tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN September 11, 2014 1:00pm-3:01pm EDT
very plain on its face and the legislative history strengths that intent. but there are individuals like our general councse counsel who taken it upon themselves to interpret the act. we request you look at reaffirming what the ig act says and make sure everybody is on the same page. i thank you for asking me to testify before you. and i am prepared to answer any questions. >> thank you. and you yielded back 12 seconds. i have never had a more professional panel. i commend you all. we do a lot of hearings here that are partisan. as you know, this isn't one of them. so one of the challenges here is asking the first and most difficult question, which is, from each of your experiences, when did this begin and what do
you think the source is? and i just -- to the extent that you can say time and date and if you will, accountable individual who you think is the decision maker or the impediment, i would like that answer as succinctly as possible. miss buller? >> in my case it's very easy to pinpoint the time and the person. the passage of the act mandating the restrictive reporting was the impetus. the person was the general counsel. basically, he has taken the opportunity to interpret the act to impede our access. >> mr. elkins? >> in my case, you know, i have two agencies that i oversee, the csb and environmental protection agency. in both cases, i have to say that issues relative to access starts at the top with a clear
message from the top that access will be granted, it will be granted. to the extent that there is a muddled message or the message is not clear, you end up in situations that we have here today. some of the -- on the csb side of the house, the issues started back in 2010, 2011. on the epa side of the house, some of the issues that we're dealing with today actually started before i even came on board. so this has been an ongoing sort of matter. to answer your question directly, it starts at the top. clear message from the top what the expectations are. that's the way the rest of the troops will march. >> thank you. mr. horowitz? >> our issues starts in 2010, have continue econtinued. it started in 2010 with the fbi raising objections. there's a list of them that have said me too in terms of section 6a of the act doesn't mean what it says. >> what you're saying is is it
began with the fbi thinking they could beat your oversight but like any infection, particularly a popular one, you are being shut out systematically? >> correct. if there's a way to do that, that's what happened. >> yesterday, you and i were together. i think you testified that on six occasions the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has intervened when you have been denied and ultimately allowed you to get some of the information. is that correct? >> that's correct. approximately six. >> so in your case, it's delay and impeding and, in fact, some of the benefits of expeexpedien? >> you continue to not get information and that is a decision being made by the agency head, is that right?
>> well, i can't say emphatically that it's coming from the agency head. >> i should say, the agency head has not intervened in some of these letters, ask her to do so. that's what i was saying. >> i think that's a fair characterization. >> but ultimately, that's the person who could intervene? >> absolutely. absolutely. >> miss buller, in your case, you site the general counsel. but the general counsel is a referral point. there is an agency head that also has not intervened? >> yes. >> and i think if i can take mr. elkins and miss buller and bring your two statements together, which i think are important for mr. cummings and myself both, mr. elkins you cautioned us not to attempt to clarify, if you 6g will, and maybe come up short and diminish whatt) already is e law. miss buller, you clearly said, this review, which is also going
on at justice, begs the whole question of, is 6a, does it notwithstanding other laws mean what it says it means. now, mr. elkins, i'm coming back to you for that reason. if you either through executive action of the office of the president or through congressional action if we say, because we believe, that notwithstanding other laws 6a means what it says it means, does that both meet your test of not writing new law on top of already good law but at the same time clarify the question so there not be endless review by agency heads, general counsels and referrals to legal review? >> i think that would be -- i think that would be quite helpful. i think coming -- that message clearly without any wiggle room coming from the president would help. absolutely. >> thank you. with that, i have9xm used $12
seco seconds. >> i want to go back to what the chairman was asking. miss buller, as i listen to you and i readç your testimony -- thought about the issue here, personally identifiable information, it just seems like we should be able to work that out some kind of way. i mean, have you gotten any further than the memorandum of understanding? >> we have the memorandum of understanding in place. we are hopeful that we can continue to do our work with that memorandum of understanding. but there's -- with the legal opinion that's still in place, if there's another dispute that comes up regarding what pii is or what explicit details of the
sexual assault is, we're going to be right back where we started going back and forth with the general counsel's office trying to figure that out. >> mr. elkins, during your tenure as the inspector general, you worked with the epa to identify ways they can improve management. for example, your office released three reports in the past month that identify ways the epa can save money by improving its contracting processes and oversight. is that right? >> that is correct. >> your recommendations have led to many successful reforms. for example, on july 22, 2014, your office reported that the epa implemented corrective action on all of your recommendations regarding nationwide monitoring system that protects us from exposure to radiation. is that right? >> that's correct, sir. >> congress has also charged you with overseeing the chemical safety board, which i want to ask you about. you discuss in your testimony
along-term dispute with the csb. you also identify before the committee in june -- testified about that issue. your office is investigating use of personal e-mail accounts by senior csb officials to conduct official business. is that right? >> that is correct, sir. >> on september 5, 2013, you sent a 7-day letter to the csb seeking e-mail records. the csb refused to provide. this is the only 7-day letter you have issued in your tenure as inspector general, is that right? >> that's correct. >> how long you have been inspector general? >> over four years now. >> after the committee's hearings, csb provided some documents but on july 8, however, you informed the committee that csb still had not fully complied with your request. you are said the document -- you said the documents they provided were not fully responsive, the
attachments were not provided and some documents were redacted, is that right? >> that is correct. >> more recently csb has provided additional documents, included unredacted copies. and you sent a letter to the committee saying, oig concludes that the csb has complied substantially with our document request, however, the evidence we have gathered demonstrate that there are additional documents within the scope of our request which csb officials have not provided to the oig. it sounds like csb improved its cooperation following the committee's hearing in june but even that was like pulling teeth. is that a fair statement? >> that's a very fair statement. >> i think -- i got to tell you. i think that this is totally unacceptable. can you tell us now specifically how you know the csb is withholding documents? >> i would like to think i've
got a crack team of investigators that ask good questions. and we track the documents. we track the questions. it's really just matching it up. we ask certain questions. we look to see if we've got a response. if the response is not there, then there's a void. that's pretty much what we've got. >> you can identify the documents so we can follow up directly? >> i can give you somewhat of a characterization. for instance, there was, you know, of course the instance of using e-mail that's not government e-mail to conduct agency business. at one point in the process, it was conveyed to us that there was a directive to csb staff not to do that. and then subsequent, we found e-mails that suggested that after that date it was still going on. so in our mind, that suggests
that there's a disconnect there. that's one example. >> last question. in the letter you sent on tuesday, you said you will be issuing a report of investigation in the near future. what will the scope of that report be? when do you expect to issue it? >> well, it will be a compilation of what we have determined based on the facts of the case. at this point, it appears to us that the csb leadership was using means other than federal communication means to conduct agency business. so that's where the report is likely to hit. in terms of when that report is going to be issued, i can't give you an exact date. but i would say very shortly, maybe within the next 90 days or
so. >> thank you very much. we will follow up. >> ranking member yield? miss buller, did you ever ask on this personally identifiable information and the details, did you ask for in camera review for your people to look at the documents without receiving them? >> no. that wouldn't have been permitted under the general counsel's legal opinion. >> the question is, did you ask? did you attempt to have something where you would respect the fact that you wouldn't take possession but you would review them? >> no, we did not. >> one last question. as i listencañuygk to your test one of the key -- when i think about the conflict -- you said that your agency has been used to handling very sensitive mqjaa6ñ;oq/ua;cç/lyn-dçyqz(nk confidential. i'm sure you made those same arguments to the peace corps. >> yes.
>> what was the response? we've got government public servants who want to do the right thing. and the last thing your agency would be doing would be going against yourself by revealing information identifying somebody who may have been sexually assaulted. i'm just wondering what happened there. you follow me? do you think there's a distrust? >> the way that the act is drafted, there are two except n exceptions on the disclosure. one is for one of the exceptions that is enumerated and the other is that if the person files a restrictive report, it won't trigger an investigative process. our general counsel basically interpreted the receipt by my office of any information from a restricted report as doing that, automatically triggering an investigative process even though we assured him that we
are required to follow the law, that if we got any restricted reported information, we would not use it to trigger an investigation. it didn't seem to make an impact on him. and he is the only person who has concluded that the two laws conflict. when you read the two laws, there's a withay to interpret t that they don't. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. i appreciate the inspector generals testifying. i guess with being the senior member of the committee and having gone through almost all the -- half a dozen or so chairmen and others who have been on the panel, you get insight. i have never seen an instance in my 21-plus years of 47 inspector generals coming together and
saying that their oversight was being obstructed. mr. horowitz, do you know of any instance similar to this? >> i don't. >> mr. elkins? >> this is the first to my recollection. >> miss buller? >> i don't recall any either. >> each of the instances which you have come here to site before us have different parameters. some of them, you know -- there could be questions. i've seen some of your recommendations for possible changes in legislation. that would be one way to resolve some of the issues. i think, mr. horowitz, you have some recommendations about some exsem exemptions that should be allowed? yes, miss buller?
>> yes. appears that the actions taken by epa in really ignoring you and allowing whistle-blowers and others to be intimidated, this has under mined your position at inspector general to conduct yourñr legitimate investigative oversight responsibilities? would that be a fair statement? >> that would be a fair statement. >> the other thing that would concern me is using some language or exceptions that are in the law in the case of justice and peace corps to obstruct investigation or even worse to cover up, particularly concerned about the sexual abuse
instances. some of these cases, the staff had told me may be like peace corps worker on peace corps worker or some locals on peace corps volunteers. is that the case? >> yes. >> and, again, it appears that it is sort of a blatant coverup of sexual abuse cases that some might embarrass the agency. i guess you expose yourself when you send people to foreign lands or on any mission to locals or foreign nationals taking advantage of american personnel. the case of problems with peace corps workers being involved in these instances? >> usually, it's a host country national involved in the
assaults. from what we gather, the information we gathered, it's usually volunteer onñr voluntee or staff on volunteer in about 4% of the cases. >> how many? >> 4%. >> that's huge but it's very embarrassing, i would imagine, to the agency. again, i think we have a particular position of responsibility to deal with that kind of action and also i think you should have that authority to uncover, again, what's going on and expose it. a couple of questions, because -- inspector generals have been under attack for a number of years now. several ways of attacking, one, get rid of them. we went through that in the beginning. i remember gerald walpin. he was removed. the committee let it be known that that was not going to be tolerated, although they did get
away with that, that particular instance. then not appointing attorney generals. i'm told there is 13 vacancies, ?vççñj presleytlga0fñ?zpy4wf!s. 20% of the inspector general positions are vacant. is that about right, mr. horowitz? >> i think that's right. >> you think? >> i don't have the statistics. >> it sounds right. >> these are the numbers that i have. if you don't appoint them, you try to get rid of them. and then you don't cooperate with them and about strukt thob. those are serious problems. appreciate you bringing this to the matter of the committee. >> i thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. hearing. ik find myself in firm agreeme with yourself and with the ranking member. your opening statements. miss buller, my other committee,
the house foreign affairs committee, we had legislation dealing with the peace corps and the issue of sexual assaults and how best to handle that. there were a series of investigations and investigative stories really that were highlighted how poorly historically the peace corps had here to for frankly managed cases of sexual assault among volunteers. we introduced legislation to try to address that. so i'm particularly concerned tg find that today on the subject at the peace corps there isn't full cooperation with your office. so that's the context in which i look at particularly the peace corps issue and the role of the ig.
in january, you testifiedç befe this committee and raised concerns about access to peace corps information, is that correct. >> yes. >> what was the nature of that testimony? >> it was the same issue. >> could you speak into the microphone? thanks so much. >> it was the same issue that i am testifying about today. it's the lack of access to restricted reported information. >> specifically in 2011, we passed the volunteer protection act to which i just referred requiring the peace corps to establish restricted reporting system giving volunteers the option to report sexual assaults on a confidential basis. under this act, the peace corps ig is required to conduct a case review of a statistically significant number of sexual assault cases to evaluate the effectiveness of that policy and to provide a report to congress. is that right? >> yes. due to the peace corps's interpretation of that act, the
agency, however, withheld from the ig certain personal information about victims as well as sexually explicit details about sexual crimes. is that correct? >> yes. >> on may 22, you and the agency signed a memorandum of understanding. under that agreement the agency agreed to provide you with access to all information related to restricted reports other than clearly defined personally identifiable information and explicit details of sexual assaults. is that correct? >> yes. >> since that mou has been in effect, has your office requested any sexual assault case information under the mou from the peace corps agency? >> we have requested prime incident reports for program evaluation that we were going to do. >> did you say five? >> no. two. we have one program evaluation and we requested all of the
crime incident reports including restricted reports, for that country before we went into evaluation. there were two reports. we did get both reports with redactions. >> with the appropriate redactions? >> yes. from. >> from your point of view? >> according to the mou, yes. >> so since that mou has been put into affect, you have had requests and you have found full compliance on behalf of the agency? >> yes. >> is your expectation that the case information that you did receive is useful to the work you are undertaking? >> it's useful to the particular program evaluation we're doing at this particular point in time. the problem that we have is, when we are going to do our case review for the mandated work, it requires a statistic sampling to do that. the peace corps has no case
management system. everybody is compi everything is compiled in one place. we have records all over the place. we don't have any way to track how a volunteer is treated after they have been assaulted because there's no case management system. >> even now? >> even now, yes. >> and would that case management also include legal actions? for example, if somebody has been sexually assaulted, presumably, there's a legal case pending in the host country. >> if there is, it should be included in the record. >> but it's part of the case management problem, i assume, that's also somewhere else? >> if the case was taken into court, with t would no longer be restricted. we should have access to that. >> do you? >> yes. we do have access to non-restricted reports. the problem is the default position for peace corps is every report of sexual assault that's filed is automatically
restricted until a volunteer determines to make it otherwise. so the restricted reports is quite large. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i want to end by saying, this is a particularly troubling case since congress on a bipartisan basis actually addressed this topic, the peace corps and the incidents and management of sexual assaults of volunteers abroad. to find three years after passing that act that we're still finding problems internally with the peace corps, that directly affect the victims, because their cases aren't being managed efficiently and properly and sympathetically and the ig has not had until the mou full cooperation from the agency is troubling indeed. to me, circumvents, the letter as well as the spirit of the law congress passed to address this very sensitive but real issue affecting our peace corps
volunteers it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i now turn and recognize the gentleman from utah. >> i thank the chairman. thank you, the three of you for being here. you play a vital role in checks and balances and just good government. and i thank you for your time and dedication for you and your staff. i would ask consent to enter into the record the letter dated august 5, 2014. this is a letter to chairman isa, ranking members cummings from the 47 igs. hearing no objection, it will be entered. i want to read three sentences from this letter. the under signed federal inspectors general write regarding the serious limitations on access to records that have recently impeded the work of inspectors general at the peace corps, the epa and the department of justice. on page two, last paragraph, the
issues facing the doj, oig, the epa oig and the peace corps oig are not unique. other inspectors general have from time to time faced similar obstacles in the work whether on a claim that some other law or mandate of the ig act or by the agency's impo decision ofp9÷je unnecessarily burdensome administrative conditions on access. it is extraordinary that 47 inspectors general have issued this letter expressing this concern. but i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the director of the office of management and budget dated september 9, 2014. >> without objection entered. >> let me read a sentence from that response. then i would like you to please respond to it. the administration doesn't seem to think there's a problem. this letter paragraph three,
last sentence says, overall, the numbers reported by the igs demonstrate that federal departments and agencies in this administration value of work of ig offices and are almost uniformly successful in getting them the information they need to perform their responsibilities. this letter, if you were to read this letter, the office of management and budget issuing a letter a full month after the 47 igs, they don't think there's a problem. how do you respond to that sentence? start with mr. horowitz. >> i can only speak from experience and what i have heard from other igs which is we have faced roadblocks and several of our reviews, untimely access taken a fair amount of time. the other igs have had their experiences. i know from conversations with fellow igs, while they haven't had lawyers come forward and say we can't legally give it to you, they have had issues with
getting materials in a timely manner. that is a very significant issue fornus. >> when it says almost uniformly successful, how would you characterize what you are able to access and get right now, particularly from the fbi? >> it has been an extraordinarily difficult issue for us for now several years to get prompt, timely access to materials. >> mr. elkins? >> i think there's a disconnect. i think that statement that you just read capsulizes the disconnect. on the one hand, i think what we have seen here is that we hear from time to time that, well, you know, there is substantial cooperation with the oig. i mean, 80%, 90% of the time, there's no problems. you get what you ask for. but that assumes that the other 10 to 20% of the time that we're not getting what we ask for is
okay. that suggests that it's a moving target. that's a very slippery slope. that is exactly i think why we are here today and talking about these issues, because there is this assumption that most of the time we cooperate. and that's where the focus is at. but the real issue here is what about that 10% of the time that there is no cooperation? that seems to just keep jumping around and jumping around. that's the problem. and i think that message says that it's a broad problem with omb and a lot of agencies. >> thank you, mr. elkins. miss buller? >> i agree with my esteemed colleague. from our perspective, we have had an agency issue opinion -- issue policies and procedures specifically stating that we can't have access to something. so it's very difficult for me to understand how it's not a problem. and i think the fact that 47
other igs have at one time or another -- maybe not all the time but one time or another had problems should be an indicator that there is a problem. >> thank you. i appreciate the great work that we do and look forward to hearing from you further. yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for the inspectors general appearing here today. as this committee has previously highlighted, the offices of inspectors general are essential to the efficiency of our federal government. they help hold agents accountable, identifying misconduct in program and by personnel. they can highlight the holy trinity of waste, fraud and abuse guaranteeing american taxpayers get the most bang for
their buck. the position of ig is a difficult position to hold. they are tasked with investigationivesting alleged abuses. however, a balance has to be struck between confidentiality and privacy right of victims as well as whistle blowers and the needs of the inspectors general. miss buller, i listened to your testimony closely and your questioning by representative connolly. as you noted in your written testimony, the oig recently reached this memorandum of 23 d understanding on how to comply with the act. obviously, many victims of sexual abuse and assault choose to report that conduct anonymously out of fear of retribution and for their safety in general.
there's an irony, isn't there, in that the act was intended to provide tighter oversight to make sure complainant's anonymity is protected. the peace corps mishandled her complaint and her identity got out and she was murdered. i think mr. connolly has made that point. but there's this irony that the act was intended to tighten oversight of the confidentiality and at the same time now we hear that the peace corps is saying that because of the need for confidentiality they don't want to cooperate as much with the oig. i see that. and i think probably a good thing to do this morning, miss buller, would be for you to aelaborate. you touched on it briefly in
your testimony about how professional your staff is and how careful you are with anonymity. will you elaborate and tell us more about systems and procedures in place to protect anonymity? >> sure. all of my staff is required, as is peace corps staff, to comply with all of the laws that protect personal identifying information such as the privacy act, hip pa, things of that nature. we are required by law to comply with those the same way that peace corps staff is. further more, my investigators are trained investigators. we must comply with all of the guidelines from the attorney general. we have full law enforcement authority. law enforcement organization. my evaluators, when they go out to a post, they go to the volunteer sites and sit and interview individual volunteers and they tell them that they
will not use their name, because they are trying to filed r find out how well peace corps is supporting the volunteers. they do not use their name. theying agate information and bring it back so we can issue a report to tell them that you have these problems and n this area that volunteers don't feel supported in another area, things of that nature. we are very professional. >> i thank you for that. you did say in your testimony there's never been an instance of the office of attorney general being implicated in an improper discloser of an identity, is that correct? >> yes. >> there never will be. will there? >> no, there will not. >> i thank you for testifying here today. we take your testimony seriously. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman.
before i recognize myself for five minutes of questioning, i would ask that an additional document that follows up the preceding documents, a letter addressed to the director of office management and budget on these issues and signed by our chairman and ranking member as well as corresponding chairman and ranking member in the senate be introduced into the record without objection it will be interest dursed. i thank the witnesses for being here as well and carrying on with this continued investigation to make sure that your work is accomplished. mr. horowitz, i remember our first meeting in my office when you came in after your appointment and how direct you were about saying, my job is to be the job at the oig is supposed to do and to get to the bottom of the issue regardless of where we find ourselves.
i appreciate that. let me ask you a question relative to a fairly high profile investigation that we have been involved with as well as you. were there restrictions or limitations on your ability to access documents in your investigation into the operation fast and furious? >> that's one of them. the investigations where the issue was first raised back in 2011 to our access. >> did you have to make document requests in writing? >> we did. and the issues came up both in the context of our request for grand jury information, which as you know given the case was a criminal case were many as well as wiretap information, as you know, from our report. there were many. >> how long did it take for you to get access? >> it took many months for this issue to be resolved. and it was resolved through an order being issued by the leadership not through our independent access pursuant to the ig act.
>> elaborate on that last statement a little. >> yes. in our view, we have a right as congress has laid out in the ig act in section 6a to get the materials we ask for. we ask for relevant information, responsive information. in our view, we're entitled to that by law. congress has been clear. the fbi, other components in the department, have taken the view that the ig act perhaps doesn't mean that. indeed, we have been told that that was the office of legal counsel's preliminary review, that it wasn't sure the ig act meant what if said. as a result, it required an order of the attorney general of the deputy attorney general to the component that said, i find these reviews are of assistance to me as the leadership of the department and therefore you can give the ig those materials. >> how has the requirement that the oig obtain written permission to access documents related to the fast and furious
operation affected your office's ability to conduct a complete investigation in the matter? >> it delays. it frequently has the impact of delaying our reviews. not only because we have to go through that process to the leadership of the department but also because, frankly, it encourages other objections by other components of other issues. for example, personally identifying information that ig buller talked about. that issue was thrown up in front of one of our reviews on sexual misconduct within the department by both the fbi and the dea. that's a frivolous objection. after many months of back and forth was withdrawn by the agencies. we finally got the material. >> how does this affect your independence? >> it compromises it, in my view, entirely. i should not have to go to the people i oversee for approval to get records. congress, i don't think intended that. that would under cut in every
way our independence. >> we certainly didn't. other than the reason described in the letter from 47 igs, what tactics do agencies use to deny oigs access to agency records and documents? miss buller, i will start with you. >> in my case, we have had instances where our situation and the issue on the act has bled into other areas. for example, they redid the case -- crime reporting management system for standard reports. when they did that, we were denied access to that for no reason. because they were not restricted reports. we had to go back to the general counsel and actually i had to go to the director of the agency and make a personal plea to get the information that we had been getting all along reinstated to us. it just -- once you start down
the road where there's preventing you from getting information, it pops up in different places and unexpected places. >> mr. elkins? >> in my case, what i see is stonewalling to a large extent parsing out information. you ask for, you know, ten pieces of information and you get two or three pieces of information and then there wants to be a discussion on the other seven pieces of information. and then there's continually fighting and going back and meetings. at the end of the day, a year later, you still don't have the information. in the back of my mind, what i hear is cha ching, cha ching, that's the taxpayers' dollars going out being used to solve an issue that the ig act says when we ask for information, we're supposed to get it immediately and promptly. if we had received it at that time, the cash register wouldn't
continually be ringing. that's what i see. >> mr. horowitz? >> the fbi has put in place in our instance their general counsel reviewing all of the materials and all of our requests for materials before they come to us. that requires reviewed by lawyers at the fbi. it delays us getting access. and a concrete example of what that means in a review we are doing, we asked one of the sub components within the fbi for an organizational chart. they told us they couldn't give it directly to us because the standing requirement within the fbi that materials have to go through the office of general counsel first. we were delayed for weeks getting organizational charts so we could figure out who to talk to in the course of a review. that should not be happening. that's a waste of money. we have entitlement to the
access to the records. i'm not sure what use there is of the resources of the fbi to go page by page through records before giving it us to. >> thank you. my time has expired. i recognize the gentle lady from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the ig plays a key role in making the government more effective in ensuring wise issue of taxpayer money. obstruct of the work is not acceptable. i take the concerns being aired here today very seriously. hopefully the message that my colleagues and i are sending on this point today is it heard loud and clear. i would like to discuss the concerns have i with epa's office of homeland security in particular. mr. elkins, on may 7th of this year, the assistant inspector general for investigations of epa testified before the committee and raised a number of access concerns. specifically, mr. sullivan
expressed frustrations that the epa's office of homeland security was denying access to important classified threat material that was impeding your ability to investigate threats against epa facilities and its employees. he also testified that ohs refused to share misconduct cases with his office because ohs believed it was "a defactor law enforcement organization in itsel itself." apparently, denying access to classified information related to possible cyber intrusions. is that a fair summary of your concerns also with the ohs office under epa? >> yes, ma'am. that is a fair characterization. >> thank you. i understand from your testimony today that you continue to have problems with access to information from ohs.
is that correct? >> yes, ma'am, that's correct. >> in june -- june 19th of this year, mr. mccarthy sent you a memo entitled working effectively and cooperatively, is that correct? >> i don't recall that exact memo. june 19th you say? >> it's called working effectively and cooperatively. >> yes, i do recall that. yes. >> so my understanding is it attempts to construct a framework for better cooperation between ohs and your office. section 5 lays out a dispute resolution process. has that process been used by your office since receiving the memo? >> i can speak for my own personal opinion, no. we still have the same issues that we had at the date of that letter. if there was a dispute process that was used, it hasn't worked and i haven't been a part of it. >> okay. do you think it should -- it
could or should be further enhanced or is that something that's hindering your work in general? >> i think the ig act says all means all. when we ask for information and access to documents and individuals, that's what it means. entering into a dispute resolution process sends the message that there's wiggle room, that it can be negotiated. i'm totally against that process. >> the committee staff attempted to resolving this impasse that you are having with epa's office of homeland security. my understanding from your testimony what you just said that we're still hitting roadblocks? >> absolutely. >> what steps do you think would be lepful fhelpful and how can committee be helpful to you? >> i think ultimately the administrator needs to send a clear message that the ig act requires absolute cooperation with the ig.
if that message is sent, i think everything would change. until we get some clear message from the administrator to that effect, i think the status quo will continue. >> do you think the inspector supporting ohs' position that they are a defactor law enforcement agency? >> you can repeat the question? >> do you think the administrator mccarthy's position, from what he has said with this -- by supporting this memo and not sending out this -- the statement that you should have full access, do you think that he supports what ohs believes that they are a defactor law enforcement organization within epa? >> i don't want to put words in the administrator's mouth. the end result is that the status quo continues. so i can only infer that the
administrator agrees with that. >> thank you. thank you so much, mr. chairman for having this hearing. to the extent this committee and its staff can be of assistance to address this impasse, we should be willing to help. again, mr. elkins, thank you for the work that do you for us and for the american taxpayer. >> thank you. >> i yield back. >> thank you. i recognize the gentleman from oklahoma. >> thank you. thank you all for being here and for your work that you do every single day for the american taxpayer. we appreciate what the office of inspector general does and every one of these agencies is important. congresse ed and the american pe established these agencies. they didn't appear out of dust and have responsible to congress. congress created the agencies and congress has the oversight responsible for these. what the office of inspector general does is to bring transparency to the american taxpayer. with that, mr. horowitz, if i asked to see all of the papers on your desk, would you assume that's three pages or would you
assume it's all? >> i would assume it's everything. >> if i asked for all the pages that could you go back and see counsel and then come back and say, no, we really decided all doesn't mean all? >> pursuant to the ig act, no. you would get everything. >> i have a real issue when any agency steps in and says, i know congress required all these pages to be turned over but we have discussed it as an agency and we're not going to turn it over. i have an issue with that. i have an issue with any time an agency steps up and says, we don't like some of the information coming out and so we're going to choose not to give it. i don't like it when i read reports from the attorney general when he write back to inspector general and says, i have determined that providing the oig with access to it is helpful to me. so i'm going to turn this over because it's helpful to me. also reviewing other documents and saying i determined this is not helpful so i'm not turning it over. that is not the responsibility of the attorney general of the
united states to conceal documents. so with that, i have severalca÷ questions. the roadblocks that you have experienced over the last several years -- mr. horowitz, >> so of what you have seen and the folks that you have talked to,[j mr. elkins, how long have you been at this is the with the inspector general's office? >> just a little over four years. >> ms. bueller? >> six years. >> the question is this is obviously an old law. this is not new. this is requiring the administration, every administration, any administration to say american tax dollars are at use here. >> what have you seen in the individuals that you have talked to and the other folks that are around, some who have worked in the inspector general's office, some for decades, what are they experiencing now that has changed and has it changed? is this normal protocol for every administration or is something changing? i'm not asking this in a political way. i'm trying to figure out is this
normal protocol from every administration, every agency? >> i can speak to my situation. i've talked to my predecessors. i think the answer is quite clearly no in our circumstances. we did fbi oversight after the attacks of 9/11, after the robert hansen scandal. we were given complete access to the materials we needed. we didn't face these issues. frankly, we didn't face these issues until 2010 or 2011. >> are you finding foia request is coming out as fast or at equal speed than what you were getting from the inspector general's office? >> i actually haven't compared those so i couldn't speak to that. >> i can tell you in congress we are finding that, that at times we'll make a request of a document and a foia request happens and the foia request gets it the same day that we do, sometimes faster, so that has been an issue. mr. elkins, i have a question for you. you're dealing with the e.p.a. you said in your oral testimony you're being blocked from the
epa receiving information that they have deemed intelligence activity. tell me about that. >> yes, sir. the e.p.a., office of homeland security has asserted that it is the primary office in epa to handle any issues related that have intelligence connected to it. unfortunately, they do not have investigation authority. there's only two entities within e.p.a. that has investigative authority. one is oig and the other is cid. in terms of misconduct cases which typically result in where you have intelligence information where individuals inside the agency is doing something illegal, it's going to be related to employee misconduct. >> right. so can be you tell what intelligence activity is within the e.p.a.? they're saying they're withholding this information where you can't look at it because it's intelligence activities. can you tell what it is?
>> to the extent they have the intelligence activities information, i don't know because they don't share that information with me. >> this committee finds that ironic because it wasn't that long ago that we had someone sitting at the same table that pretended to be with the cia and was also with the epa and for years, for years eluded epa oversight because he claimed he was secretly working for the cia. i find it ironic that the e.p.a. is now telling the inspector general that this is intelligence related. we can't pass this on for oversight. i'm going to be interested to hear from the e.p.a. what intelligence activities they're doing on the american people and activities they're doing worldwide related to the environmental protection act and why they would say this is so secret that we're not going to allow the american people to see the activities and participate in oversight for that. i think that's a reasonable question to ask any agency that doesn't have investigative
intelligence responsibilities, how they have the somehow created their own intelligence department and what they're doing with that. mr. chairman, thank you for allowing me the extra questioning here, and i thank you all for your work. >> i thank the gentleman and i recognize the gentleman from nevada. mr. horseford. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate very much this hearing and we started off saying that this was going to be nonpartisan. unfortunately, as usual, it turns into a bit more partisan than it should because the role that the ig plays is very important. your mission is important and we should be working in a nonpartisan fashion to support that. mr. horowitz, i do want to follow up on your comments. by my good friend, the gentleman from oklahoma and to ask you to clarify a little bit based on your testimony today and your previous testimony in january.
i want to ask you about some of the concerns that you raised regarding your office's access to categories of information relevant to on going i.g. reviews including wiretap and grand jury materials and documents related to the department of justice's use of material witness warrants. mr. horowitz, as i understand it, in specific instances you have had to seek access to this information from the department's leadership, correct? >> that's correct. >> when testifying about this same issue before the committee on january 15th you stated, and i quote, in each instance the attorney general or deputy attorney general provided us with the permission to receive the materials. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> you also wrote in your testimony today that the department has informed you that, quote, it is their intent to continue to grant permission to access records in future audits and reviews.
is that correct? >> that's correct. >> so mr. horowitz, as a preliminary matter, has all of the information you have sought from the department been provided to you? >> we are told that it has been. >> has any information that you have requested from the department ultimately been withheld from you? >> ultimately, no. we've gotten it after many months. >> so during the january hearing, you testified that your office's access issues were, quote, not necessarily specific to this attorney general, this deputy attorney general, it is an issue that my predecessors have had to deal with. is that correct? >> it is correct that they've had to deal with timely production of material. >> so when you were asked by my good friend, the gentleman from oklahoma, is this an issue that is unique to this department's leadership, that was not the answer you just gave. >> the issue arose in 2010 when my predecessor was still there
and continued beyond that. there were other issues in terms of timeliness that predated but we have not had a legal objection raised by a component until then. >> i appreciate that clarification. it is my understanding that the department recently requested a formal opinion from the office of legal countries counsel to resolve a conflict between the interception of section 6 a of the i.g. act which grants them full access to all necessary requested information and several statutes that restrict the release of certain types of protected information such as a grand jury and wire tap material. it is also my understanding that the department has told you that it is committed to working with you to provide access to all materials necessary for your office to complete its review until the olc releases its opinion. is this correct? is this a correct understanding?
do your job, including grand jury and wiretap information that must be closely guarded. and i hope that both parties continue to work together as we move forward on this important issue. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i yield back my time. >> i thank the gentleman. i guess i would express my pleasure at this hearing so far up until now that it has been bipartisan, nonpartisan looking for answers of what is happening now so that we move forward and do it right. so i would state that i think that is what this committee hearing has developed around and over and has been carried on. so i appreciate the bipartisan fashion and the nonpartisan fashion so far. having said that, let me recognize -- looking at the list here, mr. duncan from tennessee. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman.
i'm sorry i had to preside over the house so i couldn't hear all of your testimony, but i introduced the original bill to create an inspector general for the tennessee valley authority, and i've always believed very strongly in the inspector general process. it's been very, very helpful to the work of this committee, but i was really amazed by the number of inspectors general that signed this letter. i'm told it was -- i haven't tried to count them but i'm told it was 47 i think or something like that. that's pretty amazing. i think that certainly is not something that we've ever seen before, so apparently, there's pretty serious concern about people who are in the know, so to speak.
mr. horowitz, i understand there were several high profile investigations such as in the new black panther case and the prosecution of the late senator ted stevens and the torture memo case, other matters where your investigation has been hindered or delayed or something by the office of professional responsibility. could you tell me about that and explain a little bit about what that's done to your work? >> certainly, congressman. the issue there is that when the congress set up the i.g. -- our i.g. office in 1998, we weren't part of the original i.g. act. it kept in place the office of professional responsibility and
it provided that unlike with regard to all the other employees in the justice department that we don't have jurisdiction to review alleged misconduct by department attorneys so as a result, matters such as those cases go to the office of professional responsibility, which lacks statutory independence instead of coming to us. so we actually have no authority to investigate those matters. >> well, i understand that. but what i'm asking, there have been these high profile situations and i'm sure several much lower profile cases where there there has been misconduct by department of justice lawyers. do you think that your office would be capable of investigating this type of misconduct along with the office of professional responsibility? >> we absolutely think that, and i think we've demonstrated that, quite frankly, regarding reports such as agent misconduct such as
some of the work we've done in the fbi context. we've demonstrated quite ably our abilities to do that and i think the same independence that congress thinks over the independent oversight of the fbi. >> i'll ask the panel as a whole, do you feel that there's been an overclassification of documents by the departments or agencies which with which you have worked or other departments that you've read or heard about? >> i have to concur with mr. horowitz, i have heard that. in my particular agency that has not been an issue particularly, but i have heard that issue raised, yes. >> peace corps doesn't have original classification authority so that's really not an issue at the peace corps. >> we have found some issues related to that in one of the reports we did last year and have reported out on that. >> all right.
thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman and the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me begin by emphasizing how much i value the work of the inspector general's community in helping our government function better and become more efficient. so i want to thank all of you for being here. it is imperative that all inspectors general have a good working relationship with the agencies they're tasked with overseeing in order to fulfill their mission of identifying and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government. mr. horowitz, i would like to ask about the department's overall level of cooperation with your office. you testified before the committee on january 15th of this year that, and i quote, most of our audits and reviews are conducted with full and
timely cooperation from the department's components, end of quotation. is that a correct -- >> that's correct. most of our work, we get full cooperation. >> would it be fair to say that the access concerns you raised in your testimony are limited to specific instances and not representative of a larger scale agency wide problem? >> i would say there are limited reviews where we've had this problem. the problem though is as i.g. elkins and i.g. bueller says, it takes on a life of its own. we get what i think are frankly frivolous objections in other instances that don't have to go to the attorney general or deputy attorney general because i'm able to work them out with the agency leadership at the dea or fbi or whatever it is. these problems, once some people see they can object, you get
more and more objections. >> thank you. your office's semiannual report to congress for the october, 2013, through march, 2014 reporting it period states that it has closed 184 investigations, issued 35 audit reports and made 137 recommendations for management improvement. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> the report mentions, for example, that your office issued an audit of the department's efforts to address mortgage fraud and the department agreed with all seven of the i.g.'s recommendations, is that correct? that's correct. >> your office also examined the fbi's terrorist watch list operations and practices and issued 12 recommendations, all of which the fbi agreed with. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> mr. horowitz, can you then
give us an overview of how it -- these audits and recommendations helped streamline costs and improved the department's programs and operations? >> well, we make these recommendations to do precisely that, congressman, so that we can not only advise the agency leadership what steps need to be taken but the congress itself as it does its oversight. and the recommendations we make go to the deficiencies we find, either management or waste fraud, misuse that save the taxpayers every year tens of millions of dollars. >> then it sounds to me like your office is doing a great deal of very valuable work to ensure that the agency maintains high standards of integrity and accountability. i want to commend and thank you again for your efforts and i
thank all of you for being here this morning and clarifying is, testifying, and giving us the assurances that we need to have to know that you're doing good work and that the oversight of our government is in good hands. mr. chairman, i thank you and yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman and the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. thank you, all of you, for your testimony, mr. elkins in particular. welcome. it's been a real pleasure to work with you in a non-partisan way. i think all of us here would agree that we don't want republicans, democrats or unaffiliated or agencies to influence your work, that indeed, it needs to be independent and that the american taxpayers depend on your work. and so i just thank you to each one of you. ms. bueller, i want to start with you.
if this continued stonewalling of access to documents, what kind of harm -- potential harm can you see that would come from this specifically with your work? >> well, in our case, we do have the memorandum of understanding. so we are somewhat receiving information, but the problem with that is, it's a temporary measure and we can't rely on it being there because it can be taken away at any time. if we don't receive access to the information that we need, we can't ensure the volunteers who have been victims of sexual assault are receiving the types of care and services that they need and are entitled to in order for them to move on with their lives. >> so is it your testimony today that victims might potentially continue to suffer if you don't get the kind of access to documents that is outlined in the memo of understanding, but if they quit providing that,
could victims continue to be harmed? >> we'll never be able to tell. that's the big problem. we won't be able to tell whether or not the agency is doing what it's supposed to do or whether or not they're actually performing in a poorer manner than they were before. we will be able to tell only from when the victims come in like they did in 2010 and complain about their treatment by the agency. >> so what rationale would be out there to justify, and this question is to all of you, what rationale is out there to preclude you from getting information that would be deemed beneficial to the american people? why should they withhold stuff from you? mr. elkins, we can start with you. >> yes, sir, that's a -- i think that's a good question. i scratch my head sometimes trying to figure out the answer to that, but it seems to me that sometimes some of these --
some of these defenses are made out of whole cloth. you know, they just kind of pop up. you know, based on the circumstances. so it's -- it's random, and that's part of the problem. >> so there are times when they will very willingly give you information and then other times where they say you can't have this? >> yeah, i think that's fair. >> is that because the employees that you have working for the oig are somewhat inferior to the employs of the agencies? >> well, no. no. >> i would hope you would answer that in that manner. what you're saying is the level and professionalism of your employees would be equal with the agency? >> oh, absolutely. >> do you think that the level of professionalism and privacy concerns within your agency is equal to that of the epa as a whole? >> absolutely. >> would you agree with that, prosecution horowitz, would you say you would have the same
desire to protect the integrity of the process? >> absolutely and we have a track record of handle among the most sensitive national security information that the fbi has through our review of section 702 of fisa, through various patriot acts reviews we've done that congress has mandated. we have the most sensitive amount of information that exists in our possession. >> so there's not a clearance issue here. there's not a proprietary issue. really there's no reason at all why you should not be getting 100% of what you request? >> absolutely. >> and i think, miss buhller, you said earlier there's never been a case where some of that information has been disclosed by the oig in terms of causing harm to a potential victim, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> so if we have all of these, then what is the real genesis of this whole problem of why they
do not want to share it with really the only independent source out there to protect the american people? what is the reason these agencies would do that, mr. elkins? >> it seems to me that there may be a belief that the ig act doesn't mean what it says that it means or -- >> so has this been a new revelation, that all of a sudden we have this new revelation in the last couple years that it doesn't mean that or why did they come to this conclusion recently? >> that's a good question and that's probably one that you didn't have to -- >> so we've got new counsel that's interpreting it a little bit differently. so what you're saying is from a bipartisan standpoint, what we need to do is make sure that the ranking member and the chairman come together and say, well, we mean what we say? >> one thing, sir, there is no enforcement mechanism in the ig
act. >> i'm going to close with this. what would be the great enforcement mechanism? if they don't give you 100% of the documents, that they get their budget cut by 10%? >> sir, i will leave that up to -- >> i'll certainly yield to the ranking member. >> just one question. you are -- i'm just trying to figure out what you are able to get under the memorandum of understanding. let's say, for example, someone is raped. you -- right now you can get the -- what can you get? >> right now we can get access to the restricted report that's filed in the incident report. we may have more difficulty getting other information concerning that particular incident because we can't -- we don't have a personal identifying number or anything to associate with it.
>> so you can get the details of the rape? because i'm -- i'm kind of confused when i looked at what you agreed to. go ahead. >> with the exception of explicit details, and we've tried to define that mou very narrowly, salacious, things that wouldn't necessarily add anything to our review. >> i see. all right. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair is going to recognize the gentleman from oklahoma for four minutes at this point. >> thank you, mr. chairman. one of the documents you provided was some background information about grand jury investigations. specifically about an oklahoma case that i want to bring up to you. in the 1990s, the office of the inspect her general at that time requested information related to an fbi agent's testimony and the bureau of prisons related around a gentleman who died in the federal bureau of prisons in
oklahoma named kent trinido. there was a lot that happened around that case and still a lot of questions still spin around the death after kent in oklahoma. your reference to that case, i just want to be able to ask why you're bringing that up at this point, what you have learned from it, what was established then and what's happening now. >> this is now the 1997, 1998 time period. our office was involved in the misconduct review related to that matter. we needed grand jury information. and the justice kept civil rights division then but the justice department supported our right of access to grand jury information and went to court tore two different federal judges judges in oklahoma to confirm that the department's reading of the statute allowed them to give us the materials. the two judges both said you justice department are right in your legal interpretation, not the oig, the justice department.
and under the law, the ig is entitled to get these grand jury materials. to our mind, that should have resolved this issue. that's now 15 years ago. two federal judges have both ruled. their article 3 judges. we're at a loss to understand why nonconstitutional officers would be deciding the issue any differently. >> okay. so fast forward to now today and to what you're dealing with. you're not getting access to grand jury information currently. is that correct? >> the objection is we're not entitled as a matter of law so we have to go through this mechanism to get the attorney general or deputy attorney general's approval to get it. >> you now have to make a request and the attorney general can say i either want you to have this or don't want you to have in that he now has the ability to say this helps me or doesn't help me and so i'm going to give it to you or not give it to you, not based on i've made the request, a federal judge has already ruled on this in
oklahoma, this has resolved issues. is that correct or not correct. >> the decision of the attorney general or the deputy attorney general. >> rather than i make the request you're already entitled to that. >> correct. >> how many cases are out there like that for you? do you have a guess of how many documents or cases you're getting delayed response or partial response or getting a response at some date in a future time period? because you had testified earlier, you are getting records. you're just not getting them in a timely manner. >> there are probably ten or more examples i could give of instances where we've either had the legal objection raised or the timeliness issue come up in the last two years at least. i could probably make a longer list if i went through with my staff. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i appreciate you allowing me to ask that question. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. >> i want to thank all of you for being here today. these disputes are very serious
serious because they without a doubt impede you from doing your work. on the other hand, of course, you have the agencies such as in i guess in all these cases who cite laws that conflict with your duties and your -- and the rules and regulations that you operate under. it seems like we ought to be able to resolve this. i have two concerns and one is if we were to pass legislation and sharing your viewpoint, mr. elkins and if we -- if it does not prevail, i think that makes your position weaker. your present position. the other thing that i'm concerned about is that if we
were to do a universal thing that says your access to information is superior to everything, i don't know what that universe of everything is. you know? and i'm sure you don't either. you may know in your area but we're talking about 47 of you all. so then i considering what the chairman talked about in executive order, i think the president prey probably would face the same kind of problem with regard to what that universe is. but there's got to be a way to deal with this. miss buhler, the reason i keep coming back to you is because, i mean, you know, when we've got an agency that -- when you have an ig office whose duty it is to
do you all believe an executive order is the answer, miss buehler? >> i think anything that sends a very strong message to agencies that the ig is there to perform oversight and in order to provide that oversight they need access to agency records. anything that is very clear and states that without exception i think would help. >> mr. elkins. >> i agree that executive order would be helpful. you know, also i'd just like to remind the panel here that in administrative law cases there's a very rock solid case called chevron that agencies rely on to determine whether or not deference should be played to an agency that has jurisdiction. well, i think in our case, chevron would apply, as well. the ig act we're the subject matter experts there. there should be a certain amount of deference to our interpretation as to what our access should be. that deference is not given to
us. agencies would use it all the time but in our circumstance when we try to assert a chevron argument, it's ignored. >> tilled agree with you, congressman, are that a clarificationing is critical. an executive order, a prompt olc decision, we've been waiting for a few months now that would say what is the laut mean because that's the objection we're all getting at some level, which is congress didn't mean in 6 a what we all think it means. the fbi is reinterpreting it statutes, dea others. in my agency, it the other inspectors general have said the same thing. ultimately, they're trying to interpret what congress meant. >> right. >> so it's really all your issue here that you've got the executive branch in my case olc ämàe3ñ m for the executiveç branch trying to divine does 6 a mean what it says which we think
has always been the case at least till 2010 when the fbi general counsel raised objection or what some others have said. we need clarity on that issue, an executive order would do it. an immediate olc order would do it, and then congress can decide whether to fix 6 a at that point or not. but that's really what we need. >> again, thank you all very much. thank you, sir. >> i thank the gentleman and each of you for your testimony. i think today highlights really in a bipartisan way the need for full disclosure to the oigs. not just with your agencies that you oversee but across the board. miss buehler, some of the testimony that you've given us gives us great pause because sometimes we look at these things as just administrative. and yet, the victims that you have have you discussed are
real. and i don't believe that we can tolerate the lack of cooperation. ultimately, the information that these agencies have belong to the american taxpayers. they're not proprietary to an agency. they're not proprietary to congress, not even proprietary to you. they belong to the american taxpayers. what we must do is have full and complete disclosure. to give the best example if the irs comes in and does an audit, i don't know the universe of which they may be asking for when they say they want all the documents, generally they mean all the documents. and i would suggest that that simple test be one that the agencies hear loud and clear today that when you request it, they are to provide it and then
we're going to hold you accountable to make sure that dhoes disclosures and integrity and professionalism that each one of you have assured me that you have that that gets abided by because a fracture there really does irreparable harm. we've got a lot of great federal workers. for many of the american taxpayers, the oig is the only thing that they can believe in to hold these agencies accountable. mr. elkins, you know in my particular district, i've got an issue that has been going on for 25 years with the epa. they have no confidence, are democrats, republicans, unaffiliated, none of them have confidence in that agency to deal with that problem. their last hope, their truly their last hope is your office. and your involvement in the independence of that and the full disclosure is what they're counting on. and so i think that that can be
echoed across all of the oigs and so i thank you for your testimony. i thank the ranking member for his closing comments and i look forward to you providing to this committee three recommendations on how we can help with the enforcement component, the sticker, the care that we need to have, i need to know three suggestions that you might have that we can encourage these agencies to provide what the american people deserve. and with that, i adjourn this hearing.
coming up tonight, iowa public tv hosts an hour long debate for iowa's third congressional district participating in the debate are democrat stacy apple and republican david young. they'll discuss their plat fors, future plans and answer reporters' questions. here are two of the television ads running in that race. >> when republican and tea party brokers went into the back rooms saturday, they chose d.c. insider david young, 20 years on
the payroll of a broken congress. young won the room by standing up for cutting social security and ending medicare as we know it. even raising the minimum retirement age. what washington really needs is a healthy dose of iowa common sense, stacy apple, a mom of six, worked as a financial consultant who knows small business is key to job growth. a state senator, she got results, helping to make equal pay for equal work the law in iowa. as iowa's first woman in congress, she'll fight to protect social security and medicare. stacy apple, end the back room deals and put iowa families first. >> i'm david young and a prove this message. barack obama promised us hope. then he ripped apart our health care system, be shrewed our economy and crumbled our national security. but if we band together, and
fight for our conservative principles, we can put our economy and our country back together again. >> iowa's answer is not magic. it's david young. >> iowans want a good meal and good government. we get the good meal, but our government overspends is, overtaxes and overregulates. it underperforms. i get it and you get it. why can't they? i'll bring a dose of iowa reality to washington. then maybe we can have a good meal and good government. i'm david young. and a prove this message. >> those were ads for candidates running for iowa's third congressional district. see tonight's debate for that seat at 8:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span2. and on c-span tonight, ceremonies from today commemorating the 13th anniversary of the september
11th attacks. we'll have events from the white house and pentagon as well as the world trade center's national memorial plaza where family members of victims read the nearly 3,000 names of those who died in the 2001 attacks on the world trade center, the pentagon, the crash of flight 93, and also the 1993 world trade center bombing. we'll have all of those events starting tonight at 8:00 on c-span. and up next, the ceremony from new york earlier today.
gordon m. aamoth jr. edelmiro abad maria rose abad andrew anthony abate vincent paul abate. laurence christopher abel alona abraham. >> william f.abrahamson. richard anthony aceto alicia acevedo carranza heinrich bernard ackermann paul acquaviva christian adams, donald leroy adams. >> pat pick adams. shannon lewis adams stephen george adams ignatius udo adanga christy a. addamo terence e. adderley jr. sophia b. addo lee adler daniel thomas afflitto
emmanuel akwasi afuakwah alok agarwal mukul kumar agarwala joseph agnello david scott agnes joao alberto da fonseca aguiar jr. brian g. ahearn jeremiah joseph ahern joanne marie ahladiotis shabbir ahmed terrance andre aiken godwin ajala trud i m.alagero. andrew alameno margaret ann alario gary m. albero jon leslie albert peter craig alderman and my father, the aforementioned john leslie
albert. he was a dedicated father, a loving husband, a respected colleague. he is sorely missed. >> and my sister, dorothy r. morgan, you stand tall in our hearts. jacquelyn delaine aldridge david d. alger ernest alikakos edward l. allegretto eric allen joseph ryan allen richard dennis allen richard l. allen christopher e. allingham anna self-allison. janet m. alonso anthony alvarado antonio javier alvarez victoria alvarez-brito telmo e. alvear cesar amoranto alviar
tariq amanullah angelo amaranto james m. amato joseph amatuccio paul w.abros. christopher charles amoroso kazuhiro anai calixto anaya jr. joseph anchundia kermit charles anderson yvette constance anderson john andreacchio michael rourke andrews jean ann andrucki siew-nya ang joseph john angelini jr. joseph angelini sr. david lawrence angell mary lynn edwards angell laura angilletta
doreen j. angrisani lorraine antigua seima david aoyama and my beautiful loving daughter, maria teresa concepcion. your dad and i love you very much. and always in our prayers. also sending their love and kisses from your brother, victor and his wife talia and two nephews. and also from your youngest brother raymond and his wife jan and your new niece which we name her after your nickname. tomorrow she will be 20 years old. may good bless your souls. lastly, may all -- may god bless all the souls of 9/11 victims. >> and my husband, michael maseroli, we love you, miss you
and not a day goes by that we don't think of you. >> peter paul apollo. faustino apostol jr. frank thomas aquilino patrick michael aranyos david gregory arce michael george arczynski louis arena barbara jean arestegui adam p. arias michael armstrong jack charles aron joshua todd aron. richard avery aronow myra joy aronson japhet jesse aryee carl francis asaro michael asciak michael edward asher janice marie ashley thomas j. ashton manuel o. asitimbay gregg a. atlas. gerald thomas atwood
james audiffred frank louis aversano jr. ezra aviles sandy ayala arlene t. babakitis eustace r. bacchus john j. badagliacca jane ellen baeszler robert j. baierwalter andrew j. bailey brett t. bailey garnett ace bailey. tatyana bakalinskaya michael s. baksh sharon m. balkcom michael andrew bane katherine bantis and my brother christopher allingham, love you always. miss you still. god bless america. >> and my uncle shaun. i never got the chance to meet you but you'll always be in our hearts. gerard baptiste walter baran
gerard a. barbara paul vincent barbaro james william barbella victor daniel barbosa christine barbuto colleen ann barkow david michael barkway matthew barnes melissa rose barnes. sheila patricia barnes evan j. baron renee barrett-arjune arthur thaddeus barry diane g. barry maurice vincent barry scott d. bart carlton w. bartels guy barzvi inna b. basina alysia basmajian
kenneth william basnicki steven joseph bates paul james battaglia w. david bauer yvonne luis capito bautista marlyn capito bautista mark lawrence bavis jasper baxter lorraine g. bay. >> michele bealee. >> todd m. beamer. >> paul frederick beatini jane s. beatty alan anthony bevin. >> lawrence ira beck manette marie beckles carl john bedigan michael earnest beekman
and my husband port authority police officer wellington stewart. let's all come together as a country to pray for our leaders that god will grant them wisdom, knowledge and understanding in directing them on moving this country forward. thank you. >> and my wife seriv duquette. no day shall erase her from the memory of time. maria a. behr max j.belk e yelena belilovsky nina patrice bell debbie s. bellows stephen elliot belson paul m. benedetti denise lenore benedetto bryan craig bennett eric l. bennett
oliver bennett margaret l. benson dominick j. berardi james patrick berger steven howard berger john p. bergin alvin bergsohn daniel david bergstei n graham andrew berkeley michael j. berkeley donna m. bernaerts dave w. bernard william hfrlg -- h. bern teen. david m. berray david s. berry joseph j. berry william reed bethke timothy betterly carolyn beug edward frank beyea paul michael beyer
anil tahilram bharvaney bella j. bhukhan shimmy d. biegeleisen peter alexander bielfeld william g. biggart brian eugene bilcher mark bingham carl vincent bini and my uncle frank wisneski. we miss you terrible. >> and kels, you are forever in our hearts. we miss you every day and love you. gary eugene bird joshua david birnbaum george john bishop chris romeo vishundot jeffrey donald bittner balewa albert blackman jr.
larry bowman >> larry bauman. >> shawn edward bauman jr. >> kevin l bowser. >> gary r box. >> boyar ski. >> pamela boys. >> alan p. boyle. >> michael boyle. >> alfred jbraca. >> sandra brace. >> kevin hugh bracken. >> sandy wa bradshaw. >> saved brian brady. >> alexander briginski. >> nicholas w. brand marty. >> daniel may mond. >> david reid gam boa brand
hurst. >> michelle renee brat on. >> patrice brought. >> lydia estelle bravo. >> ronald michael bright wiser. >> edward a brennan iii. >> frank h brennan. >> michael e brennan. >> daniel j breathal. >> gary lee bright. >> jonathan eric briley. >> mark a briszman. >> paul gary bristau. >> mare onr britton. >> my brother-in-law brian joseph murphy. as the great sage is taught, it is not in our power to explain either the tranquillity of the wicked or the suffering of the
righteous. brian we hold you in our hearts. we think of you often. we love you. >> and my father, john patrick gallagher. dad, even though you are not on this earth anymore, i know you are looking down on us and smiling. i will love you and i always will. >> mark francis broderick. >> herman charles brock hammer. >> keith a broomfield. >> bernard c. brown ii. >> janice brown. >> lloyd stanford brown. >> patrick john brown. >> be tina b brown brad burn. >> mark bruce. >> richard george. >> andrew brun. >> vincent edward brunt on. >> ronald buca. >> brandon j. buchanan.
>> greg j buck. dennis buckley. >> nancy clair boucher. >> john edward bulaga jr. >> steven bruce bunan. >> christopher l burrford. >> matthew j. burke. >> thomas daniel burke. >> william francis burke jr. >> charles f. burlingame iii. >> thomas e. burnett jr. >> donald j burns. >> kathleen ann burns. >> keith james burns. >> john patrick burn side. >> irena bus low. >> milton j.bustillo. >> thomas m butler. >> patrick dennis burn.
>> timothy g. burn. >> daniel mcabalero. >> jees us cabelas. >> lillian caseras. >> brian josest. >> steven dennis junior. >> and my husband of 30 years, fdny chief gerard abasher, papa to his cland children alexis, luke, thomas elena and kate. my heart breaks that you are not here to enjoy them. love each of them from above and keep them safe. may god bless all those who lot of their lives as a result of the terrorist attacks on september 11th, 2001 and those who continue to suffer from the aftermath. may god bless all those serving in our fire departments, police departments and emergency services as well as the military here and abroad.
may god bless america and may we never, never forget. >> and my uncle, michael todonio. all all love and miss you and know are watching over us. >> richard michael cadiano. >> cecile morello. >> john cahill. >> michael john cahill. >> scott waller cahill. >> thomas joseph cahill. >> george c cain. >> salvatore bcalabro. >> phillip vcalcagno. >> edward caledron. >> jose caledron. >> kenneth marcus caldwell. >> dominic ecalea. >> felix bobby calista.
>> francis joseph callahan. >> liam callahan. >> suzanne m callie. >> geno lu edgy. >> rocco comage. >> michael fcamarada. >> david campbell. >> jeffrey thomas campbell. >> robert arthur campbell. >> sandra patricia campbell. >> shawn thomas can van. >> john a. candlea. >> vincent. >> steven j. >> lisa bella canava. >> brian cannizzaro. >> michael r canty. >> lewis anthony caparici. >> john thane