technology and trade 

secrets of our businesses, which is really the key to our economic 

future here, the idea that we are a country that invents things and 

we have to protect those inventions to protect jobs in America. 

We have seen cases involving people selling secrets to China. 

There is a recent case involving Cargill, a Minnesota company, 

with trade secrets being stolen. 

Can you tell us why corporate espionage can be so harmful? And 

is the DOJ working with private industry to try to address this? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, this is really a 21st century problem, one that we are working with our counterparts in the private 

sector. I went to China to raise these concerns with my counterparts there, with that government, and gave a speech in Hong 

Kong where we brought together prosecutors from around the 

world who deal with this issue. 

We are dealing with an issue that is theft in its most basic sense, 

but also has public safety implications. If we have intellectual property that is stolen or trade secrets that are stolen and then we 

have knock-offs that are made on the basis of those secrets that are 

stolen that are not done in an appropriate way, public safety can 

be affected. Drugs that are made in that regard can have a negative impact on our citizenry. And it is also a jobs question. As we 

talk so much about the need to create jobs, these kinds of activities, 

this theft, takes from the United States the ability to produce the 

kinds of things that our entrepreneurs have invented in this country and they are made in other countries. So it has a negative economic consequence as well. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. And I will put in the record 

questions about metal theft. I am reintroducing that bill this week, 

as well as the synthetic drug bill, which is making some progress 

now, as you know, got through the Senate as part of the medical 

development pharmaceutical approval bill and then the FDA bill. 

Hopefully we can get it on through the conference committee with 

the House since they have already passed that version. I know we 

have talked about that before. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Right. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But I will ask those questions for the 

record. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Attorney General. 

Attorney General HOLDER. If I could just say one thing, the synthetic drug bill that you point out is of real concern. What we have 

seen in the last few weeks with regard to people who potentially 

are on bath salts, those are issues that we need to deal with as 

quickly as we can. So I applaud the effort that has been made, and 

I would hope that there can be some kind of coming together and 

passing that legislation as quickly as possible. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you, and I offered the one on 

the synthetic hallucinogens, and Senator Grassley and Senator 

Schumer each had different bills that we have combined. And it is 

just—until you get out there and talk to people who think that 

they were ordering something that was not that bad or was the ac-
45 

tual drug and then it was worse, you really get a sense this is a 

very dangerous thing, especially in small towns across our State. 

Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN [presiding]. Well, I am now Chairman, so I will 

recognize myself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I begin, I just want to take a moment to thank you, Attorney General Holder, for this administration’s public support for the 

Student Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that will protect LGBT students from discrimination and bullying in the same way that students are currently protected against discrimination on the basis of 

race and gender and country of national origin and disability. The 

last time you were here, I asked you why the administration was 

not publicly supporting the bill, and you said you would look into 

it, and you did. Thank you. 

Mr. Attorney General, National Police Week was last month. I 

visited with some officers who came to Washington from Minnesota 

with a Thin Blue Line vehicle, a squad car that has been transformed into a traveling memorial for Minnesota’s fallen officers. It 

was a touching reminder of the tremendous sacrifice that our law 

enforcement officers, like Officer Schneider from Lake City that 

Senator Klobuchar referred, make every day, placing themselves in 

harm’s way. And I know that you share my concern about officer 

safety, as you replied in response to Senator Klobuchar. 

I would like to hear from you a little bit about the VALOR Initiative, which you started in 2010. My Local Courthouse Safety Act, 

which was reported out of this Committee by a voice vote just a few 

weeks ago, would make that program permanent. 

Could you please talk a little bit about why you started the 

VALOR Initiative, what it does, and whether you think it has been 

successful thus far? And I would also like to hear your views as to 

whether the VALOR Initiative is duplicative of existing Federal 

programs. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, we saw in this increase of officer deaths patterns that were starting to emerge. Senator 

Klobuchar was talking about incidents where officers responding to 

domestic violence complaints, officers who were serving warrants, 

officers who were going after fugitives were frequently the targets 

that resulted in fatalities. And we tried to glean from the incidents 

that we saw if there were any patterns and then tried to come up 

with ways in which we could equip officers with defensive capabilities so that they would be familiar with situations as they encountered them and maximize their chances for survival. 

We listened to people in the field. This was not a top-down effort. 

It was something that was generated from the bottom up. And I 

think we have been very successful. I think people who have gone 

through the VALOR program have said that it is extremely useful 

to them and has, we think, helped save lives. I do not think it duplicates anything that we are presently doing, and it is worthy of 

our continued support. We would like to have more officers exposed 

to VALOR. We try to do train-the-trainer efforts so that we can extend to greater numbers of officers the awareness that I think 

VALOR creates. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 
46 

Mr. Attorney General, as you know, in January the Supreme 

Court ruled unanimously that when police use a GPS device to 

track a suspect’s car for several weeks, they consider that a search 

covered by the Fourth Amendment. While the Court did not explicitly say so, experts think that this will mean that law enforcement 

will need a warrant to track suspects in this way. Indeed, in a letter I received last week, the Department indicated that it recommends using a warrant to do this tracking. 

Without objection, I would like to add that letter to the record. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. But in a brief filed before the Ninth Circuit 

in April, the Department argued that, ‘‘Installation and use of a 

slap-on GPS tracking device is such a limited intrusion that it 

should be justified based on reasonable suspicion.’’ 

Mr. Attorney General, is this the position of the Department of 

Justice after the Jones case, that it does not need a warrant to use 

a GPS device to track a person for weeks or even months at a time? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure about that Ninth Circuit case, but I think the reading in Jones pretty clearly indicates 

that we are dealing with a search under the Fourth Amendment 

and that there is going to probably be the need for warrants in connection with the use of those kinds of devices under the facts of 

Jones. I know that one of the things that we have argued is that with 

regard to devices that were used prior to Jones, there is a constitutional basis for those cases not to have issues, not to have problems, or the cases need not be thrown out. And so I do not know 

if that is one of those cases or not, but going forward, from Jones 

going forward, I think we are likely to be dealing in a situation 

where warrants will be needed. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Attorney General, last month I sent a letter to the Department highlighting you concerns that Comcast’s decision to exempt 

its own content from its data cap for broadband service is anticompetitive and will significantly harm the future of online video 

options for consumers. I am worried that Verizon’s wireless agreements with major cable companies will make it even harder from 

consumers to cut the cable cord and shift to watching more video 

online. This is particularly true if companies stop offering affordable stand-alone broadband service, as Verizon just announced, and 

if companies like Comcast impose discriminatory data caps. 

Is the Department taking a close look at these issues in the context of Verizon’s agreements with the largest cable companies? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, Senator, what I will have to do 

is get someone else to answer that question. I have been recused 

in the Verizon matter. But I can say looking at the Comcast matter 

that what we have tried to do as a result of the interaction that 

we had with the parties is to set in place a monitoring mechanism 

that I hope is working, something that to the extent you have concerns about, we certainly want to hear those so that we are making 

sure that we are doing all that we thought the agreement would 

do. But with regard to the Verizon matter itself, we have heard 

your question, and I will make sure that we get an answer to you 

from somebody who is involved in the case. 
47 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, thank you. And I understand if you are 

recused, you are recused. I just wanted you to know that this is a 

very important issue to me. As you know, cable bills in this country 

are out of control. Consumers want to be able to cut the cord and 

watch television shows and movies online rather than paying over 

$100 a month to their cable company to get channels that they 

never watch and that they do not want to watch and do not need. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Mr. Chairman, I would be one of 

those consumers. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, and we do not need to name those channels. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. It is up to the Department to make sure that 

these deals do not amount to a collusive bargain that will ultimately harm consumers. That is my belief, and I hope if you are 

considering approving these deals you will only do with very strong 

conditions to protect the future of online video. 

With that, I finish my questions and pass the gavel to the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I note with regret—I am sure you will regret—that I am the last person to be asking you questions today. 

I am sure it has been a great experience and you wish it would go 

on forever, but I think I am the last. 

First of all, I want to say on a serious note that I join a number 

of my colleagues—Senators Feinstein and Schumer—in agreeing 

with you that the appropriate way, probably the most timely and 

prompt way to investigate these very, very unfortunate leaks is 

through the two United States Attorneys whom you have appointed, and my view is that it represents the quickest and most 

comprehensive way to begin an investigation that could well lead 

to other means, but I think it is perfectly appropriate. And I respect views on the other side that there are other ways to do this 

job. But I disagree strongly with the suggestion that that fact is a 

reason for you even to consider resignation or any of the other reasons that have been suggested here. And I would respectfully also 

suggest that if we were here 6 months from now, the tone and 

tenor and even the substance of this inquiry would be somewhat 

different, a fact that is no doubt not unfamiliar to you. 

But what I regret most is that there is an implicit attack on the 

Department of Justice and on the United States Attorneys, having 

served as one, in fact, having conducted an investigation into a 

leak that occurred some decades ago, and I just want to say for the 

record that I have strong confidence in the Department of Justice 

as an institution and in your service. I was not here when you were 

confirmed, but if I were here again for your confirmation, I would 

vote for you. So for what that is worth—being at this end of the 

table on seniority probably not worth a whole lot, but I wanted to 

say it for the record. 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, that means a great deal, Senator. 

You and I have known each other for a good number of years. I 

have known you before you became a Senator. You were a great 
48 

prosecutor. And to have you say that means something to me. It 

means a lot. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

I want to ask—and I am sure that view is joined by others. I 

know it is. And I hope that you will take some heart from the confidence in your service. 

I want to go to the subject of bath salts, synthetic drugs that was 

raised by Senator Klobuchar. Do you see that problem as a spreading phenomenon? Is it troubling to you as the head of the Department of Justice? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I see that as a very significant 

problem and one that is expanding. The use of these synthetic 

drugs, bath salts, by not only young people but older people as well 

is something that I think we need to get on top of before it spreads 

like other drugs have and where we are trying to catch up. I think 

we have an opportunity here, if we act smartly and in a fast fashion, to get a hold of this problem before it spreads even more. But 

I think we have to act. We really have to act. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. On another item, which is also part of the 

FDA reauthorization bill dealing with drug shortages, again, Senator Klobuchar and I have worked on this issue, shortages of drugs 

that are really the work horse medicines of many emergency 

rooms—Doxil, which is used for cancer treatment; propofol on anesthesiology. The President issued an Executive order that required 

the FDA to refer to the Department of Justice any instances of 

price gouging, price fixing, similarly illegal activities that support 

a gray market that raises the price of these drugs and thereby denies access to them. And I wonder if you could either comment now 

or perhaps submit later in writing information about whether the 

FDA has, in fact, referred to you cases of drug shortages. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, let us see. I would say that 

maybe the best thing to do would be to respond in writing, but I 

share the concerns that you have evidenced through your question 

and the action that the President took. We have to try to maximize 

the availability of these, as you call them, and I think correctly so, 

‘‘work horse drugs’’ to guard the safety, the well-being, and the 

health of the American people. And to the extent that the Justice 

Department can play a role in that, I want to make sure that we 

are doing that. So I will take your question, and we will answer 

that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Great. Thank you. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Another area that is somewhat related 

having to do with investigations of unfortunate activities that take 

advantage of the public trust, the Veterans Service Organization is 

an issue that I have written to you about, which seems to me to 

raise questions about the potential exploiting of the best motives. 

We want to support veterans. The Veterans Service Organization 

is a subject of a letter that I have written to you. Again, you may 

want to come back to me in writing about it. But it seems to me 

that the questions are emblematic of others that have been asked 

about similar kinds of charitable and perhaps well-motivated orga-
49 

nizations that are less effective than they should be and raise questions about the integrity of those organizations. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I think that we must make sure 

that when people choose to make a donation to a charity, that they 

are making that donation to a reputable charity, that the money 

is going toward the purpose for which it is sought. We work closely 

with the Federal Trade Commission and with the IRS to investigate and, when necessary, initiate either civil or criminal actions 

in that regard. 

We also have to have, I think, an educational component to this 

effort to make people aware of some of the deceptive practices that 

are used, some of the ways in which people, really unscrupulous 

people will wrap themselves around people like veterans and other 

groups that we want to support and do so for illicit purposes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I was very glad to hear earlier your testimony about VAWA and the administration’s support for it, and I 

hope that it will extend as well to the provisions of VAWA that I 

advocated adding that relate to cyber stalking and cyber harassment, which is a new area. I have heard you talk about it very persuasively, and I hope that the administration will help persuade 

the House to retain those measures in whatever emerges from the 

House, which I hope will be soon. 

Attorney General HOLDER. The thing that I like most about the 

Senate bill—and that is one of the provisions, and it is consistent 

with the history of VAWA, that every time it has been reauthorized, it has been expanded to deal with the problems as we confront them. The notion of putting into VAWA a concern with and 

enforcement capability to deal with cyber issues is totally consistent with what we are dealing with now in 2012 that probably 

did not exist in the 1990’s, maybe even the early part of this decade to the extent that we now have to. And so I think that provision and the other provisions that the Senate has added make this 

a good bill for 2012, and my hope would be that the House will find 

a way to support that bill. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

And, finally, on a matter that is closer to home, perhaps not on 

your immediate radar, the East Haven investigation, which involves, as you know, an inquiry into the performance of local policing functions in East Haven and the allegations that there have 

been discriminatory and unfair practices. There have been criminal 

charges. I know there is an ongoing investigation. The last time we 

discussed it in this forum—and we have not discussed it privately—you noted that it is an ongoing investigation. I do not know 

whether you can give us some update at this point, but I would appreciate any that you can. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure that there is much 

more that I can say given the nature of what it is we are still in 

the process of doing. It is something that we have devoted a significant amount of attention to, but I am not sure that I can share 

much more than that. But let me do this: Let me take back what 

you have—your question and let me see if there is a way in which 

I can share any more information. I am not sure that there is, but 

if there is an ability to do that, I will get something back to you 

in writing. 
50 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I know that you have devoted a significant 

amount of attention and time and resources to this investigation, 

and thank you for the Department’s excellent performance there 

and in so many other areas. 

And I think with that, I am going to adjourn the hearing and 

hold the record open for 1 week. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you, Senator. 

[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 

Æ