Hearing of the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee - Fiscal Year 2009 Budget for the Department of Justice
Interview
Hearing of the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee - Fiscal Year 2009 Budget for the Department of Justice
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. C.A. "DUTCH" RUPPERSBERGER (D-MD): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Interesting legal debate for both of you. I can tell you both know your issues, probably both lawyers, too.
ATTY. GEN. MUKASEY: I plead guilty to that. (Laughs.)
REP. RUPPERSBERGER: Okay. I'm going to try to get into three areas if I can quickly, but maybe I might not be able to.
First thing, Congressman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Senator Biden have asked me to raise this issue with you. You're aware that the 2006 Adam Walsh act directed attorney general to deploy technology to Internet crimes against children. There's a great program, a Wyoming program, that has been very successful bringing together the different jurisdictions and really has helped make a lot of cases.
You now want to expand that and expand that program. The question that I want to ask is, you want to make sure that the Wyoming program stays in place until the new program is up and running and it works. We've had a lot of issues, as you know, in the FBI with the problems with our technology. So my question to you, are you going to maintain the Wyoming program until a new program is up and running and has been tested?
ATTY. GEN. MUKASEY: I can't speak directly to the Wyoming program because I'm not familiar with it, and I'd be happy to get back to you specifically with regard to that. However, we do work very closely with an entity called NCMEC which is the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children out in Alexandria. And if anybody hasn't paid a visit out there --
REP. RUPPERSBERGER: Yeah, but I don't want to get into that, I'm going to ask you the question, because I have to get to some other areas. Can you give us a commitment that you will maintain the Wyoming program? You've won a national award for this -- the Justice Department -- for being effective. And we don't want to do away with one program because we're starting another one that doesn't work yet.
ATTY. GEN. MUKASEY: The one thing I can promise you is that I will look into it and get back to you in writing if I have to. I'm not going to comment on a program with which I'm not familiar.
REP. RUPPERSBERGER: Okay. Well, I would suggest you look at it very closely, and hopefully you will follow the suggestions that we've given you.
FISA -- you know, the legislation to reform the government's ability to engage in wiretapping. I'm on the Intelligence Committee, as is Mr. Schiff, but I do represent NSA. They're in my district. I spend a lot of time at NSA. So a lot of my constituents work at NSA.
And anyone who works in the field of intelligence should know exactly what the law is. They should have the ability not to worry about whether something is in a gray area. So it's so important that we move ahead with FISA, where we've now worked out a lot of issues.
I think the biggest problem that started when we tried to undertake the FISA legislation was the issue of the courts. And you, as a judge and a lawyer, know that our forefathers created a great system of government with checks and balances. And -- you know, I personally felt very strongly as a former prosecutor also that we needed the court whenever you have a wire tape for the check and balance. And I think we've resolved most of that issue now. I think what it comes down to with respect to FISA right now is the Senate bill that's giving full immunity and -- versus the -- our House bill that is not going to give full immunity.
And by the way, I believe that it's more about -- and I know my colleague Mr. Schiff believes this way -- that it's not as much about the immunity with me. It's about whether or not anybody in the government really, really broke the law. You know, the -- and unfortunately there's a lot that nobody can say because of issues being classified that really, these companies can protect themselves. So now we're in a position where we're asking, "Will you and the administration be willing to negotiate on this issue so we can get beyond these -- this back-and-forth bickering?" It's for the -- our national security is for the people that work in this field every day and that we've got to have a consensus and move on dealing with national security. Where are we? And will you be willing to negotiate and work with us so we can get this behind us?
ATTY GEN. MUKASEY: I'm not directly doing -- the person that is doing -- person doing the discussing. But I should tell you that first of all, as to the need for certainty, I couldn't agree with you more. That's a significant part of the problem underlying the immunity debate. Secondly, nobody -- nobody -- is talking about immunity for government activity. This is immunity for -- under two circumstances. One in which a carrier did not participate, and I think everybody can agree that if they did not participate, there should be no lawsuit. Secondly, a situation in which a carrier received from the government a notification that they were being asked by the president to do something that was lawful and that served national security.
Under those two circumstances, yes, immunity was requested. And these people need to know on a certain ongoing basis whether they're protected or not because otherwise their cooperation with us -- and it's not just as to electronic surveillance. Private entities cooperate with the intelligence community across a broad area and cooperate voluntarily. But they're not charitable institutions. They're not governmental institutions. They have responsibilities to their boards and if they're going to be sued whenever they provide that kind of cooperation, their only response is going to be and has to be, "Make us do it."
REP. RUPPERSBERGER: I agree with you on that issue. And by the way --
(Cross talk)
ATTY GEN. MUKASEY: -- be resolved.
REP. RUPPERSBERGER: Okay.
I agree with you on that issue. However, the votes aren't there on our side at this point. So part of our system of government is about working out issues and compromise, and this -- this is too important an issue. So my -- really question to you, using the fact you might not be intricately involved in negotiations, would you be willing to use you position as attorney general to sit down and to try work a compromise as it relates to this FISA bill? It needs to move forward.
ATTY GEN. MUKASEY: I think anything that can be discussed should be discussed. But I don't think we can cut bone simply in the interest of achieving a compromise --
REP. RUPPERSBERGER: There are some other issues -- and I don't want to talk about it now -- that could be resolved. You know, unfortunately because of the fact that we have classified information, we can't talk about it. But you know, we need good faith here. This is just not about -- there are a lot of issues out there with the president and his interpretation of authorities. But this needs to move forward.
Okay, let me get into one other area --
Yes.
REP. OBEY: If -- you will if it'll only take 30 seconds --
REP. RUPPERSBERGER: Yes, sure.
REP. OBEY: -- because your time is up.
REP. RUPPERSBERGER: Oh.
REP. OBEY: Could you --
REP. RUPPERSBERGER: Yeah. Real quick because I'll say it.
Cybersecurity -- very important issue. We're being attacked on a regular basis by, we know, China and Russia, and we need to be aggressive. They could cut down our banking institution -- whatever. But we're moving forward in this arena. I think it's very important that the attorney general get involved and start discussing the issues of civil liberties and privacy and those issues so we don't get into a FISA situation. We have a lot to do here, but we also have to deal with the civil liberties. I think we don't have a road map as it rates to cyber. We need a road map, and I think you, in your position -- you have to focus on where we're going to be in this regard.
ATTY GEN. MUKASEY: One answer? Amen.
REP. RUPPERSBERGER: Amen. Okay.
Was that 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman?
REP. OBEY: Hmm?
REP. RUPPERSBERGER: Was that 30 seconds?
REP. OBEY: That was just fine.
REP. RUPPERSBERGER: Good.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source