[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 79 (Thursday, June 6, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H3234-H3240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1250
UPHOLDING THE TRUST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bridenstine). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the
minority leader.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a privilege to be able
to come to the floor and begin a dialogue, because there's one thing
that I think is vital. We could hold up the Constitution, which I often
do. We can speak with great eloquence on the floor of the House, even
go to our districts and speak to our constituents.
But I do think it is important that the trust of the American people,
even though sometimes tattered, sometimes challenged, that what we can
at least adhere to are the values of this Nation,
[[Page H3235]]
the constitutional underpinnings that we all are created equal under
the Declaration of Independence and those vital 10 amendments that make
up the Bill of Rights, among others, that really go to the trust that
the American people have in their government and in their documents
that are the infrastructure of government.
And when I say that, I am not in any way diminishing some very
emotional debate that we've had over the years. We've engaged in
debates on war and peace. We've engaged in debates on impeachment.
Tragically, we've seen assassinations of our Presidents. We've seen
assassination attempts on our Presidents, and so I know that the issue
of trust or the issue of stability sometimes wobbles because it is
human nature.
We've seen the tragedy of 9/11. But yet, Americans, by and large,
with polls going up and down, will probably be more trustworthy than
any other population of people. Why?
Because they have a sense that, even in the midst of vigorous
disagreement between the partisans, between Republicans and Democrats
and Independents, that there's something that holds America together.
And so I am rising today to try to be able to weave in and out why we
must get back to that trust, and why it serves us no purpose to go on
an unsubstantiated witch hunt on what is one of the finest public
servants that this country has seen, and that is the Attorney General
of the United States, Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Now, I will be discussing a number of items because, in the course of
this discussion, I realize that some will agree and some will not. But
minimally, what I would like to ensure is that we have a forthright and
truthful discussion. That's really what is key.
I base that upon being a battle-worn member of the House Judiciary
Committee for any number of years. I have ascended to the position
where you are called a senior member of the Judiciary Committee. And in
the course of my work there, I have seen investigations that are far
and wide.
I lived through the horrific heinousness of 9/11, and having to craft
something called the Patriot Act, which still needs to be challenged,
and we need to err on the side of the rights of the American people.
I have seen the investigation of the tragedy of Waco. Many people
might not even remember that, the terrible loss of life.
I've seen the throngs pulling a child, a Cuban child, between
families--Elian Gonzales.
I've seen the ups and downs of immigration and the debate about where
we should go on immigration reform.
I have seen the issues of impeachment and attempts on impeachment,
trying to uphold civil rights, trying to write a Patriot Act--which
came out of the Judiciary Committee right after 9/11, in our most
vulnerable time--in a bipartisan way that balanced the rights of
Americans alongside of the responsibilities that we had to secure
America.
I have seen the fight for individual rights, and I'd like to think
that when it comes to that challenge, that when you look at the record
that I have offered, you have seen a record that prizes individual
rights.
So I do not believe that it is of any value, no matter what party
you're in, to be in a coverup. Coverups usually wind up with the covers
being taken off, and so there's not really much advantage to a coverup.
But I want to discuss, away from the aura of cameras and hysteria,
the work of a public servant that I've known for a number of years.
Having come to this Congress a few years ago, I remember that Attorney
General Holder not only worked for Democratic Presidents, but also
worked for Republican Presidents.
In fact, George Bush II held Mr. Holder as his Acting Attorney
General, or Deputy Attorney General, which is the highest ranking under
the Attorney General. The view of him as an unbiased figure allowed him
to be, in essence, that bridge between administrations.
He has served as a judge. He has been a prosecutor. He has likewise,
prosecuted those who would do Americans harm. He is a son, if you will,
of those who struggled to overcome.
And he had the honor of being appointed, named as President Clinton's
Deputy Attorney General, the first African American to be so named.
He pulled himself up by his bootstraps, having graduated from
Columbia College, as he's so proud of, in New York, attended the public
schools, even schools that I'm familiar with--some of my friends
graduated from Stuyvesant High School--where he earned something that
was very much sought after in those times, a Regents Scholarship. That
allowed him to attend Columbia College, where he majored in American
history, and he graduated from Columbia law school.
He is not one to accept your challenge of the affection he has for
his college and his law school.
He had a sense of desire to do good. And in those times, one of the
premiere civil rights law firms was the NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund. No, it is not the NAACP. This is a lawyers' group
that would defend you, no matter who you were.
In fact, I remember Constance Baker Motley, out of the NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, defending the Klan in Alabama, because it
is the motto and mission of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational
Fund that if your rights are abridged, no matter who you are, we will
stand up for those rights.
And so he started there, with a very refined sense of right and wrong
and who should be defended, and wound up at the Department of Justice
as what you call a line lawyer, Criminal Division.
And then he joined, previously, I guess, he joined the U.S.
Department of Justice Attorney General's Honors Program. He was
assigned to the public integrity section, was tasked to investigate and
prosecute official corruption, local, State and Federal levels.
Some might say, when you saw Eric coming, you wanted to get out of
the way. That was his sense of justice, balanced and fair, attacking
those who were doing wrong to our system of justice and fairness, and
yes, going after corruption in local, State and Federal government.
Those were many years since 1976, and if I would take a guess, if he
were going to falter in the practice of law, or in the upholding of
justice, he would have faltered a long time ago.
{time} 1300
Sorry, Mr. Attorney General, but you have been around for a long
time; 1976 is a long time. In fact, if I recall correctly, 1976 was in
the midst of when President Carter was coming in and after President
Ford had served. So he has seen both Republican and Democratic
administrations, and he has passed muster by his superiors. He's
climbed up the ladder. He served in private business and private
practice. He's not a new kid on the block.
I had the chance to be with his wife, Dr. Sharon Malone, one of the
premier physicians in this community, who has her own legacy, as well
as the legacy of her sister, who was one of those who integrated the
universities in Alabama during the segregated South. But the
interesting thing about Eric is that he does not come with a sense of
entitlement, which I don't like even using that word, because if you
fix something that is broken, if you try to integrate because it is
segregated, that is not entitlement. If you try to ensure someone has
an opportunity, it is not negative when you say affirmatively you want
to make sure that there is diversity. But Eric takes life as he sees
it. And so it baffled me when we were proceeding through this process.
Somebody said bad things come in threes. I don't want to start that
because I'm hoping we don't have any threes coming along. I've got to
get on an airplane in a couple of minutes.
But I would say to you that I would like the answer to some of the
questions. Obviously, Benghazi falls in the State Department. But we've
certainly had the misfortunes of the IRS. I want to clarify that the
IRS falls independently. The Commissioners are appointed on a 6-year
term so that they do not have the political influence of a Presidential
appointment. But their ultimate oversight is through the Secretary of
the Treasury under the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Certainly, that
investigation is going forward at this time. But it seems like all of
that was piling on someone who was not directly involved: Benghazi and
the IRS.
But let's get to the one that has drawn the most ire, rightly so. Let
me
[[Page H3236]]
temper that because I know that the IRS is drawing a great deal of ire.
I've come to the floor and indicated that there are a lot of good,
hardworking employees. Maybe you know some of them. Our colleagues see
these people in our districts. They're working every day to ensure that
the American people, who pay them, who own all of this in the United
States Government, are treated fairly. I know there are people like
that. But certainly, we are absolutely outraged about any prosecuting
in a biased way for political beliefs. That is an absolute,
unpardonable sin, if you will, under the First Amendment. We've all
agreed to that. We want a full investigation. And I can assure you if
any parts of the Department of Justice are involved in a criminal
investigation, if it is discovered--and we have an Inspector General
under the IRS--you can be assured that the Department of Justice will
be involved in determining whether any criminal activities have gone on
as relates to the IRS.
But what has drawn the most ire--and it should--is the precious press
and the right to be told what is going on. Again, with a little bit of
humor, I will tell you that those of us in the public eye really like
that press story that says that we're cutting a ribbon for something
that has been given from the Federal Government or making the grand
speech that someone will quote that was most erudite and astute.
But the press should be unfettered because it is the right of the
American people to know what is going on in their government, no matter
what level it is, from the school board to the county clerk to the
statehouse to the city government and to your Federal Government.
Maybe, to the chagrin of many who are found out in the press, we
understand.
So when it is suggested that the Department of Justice would violate
that sacred trust of blocking information to the American public, then
obviously there is an enormous amount of concern. And I understand
that. And I think it is enormously important to lay out this whole
question of the Fox reporter, the gentleman who has been working on a
number of projects, and the whole idea of the release of the emails of
the Associated Press, or the targeting of them, and the targeting of
one particular individual, Mr. Rosen of Fox News, and the May 15
hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, at which I was present.
I wanted to speak of what I know. One of the questions I raised, just
a yes-or-no answer, was whether Mr. Holder had been a supporter of what
we call the Shield Act in his professional career, a bill that had been
supported by many of us in the last session, or before, and that is to
block or protect reporters and their proprietary information under the
First Amendment. And for some reason, my good friends on the other side
of the aisle, Republicans, did not see fit for that legislation to
pass.
So here we are in a set of circumstances that speaks ill of anyone
that would target a reporter or this enormous leak of emails. All of
this is being reviewed. But I want to focus on Attorney General Holder
and the very excellent Attorney General that he had in charge. He did
not participate in the ultimate investigation and the determination for
the ultimate subpoenas regarding the AP. It was done after some 15,000
pages of documents were issued, and they still could not determine how
the leak, where the leak, or who would be the culprit of the leak. This
is pertaining to issues that would have a detrimental impact on the
security of the American people.
So let me be very clear: it was not the reporters. It was to find out
who was, for lack of a better term, the leaker. And, yes, those are
sources. That's the angst of the people; the lawyers entrusted with
your protection in the Department of Justice. There is no doubt
Congress has a right to restrain it, for you elect us in the people's
House to make sure that you are protected from that kind of intrusion.
But let it be very clear that the intrusion was not to entrap
reporters. It was to ensure us that we were protecting the American
people.
So all of a sudden the Attorney General is in the hot seat. He
recused himself from further investigation. A number of questions were
posed in that May 15 hearing. And one of the questions posed was
seeking a clarification about different laws but also asking the
question about allowing for reporters to be prosecuted. I have a
paraphrasing but a fair handle on the answer of the Attorney General.
In fact, if you can pay attention to newspaper accounts to precisely
see if this is correct:
With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the
disclosure material, that is not something I have ever been involved
in--heard of--or think would be a wise policy.
The active word is ``potential'' prosecution--prosecution.
{time} 1310
Yes, there was an FBI affidavit used to obtain the warrant for
Rosen's emails, and there was probable cause--and this was in 2010--to
determine whether any law had been broken. Yes, that was done. The
affidavit did describe this reporter, by way of reports, as an aider
and abettor and/or coconspirator. But the Justice Department did not
prosecute Mr. Rosen, did not even file charges against him while he was
listed as a coconspirator. No charges were ever raised against him. No
charges were pulled back. No acquittal. No prosecution.
So the answer of the Attorney General was accurate. To the extent
that anyone would suggest that he perjured himself is absolutely
without context, without substance, without basis, without intent,
without proof, and it serves no purpose. It serves no purpose.
From all of that, and of course some time back the tragedy of Fast
and Furious--and whenever I come to the floor I offer my deepest
sympathy for the lost and for the family who suffered an enormous loss
of their great and wonderful son. There is nothing that one can say to
bring back their son.
I have no quarrel with getting to the facts. But again, in Fast and
Furious, none of it pointed back, by independent arbiters. This had to
do with the misdirected--probably with good intentions--but misdirected
and cruel results of putting guns in the hands of thieves and crooks to
be able to track guns and gun trafficking between the United States and
Mexico. I will not defend it. I am not here to defend that. I was
appalled. But I think we must have a reasonable discussion of truth.
And the reasonable discussion of truth is: Did Mr. Holder have anything
to do with the mishaps of Fast and Furious? I can assure you that they
have yet to point to him on that basis.
Eric Holder came to the Department and he took up the challenge, in
these words, of his mission, that his challenge would be protecting the
security, rights, and interests of the American people. More than 4
years later, together with the extraordinary men and women who serve at
the Department of Justice, that promise has been fulfilled for many of
the accomplishments that this Department has achieved.
Now, my good friend was on the floor, my good friend--and he is, Mr.
Smith of New Jersey. He has a passion for preventing, among other
things, human trafficking. We work together on these issues.
Eric Holder has been a crusader to fight against the viciousness of
human trafficking. He has, in fact, set up a task force in my own city
of Houston, which, to our dismay, has been known as the epicenter of
human trafficking of young people, prostitution, individuals coming up
to the southern border. One of the most debasing parts of an existence
is to be taken hostage--bondage--by someone else to be abused and
mistreated. So he has been enormously committed, passionately committed
to the idea of preventing human trafficking, and we look forward to
working with him.
He wanted to save you money. And they've had a very successful reach
on financial fraud, setting up a Consumer Protection Working Group
consisting of Federal law enforcement regulatory agencies, making sure
that those who attack the vulnerable with payday loans and the elderly
know that the Justice Department is standing on their side. And the
very ones that go after Active Duty military--how sad, young people
coming home from faraway places and all of a sudden they are
victimized, the resources that they have that are limited.
The lawsuit that was filed against mortgage fraud that took this
country down, took homes away from those who deserved them, the billion
dollar
[[Page H3237]]
lawsuit against Countrywide led by this Department of Justice.
Banking houses, various inappropriate behavior by some on Wall
Street, General Holder was not afraid, on behalf of the American
people. And countless banking officers who took money, such as some of
those whose names include Carollo and Goldberg and Grimm, all former
executives of General Electric, were sentenced related to bidding for
contracts for the investment of municipal bond proceeds and other
municipal finance contracts, which would undermine not only the public
trust--remember, that's how it started--but it would also diminish the
assets.
It was this Justice Department that continued the prosecution of the
Madoff brothers, Peter Madoff, on June 29, 2012, one of the most--oh,
my God, I would use the word ``sad,'' but that is certainly not a
strong enough word, but I did use the word ``tsunami''--one of the most
catastrophic attacks on people who innocently invested with someone who
they thought would maximize their savings for the good ol' days of
their sunset years.
He continued to secure justice for victims of mortgage fraud. He
worked on a number of issues regarding servicemembers. And, what I
think was particularly important, what you wanted him to do, is he went
after international cartels, domestic collusion conspiracies, price
fixing, bid rigging, market and customer allocation. He was, along with
his team, committed to serving the American people.
I see my colleague is here, and I just want to mention a few others
before I yield to her. Because, as I mentioned, his passion for
people's lives is so moving that I need to get this on the record.
The Department has charged a record number of human trafficking
cases. I gave you the story, but I didn't give you the facts. Over the
past 4 years, the Department has increased the number of human
trafficking prosecutions by more than 30 percent in forced labor and
adult sex trafficking cases, while also getting a number of convictions
in the Innocence Lost National Initiative dealing with our children. So
the Department has dismantled trafficking with Ukrainian victims held
in Philadelphia in false labor; Central American women, convicting the
traffickers who threatened and violently abused them to compel them
into forced labor and forced prostitution in restaurants and bars on
Long Island. Or, we restored the rights and freedom of the
undocumented--I like to say ``we'' because this is close to my heart--
of Eastern European victims, convicting the trafficker of brutally
exploiting them in massage parlors in Chicago; a Florida man, his wife
and a codefendant for actions involving sex trafficking of seven minor
victims in a house in Fort Lauderdale; and secured a life sentence
against a gang member in the Eastern District of Virginia for sex
trafficking of victims as young as 12 years old.
Eric Holder has not been sitting around trying to construct when he
would come to Congress and perjure himself. That has not been his task
and his challenge.
Let me just say this, as there is a lot that I want to engage in.
I'll just throw this out before I yield. Our violent crime rates have
yielded, maybe because we see someone like the old movies about the FBI
G-Men, maybe we see the ``H-Man'' coming in Eric Holder, for he has
prosecuted thousands of criminals with illegal gun possessions. That
does you harm. That does your children harm.
{time} 1320
I want to just say this to my distinguished colleague--as I yield to
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton--when the American people needed to
have an unfettered voting system, yes, many disagreed. But Eric Holder
and his team in the Civil Rights Division have not been overturned.
They were following the law.
We do expect a Supreme Court decision in a matter of days on section
5. I cannot predict what that decision will be. But there were a number
of decisions that had to do with ensuring that there was one person,
one vote.
Remember I started by saying, whether we agree or disagree, there
should be something called trust. Many people would say to me, one
person's trust is another person's poison. But it's all about the law.
This Justice Department has been following the law. It is crucial that
when we use a litmus test to be able to determine whether someone
should resign--and by the way, General Holder, do not resign, America
needs a top law enforcement officer of integrity--then the standard
should be the law, the standard should be the Constitution, the
standard should be the facts, the standard should be case law on the
Voting Rights Act and redistricting cases and election law. The
majority of the cases--the infrastructure of the cases that have been
upheld--have been led by Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the
United States of America.
I would be privileged to yield some time to the distinguished
scholar--and she happens to be a Congressperson of the great District
of Columbia--Eleanor Holmes Norton. Thank you for your leadership and
scholarship on constitutional issues.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady, first, for yielding
and for her kind words. But I thank her even more for what she's done
this afternoon. She has come to the floor--my good friend from Texas--
and has rendered one of the most informative highlights of the career
of this Attorney General since he has held the office.
I would like only a few minutes to say a few words about the Attorney
General because he began when in the Clinton administration I got the
courtesy that's normally given to Senators--we have no Senators--so I
got the courtesy of recommending to the President the U.S. attorney for
the District of Columbia and District Court judges. Although the
District of Columbia has long had a large African American population,
for most of its 200 years there have been no African American United
States attorneys. Even though the United States attorney in the
District of Columbia handles not only what he does for, for example, my
good friend in Texas, that is Federal matters, but because there are
some limits on our home rule, also handles all of the local criminal
matters. Using a 17-member distinguished committee of citizens who
vetted a great number of candidates and gave to me the top three, I
chose the man who is now Attorney General as the first African American
U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. He acquitted himself so
well that he became an assistant Attorney General and finally Attorney
General of the United States.
We are accustomed to seeing Attorneys General get in trouble. The
last two Attorneys General were virtually chased out of office because
of the mistakes they had made. I think that's because the Attorney
General is close to the most controversial business of the President of
the United States. I'm not surprised that the Attorney General would be
a target. I am surprised that he would be accused so recklessly of, for
example, perjury. I believe he will be vindicated shortly because it's
so clear, on the face of this matter, that there has been not even a
scintilla of an attempt to mislead the Congress or anybody else.
I think of Ambassador Susan Rice, who was yesterday appointed to be
the National Security Advisor, the closest advisor to the President on
foreign affairs, and of what she went through. She now has been
thoroughly vindicated and yet she lost the possibility of being
Secretary of State on the allegation that she had somehow misled the
Congress in reporting on Benghazi.
Now, of course, the truth is out. All the emails are out. She wasn't
part of any of the emails. She was the one who read the statement from
the CIA. We now know that the statement was written by the CIA and that
the State Department participated in writing it. The State Department
was concerned that the State Department would be blamed for what was
really a cover. The attack against the temporary U.S. compound in
Benghazi was essentially a cover for a CIA operation. And so the CIA
got into it. The State Department got into it. All of the intelligence
officials got into it.
Together they issued a statement which now has been found not to have
misled the Congress. If the joint statement didn't mislead the
Congress, imagine the vindication now of Susan Rice, who only read a
statement that she had no part in developing and had
[[Page H3238]]
no reason to believe--since it came from intelligence sources--that it
was anything but the facts as they knew it. And indeed, it turns out
they were the facts as they knew it.
I mention Ambassador Rice because of her recent appointment and
because she stood accused in the same way that the Attorney General
does.
Now, the gentlelady from Texas, my good friend Representative Lee,
and I sit on two committees who have spent a lot of their time
investigating the Attorney General. Please note that this is a Congress
that has no agenda. Had it not been for these so-called scandals I'm
not sure there would be anything to do in this House. They tend to go
home early, to come late. There is nothing of much consequence on the
floor. And indeed, I'm grateful for the appropriations period because
at least there is something of substance to come to the floor.
If you don't come here to legislate, if you come here to malign, if
you come here to keep the President from getting legislation, then you
run out of ideas. We're now at the lowest deficit in 50 years, so they
can't continue to talk about that the way you did before. They won't
come to the table, as the American people have said they want, for a
balanced deal. So we've got a floor where nothing happens and where
people went home today--I think the last vote was around noon. There's
nothing happening here.
Well, the vacuum has been filled by the committees, who have, each of
them--there were five committees--looking into these various matters.
Today, there was a Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on
which I serve looking into the misuse of money by the IRS, except it
turns out that was before this President's Executive order. The worst
of the IRS misuse of funds during a travel session began in the last
administration, much worse in that administration, and, by the way, in
prior administrations. But it's now all over, long ended. But for House
Committees, it's another way to go after the IRS.
All of us have been very critical of the IRS. We still don't know
what really happened there. But without knowing it, there are some on
my committee who are tracing it back to the President of the United
States without a scintilla of evidence. That, 50 years ago, would have
been called what it is--McCarthyism.
{time} 1330
So, when the gentlelady comes to defend the Attorney General who has
been attacked, I come simply to join her and to thank her.
In our committee, for example, we spent, perhaps, most of last year
on the so-called ``gunwalking,'' where there was the tragedy of a
border security agent who was killed. Our committee over and over again
asked for the full slate of witnesses. If we'd had those, then we would
also have had the last Attorney General from the Bush administration as
well as his lieutenants because that's who started the gunwalking, and
this Attorney General, of course, stopped it. Over and over again, they
raked Attorney General Holder and his top lieutenants over with charges
of perjury. Unable to prove them, they went so far as to try to
subpoena documents that the President believed should not, in fact,
become a part of the public record, so he invoked executive privilege.
Why did he do that? Once he invoked executive privilege, then he, too,
was accused of being part of a coverup.
Yet it is, in fact, the case--and here I'm going to quote--that the
Supreme Court has said:
Human experience teaches that those who expect public
dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with
concern for appearances. Thus, Presidents have repeatedly
asserted executive privilege to protect confidential
executive branch deliberative materials for congressional
subpoenas.
Otherwise the President cannot expect to get the truth from his
Attorney General or from others who report to him.
Then they said the President had asserted executive privilege too
late, when they ran out of other excuses, except the reason that he
asserted it when he did was he was hoping they would negotiate the
matter. You don't come up with executive privilege when you think
reasonable men and women will come to a reasonable conclusion.
The failure to look at the root causes of the gun walking tragedy
involving two administrations, to call no official from the
administration that was responsible for thinking of the idea of
gunrunning in the first place and for carrying it on for some time does
demonstrate a Congress engaged in fairness. If this Congress is not
known for its fairness as a general matter, I'm not sure why, perhaps,
we should expect that the high-profile Attorney General, who has
become, as some of the press has reported, something of a proxy for the
President of the United States, himself, would then get fairness.
The gentlelady mentioned the coconspirator matter. She and I are both
attorneys. We are accustomed to indictments in which the prosecutor
names a ``coconspirator,'' never attempting to prosecute that person,
but because the information has to allege precisely what happens, he
will name a person. No person in the press has ever been, and there was
never an attempt to prosecute anyone in the press. However, those
involved are at a disadvantage: we cannot be told what they were going
after because it is an intelligence and a secured matter. That leaves
everyone here who is out for the Attorney General free to allege
whatever he wants to, unless he has some sense of responsibility.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am so glad that you raised that point, because we
do not want to suggest that a layman's ears are different from a
lawyer's ears, but that is a very important point which you have made.
The frustration is that, on your committee, there are many lawyers.
You have lawyers who are investigators, particularly on the majority
side. They understand what that concept is, which is that, when you
have an indictment, you list names, and those names may be listed as
coconspirators. To take that and then translate it into a layman's
interpretation--oh, this person is going to be prosecuted--and to then
suggest that the Attorney General perjured himself in front of the
Judiciary Committee, where he said outright, I have no thought of
prosecuting a reporter, and that wouldn't even come to mind, and to
take the FBI affidavit which listed--in 2010, by the way, and I think
this is 2013--the gentleman, Mr. Rosen, as a coconspirator and that
nothing has happened since then, it is almost, I believe, an unfair
treatment, an unfair misrepresentation, an unfair mischaracterization
for the American people. The Attorney General made it clear in his
testimony before our committee, I have no interest, no desire, no
knowledge of prosecuting a reporter.
I just want to add, in addition, that we've just introduced a House
bill that is similar to the Senate bill that has judicial intervention
now, a sort of ramped-up SHIELD Act, which indicates that you would
have to go to the courts in certain circumstances to secure some of the
information of the press; but there is this distortion as he was
questioned on May 15, 2013, and in 3 years, Mr. Rosen has never been
indicted, and he has never been prosecuted.
Ms. NORTON. I must say I thank the gentlelady from Texas for that
clarification. Not only that, the Justice Department has issued a
statement to the effect it has no intent and never has had any intent
of prosecuting the coconspirator as is the case and as has been the
case for 100 years of the listing of coconspirators.
Just a moment more on this important matter. You mentioned that my
committee has a lot of lawyers, like you and me. Your committee is the
Judiciary Committee. I surely would have expected more of it than the
way they've gone at the Attorney General.
On this matter of the AP reporters, of the AP-Rosen matter, the
Attorney General recused himself. I'm not sure why he recused himself,
but I imagine it is because, if you're looking for a leak and if you're
doing a thorough investigation, you look from the top to the bottom.
So, once he'd been questioned just as a President could be questioned,
then, of course, he did the right thing, if that's the reason, by
recusing himself. But when it came to the Rosen matter, which is simply
signing off on the prosecutorial information--a routine ceremonial
matter--there was nothing contradictory about that and his statement
that he had no knowledge of the prosecution. He had
[[Page H3239]]
recused himself. Having recused himself, he'd better not have any
knowledge of it.
These are fine points we are making, and I'm afraid, for many in the
public, they are fine points because, as the gentlelady says, most
people are not trained as lawyers, and if they are, they don't want to
hear lawyer talk; but these are really important questions if you want
to accuse somebody of something.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Of perjury.
Ms. NORTON. Of something as serious as perjury--and a lawyer at that.
I thank the gentlelady for coming to the floor so that these
accusations--these wild and reckless accusations--against the Attorney
General have not gone unanswered.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am so grateful for your leadership.
I am going to conclude, and have some further comments; but before
you yield, I just want to pose a question to you, Congresswoman,
because, if nothing else, we can both agree together so it won't look
like one person is saying it.
For an officer of the court, for the highest ranking law officer of
the United States, the American people need to understand that the
charge of perjury is one of the most devastating charges. Forget about
your career, because all of us who are barred, who are members of the
bar, are officers of the court--of all courts. Some are able to
practice in the Supreme Court, in various Federal courts and otherwise,
and as an officer of the court, even in the representation of your
client, perjury is the ultimate charge.
{time} 1340
That is why I'm so baffled and felt compelled to come to the floor to
raise the question of why lawyers on the Oversight Committee and
lawyers on the Judiciary Committee would even offer a charge of perjury
under the circumstances of what I have just defined.
Let me just say this. In a letter to the Judiciary Committee, the
Attorney General said:
The Attorney General takes the disclosure of classified
information by those who have committed to protecting it very
seriously, especially as such disclosures can cause grave
damage to our national security.
The Attorney General also has the utmost respect for the
vital role the media plays in an open society.
Then it goes on to talk about his commitment to protecting these
vital sources. Then it goes on to again restate this whole question of
investigation versus prosecution. It says:
At the outset, it is important to note the difference
between an investigation and a prosecution.
And it goes on to lay out probable cause again. That's lawyer talk.
But it is very clear that the General wants to lay out for the
Members of Congress in an open way--by the way, I don't know if we
could both stand up here and count how many side meetings and staff
meetings that they had with the Attorney General on the gun walkings,
what we call Fast and Furious, and now the meetings and letters that
are going back, the ongoing contempt charge issue that is going on.
This Attorney General has made himself available.
The real question I just want to pose to you, as I yield for your
answer, is what it means to be charged with perjury as an officer of
the court. What General, what lawyer would take it lightly--though some
generals have gone to jail for perjury--that has been proven in a court
of law?
Ms. NORTON. And charged on the basis of some evidence.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. And some evidence.
In this instance, we have one line that was stated that, No, I will
not prosecute, versus the fact of the signing of an affidavit that did
not result in a prosecution.
Congresswoman?
Ms. NORTON. Your point about an officer of the court is something
that most Americans may be unaware of.
Every piece of paper that a lawyer files before a court of any kind--
it may seem perfunctory--is subject to perjury precisely because when
you're admitted to the bar, you become an officer of the court. So you
risk your professional life because you could be disbarred not only for
committing perjury, but even for misstatements in an offering before a
court. That's the high standard to which we, who are members of the
bar, are held. And for that reason, it would be unseemly for any
lawyer, much less the highest lawyer in the land, to risk perjury.
And I submit that not only has perjury not been committed; the word
``perjury'' should never have entered into this conversation without
the slightest bit of evidence. That's what ``reckless'' means, and I
thank the gentlelady for the question.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady for her knowledge, and I
thank the gentlelady for laying out something that, as you said, non-
lawyers would say, We're going too much. But I think they understand
when you have a role as given to you by the bar license and a role that
you would not play with lightly--but I think the other point is, as I
told you, I didn't want to highlight Mr. Holder's tenure. But he's been
around since 1976. Let me just say that he's had many times to disabuse
this officer role, and he has not done so because of his integrity.
I'm glad you mentioned now National Security Adviser Rice and use
that as an example. Let me congratulate her and use that as an example
of a very fine public servant and outstanding diplomat. In this
instance, there is not a morsel of evidence that she would manipulate
the Benghazi talking points. What an enormous tragedy. Who would want
to see our fallen diplomats lose their lives and their families? Let me
just say this: We want the truth, but we also juxtapose that as
something to suggest that let us hold our words until we know what the
facts are.
I just want to say very quickly that all of what you've heard us
discuss is what has been absorbing the time of a place that should be
talking about making right on the Affordable Care Act.
Now, I know that thousands in California are just getting rebates
back because of the Affordable Care Act. I know that small businesses
are getting dollars back because of the Affordable Care Act. I know
that seniors are now getting preventive care because of the Affordable
Care Act, children are getting preventive care, women are getting
preventive care; but you're only hearing the bad news. Why? Because
we're too busy making charges about perjury. I would rather you have
the testimony. Let's have hearings to get people to come forward to
tell America how the Affordable Care Act is making it better for them.
Let me tell you what else we're not taking any time to do because
we're suggesting that the Attorney General--with no evidence
whatsoever--is perjuring himself. In a couple of days, the parents of
America, the children of America will be facing a 6.8 percent increase
in the interest rates that our children will have to pay who are now
coming out as 2013 graduates. But we're talking about General Holder,
about whom I've given you a list. He has been a fighter against
consumer fraud, human trafficking and crime, and there's been no
evidence of perjury.
Instead of us meeting to have a compromise, to prevent the clock from
ticking on July 1 and kicking up the interest rates--this is a
nightmare. If you want to see a nightmare, go from $4,174 to $10,109.
That was the bill that was passed by our Republican friends, and then
the automatic increase is $8,000. This is what our young people are
going to be feeling the brunt of as they're trying to pay for college
loans. Could we get together and work on that? I think we could.
Then, of course, we have heard dead silence about what we're going to
do about reasonable gun legislation. I hope the lights of the Chamber
don't turn off or the sound go out because it looks as if we're trying
to take away guns. No. Every one of us holds up the banner of the
Second Amendment. What we're saying is can we at least know who has
them.
There are some who are putting forth mental health laws. I am a
strong supporter of it. Let us help individuals who are suffering; but
at the same time with regards to automatic weapons of any kind, there
needs to be, minimally, closing the gun show loophole. And then those
who are far more sophisticated than what these pictures may show, from
my perspective, the kind that was used in Sandy Hook, we can do better
as the American people.
Maybe we can also do something that we can all come together on. What
[[Page H3240]]
about a simple gun storage law, you know? We don't have it. And there
is a series of children that have killed their siblings or their
grandparents or their parents by having a gun lying around not locked,
because there's no law, no requirement. Some States have it. We've done
it and done a good job in bringing down that loss of life in Texas.
I'll be introducing legislation. I've been working with the General
and the Department of Justice to ensure that we find a good balance.
But there's a lot of work.
Sequestration is literally closing down teachers and child care units
and cutting off civilians at military bases and stopping ICE
enforcement officers and Customs and Border Protection and numbers of
others are put on furlough because of sequestration.
Couldn't we get rid of H.R. 19? It says eliminate sequestration, go
back to the budget or at least go to conference and treat the American
people with respect so the services that you need are not shut down
because of sequestration.
Why are we talking about perjury from the top legal officer where
there has been no proven evidence that anything that he said in the
Judiciary Committee was contradictory to what happened to Mr. Rosen?
There's no proof. He recused himself. He's not involved. There's no
indictment, no intention of indictment on the premise of what this
particular issue was about, the leakage of national security matters.
{time} 1350
And so my plea today is that we can do better. We can do better by
our youngsters. In essence, we can stop the bleeding. We can do better
by our children for health care. We can do better by better gun laws.
We can do better by getting a better budget. We can do better by
serving the American people. We can do better by building you new roads
and bridges and infrastructure, fixings the dams, stopping the
flooding.
All I want to say, Mr. Speaker, as I close, and I thank you, is to
thank you, Mr. Holder, for your service. Do not resign. And to my
colleagues, let's get to work to help the American people. I believe
that will in fact be our finest hour.
I yield back the balance of my time.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland
Security, and Investigations,
Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Sensenbrenner: This
responds to your letter to the Attorney General, dated May
29, 2013, requesting information about the Department's
policies with respect to investigations involving members of
the media and the Attorney General's knowledge of an
investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified
information that was then published in a news article in June
2009.
The Attorney General takes the unauthorized disclosure of
classified information by those who have committed to
protecting it very seriously, especially as such disclosures
can cause grave damage to our national security. The Attorney
General also has the utmost respect for the vital role the
media plays in an open society. To ensure the proper balance
of these important interests, the President has directed the
Attorney General to conduct a review of Department policies
regarding investigations involving the media, and as part of
that process, the Attorney General has initiated a dialogue
with news media representatives and other interested parties.
Furthermore, as the Attorney General explained in the hearing
before you on May 15, 2013, he supports the media shield
legislation currently under consideration by the Senate,
which provides robust judicial protection for journalists'
confidential sources while also enabling the Department to
continue to protect national security and enforce criminal
laws. We look forward to working with Congress on this
measure.
The Department's current policies provide separate
processes for subpoenas and search warrants in the course of
investigations involving members of the news media. As you
know, 28 C.F.R Sec. 50.10 governs the issuance of subpoenas
to members of the news media, including subpoenas seeking
their telephone toll records. This regulation requires the
Department in every case to consider the balance between the
public's interest in the flow of information and the public's
interest in effective law enforcement and the fair
administration of justice. Thus, the regulation requires the
government to take all reasonable alternative investigative
steps before considering issuing a subpoena to a member of
the news media or for the telephone toll records of a member
of the news media. The regulation also requires the
authorization of the Attorney General before issuing a
subpoena to a member of the news media or for telephone toll
records of a member of the news media. This regulation has
not been substantively amended in more than 30 years, and is
a subject of the review process currently being undertaken by
the Attorney General at the President's direction. Search
warrants for materials in the possession of a journalist
whose purpose is to disseminate information to the public are
governed by the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 2000aa, et seq. That law outlines the limited
circumstances under which the Department may seek Court
approval for a search warrant. Specifically, under the
Privacy Protection Act, the government may seek work product
materials or documents in the possession of a journalist only
where there is probable cause to believe that the journalist
has committed or is committing a criminal offense to which
the materials relate, including the crime of unlawfully
disclosing national defense or classified information.
Your letter also asks for additional information about the
investigation of the unauthorized disclosure of classified
information to a reporter in 2009. At the outset, it is
important to note the difference between an investigation and
a prosecution. When the Department has initiated a criminal
investigation in the unauthorized disclosure of classified
information, the Department must, as it does in all criminal
investigations, conduct a thorough investigation and follow
the facts where they lead. Seeking a search warrant is part
of an investigation of potential criminal activity, which
typically comes before any final decision about prosecution.
Probable cause sufficient to justify a search warrant for
evidence of a crime is far different from a decision to bring
charges for that crime; probable cause is a significantly
lower burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt, which
is required to obtain a conviction on criminal charges. Prior
to seeking charges in a matter, prosecutors evaluate the
facts and the law and make decisions about who should be
prosecuted. The regulation governing the issuance of
subpoenas to the news media described above, which provides
for consideration of the public's various interests, also
requires that the Attorney General must approve any charges
against a member of the news media. We are unaware of an
instance when the Department has prosecuted a journalist for
the mere publication of classified information.
The unauthorized disclosure of classified information that
appeared in a June 2009 news article was a serious breach
that compromised national security. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation conducted a comprehensive inquiry into that
unauthorized disclosure, and after exhausting all other
reasonable options, the government applied for a search
warrant for information in the reporter's email account
believed to be related to the source of the unauthorized
disclosure. The affidavit in support of the search warrant
satisfied the requirements of the Privacy Protection Act,
based on the facts alleged, and a federal judge granted that
warrant. The Attorney General was consulted and approved the
application for the search warrant during the course of the
investigation. Ultimately, as you know, although a Grand Jury
has charged a government employee with the unauthorized
disclosure of classified information, prosecutors have not
pursued charges against the reporter. At no time during the
pendency of this matter--before or after seeking the search
warrant--have prosecutors sought approval to bring criminal
charges against the reporter. The Attorney General's
testimony before the Committee on May 15, 2013, with respect
to the Department's prosecutions of the unauthorized
disclosure of classified information was accurate and
consistent with these facts. As the Attorney General
explained, these prosecutions focus on those who ``break
their oath and put the American people at risk, not reporters
who gather this information.''
We hope that this information is helpful. Please do not
hesitate to contact this office if we may be of additional
assistance in this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Kadzik
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
____________________