nominee for the republicanhey party to sign a pledge to represent taxes if they represent during 2012. >>guest: the trouble is george bush sr. said no new taxes. he didn't say he would not raise the old ones but everyone took that to mean he would never raise taxes.n when he did, that was one of the biggest factors to losee reelection. circumstances change. a and a candidate who has awinn shot at winning does not feel the past two sign the pledge will not because they do not want to bind themselves if circumstances change. cos that will cost some votes

but a strong candidate to the republicann party can win without signing the pledge. ohio, republican line. caller: good morning. i have a statement more than a question. first of all, i was waiting as a republican american voter and i said let's see if we can stand president i la like obama because i won't vote for him because when i call the white house comment line and his secretary laughs, i call and compliment him like hit and strike and 21st century warfare in libya and what he did with osama but he is still a democrat and i believe sarah palin can beat him. we did great last night.

like i told president obama on the comment line if i had my way, it would be sarah palin and mitch daniels and that is who he would face in 2012. look like sarah palin is going to run though. host: you don't see it at all? guest: the best sign to me was i don't think she went to new hampshire on the become tour that. would have been a no-brainer when she was touring for her new book. she didn't schedule a stop in new hampshire. that suggests to me she is not serious about running for president. in the polling, for such a big name in the republican party, she does surprisingly poor numbers in the polls of republican voters given her attention. it suggests to me the media is more interested in lower as a

candidate. host: this is diane from new hampshire with her e-mail. guest: the problem that candidates face, the better known candidates, the well known candidates, face in the early debates is if they go to them -- i'm saying this is their thinking, i don't necessarily agree -- if they go to them they draw more attention to the lesser known candidates. there is more coverage. so a tim pawlenty gives more attention if they go and their name recognition is already so high they don't need the debate for the exposure. that is the calculus that goes in it. i happen to think mitt romney made a big mistake by not going because this was in south

carolina and south carolinians, the republican party is very strong and tightknit and i'm guessing they took offense of him not coming and that is a critical state in the republican primary process. even though it is not in the first tier of iowa and new hampshi hampshire, south carolina is the ratifier of whoever the nominee will become. that was a about -- that was a bad state to skip. host: what else have you heard about money raising among the republicans? guest: the congressional and senate committees haven't done as well as democrats, i believe, in the last i saw. i think republicans in the last midterm did pretty well. but what really plays into the

republican hands is this supreme court decision allowing corporations to basically just spend all they want. that money really flowed to republicans in the midterm election. host: what about the presidential, the potential presidential candidate? guest: when you look at who has the track record, mitt romney can raise a lot of money. i don't know about mitch daniels but i get the impression a lot of big money folks are interested in him, the indiana governor. and ron paul just has this phenomenal ability to push a button on the internet and raise a million dollars. of course, that is the big change in fund-raising in politics is how, if somebody catches fire, they can scoop up a lot of cash on the web. host: joan in randolph, vermont, e-mails in --

guest: yes, i wouldn't disagree with that. i don't know, watching him last night i thought maybe his time has come. he got some laughs, too. i have never heard applause for legalizing heroin, which he kind of made a joke about it, but it was a pretty funny moment. he is getting more comfortable on the stage in these things. host: next call is rutland, vermont. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning, mr. crawford. i think you referred to paul as a radical when it comes to the fed. i remind you that president kennedy started to print u.s. not notes.

he printed i think the $5 bill and another denomination and there's been a lot of conspiracy theory and that he was killed. but when you buck the most powerful people in the world that might be the real reason he was assassinated because he started to print u.s. notes and said we didn't need the fed. so i consider ron paul to be currently o currently -- courageous in fact committing suicide. guest: i'm very interested in some of his ideas. he makes me think. that is the thing about ron paul, every time he listen he has such a different world view compared to most conventional politicia politicians. most conventional world politicians don't make me think and he does. host: we have this tweet.

early.well, it is 'm just not going to write anybody off. from herman cain and ron paul down. politics can take some wild turns. people wrote off barack obama and bill clinton early on because they were not known and barack had that funny name and so on. that is the beauty of our primary system. you have these little states -- io iowa, new hampshire and south carolina -- little states where unknown people can get known real fast. and if they are strong and appealing and if they win in those early states, then in this world you can become famous overnight. host: we have a recent piece annualizing the state breakdown talking about fact that some of

the states, battle ground states that president obama won in 2008, now have republican governors and republican legislato legislators. why does it matter that new hampshire elected republicans in 2010 to replace their democrats and other states elected republicans for governor? does -- how does this help the republican field? guest: i think it enthuses and we will have big turn i couldn't tells. host: john kasick being governor makes a difference? guest: yes. governors have networks. when your party has the governorship, you have a ready-made organization that has been successful and the thing about political organizations,

it is like your body, it needs exercise. so, they need to exercise them between their own elections and presidential campaigns can catch on to that. host: amy a republican in bethesda, maryland. caller: i really think obama is going to be there the next give years. we will have a republican run house and maybe a republican run senate. the reason i say that is watching the debate yesterday, just like oh gosh going that you another 18 months of political spe speak. tim pawlenty was the typical politician and rick santorum is a little crazy to me. i actually think gary johnson, even though his delivery was halting, he actually would appeal to moderate republicans

and democrats. and ron paul, i think, is really exciting. he could never win. and herman cain can't. so, even though you raise the governor issue, i feel that now that medicare is off the table, a lot of the issue about the budget and a lot of seniors who came out to vote for republicans in 2010 are going to take a look at this cutting of medicare and swing back to democrats. so i really don't think i want to go through the same looking at politicians just speaking out of two sides of their mouth with the other big names that were not there. host: we got the point. guest: i like her point. i think that is possible that we could see obama re-elected and a republican run senate. i put some money on that happening. because there is a market for these republican ideas.

i don't think they can sell them in the presidential election necessarily. i think the medicare, wanting to privatize medicare and the budget that is half passed on republican votes could have been a huge mistake for the because those y senior voters are not going to forget that. as this caller suggested, it is going to be on their minds when they consider voting for republicans. host: with the house g.o.p. seeming to back down from paul medicare changing budget, is he -- he had been talked about as a potential veep candidate. is he political ly in-fighting still today? gues guest: i think he gets points

for courage as the caller said about ron paul on the federal reserve. when you take on these sacred cows you get points for courage. but the trouble for him is it is all he's known for. i think he is a very strong future star and maybe now star for the republican party. i have known him for many years. but this being all you are known for is privatizing medicare and then kathleen sebelius said you are going to kill the seniors, they will die if ryan's bill becomes law, this is the sort of thing that can hang on to you for a long time. i think that he needs to get better known about other things real fast. host: we have this tweet.

guest: well, he cut a lot of budgets in that state and he was popular for it. that is something on the republican side they just can't change is this abortion issue. you just cannot get the republican nomination without being pro-life it seems. host: call from tennessee, republican. caller: there is a candidate who is not in the race and i think think he might have a chance and that is general bush. he was a successful governor in florida. i know the bush name seems to be a down trend but of what happened to obama and other things i think the bush name is pretty good. i think that general bush is more of a moderate. his wife is hispanic. i wish they would find some way to talk him into doing that because i think he would be a

formidable candidate. >> you will have to talk him into that because he is not convinced. i'm from florida and grew up there and started my career there and i have talked to a few republicans who know him well and he's dead set against it. host: no chance? guest: i agree, i think he would be a very strong candidate and was a strong governor. was controversial on some things. but he is not an insanely ambitious person. i think that he is enjoying himself and doing what he is doing and doesn't believe this would be his year. the bush family, i don't think, is completely convinced that their name is fully restored enough to elect another president. host: the g.o.p. shot themselves in the foot by voting to kill medicare. the campaign ads write themselves. mark, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my

call. eason mitt romney didn't appear in south carolina is because that is the bible belt and he is a moral and that is what is -- mormon and that will kill him. guest: he can't avoid that forever. that is a big part of the republican primary process. i thought he got over that issue in 2008. he cracked a couple of jokes and said that he believed in marriage between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and i think he dealt with that well enough that i don't think it is as much of a factor. his bigger issue is having passed what was essentially obama care in massachusetts. i think that is another thing he didn't want to get faced with in the debate. he new if he went to that debate been a target.

you notice none of the candidates attacked each other because there was nobody -- there were no targets. there was nobody in the room who was a big enough threat to anyone else that they needed to. had romney been there he probably would have gotten hammered on that issue. host: how do you see john hunts pha huntsman playing into this? guest: i don't. i really don't. i looked at the filings. there a there are like almost 20 official candidates. one of them, i forget his name right now, is a self-declared vampire in florida. i would like to see him get in the debate. host: but you are not seeing john huntsman even though he left his ambassadorship in china? guest: i think i saw him on

c-span. i thought hee seemed more like a bureaucrat to me who is not going to break through. i wish it were not true. we only talk about charisma. a lot of these candidates -- i mean, mitch daniels is in the boring. i hate to say that because i do not think you have to be a song and dance man to be a good president. at that leads to candidates like people like donald trump getting all of the focus. there is no denying -- host: do you think he is going to run? guest: i don't think so. that one story about the older

woman that he tried to throw her out of her house because he wanted to build a parking lot for limousines. how many stores like that does he want out? host: you are the last call for craig crawford. caller: hi. i think the nation is split. what the party stands for is what can look at. if all of the republicans want to be on the top shelf, we are going back to the bush administration with karl rove a and sarah palin, going clear back to the cuckoo clocks klan. -- ku klux klan. look at it all. they are not for the people. host: thank you. guest: i think the republican party -- this could be a real

ground-building campaign for them. they are less afraid to talk about some of their beliefs like the medicare thing. what i like about the republican party in this race is i think they have m little courage and their lack of confidence about beating obama that it is going to be like a laboratory year for them to talk about a lot of ideas. even though they got hammered in 1964, that was the beginning of what really a revolution in the republican party that led to ronald reagan and everything else. at that race was hugely important to them. >> this tweet coming in --

guest: no. anyone see any democrat, serious, certainly, talking about running against obama. that could be a bad thing. he needs a sparring partner because he will walk through those primaries getting very little attention. all of the attention will be on the republicans if he has no one to run against. i do not even know if kucinich is going to. he is talking about changing states. without anybody out there for deep dates, how are you going to have a presidential debate on the democratic side if there is only one candidate? i do not see anyone serious even toying

this is 50 minutes. >> i am an attorney with the united states justice foundation here to represent mr. drake and mr. robinson and those clients alone. it is the purpose for the one of two appeals combined for the hearing today to seek a cream and back so that we can separate the pursue a resolution of this issue so we can have the case ruled on the merits and various

technical issues raised or issues the relate to plaintiffs. as far as my presentation, i will only be dealing with the parts of the ruling by the judge and then deal with my assignment as a variety issues raised by the other plaintiffs which i have no stake in. >> can make it clear what relief you are seeking? >> we are seeking to demand back to trial court. estimate ultimately. >> we are seeking the second amended complaint that the court reached a determination as to whether mr. obama is eligible to serve as president of the united states that is the ultimate what we are seeking. >> what remedy flows from that that you are seeking? >> we are seeking a declaration and is so.

what would you expect or what are you asking the federal district court to do to issue that declaration? what would be the next thing though it had been? [inaudible] >> let's just talk about where we are. >> if the court were to go back to the procedures and had a trial on the merits and the court found mr. obama was ineligible to serve it would be our expectation the office will ultimately not necessarily by the court the office would be vacant and take over as president of the united states for the 20 amendment. >> your clients are former candidates?

>> he was the candidate of the american independent party on the california. my other clients who was at the time the chairman of the american intention california and person mant to the decision both individuals mr. robinson on behalf of his party and mr. jury was a standing to challenge -- >> but after the election was over. >> yes i am aware of that. >> one of the different than anybody else? >> pecos firstly can't speak to why. >> i'm not saying why. i am saying because of what is brought after the election they don't have an interest. so, what is it that distinguishes them from anybody else? >> first this is a matter --

>> they aren't declaring that they want the next election so what is their role? >> we are not asking it to be rerun. we are asking the government be shut down. >> and you're not alleging -- you're not seeing you on this release because you're planning to run next time clocks >> it's to speculate whether mr. drake will run next time. we're you different from anybody else? >> first of all because there is a ruling that is challenging from the federal court. number two -- >> i'm sorry -- was in that somebody challenging -- to make it wasn't a candidate, it was a general citizen this matter could come up again. we could never again in 2012 the issue of mr. obama who's already

been cleared for the reelection for the commission running for president and we have the same issue is the eligible -- >> but the other half is incapable of review. it's likely to repeat incapable of review. that wouldn't be incapable of review then somebody with standing could in the course of that election raise the issue if they wanted to. islamic if we want to run this again >> that's been done so far you filed a complaint and the district court challenge standing. that's all we are kuran today. so running it through doesn't seem to be a consideration. the question is on standing. you can't argue that it is in incapable review. that's the only point i'm trying

to address. >> i have other requests, your honor. your honor, i entered this case september 8th after the government filed the motion to dismiss. in the short amount of time i had to prepare and when the motion was dismissed we filed a demotion to be allowed for the proposed second amendment complaint. it is our request if the court is willing to grant remaned we go back and proceed on those issues separate and apart from the other issues. now the issue that was -- one of the main issues was the issue of the political pressure. estimate isn't standing large ackley prior? >> i can deal with that first

report is -- >> notwithstanding we don't have a standing. >> it's involved in several issues. one of the most the redress and the permanent justice -- >> the first is what i need to know. >> it is that my clients, then the independent party and mr. jury who was the vice presidential candidate were not given a level playing field so they could run against a candidate -- >> but didn't file until the election was over, the results were certified and president obama was sworn in. what does that have to do with of the election? >> again, your honor, i will have to defer to the doctor on that. she's the one who filed the complaint and i was brought in for a variety of reasons leader in the process. i came in at the request of

dr. gereed and mr. robinson to try to salvage the situation and we wound up with this appeal laughter argument >> but we don't understand. i mean it still doesn't see why you have a standing. >> and as judge carper pointed out, the ruling and the arguments made the department of justice have great ramifications for the minor parties. i represent a candidate and then chairman of the party and judge carter talked at length and in the transcript stevan further and i argued that some of linked about how a ruling such as this where for whatever reason a minor party cannot challenge simply because they are a minor party. the ability of a major party to perform a candidate that isn't eligible can in fact deprived

relevancy and status. >> he was sympathetic to the bristol had the same concern the judge was raising the we are not in the posture of a campaign. that is not the posture of this case. there is a campaign in which the minor parties feel that they are being unfairly disadvantaged for any number of reasons have in the past and there's no reason they couldn't in the future raise the challenge you're trying to make. you keep saying you are brought in that league and have to deal the hand you're dealt. we have to deal with the hand that exists, you didn't file a claim at the time when the kind of relief the you would be talking about might be plausible but it doesn't do anything for your candidate now. we don't know whether they would

run again and 2012, and if they do, and they have the concern that they are expressed now there's nothing to prevent them from filing a lawsuit at that time when a the circumstances would be accountable to some kind of evidence as to injury and we wouldn't have to speculate but that's what i'm having trouble with. >> i would direct your attention, your honor, to the case from north dakota in which the states and of north dakota after the election, after inauguration, after the governor of north dakota had taken office and was acting as a governor signing legislation, the supreme court would move to office because he didn't qualify, didn't satisfy the recall humans for the state of north dakota. it's the most analogous situation i can come up with.

>> but the result of that would be the vice president biden would become president. >> constitutionally -- >> the clients have no more, quote come a level playing field and they did before because this isn't about an election. >> it's not the constitution -- >> when you are really saying is anybody ought to be able to bring the case and unfortunately that is and the law. i am trying to see how your different than anybody else. it begins on the premise somebody walking down the street doesn't have a standing. estimate they disagree, your honor. they have a fundamental right. >> under the case many years of presidents in the supreme court can anybody bring the case. >> we have had cases on this issue. you're talking about the case

that i understanding. we have a situation right now which is unprecedented. we have a man who whether it is true or not arguably is not a naturally born citizen of the united states and isn't eligible to serve. if we said the election is over basically the people of the united states by a general vote of the majority can amend the constitution without falling the requirements in congress and the three-quarters of the states to do so. >> it isn't quite true. i think the argument, and this gets to the political question, it's not that the people don't have a way to force the constitution, and i don't recall what the north dakota constitution provided by dalia understand the argument this being made is that the constitution of dresses the issue, it has various stages at which the kind of challenge

you're making could have been raised or could be raised at the college at that point and under the 25th or 26 the amendment there are procedures. the question is what is the role of the federal courts? because that's why i asked you just to be clear why i asked you at the beginning what your ultimate relief is because when you want to do is to take an action through the federal court to remove the sitting president and the constitution has provisions that address how a sitting president can be removed from office and that is the difficulty as federal judges of limited jurisdiction we have to abide by. >> first of mr. obama isn't a naturally born citizen, then he never was elected president because he couldn't qualify.

some of that is an issue that would be identified or don't with by the congress or arguably perhaps the attorney general. >> my point is once you have a sitting president you can't impeach. number to call it was the argument in the department of justice that was up to the electoral college or the congress to deal with the issue. number one, 26 states in the district of columbia have laws which have criminal or civil penalties for the electors that do not vote in accordance with the majority of the plurality wishes in that state or district so they have no discretion to challenge. and under which they argue that provides for the challenges by congress to the electors whether they were properly selected.

whether the paperwork is submitted by the court. there is no provision for any dealing with eligibility, no provision for anybody with of the electoral college. so the only recourse is the court otherwise in the article to the requirement for the president are unenforceable and therefore meaningless and that is the result that to me is the concept of the republican form of government. the people have to have a way to challenge somebody when the majority party of the case the democrats and republicans care about the libertarians are the natural law party or whoever it is only weekend and we are not going to be a will to do anything about it because next time there will be republican who isn't eligible. john kane was a subject of lawsuits under his ability. congress held hearings on

whether john mccain was eligible, natural born citizen and the actually made it binding that helps in the case we have because the findings as you have to have to american-born citizens as parents before you can be a natural born citizen, but i mean, this has all been done in the last couple of years but nobody is willing to take it on. nobody's willing to ask the hard questions of him. john mccain says okay, not mr. obama. >> how did the mccain hearings come about? >> the people on the democratic party initiated hearings in the majority party in the senate and the initiative hearings and held hearings of senator mccain and ted olson if i remember correctly. they submitted briefs and the matter was voted on and was made that he was a natural born

citizen. >> i recall that. the question is have you sought to initiate that kind of process? >> through congress? we don't have the right to do that, your honor. only members of congress. >> you don't have a right to petition congress? >> we can petition them but only a member of congress. >> so you're saying that -- nobody pressed them to do that? >> i don't know, your honor. but the ruling by converse was in essence non-binding. it didn't have the weight of the wall. >> i would like to reserve my time if i may. >> thank you, your honor.

>> to start the clock again. each side gets ten minutes. >> ten minutes? >> each gets ten minutes. >> 20 to push a button? i'm sorry. >> it's right below you there. you have it on your podium haven't you? >> one, two, three, go.

>> i am representing ambassador alan keyes who actually has unique spending because he ran against mr. obama twice for the senate in 2004 there were two finalists and if indeed mr. obama as the evidence shows committed fraud and the evidence that we have shows doesn't have a valid social security number he's using a number that was never signed and it doesn't have the original birth certificate he was provided to the public and i believe greatly influenced the country as a whole and somehow influenced air the court in the future proceedings publishing this computer image is of original birth certificate

issued in 1961 and issues that it's not, it isn't it true image of the of original birth certificate. it's a very invented computer art where pieces were taken from different documents, put together and the damage was created. he created this psychological map. he called us [inaudible] and the start of mass hysteria in the media saying we need to go away, get out of the country and so forth the investor has perfect standing and if fraud was committed and mr. obama doesn't have the proper paper he could never become president or become

the senator from the state of illinois and investor keyes and president obama were the finalists in that competition in 2004. additionally members of u.s. military. most recently a fellow member was in present to afghanistan and was after his birth certificate he stated why should i show but i would be willing to go if i have a legitimate commander-in-chief and he was denied his right to fair trial, the presiding judge said he cannot bring the issue of eligibility. this high ranking officer is sitting in prison in fort leavenworth. he lost his pension so my

clients, some of them are here and are members of u.s. military are greatly concerned that all the evidence shown mr. obama of of being eligible and of him not having heuvel with service documents or social security number, not having a valid birth certificate or the with educational records sitting in the white house and they are questioning in prison in fort leavenworth just as the gentleman sitting there. lastly, as you know, your honor, there is a member of issues being heard in different states and among them are the health care reform. the states have balanced budget amendments and the need to know whether indeed when they are trying to implement different measures or executive order coming from the white house they want to know they are legitimate

when they are implementing those orders in their states'. additionally this case is different from all together cases and as a matter of fact doesn't even tell why because i try this case on inauguration day and before mr. obama did anything as u.s. president he never filed an answer and we had a an equal hearing on july 13th 2009. now if mr. obama were to file an answer and state will there's a problem with those plaintiffs we would have been arguing spending, however in spite of the fact that he was there for a time during the hearing i had on the issue of default, mr. obama

couldn't be the u.s. attorney on his behalf because then it would have shown he served. so he served assistant u.s. attorney and it was a trait that said well he's here but he's not representing the president, he's representing the united states of america and pressured the judge and me [inaudible] threw him and they refused to do it and judge carter stated on the record well, if you refuse and going to dismiss and it's going to be sitting in the ninth circuit for a year and to allow it to the country to have this case heard on the merit. we are losing due process. you can either give me the judgment or denying. do not pressure me and meet me

serve, mr. obama, for the fifth time for the u.s. attorney's office. and the hearing last i think over two hours and repeatedly pressuring me and he had the new process and violation right for [inaudible] because i was pressured again and this particular instance was an instance of the court exceeding the judicial discretion to read additionally, there was no spending to be there to begin with. he wasn't her% and the plaintiff, he wasn't representing the defendant so he had no standing to argue anything for the case to begin with and there was a judicial discretion and judge parker to

go and demand u.s. attorney's whatever part of the case. additionally, as that was done, judge carter made a deal and stated if you surf the government -- i stood correctly for the role of ease, and the u.s. attorney provided the reconstruction of the statute. he stated that i had [inaudible] the government officials being served in regards to something in their duty. i was serving he committed before he became the president. it wasn't done as part of his

duty. it was done for his own benefit. so, and also stating that the reconstruction of the statute there was an era when judge carter that needs to be overturned, the decision needs to be overturned. and the influence of a federal judge by the u.s. attorney's office or actually by the white house using the u.s. attorney's office and additionally using his own private attorneys pleased to work as a clerk for the presiding judge. it was an partiality for the attorneys so this judge rating in opinion for the judge. i would expect this in the soviet union during wouldn't expectant here.

additionally, judge carper wrote the letter that came to enter his chambers and in his final rulings he called for the plaintiff's attorney for the consideration and to have access to those letters and have a hearing to provide my part of the story. my livelihood was affected, my provisions of the state bar were affected because the judge included in his order letters sent to him directly to his chamber and had no opportunity to respond to read this of the discussion and for all of those reasons, and i'm running out of time, this has to be the decision has to be overturned and i should get my right for the judgment and the discovery of the documents [inaudible]

more information. >> thank you very much. >> may i please the court? the appearance of my counsel assistant u.s. attorney and of myself representing president obama and the other federal defendant. this is a limit to the matter before the courts -- >> where are you from? the u.s. attorney's office. in los angeles, yes. it is a limit to the matter before the courts and unless the court directs otherwise i wouldn't respond outside of the purview that there was no undue

influence addressed to anyone and the court is standing and as this is already suggested by the question the difficulty of course is that these plaintiffs didn't have standing at the time, and not prior standing in the meantime to read the problem is the need to show and this court knows the utter stability, and the dover of those elements standing in the district court alone found can be shown. >> is there and nobody that brings this case or a case like it, a case challenging the qualifications that the president before or after the election, not before? >> in the obstruct, i think there are certainly if they acquire in the court limited jurisdiction i would hypothetically think of some

instance of a person who might be able to bring the case. the first person that comes to mind is as the honor suggested a candidate and has also suggested we don't have any candidate in this case. by the time this case was brought, but the election had been run, the president certified as the president-elect and the president had been inaugurated and that is when the case was filed. not here. the time for a challenging somebody on the ballot have launched. >> and first of all, i gather that if we accept your standing arguments we don't get to political question. >> i think that is the correct timing, your honor, yes. >> and if a case like this were brought before the election would there be a political question problem? >> there could be. i don't believe a case has been

-- >> not sitting president, if you have a challenge to a candidate i assume there wouldn't be a political question at that point. >> somebody running for office declares 23-years-old or what the president has to be 35 commesso 33-years-old nobody disputes that but nobody acts. would you say somebody would have standing to challenge that? >> depends on the timing. during the campaign i think that a candidate would have standing -- >> and it wouldn't be a political question. >> ready date candidate can challenge the qualification of another candidate assuming of course that that candidate does so in a timely manner that there is enough time and has the case like that and the court can act promptly and swiftly when it is

necessary assuming that is the employer to the election in the enough time the court [inaudible] with the other candidates try this court. >> not like the chicago mayor's race when the residency f. rahm emanuel was much in dispute so there would be the kind of timing that a candidate could challenge the qualifications of the opponent's? >> that's correct. a series of cases in challenging qualifications of the candidates during the course of the election and i would submit others kantrowitz about what and other qualifications that of course didn't happen here and to the other point about vv dress ability, the effect that they

would have visit the district court were to ever get that far to the revisory and to say if the district court doesn't have the power once the president has been declared the winner -- semidey would be nice and difficult question but not decided before the election. estimate and of course the timing as much the longer the you go back in time the crew to the likelihood of the standing might be. >> so there might be is a region which you wouldn't have a decision on the eligibility until after the election and the would be a sort of hard and difficult question but it's not -- >> that's correct on both issues, your honor. it's possible to think for a difficult issues and number two, that is certainly not the issue before the court.

>> the limited's jurisdiction curtis -- the plaintiffs have standing and of course they came in this case and charlatan standing in the district court found lack of injury in fact and the redress of devotee. amid the determination was a political question of termination and doesn't seem necessary. >> i think the court could have reached the issue in fact quite frankly didn't the opinion below never reaches the conclusion that there were candidates involved. is simply stops the analysis and says that according para freezing from the district court opinion that the only one with any potential standing with the political candidates to sort of

stop that. i think another step in the logical process would have been to say but of course these were not political candidates of the time the complaint was brought. the court later time is that the end and then goes on to talk about redress of devotee as a means of establishing what i think it's fair to say even if the court over the fact that there is still no redress ability. >> if we did need to get near the political question, i was a little concerned about you tried to point to the context will of commitments in the constitution to other branches, but there are a little vague are they not and what provisions of the constitution do you think are permitting the eligibility determinations of an officer of a candidate or an officer?

a natural official to congress coming electoral college or someone else? >> right. will it isn't that a general, your honor. it's the sitting president. and it's worth noting because the commitment to the house is that a body as though sold under the constitution to impeach. >> wouldn't it the high crime misdemeanor? we are in the era of no case law but i do know that if the constitution says the the only body that can be moved the sitting president is the congress in both houses -- >> where does it say that? >> you did accurately see impeachment, the house says that the house has the sole

responsibility to impeach, the scent believe kucinich has the sole responsibility to convict, antonakes in case the united states supreme court has cautioned the courts to allow the impeachment proceedings as a quintessential nonjudicial elephant in a way because of this with the senate has the responsibility to do. >> if someone discovers the candidate for president is under age or not a citizen and they discover three days before the election and they don't get to file the suit because there's no

time. if it filed in had known earlier , then the judicial branch would be the arbiters of the qualification and defining what it means to be a natural born or how you measure the age or whatever. is that correct? >> i don't want to speculate, your honor, but i do acknowledge that courts to know how to act quickly and even three days before the election -- >> dalia understand that they might have been able. i'm just saying assuming they couldn't so the fact of the alleged fact, the disqualification was discovered at a time they were not able to bring it to federal court. if the had earlier, the federal court would have been able to put the operative event becomes

once the president is sworn in and becomes the president-elect, the ability to deal with the situation, the jurisdiction of ul and of the constitution shifts to congress and congress not only has the jurisdiction to decide what to do, but also to decide the interpretive issue of what the constitution means by being a natural born or other kind of citizen. that's where the shift occurs from and in the course of deciding whether to impeach or exercising authority under article 25 perhaps or the 25th amendment rather, that interpretive process authority would be in the hands of the congress. >> i will submit that is very

accurate of our understanding of the constitution, your honor. but the opportunities and is the election psp mcginn you're saying they're for -- therefore if the court had -- if they filed as we did hear that after the president was sworn in the court would have no role as a matter of declaratory relief only use it would be in a phrase real opinion. sprigg there would be no need to enforce because the court would after destruction and the suggestion the declare a prejudgment admitted to the congress i don't think that europe reflects how the system works. there is no means by which the courts would enforce, and at that point because the election

had already passed it then devolves on to congress to establish how to take appropriate action which as we point out in the brief both houses of congress have embraced both as standing committee on eligibility and i will also submit the suggestion about the senate resolution. >> eligibility is -- there's a and amendment that seems to deal directly with the qualification question but there's another worker we haven't talked about which is between the election and the inauguration, and that amendment seems to deal with that. islamic and once again, it supports our view that it devolves responsibility to congress. islamic doesn't say who is on

the qualifications, it says congress can provide the case where neither the president elect or vice president shall qualify but it doesn't say declaring who should act as president but it doesn't say who decides that. >> it doesn't say that. it says if there's a difficulty to decide by law what shall happen if either one shall qualify but it doesn't say who decides whether they qualify. >> but congress decides by law. they would pass the mall determining who the correct president was in that even it was determined the president-elect was unfit or ineligible or not qualified. >> these are interesting questions and i don't mean in any way to discourage them, but

i don't will of the answers other than to say that i do know that is not the case before the court. that these individuals were not candidates and these individuals accordingly didn't have standing >> if there is no other question from the support i would submit and i thank the court. >> thank you. >> [inaudible conversations] >> you're out of order right now. we have a gentleman appear ready to speak. he's got two minutes and 41 seconds. you can share a minute or so if you want.

>> i listened with great interest part of the comments is acting as a judicial body making determinations as to who is eligible and who is not whereas in the argument of the court he also talked about the idea of richard to the deciding who is eligible and that is how we get back into the problem of the minor parties. we have the republicans and democrats. we have independence in congress and they are powerless except in a close vote to make any difference whatsoever. so the courts need to be involved in this and need to take a stand to enforce constitutions. regarding the political question, it is our argument that when eligibility isn't a judgment and policy decision as

is required to the political question. it is a yes or no answer to a question. if someone is eligible to the system or is that person not eligible. so little respect it isn't a political question. with regard to the court involvement in the cases such as this it's very limited, but we submitted the case that went away to the united states supreme court which refused to hear the averment of the california rulings which stated that the secretary of state had the right to move someone from the ballot read by the time this got to be done it was post election nights understand that they formed the right in the state of california in the case -- >> just because the inherent the case doesn't mean anything.

>> [inaudible] >> plenty of work. >> your honor, and the work they do. sitting and thinking while he was making his presentation it occurs to me, and i don't have the experience that you do but if in the constitutional law for 35 years that another reason as lived among other instances premature because we can't reach out to these elections if you reach out to them speak to one of the questions of what the change point is where the key changes and it's that. i would respectfully suggest my time is up and i apologize that, the case resubmitted where there is a discussion of the problem with of the elected bodies making a determination as to who is allowed to run for what in the sense of on going and

political campaigns and i thank your honor for your time. >> thank you very much. >> [inaudible] >> you use your time. >> know why didn't -- [inaudible conversations] >> okay, go ahead. >> just to add -- >> i've got my timekeeper over here. >> [inaudible] >> well, you have 20 minutes to divide between the two of you. >> he didn't speak for 18 minutes. when he started speaking he spoke for ten minutes. anyway, what is important here

is my client investor keyes, was the presidential candidate running against mr. obama. additionally, we will tell congress and during the hearings in the district court letters from a number of senators specifically i recall the letter from senator sessions stating that the senate cannot decide the issue of fraud whether it was committed for the forces to decide and specifically stated that they want to abstain because they are not a court of law. they can hold these issues and -- >> when did you submit those? is it after the election or before? >> well, before -- >> when were dosimeters the firming to the court? was it before or after the

election? .. >> part of the military. so we did go and we -- we tried each and every avenue. we exhausted each and every avenue, reaching chairman, we

went to congress, we went to senate, and after it's the courts to decide. the senate cannot value as evidence. we cannot say if the birth certificate or valid or forgery. that's up to the judge to decide. that's why i'm asking to over turn this decision and give me an opportunity to try to escape on merit and obtain proper evidence. and then submit is to congress. >> listen, we have or argument well in hand. okay. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> and we will now adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9:00. thank you for your testimony. >> all rise. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]ñññ

>> i want to apologize. i think some of our democrat colleagues found out we were getting early today and i think they've all hit the airports. so i hope they show up. we may have a few more of my republican colleagues be here.

the purpose of today's hearing is to provide subcommittee members with a broad overview of security issues in europe and eurasia. terrorism remains the biggest threat to the transatlantic community. as a result, the goal of this hearing is to assess the cooperation between the united states and within others in jurisdiction with this subcommittee in regards to terrorism. last sunday night, america learned an elite american unit has killed osama bin laden. i'd like to personally congratulate the bush situations, as well as our intelligence kmooet, law enforcement, most importantly i'd like to thank all of our fighting men and women in uniform, especially those in the unit six that did such a great job under great stress.

great risk and relentless resolve on their part produced this great victory. the events of last sunday inevitably remind us of the tragedy of september 11th 2001. those we lost that day remain in our hearts and our minds. however, we must also recognize that due to the vigilance of the american troops, law enforcement officers and ordinary citizens, the mass murderer behind the attacks on 9/11 was unable to strike the united states before we got him. we may never know ul the details about the operation which led to the death of bin laden. we do know that civilian and military elements of the united states government worked with international partners for years to track him down. we're here to learn more about and to encourage such counterterrorism cooperation. specifically, we seeking to strengthen ongoing efforts with our european and you're asian allies, including the sharing of information, resources and

successful practices. counterterrorism is working in afghanistan. our european allies have made and continue to make significant contributions to the international security and assistance force. our eurasian and our asian partners also assist. i was pleased to reed this week that kazakhstan ratified an agreement that formalizes the arrangements under which thousands of flights have crossed kazakhstan air space since 2001. such contributions are essential and must continue. our mission in afghanistan is not yet complete. counterterrorism cooperation with our european and air asi e allies must be global in scope. i'm interested in listening to the allies working together to

address the threat being made. excuse me. i think the president is calling me. i'm sorry. i'm in a committee hearing. i'm going to turn my phone off, and i'll call you later. okay? i bet that's never happened to you before, has it? i apologize for not shutting that off earlier. now, when you're in with the president and you do that, he glares at you. the united states can learn from the approaches taken by our european allies. i am particularly interested in how our allies approach counterterrorism and share successful practices. for instance, the united kingdom and the netherlands have implement eed programs that wor with communities that counter radicalization. it would be helpful to

understand how officials from the department of homeland security posted in our embassy throughout capitals in europe and eurasia can bring such innovative practices here to washingtonment i hope you'll address that when we hear your testimony. terrorism threatens not only our lives but our way of life. i hope that our witnesses will describe the administration's efforts and the efrlts of our european and eurasian partners to balance security concerns with the need of robust transatlantic trade and tourism. trade with europe and eurasia is vital to american economy, supports hundreds of thousands of american jobs across all 50 states. this trade must continue. this i look forward to hering about initiatives such as the visa waiver program that seek to provide access and american markets and for common sense precautions. i'm in favor of expanding this program to include additional qualifying european partners as well as historical lies such as

taiwan. i was just in taipei recently, and they made the case that we ought to recognize them for this program. to foster trade, the united states assigned our hopes to -- we have signed our hopes to sign several different elements with our european and air asian partners. for example, negotiations continue with the european union on a renewed passenger name record agreement. it's my hope the agreement will deepen mutual trust and bolster confidence in the atlantic. our common security and prosperity depend on us working together. finally, we must look at terrorism in the context of the events taking place in the middle east, north africa, which some have called the arab spring. al qaeda's role in these uprisings has been nominal so far. instead, the american ideals of freedom, democracy and opportunity have inspired many. however, i am concerned that these uprisings could create an opening and i hope you'll address this, for radical groups

such as hamas and the muslim brotherhood to increase influence or even acquire a base in the region, a country from which they could threaten united states and israel and our european allies. it's important to understand that these radical groups do not have to convert people to their twisted version of islam in order to gain support. instead, hamass and the muslim brotherhood have a history of provide goods and services, food aid and medical care to those who would otherwise not have access to such necessities. the united states and our european allies must take action against such a tragedy. we have a tendency to think of this arab spring as one event. however, the event is are interesting. i'm interested in the wojts' assessment of what we're doing to support democratic forces in each country. i'm also interested in how these

uprisings each individually impact the united states counterterrorism strategy and cooperation with european and eurasian allies. the death of osama bin laden marked a major victory, but let us be clear. the fight is far from over. the united states and her allies must stay committed to the counterterrorism mission in afghanistan and around the world. this subexcrete can do what it request to help. we'll continue to focus on terrorism and examine it from you'll angles. we'll be traveling extensively throughout europe to find out what our allies feel about all of these issues. i want to thank our witnesses and members for participating in this hearing and i look forward to a productive discussion. my minority member is not here so i'll recognize mr. poe of texas for his remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. like many americans, i'm worried that pakistan is not as good a friend as we think they are are.

at least as much as they claim that they are a friend of the united states. capturing osama bin laden was a great moment in not only our history but world history, but it revealed also how unstable our relationship is with pakistan. i, too, want to commend those who were involved in this operation, the president for making the decision to go and take out osama bin laden and his compound, all of the intelligence agencies and especially the navy s.e.a.l.s, osama bin laden has met his maker and i appreciate the navy s.e.a.l.s in arranging the meeting. but let's look at the facts. bin laden was hiding in a city just 35 miles from the capital city of pakistan. his house was a massesive million-dollar compound, eight times the size of surrounding houses, had 15-foot-high walls, had barbed wire. once in, with he can see the compound had been built especially for osama bin laden

and his hideaway or hideout, and perhaps the worst thing of all, the compound was just a stone's throw away from the west point of pakistan. it would be like john dillon jer living across the street from the fbi building down the street and the fbi not knowing about it. it's very perplexing that pakistan claims they were unaware. even administration officials share those suspicions. the cia director leon panetta asertded that pakistan had not done enough to bring osama bin laden to justice. now saying that, quote, there's total mistrust between the united states and pakistan. those are strong words from the person who is the cia director. john brennan, the deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism says it's inconceivable osama bin laden had no support system to help him inside pakistan.

a year ago, hillary clinton following a trip to pakistan, said in an interview with fox news that elements within the pakistani state know the whereabouts of the al qaeda chee chief. so it seems to me that pakistan was totally incompetent in their security issues or they knew of the location of osama bin laden and hid him out. if pakistan was helping bin laden hide from us, i sefrnl don't think we should be giving them $3 billion of american aid. it doesn't seem to make us any safer to give american money to a country that may be playing both sides of the field. i've introduced the pakistan foreign aid accountability account, which freezes ny foreign aid to pakistan until it's proven pakistan didn't know about osama bin laden's wheres

abouts. they have opportunity to make their case before we give them any more money. america just wants some answers. where do we stand? where does pakistan stand with the united states? president bush stated in his joint session to congress after 9/11, to our allies, that you are either with us or you're with the terrorists. and i would like to know where pakistan is in that group. there is no middle found. i'd like to also find out what's going on with the mekdgo designation. a federal district court ruled that the state did not give the mek due process when it decided to keep the mek on the fto list. the law states that reviews are to take place within 180 days should the group appeal its designation. it's been past 120 days. it's now 230 days. during this time, the mek has been attacked by the iraqi military. yunami has confirmed that the

soldiers killed 34 residents at camp asha raul, 34 residents that have yesterday to be buried because the iraqis refuse to allow them to be buried. high ranking public officials in the iraqi regime repeatedly cite the u.s. terrorist designation as their justification for treating the residents of camp asha rof so harshly. two battalions are still there. iraqi troops won't let residents bury the dead. they also won't let anyone come in for regular visits. u.s. representatives have not instigated an investigation. the u.n. has not instigated an investigation. and of course iraq has not. of course we wouldn't expect those responsible for the action to instigate investigations. and all of this, to me, seems to compounded and made more difficult because the state department just won't take a

positionen the m he ek. it's like we say in texas, time to fish or cut bait. either keep them on the list or take them off, but naik a decision. i think the evidence points to the fact that they should be taken off the list, but this delay, delay, delay, not being able to make a decision for whatever reasons is i think a problem that the state department can resolve and is within the state department's power to resolve that matter. so those are some questions and concerns that i have, and i would hope these can be answered. i have introduced hres-60 which urges the secretary of state to take the mek off the fto list. we have 65 bipartisan colleagues who believe and signed the bill. thank you, mr. chairman. by the way, i do like your cell phone tone.

it's very patriotic. i'll yield back the rest of my time. >> well, that was beethoven. >> it's patriotic. >> it does sound patriotic, doesn't it? first of all, let me say to my witnesses before i yield to my colleague from oosarkansas. i know you're hear to talk about europe and eurasia and pakistan and the issues just raised by my colleague are under the middle east subcommittee's purview. but i hope you will address those issues bau i shier hbecau agree with everything he said. so as much as humanly possible, i hope that you'll include those in your thoughts and remarks when we get to the questions. with that, i'll yield to mr. griffin, my old buddy, from arkansas. >> your old staffer. thank you. >> and he was a good one, too. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i want to say thank you for holding this hearing and thank you to the witnesses for coming.

i think that this topic is as relevant or more relevant than ever in the wake of the killing of osama bin laden. what i am particularly interested it in and maybe i can get to follow up with some questions, but i just want to throw this out there so that the witnesses will maybe be able to address it in the context of the other questions. is the impact that a leaderless al qaeda has on the disparate terrorism yets spread throughout the european continent and what, if any, changes we might see in terms of an increased or decreased threat. i could make the case in the absence of one leader that there could be an increased threat and increased independence of the disparate groups on the continent. i ask you to keep did in mind

and if you could address it, i'd appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you, mr. griffin. now we'll hear from my colleague from ohio, ms. smith. she yields back her time. with that, let me introduce our witnesses today. i want to thank you both for being here and thank you for your patience. daniel benjamin was sworn in as coordinator for counterterrorism at the department of state with the rank of ambassador at large may 28, 2009. from 1994 to 1999 mr. benjamin served on the national security council staff. and in 1994 to 1997 he served as foreign policy speech writer and special assistant to president clinton. before entering the government, mr. benjamin was a foreign correspondent for "time" magazine and the "wall street journal." that must have been an

interesting switch when you went from "time" magazine to the "wall street journal." some day i'd like to talk to you about that. mark cumins is deputy assistant secretary for international affairs at the u.s. department of homeland security. mr. assumcumins is responsiblpr as director for european and multilateral affairs in the department of homeland security 0 office of international affairs from june 2007 to august 2008. prior to joining dhs in june 2007, mr. koumans served in the u.s. foreign service. welcome to you both. we'll recognize you, ambassador benjamin, if your statement is going to be excessively long, we'll just accept that for the record. but we'll give you as much time as we think is reasonable. >> thank you very much, chairman burton and distinguished members

of the committee. i have submitted testimony for the record that provides additional detail about u.s. counter-terrorism cooperation with europe and eurasia. i want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and i must say it's a great deal to testify today as the united states celebrates al-qaeda. you mentioned my service on the national security council for t -- for the last two years of that time, i was director of threats when president obama declar declared for peace everywhere. i should say this is by no means our end to al-qaeda. much of its activity evolves to its affiliates and much work

remains to be done. but as we approach the tenth anniversary of the 99/11 attacks, we should recognize that one of the unsung periods since that dark day has been an operation of global lines against terror, one that agents effectively to protect our innocents around the world. in the critical areas of intelligence and law enforcement, governors have been taught together time and again, including ones in plains across the atlantic and public transportation systems worldwide. our european allies have responded extremely positively to our development and a european union underlined against the u.s. and counter-terrorism efforts. but statements also noted that al-qaeda remains a serious threat. europe very much remains a focus of terrorist plots. over the past year, we saw

several attempted attacks, a suicide bombing in scandinavia and separate bombings in the metro and several caucuses. our work expands the globe. we work with our nato partners in isap in stability with afghanistan. we've been working with our european allies in the yemen process, and we are increasing our coordination with france and other european partners to con strain the environment in which al-qaeda operates, by strengthening governments and other regional partners. such work helps to deny safe haven to terrorists, which is absolutely vital. to deal with the terrorist threat and identify individuals who are preparing to commit violence, information sharing is absolutely essential. the united states and new york are committed to posturing and sharing information in the

prosecution of terrorist-related offenses. we worked on these issues through the united states treasury's tracking program, homeland security presidential directive 6. there have been some concerns raised in europe about these programs, but we know that our approaches to protecting privacy have more similarities than differences, and we share a strong commitment to protecting civil liberties. i am confident that with goodwill on both sides and the common sense of resolve, we can achieve the common goals we seek. another crucial aspect of our ct cooperation is our bilateral work with key partners to build other relations with nations around the world. from italy in the south to the netherlands and denmark in the north share our views on implementing strategic counter-terrorism actions that deal with the capacity of

partners and to stem terrorist recruitment. while al-qaeda and its affiliates are our highest priority in our ct diplomatic engagement, hamas also remains a major focus. we have been and will continue to work through bilateral channels to impress our european allies to take more aggressive action, fundraising at both the eu and state levels, and i've made this a personal priority. in conclusion, the magnitude and bre breadth makes sure we work with our partners around the world to identify areas where further work remains to be done and how we can further collaborate ever more effectively. only through such cooperation can we succeed. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. benjamin, and now we'll hear from mr. --

secretary komens. >> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the homeland security corporation with europe. like you, i would like to acknowledge the achievement of last week. like secretary napolitano said, the death of bin laden is important not only for the united states, but for the entire world. i would like to commend baroso and kerkov. we all agree that bin laden's death is not the end of our security efforts. al-qaeda and other organizations will continue to plan attacks here and abroad, and so we must remain vigilant. security is more of a shared responsibility than ever before. preventing terrorism is dhs's core mission and one that forms part of its other key mission subsidizing borders, immigration laws and shielding disasters.

in order to succeed, our partners must work with the international partners. the attempted terrorist attacks on christmas day in 2009 and the bomb in 2010 underscore our international security with national security. criminals look for vulnerabilities in international networks to carry out their attacks. i would like to highlight three points. first, if a dhs works with our allies to prevent terrorist attacks. second, they cooperate in particular to prevent terrorist travel. third, the visa waiver program provides incentives to maintain high security standards in deep cooperation with the united states. my first point explains how dhs works. to that end, dhs is nearly 400 employees in europe working daily with government, the travel public, the aviation industry, cargo shippers and others. it is dhs's goal to expedite legitimate travel and trade, both of which are critical to

the u.s. economy, while preventing the flow of illicit goods and people and lessening illegal activity. much of this activity takes place at the operations level, combatting human and drug trafficking, screening u.s. bound maritime cargo containers, assessing airports and air carriers, conducting passenger screening and forcing u.s. customs and immigration regulations and investigating cybercrimes. on my second point, terrorist travel represents one of the greatest threats to european and u.s. security, and therefore, attention and disruption are key goals. every week there are 2500 flights between europe and the u.s. they share passenger data and share information with our european partners in order to identify both known and unknown potential terrorists. dhs has a number of programs to address this threat. under the immigration advisory program, dhs posts officers at

foreign airports to work with the airlines and foreign officials to identify high-risk and properly documented travellers before they board aircraft for the u.s. another example is dhs's collection and analysis of passenger name records, or pnr data. in recent years, pnr data has been pivotal in cracking the cases of david hedley, new york subway bomber and times square bomber. i just note in passing that we just passed the one-year anniversary may 1st coincidentally the same day as osama bin laden's demise. they were denied entrance to the united states and were initially identified through the analysis of pnr. presently we're renegotiating a new agreement with the dau to avoid a potential conflict with the european privacy law. i should emphasize the dhs is not negotiating for the collection of dnr, which is

required by u.s. law, but to ensure a stable and legal environment under which it is transferred. our goal is to improve security while reassuring our allies to privacy. we have held six negotiating sessions and hope to continue these talks in the months to come. since 1986, a visa waiver program has allowed people to travel without first obtaining a visa. 30 visa waiver countries are in europe. by statute, these countries developed a security partnership with the u.s. and dhs conducts regular, detailed reviews of each country. these reviews focus on u.s. law enforcement, national security and immigration interests and they continue to share information vital to our national security. chairman burton and distinguished members of the subcommittee, i look forward to

working with you as we advance cooperation with european partners. i will submit longer testimony formally for the record. i look guaforward to answering r questions. >> thank you very much. before i get to my questions, i would like to once again stress i just got back from taipei, and they have been a great ally, taiwan, for a long time, and they should be a top candidate, i would hope, for the visa waiver program, and i hope you in the department will look seriously at that. the first question i have is, after bin laden's death, there may be some changes in attitudes around the world. with our continued commitment to freedom in the middle east, afghanistan and elsewhere and stopping al-qaeda and the taliban, do you think that the attitudes of our allies that have been working with us in those areas and those endeavors will change? will they remain as committed as they have been, or do we expect

any change or have we seen any change? >> thank you for that question, mr. chairman. i think that our expectation is our allies will maintain the same sense of urgency, the same sense of mission that has characterized the cooperation we've had for many years now. if you look at the statements from any number of different european leaders, they were quite clear that this is a mi milestone achievement but is by no means the end of the threat. they all experienced the heightened threat environment in the fall. germany arrested three terrorists in the midst of the conspiracy just a few days ago. i think there is a widely shared understanding among the governments of europe that this threat is by no means over. >> so you anticipate the commitment to afghanistan will remain just as strong as ever? >> well, as you know, there have been a number of different statements about troop levels and things like that in

afghanistan in particular, but overall, we note that our european allies have supplied a large number of troops, a large number of teams for training police and other parts of the afghan government, and we certainly hope that they will continue to do so. i don't think that this event is going to, in itself, trigger any kind of sea change. >> thank you. one of the concerns i have involves the middle east. i was a senior republic in the middle east the previous two years. as my colleague from texas was alluding to a few minutes ago, we're concerned about what's going on in the middle east. what i'd like to ask both of you is, our allies in europe, europe and eurasia, what is their attitude and what are they going to be doing, from your perspective, to help us make sure that the entire northern tier of africa, as well as the

persian gulf, doesn't go up in smoke? in particular, i'm very concerned, and i'd like to know the attitude of our european and american asian allies. i'm very concerned about who is going to take over in egypt? who is going to take over in libya? what's going to happen in syria? all these areas that will affect the entire world are in the middle east and they are supplying energy in large part for many of the countries in europe and eurasia. so i know this is a pretty broad question, but i'd like to know what your assessment is, both of your assessment, is about what's going to happen in those countries and what you project in the future. i mean, if egypt goes to the radical elements like the muslim brotherhood, if syria goes from

asad to a radical element governing that country. if muammar gadhafi leaves and there are radical elements tied to al-qaeda, and we know they're there, would we be able to take over that country. >> as you said, mr. chairman, it's a very broad question but let me take a stab at it. >> they're just as concerned as we are about the fate of the region. we've also seen change come to the region. there is a broadly shared desire to see egypt, tunisia and other countries that hang in the balance involved in a democratic way that meets the aspirations of their people. as you know, we have very close cooperation with the europeans on what is going on in libya. we've coordinated closely in terms of our assistance and our messaging to tunisia and egypt,

and we've also coordinated equally, for example, in our outrage on the intolerable crackdown that has occurred in syria. this is just a sampling of our coordination. it is by no means meant to be exhaustive. i would say we are working together to ensure that we do see the kind of middle east emerge that we would like to see. we are, of course, all concerned that terrorists will try to exploit this moment. because although the arab spring, as you mentioned, has been, nits oin its own way, a strategic blow to al-qaeda, because they were not part of the movement, they were not part of the story there, and, in fact, the events themselves demonstrated the falseness of one of their core beliefs, which is that only violence would change these countries.

we view these as very positive elements, but terrorists will go whenever they see an opportunity as there is distracted security areas in the region and border security is not what it should be, they may see this as an opportunity. we're working closely with diplomatic intelligence, law enforcement and military channels to do what we can to ensure the region maintains its security and to ensure that terrorists do not have an opportunity to exploit this moment. it's still very early days, but i think we're still very optimistic about the trajectory in the region. >> i'm about to yield to my colleague because i've used a lot of time already, but i would just like to urge homeland security and the state department to do everything, along with our allies, as humanly possible to make sure we don't have radical elements take over in egypt, syria or some of

those other countries. i understand, and i think we all acknowledge, that we've had some repressive administrations over there. it was very difficult in egypt and syria, there's been a lot of oppression there, throughout africa and even in the persian gulf we've had those problems. but one thing i don't think the world can tolerate or live with is several more irans popping up in the northern tier of africa and the persian gulf, because we might not be able to get enough energy since we're not drilling here in america. we might not be able to get enough energy to turn the lights on. so this is a very important issue, and i would just like to urge you to make this a top priority. and with that i yield to my colleague from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i follow up on my opening comments. now that osama bin laden is dead, who is the most -- who would you rank as the number one terrorist group in the world as

opposed to the united states? >> well, sir, undoubtedly al-qaeda remains the foremost terrorist threat we face. operating from the al-qaeda core base in the pakistan/afghanistan region or through its affiliates in yemen, in northeastern africa and northwestern africa. so as the president has said, as many others have said, this is a historic achievement but this is by no means the end of the story, and if anything, i think it demonstrated our determination to continue to remove al-qaeda threats that we face. >> i agree that the death of osama bin laden shows other terrorists that the united states is resilient and will do whatever we can for as long as it takes to make sure we're

safe. cia director pinetta makes the comment there is an unusual distrust between pakistan and the united states now that we have found him harbored in the country for so long. do you share that opinion, mr. ambassador? >> ambassador richard holbrook, the president of the united states, they have always said there is a trust deficit between our countries that we are working hard to overcome. as john brennan said, we're also going over the question of what systems there were to support osama bin laden in abbottabad and to make it possible for him to live there unmolested for such along -- a long time. i do think it's important to emphasize, as our secretary said this morning, our relationship

with pakistan, while it occasionally has its challenges, is a productive one. that more terrorists have been apprehended or killed in pakistan than anywhere else, and that this collaboration between our countries has been absolutely vital to degrading the al-qaeda threat over quite a number of years. so it is a complicated picture but it is a vital relationship and we need to keep working at it. >> i understand it's complicated, and my question is, do you believe that the pakistani government knew that osama bin laden was in their country? that's just a simple yes or no. >> i believe that they thought there was a good chance that he was somewhere in pakistan. i can't imagine, given all of the focus on fighting extremism, particularly in the federal

tribal areas that they were certain he was not in their country. whether or not they knew he was in abbottabad, i think that that is -- that probably came as much greater surprise to them. >> of course, the united states didn't notify pakistan that we were coming in to take him out, and they have now objected and said that strained our relationship. my opinion is they knew or they're totally incompetent in their intelligence field. let me switch gears a minute and ask you a couple questions about the m.e. k. every time we're together i ask about the mek, and i hope we get an answer soon. is the state department going to take them off the list? and if so, when? when are you going to make a decision? >> i'm afraid the answer is the same as when we saw each other a couple weeks ago. we are working as expeditiously as possible to complete the review that the u.s. court of

appeals ordered . as recently as april 6, we received new material from mek council, and we are reviewing it, and just as fast as we can, we are going to get a recommendation package to the secretary and have a decision made. >> six months, a year? do you have any idea? >> i can't give you a certain date, but i can tell you it will be less than six months. >> as a follow-up, i have attended, as many members have, all of the classified briefings that i'm aware of on this issue. has any new information come to surface in the last two months that would help members of congress on this issue, classified or not? >> as i mentioned, sir, we have received new information as recently as last month from the mek themselves, so we're reviewing that information and

seeing if it helps in our deliberations. >> all right. i'll yield back the remainder of my time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i apologize, i missed part of your question. did you ask about what our state department is doing to urge those people who have not been buried would be dealt with? are you aware of what he asked earlier on? i mean, if those people were killed some time ago, and for whatever reason they're not being taken care of properly, it seems since we're a strong supporter of iraq and the iraqi government, we ought to be doing everything we can to make sure that's taken care of immediately. >> i fully agree, and as soon as i get back to the department, i'll check with my colleagues. >> would you let me and mr. poe and others on the subcommittee know about that? >> certainly. >> i yield to my colleague.

>> i want to shift gears a little bit and talk about russia some. on the judiciary committee, we have looked into the issue of piracy, and a lot of that, it seems, stems from activities, illegal activities, in russia. some of it by organized crime, and when i look at some of the official cooperation with european countries on terrorism and law enforcement and the many different areas that we cooperate with our european allies, i often see russia included in some of those agreements and relationships that sends a signal that russia is helpful and a partner on a lot of these issues. i have -- i would just like to get your take, both of you, on

issues of russia, how they are on issues of piracy, and if they've cooperated with us. and i'd like you to also address the role of organized crime in russia, and we're not hearing as much about it as we did maybe five years ago. i think it's fair to say, just in terms of press coverage -- i don't know if that's because it's become so routine or maybe it's decreased -- if you could comment on the role of organized crime in russian society today and how that impacts, if at all, the official russian government's cooperation with us on counter-terrorism and things like piracy. so i would welcome your comments on that.

>> thank you very much, sir. i confess in the counter-terrorism environment, we have put aside the issue of piracy. i would welcome a debriefing on that. i will say we have not detected any impact in our cooperation on counter-terrorism from those issues, and in the course of what is a very close relationship with the russians on counter-terrorism, i think that we would certainly be able to discern. i will say that the counter-terrorism cooperation was a bright spot in the u.s.-russian relationship before the administration came into office, and it has continued to be, and i think we've actually deepened our cooperation with the russians on counter-terrorism as deputy assistant secretary komens can contest as well.

we've done a lot of work with them on asian security, and we're developing some agreements in that area and will come into fruition soon and we've cooperated closely on issues such as designating al-qaeda members and al-qaeda terrorists and we've also had an exchange of information on subjects of interest. so i think it's a very good relationship and one where we are continually looking for ways to deepen it to the benefit of all of our citizens. >> have you seen any identifiable limits on their willingness -- russia's willingness to cooperate on counter-terrorism? is there any threat that is a threat to the united states where they have been unwilling to show the cooperation that they've shown, for example, in

al-qaeda, or have they been a partner in the sense that we have gotten to know other european allies as partners? >> is there an asterisk by russia? >> no, i certainly wouldn't say there is an asterisk, and i have an excellent relationship with my counterpart in russia, who is a first-class leader in this area and widely recognized as such. i wouldn't say there is an asterisk, but i would just, you know, reiterate that some of our relationships in western europe go back many, many decades, and obviously in a historical perspective, we're still building the relationship with the russian republic day by day. but i'm quite pleased with the progress, and i have every hope

for a continued success in this. let me put it this way, i haven't come up against any hard walls. >> do we have any time for the secretary? >> sure. >> secretary, if you could address the russian relationship. >> thank you, congressman griffith. i will echo everything that admiral benjamin said with respect to not having encountered any brick walls and the great depth of our partnerships in western europe, albeit the most recent partnership in asia. we have put some additional ideas in front of the russians. i can think of one additional setting. this one concerns transportation, and others concern transportation as well, having to do with securing

aviation, securing airports, but also bridges, tunnels, that's a multi-mode am removal. we gave them weekend to post -- >> i'm getting ready to yield to mr. bill rachus and. >> there is russian troops, as you know, on georgian voil. you might consider giving us an update on that and what the long-term prognosis is. because the people in georgia are very concerned about that in the future. with that i'll yield to mr. borakis. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate it. secretary kumens, thank you, of course, for your service. you noted that every week there are 2500 flights between the united states and europe, and

they said. they used that as our point of departure in the united states. i apologize if you covered this >> wear -- where we have the pushback is in the releasing of international data. why does the eeu believe that sharing of data regarding only must beloads? seems like a long time to me. if you can answer that question, i'd appreciate it.

zds as. >> i can share some of the she not mea-- sentiment. it's important to realize we are dealing with two different governmental structures, the parliamentary structure, our three parts of government. they have privacy laws that differ from ours in some respects, despite the fact that the underlying foundation, as you said, is quite similar and there is much more that unites us than divides us. but there are distinctions that are important to them, so they would like us to go through and consider every aspect of the agreement carefully. did they get this retained? what sort of date at that time did you tell him?

>>. >> one we look forward to concluding to getting close to an agreement, and as i said, in later months, we will determine it. >> i think that covers it, i really do. note we have a new subset of players, in a sense. we're no longer dealing with the european parliament, but in some ways congress has to explore all these different issues and satisfy itself in a way, and the eeu did not. it's an education, if you will, and share some of the. i really