over the past year the justice department has done many good things and should be applauded. the department has renewed its commitment to local law

enforcement which has put more officers on the beat and meet our neighborhood safer, helping local communities attract business and economic development. and a stepped-up enforcement on the southwest border be turned the tide on the mexican drug cartels and continue to funnel drugs and crime to cities throughout the country. for the criminal division is increased efforts to root out fraud operations that cost the federal government and americans billions of dollars. from a financial and mortgage fraud they help -- to health care and medical fraud. as the economy rebounds, the antitrust division revitalized enforcement has fostered a competitive marketplace that encourages innovation and economic development while ensuring consumers have access to high-quality goods at the best prices. the justice department's tireless fight against terrorism has yielded numerous intricate plots and arrests, valuable intelligence information and a successful prosecutions. we reminded of our struggle

against those who wish to do us harm on christmas day when brief passengers stopped the would-be terrorist of taking on an airplane with a homemade bomb and when the fbi interests of a sophisticated plan to attack the new york subway system. yet there have been what should and that concerns raised by democrats and republicans alike about this administration's approach to terrorist investigations, detention and prosecution. among the many issues he will need to address today include long overdue need to close the prison at guantanamo bay, where to hold trials for the five 9/11 plotters, and the process we used to detain and interrogate foreign terrorists such as the christmas the bombers that are captured in the united states. reasonable minds can differ on these issues but we can all agree that the decisions you make will have a long-lasting and far reaching impact on our fight against terrorism and ability to keep americans save.

the justice department is charged with import duties and many areas of the law. we thank you and the thousands of employees who dedicate themselves each and every day to the independent and in parts of enforcement of the law. we look for which reproductive hearing enter now to the distinguished ranking member senator jeff sessions for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman. it's good to be with you, and i am sorry that our chairman lee he couldn't be with us today. attorney general holder, thank you for being here. it is an important oversight hearing and it comes with an important time and we have a number of issues to discuss with you. after 9/11, subornation fundamentally re-evaluated its approach to terrorism. we recognize that we are at war and that our normal criminal justice procedures were not designed for and not appropriate for the new threat. within began to establish a military commission from work consistent with history while

the detention interrogation and trial of captured al qaeda terrorists. we passed bipartisan legislation to put the system in place and we built a multimillion-dollar court house at guantanamo bay. much effort including the 9/11 commission led to this decision. but the president and the u.s. attorney general have worked on these policies and games. it is in peril i think a lot of hard work and progress over the years. as you know, i supported your nomination, but your actions have shaken my confidence in your leadership of the department of justice. immediately after taking office, president obama's the executive order stopped these military commissions. then on july 20, less than six months after you took office, the detention policy task force, which you co-chair reached a conclusion captured enemy combatants including the 9/11 terrorist and others held at guantanamo bay would not be

tried by military commissions but would be given the presumption of civilian criminal trial. since that time, not one military tribunal has been held. they have been stopped. on november 13th, you announced that even khalid sheikh mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11 and the other 9/11 plotters would be taken from gitmo and brought to new york city for trial. five days later you detained before this committee that this was in the best interest of the american people in terms of safety. you cited as support for your views of the new york mayor. debt since that time the mayor and the governor have both opposed this decision. you said that, quote, we know we can prosecute terrorist safely and securely because there are more than 300 convicted international and domestic terrorists currently in the bureau of prisons.

but that was surely an exaggeration when on march 22nd he finally provided a list of those individuals after much fighting. it was i think an inflated list of many hundreds of lesser offenses. many of those cases were only prosecuted before the military commissions became of optimal. in the november testimony you claimed that civilian courts were just as effective as protecting classified material as military courts. yet in those same march 22nd responses come in your department of justice contradicted your statements and conceded that military commissions to provide better safeguards and find the response is listed seven ways military court procedures are superior. based to the to december 25th, umar farouk abdumutallab, the christmas day bar, was captured, but he was questioned less than an hour before he was given a

murder and of warnings and offered a free lawyer. sometime later decide this for renter the stoppard of carrying an al qaeda bomber would be detained and prosecuted in a civilian system. after the warnings, abdumutallab clammed up and did not resume cooperation for weeks. on january 20 of the heads of america's intelligence agencies testified they were not consulted on this decision, you don't agree third he wrote a letter to the congress stating that abdumutallab was mirandized with no objection to all other departments of government. in that same letter you wrote, quote, i am confident that the decision to address mr. abdumutallab's factions through our criminal justice system has not and will not compromise our ability to obtain information needed to detect and prevent future attacks. there can be no doubt that treating terrorists as regular criminals will reduce ability to

obtain intelligence. six years ago you acknowledged that fact in a supreme court briefing you failed to disclose during your confirmation process. you candidly admitted that the civilian criminal system possesses inherent limitations that, quote, might impede the investigation of a terrorist offensive under some circumstances, close quote including portability, quote, to detain a dangerous terrorist or to interrogate him or her effectively, *close quote . most recently on march 6th you curiously suggested to some bin ladens should free same delete to receive the same treatment as charles manson. in light of the rescue described as inherent in the criminal justice system do you really believe that if we capture bin laden or any al qaeda leaders the first question that we should ask is to do what a lawyer?

civilian trials, terrorist combatants are not required by law, policy, history, treaty or plain justice, yet to this policy, it appears, still remains in effect for at least unsettled. there are, however, some important areas which we do agree. the department of justice rightly has its privileges inappropriate cases. you have testified to the legality of military commissions and i appreciate that. even though they have not been used under your tenure, and you have supported a crack cocaine sentencing bill we passed in this committee and i appreciate working with you on that. but the course that he shows some of the national security is schering us into a head-on collision with reality. american people are not interested in terrorists being brought from guantanamo to their own communities. the reality is a stubborn pretending that terrorists can safely be treated as common criminals will not make it so so

i hope you are willing to reconsider the sources. i hope that the answers that you provide today will help restore my confidence in the leadership of the department, and i look forward to working with you toward that end. thank you. >> thank you, senator sessions. mr. attorney general, we will take your testimony. >> well that morning, mr. chairman, senator sessions and distinguished members of the committee. i'm pleased to be here to discuss the importance of the work of the united states the purpose of justice. one of the things i pledged during my confirmation hearing was that i would be here regularly, and last year i had the privilege of appearing before this committee three times, not including my confirmation hearing. and over the past 14 months since i became the attorney general, i have had the pleasure of working closely with many of you. i want to thank you all for your partnership and you're own support for the thousands of men and women who served the

department and tirelessly worked to protect our country and in force our walls and defend our interest in court and insure the integrity of our justice system. today i've been asked to report on the justice department's progress, its priorities and its goals. i am proud to tell you what we have accomplished and also what we plan to achieve. even before i took the oath of office last february, a pledge to every member of this committee. i promised that under my leadership, the justice department would vigorously pursue several critical objectives, combat and terrorism, fighting crime, in forcing our laws in a non-partisan manner, and reinvigorating the department's commitment to integrity, to transparency and to results. i also promised that in our most important work the work that protecting the american people the justice department would lead with strength and by example and that we would use

every tool available to keep the american people say to. now i never expected that fulfilling these promises would be easy. after all, ours is a time of growing demand and limited resources. and as we have confronted unprecedented threats, new responsibilities and tough choices, the justice department i believe has made historic progress. over the last year in addition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n @ rrk@ @ @ @ @

launched and is now leading the financial fraud enforcement task force that president obama called for last year using legal tools provided by this committee. at the same time the justice department is working to make the criminal always fair. last year we launched one of the most comprehensive reviews and history of the federal sentencing policy. our guiding objective of ensuring that sentencing practices are smart, they are tough, predictable and that they are fair is one that i know that every member of this committee shares. i want to thank this committee and the full senate floor the critical step that it took last month in unanimously approving a dramatic reduction in the disparity from powder cocaine sentences. it was enormously heartening to me personally.

i mean this in a personal sense to see the committee come together in a bipartisan fashion to address this long standing injustice the 100-1 disburden undermined trust in the criminal justice system and of the resources away from the prosecution at large-scale drug organizations. these reforms will serve the goals of all enforcement while ensuring fairness in sentencing. looking ahead i hope the judiciary committee will hold the department achieve its goals and meet its responsibilities by confirming the presidents law enforcement nominee more expeditiously. there are currently 19 united states attorney nominees and 17 united states marshalled nominees awaiting committee action. a backlog of this magnitude is unusual. i've spoken to the chairman, then the ranking member about this concern and i am hopeful that it will be addressed without further delay.

every day the dedicated professionals of the department of justice help to fight our ongoing war against an enemy that continues to attack us at home and abroad. over the past year i am proud to say that the department is working closely with our partners in the intelligence and national security committee. the extraordinarily successful disrupting plots, obtaining intelligence and incapacitating terrorists. we detected and disrupted a plot to attack the subways in manhattan with explosive bombs that could have killed many americans at would have been the most -- would have been one of the most of not of the most deadly attacks since september 11th, 2001. he has already pleaded guilty to the terrorism charges in this case when we have also tried several of his associates with participating in the past and related crimes. we secured a guilty plea from

david headley for assisting the deadly attacks in the mumbai of november 2008 and plotting another attack in the markets as part of his plea is often provided valuable intelligence to the government about terrorist activities abroad. we have obtained the cooperation of umar farouk abdumutallab, who tried to bomb an airliner landed in detroit last christmas. although i cannot discuss the intelligence that he has provided, i can tell you that it is not just in valuable, it has been actionable. we convicted him of attempting to murder military and law enforcement agents in afghanistan she is a pakistani captured in afghanistan with explosives and information about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the descriptions of the united states landmarks. she later opened fire on united states personnel. the justice department under the bush administration invited her in federal court in 2008 and she

was convicted several weeks ago in new york. most of the work was done by career professionals driven by ideology accepting loyalty to the nation and a commitment to keeping our people safe most importantly they get results. since september 11, 2001 congress has perfected the justice department authorities have significant resources to fight terrorism. the department has used these resources i believe effectively training 160 convictions for terrorism offenses and to under 40 convictions for terrorism related crimes. at a time questions have been raised about the will of the courts it is important to note that most of these convictions can during the last administration which made the criminal justice system and interpol component of this counterterrorism strategy. the bush administration used the criminal justice system to

interrogate, prosecute and incarcerate terrorists for the same reason the obama administration has. it is an extremely effective tool to ensure justice to protect the security of the american people. let me be clear. this administration will use every tool available to fight terrorism. every tool. this includes both civilian courts and military commissions. indeed, we have already referred six cases the prosecution and to commission. we will no doubt prefer other cases as well. we have deployed the full extent of our intelligence military and law enforcement resources to defeat terrorists and we achieved i believe significant results. it would jeopardize those results to prohibited the use of the criminal-justice system to prosecute terrorists if some in congress have proposed and would seriously weaken our national

security. instead of pursuing a narrow approach to fighting terrorism we have to be flexible. we have to be pragmatic and we have to be aggressive. and in every circumstance we must choose the weapon that will be the most effective. with that said, i know you all have questions about the prosecution of the charge with plotting the 9/11 attacks. no final decision has been made about the form in which khalid sheikh mohammed and his co-defendants will be tried. on the outset this is a close call. it should be clear to everyone by now there are many illegal, national security and practical factors that have to be considered here. as a consequence there are many perspectives on what the most appropriate and effective for is. in making this decision i have to insure you this administration is only one pair of goals to ensure justice is done in this case and in the pursuit of justice we will enforce the law and protect the

american people. today it will work to uphold the trust of this committee has placed the really also to reassert the pledge so long as i have the privilege of serving attorney general the department justice will be an instrument of the constitution and a servant of the american people. of any party and not of any political ideology. we will continue working to protect the nation's security to advance the best interest of the american people and to strengthen the values that have made the country a model to the world. thank you again for this opportunity to discuss the justice department's a central work, and i had to answer any questions you might have to read thank you. >> thank you mr. holder to be we will now in march on questions and rounds of seven minutes the guantanamo task force recently completed its review. the to hundred 40 detainee's to determine whether each would be prosecuted transfer to another country or held indefinitely.

i'm pleased to hear you review each case. however in your testimony today you did not mention if or when you plan to pos guantanamo bay. are you still determined to close that prison? if so, can you give an update on the timeline for doing so and what you intend to do with a detainee is dangerous to release or for whom you lack sufficient evidence to prosecute? >> it is the intention of this administration to close the facility at guantanamo. there was and i think still is maybe that is the degree that it once existed bipartisan support for the notion that the guantanamo facility should be closed. it serves as a recruiting tool for those who have sworn to parma this nation. both of the men who've and for president last year supported the closing of guantanamo and has stayed president obama's predecessor.

we will close guantanamo as quickly as we can as soon as we can. the work has been done with regard to the disposition of the 240 people who were there to to go for the facility. about where these people should go. one of the things we have in the budget for next year is funds in order to come up with another facility to which these people might be transferring those who cannot be repatriated and we would like to move on that plan but we need congressional support. >> you say you had no time line. does that mean that might be this year, next year, the following year, the year after that? >> one of the things we need is an alternative site. we've identified a place, the thompsons will become and we have as i said in our budget the request for funds to open thompson and to place in thompson those who would be

tried in the military commissions or in civilian courts those to be held under the ball and those who might be temporarily held until they can be repatriated to some other country. >> are you saying you cannot close guantanamo bay until you have this other side under your control? >> yes, we have to have an option and that will require congressional support for the funding requests that we have made. >> mr. attorney general, in the house appropriations hearing last month he said that osama bin laden would, quote, never appear in an american courtroom. to further stated, quote, there really is will be reading more than the rights to court. in contrast, general mcchrystal said that the goal is to capture him alive and bring him to justice. cia director panetta said that should bin laden being caught he would be taken to a military base and interrogated by u.s. agents. mr. holder, would you like to explain that comment and clarify

and when we all hope bin laden is captured? >> with regard to osama bin laden, it is part of the target for the united states. our plan is to capture him or to kill him. our hope would be to capture him and interrogate him to get useful intelligence from him about the structure of al qaeda, about al qaeda's plans. what i said in that hearing was an assessment of the likelihood that we are going to be able to capture him alive. what i said was that with regard to that possibility both in our attempt to capture him and from what we know about instructions that he was given to the people who surrounded him, his security forces, i think it is highly unlikely that he will be taken alive. but our goal is to either capture osama bin laden or to kill him.

>> mr. attorney general the last time you can do for this committee strongly defended your decision to try the 9/11 plotters and criminal court in new york rather than in the military tribunals. since then, the president has said he will review your decision. do you still believe criminal court is the right place for the trial? if they are moved to a military tribunals how would you address the concerns that critics have about such tribunals? one month ago due said that the administration was, quote, weeks away. when can we expect this decision to be made, mr. attorney general? >> the administration is in the process of reviewing a decision as to where khalid sheikh mohammed and his co-defendants should actually be tried. new york is not off the table as a place where they might be tried but we have taken to consideration the concerns that have been raised by local officials and by the community in new york city. we expect we will be in a position to make a determination

i think in a number of weeks. >> thank you. finally, mr. attorney general, throughout my own state of wisconsin, and i assure all across the country, local law enforcement agencies speak about how vital the progress to their ability to keep our communities safe. it is a highly effective program that is proven to be one of the most cost-effective ways to fight crime. last year i joined the senators feinstein commonly he and others in introducing legislation to reauthorize the cops program and improvements to the administration of the program. can we count, mr. attorney general, on your support for this legislation? will you continue to fight for increased funding to the cops program? >> absolutely. the cops program has historically proven to be one of the most effective ways in which the federal government can assist its state and local partners. i think that the historic drops we've seen in crime over the last ten years, 15 years or so

is a direct result of the fact that we have employed, put more police officers on the street. state and local authorities don't always this is really have the financial capacity to do that in the cops program there has been@@@@@ the c.o.p.s. program remains a viable one. >> thank you very much. we turn now to senator sessions. >> thank you, senator kohl. mr. attorney general, if there's a problem with u.s. attorneys and marshals i hope you will keep us posted on that. i think it's pretty clear that they have been slow in making those nominations. i don't believe there are any objections on our side in moving good nominees, and i don't believe chairman leahy has delayed that. i think if you look at weather delays are, there are lack of

nominations. with regard to the khalid sheikh mohammed decision, you made a decision. you declared in this committee directly that he was going to be tried in new york, and you defend that as an appropriate way, because quite a bit of controversy at the time. i understand now the white house suggested it would not be tried in new york. and i guess it makes me a bit uneasy, having served in the department, to have politicians discussing where the cases ought to be tried. that's normally the department of justice professional prosecutors. so what is your position about where these cases -- this khalid sheikh mohammed case should take place? and are you uneasy that the white house is leaking statements about where a criminal case should be taken for trial?

>> i have said myself that the national security team is in the process of redoing where the case might best be held. we have to take into consideration in making that -- >> who is the national security? >> national security team includes secretary of defense, secretary of state, people from the intelligence community, the people who made with the present every tuesday afternoon to review where we stand around the world with regard to our terrorist efforts. this is a trial that is unique in the sense that it does involve very real national security concerns, and i think the involvement of the white house and the national -- national security component of the white house as well as the national security team in helping to make a determination makes sense. i'm very jealous in guarding the prerogatives of the united states department. >> you should be, and i was -- i would expect normally if it's under reconsideration the

attorney general should announce the reconsideration and not politicians. we make that announcement. but there is a genuine problem, if the case is tried in civilian courts, constitution limits then you in criminal cases. but if it is tried by military commissions, you're not limited in that way. so to try in illinois, wouldn't that raise the new questions, for several? >> your obvious a former united states attorney. and the question that you ask is one that i asked. if there were the possibility that we moved this trial, what with the possible venues be. and i have received from the people i asked that question a list of places in which the case could be tried. what i will say is the southern district of new york, for instance, is a much larger place

than simply manhattan. there's also a possibly of trying the case in other venues beyond new york. >> well, i just think that the simpler and more logical decision would be to reconsider fundamentally and try this case where it should be, i think, in military conditions. isn't it true that protecting classified information that can be revealed during a criminal trial is a priority of our government? in other words, we don't want to have a trial develop in such a way that classified information is revealed to the public here and on march 20, this year, your department answered questions i submitted to them about the danger of revealing classified information and the relevancy of

a criminal or military commissions. you testified there was not much difference, but the march 20 responses from your department really tell a different story. sighting, quote, key differences in classified evidence, protection and military commissions trials that are not similarly present in federal criminal law. were you a where of this information when you testified before us in november? >> yeah, i don't necessarily agree there are fundamental differences between the protections that are available in civilian courts and those that might be available in military commissions. the military commissions modifications that have been made to the secrecy provisions really caught a fly i think what judges do as a matter of routine in civilian court, with one exception, and that has to do with the interlocking court of appeals which frankly is i think is a good idea and perhaps ought to be incorporated into what we

do on the civilian side. much of the other enhancements that you see with regard to military commissions reflect what judges do on the civilian side. >> well, that's not what your responses say. they list seven different examples of how the military commissions are more effective in protecting intelligence sources and methods than a criminal trial. do you dispute that? >> i think that those seven instances, i will take your word for that number, there would be instances that are listed that as i said, reflect the kinds of things that judges do. not because they are obligated to do them by road or by statute, but because they do them in the way in which they interpret the cepa statute. as i said, i do think that the one modification, enhancement, that exist with regard to know to commissions about the possible interlocked or an

appeal is something that i think we are to consider. and we should always be looking at the cepa statute to see how we can make it more effective. >> well, i agree with that. but i would just say to you, mr. holder, that when you try a person in civilian court you have to give them ran the warning upon taken into custody. you have to tell them they are entitled to a lawyer. they are entitled to a speedy trial. they are entitled to file discovery of the government's case, all immediately, basically. and when you try them, hold them in military custody, you don't have to charge them at all because they are a prisoner of war and civil war is over. but if they violate the laws of war and committed criminal act, they may be tried come if you choose, to try them in military commissions. and it just makes perfect sense to me that these cases would be tried there as a result of the national consensus, after the

9/11 commission issued their report. congress passed legislation to that effect, and the president, one of his first ask, was to set aside and stop these commissions. and you have blocked their progress since then, it seems to me. so i think you need to reevaluate this. i don't think the people of new york want this trial anywhere in their states or their city, or the southern district. and there are many legal questions that will arise. i just hope that you will reevaluate this. the white house is, i hope you will and we will soon have clarity about what's the policy of the department of justice is. >> the decision been made and the decisions that i will make with regard to the placement of any of these trials depends on what is best for the trial. do this on a case-by-case basis with regard to the evidence that we would seek to admit. concerned about some of the avenues that might have to be

admitted, depending on the forum that we would use, the impact of use of certain intelligence on the intelligence -- certain evidence on the intelligence community and what it might do for our ability to interact with our allies. there are a whole variety of concepts and things that has to be taken into consideration. and what i have tried to do with what we will try to do is make these decisions on a case-by-case basis with the game be most affected a particular crop and protecting the american people expect that you, senator sessions. >> general, i think your last sentence was very important. and i think that the degree to which this dialogue has escalated is really very unhealthy. democrats did not do to president bush following 9/11 what is being done to this administration with respect to the decision-making. and i really regret it, and i

really find it reprehensible. i believe that the best interest of the people of this nation are served by the administration, you, mr. attorney general, and the president, have a maximum flexibility as to which of the new these defendants should be tried. i have served the on the intelligence committee for some 18 years. on this committee for over 17 years, and i've never seen anything quite like this. the record is ignored. it doesn't matter that the bush administration brought 200 terrorists to justice under article iii courts. it doesn't matter that the military commissions, which have been fraught with controversy, have convicted of three, two of whom are out. it doesn't matter that the saudi pledge guilty --'s ozzie pled

guilty. that was a real threat. that was a real threat to the city of new york. the fbi did magnificent work. he pled guilty. david headley is a serious terrorist. he pled guilty. and the fact of the matter is that article iii courts have other charges that they can use if they do not have the evidence to sustain a pure terrorist george. you should have that option. you should also have the option of the military commission. and i've come to the conclusion that a lot of the attacks are just to diminish you. i don't think you should buy into that at all. i think you should remain strong. now, i've had concerned about new york city. i've been a former mayor. i was mayor in the wake of an assassination, a major riot. i know what happens inside a city with a lot of scar tissue. and that's hard to proceed

unless you have been there, done that, and understand it. so i understand why new yorkers feel the way they do. i also understand why the best interests of our country are served, if you remain strong, and make the decisions based on the legal facts and where we best get a conviction. and i just want to urge you to remain strong in that respect. the record of the article iii courts and the convictions of terrorists in this country is unparalleled. and that is an absolute fact. i wanted to ask you a question on indefinite detention, if i might. the immigration and nationality act, and the patriot act, both allow different types of indefinite detention under narrow circumstances. i think it's important that the executive branch strike the

right balance between preserving the rule of law and releasing individuals who we know are determined to harm our nation. and this is a difficult area. i'd like, mr. holder, to ask your opinion, and what narrow circumstances can the executive branch hold detainees who continued to pose a security threat, but cannot be prosecuted for past crimes? >> well, again, we have to look at these cases individually. we make these determinations on a case-by-case basis. people who we decide should be held under the laws of war have the right to a habeas proceedings, where judge has you go to look at make the determinations as to whether or not the detention that we seek is, in fact, appropriate. we have won some cases in that regard. we have not been successful with others. some are under appeal. some of the people who have

ordered released by judges have been released. we are -- we use that power, again, with the thought that what we want to do is to keep the american people safe and not release people who would pose a threat to the united states, or not release people who we do not think can be placed in other countries and were remedial measures can be put in place to ensure that they would not pose a threat to our people. so we used that power only when we think it can be appropriately used, and i think if you look at the number of people we had at guantánamo, the number of people we would seek to detain in that way it i think relatively small. >> thank you. i have the question here that i wanted to ask. i can't find it.

about a year ago, we passed legislation with respect to the detention of children that are brought to this country, not at their request, but similar to the elian gonzález case. i learned some time ago that we have about 5000 children who, at that time were subject to serious detention in jail facilities, some of them very, very young. and we passed a bill a year ago asking you to do certain things and we had no response to that. would you take a look at that and see if we can get that show on the road, so to speak? >> i will look at that. the concern that you have is one that i have as well. >> these are regulations that have to be implemented spirit and we will look at that, the

concern about children and their detention and what that means or their development, their separation from parents. these are all things i think are very legitimate concerns i will look at those regulations to make can you give us any kind of a timeline? i've waited a year, and if you could give us a timeline. and a lot of children out there, this has to do with indefinite detention. it has to do with guardianship. it has to do with an ability to return them to the country, if there is a place for them. >> okay. what i can do is this, maybe when i get back this afternoon to the department i will look to see what is the state of play is, and then if i can, i will promise to get you a letter by the end of the week to give you a sense of when it is we can start to do something in a substantive way. >> thank you. appreciated. smack senator hatch? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, you have a very tough job but i respected, how difficult it is. my time is limited so i'm only

going to be able to pursue a handful of questions that want to take a. i will be submitting several questions for the record. one of the questions i will be submitted to you is why you felt the need to issue a memorandum to revise prosecutorial guidelines for federal marijuana prosecutions. congress enacted the controlled substances act, csa, with a specific intent of making dangerous drugs illegal. now i want to make sure that you as the highest legal law enforcement official in the land are clear on what congress' intention was with respect to the csa. not the white house's vision or how it should be enforced. so i'll be looking for a time response to the question. but briefly, i'm sure that you are aware of the impending deadline for states to apply with the provisions. as you and i take a great interest in the act. the president sat down with my

good friend, john walsh, on america's most wanted to discuss getting states to comply with the adam walsh act. right eye like to get your pledge to work with me and my colleagues in getting states and smart, s. m. a r. t. come on the same page before the july deadline without weakening or watering down at a mall she act. is that okay? >> i will pledge to do that. but one thing i would say, senator, is we have to work also with the state attorneys general who want to comply with the fact. and when i met with him, express concerns about their ability to do so. so i think we have to make them a part of the conversation as well. i share your concern. i think that is, in fact, we have to have fully implement as quickly as again and certainly within the deadline. but i also think that part of the conversation onto the the state -- >> i have no problems that but the act is very important that it is a tough slog to get that done and i think it's very, very important to have it done.

before i move to the attempted terrorist attack that transpired aboard northwest like 253, let me briefly ask you about obscenity enforcement. how is this administration enforcing federal law prohibit sexually explicit material that meets the supreme court's definition of obscenity? >> well, there is a section within the justice department, child exploitation and obscenity section, that handles these matters. the people who are there our career employees who worked on the republican as with democratic attorneys general. and i think to do a good job. >> i asked you this question. i asked your republican predecessors because my judgment, they took a misguided in their approach to law enforcement in this area. so i'm concerned. sorry to interrupt you. >> i was using the responsibility for the enforcement lies in that area, and i think they are quite

aggressive in the prosecution detection of these materials, with a focus on, i think, child obscenity which does not exclude other forms of obscenity that they can look at the. >> you have a fair set a pattern at the department justice to prosecute, only the most extreme obscene materials? this particular type of material made virtually guarantee a conviction, but it's not the most widely produced or consumed. and, therefore, it may have very little impact on the obscenity industry. so that's what i'm concerned about. this approach to moving the prosecution line out to the fringe signals that material is just as obscene though less extreme is let off the hook. i believe that approach is misguided in contribute to the proliferation of obscenity that harms individuals, families, and communities. so i'm very concerned about it and i hope you will really take a good look at it because

currently, there is an obscenity prosecution task force in the department of justice. now, will you allow the drug of that task force to enforce federal obscenity laws without restricting him to the most extreme obscene material? >> well, we will certainly enforce the law using the limited resources that we have and go after those cases that i think, as we always do, have the potential for the greater harm. there are first amendment considerations that have to be taken into account, but it is not mean will be serious about the enforcement of those lost. >> okay. let me transition and call your attention to the christmas day bombing attempt of northwest flight 253. on genuine 26, i joined in sending a letter to you regarding the charging of umar farouk abdulmutallab in federal court. and/or sponsored about to be dented edward third 2000 you

laid out an expedition defending her decision to charge this terrorist in federal criminal court. to further explain that you alone made this decision. you reference the previous administration's decision to charge richard reid and noted the similarity of these two cases that i would point out that in their weak case which occurred in december 2001, the military detention system did not yet exist. attorney general ashcroft didn't have the option of military detention however, you do because of the military commissions act. and the military commissions act of 2009, section 950-t., one of those crimes listed under 950t, the actions of this man jeopardized the lives of passengers and hazard to aircraft. did you pursue the feasibility of prosecuting abdulmutallab

under a military commission based on section 950-t of the military commissions act? >> one thing i would say is that other than the military commissions were not in existence at the time that richard reid was apprehended, it did exist at that point. with regard to the decision, it was a decision i made after consultatconsultation on december 25, there were a couple of conversations that occurred with members of the intelligence community, and then on january the fifth in a meeting that we held in a situation room, i laid out for members of the intelligence committee, and intelligence community as well as the defense community the decision, the thought that i had about pursuing this in the criminal -- and criminals here and there were no objections raise, no objections raised to the. the decision that was made with regard to mr. abdulmutallab was

to place him in an environment in a forum in which we could most effectively try the case that i think the decision that was made has been shown to be the right one, given the fact that we had the ability to get information from him in that one hour interaction, immediately after he was apprehended. and in the information he has since provided as a result of his decision to cooperate with the federal government. >> mr. chairman, my time is up it i appreciate your service and appreciate your answers. i will submit a number of questions for you. >> thank the. >> thank you, senator hatch. senator feingold? >> thankou, mr. chairman. the committee as well aware of my support for federal court trials. i will simply add a what senator feinstein said so well, continued strength on your courageous actions in this regard. i have a statement that discusses that issue and i would ask that it be placed of record so i had time to discuss other

topics the. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me take a moment to compliment you. under your and her leadership the antitrust division of the department has made it clear after many years of neglect and enforcement of antitrust laws is a priority for the department and i'm especially grateful for the department focus on agriculture issues and partnership with the usda and was very pleased to the debugger will be holding a gary workshop in wisconsin in june. it means a great deal to our producers and others in the state of wisconsin. i turned to a couple of other things. senator kohl asked you about the c.o.p.s. program that as you know i strongly support that program and other federal law enforcement assistance grant program said i should be live from law in wisconsin just how important these grant programs are, particularly during tough economic times. the cops hiring grant in the recovery act allowed my state to hire, rehire 58 police officers, and these were certainly needed in the jurisdiction where they

were provided, but i do think it's important that these dollars are distributed fairly between cities and counties that enemies i've had recently with wisconsin law enforcement, it was brought to my attention that wisconsin sheriffs received zero c.o.p.s. this struck me as a bit of an unfair outcome for counties in my state. might understand the department is looking at possible changes to the grant methodology. just a bit, sir, on the status of that review, how quickly can we expect it to be modified and sort of an update on that effort. >> quickly before i get to that, you're absolutely right that there is a focus in our antitrust division on the whole question of agricultural concerns. i will be attending with secretary of agriculture vilsack a number of forums around the country, we have five scheduled to quit done one already in iowa

with senator, senator grassley. with regard to the question of the allocation of c.o.p.s. funds, i think she is, i think whenever you are correct. is about 70% of the money that was awarded last year. we are in the process of looking at the allocation formula that we use. it was based on -- generally based on what the economic condition was any particular jurisdiction, what the crime rates are in that same jurisdiction. i have talked to representatives of the shares communities, and they raise i think very legitimate concerns. and so as we construct the methodology that we will be using next year we will take that into consideration. i would expect it would probably have the determination made over the next few weeks as to what exactly the formula is going to be. >> thank you. prosecutors and public defenders in wisconsin have been telling me they're having a harder and harder time in obtaining qualified attorneys and offices that many of these public servants has had to resort to

take second jobs to pay off their law school debt. i'm told that local prosecutor, public defender offices typically have attrition rates between 30 and 50%. this is a serious problem in our criminal justice system, and one of the many reasons i was a supporter of the john are just as prosecutor defenders act which created a much needed plant because an act in 2008, thanks in large part to the leadership and hard work of senator durbin. the d.o.j. has yet to issue guidelineguidelines to enable states to solicit applications for loan assistance. can you tell me a bit about, update on the status of our efforts to launch this, when do you expect prosecutors and public defenders will be able to start applying for assistance to? well, even in these difficult economic times i think the wisdom of that at is, from my perspective come relatively obvious. -concerned about the state of indigent defense. talked about that on a great meal and the occasions that i'm

also concerned about what i hear from people work on the other side, from prosecutors, at the state and local levels. to the extent that we can come up with ways in which we can be of financial assistance to these groups, i think we need to do so. so let me get back to the department and see where we stand to our loan assistance program regulations, and i will assure you that this is something that, for me, given the travels that i've had a chance to do over these past 14 months, this is really a priority. i'm concerned about the status of our local criminal justice system and the ability to hold on to good people who only want to serve their communities. there are economic considerations that are driving good people out of the system. >> thank you for that statement. i will have a continued interest in that. law enforcement and corrections staff are long known, are

overrepresented, our jails or prisons were never intended or not equipped to be treated facilities for the mentally ill. but unfortunately that's what they have often become. wisconsin hester looking at this is you and recently convened a task force of law enforcement officers and corrections staff, district attorney, state legislator and social service providers with the goal of developing a strategic plan to improve wisconsin's responses to the people with mental illness in the criminal justice system. this initiative would not have been possible without the leadership of our chief justice in wisconsin, shorty abramson, who was able to obtain funding for the counsel for state governments to organize this password. account received a private thing for this and other health initiatives as a result of the mental illness of vendor treatment climacteric while i was pleased wisconsin received some assistance from this initiative, it was one of just four states that receive the eight out of more than 30 states that applied for assistance. we have a store could allocated few resources to deal with this competent problem, yet fun for

mental illness programs is one the most competitive programs in the department. the president's budget consulting this important program with a drug courts broke ram, and i'm concerned that will mean not enough resources for either program. why was that recommendation made? >> i think what we have tried to do is again in these very difficult economic times to come up with ways in which we can most effective industry can do limited funds that we have. the concerned that you raise are indeed very legitimate ones that i'm concerned about the way we have the institutionalized our facilities and for so many people who i think would do much better in institutions that were well-funded and well run and it said would put them in the, justice system. i saw that as a judge here in washington, d.c.. what we have tried to do, what we continue to try to do is come up with ways in which we can help our states and local

partners and help our fellow citizens deal with issues that they have to confront. putting those together, it seemed to us to identify ways in which we could consolidate those people who have drug problems and come up with alternatives to simply try them and incarcerate them and also deal with people have mental issues and come up with ways in which we can help them, other than by incarcerating them. we will do the best we can with the resources that we have. that concern you raise i think is a very legitimate one and one i think as a society we need to focus more attention on. eyewitnesses, as i said, as a judge. and i'm very, very concerned about the way in which we treat the mentally ill and the desire to put them in the criminal justice system. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator feingold. senator grassley.

>> i think you private that i want to thank you publicly for having the hearing center having him around the country and enforcement on antitrust or regal antitrust and agriculture. that's not the point of my question, but thought i ought to start out there on a very positive note. [laughter] >> that's always appreciated. >> at the last oversight hearing, i asked you for a list of political appointees who present represent the detainees are abdicated on their behalf. i think was a very simple requestcoming to that quote that you would consider it. since then we've had back and forth exchange with two letters signed by all republicans on this committee. your staff has refused to provide the information, and yet the justice department managed to verify or provide names to fox news. you said this inquiry has called into question the integrity of political appointees at the department. saw want to make clear that i'm not here to call into question

the integrity of any employee of the department. in fact, i agree with the departments view that personal attacks on the department employees are inappropriate. my inquiry, though, seeks to understand who is advising you on these decisions giving the serious impact that these decisions have on our national security. these questions are about transparency, about openness, and about accountability. the platform positions president obama ran on in 2008, and will culminate in a presidential memorandum on openness and transparency in government that he signed january of last year. so a very simple yes or no question from would you provide the names of political appointees at the department had previously represented detainees or abdicated on detainee issues do? with all due respect, senator, and i know that your request

comes from what i will call a good place. yours was an honorable request. and the hesitance i had has been borne out by what i have seen. there has been an attempt to take the names of people represented guantánamo detainees and to drag their reputations through the mud. there were reprehensible as used to question -- to question their patriotism. i'm not going to allow these kids, i'm not going to be a part of that effort. and so with all due respect, their names are out there now. the positions that they hold throughout their, that's been place in the public record. i am simply not going to be a part of that effort. i will not allow good, decent lawyers who have followed the greatest traditions of american jurisprudence done what john

adams did, done that our chief justice has said, is appropriate. i will not allow their reputations to be dispersed. i will not be a part of that. >> well, remember that this is a request from this committee, and i think all the people are very sincere about it. so i will move on. you recently said that attorneys representing unpopular clients are patriots. i want to comment though that i doubt you would share the same feeling for lawyers who represent the mafia, and i doubt that you would hire them in the justice department. the department's response said that the department of justice does not keep a centralized database of refusals. and it is the owner of you employ to reduce themselves. now you know that large law firms like once you have served in have conflict raise and procedures in place to ensure that rules are followed. why should the department of

justice, not just on under your leadership, have some centralized system of conflicts system as private firms have? >> i think that's accurate a legitimate concern that you raise, and that is something i think is worthy of consideration because you're right, that there is within certain law firm that i was a member of, such a database. and that i think is something that we can consider at the department. >> freedom of information question and discussion with you your continued 21st, 2009, president obama issued presidential memorandum to heads of all executive departments and agencies regarding freedom of information. that memorandum stated, quote, all agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure. and then directed you to issue new guidelines which are issued

march 19, last year. your guidelines stated that quote, an agency should not withhold information simply because it may do so legally. they also limited when the justice department would defend the denial of for your request. i believe the guidelines were good step in opening up government and honoring obama's place for transparency. however, when the department posted the national foia report back in march, the facts i think put a very different picture. and analysis by "the associated press" found that in fiscal year 2009, government agencies cited for your exemptions for hundred 68,000 times compared with 312,000 times in fiscal year 2008. one exemption was used almost 71,000 times in fiscal year

2009, compared to 47,000 times in fiscal year 2008, and all of this occurred despite total decrease, total decrease in foia request fiscal year 2009. these numbers i think out to be shocking to anybody, that talks about transparency. so what is the reason, i'm going to ask you questions, what is the reason for substantial increase in the use of foia exemption by this administration, and if the use of extensions continue to increase in fiscal year 2010, what would you do to personally ensure that agencies are more transparent and responsive to the public's right to know and to what the president says he wants his executive branch of government to do? >> the president has been clear, and i think in the regulations that ie should i was clear, that foia and the release of information, the desire for transparency is something that

is critical to this administration. the statistics of you cited are indeed troubling. i'm not exactly sure what the reason is, but i think it requires some further examination to ensure that those people who are responsible for making foia decisions are doing so in a way that is consistent with the president and the directions that i have issued. we will review that and see what has happened. i can assure you though that the president is sincere. i am sincere. and trying to make sure that we are responsive or more responsive to foia requests. >> i hope you will send you a message to all the agencies from the president. i'm done. >> thank you, senator grassley. senator durbin? >> mr. attorney general, thank you. in response to senator grassley's inquiry, and i respect the senator from iowa very much. i want to think you. i think was a courageous position to take and the right would.

history tells us it was the supreme court ruled that the guantánamo detainees have the right to file petitions of habeas corpus that it was the bush administration which said they had the right to counsel. and the argument being made from the other side of the aisle and their inspiration and fox news is that if anybody decides to represent a guantánamo detainee they disqualify themselves from future government service because they can't be trusted. you know, if that is the premise of our system of justice, that legal representation or possible inclinations towards one party over another, this call for you, where does it and? does it end with prosecutors to who fail to prosecute? so then judges who may rule in favor of a defendant? i think you are standing up a very fundamental principle and rule of law here that does go back to john adams in the early states of this nation, and i thank you for doing this. the men and women who've had the courage to stand up as professionals who have taken an

oath to represent not only their clients, but defend our constitution laws have the right to that kind of defense. and i thank you for the courage to do so, and i hope the record will reflect it was the bush administration that set guantanamo detainees have the right to counsel. this is not a decision made by the obama administration. it was the right decision by the bush administration, let me add that, too, on brenda warnings. i think you're well aware and we should say on the record there's a lot of questions about using article iii courts for fear of giving emma ran the warning to a person but what was appalled of the bush administration when it came to miranda warnings or suspected terrorists arrested in the united states the? it was fundamental to from the policy that we now have in place. one thing i think people have to understand is the giving of miranda warnings is not necessary mean that the flow of information stopped against us, i think a good case can be made that once people get miranda warnings the information flow continues, or that if it stopped temporarily want to lower is

introduced in a defense lawyer is introduced into the mix, that lower than councils his client, especially terrorism cases and getting the real lincoln sense is that some of faces in an article iii proceed, that lower works to convince the client to cooperate with the government. so miranda warnings are not necessarily ones that have a negative impact on our ability to gain intelligence. >> let's go back to a well-known case that resulted in all of us taking our shoes off at airports. richard reid, the unabomber, shoe bomber. how long after he was detained by the bush administration's department of justice was it before he was given a miranda warning? >> i think he was within a few this. i'm not exactly sure spirit five minutes is what the record reflect that under the bush administration the shoe bomber within five this was given his miranda warning. that was the standard. and that to argue that a miranda warning and somehow i, unsafe for america is to ignore the obvious. what about the intelligence?

that's the second argument made about article iii courts that you can successfully prosecute a terrorist in court without running the risk, if not in fact disclosing sensitive intelligence. what was the record of the bush administration speak with the administration did i think white wine trying cases in article iii courts and use cepa to prevent the dissemination of information of secret information from any of those proceedings. >> and one of the leading prosecutors and america coming u.s. attorney for the northern district of illinois, patrick fitzgerald who was in charge of the prosecution of the southern district of new york, the african terrorists said afterward that he could do this without disclosing intelligence information following the law. backed up by others who would do the same experts. have you had complaints of u.s. attorneys when you consider article iii prosecutions that somehow that may jeopardize and disclose intelligence information? >> no, i've not had a complete and i think our history shows that article iii court are

capable of trying cases without putting at risk intelligence sources and methods of the same is true i think of military commissions. >> and that would be an option that you would protect if you could make a choice. let me ask you this. for the record, it's been said by others, what is, if you look at the scorecard since 9/11, how many successful prosecutions and convictions of terrorists have taken place in article iii courts under the bush administration and obama administration, and how many have taken place in military commissions? >> i think we have success in prosecutions close to 400. on the article iii site. and three in the military commissions i'd. >> so those who are arguing we should just all of these prosecutions to the military side would have to stop and explain why this dramatic record of success in article iii courts should be rejected at this point. let me ask you about the sensitivity of the people of new york with ksm. tell me what is going through the mind of the administration in your mind what you think

about that prosecution and that city after all that it has been through. >> i want to take back one thing we have to remember is, i guess contrary to what somebody said that the was an initial negative reaction to that decision but quite the contrary. i think if one looks at the initial reaction from people in new york, the reaction action was a positive one. that being said, as we are making this determination, want to take into consideration what we efforts on the mayor, what we've heard from a lack of officials in new york city. what we glean from the people of the city that is evidence in a number of ways. and try to come up with the way in which we can come up with a forum that will be most effective with regard to that case, whether a military commission or an article iii trial in new york city or some other places that i want to make it clear that i am not trying to

cast any kind of negative impression about military commissions that i know senator graham and others have worked closely and i do believe that as a viable alternative that you should have at your disposal. is it not to do that under the procedural rules of military commissions there are some limitations compared to article iii courts? when it comes to capital offenses. >> yes. and article iii court it can certainly, a person complete guilty to a capital offense that is not allowed in the military commissions. >> there was have to be somehow even if they want to plead guilty to those circumstances. let me ask one last question. i suppose i've run out of time here. let me try to read and write what senator feinstein and feingold have added. i don't believe that a system of justice should be driven by fear and anger. and that appears to be a driving force among some political camps in this country. if we're going to be strong as a nation we won't be quivering in fear and reacting irrationally in anger. we're going to stand by the rule

of law and semi-principles that have guided us for a long time, and i thank you for your leadership. >> thank you, senator durbin. senator graham? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. attorney general, for coming. this is been a very good discussion about some difficult issues, but one thing i would like to read and write is that president obama said the nation was at war with al qaeda. do you agree with that? >> yes. >> i would just urge you to remain strong in that thought process. because some people don't believe we are at war. some people are just as patriotic as i am, but they believe we should be using the law enforcement model exclusively. and i think that is a formula for disaster, and there are some people who say you can never use article iii courts, and i disagree with them. quite frankly there could be times when article iii court would be a superior form in my view a financier of al qaeda jim i want to take into a article iii topic as you have more charging possibility. every al qaeda operative is not at the same level of the next, so i agree with the idea of

flexible, pragmatic and progressive. that is your standard. so i am one centered on the republican side who is not objected to article iii courts being used in a flexible, pragmatic, flexible action. when one is at war the rules are different than fighting crime. do you agree with that? >> the -- >> the law of war is given a normal criminal law in certain aspects back in certain aspects, yes. >> with the cashes in on the battlefield under the law for we have no obligation to read them their miranda rights, is that correct? >> that's correct. that is not typically done but even in the bush administration, a small, small species i totally agree that if you're going to charge them under domestic criminal law you should read them their rights to gouge's urge my colleagues to understand that when you're fighting a war and to catch people on the battlefield and the whole world is the battlefield, in my view,

the primary goal is to find out what they know about any of the operations, get them off the battlefield and feature prosecution is usually. i hope we do not criminalize the war and will remain flexible, pragmatic and flexible. there are 40 people in guantánamo bay are badly this administration has identified that a going to held by the law of war on an indefinite basis because they present a national security threat, but the evidence is such use would not take into a cruel proceeding. is that correct? >> i'm just checking numbers here. that is correct. there are 40 detainees who we have determined who are too dangerous to transfer and not feasible for prosecution. >> i want to, one, stand by in decision but i think it is a rational, logical decision not generated out of fear or revenge. but out of necessity. we are not fighting crime. we are not fighting the mafia.

we are fighting an international sometimes and organized organization called al qaeda, who is bent on our destruction. and some of these people need to be held under our values under the law of war with process. but we should not do at the time of crime but as a military threat that it is my understanding that every detainee, whether held under the law of war or not will have their day in article iii courts. it is a habeas proceeding available to every detainee at guantánamo bay, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> one of the judges recently granted a dispensation to an alleged member of al qaeda who confess to being a member of al qaeda who swore allegiance to al qaeda in the '90s, but the judge decided to grant the habeas petition because the government could not prove on the day of capture in 2001 they were still a member of al qaeda. is my view, mr. attorney general, that we need to reform our habeas procedures.

and that a presumption should follow a detainee that once or a member of al qaeda, proven on the day of capture, it would be a presumption that you're still a member of al qaeda and the court could hear evidence otherwise. this is just an example of why the congress in my view, needs to get more involved. so hang firm, stand strong, be fair, be aggressive, be pragmatic, but do not lose sight that we are at war. when it comes to confinement facilities, and i share the presidents concern that guantanamo bay has become an iconic image used against our troops in the field, and it would be preferable come in my view, to have a new facility that starts over and not tainted by the past of guantanamo bay, even though it is a well-run secure facility. and i would like to work with you in that regard. and i'm losing the audience, and barely. that's okay. [laughter] >> when it comes to future

captures, where would we put someone that was captured in yemen that we believe to have been a member of al qaeda? where would they be detained? >> well, that's one of the issues i think we have to wrestle with. there are -- it depends on what we ultimately want the -- >> my time is short, we're basically a nation without a viable deal. this president is probably not going to say new people to guantanamo bay, is that a very accurate say that? >> that a certain something we would try to avoid. >> and if you send these people to bagram air base, you're going to bring the afghan government down. so to my colleagues who think that we can close the guantanamo bay and sent into afghanistan, and the afghan government become the american jailer, i think you're making a series mistake in the war on terror. do you agree with is becaus thii

think we have to come up with options and we need to work with the congress to try to develop what those options might be. >> this is music to my is because i think we do also because we are fighting a war. we don't have a viable jail. some people say he was guantanamo bay. it is safe and secure. i would argue listen to the commanders, see if we can find a better jail that would meet the needs of the unique war on terror. so at the end of the day, i think the decision to prosecute ksm in civilian court was a mistake. the fact that you're being flexible, pragmatic and aggressive is the right track to take. and i would urge you to work with the congress to see if we can passion detention policy that allows us to be at war within our values, allows you to use article iii courts when appropriate, but never lose sight of the fact that if you're a member of al qaeda you haven't violate our immigration laws, you're a continuing threat to the world and the idea of holding someone with due process as a member of al qaeda until they die in jail is okay with me.

because we done it in every other war, but this is a war without end so i'm willing to do more than we done in past wars as long as we don't lose sight of the fact we are at war. i do for your service and i look forward to working with you as we saw these very difficult problems. >> thank you, mr. graham. senator schumer spectrum one, and thank you, attorney general for your service. i just want to go over a little bit. i know new york came up in question with a senator durbin and senator feinstein said something. and i disagree with what she said from her express as a mayor how difficult it would be handling a trial against the public area. i know you said you haven't yet ruled out. i hope you will. the overwhelming consensus in new york as we know is that it shouldn't be there. and i just strongly urge you to make sure that that doesn't happen, to find a better alternate. >> what i said was is not been ruled out but we would take into

consideration obviously the expressions of the political leadership there as well as what we are to glean from the population in making that determination. i want to make sure that is a part. >> i appreciate the. i'm going to move onto other areas of new york which are having other kinds of problems. what we have found throughout the country, i think, the gang intelligence centers 2009 getting credit assessment, found that gangs are increasingly migrating from urban areas to suburban and even rural communities. unfortunately, the are two tuners in new york that are all to the money with this problem, newburgh in the hudson valley, brentwood on long island. situation in newburgh has become shocking over the past. there are reports of shootouts in the streets, strings of robberies and gang assault with machetes, homicides are up, rape is up, robert is up, and anecdotal evidence suggests that the gangs in the area have to

start to target schools which is what gangs often do. to recruit new members. so newburgh and very much benefit from increased resource. so my question is would you agree to go to newburgh yourself or send a high level official with expertise in this area to meet with local law enforcement and community leaders to work on decreasing this increasing gang presence of? >> yes, i would agree to have somebody, if not myself go to newburgh for the purpose as you indicate, but also want to make sure that united states attorney for the southern district of new york has been focusing attention on the problem and newburgh them has been working with the local officials there as well. and i think that we will see shortly some of the result of that word. but i will not preclude -- >> i think all levels, the u.s. attorney odyssey, our office has been in touch with his.

but we need some washington president as well. i appreciate your agreement to either you or a high official expert in this to come and help us. the second question related, local newspaper in the hudson valley, the time she'll record, report the fbi has brought newburgh to the attention of the white house. a series example of what's happened with gangs. will you commit to having the appropriate agencies in your department examine the files and tiny tim to determine whether increased the federal resources are wanted as i believe they are? >> yes. we are committed to that. i think that you will see that we have in fact been doing that. the problem that you know in these two communities i think is, as you say, acute and is worthy of federal attention and federal assistance to the local authority so i think we're trying to do the job. but i think it's about. >> i'm not being critical.

>> and i'm not even. >> i am saying they need additional help. let me go to brentwood, similar problems to 15 arrests of gang members since december. nine violent killings last year and a small community. that is a heck of a lot. five killings since this january in brentwood and surrounding area. and the fbi decrease my staff on gangland activity in brentwood. i was pleased to hear that the fbi and other federal partners are working closely now with local law enforcement. they met with the community leaders. they're increasing resources significantly to fight gangs in the area. so could you please elaborate on the work and involvement in the department of brentwood, could you speak what you're learning from those efforts? and finally, given the gang threat assessments area of increasing gang migration to non-urban areas, which will elaborate on the work of the department to increase federal resources, general, to fight gangs in these nontraditional areas? >> i think they gain from is a very serious one.

we have seen gangs that were centered in one city become national in their scope, national in their weeks. we've seen as you indicate a migration of gang activity from cities to world and to suburban areas. and we in law enforcement have to adapt to that. and break old models, old ways of thinking. gangs are not simply and urban phenomenon anymore. with regard to brentwood, i know the fbi has given attention to that problem, as you have indicated. our hope is that to our cooperation with local authorities there, we can have a meaningful impact on the problem that has unfortunately afflicted the brentwood area. newburgh and brentwood are two wonderful communities. and i think what we have seen there is unfortunately too typical of what we're seeing in increasing numbers of --

>> be specific, about what would. >> there are operational concerns i have with regard to dealing too much, other than to say that the fbi is involved in i was a meaningful way in the brentwood problem. and again i think this is something that will bear fruit in april to the short period of time you. . . i don't have anymore questions so i yield back my time. >> thank you very much senator. senator kyl. >> i too am going to persevere on local issues mr. attorney general. i'm very disappointed the administration put a low priority on security in the southern border. violence there is escalating exponentially. thousands of people have been killed just south of the border by drug cartels. arizona last week, arizona

buried a very fine citizen, a rancher in kochi county >> the violence is spreading, and yet action that i've requested from you and from the secretary of homeland security is lacking. let me pack -- back up. i'm talking about operation streamline. last friday i visited the yuma sector of the border and heard the tremendous success that operation streamline has brought to that sector of the border similar to the dell rio, texas, sector. there is virtually no illegal immigration occurring there now. part of it is because of a double and, in some cases, triple fence with border patrol agents putting even first offenders in jail for a couple of weeks and can be up p to a month or even longer depending on how many times people have crossed the border. this takes some resources from the department of justice, and i

have asked with you when i met with you before your nomination hearing in 2009 about the funding for that. i discussed it again with you at your nomination hearing on january 15, 2009. we discussed this because the department of justice needs to provide the funding for certain elements of it. i asked you what resources were necessary. for the marshal service, the courthouse renovations that may or may not be necessary, criminal clerks, administrative costs, potentially additional judges, some additional detention spaces. there appear to be plenty of opportunities to rent detention services. all of this would fall under the department of justice's jurisdiction. i've gotten no response.

so finally i attached a requirement collaborative to provide a report on what these cos are. that report was due from you and secretary napolitano on december 27th of last year. in a response to me in march, secretary napolitano wrote that the report is in the final stages of review process and we anticipate congress will receive it in the near future. still vice president received the report. -- haven't received the report. it's my understanding, and i'd love for you to be able to verify this isn't true, the can't of justice hasn't -- department of justice hasn't been cooperative in be providing the information to complete the report. that would assume self-complying with laws which has not been done here. when can we expect to get the

report, number one. secondly, do you support operation streamline or not? will you support funding necessary, will you identify the things that would need to be done, and will are you support that funding including by making requests for the next budget of the administration to provide funding necessary to both expand operation streamline to other sectors including the tucson sector of the border where just about half of the illegal immigration is now coming through the southern border? >> first, i would express my condolences for the citizen in arizona. that happened while i was in arizona for a u.s. attorneys' conference. the, it is, in fact, a priority for this administration to insure that our borders are secure and especially with the border we're talking about, the southwest border. we have tried to work with our partners at dhs to be effective in that regard. i will check and see what the

status is of that report. it is certainly not anything that's been brought to my attention by anyone either at dhs or within the department of justice that we have been dragging our feet in the creation of that report. there are a variety of mechanisms, i think, that we need to use in order to be effective at reducing the flow of illegal immigration and all that that implies, all the collateral problems that it tends to breed. operation streamline is something, you're correct, you and i have certainly discussed that in the past. we will look at all of the possibilities, i will look at all of the possibilities, and i will be supportive of within the interagency process and dealing with the folks at omb, supportive of those things that i think have proven to be effective so that we can use our money efficiently and so that we can be responsive to the citizens along the southwest

border. what i think we too often think of is that that is a local problem, and it is not. it is a national problem. what happens along the southwest border has an impact in chicago -- >> could i just interrupt you? i mean. i've just got seven minutes, as you know. would you ask your staff to respond to my staff to set up even a telephone call between the two of us, it doesn't have to be a meeting, to further discuss this especially after you've been able to verify the information and provide it to me, please? >> we'll do that. >> on february 26th the house passed the intelligence act for this year. just before that it stripped a provision that would have criminalized cruel and degrading interrogations which was a staggering provision in its breadth and ambiguity. a cia agent, for example, could have been punished for up to 15 years if the court concluded the agent blasphemeed a defendant's

religious brief. >> i'm not familiar with that provision. torture is certainly a violation of our law when it comes to, i guess, cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment. i would want to look at that statute, i'm not familiar with that. >> would you respond to me in writing as to what the department's position on that would be? because i suspect the issue will arise again. >> that's fine. i'll do that. >> i thank you very much. >> thank you very much, senator kyl. senator cardin. >> thank you, madam chair. general holder, it's always a pleasure, we thank you very much for your service. i want to follow up on the points many of my colleagues have raised in regards to guantanamo bay and the handling of the detainees that are there. i recently was in guantanamo bay, i had a chance to visit there two weeks ago.

it was my second visit, and the type of facility there is certainly one that is world class from the point of view of how it treats detainees, the type of physical facilities, etc. it was constructed in order to be able to obtain intelligence information from detainees, its purpose was also to detain individuals and then, third, for pretrial and trial purposes. well, the actionable intelligence information is no longer as relevant as it was when it was first constructed, the number of detainees is far below its capacity, and it's been used very, hasn't been used very much for pretrial or trial cases. so as a practical matter, as a budget issue and certainly from a symbol, began tan mow bay has

to -- guantanamo bay has to close. we've talked about what do we do with the people that are there, how do we try them, do we use military commissions, i support what some of my colleagues have said. i want to give you maximum choice. i don't want to restrict the way to get the most effective results. i don't want to give the detainees more rights than they should have, and that is why restrict the venue in which we should try them? but i want to deal with those that we cannot release now and we cannot try. you inherited this problem, but it is an issue that we have to deal with. on previous occasions you said there will be a process for review to make sure that basic rights are afforded. how far along are we in making that type of review process public in order to get international recognition and, hopefully, support for how we are dealing with those that will continue to be detained without trial? >> well, that is something that we're still working on.

i think there certainly needs to be a process by which an initial determination is made, and that has already occurred with regard to the task force and in the principles committee that voted on making the decision to detain these 48, these 48 people. obviously, there's a right for them to challenge that determination in federal court, but as i've talked about with senator graham, there has to be, i think, an ongoing -- and the administration agrees with this -- there has to be some kind of ongoing mechanism to make sure somebody detained on this basis continues to be a danger. it is something we are still working through in the interagency. frankly, working with senator graham as well. my hope would be that we would have something that we will be able to share and put in place, more importantly, in a relatively short period of time. but this is something that has been, has been focused -- >> well, let me just repeat the

9/11 commission's recommendation that the united states engage its friends in developing common coalition approach towards detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists. i guess my point is that it's fine for us internally to develop a review process, but if we don't put some light on it, if we don't open this process up, if the we don't engage the international community, and if we don't engage the international community how we're going to deal with detainees in the future, this war's not going to end anytime soon. we're apprehending people today, and we still yet have a real international accord as to how these detainees should be handled. should we have another geneva-type convention to deal with? i think we're looking forward to some broader relations rather -- recommendationings rather than trying to deal with this internal ri within the country. >> i agree with you. i don't think that can be done entirely, it must be done in as

transparent a way as we can. there is a symbolic significance to this review process in the same way there is a symbolic significance to the continued existence of guantanamo. we have to deal with this not only on a substancive level, but also on a symbolic level. and it would seem to me, again, taking into account a variety of things, we want to make sure this review process, the existence is something that is widely known. >> when should we expect some specifics as to how these procedures are being handled? i've heard you say frequently, as soon as possible, but it's getting late. >> yeah. i mean, it is, it is a priority. i mean, i think, you know, what has certainly -- we've now gotten to the point where we've made the determination that very able task force made its recommendations unanimously

agreed to by the principles that 48 people should be held this way. we've identified those people, and i think it is incumbent upon us to develop as quickly as we can what the review mechanism is going to be and how transparent we can make that. >> sometime this year? is. >> i would certainly think that is -- i certainly think we can do that. >> sometime this month? >> i'm not sure we can do that. [laughter] >> i just urge you to -- this is an issue that is difficult for us to defend when we don't have anything to defend. we don't have a policy to defend. so i just urge you to get that to us as quickly as possible. let me turn to a separate subject dealing with our juvenile justice system. there's been recent reports showing that many of the individuals in our juvenile justice system have been victimized. i would hope that you are acting on that report and the department of justice has significant responsibility in regards to how juveniles are

handled in this country not only from the federal point of view, but our states. and i would think this should be a very high priority, and i know our committee is looking at legislation here, but we certainly welcome your thoughts as to what we should be doing in regards to improving our juvenile justice system. >> we'd like to work with you in that regard. the reports that i've seen from a variety of contexts, i think, are very disturbing about how juveniles are treated, how they are victimized too off in facilities where, frankly, they should not be held. i think that, you know, the purpose of the juvenile system is rehabilitation, and if that is to occur, we have to have a juvenile system that is capable of doing that. so i would look forward to working with you in trying to make our juvenile system what it can be and too frequently is not. >> thank you. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator cornyn. i'd like to take this opportunity to put in the record

national security division statistics on unsealed international terrorism and terrorism-related convictions and, also, a letter dated february 18th from the department. senator cornyn? >> thank you, madam chairman. good morning, general. >> good morning. >> in the short time we have together i want to ask you about the financial crisis and what the department is doing to investigate and prosecute criminal activity there. there's violence in mexico and the work that the administration is doing to deal with that, and also what the administration is doing, what the department is doing with regard to health care fraud. and i have some specific questions there. but i suspect you'll agree with me that criminal prosecution can be an effective detent to those who might be tempted to commit future crimes. >> it's the most effective

deterrent. >> i agree. and that's why as we have seen the investigation of the financial collapse that reached lehman brothers and aig and this massive infusion of tax money to help prop up the financial system and to get the economy going again we're looking at financial regulatory reform coming out of the banking committee and the like. but one thing i've noticed that's been missing is show trials. we simply vice president had the -- haven't had the people who were guilty of criminal conduct brought to justice and tried in public and punished for committing crimes that the american people are paying for. can you sort of summarize for me what is happening so the american people can have some confidence that this ultimate deterrent will be utilized where

appropriate? >> well, the president has created the financial fraud enforcement task force, and that task force is looking at a variety of matters, a variety of matters are under investigation. these are difficult cases to put together. they are complex by their nature, they are paper-driven, they are not easy to put together. having said that, i think over time we will see more of these trials, and i hope that they will have the deterrent effect that i think they're capable of having. having said that, there have been some successes. there have been indictments brought against stanford, obviously, the madoff case, there have been some other high-profile matters, but i think i would focus on the work of that financial fraud enforcement task force which is pretty comprehensive in scope. it involves not only federal prosecutors, but state and local

as well. the fcc is an integral part of this, and i would see coming out of the work of that task force the detent kinds of things that i think you and i both agree, ultimately, needs to be emphasized. >> who is coordinating for the executive branch the investigations and prosecutions of those guilty for bringing our financial system into crisis 18 months ago? because, of course, you have all these -- an alphabet soup of different federal agencies, the fdic, sec obviously the fed, treasury, who is coordinating all that? is it the financial fraud enforcement task force or is it more specific to the financial crisis? >> it's coordinated by the justice department, coordinated by me as the head of the financial fraud end forcement -- enforcement task force. it is an unprecedented effort to

put federal prosecutors together so that we can be efficient in the investigation of these matters and bring to bear the various expertises that exist in these different institutions and then bring to justice as quickly as possible the people who are responsible for the frauds that were perpetrated. >> general holder, turning now to health care fraud. some experts have estimated that as much as $60 billion is stolen from the medicare program each year. finish -- the health and human services secretary sebelius has told me in a letter in response to an inquiry that i made there's as much as a 10% wrongful payment rate for medicaid payments. ten cents out of the dollar that could be applied to helping

provoid health care -- provide health care for low-income individuals. i know that we've talked about this before, but my experience as a state attorney general -- and i would be surprised if yours is different -- is that the pay and chase way of addressing medicare and medicaid fraud doesn't seem to work very well because you have limited resources. and the detect and prevent approach has a lot to be commended in terms of a superior approach, and i would just ask for your comments on that and ask, hopefully, for your commitment to work with us to sort of change the paradigm to make it a fairer fight between the good guys and the bad guys. >> no, i would agree. we have worked, i think, in an unprecedented way, that is the justice department, with hhs in trying to get at this problem. the amounts of money that are essentially stolen from the american people are astronomical. we look at last fiscal year we have $1.19 billion in criminal

and civil settlement collections during fiscal year 2009. i mean, that's just a hawj r huge amount of money. we have put together this effort health care fraud prevention and enforcement action teams we have placed in seven cities, we're going to try to expand those, i think, to 13 this year that have been particularly useful in identifying places where you see this health care fraud. and i think that we certainly need to detect it and hold people accountable where it occurs, but i think you're right. we have to come up with mechanisms -- that probably means auditors and people like that -- to prevent this from happening in the first place. these fraudsters, once they are detected we have found, they move from one city to another. so what we have to do is make it impossible for them to make money off these kinds of frauds. we've even seen instances where

we're now heeling drug dealers -- hearing drug dealers are getting into health care fraud because it's less dangerous and more lucrative. >> general holder, i commend the efforts you've made and you've described although i think we'd all have to admit it's just a tiny fraction of the money lost to health care fraud, so i would look forward to working with you to try to get into this detect and prevent mode rather than the pay and chase mode. let me just close on a question about the violence in mexico. the chair and senator kyl and i all represent border states. as you appropriately stated earlier, what's happening in mexico and along the border effects our entire country. as we know, there's a war, base create, going on now between the drug cartels and the mexican government. president calderon is heroically taking on this challenge.

that worries me a lot. we've put a lot of money and effort into the merit initiative, and i know i believe you and secretary clinton, sec their napolitano, the directer of national intelligence and others traveled to mexico city recently to visit with the mexican government, but why is it that what we are doing now does not appear to be working, and are you as concerned as i am that this violence will not result in a peace treaty between the mexican government and the cartels? one is going to win ask the other's going to lose, and we don't know what that outcome will be right now. >> just for the record, i did not accompany them on the trip. i was suppose ised to be before this committee to testify, but it got postponed. so the deputy attorney general actually went in my place. the work of our mexican counterparts has been courageous. they have literally put their lives on the line, and one looks at the number of law enforcement

officers, soldiers, civilians who have, who have, who've lost their lives in connection with this battle, it is, indeed, alarming. i spent over two hours in phoenix when i was there for the u.s. attorneys' conference speaking with my mexican counterpart, mexican attorney general about the progress we're making, and i think progress has been made in mexico. it would be my hope that they will continue this effort. they need the help of the united states, i think n a number of way. the initiative is one of the ways which we can do that. i think we also need to focus on what they call the iron river and the flow of illegal weapons that go from the united states into mexico and that are then trained on courageous mexican soldiers, innocent mexican citizens. we have used our dea, our atf,

our fbi to try to help in that regard. i think the battle is very much in the balance, and without continued american attention and support is, i think we decrease the chances that the mexican government will ultimately be successful. i am confident president calderon is committed to this fight, but we have to show ourself to be good allies. >> i have some other questions, but i have to submit those in writing. the latest estimate i saw is that 18,000 people have lost their lives as a result of this violence since 2006. i'm not sure the american people have fully digested that and comprehended the scope and the severity of the threat occurring right on our southern border. so this is, we have a lot of work to do. >> yes. >> thank you. >> i agree. >> thank you very much. i have on my list in the following order, senator klobuchar, senator coburn,

senator kaufman, senator franken, you are up. >> thank you, madam chairman. chair. and general holder. >> thank you. >> i'm very concerned about the potential merger of comcast and nbc universal. i know that you're not allowed to discuss the specifics of the merger, but i want to delve into this a little bit with you today. i'm concerned because i see the potential here for a consolidation of media in a way that is, to me, very frightening. you know, i worked at nba a long time, i want the best for nbc. jeff zucker came to me -- this

is, okay. he said this is good for nbc, i said, i know it's good for nbc. that's not the issue. the question is, is it good for the american people? and to me what we have is a situation where if this goes through, are we going to have a situation where verizon and at&t see the need to buy networks and studios, and are we going to get all our information -- because comcast is the largest cable provider and the third largest internet provider. are we going to be seeing a situation where five companies are controlling all the information that we get? and i think that's a very dangerous situation. are you familiar with the

financial syndication laws in the early '90s? >> somewhat, yeah. >> okay. do you remember that basically the networks were prohibited from owning their own programs. >> right. >> and that was reversed. and during the testimony that all the different networks -- sorry for the sound here -- all the different networks said why would we by our own, you know, favor our own programs? we're in the business, we're in the business of getting ratings, and we wouldn't, we'd just buy the best programs. well, obviously, what's turned out to be the case is that hasn't happened at all, they favor their own programs, and this set the scene for disney buying abc and for paramount and viacom buying cbs and nbc merging with universal and fox,

of course, owns fox. so right now we have this incredible concentration, and most of the shows are owned by whoever owns that. and it's reduced competition for independent producers. now, this is what we're seeing with comcast is that comcast is, yes, it's a vertical integration, but it's also horizontal because they both have sports programming that anybody carrying a cable network has to carry and would be really in bad shape if they don't. there is -- my question is how does the opportunity of justice -- department of justice determine whether a merger is horizontal or vertical or both, and how does that impact the department's analysis of this merger? ..

>> well, i am somewhat restricted in what i can say about the investigation that is underway with regard to the comcast nbc merger, but i can assure you that the department is conducting a thorough investigation of that proposed transaction. and, if a determination were made that comcast acquisition of nbc would substantially impact competition in violation of the antitrust laws, we are committed to taking very serious enforcement action. i am not really at liberty to talk about much, because it is an ongoing investigation but one that i think in antitrust division that has shown itself to be aggressive appropriately aggressive headed by christine varney, they are looking at this transaction.

.. >> mr. carney, he testified about previous d.o.j. antitrust actions and discussed some of the significant conditions at d.o.j. and post on the parties. now i'm skeptical but i still open on potential comcast nbc merger. but i have problems with imposing conditions. first, it's hard to the and fore them. someone has to know it has been violent and report it to the d.o.j. and secondly, conditions almost inevitably expire after a few years. so i want to make sure that the department of justice makes sure that conditions, merger conditions would actually have enough teeth and have enough,

had a long enough live that they would really impose real conditions to prevent the very thing i was fearing. >> well, again, maybe i should take myself away from the nbc-comcast situation and simply say that when we look at these matters, we have a wide range of things that can be done from barring, stopping the merger itself, to putting into place a variety of conditions that the parties have to agree to in order to allow the merger to proceed. again, not speaking about nbc-comcast which is more generally, and we can, i think, make those conditions ones that are enforceable, have a degree of transparency there. obviously, it involves having on the staff or having access to people who are experts in the field, you know, not simply good

antitrust lawyers at the antitrust division, but people understand particular field that we are trying to regulate that and i'm confident that we do have that capacity. >> i would hope that i could, that my office and the folks over at d.o.j. who are looking at this, can have an exchange of ideas on this. this is something that affects people in ways they don't understand. i mean, including just your cable bill. so i want some kind of assurance that i'll be able to do that. >> now i care. i'm a comcast subscriber, and the fact that you point out it would have an impact on my cable bill has awakened me. >> i knew i could reach you somehow. >> that tried last night. >> more than interested than i was going into this. seriously, we will be glad -- >> he's got a whole of his pocketbook. >> we will be glad to work with you to listen to the concern that you have, and the

observations you have given, and the experience you have any industry. >> thank you. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you very much. i see that senator klobuchar has returned. senator, you're up next. >> thank you, attorney general holder i first want to commend your department, department of justice and specifically the u.s. attorney's office in minnesota for the fine job it did on the case which as you know i think second two madoff in terms of loss and really affected a lot of people in our state, a lot of nonprofit groups. that got ripped off that he just received a 50 year since i wanted to commend todd jones, the u.s. attorney as well as all of the great experience line of trees that worked on a case that thank us but thanks for sending todd our way. >> the second thing i want to focus on is just what i consider the elephant in the room when it comes to crime that's affecting people's lives. and that his crime on the internet. cybersecurity issues that go way beyond individual people, but

are going to i think at some point there'll be a major problem of our country if we don't get on the front end of this and become a sophisticated as the grocery in the terrorist groups that are trying to hurt our country, or reckless law. and i was concerned on the more micro level for what affects people in the individual's lives. a recent report from the office of inspector general suggested d.o.j. should be doing more to combat identity theft. the report said d.o.j. needs to ensure that its efforts to combat identity theft are coordinating and given sufficient priority. and a talk about the fact that there's not a person a signed with the responsibility to coordinate these efforts. and by some estimates identity theft is the fastest growing crime in america. of 25% from 8 million victims in 2005. we for the fbi stop collecting data on identity theft. could you comment on this report

and what your efforts will be to remedy it? >> i think you've identified not only a problem that exists now, but one i think if unchecked is potentially the crime of the future. as many benefits as the internet brings to us, we see criminals migrating to the internet and using it as a basis to do a whole variety of cyber crimes. everything from identity theft to retail fraud. the department takes this very seriously. i think we have a good, a good section within the criminal division that i think is effective, these people are experts. i think is useful resources, but it is something that they certainly have the attention of the assistant attorney general who runs the criminal division, and certainly of this attorney general. i think this is an area of crime that we have to get ahead of.

there are ways in which we can do that, and we're committed to doing that. >> and i now expose myself what do you know why the fbi has not collecting the data on identity theft and? >> i'm not the money with that, but -- >> it was in the report. i just introduced a bill with senator soon, and a piece of this on a peer-to-peer marketing and what's happening where people and as i have gone on a computer and maybe the kid has downloaded a p2p program and all their stuff gets stolen. we had a landscape company in minnesota, the employee goes home, does their work at home and the whole employees stuff, all of the company step is on the market. everybody is getting identity theft problems, individuals who just happened to access. it's unbelievable to me. in the 2009 internet crime report was released in mid-march, complaints of internet fraud were up 25% over a year ago and the total dollar a loss more than doubled from

2008. and so just where do you think we should go with this? local law enforcement doesn't have the resources to figure this all out a lot of it is international. are the things we should be doing with other countries and their law enforcement? how do we get a handle on it? >> i think you hit on something here. this is not something that can be done on a local base or even a national basis. one of the things that the internet allows is more criminals in far off places to almost be in your living room, bedroom, where ever it is that you have, whatever it is has you have your computer. identity theft are the kind of cyber crimes require the cooperation of, not only a concentrated effort here within our own country, but also with like-minded countries. i was in madrid last week talking to that e.u. justice ministers there, and the whole question of cyber crime and had

the internet is used. one of the focus we had there was an child conflict and other things as well. some things that we're committed to working together to do. it means that we have to reach out, not only to our allies, but most other countries that have been, friendly, somewhat reluctant to be co-opted. we have to use i think diplomatic pressure to make them partners in this effort. >> okay. i was one of the sponsors on a fraud enforcement our act the president signed into law, and you talked about the forming of this task force. in utah but what's happened with that, what are the priorities, and talk about how the voices of local loss wasn't will have a place at the table? >> yeah, i think it's pretty good effort so far. and i think that as time passes, and not too long a period of time, the results will become manifest. what i think is important about this is that it involves, this

is not a federal effort. this really is one that involves our state and local counterparts. and they are involved in various subcommittees. they have leadership roles throughout the task force. the needs that they identify, we tried to deal with. the ideas that they have are i think excellent ones and we try to incorporate into the enforcement strategy. i really think this is the model for the way in which we can work with our state and local partners. they are not junior partners. they are equal partners in this effort. >> okay. and last of the senator cornyn brought this up, but just the health care fraud issue. and u.s. secretary sebelius announced the tigre. we have had discussions. one of the things i've been most shocked by its areas that have more disorders health care system like miami, florida. also can have more fraud because

not only are there issues of government watching over with a $60 billion loss a year, but also that no one else is watching over each other, like what might have in minnesota and we have a system where you can't just set up a storefront and get the money because the money isn't going somewhere else and someone notices it. could you talk about the progress? i know you have these hotspots, including such as the one in florida, but we can't afford to have the money going off into this medicare fraud anymore. people talk about it. it is a popular thing to talk about it, but if we don't get something done we're not going to help the american people. >> i think the use of the heat task force as we are getting something done. i think we have measurable results that we have tried to identify the places where you have the greatest instances of health care fraud, and that is the place, those are the places where we put the task force is, seven out and i think we're supposed to go to 13 of 14 next year. but you're right. there are certain localities

that have certain ways in which they conduct themselves, certain ways in which they organize themselves that make them more susceptible. and these fraudsters understand that, and they move from one city to another identifying which are most gullible. but i think senator cornyn point is a good one, that we can't simply be chasing these people. we have to come up with ways in which we prevent this front from occurring in the first place. so i think it has to be a dual effort. >> and last, and i'm not going to take any of my colleagues time to because i more time but i will talk about this effort. senator durbin and i have a bill on retail crime, organized retail crime cost approximately billion dollars per year and again it's computer related because things sold on ebay and other places, and so i think there's some good ideas of how we can work to track and have the online marketers stop selling goods that they believe are stolen. some going to talk about that

later. thank you. >> just shortly, i mean, i think the point you raise is a really good when. it's one thing for an individual to shoplift, take something. that's bad to dig out from the store, but when you have a whole bunch of people doing that, and then using the internet, essentially the way a means by which you fans of this material, you really kind of multiplying the possibilities for these people, and you have what could be in the old days of local problem with national ones with consequences for our economy. not a local economy by national economies. we would love to have help on this bill when you get done. >> iq, senator klobuchar. senator whitehouse? >> thank you, chairman specter. first of all, welcome, attorney general holder. i would like to begin by saying

that i'm very proud of and would like to associate myself with the remarks that senator feinstein made, and to observe that the emblems of the american justice, which is something that is admired and revered around the world, and is a national asset in which we justifiably take great pride, are the blindfold, the balance. not the torch and pitchfork. and i want to applaud your steadfast defense of the principles of american justice as attorney general. there's been considerable discussion about health care, and i would like to let my colleagues know that senator lemieux and i are working on a piece of bipartisan legislation to look at predicted capability in health care fraud, and we

will of course fall up with senator cornyn and senator klobuchar and perhaps have the beginning of a good strong piece of noncontroversial and anticrime bipartisan legislation. and i hope your office, attorney general, will work with us on redoing that legislation. i think we're making progress. i wanted to go back to the question of military commissions again. when you and i were in a different hearing, you said that one of the bags of article iii courts is the base that they provide, that prosecutors going in and know what the answers are going to be to a whole array of questions and, therefore, can model out how the case will play out and can produce it more effectively. we've already noted that there have been hundreds of article iii terror prosecutions versus only three military tribunal prosecutions. and it's my understand that as of those three military

tribunal, a number of those were plea agreements and, therefore, did not contribute to the experiential base of those military commissions. is that correct? >> i think that's correct. i'm not sure exactly what the number is. i think it might've been too but i'm not sure about that. >> that's my understanding as well. but that leads me to, here's a statement by, signed by jack goldsmith, the head of the council during the bush administration. he said the legal and political risks of using the ill-fated military commission system are significant. serious legal issues remain unresolved, including the validity of the nontraditional criminal charges that will be central to the commission's success and the role of the geneva convention. sorting out these and dozens of issues raised by commissions will take years, and might render them ineffectual. such foundational uncertainty makes commissions a less than

ideal forum. for trying in this case khalid sheikh mohammed. they seem to have good support from the bush administration in your view, it is one that i share from a time into prostitution world that that exponential base is very important. i would note that john bellinger, who was a top legal adviser to the national security council and the state department under president george w. bush had said publicly that the rush to military commissions is based on premises that are not true. and ken weinstein who we had before this committee regularly, under the bush administration has said denying yourself access to one system in favor of the other could be counterproductive. i see the benefit of having both systems available. that's what i applaud the obama administration that when they decide to retain military commissions. now, you've made the decision to go with both article iii courts

and military tribunals as the circumstances justify. i wanted to ask you, what role you think the legislature should have in that exercise of prosecutorial discretion? again, for years as attorney general, for years as united states attorney, my view on this is the legislature really has no proper business in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. is one of those areas, now as a center say-so, but i believe on principle it is one of those areas that the constitution commands exclusively to one branch of government, and that is yours, the executive branch. >> as i indicated in a letter that i said i think to the committee, signed by me and by the secretary of defense, robert gates, that is a position that we took. this is, we believe, and inherently executive branch function to make the determinations as to which of

those two forums should be used. we are in possession of the greatest amount of information in which the our constitution i think asset of our system of government, and the letter that we send indicated that attempts by congress, well meaning as they may be, to inject congress into that role i think is inappropriate the. >> i agree with you on that, and i want to also associate myself with senator graham remarks, i think his standard that we should be flexible, pragmatic and aggressive in making those decisions are a good one. and i confidence in leaving that decision to you and to the people that surround you international security establishment. on the question of interrogations and the use of miranda warnings, it is -- i've been on the intelligence committee for a couple of years, and my exposure to the problem

of interrogations, the question of interrogations, is that if you're going to do this effectively you have to begin an interrogation with an interrogation strategy. and that that strategy is developed by trained professionals who are expert in this particular area, and information that i have is that that strategy can include and on numerous occasions actually has included the provision of miranda warnings to the subject of the interrogation as a part of the experts best practice of interrogation in that particular case. is that not true? >> i think that's exactly right. one of the ways in which when you talk to educators, fbi interrogators, they talk about the need to establish a bond, some level of trust. one of the things that a couple of talk about with me is the giving of these warnings indicate to that person that you're going to be fair. they become more trusting and perhaps more desirous of sharing

information. and i think what we have seen is that the giving of miranda warnings does not necessarily mean that the information flow stops. i think quite the contrary what we have seen over this past year with regard to zazi, abdul tolliver, headley, often were given miranda warnings, information flow was substantial to expect and whether you give miranda warnings is something that should be the interrogators to develop as part of their professional interrogation strategy, case-by-case. >> i think so. one of the things that the people on the ground had to determine in detroit went out to which all tried to blow up the airplane had to make almost instantaneous decision. how are we going to deal with this person and they decide initially that they did not need and should not give the ran the warnings to him. so that they could under the public safety exception determined whether not there

were other people and the plane they need to be concerned about, whether there were other points they needed to be concerned about. and then afterwards, they decided after consulting with people back here in washington, that it was appropriate to try to give, to give miranda warnings, that ultimately proved successful in getting more information out of him the. >> mr. chairman, my time has expired. i have a number of questions that i will be asking, questions for the record. they relate to the cybersecurity issue, and i would like to ask him if i may, the cooperation of the attorney general and assuring rapid responses to those questions. i am the chairman of a task force on the intelligence committee that is performing a report for the committee on cybersecurity. and i have promised my colleagues that i will have that report done by the end of june. and i would like to have your input soon, and i know the

question for the record can sometimes take weeks, months. they can sort of drift off into eternity. and if you could mark these and one for a quick response i would be very thankful. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator white house. we will go to round two after i finished my first round. mr. attorney general, there will be another opportunity to test the constitutionality of the warrantless wiretaps to the upload process and hopefully to the supreme court of the united states, and from the decision made by chief judge walker recently in the san francisco case, holding that the warrant, wiretaps were unconstitutional, saying that the requirements of the foreign intelligence

surveillance act precluded the warrantless wiretaps for probable cause for a warrant. there was an opportunity to have a review by the supreme court of the united states in a case arising out of detroit, which federal court there declared the war was wiretaps on constitutional, the sixth circuit decided there was no standing. i thought it was much stronger than the two judges in the majority. well known that standing ethical issues as a way of avoiding, deciding tough questions. the supreme court of the united states serve. so at this point, after an lot of speculation and lot of discussion, we do not know the positively whether the president's powers commander in

chief under article two justifies warrantless wiretapping, or whether the explicit provisions of the foreign intelligence surveillance of our government. would you press to have the case coming out of san francisco federal court go to the supreme court for a decision there? >> we ever would not decide what we're going to do at this point with the decision that was made by the judge. the focus there had really been not so silly as much on the legality of the tsb as the protection sources and methods. and a determination as to what we're going to do with the adverse ruling that we got from the chief justice, district court judge. we are considering our options. >> what do you think? >> well, i think i have a made up my mind yet. i think that we have to see what the impact will be on this case

with regard to a program that i guess in did anything 2007, 2006. my view is that to the extent that, i can get into many operational things here, but the support of congress, the authorization from congress to conduct these kinds of programs is a way in which the executive branch should operate. it is when the executive branch has had its strongest when we have the firmest foundation is when we work with members of congress to set up these kinds of programs, especially when one looks at, as you point out, you know, the requirements under advisement. so i think that will have to consider what our options are and try to understand what the ramifications are of the judges ruling in this case. said you haven't made up your

mind, when you get a decision. i filed a bill to compel the supreme court to take the war is wired tap case that congress can't tell the supreme court has to decide a case, but we can do with the jurisdictional issue. and as we look to the next round of nominations, i think one of the big areas failing by the court has been its refusal to take up cases and make decisions. they deny this sort of a case involving a question of sovereign immunity where victims of, survivors of victims of 9/11 were suing in court with very strong evidence going very high up in the government of saudi arabia. and the congressional determination on sovereign entity is it would not apply.

in that kind of a situation. the court, by deciding not to decide, is a very deferential to executive power. i think that when we're looking for nominees, we are really looking to the standard of chief justice roberts, not to jolt the system, to follow the precedents. and we haven't, we haven't gotten that, notwithstanding assurance not to jolt the system. the system has been jolted very roughly. citizens case allowing corporations to have local campaigns. i want to pick up one of the questions which senator whitehouse asked you about miranda warnings. the impact of