to which we don't agree. thank you. >> thank you senator sessions. madam secretary. >> thank you chairman leahy, senator sessions, members of the committee. securing our borders in enforcing immigration laws is made top priority for the department, and security. over the past year, we have taken the unprecedented action to achieve our goals and the results have been striking. as part of the southwest border initiative we have added more manpower, technology and resources to the border. wit implemented a southtown strategy to prevent illegal weapons and cash from crossing the border into mexico supporting a large drug cartels there and expanded our partnerships with their federal, state and local wittstock was

border and mexico and mexican law-enforcement. compared to last year, seizures and all categories, drugs, smuggle cash, illegal weapons are up dramatically as a result of the southtown strategy. as noted, apprehensions are also at decade lows, down 23% this year, and senator sessions i agree with you, interior and enforcement as part and parcel of immigration enforcement. we have in the last year identified and removed criminal aliens, fugitives and gang members in record numbers. and fiscal year 2009, i.c.e. removed a record number of illegal immigrants, 387,000 of which 136,000 were criminal aliens. secured communities, which we are expanding throughout law enforcement agencies in the united states.

it checks the biometrics booked in local jails, identified more than 111,000 criminal aliens just in this first year. we have improved oversight in the 287 gee program and renegotiated the agreements there to make them more effective. we have enhanced in expanded e-verify. this is also part of interior and enforcement. over 175,000 employers and more than 600,000 work sites are using the system with thousands more joining every week. and that is important because that provides a way for the american worker to know that the legality of workers is being checked. we have taken action to reform immigration detention systems to ensure that those in custody are treated humanely, given appropriate time the medical care. we are improving federal oversight and management including more direct supervision of detention facilities by i.c.e. and we are also developing strategies for

alternatives to detention to be used where appropriate. these efforts are part of our enforcement but as we both noted, we also facilitate the illegal entry into the united states, and mr. chair, i had the honor of being at ellis island last friday and swearing in 140 new citizens to the united states including ten active duty military and one is the great pleasures of being secretary of homeland security and while i was there they gave me the ship registry where my grandfather came over and emigrated, so it just illustrates once again that we are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. with respect to that, we have eliminated the name check backlog. we have launched a very customer oriented web site. we also have eliminated the so-called widow's penalty and

other things that were not consistent with our overall immigration values. finally, we are continuing to ensure that lawful travelers and commerce move across the border as quickly insecurely. is unimplemented that land, sea and airports. complaints remains very high, but 95%. we are strengthening u.s. visit and then lastly on the issue of the driver's licenses, 9/11 commission recommended that there be more secure provisions surrounding issuance of driver's licenses. there was a provision tacked onto an appropriations bill called real i.d., to do that. unfortunately, it was tacked on without adequate consultation with the state's elected minister the driver's license program for the working with the national governors' association, working in cross party lines, it was developed and i urge you to

see if you can move this legislation forward. the deadline is fast approaching and as mr. jimminy noted, this is something even if we extend the deadline, we have to for the 9/11 commission report which is to get to a more secure driver's license system. >> but you do support the pass id? >> absolutely and we are very interested and i think national security as we build the architecture of it, requires the take on that recommendation a move the agency forward. finally, we need to no, or we look forward to working with you on immigration reform. the president is committed to that. he is committed to reform that includes serious, effective been sustained enforcement that includes improved legal flows for families and workers, and a

firm way to deal with those already illegally in the country. we need to demand responsibility and accountability from everyone involved, the department, and security, our law enforcement partners, businesses and we must be able to find the workers they need here in america, and immigrants themselves, as we enforce the law of moving forward. so i look forward to working with you mr. chairman, senator sessions and others on this committee to develop a path forward early next year to reform the immigration system as a whole. >> thank you very much. were going to go around to ask one question. i have already discussed it with senator sessions. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you secretary napolitano. just a brief question. this is on the western hemisphere travel initiative

that went into effect on june 1st in buffalo new york and rounder nor them border. we have seen a precipitous drop off on border crossings in the good part of that, at least the people there believe is because of the lack of education. that canadians believe they need a passport to travel across the border. obviously they don't. was put together to make easy to travel across the border but the problem is they believe that and a good number of our americans believe the same. western new york and buffalo depends on cross-border traffic. it is probably the number-one thing in their economies so would you be willing to work with me and commit to working with you and your canadian cully to get an education campaign on both sides of the border informing people with the requirements are of witi that you don't need a passport and it is not very hard to travel across the border because it is hurting our economy up there pretty badly. >> senator schumer yes. in fact we have had an extension campaign for several months

including when people get to across point they are giving you sheet sing this is all you need to do and you can get over here and get your witi card, one-stop shopping but we are more than willing. >> they think they need a passport. less than one-third of canadians and slightly higher percent, less than one-third of americans and slightly higher percentage of canadians have a passport, so we need to get that education to the people who have not gone across the border and if you could help us with that and work with your kannady and colleague and would be most welcome. mr. chairman and my colleagues thank you. >> i hear the same questions in vermont. many of us go back and forth regularly to canada as though we are going to another state, and it does affect commerce considerably on both sides of the border, and others-- my wife

does, family members and can the and i know it is just a personal thing but i know hundreds and hundreds of people in our state of vermont where it becomes an issue with family, said the education, the canadians doing the same would be very helpful. last, apparently the tsa, the transportation security administration, you and i discussed this before you came in, poston airports grading manual on line last spring and detailed procedures for screening passengers, how certain materials can be masked and so on. they described x-ray machines and explosives, listed the countries from which passport holders would be subject to

greater scrutiny. apparently tsa learned of this last sunday after a blog varon put it on the internet. then they initiated an internal review. who should be held accountable? >> first of all, mr. chairman, let me say two things about the posting itself. and that is that the security of the traveling public has never been put at risk and the document that was posted was an out of date document. nonetheless the posting of it did not meet our own standards for what should be available on the net and not available on the net, so we have already initiated personnel actions against the individuals involved in that. we have already instituted an internal review to see what else needs to be done so the incident

never occurs, and i have directed that not just to tsa but that we delay rereview of departmentwide, all of our departments because as you know we have got one of the the biggest apartments around, to make sure that we are being rigorous and very discipline in what is posted in what is not. >> am i correct that this involves a contractor? >> the individual involved was a contractor. some of the supervisors ultimately were ntsa. i should also say with respect to this particular incident we have also asked the inspector general to do his own independent review to supplement and complement what we are doing. >> thank you. this week new terrorism related charges were filed in the case against david hadley, a u.s. citizen who was originally rested for conspiring to commit terrorist attacks in denmark. but now he has been charged with

helping to plan the didley mumbai attacks in india last year. darrah binnun number brass within the united states. persons charged with plotting attacks. i'm not going to ask you to going to the individual cases but as you can imagine, this raised a great deal of concern among americans when we have people plotting attacks from the united states even though they may be conducted outside of the united states because it is just as easy to apply such attacks inside the united states. how do we and how does dhs plan to contribute to confronting the problem of homegrown terrorism in a targeted an effective manner? how much coordination goes on here? we know that 9/11 could have been stopped before it happens

if all the dots have been connected. i am not going to go back in rehashed who dropped the ball there but how do we make sure we are not dropping the ball today? >> well, mr. chairman, with respect to hadley, i will keep my remarks restricted on the nature of the case and the justice system as you yourself noted, but we coordinate and are coordinating extensively with the fbi, the cia, the dni and other intelligence agencies in terms of cases that emanate from broad-- from the interior of the united states. secondly we are increasing our sharing of information at the state and local, so those are the eyes and ears, local law enforcement that need to be more fully engaged and plug in, watching for those who would seek to do us harm and have the

information and situational awareness to do it. one of the ways we are doing that mr. chair is through support of fusion centers across the country. >> support of what? >> fusion centers where we have a federal state and local law enforcement collocated and to give you some nuts and bolts, one of the problems we are working through a security clearance so people can get information top-secret and above levels, and that is a process that is underway right now, and lastly, we are really asking the american people to lead forward and that the individual, business, the community level, whereever come to recognize our security is really a shared responsibility and there things that can be done at all levels even as we work at the dhs to prevent something from occurring. >> but, i agree with you it is

important to come forward with things, but then we have to make sure the word gets the route the government. 9/11 could have been totally avoided. there had been warnings from the at least one fbi agent to washington about the concerns he had with the people who were getting the flight lessons and he was told, well that is above your pay grade. we have got it under control. and nobody did. it really worries me that that could ever happen again. one issue totally different, i mention this in my opening statements, the h2a worker bees up. worker visas. the fact that dairy farmers cannot use this program is a

problem. it makes little since when you consider the reason for h2a worker visa programs. it is a problem in wisconsin, in a problem in every state that has the dairy industry. i have commented formerly to a rulemaking process and of its written to secretary solis about this. age to waive rules from sheepherders to obtain h2a visas, even though the job is exactly what prevent dairy farmers from obtaining workers and that is really not fair. i suggested we-- i'm not with suggesting we cut it from them but to encourage the labor department to make the rules necessary on the h2a program. >> mr. chair, yes and we have been working with the department of labor. there is the issue presented is

whether through rule or preg we can fix this issue for the dairy farmers under age two a or whether there will need to be a statutory change and the lawyers are looking at that issue right now. >> god bless the lawyers. but, we do want a solution one way or the other sns we can. >> agreed. >> thank you. senator sessions again i appreciate your courtesy. >> thank you and i know senator leahy is always working to be effective in helping his constituents, and there are some problems with this farmworker policies we have. let me just say fundamentally what i think we have a problem with. under the last two proposals of comprehensive reform, it basically allowed people to come to work temporarily for three years to bring their families

and then opt to re-up again. that clearly is not a strategy that would be effective in the sense that it has no real potential to see them return home. they put down roots. their children start going to school. so if we are going to have an ed program, i think it clearly has to be on a temporary basis or a person wants to come for a season or in the case of terese, maybe they would have to people come and work ten months each or something of that action but the idea that we would call a temporary worker program a program in which people come for multiple years but their families, with the ability to extend immigration policy puts the us and it's very difficult position. there are so many tough questions on this immigration issues but that is one of the matters were think we have to

get our thinking correct about. madam secretary, i was troubled and i raised with you earlier about the statements in washington state, it workplace investigation and you said you were going to get to the bottom of it and the way i anders that it, the message you were sending was, and i told you that, that you didn't want those rates. you didn't want agents out doing what the law requires and that is to investigate businesses to have large numbers of people who are here illegally, and statistics by isaf show the rest of illegal immigrants are down 60% man that is the category i'm talking about. criminal arrests are down 60%. criminal indictments are down 50% and criminal convictions are down 63% last year. the only activity that this increases the amount of requirements under the ayn ayn

audits. such audits which were a fixture of inez policy during the clinton administration, a widely consented to be ineffectual and fines of businesses small and too small to deter the activities were concerned about. and in addition to on paperwork issues the administration has repeatedly refused to take into custody or deport illegal aliens found working when you do the investigations. one high-profile case for example, american apparel the notorious dos anjos based immigration law garment manufacturing were allowed to terminate hundreds of illegal employees in a series of small dismissals and illegal aliens were allowed to walk free in a way that would allow them to seek employment elsewhere.

a recent story on minnesota public radio recounts a similar practice were 1200 illegal aliens were found employed, well-paid janitorial jobs instead of obtaining and applying them the officials went to great pains to ensure the public that they were not being arrested. when misspoke about worksite enforcement at the last hearing you told me "we continue worksite enforcement." and we continue all our enforcement actions and we will very vigorously. in your written response to questions for the record you also stated, i set strategy would target employers who knowingly hire illegal labor while continuing to arrest and remove illegal workers. you promised that worksite and enforcement operations will continue. administrative arrest will occur

and eyes will conduct work sais enforcement investigations of any business regardless of size that is suspected of knowingly employing an unauthorized workers, so how do you square those statements with the numbers that indicate a significant reduction enforcement actions? >> senator i'm glad you ask those questions because i think it is important to emphasize all of the work that has been done on the interior of our country to enforce immigration laws and just let me repeat, this year since i have been secretary, i.c.e. removed a record number of illegal aliens and their record number of criminal aliens and what we are doing is really focusing on those in the interior of the country who have broken the law and also those who impact public safety. now with respect to work fiec -- work site inspection itself, if

we have not supplied you with these numbers, i would be happy to do that. a record number of businesses and individuals for immigration violations. record number of notices of te fines are too low. look atf the things i ho when it addresses immigration reform. final orders to seize violations, to seize violations at record highs. we have literally done dozens upon dozens of worksite enforcement and i think one of the key differences is that i would like to emphasize is almost the change and intense as we go into a work site. when we go into a work site, our focus, our intent now is to go after the employer, him or herself, themselves because they are creating the demand and you have to deal with immigration,

the supply and the demand issue. that is difficult under the current law i will say because the current law doesn't give us some of the enforcement tools be like to do that, but that is why i think you have to look at all the numbers, not just a few to see if there is actually been more worksite enforcement this year than in prior years. lastly i would reiterate e-verify. e-verify it is a fast-growing system. it is a way that is easy. it is continually being built for employers to verify that the employees they are hiring are here in the country legally and i hope to keep driving the immigration system as a whole toward employer use of e-verify. >> thank you and the border area is very important and progress is being made there, but we do

need to reduce that jobs magnet particularly in a time of record on employment for our country. >> i agree. >> thank you senator sessions. senator feingold. >> thank you very much mr. chairman, madam secretary thank you for being here. fema has now obligated $44 billion in response to hurricane katrina, read up in wilma since 2005 however accorbig@@@@@ @

would like to know why not. >> fair enough. >> in august of this year the department issued new policies governing searches of travelers, electronic devices such as laptops are ipod's at the border. i am deeply disappointed with the policy the department adopted come in particular the refusal to adopt any sort of standard for searching u.s. citizens of the border and madam secretary in addition to the inconvenience picasa the international business travelers these policies also do nothing to as a wage racial profiling when it index.

>> border searches. this is unacceptable and that is why i am planning to reintroduce the travelers privacy protection act in the coming months. i've been told the department was the least attempting to increase oversight in transparency related to these searches but given the vastly different standards laid out for cd p it is unclear whether even that goal has been accomplished so the two policies when read in tandem seem to create a series of loopholes that allow these electronic devices to be held in search for long periods of time without requiring a showing of probable cause. for example, is it true that cbp agents have to obtain supervisory approval to keep a laptop for more than five days, but in eyes officer doesn't have to obtain any additional approvals to holden search the laptop for up for 30 days? >> but we are talking about seizures of the border and that would be conducted at cbp.

>> that is my point. is in their differential between the two agencies, one standard with regard to laptops and another one with regard to an ipod, depending on the agency? >> senator, yes but i think we would differentiated based-- different types of investigations that each of those components for form. >> i understand with the scotians from your staff that i.c.e. officers conducting searches of all electronic devices enhances the i.c.e. policy, not the cd policy that would apply. is that correct? >> i would have to have a greater context but i think we at to step back and look at what is it that we are doing from a law enforcement perspective. first of all we have changed the policy with respect to search of electronic media particularly the laptop. that was the genesis of the

original set of questions i think you posted my oversight hearing a few months ago. the policy was revised significantly to have more supervisorial inside. the plain fact of the matter is we sees electronic media, sometimes i.c.e. seizes it in conjunction with the crem investigation, sometimes the secret service seizes it in conjunction with a criminal fustigation but the concern was raised with respect to business travelers who are traveling internationally being stopped at the border and that is the policy we have revised, provided more supervise oral import, but i also have to say as someone whose agency is responsible for the counter-terrorism missions are partially responsible for it, this is an important capacity for still have as law enforcement. >> i don't doubt that all but i am looking here for some appropriate trigger for this kind of search which i think

it's serious business and for consistency between the different agencies. >> center if i might, at the border, the law has been for many years now that the reasonable suspicion of standard does not apply for somebody entering the country at the border, and if the question is why do you apply the same standard at the border as is done in the interior of the country, where you would have to have a higher standard, the answers because entry into the country is something that is not viewed as an absolute right and that is by alaa in that area differentiates the standards for research. >> madam secretary we will continue this does that over time. over the last several years dhs has substantially increased its reliance on state and local law enforcement 40's to enforce federal immigration laws. including recent expansion of

partnerships with law-enforcement in the secure communities program. and both of these programs have stated their goal is to remove dangerous but there have been numerous reports of widespread use of these programs by law enforcement including selective enforcement certain laws against latinos and other minorities in pretextual traffic stops and other arrests for minor violations. i think this is unacceptable especially because most of the law enforcement communities that signed on to these agreements do not have policies prohibiting racial profiling. i understand beaches and tried to address some of these concerns by coming up with a standard treaty that will require law enforcement to prosecute any charges they filed against an individual they arrest but i don't think this will get that many of the concerns of many civil rights groups raised about their for minor traffic offenses and immigration related charges. so with the goal of these programs is to prioritize the rest of dangerous criminals were

not set clear guidelines that limit their arrest and referral to felonies? >> senator and the fact that is what has happened because what we did is we took 287g and by the way we still have, there has been some suggestion made that we have reduced it. no, we have refocused it on to areas. one is in the jails come to run immigration checks in the jails and that way if securer-- garr koppel mance of each other and secondly in conjunction with federal task forces whose priorities are a federal fugitives and felony gang members, you know, the higher level criminals to impact public safety. >> of that is the effect why not have the guidelines to say that? >> well, senator, i think that's that in effect is what happened

and those agreements now have all but been renegotiated. >> i would urge the guidelines reflect the purpose which is to get the more serious offenses but i thank you for your answer. >> thank you. senator kyl. >> madam secretary, governor, thank you for being here. you spoke earlier about the tsa breach and i applaud you for having an ig review. could i also make another recommendation and that is that when preaches like this occur in the intelligence community, the cia for example they do they damage example by somebody not within the agency itself to determine what advantage a potential enemy could have gotten from the information and then usually make recommendations about what procedures or other actions are necessary to ameliorate that damage. if you haven't decided to do that already can i recommend that you do that, and when it is

done provide the committee with a classified version of the report and by the way it ordinarily these things are best done really quickly. any comment? >> senator, i guess. that is something we have been looking at. my first question has been what exactly was put there that was not otherwise available either by observation of airport checkpoint or the like? but indeed if it is ascertained that there was some series of information not otherwise available that was put out, i think the red teaming issue is something that we consider absolutely. >> does from public reports, clearly there things you the one out there spelling out the settings on the x-ray machines and explosive detectors, passenger and baggage screening details, pictures of credentials that are authorized, those kinds of things. clearly somebody could take advantage of those things and i

think is really important that not the the parton of homeland security but somebody else i did the park and make that evaluation. >> write senator. that is one of the genesis for the ig taking a look at it, and it is a suggestion i am happy to entertain. >> secondly you know my support for something called operation streamline, a method by deterring immigration by charging those who repeatedly cross the border illegally with misdemeanor offenses and ensuring they have jail time. there to basic questions i want to ask you about that. first of all i was disappointed that they mentioned in the conference report, this is a report on it has to be done to determine what resources both your deparle burnham doj would need to make available to maintain and expand this program. it has been very effective in two areas that i know of in my understanding is it is that the rocky start in the third. texas and arizona, but very

effective. tuscon sector and think has been fully implemented and i think part of the reason may be a look of detention space so to questions. what are your plans with expanding operations streamline? if so where you think it might be, and then secondly i will get into the question of detention space. >> i think first of all i support operation streamline. i think it is effective. i think with respect to the tucson sector which is by magnitude the larger sector that we have, they provide logistical difficulties. i think we have the dead space available. i think we are de silva-- solving your detention issues. we had an issue with the ninth circuit, piece of these streamline that has just come down a couple of days ago, about how please are done in streamline matters and given the volume of cases, and i know you

know that courthouse well, we have had to be working out there in terms of how are going to operationally address the court of appeals concerns so we continue to streamline in the tucson sector, and while i am not free to discuss the president's budget at this time obviously i can say in my view it fully addresses some of our issues. >> thank you for that. the study that is required we will ask you to report to us your evaluation of what else you need to expand the program effectively. i'm concerned because conference this not increased tensions space at old. in does include alternative to detention but of course alternative to detention is exactly not the point of operation streamline. the whole point is the deterrent effect of detention. >> yes senator and the issue there however is it takes some

of the other detainees and puts them in alternative detention any kaput cure streamline detentions and a hard that. >> if you think attention is adequate though, i would respectfully request that you conclude-- conclude that argument in the study you perform for us because they think there's a concern among some of those in congress that we need additional space especially to make operation streamline work. obviously this also gets the question of security in the southern border, and the first line of defense are the border patrol agents. the bill for funding this year only calls for an additional 100 agents but it also, the conference report also requires the northern border increase by about 700, 1525 to 2012. obviously they have to come from somewhere, presumably the southern border. wrong, in that we can do that

especially-- one question, do you still intend to try to reach the goal of 2,000-- 20,000 agents. second, how will we maintain-- you have sid your goal is to maintain a force of 17,000 in the course we have 17,415 as i understand it any more so how these were all these numbers and the fact that the obama administration only requested funding for 100? >> what we are doing i think to get to the right of your question senator is, how we keep meeting our congressional marks in terms of the number of agents in meter congressional marks on the northern border without subtracting from one to get to the next? the answer is our staff plan calls for us, what we are going to do is we have headquarters staffing and reduce academy staffing at the border patrol in order to make sure that we had both of those marks and stay within the financial needs of

the country. congress has been very clear that you know we need to be as rick grists budgetarily as we can become so we really did a scrub and where can we move some fte's? >> that is good but just to interrupt to ask what is the mark for the southern border for next year in terms of active agents? >> i will have to give you the exact number but it is@@> k > h

it is good that senator cardin is here. he held that in his judiciary subcommittee. your deputy undersecretary from dhs was there, associate deputy attorney general james baker was there, and a senior official from nsa and the fbi were there and i asked them if any of them were satisfied with the existing legal structure within which the cyberdefense effort currently operates, and i got a unanimous the array of no from each of

them. there is understand an interagency process that is led by or through the national security council, but given all the responsibilities of the national security council, i am not entirely comfortable that that is a good and lasting government-- government structure for cybersecurity efforts. i see that more as an interim structure, and i would love to hear your thoughts on the adequacy of the present legal structure and whether you concur with the views of the other officials who spoke at senator carney's hearing and were you think our governance of our cybersecurity efforts should go, bearing in mind that a lot of principles at the cabinet meeting have a piece of this

issue. >> well, i think senator, two things. one is, you are right, the legal parameters in which we are handling some of the cyberissues are being looked at very deeply now i would say. it is not simply a domestic issue in that regard. it is an international issue because obviously the networks are international in scope. some of the logistical issues involve things like servers that are not located in the united states, but yes, that is part of an interagency process that is on going. with respect to how that is organized, i think what impact has happened is that dhs has moved as the president's policy refuse suggested, to be the lead agency for the protection of

the.gov sites as well as an intersection with the private sector on dodd dorgan.com sites in indeed i just had some meetings in silicon valley not too long ago and phil has been out there quite a bit talking with them. >> if i could interrupt on that, ultimately, doj will have the lead on all of the legal determinations. that is their lane of the road. ultimately, other agencies will have the technical lead, because of the technical complexity of undertaking the efforts that we do, and when you take out the technical aspects and the legal aspects, it is hard to see how homeland security and with a very strong platform for consistence leadership unless there is some vehicle for

coordinating the dni and you and the attorney general and everybody together, and i'm not comfortable with that presently. i think the nfc has said they could interim measure but it would seem that that should evolve into a more formal cyberspecific government structure at some point, and are you really confident that dhs at the top of that orbit with everybody else in a layer below it is their appropriate-- should there be a white house leadership on this? >> there is white house leadership in the process, but i would suggest that the dhs platform is actually much more significant than your question suggests. i was just for example out in virginia at the ribbon cutting for the huge computer center that is being, that is part of the dhs structure now.

of course we are working with doj on matters that are investigatory nature for when they need to bring cases and our alliance is very close. the nsa, with all this technical capacity, provides assistance both to us and to dod, which has the lead in on the side of the world, and we take our roadmap from the president's review and now, what we have been focusing on and by the way phil is a former doj prosecutor, so the lines there could not be closer, but in any event, we take our review organizationally in terms of how the cyberworld is divided from the policy review and one of our key things we are focused on now quite frankly is staffing up. >> in my last minute let me just ask a more precisely, are you

comfortable with the existing governance structure or is that still at work in progress and can we expect a more permanent government structure for defense agents structure a tax to emerge as the interagency process goes forward? >> senator, i would think there is an evolution, but i would suggest that, if this is where the question is going, the absence of a czar per se is not the way we have organized. to me, what ultimately will be involved. to me what ultimately well evolve auto this is a very robust coordination component within the structure, on the operational side, dhs on leta flats adjusted for.gov,

intersection on the private sector in dod on the.gov side. >> thank you. my time has expired. i believe senator cornyn now has the floor. >> thank you very much. adams secretary, good morning. good to see you. last wednesday you testified before the commerce transportation committee post-9/11 and one question had to do with whether you were consulted by the attorney general before a decision was made to try khalid sheikh muhammad and other co-conspirators in new york, rick least attempt to try them there since you know and i know a judge will ultimately decide where that trial will take place, but were you consulted?

>> i did not no, i did not talk with the attorney general. that is the prosecution decision as to where and what to bring the case and i believe that is held by the ag. >> and, on i agree that the attorney general is the one who makes that decision at least primarily and of course the president of the united states is going to have to make a decision whether a military authority willen fact turn the detainees over to civilian authorities. ipers them that authority will be granted since i can imagine the attorney general would have announced his decision without a least some indication from the president that he agreed with him. but, the question i have for you is, i asked the attorney general about some of the immigration related issues and i know that you know that seven senators on the committee wrote a letter in november asking for further

detail on the immigration status of these detainees. do you have an opinion as to what sort of legal status would be conferred on these detainees once they are brought to american soil and what implications that might have in terms of if they were acquitted or charges were dismissed, whether it would be able to be detained indefinitely or not? >> yes senator and we have sent a formal response to your letter, but here is the way it works, and that is, for example, for a detainee who was brought here for the purposes of prosecution, they are paroled and that is the technical term used but there paroled into the country only for purposes of prosecution. ..

if their home country wouldn't take them back? >> senator, those are questions that i don't like to answer on a speculative basis. >> on a speculative basis? >> yes, i think that first of all you have to first of all the question that was raised in the letter to me was for what

purpose is to they enter country? are they able for example to apply for a silent or refugee status? the answer is no. barely brought into the country for purposes of prosecution. and in the off chance if there were to be an acquittal for those individuals they would immediately be put into removal proceedings and deported from the country. spivak while madame secretary, i understand it would be your intention but certainly they would once in the country have some legal rights, would they not and possibly you wouldn't be the one making that decision, possibly some judge would be making that decision. >> senator, they are only in their statutory language to does the fact that they are only brought into the country for purposes of the prosecution. >> well, and i guess this goes to my questions i have for general holder and that is that while he says he made a decision that the individuals could be safely tried in manhattan as i

alluded to earlier, just a judg is going to decide on a change of venue whether or not they will be tried there or somewhere else. and it certainly was there brought into the country if they have certain additional rights of the right to their presence on american soil, you aren't necessarily going to be the last word judge if they invoke the jurisdiction of the courts is ultimately going to make that decision. you know, i asked general holder what happens if were some reason since the administration has made the decision that now detainees will be treated like criminals rather than enemy .ombatants under the laws . . and enhanced interrogation techniques in his testimony can't be used in somehow decides

that he can't be tried in an article iii courts. what guarantees do we have that he can be detained indefinitely? either here or somewhere else? >> well, senator again i think that's what the attorney general decided is based on a firm conviction in the values inherited in the criminal justice is done and the american court system and that this trail can be held and held successfully in new york city. >> well, i think what concerns me the most is that actually i think the decision was not fully vetted and thought out in terms of what the potential consequences would be. i have no doubt as to what the attorney general's attention are, but he's not the final judge so to speak and someone else will be making that decision. for example,