[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8189-8195]
[From the U.S. 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, 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

[[Page 8190]]

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 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

[[Page 8191]]

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 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

[[Page 8192]]

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 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

[[Page 8193]]

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 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

[[Page 8194]]

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 
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

[[Page 8195]]

     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.

                          ____________________