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

73–839 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–353 

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 4, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–18 

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 ............................ 2 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 163 

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

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 183 

WITNESSES 

Holder, Eric H., Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 4 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

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

Schumer, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Grassley, Sessions, Graham, 

Cornyn and Coburn .............................................................................................. 38 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Holder, Eric H., Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 167 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2011 

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

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room 

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

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Kohl, Schumer, Klobuchar, Franken, 

Coons, Blumenthal, Grassley, Sessions, Hatch, Kyl, and Graham. 

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

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning. 

The Committee holds this oversight hearing today as details continue to emerge about the successful military and intelligence operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the terrorist whom we know is 

responsible for thousands of American deaths in the attacks of September 11, 2001, the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, the 

1998 embassy bombings in East Africa, the 1993 bombing of the 

World Trade Center, and so many other attacks around the world. 

Nearly 10 years after the murderous attacks of September 11th, 

a measure of justice has been wrought for the victims of those 

criminal acts. Osama bin Laden has paid for his actions against innocent Americans and innocent people around the world. This terrorist—and that is what he was, a terrorist, a murderer—perpetuated hate and destruction. His death is a fitting end to his reign 

of terror. 

One thing can be said for certain: Both President Obama and his 

national security team have never lost sight of the Nation’s war 

against terrorism. Today I welcome back a member of that national 

security team and welcome back to the Committee for the sixth 

time Attorney General Holder. He has, as I said, been a key member of that national security team. His approach to fighting terrorism has been vigilant; he has not excused constitutional excesses out of fear, and he, like President Obama, has used our full 

arsenal to protect and defend the American people. 

This week there should be universal praise for the successful operation against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, those who attacked us on September 11th. But our need for vigilance in response to the continued threat from terrorism remains. No one 

doubts that. America will continue to face these threats for a long 

time to come, and we should always act with strength and not out 

2 

of fear. I share the commitment of the administration and of Attorney General Holder to our core constitutional values, and I urge all 

Americans to not only support our President but all of us in Congress in both parties who work with him to keep America safe. I 

agree with what the President said at a dinner many of us attended at the White House this week. It is time to put aside partisanship and join together for the good of the country and all 

Americans. I would like to see the same unity we displayed right 

after the 9/11 attacks. 

I remember us standing arm in arm on the steps of the Capitol, 

Republicans and Democrats alike, the support we showed for thenPresident George W. Bush and others in a common goal to stop terrorism. 

And I think to help the administration, the Senate must make 

sure that his full national security team is in place. I believe the 

Senate should confirm Deputy Attorney General Jim Cole’s nomination without further delay. It is a key national security nomination that has been held up for too long. We should move forward 

with our consideration and the confirmation of Lisa Monaco to lead 

the National Security Division at the Justice Department. Her 

nomination is on the Committee’s agenda this week, tomorrow, and 

it should not be delayed. I would like to see it go through quickly 

and get passed by the Senate. 

I appreciate Attorney General Holder’s consistent support of our 

efforts to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT 

Act and to improve them by increasing accountability. He has said 

repeatedly that the legislation before the Senate, which we negotiated with the administration, poses no operational concerns. 

Turning to other aspects of the mission of the Justice Department, I am heartened by the important work the Department continues to do to fight the scourge of fraud, which has harmed so 

many hard-working Americans and which also contributed to our 

current economic crisis. Senator Grassley and I worked together in 

the last Congress to write and pass the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act that gave fraud investigators and prosecutors needed 

tools, and making use of these new tools is extremely important. 

I hope the Department will address the problem as aggressively as 

possible, especially the ongoing reports about inaccurate, forged, or 

fraudulent documents in the housing foreclosure process. 

More recently, the Attorney General has announced the formation of a new working group to tackle the problem of fraud related 

to oil and gas prices. These costs are hurting our economy. I want 

to make sure that we are facing it the way we should. 

I have a number of other areas which we will put in the record 

so we can continue. I want to reauthorize the Violence Against 

Women Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and I thank 

the Attorney General for being here, and I yield to Senator Grassley. 

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

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this oversight hearing. 

3 

It has been over a year since this Committee has held an oversight hearing with the Attorney General, so, of course, there is 

much ground to be covered. In that intervening year, many developments at the Justice Department have raised serious questions 

about whether the Department is putting politics before the interests of the American people. These are serious issues, and I plan 

to ask a number of questions along that line. 

I am extremely disappointed in the Justice Department’s response to my inquiry into the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. I sent a letter in January about allegations from whistleblowers that our Government was allowing guns to be illegally 

smuggled to Mexico. The Department claimed the whistleblower allegations were false and that ‘‘ATF makes every effort to interdict 

weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their 

transportation to Mexico.’’ 

I personally expressed my concern to the Attorney General about 

the accuracy of the Department’s replies in our telephone conversation just this Monday. So I was stunned that just a few hours after 

our conversation, the Department sent another letter repeating the 

denial in slightly different words. According to Monday’s letter, 

‘‘ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious did not knowingly permit straw 

buyers to take guns into Mexico.’’ 

It is particularly disturbing that the Department would renew its 

denial at this late date in light of the growing evidence in support 

of the allegations. Documents and witness testimony show that the 

ATF allowed the sale of semiautomatic weapons to many straw 

purchasers, even after it knew that the guns they previously purchased were recovered in Mexico. 

Worst of all, on December 15, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian 

Terry was killed in an incident at the border where two of these 

weapons that the ATF knowingly allowed to be sold to criminals 

were found at the crime scene. At best, the ATF was careless in 

authorizing the sale of thousands of guns to straw purchasers. At 

worst, our own Government knowingly participated in arming 

criminals, drug cartels, and those who later killed Federal agents. 

The Department argues that the Congressional investigation of 

these allegations threatened the ongoing criminal prosecutions of 

straw purchasers. Yet the Department and the ATF chose to wait 

and watch those same straw purchasers do business for over a year 

before charging them with any criminal conduct. It was only after 

the death of Terry that the straw purchasers were finally charged. 

I take exception to the notion that Congress must hold off on an 

investigation on the grounds that discovering the truth could 

hinder prosecutions. The goal of a trial is to search for truth. If our 

system of justice works the way it should, the Department cannot 

ultimately prevent the truth from coming to light. Congress should 

not allow its fact-finding efforts to be stonewalled just because the 

details might be embarrassing to certain officials in the Department. 

The conduct in question by both ATF and the Department is serious. It may have lead to the death of at least one Federal agent 

and countless other crimes in the U.S. and Mexico. The Department should not stonewall Congress or seek to intimidate whistleblowers or other potential witnesses in Congressional proceedings. 

4 

This cannot simply be swept under the rug. I plan to continue my 

work with the help of Congressman Issa and get to the bottom of 

who signed off on this operation that failed so tragically. 

In addition to the ATF matter, I want to discuss leaks of classified information. Attorney General Holder has publicly stated that, 

‘‘Unauthorized leaks of classified and other sensitive information 

are a real threat to our National security.’’ Continuing to quote, ‘‘To 

the extent that we can find anybody involved in breaking American 

law who has put at risk the assets and the people that I have described, they will be held responsible. They will be held accountable.’’ 

Unfortunately, these statements do not appear to represent the 

realities at the Department when it comes to prosecuting those who 

leak classified information. Just this week, it was reported in the 

press that the Department had dropped the prosecution of former 

Justice attorney Thomas Tamm who admitted to leaking classified 

national security information to the New York Times. I am concerned that the decision not to prosecute anyone related to this 

specific leak may indicate a reluctance to enforce the law. 

Leaks of classified information threaten the lives of our agents 

and allies in the field. They also threaten the integrity of our Government, especially in foreign relations conduct. I want to ask the 

Attorney General about this decision not to prosecute one of the 

Department’s own because it is starting to look like there may be 

a double standard for leakers at the Department. 

I would also like to discuss what appears to be a new failed IT 

procurement at the Department. The Integrated Wireless Network, 

IWN, was recently abandoned by the Department of Justice, and 

it appears that the project will end without completing its original 

goal to integrate the wireless radios for all Federal law enforcement agencies. I am concerned that this program is starting to look 

like a lot of other failed IT programs at the Department—hundreds 

of millions of taxpayers’ dollars with nothing to show for it. 

I am glad that the Attorney General is here so we can discuss 

these things. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Welcome back, Attorney General Holder. And I apologize for the 

nosebleed, I apologize to Senator Grassley in leaving, and I am 

afraid to hear—it was not in anticipation of something explosive 

from your testimony, Attorney General, that gave me the nosebleed. I think it was the dry air. Go ahead, please. 

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

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Good morning, Chairman Leahy, 

Ranking Member Grassley, and other distinguished members of the 

Committee. It is a privilege to appear before you today again to discuss the priorities and the accomplishments of the United States 

Department of Justice. 

Throughout my tenure as Attorney General, I have had the 

chance to work closely with this Committee to carry out our most 

important duty, and that is, protecting the American people. Today 

I am pleased to report that the Justice Department’s efforts to fulfill this solemn obligation have never been stronger. 

5 

Three days ago, thanks to many dedicated military and civilian 

leaders, intelligence and law enforcement officers, diplomats and 

policymakers, investigations, prosecutors, and counterterrorism experts, the decade-long manhunt for Osama bin Laden came to a 

successful end. This historic achievement was a tremendous step 

forward in attaining justice for the nearly 3,000 innocent Americans who were murdered on September 11, 2001, and I hope it will 

inspire a renewed commitment to collaboration across party lines, 

branches of responsibility, and agencies so that we can effectively 

address the most pressing challenges facing the American people. 

At the Justice Department, we are determined to build on the extraordinary record of progress that has been established over the 

last 2 years in meeting our responsibility to those whom we serve. 

We have thwarted potential terror attacks and charged more defendants with the most serious terror-related offenses than in any 

similar period in our history. 

At the same time, and despite very significant budget constraints, we have strengthened our operations and advanced our 

traditional missions. We have filed a record number of criminal 

civil rights cases and secured a record amount of False Claims Act 

recoveries. We have played a leading role in responding to the largest oil spill in America’s history and worked to ensure that taxpayers do not foot the bill for its cleanup. 

We have also spearheaded the efforts of the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force and successfully executed the 

largest financial and health care fraud takedowns on record and 

the biggest bank fraud prosecution in a generation. 

Now, these are historic achievements, but we have more to do. 

Going forward, our efforts will focus on four specific areas. 

First of all, our National security work will continue. Despite recent successes, our fight against terrorist threats is far from over. 

Already I have ordered the Department’s prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to be mindful that bin Laden’s death could result in retaliatory attacks. Now more than ever, we need access to 

the crucial authorities in the PATRIOT Act, and I call on Congress 

to reauthorize them for a substantial period of time before they expire at the end of this month. 

Second, we will protect Americans from violent crimes. We will 

continue to prosecute Federal criminal law violations aggressively, 

but in addition, we will implement research-based crime prevention 

strategies to combat gun, gang, and drug-fueled violence. We will 

provide support to young people who need our help in avoiding 

lives of crime and to those who have served their time and are 

struggling to rejoin their communities. And we will strengthen relationships with our Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement partners. We also will increase support for law enforcement 

officers and work to reverse the alarming recent increase in lineof-duty officer fatalities. 

Third, we will protect Americans from financial fraud through 

our highly effective task force and through other outreach and 

prosecutorial initiatives. And we will continue to take proactive 

steps, like the recent launch of the oil and gas price fraud working 

group to safeguard consumers. 

6 

Finally, we will protect the most vulnerable among us—our children, the elderly, victims of hate crimes, human trafficking, and exploitation—and we will enforce our civil rights laws to guarantee 

that the rights of all Americans are upheld. 

Now, to achieve these goals, I need my full team in place. I urge 

you to confirm the highly qualified individuals whom President 

Obama has nominated to serve alongside me in leadership roles at 

the Department. In particular, I hope the Senate will promptly confirm Jim Cole, whose nomination to serve as Deputy Attorney General has been pending for a full year. 

Finally, we need your help in ensuring the effective administration of justice. Today our Nation’s court system is in a state of crisis, with more than 10 percent of Federal judgeships sitting vacant. 

If the Senate maintains the confirmation pace set during the last 

2 years, the result will be a Federal judicial system stressed to the 

breaking point, with litigants waiting longer and longer for their 

day in court. I urge the Senate to act without delay on all outstanding judicial nominations. 

As always, I look forward to working with you to address these 

challenges and to advance our shared priorities, and I would be 

more than glad to respond to any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Attorney General Holder appears as 

a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you very much, Attorney General. 

As you know, this Committee favorably reported S. 193, the USA 

PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act in March with a bipartisan 

vote. You have previously said you think the bill strikes an appropriate balance, that it did not pose operational concerns for the Department. Would you agree that this bill is the product of careful 

negotiations between the Department of Justice, the intelligence 

community, and this Committee? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I would agree. And as I indicated 

in my opening statement, I think it is really critical that that bill 

become law as quickly as possible. We do not want to have the uncertainty that we have had over the recent past where we have had 

to come back for extensions of the PATRIOT Act that do not last 

long enough. We look for a reauthorization for a substantial enough 

period in order to provide certainty and predictability for the people who will have to enforce those very important provisions of the 

Act. 

Chairman LEAHY. Would 3 years be considered substantial? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Three years sounds substantial. I am 

interested in getting—— 

Chairman LEAHY. A lot better than 3 months. 

Attorney General HOLDER. A lot better than 3 months, and I am 

also trying to get to 60, I guess, in this body and I guess 217, 218, 

whatever it is in the other body. So whatever we can get to, to get 

to a substantial period would be appreciated. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. We talked before about the fact 

that American intellectual property is a major driver of our economy and job creation. At the same time, if you steal that intellectual property, it hurts us, but also we are finding more and more 

that when the intellectual property is stolen, it is actually financing major criminal enterprises. So I applaud the work you have 

7 

done in conjunction with Homeland Security to set as a priority IP 

enforcement, including reconstituting the IP Task Force within the 

Department. We know that the theft of intellectual property, especially by rogue websites, is something both Republicans and Democrats on this Committee have tried to stop. 

Can you work with us on this, because—and do you agree that 

this is a major problem? 

Attorney General HOLDER. This is a very, very substantial problem. 

Chairman LEAHY. I was concerned and I know Senator Franken 

has expressed his concern about recent reports that the Apple 

iPhone and the Google Android phone and other mobile applications may collect and store and track American consumers’ location 

information without their consent. It does raise privacy rights and 

security issues. 

Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that Federal prosecutors in New Jersey are investigating whether certain smart 

phone applications may violate Federal computer fraud laws because the applications obtain or transmit user information without 

the proper disclosure. 

I realize if you have got an on going criminal investigation you 

cannot talk about that, but can you tell us at least in general what 

steps the Department is taking on this issue? Senator Franken and 

others have raised this issue, and I am curious. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I guess I should first disclose that I 

am a satisfied owner of both an iPad and an iPhone. But having 

said that, I understand the Committee will be holding hearings in 

a couple of weeks with regard to this issue. It is something that 

we will follow and, on the basis of that and other things that we 

are looking at, determine if there is appropriate action that we can 

be taking. 

Chairman LEAHY. Some have suggested the important digital privacy protections we put in place with ECPA, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, may not apply to some or many of the 

mobile applications currently available. Will your Department work 

with us on the Committee on reform of ECPA? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, we certainly want to do that. We 

want to make sure that we strike an appropriate balance between 

the legitimate privacy interests that that bill seeks to protect and 

the law enforcement interests that we have in being able to obtain 

information in order to protect the American people and to enforce 

our Federal criminal laws. 

Chairman LEAHY. As you know, I have taken—and I realize I am 

switching to a number of different areas, but I know we are going 

to have a series of votes, so we may not get to a second round. But 

let us go to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I have expressed my concern that the trials of him and others are going to be conducted before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay and not before a 

Federal jury in American courtrooms. I express this because I have 

seen the hundreds of convictions in Federal courtrooms on terrorist 

issues. I have seen five or six before military tribunals. I have seen 

a very successful use of our Federal courtrooms, and you and I are 

both former prosecutors and are aware of that. 

8 

So I am going to ask you the same question that actually is the 

exact same question I asked Attorney General Mukasey in 2008. As 

our chief law enforcement officer, what has been done to ensure 

that the victims of 9/11 are treated with respect and dignity? And 

what accommodations are being made to protect their rights given 

the decision to proceed before a military tribunal in Guantanamo? 

The reason I asked the former Attorney General this, I wanted to 

make sure there is going to be transparency and access to all aspects of the trials there would be if it was in a Federal court in 

the United States. 

Attorney General HOLDER. The Department of Defense will take 

the lead in managing those proceedings. I think, however, that 

there will be a sensitivity to the needs or the wants of people who 

are victims of 9/11, relatives of victims of 9/11. Transparency I 

think will be something that will be a touchstone. The ability for 

members in that community to be able to observe the proceedings 

is something that I think is paramount. So as I said, I think that 

working with the Department of Defense we can ensure that those 

proceedings are held in an appropriate way. 

Chairman LEAHY. You know, we worked very hard—in fact, I 

helped put together the procedure that we could do it during one 

of our major terrorist activities here in the United States, the Timothy McVeigh bombing of Oklahoma City. I worked very closely 

with the Department of Justice then and others so that the victims 

were able to observe the trial, even though it was from a different 

location, and I thought that was very, very important that they be 

allowed to. 

Lastly, I talked about the Leahy-Grassley Fraud Enforcement 

and Recovery Act, one of the first bills the President signed into 

law. In the coming weeks, Senator Grassley and I plan to introduce 

a new bill to build on the success of the Fraud Enforcement and 

Recovery Act by reinvesting a small part of the penalties collected 

back into more fraud investigation and prosecution. 

Do you agree that if we can do this, we can not only deter conduct which hurts Americans, but we can pay for it at the same 

time? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I totally agree. The ability that 

we have to deter criminals in that area to protect the American 

people from fraudsters I think is almost directly related to the 

funds that we have, the number of people whom we can deploy. We 

have a proven record certainly over the last 2 years, and even before that, which shows that we are capable of doing great things 

if we have the resources. And to the extent that you and Senator 

Grassley can help us in that regard, I think that would be much 

appreciated. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

I will yield to Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. You heard my opening statement about the 

ATF so I am not going to repeat that. But on March 9, 2011, 1 

month after your Department’s first denial of allegations that I 

have described, your Deputy Attorney General issued a directive 

stating this, and I would like to have you listen to this quote, and 

then I have got questions around this quote because there is something ironic about it. ‘‘We should not design or conduct undercover 

9 

operations which include guns crossing the border. If we have 

knowledge that guns are about to cross the border, we must take 

immediate actions to stop the firearms from crossing the border, 

even if that prematurely terminates or otherwise jeopardizes an investigation.’’ 

So I have three short questions here. I am going to state them 

all at once because they kind of go together. If the ATF, as the 

agency keeps telling us, did not knowingly allow guns into the 

hands of traffickers, then why was that directive even necessary? 

Why issue a memo telling people to stop doing something unless 

you think maybe they had been doing it? Doesn’t that memo show 

that there was enough substance to what the whistleblower allegations were to me and even on television that the policy needed to 

be clarified? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, the memo was issued because 

the allegations had been raised, and I take those allegations seriously. It is why I sent the material to the Inspector General for an 

inspection. 

The possibility that that happened was sufficient, I thought, to 

have clarification sent to the field that we should never allow guns 

in an uncontrolled fashion to cross the border or actually to leave 

any investigation in an uncontrolled way. And that was the purpose of the memo. I frankly do not know. That is what the investigation I think will tell us. As I said, it is something that we take 

very seriously, and I think the proof of that is the fact that I issued 

that memo—or the Deputy Attorney General issued that memo, 

and in addition to that, we have referred the matter to the Inspector General for inspection. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, do you believe that that memo is consistent with all the previous Justice Department policies? Or does 

it represent a change in policy? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not think it represents a change 

in policy, but I certainly wanted to make sure that people in the 

field understood that that is, in fact, the policy; and to the extent 

that there was any confusion, I wanted to make sure that there 

was none, that that is, in fact, the policy of the Department of Justice. It is the policy that I expect to be enforced. 

Senator GRASSLEY. One more series of questions on this point 

and then I will go on. Does this policy only affect guns that law 

enforcement actually knows will go to Mexico? What about guns 

that are likely to go to bandits operating near the border, like those 

captured at Agent Terry’s murder scene? What about guns that are 

likely to go to other criminals operating in border towns on this 

side of the border? Should agents let those guns go even if they 

have a chance to intercept them earlier? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is a good question, Senator, and, 

no, as I just indicated, my view is and the policy of the Department 

is that guns should not be allowed to travel in that uncontrolled 

fashion, whether they are crossing the border or this happens within the confines of the United States. Uncontrolled distribution of 

guns connected to any kind of investigation that we are doing is 

something that is not consistent with the policies that I want followed in the Department of Justice. 

10 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. I have a chart that has been prepared— 

and all the members have it, and I assume that the Attorney General has it—by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in 

March of this year. It shows 1,318 weapons purchased by 15 suspects after they had been identified as targets of an investigation. 

All 15 targets were later indicted on related charges. However, the 

indictments came only after Agent Brian Terry was killed, and two 

guns from this case were found at the scene of the murder. 

I would ask unanimous consent to put that in the record. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. 

[The chart appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. The Justice Department cannot account for 

the current location of these 1,318 weapons. Is that right? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Senator, this is the first time I have 

seen this chart. I am not in a position at this point to answer that 

question. We can certainly look at the chart and get back to you. 

But I do not know. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Let me ask you this question, though, 

even though you have not seen the chart. If the agents had been 

allowed to intervene sooner, couldn’t they have prevented these 

1,318 guns from getting into the hands of criminals? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, again, as I said, it is the policy 

of the Department not to allow guns to get into the hands of criminals irrespective of the border. Now, if it means they got into the 

hands of criminals and were then arrested immediately thereafter 

and there was a prevention of the use of the weapon by the criminal, that is one thing. If they were simply transmitted to a criminal 

and then they were lost track of, that is something that is not acceptable. 

As I said, I would have to look at these numbers and the cases 

to be able to answer the question in a more intelligent fashion. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, that is three questions, and I would appreciate an answer in writing. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. Last week, it was reported that the Justice 

Department had notified a former Department attorney, Thomas 

Tamm, that it was no longer investigating him for leaking classified information to the New York Times. This announcement surprised many because Tamm publicly admitted he revealed classified information in a series of phone calls with reporters at the 

New York Times. This information ultimately was printed and revealed the existence of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. 

Attorney General Holder, you have stated publicly that, ‘‘To the 

extent that we can find anybody who was involved in breaking the 

law, they will be held accountable.’’ Did you personally sign off on 

the decision not to prosecute Mr. Tamm? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, I did not. The Tamm declination 

was done on the merits by career professionals within the Department of Justice. These kinds of declinations happen all the time 

without the involvement of me, the Deputy Attorney General, even 

the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Can I ask one last question? My time is up. 

11 

Chairman LEAHY. Go ahead. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Why would the Department fail to prosecute 

someone who admits knowingly revealing classified information? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, there are a variety of reasons 

why a case might be declined. I cannot get into the specifics of any 

particular case. That is generally not the policy of the Department. 

I will note that when it comes to cases that involve national security, sometimes there is a balancing that has to be done—and I am 

not talking about the Tamm case specifically now, but sometimes 

there has to be a balancing that is done between what our national 

security interests are and what might be gained by prosecuting a 

particular individual. 

But I can say that with regard to this matter, the decision was 

made on the merits by career professionals without any notion of 

a double standard. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Then let me give you my judgment of it, and 

I will end. It just seems simply that when somebody admits that 

they broke the law in something as closely related to national security as that program was, it just seems to me that it sends a very, 

very bad signal that leaking is OK and you are not going to get 

prosecuted for it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Kohl. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General Holder, before I turn to my questions, I would 

like to thank you for the personal attention you devoted to my concerns about a change in DEA policy that resulted in nursing home 

residents not being able to access pain medication in emergency situations. Using the legislative guidance you provided, we are working on a bill and plan to introduce it soon, and I look forward to 

continuing to work with you on this important issue. 

Mr. Attorney General, as we know, everybody all across the 

country is hugely upset by the rising gas prices which are now surpassing $4 a gallon in many States, including Wisconsin, and have 

nearly doubled in 2 years. While we know that the rise in gas 

prices has many causes, one important cause is the actions of the 

OPEC oil cartel which limits supply in order to maintain a high 

price. 

If the nations of OPEC were private companies, such conduct 

would be nothing more than naked price fixing, illegal under the 

most fundamental principles of antitrust law. That is why I have 

introduced my NOPEC legislation, designed to make nations that 

participate in OPEC price fixing liable under U.S. antitrust law. 

This bipartisan legislation passed the Senate with 70 votes in 2007 

and last month passed the Judiciary Committee 14–1. 

Now, I recognize that I have proposed my bill now for many 

years, but does not the fact that gas prices are now over $4 a gallon make my bill more necessary than ever? Do you agree with me 

that the passage of this bill would give the Justice Department an 

important tool to combat price-fixing activity of the OPEC cartel? 

Why should OPEC be treated differently than any other price-fixing cartel that the Justice Department has taken action against 

under antitrust laws? 

12 

Attorney General HOLDER. We are always eager to work with 

Congress to try to protect the American consumers. We have started a task force to look at this whole question of gas prices to see 

if there has been inappropriate market manipulation. Market 

forces are at work, but we are looking to see if, in fact, there are 

things that were done inappropriately. 

With regard to the bill that has been introduced and that you are 

supporting, we would certainly want to look at the bill, and I do 

not think the administration has taken a position on that. But I 

think we want to do all the things that we possibly can in conjunction with the members of this Committee and with Congress to try 

to protect the American consumers. 

Senator KOHL. Well, I appreciate your answer, and, you know, 

we understand the sensitivity and the politics of the issue. But 

OPEC—I think there are 13 nations of OPEC—as you know, they 

get together several times a year and limit supply. This is a violation of antitrust law, and I am sure you are familiar with that, and 

you know that. And that is the basis of our legislation. It is nothing 

more complicated than that. 

Can you give us a more definitive answer as to whether or not 

you would support a bill that would make it illegal for nations to 

get together and limit supply? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, again, I am not aware of an administration position here, but I think among the things that we 

would have to consider would be the foreign policy consequences of 

such a bill, what the impact of the passage of such a bill or any 

enforcement action taken by the Department of Justice if that bill 

were passed, what the foreign policy implications would be. And I 

do not mean to in any way indicate that your concern and the remedy that you are advancing to deal with that concern is something 

that should not be taken seriously, and it may, in fact, be something that the administration could support. I just am not aware 

of an administration position at this point. I would bet that we 

would want to hear from Secretary Clinton, among other people, 

with regard to what position the administration would take. 

Senator KOHL. Now, passage of this bill would not require the 

administration to take any action at all. If the administration determines that bringing an antitrust enforcement action under 

NOPEC would risk harming our foreign relations, then it could 

simply decide not to bring such an action. All our bill does is give 

the Justice Department a tool to use at its discretion and after consultation with other parts of the administration. So on the face of 

it, what is wrong with that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I am always looking for more 

enforcement tools, I will tell you that. And I am not a person or 

an Attorney General who will say no to a concern to a Senator with 

whom I have worked a great deal, and I think successfully in a 

number of areas, to say no to you. My only concern would be that 

I have other people who serve with me in the Cabinet. I have got 

a boss who I have to answer to in the executive branch. And I 

would not want to get too far out there and indicate where we 

stand with regard to this legislation. 

13 

But I will say that it is certainly something that I will raise, we 

will talk about, and I will get back to you as quickly as I can with 

regard to where we stand on that. 

Senator KOHL. All right. Turning to another issue, we are all 

proud of the extraordinary efforts undertaken to finally bring 

Osama bin Laden to justice, and, of course, we congratulate all of 

those involved. 

Attorney General Holder, we all appreciate that the Justice Department’s highest priority has been and will remain the steadfast 

and vigilant protection of national security. We know that the entire national security operation is working tirelessly around the 

clock to keep Americans safe, but after Sunday’s dramatic events 

and the demise of bin Laden, we are living in a different environment today. CIA Director Panetta has warned that terrorists, and 

I quote, ‘‘will almost certainly attempt to avenge bin Laden’s 

death.’’ 

What have you done to step up your counterterrorism efforts? 

Have you considered whether the Department needs to make any 

changes or adjustments, major or more nuanced or subtle, to your 

counterterrorism strategy and investigations? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that is actually an excellent 

point, Senator, and one of the concerns that we have, as I indicated 

in my opening remarks, is what are we looking at in the short term 

if there are going to be retaliatory attempts or attacks as a result 

of bin Laden’s death. 

I had a conference call with all of the United States Attorneys, 

I believe on Tuesday—maybe on Monday—going through with 

them steps that we wanted them to take, making sure that they 

as well as all the Federal investigative agencies were on their toes 

and being mindful of the fact that this is a difficult time for this 

Nation after the death of bin Laden. And so I think that we will 

ultimately be more safe as a result of his death, but in the short 

term I think we have some serious concerns that we have to be 

ready to address. 

Senator KOHL. My last question, Mr. Attorney General. The 

number one concern that I have heard from small rural police and 

sheriff departments in my State, and I am sure this is also the case 

in other States, is about maintaining their access to the Regional 

Information-Sharing Systems Program, otherwise known as RISS. 

RISS is a nationwide program that supports State, local, and tribal 

law enforcement with information-sharing services, equipment 

sharing, training, and investigative and analytical support. This is 

one of the few federally funded programs that is able to reach 

small rural law enforcement agencies. This concern is not unique 

to my State. Law enforcement officers all across the country rely 

on the vital service that this program provides to keep their communities safe. 

However, in his budget request, the President called for RISS to 

be funded at $18 million, which is a cut of nearly 60 percent from 

last year. Why has the administration requested us to severely cut 

a program that offers small rural agencies a low-cost solution to 

their investigative and communications needs that help them to 

keep our communities safe? A 60-percent cut. 

14 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, we are doing what we can given 

the budget situation that we face, and we have had to make some 

difficult choices. To the extent that we can support this program, 

which I think you are right, has worked effectively in the past, we 

will continue to do so. We had to make, as I said, some tough budgetary decisions, and to the extent that this program is cut, we will 

try to find other ways in which we can support our State and local 

and tribal law enforcement partners who have participated in this 

program. 

It is, as I said, regrettable that we have had to make these tough 

decisions. We have, however, tried to make sure that we have 

maintained an overall support for our State, local, and tribal partners, and there are a whole host of other things that we do in the 

Department, both budgetary and programmatic, to support them. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you. I would like to continue to lobby you 

on restoring some of that cut. Thank you so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General Holder, I have got a number of questions I will 

just raise with you that I care about deeply. First, I would just respond to your comment about money and resources being the critical thing in prosecuting fraud. I do not believe that is the critical 

thing. I think it is leadership from the top. I believe that we are 

going to be in a tight budget situation. You are not going to receive 

extra money. And every business that I know of is reviewing their 

entire structure, eliminating unproductive middle-level management and putting people in the courtroom to prosecute cases. I suggest that you need to do an aggressive job in that to get the taxpayers the kind of return that they are entitled to. 

And with regard to the Tamm case and the New York Times, I 

would like for you to give us all the information that you feel like 

you can give us concerning the failure to prosecute that case. I 

know the New York Times has been a fan of your terrorism policy 

and the President’s terrorism policy. I am not in agreement with 

that, so it causes me concern that what appears to be an admission 

of wrongdoing is not prosecuted. 

With regard to the terrorist situation, I have asked you previously and I have asked Director Mueller about how to handle 

people who are arrested who are terrorists, and he said the decision was above his pay grade, Director Mueller said. I guess it is 

not above yours. But essentially I want to ask, Is it still the policy 

of the Department of Justice that a terrorist arrested would presume to be tried in civilian court? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think what we will do, we will make 

a determination on a case-by-case basis, as I did on the same day 

that I announced that the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed matter was 

going to go into the civilian courts. I sent a number of cases to the 

military commissions, and we will continue to do that. 

I do think—— 

Senator SESSIONS. With a presumption that it would go into civilian court. That was the policy that the committee you put together 

recommended—unwisely, I think. 

15 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, that is what the President indicated in his Archives speech, but it does not necessarily mean that 

we are not going to make use of, as I have made use of, the military commissions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, isn’t it a fact, if you are presumptively 

to try an individual who is a terrorist planning or plotting or attempting an attack on the United States, that if you presumptively 

are going to move them into civilian court, they are entitled to Miranda warnings within a few minutes of arrest, they are entitled 

to the appointment of a lawyer, entitled to be brought publicly before a civilian magistrate, entitled to pre-trial discovery, entitled to 

a speedy trial? And isn’t that—can that not be a detriment to interrogating that individual over a period of time and obtaining information that could protect Americans from further attack? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think if one looks at the way 

in which the civilian system has worked in the past, we have certainly had an ability to convict hundreds of terrorists. We have gotten actionable intelligence from people who were tried ultimately 

in the civilian system. We have modified how Miranda should be 

viewed. Guidelines have gone out to the field with regard to—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Miranda still has to be given within a 

matter of hours of arrest, at least. And, frankly, I am not sure 

what legal authority you have to delay it as long as Director 

Mueller indicated they may delay it. I do not think there is any 

court that has held that, but regardless of that, you would have to 

provide Miranda within a short period of time and appoint a lawyer, bring them before a court; therefore, revealing the fact that a 

terrorist may be arrested, allowing other terrorists to be knowledgeable of that and to perhaps escape. 

There are many complications that arise from treating these 

cases as a normal civilian case, are there not? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, there are, but let me share one 

concrete example with you with regard to the Miranda issue. With 

regard to the Shahzad case, the case that was successfully concluded in the civilian system, he pled guilty. He is now serving an 

extended period of time in jail. The U.S. Attorney and I talked on 

the evening that he was apprehended and made a decision that we 

would not give him Miranda warnings at all, at all, and—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Other than you made a decision—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Could he finish the answer? I think he is entitled to finish his answer. 

Senator SESSIONS. OK. 

Attorney General HOLDER. And the decision was made so that we 

could get whatever intelligence that we could get from him while 

at the same time deciding that we would simply make the case 

without any statements from him. We successfully gathered significant intelligence from him, and we successfully concluded the civilian trial. It was a civilian matter; it was not a trial. A civilian matter. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Attorney General, the problem is that 

there may be other people involved in this case, not just that individual, other people planning to attack American citizens and kill 

them that very moment. To put yourself in a situation where you 

are making a decision solely on whether you think you have 

16 

enough evidence to convict him even if he makes an admission I 

think is a very problematic policy. So I—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, actually—— 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. Guess my question to you fundamentally is—every law enforcement officer involved out there, 

every military person involved out there, needs to know what the 

policy is. So is the policy that they would be treated as—presumptively be tried in civilian court? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, as I said, the Archives speech 

that the President made was that there is a presumption—it is not 

an irrebuttable presumption—that cases go to the civilian court. 

And with regard to the Miranda issue, I think we have demonstrated hundreds of times—hundreds of times—that we can get 

actionable intelligence while at the same time prosecuting and putting people in jail for really extended periods of time. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I do not think it can be denied that individuals can be held who are attempting to attack the United States 

in military custody and they can be detained without trial as prisoners of war, they can be interrogated over a period of months or 

years, without Miranda warning and without lawyers. And if you 

decide at some point to try them in civilian court, they can then 

be tried in civilian court. It makes no sense to me whatsoever that 

the presumption would be anything other than a terrorist would be 

tried in military commissions, and it gives you the option sometime 

later, if you choose, to try them in the civilian court. 

With regard to the Defense of Marriage Act—my time is about 

up. I would just conclude on that to say I really—well, I want to 

ask you one question briefly. With regard to the fact that 11 circuits have held that the sexual orientation issue is to be decided 

based on a rational basis, whether those laws meet a rational basis 

test, when you have now decided that with regard to DOMA it requires a higher scrutiny—a strict scrutiny, apparently—are you 

taking the position that every one of those cases involving other 

different aspects of sexual orientation also should be judged by the 

higher strict scrutiny standard? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Many of those cases came before some 

significant events in the Supreme Court, certainly the Court decision that held that criminalizing homosexual conduct was unconstitutional. I mean, if you look from that point on, there have been 

a number of changes both in what the Court has said but also with 

regard to how our society has looked at certain things that Congress has done. Congress has repealed the military’s ‘‘Don’t ask, 

don’t tell’’ policy. There have been lower courts that have held that 

DOMA—— 

Senator SESSIONS. What has that got to do with the Constitution 

and the right and the standard? 

Attorney General HOLDER. As I was going to say, there are lower 

courts that have held that DOMA itself is unconstitutional. Given 

the history of discrimination that gay people have faced and given 

all the other things that I have just mentioned, given the fact that 

we were in a circuit that had not addressed this question, the determination that I made, after consulting with my colleagues in the 

Department of Justice, was that the heightened scrutiny level of inVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:04 May 08, 2012 Jkt 073839 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\73839.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
17 

spection was appropriate. I made that recommendation to the 

President, and he agreed. 

Senator SESSIONS. And do you—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Sessions, I think we are going to have 

to move on because we are going to have votes. I want to make 

sure—but if you have another comment you wanted to make. 

Senator SESSIONS. Just that I believe that was a failure of duty 

to defend the lawfully passed statutes of the United States. I believe more courts have upheld it than not. And I do believe that 

you had a responsibility to defend that law as Attorney General, 

regardless of whether or not you liked it, regardless of whether or 

not you would have voted for it, and the President had the same 

duty. And I think you violated that duty, and I am very disappointed in that fact. 

Chairman LEAHY. And we will now go to Senator Schumer. I 

would note that I have been here with six Presidents, Republicans 

and Democrats; I have seen many instances where Presidents and 

administrations had decided not to defend a statute, both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. And my position has 

been consistent on every one of those times that that is a judgment 

call that the executive branch—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, it is not a political judgment call, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. I have said—— 

Senator SESSIONS. I think—— 

Chairman LEAHY [continuing]. Even when some have criticized 

Republican Presidents saying it was a political judgment call, I 

have said that that is a judgment call the executive branch should 

carry. 

Senator Schumer. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have four questions, so I would like to try to get through them 

all. The first relates to James Cole, Deputy Attorney General. He 

received a recess appointment in December, but he still has not received his official appointment. Given the fast-moving pace of intelligence and investigations in terrorism—we now have the death of 

Osama bin Laden—and information that was gleaned from his 

compound, isn’t it important, even more important now that we get 

him confirmed? Because as a recess appointment, he cannot do everything that he could do as a confirmed Deputy Attorney General. 

Is that correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, he can do just about everything, 

but, Senator, the point you make is a good one. It is a perfect one 

given the situation that we find ourselves in after the bin Laden 

death, for instance, the number of FISAs that we will be signing. 

Senator SCHUMER. Exactly. 

Attorney General HOLDER. We need to have all of the people in 

the Department who can sign—there are only three of us in the 

Department of Justice who can sign FISAs: me, the Deputy Attorney General, and the head of the National Security Division. We 

need to have all those positions filled. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. Can he sign FISAs as a recess appointment? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, he can. 

18 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. So the problem is just that he is looking 

at an end of the term in December, and that given everything that 

is going on, it is not a very good idea. 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is not at all. We need to have our 

team in place, and we need to have some degree of—— 

Senator SCHUMER. And so it is just there is a heightened need 

for him now, given all the new work that is going to come forward, 

including more FISAs and many other types of things that have to 

happen. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Absolutely. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. The second question is a little bit related 

to that. I do not want you to get into specifics here. Obviously, we 

congratulate the administration and all of you on capturing bin 

Laden and killing him. But we also learned that there is a treasure 

trove of intelligence material found in his compound. That is sort 

of great, and a gold mine, I guess, for us. I do not want you to get 

into specifics, but can you tell me whether the FBI is coordinating 

with the State Department and Homeland Security to add names 

to the terrorist watchlist, revoke the visas of anyone who is found 

in the material confiscated in the bin Laden residence, what is happening there, and has anyone already been—you do not have to 

give names, but already been added to watchlists and had visa revocations because of that intelligence? 

Attorney General HOLDER. The material that was seized from 

that residence is being reviewed by an interagency team. CIA, Justice, other intelligence agencies, other law enforcement agencies 

are all contributing people and machines to go through that material. 

As we glean information from that material, we will make appropriate decisions with regard to who might be added to the terrorist 

watchlist, the no-fly list, all those things. 

Senator SCHUMER. You expect you probably will add people as a 

result of what you found? 

Attorney General HOLDER. My guess would be that we probably 

will. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. Let me go to other subjects here: 9/11 

health. You know this is an issue of great importance to New York, 

the implementation of the Zadroga bill, signed by the President 

January 2nd, sent you a letter thereafter asking that the Victims 

Compensation Fund be up and running by Memorial Day to get the 

heroes the money they so desperately need to pay for their medical 

bills and other illness-related expenses. 

Apparently under the language of the bill as passed by the 

House, it is not clear that DOJ could use the appropriated funds 

to administer the program. We have now fixed this in the latest 

continuing resolution, which means that DOJ will have the funding 

to administer the program starting in the new fiscal year. But it 

is May 4th, and DOJ has not picked a special master. Can you 

commit to picking a special master within the month? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I would say that we will try to do this 

as quickly as we can, as soon as we can. I do not think that—we 

have identified a number of candidates. I think we—— 

Senator SCHUMER. Is it likely you will have it within the month? 

19 

Attorney General HOLDER. I would hope that within a few weeks 

we should have somebody. 

Senator SCHUMER. That is less than a month. 

Attorney General HOLDER. It could be slightly more. But I think 

we will have somebody very soon. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. I am hopeful it will be within a month, 

and that is a real possibility, right, or likelihood? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We will work to try to—I will keep 

your words in my mind as we are—— 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. Thank you. All right. After the special 

master is picked, it is then going to take time to draft and finalize 

the regulations, get the physical infrastructure for the VCF running. When can I tell the heroes the VCF will be up and running? 

And can I get your assurance you will do everything possible to 

have it up and running by October 1, 2011? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, our hope is to try to do a lot of— 

being mindful of the fact that we can only expend funds once the 

fiscal year begins, I think there are other things that we can do in 

anticipation of the start of the fiscal year so that on October 1, with 

the person who would be named and would be ready to go, we can 

be up and running on that day. 

Senator SCHUMER. Good. That is the goal—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. That I can pledge to you. 

Senator SCHUMER. Great. And there is a lot of anxiety—that is 

very good. There is a lot of anxiety about that because we have not 

picked anyone yet and because a lot has to be done ahead of time. 

But, OK, as long as we will be ready to go on October 1st with a 

person in place, with the infrastructure in place and up and running, that is very good news. 

I have time for one more, and I would like to ask you about— 

well, I would have liked to have asked you about—here it is: synthetic stimulants. On April 1st, I sent a letter to you and DEA Administrator Leonhart urging you to use emergency scheduling authority to ban MDPV and mephedrone, two harmful compounds in 

substances known as ‘‘bath salts.’’ As you know, I have been very 

active in trying to make sure that these are banned. We have introduced bipartisan legislation that would permanently ban these substances. However, I hope DEA will move forward with emergency 

scheduling of these compounds to stop the sale of these harmful 

drugs. 

At a recent hearing before the Caucus on International Narcotics 

Control, DEA indicated it will publish a notice of intent to do so. 

Can you confirm that and provide a more specific timeline for implementing such a ban? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, it is our intention to move on 

that as quickly as we can. I have talked to Michele Leonhart about 

this. I do not know what the regulations—what the administrative 

timeframes are that we have to go through, but we will try to do 

this as fast as we can. We agree with you—— 

Senator SCHUMER. Your intent is to ban them regulatorily if you 

can? 

Attorney General HOLDER. If we can. 

Senator SCHUMER. And I believe you can. I think that is pretty 

clear. 

20 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that we can. But we will work 

with DEA and with the Congress if we need additional tools in 

order to do that. But the harm that you have identified, the potential harm, I think is one that is worthy of our attention and worthy 

of our action. 

Senator SCHUMER. Great. Thank you, and I look forward to having you do that as quickly as possible. Thanks. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Kyl. 

Senator KYL. Thank you. 

Mr. Attorney General, first I want to express my appreciation 

and congratulations for an action that the Southern District of New 

York U.S. Attorney took in connection with activities that your office was involved in relating to arrests for illegal Internet gambling, poker activities. The release, dated April 15th, I will just 

read for those who are not familiar with it: ‘‘Manhattan U.S. Attorney charges principals of three largest Internet gambling companies with bank fraud, illegal gambling offenses, and laundering billions in illegal gambling proceeds.’’ And the release has the specifics of the individuals involved, the entities involved, and the potential penalties. 

The thing that strikes me with this is, of course, it is very difficult to engage in these activities and get money back into the 

United States because it is all illegal and, therefore, initiated from 

outside the U.S. But they are able to do it through the Internet 

into the United States. It is pretty difficult to do that without conspiracy to commit bank fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and 

so on. So you are able to charge those other offenses here. But, interestingly, unfortunately, the laws that relate to Internet gambling itself only have a maximum 5 years in prison and $250,000 

penalty. And when you add up all these other things, there is probably an adequate penalty potentially involved. 

My question to you is this: whether you are prepared today to 

agree with me that we probably need a stronger penalty, both monetary and potential jail time, for the illegal gambling activity aspect of this; and in any event, whether you would work with us to 

see whether there are some changes that would be necessary to enhance your office’s ability to enforce these important laws. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I would be glad to work with the 

Committee and with you, Senator Kyl, in that regard. We are serious about the enforcement measures, processes and measures that 

we are taking with regard to Internet gambling. I think an example of that is what happened in the Southern District of New York, 

and it is consistent with that press release that you mentioned. 

To the extent that we need to talk about enhanced penalties for 

it gambling itself, I think that is something we would be more than 

glad to engage with you on. 

Senator KYL. Well, I will be corresponding with your office, and 

I really would appreciate your attention to this. This is an important activity, particularly as it relates to kids nowadays. It is ubiquitous. It is difficult to enforce. But you have got some very, very 

capable people who devote time and attention to this, and it is, I 

think, an important activity, and I appreciate that. 

21 

I want to visit for a minute about illegal immigration. I have 

talked to you on numerous occasions about the Department of Justice’s role in something called Operation Streamline. It is just the 

code name for in many instances prosecuting and sending to jail for 

maybe 2 weeks, potentially up to 60 days for repeat offenders, people who cross the border illegally. That operation, which involves 

the Office of the Courts, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security, essentially, has dramatically reduced illegal immigration in the Yuma Sector and in the Del Rio 

Sector of the border. But in the Tucson Sector, where over half of 

all of the illegal immigrants continue to come across the border, we 

do not have an adequate enforcement. 

I have asked you repeatedly for the numbers. I finally got the 

numbers through the late Judge John Roll, one of the unfortunate 

victims of the January 8th shooting in Tucson. He had been working with us on this, and he obtained from the Office of the Courts 

statistics on what it would cost to implement this. Part of it is 

DOJ, part of it is Office of the Courts, part of it is DHS. 

I gave a memo to the Secretary of Homeland Security and asked 

her in February to give that to you. Do you recall receiving that 

memo that describes all of these statistics that Judge Roll put together for us? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure about that. We actually 

spoke to—I had people in my office speak to Judge Roll about this. 

I am not sure I remember that memo, though. 

Senator KYL. Would you do this for me, please—and I have asked 

for this in the past, and I have not gotten it, so I am getting frustrated. Would you have your folks take a look at this? I will give 

you another copy of the memorandum right after the hearing here. 

It is just a summary of what Judge Roll determined would be the 

rough estimate of costs for a doubling or a tripling of the prosecutions. What we got back on the one occasion you did respond was 

not responsive. We are not suggesting that on day one there be a 

100-percent prosecution of everybody who comes across the border. 

The way it was done in Yuma with only—and I have forgotten 

the exact numbers, but they only had like 60 or 70 beds available. 

So they started with small segments of the border, 2 or 3 miles, 

and as people were arrested in those areas, they were prosecuted. 

When it became clear to the coyotes who were pushing them across 

the border that if you crossed in that segment of the border, you 

got sent to jail, of course, they did not want to get sent to jail and 

they stopped crossing there. And those 60 or 70 beds was adequate 

to provide for that. 

Over the course of several months, those miles were expanded 

until finally the entire segment of the border called the Yuma Sector was covered, and they never needed to have more than that 

number of beds. 

Now, what you do not want to do is suggest to the bad guys exactly how you are running the operation, but the bottom line is you 

do not need to have all of the expenses from day one that it would 

take to prosecute everybody that crosses in a part of the border. 

What I am asking you to do is look at the way that it was implemented in the Yuma Sector and agree with us that at a relatively 

small cost, considering all the other things we are doing in terms 

22 

of fencing and Border Patrol and all the rest of it, that implementing this program of prosecutions provides an extraordinarily 

effective deterrent and that you would commit to us that, as far as 

the Department of Justice is concerned, you would work to implement that program in the Tucson Sector, which remains, as I said, 

the one area that over half of all of the illegal immigration is in. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, you are right, we have had a 

number of conversations about this, and as I have indicated then— 

and I was sincere in what I said—I think that the Streamline concept is a good one. The problem I think that we have is what are 

the downstream impacts, and what you are saying about phasing 

it in as opposed to doing something at 100 percent on day one is, 

I think, an idea that perhaps we should explore. 

There are downstream consequences when it comes to detention 

facilities. Courtrooms—Judge Roll, I remember him talking about 

that, the number of judges, prosecutors we would need. But, again, 

I think the concept—the proof is in the pudding. I think that the 

concept is a sound one, and I am kind of intrigued by the notion 

of a phase-in. These are tough budgetary times, so that is another 

thing that we have now that we did not have when I started as 

Attorney General. 

Senator KYL. If I could, Mr. Chairman, just for 20 seconds here, 

have your indulgence. These are tough budgetary times, so you are 

looking for the most cost efficient ways to create a deterrent for 

people crossing. And you have got personnel, you have got hightech equipment, you have got expensive fences, and you also send 

people down to Mexico City on the airplane rather than just sending them back across the border, so it is not easy for them to cross. 

A lot of techniques. This is an effective, efficient technique, I think. 

Could you tell me—and this will be my last point. Could you tell 

me who in your office I could communicate with personally about 

this so that I have got a real human being that I can have a conversation with? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I have got my chief of staff sitting right behind me, and he is glad I am going to be giving his 

name up, but you can get in touch with him. His name is Gary 

Grindler. 

Senator KYL. All right. 

Attorney General HOLDER. If he is not the right person, he can 

get the appropriate person within the Department of Justice for 

you to speak to. 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. Gary, I will be 

giving you a call. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

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

Thank you for being here, Attorney General. I know some of the 

earlier questions on the terrorism policy were critical, and that debate has its place, but I just wanted to thank you and Director Panetta and all of the team that have been working on this. Just from 

the heart here, I know we get in these hearing rooms, and you do 

not realize what this meant for regular people. I was in Minnesota 

when this hit, the news about Osama bin Laden’s death, and I 

talked to the mother of a man named Tom Burnett who was on 

23 

that plane over Pennsylvania, and he was one of the passengers 

that stood up and wrestled those hijackers. And as we all know, 

they perished on that Pennsylvania field, but that plane would 

have crashed, as we know, into either the Capitol or the White 

House. Or the family of Max Beilke, who was the last soldier out 

of Vietnam. He had also served in the Korean War. He went 

back—he did not have enough of it. He went back on the civilian 

side, helped design the TRICARE system from Alexandria, Minnesota, and he was sitting at his desk at the Pentagon and was 

killed when that plane crashed into the Pentagon. 

So those are the families that felt that every time they saw 

Osama bin Laden on TV that he was mocking them and he was 

mocking our country. So I want to thank you and the rest of the 

administration for the good work. 

My questions are focused on some domestic issues. Senator Schumer had raised the issue of the synthetic drugs, and what he did 

not mention was the hallucinogen issue with 2C–E. I have introduced a separate bill in addition to the bill I am on with Senator 

Schumer and Senator Grassley, but this one is focused on 2C–E 

hallucinogens. We lost a young man in Minnesota and a number 

of other ones were close to death. They just thought these were 

synthetic drugs. I do not know that they realized the effect of these 

drugs. And I just wondered if you have been seeing an increase in 

these synthetic drugs. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, we have seen an increase, and 

it is one of the reasons why I think Senator Schumer’s idea of 

doing something on an emergency basis makes a lot of sense. And 

to the extent that we can, we will, because we have seen an increase in their use. They have obviously a detrimental effect— 

maybe not obviously. They do have a detrimental effect on the people who use them, and I think that their increased use warrants 

our increased attention. So we are focusing on them. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, and we have these bills, which 

I hope you will help us with, to permanently ban them. 

Second, we have recently seen a number of high-profile incidents 

where hackers have broken into various businesses, computer systems like what happened with Sony. Senator Hatch and I are 

working on a cloud computing bill that we are soon to introduce 

that is focused specifically on cloud computing, but also a number 

of issues, but also on the hacking. And is the Department of Justice 

looking into these recent hacking incidences? And are you doing a 

review of the statutes to see how we can update them so that we 

are as sophisticated in our enforcement as these crooks that are 

breaking the law? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think the concern you raise is a 

good one. We have to try to stay ahead of the people who would 

perpetrate these crimes. What was sufficient law 6 months ago 

might not be sufficient now. What was good 5 years ago probably 

certainly is almost not sufficient now. And so we are in the process 

of looking at that and would like to work with you on potential enhancements that we think are appropriate. 

We are, in fact, looking—we have opened investigations with regard to those hacking situations that have gotten publicity over the 

last few weeks, the Sony incident among them. 

24 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

In your testimony, you mentioned the alarming—this is your 

written testimony—trend of increasing fatalities among our Nation’s law enforcement officers, and this troubles anyone, but as a 

former prosecutor, I will never forget the police funerals that I attended. Have you identified any causes for the increase in fatal violence against law enforcement? And what are some of the steps 

that we can take to combat this very serious problem? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Something that gives me a great deal 

of concern. We have seen about a 40-percent rise in the number of 

police officer deaths. This is at the same time that our homicide 

rate is going down pretty substantially and is at historic lows. We 

are pushing out a number of policies. We are making available bulletproof vests as quickly as we can to our State and local partners. 

And we make that conditioned on a mandatory wear policy that be 

adopted by our State and local partners. 

We also have something called the Valor Program that trains police officers on how to conduct themselves, how to deal with situations in which their lives might be threatened so they will know 

how to react when they are put in those situations. 

I also called a summit meeting about 3 weeks ago, 4 weeks ago 

in the Department where we brought together State and local leaders, police officers, and from police groups, as well as chiefs and 

sheriffs to talk about this problem, and out of that summit we have 

a working group that is trying to come up with ways in which we 

can try to keep our police officers, our sheriffs, safe. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. And then, finally, the prevalence of health care fraud continues to be a concern. Recently I saw 

that a Los Angeles woman pled guilty to participating in a Medicare fraud scheme that cost something like $6 million in Medicare 

money. You have provided information in your testimony about 

how DOJ has tried to crack down on health care fraud. You mentioned that the area has produced a record $4 billion in recoveries 

in fiscal year 2010. I actually sat in on the Homeland Security 

hearing on this and know that there have been some stepped-up 

efforts with the hot spots with health care fraud. 

Do you believe that we are starting to deter would-be fraudsters? 

And is there anything else we should be doing legislatively to assist 

you with this effort? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We are working certainly within the 

Department of Justice and with our partners at HHS. Secretary 

Sebelius and I have started this thing called the HEAT program, 

where we put up these task forces in those places where, as you 

correctly call them, we find hot spots of Medicare fraud. They have 

been, I think, particularly effective. 

One of the things, unfortunately, that we see is that when we become effective in one city, they move to another place or the techniques that are used in one city go to another place. And so we 

have to expand the use of these task forces. 

That is another area where I think we want to work with you 

to look at the laws that we have on the books to make sure that 

they are adequate to meet the challenges that we face. 

The huge amounts of money that are lost to fraud in the Medicare programs and Medicaid programs is just astounding and could 

25 

be used in obviously much better ways. And given the budgetary 

issues that we are facing, there are not only criminal concerns that 

I have, but there are budgetary fiscal ones that I have as well. And 

so I think that we in the executive branch should be working with 

you in the legislative branch to make sure that we have all the 

tools that we need. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. I am going to yield to Senator 

Hatch, but I should note that because of a matter on the floor I 

am going to have to leave, but Senator Franken is going to take 

over the gavel. Again, Attorney General, I appreciate not only your 

being here, but the fact that anytime I have ever called with questions for the Department, you have responded. I also compliment 

Ron Weich, who gets bugged by us all the time, and I appreciate 

his responses. 

Senator Hatch, I yield to you. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. 

General. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Good morning. 

Senator HATCH. I appreciate you being here. 

I do not expect an answer to this, but I hope that the Justice Department will not only look into the BCS, Bowl Championship Series, situation. It is a mess. It involves billions over years. The 

privileged conferences have tremendous advantages that are unfair 

for the unprivileged conferences. As much as 87 percent of the 

money goes to them. And I just hope that you will continue to follow up on that particular issue. It is an important one, I think. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, Senator, if I could just maybe 

very quickly, I do not disagree with you. You and I have talked 

about this issue, and I think I am free to say that we have sent 

a letter to the NCAA about this issue and will be following up. 

Senator HATCH. Well, I appreciate it because it is an important 

issue. If you look at the fiasco at the Fiesta Bowl and how that was 

handled, that gives you some idea of how royal these people think 

they are. And it just is not fair to the whole system. I think even 

BS States are realizing it is not fair. 

Now, General Holder, I naturally want to welcome you back to 

the Committee. I have another hearing going on right now in the 

Finance Committee, so my time is short. And if you can answer as 

close to yes or no, I would appreciate it. I may have additional 

written questions, but concise answers would help me here. 

You received a letter from me and 42 Senators regarding obscenity enforcement. This included half the members of this Committee 

on both sides of the aisle, and we are focusing on adult obscenity. 

We know you are at least trying to do something on child obscenity. But we are talking about adult obscenity as well, what is sometimes called ‘‘hard-core pornography.’’ Now, this is a separate category of material, and it is different from child pornography or 

child exploitation, which is very important to me, too. 

This material was toxic. It is illegal, and laws against it have not 

been enforced for a long time. In our letter, we urge you to study 

the information and research about the harms of such hard-core 

pornography that is available through resources such as the clearinghouse website pornographyharms.com. 

26 

Now, I do not expect that you personally did that, but did you 

at least assign someone to review the evidence collected there as 

we asked? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We have, as you know, conflated what 

was the Obscenity Task Force into the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, and at this point, since we have been in office, 

seven obscenity cases have been brought that involve only adult 

pornography. This is of the 150 cases that we have brought involving pornography in total, most of which involve child exploitation. 

But as I said, seven of those cases have involved adult pornography. 

Senator HATCH. OK. I raised the issue of obscenity enforcement 

in the confirmation hearing before this Committee for Lanny 

Breuer, who now heads the Department’s Criminal Division. In his 

answers to my written questions, Mr. Breuer wrote that, ‘‘I believe 

that sexually explicit material can be harmful to individuals, families, and communities.’’ I am sure you agree with that. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. 

Senator HATCH. The research I referred to earlier as well as the 

testimony of activists on the ground reveals a growing connection 

between hard-core pornography and sex trafficking. I think you 

would agree that there is such a connection. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I believe there is. 

Senator HATCH. OK. That research, including work by Dr. Sharon Cooper at the University of North Carolina, shows how hardcore adult pornography normalizes sexual harm to children. I think 

you would agree with that. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure, and that is one of the reasons 

why we are as vigilant as we are in bringing those kinds of cases. 

Senator HATCH. OK. Do you believe that hard-core pornography 

relates to domestic violence? 

Attorney General HOLDER. To be honest, I do not know about the 

research in that area. 

Senator HATCH. I can tell you it does, and it is a big problem in 

our society. 

Did you know that the American Psychiatric Association recently 

added to its Diagnostic Manual a disorder that includes pornography addiction? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I was not aware of that, but I have 

seen reports of that in some cases that I am familiar with. But I 

was not aware of the American Psychiatric Institute. 

Senator HATCH. Now, would you send us, be kind enough to have 

your people send us the seven cases, a description of the seven 

cases? Because I think you need to do a lot more. We are getting 

awash with this stuff, and it is just really terrible, as far as I am 

concerned. 

We received a response to the letter that many of us signed from 

Ron Weich, I think is the way you pronounce the name, who heads 

the Office of Legislative Affairs. It said that the Department has 

charged violations of the Federal obscenity statute, but when my 

staff discussed this last week with OLA staff, they could not say 

which of those involved adult material or were unrelated to child 

pornography or child exploitation. And that is one of the things 

that I am concerned about. So I just want you to look into it. It 

27 

means a lot to me, and I think it—I am sure it means a lot to you 

as well. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, we are trying to unpack those 

numbers. We have, as I said, the overall number, and we are trying 

to come up with a way in which we can determine which of those 

150 cases involve only adult matter. And as I said, at this point 

we have identified seven. 

Senator HATCH. OK. Well, I think that is important. It is a big 

deal to me. 

In about 2005, because the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section was doing so little to prosecute adult obscenity, in our view, 

anyway, the Department created the Obscenity Prosecution Task 

Force to focus specifically on that. Now, my understanding is you 

dismantled that task force as a separate entity and incorporated its 

work back into the very section that had produced so little in this 

area in the first place, at least in our view. Again, that looks to me 

like the Department simply does not give enough consideration to 

adult obscenity and may not consider it to be a big deal. Just 

please look into it for me, will you? 

Attorney General HOLDER. As I said, we have reincorporated 

them. It does not mean that we are turning our backs on that 

issue. As I looked at the numbers from 2005 to 2010 that the task 

force brought, our numbers say, about 15 cases. Since we have 

made that change, we have brought, as I said, seven. So I think 

that the process that we have in place, the organizational structure 

that we have in place is, I think, an effective one. But we are always looking to make it better. 

Senator HATCH. OK. And if you would have your folks send us 

how many prosecutors and personnel you have working on these 

cases, I would appreciate that. 

Let me just quickly shift gears, if I could just ask this one last 

question, Mr. Chairman, because I would like to change subjects 

here. 

Let me ask about one of the approximately 200 detainees in U.S. 

custody in Iraq. Now, this person is a Hezbollah terrorist named 

Ali Musa Daqduq. He was captured in Basra in March 2007 after 

planning and coordinating an attack on U.S. forces that killed five 

American soldiers and wounded three others. Now, he was captured on the battlefield in Iraq by military personnel. He is accused 

of clear violations of the law of war, and I believe really that he 

ought to be transferred to Guantanamo and prosecuted in a military commission. 

Is that what will happen? Or is the Department planning to 

prosecute him in Federal civilian court? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I have to tell you I am not familiar 

with that case. That is one that we would have to examine and see 

where the case can best be brought. Again, I am not familiar with 

it, but a determination would be made on a case-by-case basis as 

to where the trial can be most effectively had. 

Senator HATCH. OK. Well, it is my understanding that that case 

is sitting on the Deputy Attorney General’s desk right now for review. I would like you to look into it. It is a serious case, five American soldiers who were killed by this terrorist, and, frankly, I think 

28 

he ought to be tried at Guantanamo. I would appreciate you looking into it. 

Attorney General HOLDER. OK. 

Senator HATCH. I appreciate your service. We have had a long 

relationship together. 

Attorney General HOLDER. We have. 

Senator HATCH. I respect you. I naturally have some real questions about the Justice Department and the way things have gone, 

but I also understand it is a very tough job, too. But thank you. 

I appreciate you being here. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you. I appreciate all your support. 

Senator FRANKEN. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator. 

The Chair recognizes Senator Coons, the Senator from Delaware. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator 

Franken. I will do my best to be brief given the pressing commitments I understand both Senator Blumenthal and I have. 

Thank you, Attorney General Holder, for being with us today and 

for your service to our Nation. As a former county executive, I was 

grateful for the support of the Department for local law enforcement and was very concerned about the depth of the cuts in the 

continuing resolution and the path forward. I have four questions 

I will get to briefly, two about intellectual property enforcement, 

two about partnership with local law enforcement. 

If you could, first I would just be interested in your views on how 

your ability to support local law enforcement is being affected by 

the double-digit cuts in the current year’s CR and going forward. 

You made reference before to the critical bulletproof vest partnership. I am also concerned about Byrne/JAG grants, and in particular, I am interested in intelligence sharing. This Committee 

will hold a field hearing in Delaware later this year about intelligence sharing and the partnership, which is currently very strong, 

between Federal and local law enforcement in Delaware. So some 

comment, if you would, on the impact of the budget and intelligence sharing with local law enforcement. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, my hope would be that, with regard to intelligence sharing, we should not be adversely impacted 

by the budgetary issues that we are confronting. Intelligence sharing really is the key to good law enforcement in this day and age, 

and we will place priority emphasis on that. 

I am concerned, however, about the reduction that we will have 

certainly in the COPS program, among other things. There are 

going to be problems there that we did not have before the budgetary problems, and what we are going to try to do is come up with 

ways in which we use the more limited funds we have in the most 

effective way. But we just face a fiscal reality that we are not going 

to have as much money to distribute. 

Senator COONS. I was concerned to see the COPS technology program, for example, zeroed out. My predecessor in this seat, our 

Vice President, was a strong advocate for the Violence Against 

Women Act and the COPS program, and I will endeavor to do my 

best to work in partnership with you to sustain their funding and 

their vital role. 

29 

I am also concerned about intellectual property enforcement. I 

am very pleased with your task force on intellectual property and 

your good work in that field, and I just wanted to briefly, if I could, 

raise the concerns I have about counterfeit pharmaceuticals in particular, which are a very real and growing problem affecting thousands of Americans. 

You have a recent Operation In Our Sites effort, a multi-agency 

mission that has been seizing and closing down websites that are 

trademark infringers. To the best of my understanding, it does not 

yet include online pharmacies that are a significant source of counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Is that something you think the Department might expand to use your legal authority and forfeiture statutes to go after? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that is certainly something 

that we ought to consider. If one looks at the intellectual property 

issues, there are economic consequences, potential problems for our 

infrastructure, national security consequences, and when it comes 

to pharmaceutical issues, the health and well-being of our fellow 

citizens. And so the thought that you have is, I think, one that we 

ought to consider and one that I would look forward to working 

with you on. We want to make sure that our efforts are as complete 

as they can be and that we are protecting as many of the American 

people as we can. 

Senator COONS. And last, if I could, there are strong efforts obviously underway to combat IP theft, but I am concerned about trade 

secrets, which are in some ways more difficult to identify but in 

many ways more important even to protect, and the very real and 

growing threat of industrial espionage. Are there things that we 

can and should be doing in this Committee or in the Congress to 

support you, the efforts of your agency? Do you need any additional 

resources, whether statutory or financial, to strengthen the hand of 

your agency in combating either industrial espionage or trade secret theft? 

Attorney General HOLDER. If you would allow me to do this, 

maybe let me canvass the people in the Department who are most 

knowledgeable about this and who are concerned with this on a 

day-to-day basis and maybe get back to you about how we might 

work together with regard to—I think you correctly identify issues 

that should be concerns, industrial espionage and trade secrets. So 

let me get back to you in that regard. 

Senator COONS. Tremendous. Thank you very much, and thank 

you for your service. 

Senator FRANKEN. Senator Blumenthal. 

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

to my colleague, Senator Coons, for accommodating my schedule, 

and I do apologize. I have to preside at about noon, so first and 

foremost, thank you for your excellent, distinguished service to our 

Nation in this job and other positions that you have held and the 

tremendous leadership that you have given to the Department of 

Justice. 

As you know, I have asked that there be an investigation into illegal manipulation of gasoline and oil prices, crude oil, at every 

level, not only at the retail level where price gouging may have occurred, but I have written asking that there be investigations. And 

30 

I noticed in establishing the working group and the Financial 

Fraud Task Force, you have very carefully stayed away from the 

use of the term ‘‘investigation.’’ Indeed, in your testimony today, 

you have used the word ‘‘examine’’ rather than ‘‘investigate.’’ 

Again, I urge that there be an investigation, that it involve the 

FBI, subpoenas, even a grand jury if necessary, and ask now for 

your reaction to that suggestion. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I can see that you are still a State Attorney General, Senator. We are working with, I should point out, 

State Attorneys General in this regard because I think they are a 

very important component of this task force. 

I am not hesitant necessarily to use the word ‘‘investigate’’ or call 

it an ‘‘inquiry.’’ It is a task force that is looking to see if there have 

been inappropriate steps taken to try to manipulate the market, to 

price gouge, to somehow do things that are wrong and that harm 

the American people. We will be aggressive in that regard. 

We understand that there are market forces that are at play 

here and do not want to sell this as more than it can be. But we 

take very seriously the harm that the American people have suffered as a result of the rise in gas prices, and to the extent those 

were inappropriately driven, we will take action. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I do not want to belabor the point 

now. I would welcome an opportunity to sit with you and key members of your staff on this subject, because I think that all the indications are that speculation is at an all-time high and unprecedented level, and that it is a major part—not the only reason, but 

a major cause of the spiraling phenomenon that is plaguing the industry and crushing not only our consumers but the fragile economic growth that is so important to our Nation at this point. So 

I would welcome an opportunity to continue this discussion as soon 

as possible. 

And I want to just turn briefly to the Sony breach of confidential 

information. Again, I have asked for an investigation into the hacking that has occurred now reportedly affecting another 25 million 

consumers after the first hacking which was discovered affecting 

more than 70 million people. So more than 100 million are potentially victims, and indeed potentially victims of identity theft. But 

the focus in my view should be on not only the hacking itself but 

also possibly on Sony’s response, which I regard as having been 

completely, egregiously, and unacceptably inadequate in failing to 

notify consumers promptly, as would be required under some State 

laws, for example, Connecticut’s law, and failing to take protective 

measures and offer protective services to consumers. 

So, again, I ask for your reaction. 

Attorney General HOLDER. As I think I previously indicated, the 

Sony matter is under active investigation. There is not a lot I can 

say about the case as a result of that, but we are using our investigative capacity personnel from the Department as well as the FBI 

are, in fact, looking at this matter, and it is something that we are 

taking extremely seriously. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I believe going forward there is a 

clear need—and I know Senator Franken has been really leading 

on this effort—for measures that would provide stronger incentives 

and, if necessary, remedies for failure to safeguard this information 

31 

more effectively and also offer protective services in the event there 

are these breaches. And I would ask again for cooperation from the 

Department in this effort. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I think that is right. We have to 

not only take effective enforcement efforts once a breach has occurred; we have to also focus on preventive efforts that can be 

taken by companies that have this data, that acquire this data. 

And to the extent that we can work with the Committee and with 

industry to try to come up with effective ways that we can prevent 

these breaches from occurring, I think everybody is actually better 

served by that. And we would be more than glad to work with you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, and I see that Senator Graham 

has returned, so the Senator from South Carolina. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Good morning. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Good morning. 

Senator GRAHAM. Congratulations to the administration for, I 

think, what will be a historic operation when it comes to the operation against bin Laden. I think now the President made a very 

difficult decision, and that is, putting boots on the ground, but I 

certainly think the right decision. 

What I want to do is sort of talk about the way forward on terrorism issues. I know that KSM, going back into military commissions, was a hard decision for you. We had respectful disagreements, but I just want to be on the record. I believe very strongly 

there is a place for Article III courts and that I am an all-of-theabove approach when it comes to trial venues. And just for the 

record, the reason I objected to KSM and the co-conspirators is 

they had been held as enemy combatants for so long under the law 

of war, and I just really was worried about mixing systems. But the 

Christmas Day bomber, the situation with the Times Square bomber, these are class examples, I think, of where you could grab somebody off the battlefield and go right into an Article III court. 

Now, let us talk about the interrogation programs we have. I am 

somewhere between waterboarding and the Army Field Manual. I 

believe, as I have said many times—I have been a military lawyer 

for 30 years—waterboarding as a technique has been talked about 

among the legal community and the military for a very long time 

as something not appropriate, and I think going down that road— 

and I am sure there was some information gleaned from 

waterboarding, but overall the reason we stopped this practice, it 

was causing a lot of problems for the country. 

Having said that, I think the best way to interrogate enemy prisoners is to keep them off balance, form relationships over time, but 

basically have procedures they cannot train against. 

So, Mr. Attorney General, as I understand it, the CIA is no 

longer involved in interrogation of terrorist suspects directly. Is 

that true, or do you know? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure that that is accurate. 

I could perhaps get back to you on that, but I—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, here is what—and check my homework 

here. The Executive order the President issued shortly after taking 

32 

office took off the table the enhanced interrogation techniques that 

are classified in the Detainee Treatment Act, and now the only 

techniques available to us are in the Army Field Manual. They are 

online. So I would urge you to look at that. I just think it is a mistake to deny the CIA the ability to use classified techniques in the 

Detainee Treatment Act that I helped write because the enemy 

needs to be kept off balance. So if you could look at that and get 

back with me, and it is my understanding the CIA, after this Executive order, no longer directly interrogates enemy suspects, terrorism suspects. Go ahead. 

Attorney General HOLDER. One thing I would say, Senator, is 

that when the changes were made with regard to the techniques 

that could be used, the intelligence community was canvassed, and 

they indicated that with regard to the techniques that were no 

longer to be employed and the ones that could be used, they 

thought that gave them adequate tools in order to do their jobs. 

Senator GRAHAM. But my question is I believe that the only techniques available to the intelligence community and to our military 

are the Army Field Manual, and that was never written with a 

view to be the exhaustive techniques available to interrogate prisoners. It really is a guide to our troops to make sure they do not 

get in trouble. And if the CIA is no longer directly involved in interrogations, I would like to know that, if that is true. And if they 

are limited to the Army Field Manual, I would like to know that. 

Attorney General HOLDER. What gives me pause is I know that 

the CIA is a part of the HIG. 

Senator GRAHAM. Right. 

Attorney General HOLDER. So that is why I am hesitant. You are 

saying—— 

Senator GRAHAM. No, and please check it out. I want to be on 

record. It is my belief that the policy today is that the Army Field 

Manual is the exclusive means of interrogating terrorist suspects, 

it is online, and that the enhanced interrogation techniques authorized under the Detainee Treatment Act are no longer being used, 

and my view is that is a mistake. 

Now, when we go forward with future captures, Guantanamo 

Bay, we have both tried to find ways to create a new prison. I have 

been sort of out there saying it does not bother me that you would 

create a prison in the United States as long as there is a national 

security-centric legal system around it. But I think we have lost 

that argument. I do not believe Guantanamo Bay is going to be 

closed anytime soon by the Congress. Is that your assessment? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We are going to continue to try to 

close it, but I think it is going to be difficult given the votes that 

we have seen in the Congress and the sentiment that—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, and to my colleagues who understand, I 

think it is a well-run prison now. It has had problems in the past, 

but the administration, working with us, we wrote a new Military 

Commissions Act in 2009, which I am very proud of, and you 

helped write it. So I think we have got Guantanamo Bay in pretty 

good shape right now for all those who want to be reasonable. 

But given that dilemma, I understand we may have some people 

in our capture now that might be good candidates for Article III 

trials or military commission trials that were captured abroad. 

33 

Where do we put people? If we caught someone tomorrow that 

would be a terrorist suspect, an al Qaeda member, if we can 

Zawahiri—you just name the person—where would we put them? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I guess it would depend on the 

charges that we could bring. Certainly if we have an Article III 

case that we can bring against them, we can put them in any of 

the Federal facilities that we have. 

Senator GRAHAM. What if you had an enemy combatant that you 

wanted to hold for, you know, extensive interrogation, lawful but 

you wanted to hold him? Where would you put that person? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We have overseas facilities that we 

can make use of for, you know, interrogation and for detention. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, Bagram, you know, Parwan Prison, I 

would really argue that the Afghan Government cannot become the 

American jailer, and if you caught someone in Somalia, if you took 

them to Afghanistan, that would create a lot of problems for operations there. 

The answer, to me—and I have asked Special Forces, ‘‘Where 

would you put these people’’—I asked Secretary Gates and asked 

Admiral Mullen—‘‘if you caught someone tomorrow in Somalia or 

Yemen, a high-value target, where would you put them? ’’ They say 

they do not have an answer for that because Gitmo is off the table. 

Do you see anytime soon Gitmo being allowed to be used in special cases of high-value targets that were caught in the war on terror? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not think that is our intention. 

Our intention is, even given the issues that we have with Congress, 

to try to close that facility and to try to make use of other locations 

that we would have for interrogation, for instance. 

Senator GRAHAM. I just do not believe there are other viable locations. We need to think this thing through. There are detainees at 

Bagram Air Base, now Parwan Prison, that are not going to be left 

in Afghan control because they are third-country nationals, and we 

need to find what to do with those detainees, because they are not 

going to be left in Afghanistan because I just do not trust the Afghan legal system. So I would like to work with you on these 

issues. 

One last point. There is a lot of chatter out there about the use 

of force against bin Laden. Would you agree with me, Mr. Attorney 

General, that given the intelligence about bin Laden, he promised 

never to be captured alive. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, let me make something very 

clear. The operation in which Osama bin Laden was killed was 

lawful. He was the head of al Qaeda, an organization that had conducted the attacks of September the 11th. He admitted his involvement. As you indicate, he said he would not be taken alive. The operation against bin Laden was justified as an act of national selfdefense. 

It is lawful to target an enemy commander in the field. We did 

so, for instance, with regard to Yamamoto in World War II when 

he was shot down in an airplane. 

Senator GRAHAM. Absolutely. 

Attorney General HOLDER. So he was, by my estimation, the estimation of the Justice Department, a lawful military target. And the 

34 

operation was conducted in a way that is consistent with our law, 

with our values. 

If he had surrendered, attempted to surrender, I think we should 

obviously have accepted that. But there was no indication that he 

wanted to do that and, therefore, his killing was appropriate. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, I agree with everything you said. I would 

just like to add one final comment. From a Navy SEAL perspective, 

you had to believe that this guy was a walking IED. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Exactly. 

Senator GRAHAM. So if I were a Navy SEAL and I made a positive ID on this guy, I would want to take him down as far away 

from my teammates as possible. So to those out there who question 

what happened here, the intelligence and the statements from the 

man himself said he would never be taken alive, that he had bombs 

strapped to himself. I think the Navy SEAL team had to believe 

that the moment they encountered bin Laden, whether he raised 

his hands or not—that could be a fake surrender—that they were 

well within their rights, and shooting him as soon as possible probably protected everybody, including the SEALs and women and 

children. So I agree with you, Mr. Attorney General. This was an 

operation within the law, and the Navy SEALs acted appropriately, 

and I am proud of the fact that they protected women and children 

at their own detriment. They took time to shield women and children from the helicopter being blown up. They protected the 

women and children the best they could in this firefight. And the 

moment they saw bin Laden, they had to consider him a threat. 

And I could not believe a scenario where you would believe he 

could reliably surrender. 

So I just want to put my two cents’ worth in there, and I look 

forward to working with you on these tough issues. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I look forward to working with you, 

Senator, but I think you make some very valid points that I think 

people should focus on. It was a kill-or-capture mission. He made 

no attempts to surrender. And I tend to agree with you that even 

if he had, there would be a good basis on the part of those very 

brave Navy SEAL team members to do what they did in order to 

protect themselves and the other people who were in the building. 

They conducted themselves totally appropriately in that the loss of 

life was minimal or as minimized as it could be. Substantial numbers of women and children were not impacted during their entry 

into those buildings, and I am proud of what they did. And I really 

want to emphasize that what they did was entirely lawful and consistent with our values. 

Senator GRAHAM. I totally agree. Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Senator Graham. 

Mr. Attorney General, since we are on the subject, I just want 

to commend you and your Department and, of course, those troops 

who did an unbelievable job, and everyone who played a role in 

this tremendous operation of bringing bin Laden to justice, so congratulations and thank you. 

I want to get into contractor fraud, which has been a concern of 

mine for quite a while. I have been long concerned that contractors 

have been getting kind of a free pass after they commit procureVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:04 May 08, 2012 Jkt 073839 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\73839.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
35 

ment fraud. And I asked Lanny Breuer a number of questions 

about this back in January. 

Since then, a report by the Department of Defense confirmed some of my suspicions. Over a 3-year period, DOD paid $270 billion 

to more than 91 contractors who were found to be civilly liable for 

contract fraud, and another $10 billion to an additional 120 contractors who settled civil fraud causes. What is even more astounding is that 30 contractors who were convicted of criminal fraud 

against the government received another $682 million in contracts 

from DOD after they had been convicted of criminal fraud. 

Now, I understand that your Department is not responsible for 

making debarment decisions, but do you agree that it is just bizarre that we are awarding billions of dollars in new contracts to 

entities that cannot be trusted? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is an interesting question. I know 

that we have to deal with these things, as strange as this might 

sound, on a case-by-case basis. It is sometimes possible that a company that has done inappropriate things and has been held civilly 

liable, maybe even criminally liable, has new management and 

they have gotten rid of the people who were responsible for the 

fraud in its previous iteration, and on that basis the Department 

of Defense has made the determination that they can continue to 

do business with the company. 

In the absence of some kind of remedial steps, though, I would 

agree with you that it does not make sense to continue to do business with those who have defrauded the American people. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, I think there have been cases in which 

they have not changed personnel and that we have just gone right 

back to them. I think that is a good idea that we could be debarring CEOs or divisions or heads of divisions or heads of departments of companies where there have been problems, especially 

where it might not be in our best interest to go after the entire 

company. But I think that we should definitely be encouraging that 

and not goint right back to the same people without requiring a 

change in the people responsible. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I would agree with you. The notion 

that perhaps there be some presumptions that perhaps can be overcome by the changes that a company has made. One of the things 

that I would want to make sure is that the Government agencies 

that are involved have the maximum amount of flexibility so that 

they can take appropriate sanctions when that is necessary, but do 

it in a way that is consistent with serving the interests of the 

American people. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, I will give you an example. The Department of Health and Human Services recently notified the CEO of 

Forest Laboratories that it intends to specifically exclude him from 

doing business with the government, and I think that would force 

the company to get rid of him, and that follows a large investigation and settlement of civil and criminal charges related to the 

sales of antidepressants. And I applaud that approach and think 

we need to go after individual executives more, especially when 

there is evidence that they had knowledge of or encouraged this 

type of misconduct. Unfortunately, though, the tactic of targeting 

specific executives just seems to be very rare, particularly among 

36 

our largest contracting agencies like the Department of Defense 

and the Department of State, and I fear that most contracting officers are simply not equipped to make some of these decisions and 

that we should be relying more on Inspectors General to lead investigations and make recommendations. 

What do you think we could do to encourage greater coordination 

between DOJ and the Inspector General community on these 

issues? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think we certainly have to communicate. I think we do a pretty good job of it now. To the extent that 

there are problems that you have identified, I would certainly want 

to hear about them and see if there are ways in which we can 

change the way in which we communicate with the IGs. We have 

a pretty robust fraud enforcement program—I think a very robust 

fraud enforcement program. It is a priority matter for us, and we 

have had some notable successes, as my written and opening statement have indicated. It does not mean that we cannot do more and 

that we are not looking for ways in which we can do our job better. 

The IGs I think have particular strengths in that they know 

their agencies better than outsiders are going to know them, and 

I would hope that as they identify conduct that is potentially criminal that they are making sure that they refer that information to 

the Justice Department so that we can take appropriate enforcement actions, whether it is civil or criminal. 

I would also say that with regard to your point about looking at 

individuals, that is something that we have to do. This cannot simply be seen as the cost of doing business, that you defraud the 

United States, you pay a big fine, and then you continue to interact 

with the Government and continue to get contracts and no harm 

befalls anybody except maybe the shareholders because this company has had to pay the Government a huge amount of money. To 

the extent that we can identify individuals who are responsible for 

these actions, it is my instruction, it is our intent to hold them accountable, to hold them individually liable for these actions. 

Senator FRANKEN. I think that would incentivize not committing 

fraud. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Right. 

Senator FRANKEN. Which I think is a good thing. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. People behind bars tends to stick 

in individuals’ minds as opposed to the notion that my company is 

simply going to have to pay, you know—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Or I am not even necessarily talking behind 

bars, just career ending. That also catches people’s attention. 

I want to touch on something and then let you go because I am 

the only thing between you and going. It is something that Senator 

Blumenthal talked about—the Sony Playstation and Epsilon data 

breaches, which have shown us all this month how vulnerable our 

private information is online. Among those companies affected by 

the Epsilon breach were several Minnesota companies as well as 

many, many Minnesota customers. 

A few weeks ago, I wrote a letter to Assistant Attorney General 

Lanny Breuer, again, asking if our current anti-hacking laws are 

strong enough to deter hackers. I wanted to really ask about two 

questions. 

37 

First, does the Department of Justice have any recommendations 

to update or strengthen these anti-hacking laws, including the 

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act within that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Senator, what I would like to do is 

maybe get in touch with our experts and ask them that question 

and put something in writing for you with regard to suggestions 

that we might have. 

I will say that with regard to both the Epsilon matter and the 

Sony matter, they are currently under investigation in the Department of Justice. 

Senator FRANKEN. Right, and thank you for that. 

This is a slightly different question, but should those who have 

this data be required to protect the data? Because it is one thing— 

we were talking about anti-hacking, the people that hacked into 

Sony, the people that hacked into Epsilon. There are a lot of third 

parties who have a lot of data that can get hacked into. In updating our privacy laws, is there possibly a role to require—and I am 

not sure whether you do this by law or a regulatory function—to 

require them to have a protocol to secure this data in a way that 

cannot be hacked or that is state-of-the-art? 

So, I mean, because if you have all this data and if there is no 

requirement to have a certain level of security, it seems like we are 

inviting hacking. 

Attorney General HOLDER. As I indicated to Senator Blumenthal, 

I actually think that the idea that you are raising is a good one, 

and maybe there is a way in which this Committee, the Justice Department, other involved Federal agencies, and industry can get together and look at that issue, because I really do think that the 

focus has to be on prevention. That is the way in which you offer 

the maximum protection to consumers, not after the horse is out 

of the barn and where we are doing what we can to enforce the 

laws and hold people responsible, but to prevent people from suffering the loss of their identities, their financial information. 

And so I would pledge to work with you or any group that you 

put together—— 

Senator FRANKEN. That would be great. I am Chairman of a new 

Subcommittee on Privacy and Technology and the Law, and I will 

take you up on that. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Good. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK, and I will let you go. 

Attorney General Holder, I just want to thank you for your time, 

for your testimony, and for your service. We always appreciate 

hearing from you and learning all about what is going on at the 

Department of Justice. Thank you again for being here. 

The record of this hearing will be kept open for a week. This 

meeting stands adjourned. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submission for the record follow.] 

38 


73839.001
39 


73839.002
40 


73839.003
41 


73839.004
42 


73839.005
43 


73839.006
44 


73839.007
45 


73839.008
46 


73839.009
47 


73839.010
48 


73839.011
49 


73839.012
50 


73839.013
51 


73839.014
52 


73839.015
53 


73839.016
54 


73839.017
55 


73839.018
56 


73839.019
57 


73839.020
58 


73839.021
59 


73839.022
60 


73839.023
61 


73839.024
62 


73839.025
63 


73839.026
64 


73839.027
65 


73839.028
66 


73839.029
67 


73839.030
68 


73839.031
69 


73839.032
70 


73839.033
71 


73839.034
72 


73839.035
73 


73839.036
74 


73839.037
75 


73839.038
76 


73839.039
77 


73839.040
78 


73839.041
79 


73839.042
80 


73839.043
81 


73839.044
82 


73839.045
83 


73839.046
84 


73839.047
85 


73839.048
86 


73839.049
87 


73839.050
88 


73839.051
89 


73839.052
90 


73839.053
91 


73839.054
92 


73839.055
93 


73839.056
94 


73839.057
95 


73839.058
96 


73839.059
97 


73839.060
98 


73839.061
99 


73839.062
100 


73839.063
101 


73839.064
102 


73839.065
103 


73839.066
104 


73839.067
105 


73839.068
106 


73839.069
107 


73839.070
108 


73839.071
109 


73839.072
110 


73839.073
111 


73839.074
112 


73839.075
113 


73839.076
114 


73839.077
115 


73839.078
116 


73839.079
117 


73839.080
118 


73839.081
119 


73839.082
120 


73839.083
121 


73839.084
122 


73839.085
123 


73839.086
124 


73839.087
125 


73839.088
126 


73839.089
127 


73839.090
128 


73839.091
129 


73839.092
130 


73839.093
131 


73839.094
132 


73839.095
133 


73839.096
134 


73839.097
135 


73839.098
136 


73839.099
137 


73839.100
138 


73839.101
139 


73839.102
140 


73839.103
141 


73839.104
142 


73839.105
143 


73839.106
144 


73839.107
145 


73839.108
146 


73839.109
147 


73839.110
148 


73839.111
149 


73839.112
150 


73839.113
151 


73839.114
152 


73839.115
153 


73839.116
154 


73839.117
155 


73839.118
156 


73839.119
157 


73839.120
158 


73839.121
159 


73839.122
160 


73839.123
161 


73839.124
162 


73839.125
163 


73839.126
164 


73839.127
165 


73839.128
166 


73839.129
167 


73839.130
168 


73839.131
169 


73839.132
170 


73839.133
171 


73839.134
172 


73839.135
173 


73839.136
174 


73839.137
175 


73839.138
176 


73839.139
177 


73839.140
178 


73839.141
179 


73839.142
180 


73839.143
181 


73839.144
182 


73839.145
183 


73839.146
184 


73839.147
185 

Æ 


73839.148