I agree he was grandstanding, it seems to be the popular thing to do in congress, but her responses were terrible regardless of her job or agencies mandate. If an open, honest, and frank discussion can't be had - why have a hearing at all? These bureaucracy vs. bureaucracy confrontations are altogether ridiculous, I feel.
I think a line of questioning along one or more of the following themes would have been great to see her squirm though;
-is your agency ineffective at it's stated goal (trafficking not reduced)
-has your agency caused more crime than it's prevented (see alcohol prohibition)
-is drug addiction a medical problem or criminal one (see alcoholism, nicotine addition treatments)
-what is the true cost of your department (number of people incarcerated * cost to incarcerate)
-who does the DEA contract with & who advises policy of the DEA? (or other conflicts of interest)