as i try to follow this whole day and try to process what's been going on, february the 4th, there's a letter senator grassley, back and forth with you, stating the allegation of atf sanctioned or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to straw purchasers who transported them to mexico is false. may 2nd. you wrote again to senator grassley, reiterating it remains our understanding that atf's operation fast and furious did not knowingly permit straw buyers to take guns into mexico yet i just asked some agents about that and their statement was they think about 1500 weapons are still out there and probably in mexico. would you like to change your statement at all on that or have anything you would want to shift on your previous statements from february or may? >> thank you, congressman. the statements that you refer to are -- let me say this. every time the justice department sends a letter to congress, it is true to the best

of our knowledge at the time that we send it. those particular statements remain true for the technical reason that the committee's report issued last night described the straw purchasers don't take guns to mexico and in any event, atf doesn't sanction or approve of the transfer of weapons to mexico. that's obvious. >> but atf did permit those knowingly understanding they're headed towards the border and that was well known apparently among the phoenix office and as we can tell going up the food chain, that these purchases were not being purchased by someone out as was stated, bear hunting. these were straw purchasers buying in large quantities and headed towards mexico. how can we make a statement, we're not sanctioning that but we're also not interdicting or trying to stop it, either. >> obviously allegations from the atf agents you've heard from today and from others have given rise to serious questions about how atf conducted this operation and that's why the attorney general instituted an investigation and it's why we're

cooperating in this committee's investigation. >> was there any communication with leadership in mexico so that if these weapons showed up in mexico, we were actually doing a law enforcement process here to make sure they were both aware that these guns might be headed that way or that we had a working relationship when arrests were made, we would cooperate with them dealing with these arrests? >> congressman, i can't -- from my position in the office of legislative affairs, i don't have personal knowledge of the kind of communication. my understanding is that in general, there are close ties between u.s. law enforcement and mexican law enforcement, including on gun investigations. so as a general matter, the answer to your question is yes. as to specific cases, i'm not in a position to say. >> are you saying you were aware this fast and furious was going on and guns were headed their direction, and they were involved in that process, or it's just we know their phone numbers and occasionally call each other. this specific program, i'm talking about. >> congressman, i'm not in a position to answer that question

with specificity. >> do you know who might be a good person we can contact to get that kind of information? >> the committee has already interviewed one atf agent and we are prepared to make other agents available. these include high ranking atf officials. i would think those individuals can speak with specificity to the question that you're asking. >> terrific. what other office besides the phoenix office was doing this type of program? >> congressman, i'm not in a position to answer. i don't know the answer to that question. >> okay. do you know how many offices that doj has a relationship with that were informed about this operation as it was ongoing that might be engaged, at least have not necessarily approval but at least acknowledgment this is going on, just be aware, the phoenix office is tracking straw buyers and they are out there, there may be as many as 1500 guns, just be aware of that? do we know how many other offices or agencies are aware of that? >> are you saying offices or agencies of the justice department? >> within justice that it has relationship with. >> i don't know.

there is close communication among the various u.s. attorneys' offices and the law enforcement components. there are cross-cutting meetings and task forces and so forth. but i can't speak with spea specificity as to this operation. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. the gentleman from missouri. mr. clay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. weich, from what i can see, the department of justice has worked hard to comply with the committee's very large document request. not only have you gone to considerable lengths and cost, you have worked with majority committee staff to prioritize documents of great interest. you have briefed the committee not only on your ongoing processing of documents but on a case itself. on top of delivering many documents, you have made the most sensitive documents available for review by committee staff in ways that

protect the documents' integrity. it seems to me that the department is cooperating with the committee's extraordinary request and i say extraordinary because not only is the scope of the request very large, but because of its timing. during ongoing criminal investigations as well as an ongoing i.g. investigation. flashing back to when the committee was investigating blackwater, during the previous administration, a member of this committee now in the majority said that quote, we are supposed to allow the administration to do its investigation and then we do oversight, end of quote. now, i believe we have a legitimate interest in conducting oversight of the administration but we should not

jeopardize ongoing criminal cases or i.g. investigation just because a different party now holds the white house. mr. weich, in your statement, you explain that the department has made certain documents available to committee staff for their review, but without providing copies. this is because the documents contain sensitive law enforcement material and the department needs to prevent their public disclosure. >> that's absolutely right. >> is this a common practice? >> yes. it's a very common practice, as i detail in my written statement. for many years, the department has used this process of making documents available in order to maximize the number of documents that a committee can have access to. chairmen for many years have accepted this practice and we do it because the rules of the house do not easily permit a

committee to keep documents confidential and indeed, this committee has declined to provide any such assurances, so this is what we do. we make documents publicly or make documents available physically that we are prepared to see be made public, and those that are not, we make available to the committee investigators. >> and it's obvious that it's very disturbing to you and to the department that -- to the fact that despite your procedures and clear warnings, the majority and senator grassley has inappropriately released sensitive documents. >> let me say this, congressman. i have as the chairman noted, i have been here all morning and listened to senator grassley as well as to the terry family and to the atf agents who testified, the common view of all the witnesses and the members of the committee is that it is vital that these prosecutions, most notably the prosecution of agent

terry's alleged killers be successful. that we not do anything to harm those prosecutions. our effort to preserve confidentiality of certain law enforcement sensitive documents is in furtherance of that goal. >> and you wrote on monday that you heard during the hearing on monday that the committee is committed to not compromising the murder investigation or the broader gun trafficking investigation through its oversight activities, given what we found out about improper disclosures, and improper contact with witnesses and the way these hearings have been structured and conducted. i'm not sure i agree with your assessment. i think that the majority's actions have come very close to compromising investigations and prosecution if they already have not done so. do you still believe in the majority's commitment to not

compromising these investigations? >> congressman clay, we want to work with the committee. we have an ongoing relationship with the committee staff. i think it's important for us to flag these warnings and maintain appropriate brouound ris but we share the committee's interest in getting to the bottom of these investigations. >> thank you. we recognize the gentleman from utah. >> when did you first talk to attorney general holder about this issue? >> as best as i can recall, it came up in preparation for his oversight hearings in may. he was asked about it by chairman issa -- >> do you still hold tight -- you're suggesting that the letters that you sent on february 4th, 2011 to senator grassley and again, another letter on may 2nd, 2011 to senator grassley, that the content of those two letters is complete and accurate as best you know? >> congressman, i have said --

>> that's a yes or no question. is it complete, accurate? >> congressman -- >> yes or no? >> well, respectfully, that's not susceptible to a yes/no answer. >> go ahead. >> thank you. as the committee's report pointed out, there is a technical explanation for why the allegation that atf sanctioned the sale of guns to straw purchasers who then transported them to mexico is not an accurate statement, so we said that was false. however, serious allegations have come to light, including the testimony of the agents today, that cause attorney general holder to want there to be an independent review of this matter and he's initiated that review. so we're not clinging to the statements in those letters. we're saying -- >> so if i said that i think somebody knowingly and willfully actually misled and lied to congress, would i be off base? >> respectfully, congressman, you would be in that we make every effort to provide truthful information to congress. i know that's something that --

>> i would like to highlight january 8th, remember, these letters came out in february 4th and may 2nd, but on january 8th, i will quote from this internal document here from the phoenix field division that indicated on page 4, quote, currently our strategy is to allow the transfer of firearms to continue to take place, albeit at a much slower pace, in order to further the investigation and allow for the identification of co-conspirators who would continue to operate and illegally traffic firearms to mexican drug trafficking organizations and it goes on there. the administration knew in january, before these letters came out, that it was on purpose, it would continue to operate and illegally traffic firearms to mexico. how can that stand? how can you and the department of justice and people who take responsibility for this allow the lies to continue to come to congress? why did this obama

administration purposely allow the illegal transfer of more than 2,000 weapons that they knew, according to this memo, were going to go to mexico? >> congressman, you have asked questions that the office of the inspector general is looking at, that this committee is looking at -- >> i want answers from you. that's why you're here. you have this document. you know that this is true. this memo goes on to continue to say again in january, to date, there have been five notable seizure events connected with the group. approximately 53 firearms originally purchased by this group have been recovered. three of these seizures have been in the country of mexico. we knew that this was -- these were going south. yet in your letter, that you state quote, it remains the understanding -- our understanding that atf's operation fast and furious did not knowingly permit straw purchase buyers to take guns into mexico. that is patently and totally false. how do you do that? how do you -- when this comes out in january and again in may, you write, you tell this

congress that they did not knowingly permit straw purchasers to take guns into mexico, in total contradiction of the memo of january 8th. how does that happen? >> congressman, i have explained to you that we do our best to provide the information to congress as we know it. as allegations have come to light, we have initiated an investigation and cooperating with this committee's investigation. >> is fast and furious still ongoing? >> i don't believe so, congressman. >> at what point did the attorney general order that it be taken down, did we stop doing it? at what point did they actually say all right, enough is enough? >> the attorney general made very clear as this matter came to light that guns should never be walked to mexico. >> i want to know when the attorney general actually got engaged in this. why didn't he know about it? when did he know about it? or is he just oblivious to it? >> congressman, he answered chairman issa's question on the house judiciary committee. the question was -- >> but i questioned him also on the house judiciary committee, if you remember. you were sitting in the row

right behind him. he said he didn't know when he first knew about it. i'm trying to figure out when did he know about it and what did he do about it. >> he told congressman issa that he first learned about it several weeks before the hearing in connection with -- >> what i don't understand is when you go back and look at the record, president obama knew about it back in march. if the president knew about it, why didn't the attorney general know about it, and why are you issuing a memo in may when the president of the united states in an interview with i believe univision, is saying we know there were some mistakes made. how does that happen? the president makes this comment, then still months later, you have the gall to issue a memo to this congress saying that's just false, it's not true. that does not add up. that's what this investigation's going to continue to pursue. yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. if i may grant myself time for a colloquy because the gentleman does seem to be rather upset, i have read the statement and if

you were to parse words and determine the meaning of "is" then you probably could say that because the straw purchasers, the originally buyers, did not take them to mexico but rather transferred them to intermediaries, that in fact they did not knowingly take them into mexico. w i would not call it the whole truth but i certainly understand why if someone is trying to deceive and mislead that they could in fact write a letter like that and think that they technically didn't lie and they would be correct. with that, we recognize next the gentleman -- you haven't done yours? recognize the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sir, i know that you were here this morning while the members of the committee were -- i will say this with all the civility that i can muster. i think it is bitterly ironic that you would refer to committee missteps before you refer to atf or doj missteps in response to questioning from mr.

issa, you used the phrase committee missteps. i think the purpose of this hearing is not so much our missteps, real or perceived, but the missteps of atf and doj. so let me start by asking when did anyone at doj know that firearms in connection with this investigation were going to mexico? >> congressman, that's not a question that i'm equipped to answer. as i've said, the inspector general is looking at it and we're cooperating in this committee's investigation. may i just say, congressman, i didn't start out my testimony by talking about committee missteps. i didn't talk about it in my opening statement. >> no, sir, you did not. but it is bitterly ironic that the first criticism you would have or the first use of the word overstep would be of this committee and not of atf and not of the united states attorney's office in arizona and i frankly am shocked at the relationship between atf and that particular united states attorney's office. it is untenable and unworkable and i would hope that someone at

doj would ask some questions of u.s. attorney's office in arizona. i cannot imagine that kind of working relationship where proffers are not allowed and subpoenas take six weeks to be approved. i would be hopeful that you would ask that. so you do not know when doj knew that firearms were going to mexico? >> no, sir. i personally do not. >> what is doj's policy on guns walking? >> the attorney general has made very clear that guns cannot walk to mexico. that is to say, guns, it is a violation of law for guns to be transported across the border to mexico. >> what is your definition of walking? >> that, as the committee's report made clear, is the subject of much discussion within atf and -- >> i'm asking about doj. >> i'm afraid i'm not in position to answer that question. i will say that it is -- >> but you would agree that saying that me physically handing someone who is a prohibited person a gun, that

cannot be the only definition of walking. having knowledge that a gun is leaving your area of surveillance or jurisdiction is walking, correct? >> i can't define walking. what i can say, congressman, is that it is -- this is a challenging enforcement environment as i think you know as a former federal prosecutor. >> i do. but i also got to tell you as a former federal prosecutor, this is unprecedented. i have never heard -- would you ever allow or sanction controlled substances if it were controlled substances and not firearms, would you ever have allowed or sanctioned or permitted them to walk? >> first of all, there's a big difference. drugs are per se illegal and guns are not. the sale of a firearm or multiple firearms to an individual who is not a prohibited person is not illegal, of course. >> i'm aware of that. would you have allowed controlled substances to skip surveillance and go to mexico?

>> that's a question that's well beyond my area of responsibility or expertise. i will note that of course, there are controlled buys in narcotics cases in order to pursue a drug conspiracy and pursue the highest levels of a drug spears. i know that from my personal experience as a prosecutor. >> who can we ask, who can we invite before this committee who can tell us definitively when the department of justice knew that guns were going into mexico? who would you invite us to invite? >> i think you're pursuing the right track, if i can be so presumptuous. you're obtaining documents, interviewing witnesses, you interviewed agent newell, one of the individuals mentioned in the testimony today as having been very involved in this. there were other agents and atf officials who we are ready to provide for interviews. >> what about the united states attorney in arizona?

when did the u.s. attorney know that guns that were part -- this was an investigation that it was impossible to deny he was part of it. when did the u.s. attorney in arizona know the firearms were leaving the united states and going to mexico? >> i don't know the answer to that, congressman, but can i say i know dennis burke, the u.s. attorney there. he is a very hard-working, dedicated public servant and what obviously happened here is there was a serious profound disagreement about strategy but the common goal of the united states attorney's office and all of the atf agents is to interdict guns, to stop the gun trafficking to mexico. so mr. burke, i'm sure, was dedicated to that purpose. >> sir, with respect, given the fact that you know mr. burke and i do not, would you share with him what was said this morning about the dissatisfaction with federal law enforcement in

arizona and the relationship that they have with the united states attorney's office? >> yes. >> because that has not been my experience, certainly not in south carolina, not in other jurisdictions. the level of animosity and the fighting between law enforcement and federal prosecutors over something as simple as a proffer -- are you aware of any united states attorney's office that doesn't allow the use of proffers? >> it's obviously a common technique. >> of course it is. there's no way to build a historical case without proffers. since you know mr. burke and i do not, would you ask him to do what he can to repair his relationship with law enforcement, because it appears to be fractured from this vantage point. >> i would be happy to talk to him but i'm sure he's monitoring this hearing closely. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just briefly, following up on that point, it would seem that the approach of at least the

deputy or assistant u.s. attorney down there was to require corpus delicti, body of the crime, to actually have the guns in order to proceed with the prosecution. that will, if that's the case, i believe it's an improper application of the law and since this committee is involved in overseeing that our laws once passed by congress are indeed enforced, it would serve us all i think if we review that, the application of the law, if that indeed is the approach of the office down there. >> congressman lynch, if i may, one thing that's been brought to my attention is that the united states attorney's office has brought cases involving large numbers of guns to our purchasers, individuals alleged to have trafficked guns without a license, and those prosecutions have sometimes resulted in hung juries or directed verdicts of acquittal because of their high standard of proof, especially in the ninth circuit.

so there may be something for congress to look at in its legislative arena as well. >> okay. with that, i will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i want to submit our letter for the record requesting the minority day of hearings. it's dated june 15th, today. >> thank you. i'm in receipt of your request. >> i'm asking that it be admitted into the record, mr. chairman. signed by members of -- >> certainly. without objection, so ordered. >> thank you very much. i want to say this to you, mr. weich. i'm sitting here listening to all this and i want you to take a message back. some kind of way, we've got to establish the majority has some concerns and i think many of them probably quite legitimate,

and there has to be a balance here. i'm always concerned about people possibly dying as a result of something we might do in this committee. i'm concerned about murderers getting off. i spent a phenomenal amount of time trying to protect witnesses. i submitted legislation that has been held up in the senate side by the other side trying to protect witnesses. i believe in ultimate cooperation between law enforcement and public. i have a record of it for years. you know why? because i go to the funerals. i see the deaths. i hear the cries and i experience the pain. in some kind of way, we've got to make sure that we strike the balance that i was just talking about and i'm not sure, i'm just not sure whether that balance

has been struck the way it ought to be. this committee has a job to do. the justice department has a job to do. in some kind of way, we've got to find a way as the adults in all of this to make that happen. and make it work. i'm very serious about that. you got to, you know, life is short. i tell my staff that every day i look in the mirror and i face my own mortality, and the question is, how can i be most effective and efficient. when we go do this ring around the rosy stuff, what happens is that none of us are effective. you heard me make a commitment to that lady, miss terry. i shall not rest until everybody involved in this process and i mean that, i shall not rest, until all of that is addressed. now, the chairman said something that was very interesting. he a moment ago spoke about all this transparency and we need to

read the whole document. i appreciate that. but the one thing he did not say about this memo on january 5th, he didn't read this piece. you remember mr. chaffetz mentioned this memo. they read a piece of the memo but didn't read all of it. let me just read this line so that the record will be clear. it says investigative, talking about this january -- on january 5th, 2010, it says investigative and prosecution, i quote, investigative and prosecution strategies were discussed and a determination was made that there was minimal evidence at this time to support any type of prosecution. i just wanted to finish that. because i think it's important, particularly in light of the chairman saying that we needed to have the whole statement. with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentle lady from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. weich, for being

here today. i have a couple questions. you keep alluding to the inquiry and the investigation that i.g. is going to conduct at the request of -- >> that office is currently conducting that investigation. >> okay. are you concerned that their investigation is going to conflict or interfere with doj's investigation? >> you mean the criminal investigation? >> yes. >> the inspector general has a good deal of experience in avoiding those kinds of conflicts and of course, their work is strictly confidential. any report that they would issue publicly would be carefully vetted to avoid those kinds of concerns. >> so you're not concerned that will interfere with the doj's investigation, to be clear? >> we are not concerned. >> why are you concerned that our investigation, there is an ongoing investigation so we feel we are not getting the answers we need, because you are concerned about compromising

this other investigation. i would like you to differentiate for this committee. >> first of all, we're not saying this committee should not investigate. to the contrary. we recognize the legitimate oversight interests and we are cooperating with the committee as it pursues this. we're not in any way saying don't do this. >> but if i could interrupt for a minute, there's a de facto, if you don't provide what's being asked, or you provide what we see here, all those redacted sheets, whether or not you agree we have legitimate oversight, the fact that you're not complying with our requests is a de facto well, you're not going to comply. >> we have provided almost 2,000 documents in different forms. the redacted documents that the chairman showed, it's a little bit of a red herring, i say with respect, because those were multi-subject documents, i'm informed, and where the subject wasn't subject, that portion of the memo wasn't responsive to the subpoena, it was blacked out because we're obviously not producing nonresponsive material. we are not redacting heavily the

material that the committee is seeking and that is within its core oversight arena. >> with all due respect, i think this committee would disagree with your assessment that we feel like we've been stone-walled and not gotten the information we have requested from doj but i don't want to take up all my time on that line of questioning. you sat here this morning during the second panel with the three special agents. did you hear them say that this was the first time and perhaps the only time they had seen such an operation as this one exist? >> i did hear them say that. >> is that of any concern to you, that out of nowhere, there's this fast and furious program that results in the death of brian terry? >> it is obviously some of the testimony that was provided today is of great concern to the justice department and that is why we are investigating it through the office of the inspector general and cooperating with this committee's investigation.

>> is this the first time you've heard any of that testimony? >> i've been generally aware of it, in my role as head of the office of legislative affairs, i have obviously been aware of this for a number of months. >> when you say you're generally aware, what does that mean? >> i've been involved in producing responses to letters. i've been in discussions about how to comply with the committee's subpoena. so i have been aware. i must say, i was very pleased to be here today to hear personally all of the testimony that was provided. >> and before i get on to my last question, did you hear the issue they raised regarding retaliation? >> i did. i thank you, congresswoman. i want to assure the committee, i think a number of members raised this, that the department of justice will not, would never retaliate against whistleblowers. >> lastly, my question, and i ask the family of brian terry what, if they had the ability to ask a question, what they would like to know. so i'm going to read the

question that we were given to ask you. i would like, to the best of your ability, you to answer this question. i think that we would want to know if the dragnet that is set to find everyone involved in brian's murder will be set deep enough and wide enough to encompass anyone involved in operation fast and furious. >> the answer to that question is unequivocally yes. there is a firm commitment in the department of justice to bring everyone responsible for agent terry's death to justice. >> and the second part of his question, if the guns used in brian's murder were a part of this operation, then we would want to know will everyone in the operation that had to deal with those specific weapons be brought up on charges of facilitating the murder of brian terry? >> obviously, the whole purpose of the investigations that are ongoing, both in the office of the inspector general and here is to ensure there is accountability for decisions that have been

made, and most importantly to improve, to strengthen law enforcement efforts. if there were flawed strategies, if there's insufficient surveillance, weapons, obviously that's something justice department wants to rectify. >> thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> we recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i assume y'all are investigating various crimes that were associated with these guns, that aside from the tragic murder of agent terry, are there any other american law enforcement officers or citizens who have died as a result of this program? >> congressman, i can't accept the premise of the question, i don't know that any particular murder could be attributed to this program. i think that assumes a lot of

facts, and i'm not equipped to deal with that. so i can't answer the question. >> you heard the testimony of the agents saying that there was some sort of strategy that we would allow guns to move up chain of command with the rather nebulous goal of snaring a drug cartel. are you aware, is this the strategy, and if so, can you tell me in any rational basis how the means we used justified the ends when we quit following the guns when they changed hands the first time. there was no cooperation with the mexican authorities, and it just seems like once they did the first talk, they went away. >> one thing i heard loud and clear from the agents' testimony today was that the people with whom they disagreed on the

strategic questions told them and believed they were engaged in a strategy to topple a significant transnational gun trafficking operation. if the strategy was flawed, then individuals should be held to account and the strategies should be improved, but i did hear that everybody had the goal of stopping illegal drug trafficking to mexico. >> to me it seems like the next step is you follow the guns all the way. the actions that appear to have been taken don't seem to make any relationship to the strategy at all. but i have a couple of other questions, so we're going to leave that. you have been reluctant to provide information and answer questions, citing on-going criminal investigations, and not wanting criminals to go free or jeopardize these investigations, but my understanding, i'm a lawyer. my understanding of our justice system is that the defendant is

entitled to all exculpatory evidence. so if we've got something that will help the defense, we are obliged to hand it over. seems like y'all ought to turn it over to us to finish the investigation and meet the legal obligation to any defendants for full disclosure. >> we are going to meet constitutional obligation to the defendants. i would note when the committee interviews potential trial witnesses, you're creating material that wouldn't otherwise exist, that may be used to impeach witnesses at trial. >> we're after the truth, and regardless whether it comes out in front of this committee or comes out in front of a trial, shouldn't matter. let me go on. you also say there's some concerns with releasing information to us that would jeopardize other investigations and other strategies and programs, is that correct? >> yes. >> would you be willing to

provide a briefing to all or some of this committee in a classified basis about those? i think you sense a lot of anger, i would say anger from the committee that our government is engaged in what we perceive to be a reckless operation. even if in a classified manner you could assure us you aren't so far off the reservation there's a problem, i think it would go a long way to stemming some of the for lack of a better word adversarial conversations going on here. >> i hear you, congressman. first of all, we would be pleased to brief the committee, we have briefed the committee and will continue to do so. it should not be adversarial. i want to emphasize this. we share the committee's concern about the matters you heard about this morning. we are not adversarial to you in this. we are trying to get to the bottom of this ourselves. >> i yield my remaining 30 seconds to the chair. >> thank you. you made a statement in that

letter that you signed on the 4th that said atf makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to mexico. who prepared that line in your letter? >> chairman issa. >> you signed it, who prepared it. was it you? >> these letters are the product of the justice department. >> so your signature on that letter doesn't mean you know it to be true, is that correct? >> i take ultimate responsibility. >> isn't that statement false now with what you know? >> obviously there have been allegations that call into serious question that particular sentence. >> were there documents that have been provided and made public that let you know that statement was false? >> and that's why you're investigating and that's why we're investigating. >> just take your agreement that those documents indicate that statement that you signed that someone prepared for your signature were false? >> congressman, i am not prepared to say that at this time. everything that we say is true to the best of our knowledge at

the time we say it. as more facts come out, obviously our understanding of the situation is enhanced. >> just for the record, we will be posting online the 20 some pages that were made available since out of the 20 some pages, the only thing that's not redacted other than internal use only statements is kevin simpson, acting division operations officer, u.s. department of justice, atf, 201, east washington street, suite 940, phoenix, arizona, and the zip. the phone numbers are redacted. that's 100% of what you call discovery. would the ranking member like a second round? >> i just have one question. >> this is following up on what you just were talking about. let me ask you this, mr. weich. i want to go back to being effective and efficient. again, we -- i am tired of when

we are put in a position where we're wasting time. you know, we may be dead next week, so i'm just being very frank with you, i'm tired. i don't want to waste time. life is short. this is the question. if you guys are -- if the department got assurances we would not be disclosing documents that are extremely sensitive, and agrees to, you know, to try to make sure that -- and we would commit to working out accommodations where we could go through, i mean, you submit the documents, we go through them, making sure

that -- sort of together, would you be willing to come up with a schedule whereby we can get what we want, and you can be assured that we're not doing something that interferes with the kinds of things you just talked about? >> we will work with you, congressman. we strongly favor that kind of cooperative accommodation process, it is traditional, and in this instance where we recognize the committee's legitimate oversight needs, we want to re-enter that process and do as much as we can to provide information. >> would you all be willing to commit to a schedule, document production schedule? see, this is what i'm getting to. we can do this all day. and a new congress will be in, and that's why i'm talking the way i'm talking. we got to get stuff done. and i can't -- we cannot keep our commitment to miss terry by doing this back and forth thing.

it is a waste of time. it is a waste of effort. and life is short. >> i hear you, congressman. >> so i'm trying to get you to to help us. and hopefully help yourself at the same time. if we can work something out, can we move past this? >> yes. >> because obviously the majority feel like we're not moving fast enough, and i can understand that, but you're not moving fast enough. i know you have all kinds of -- you said like 700,000 pages or something like that. >> more than that. >> what would you suggest? let me put it another way. what kind of arrangements would you suggest so that we don't keep running into this wall? >> i don't think we have hit a wall. i don't think we are at an impass. i think we are now on track, it may have been a bumpy start, but we have produced documents in each of the last three working days.

we made a witness available for interview and we have a list of others who are ready to facilitate interviews. we are doing what i think you're asking, congressman, this is trying to accommodate the committee's needs, consistent with our confidentiality interests. >> would you after this try to sit down with us and try to see if we can't -- it is up to chairman, he is the chairman of the committee, but see if we can work out something where we can get our documents and set up a schedule to get these documents? the last three days was wonderful, but we need to see if we can move the process along. >> i would be pleased to do that, i would welcome that. one thing i would say, we devoted attorneys, resources for this, we hired a contractor to put them in a form they can be efficiently reviewed. we are rolling here. >> one of the problems here is something i talk about a lot, it is -- and i recommend this book

to you called the speed of trust by cubby, and he talks about when people don't trust each other, it slows down everything. when they trust each other, it speeds it up. and i think maybe we need to -- i know you all are worried about documents being released, seems like we're worried about not getting all the documents timely. somehow we have to break through that so we can do the work of the american people. with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. and i will close more patiently than i opened. would you agree to voluntarily provide a list of doj and or other personnel that prepared or participated in the preparing of the february 4th letter that we had so much discussion about? >> congressman, i'm not prepared to make that commitment at this time. these letters are the product of substantial deliberation within the executive branch. as i said.

>> would you agree to make available a list of personnel who worked on and may have in some way been responsible specifically for the misstatement in the letter that says atf makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent the transportation in mexico. >> i'm not prepared to make that commitment at this time. what i am prepared to commit to is an on-going effort to help the committee get to the underlying questions here about atf's law enforcement activities. >> now, just for the record, your job, the reason you're paid and basically have the title you have is to answer congress's questions. >> that's a big part of my job. >> roughly five months ago, senator grassley was told by your office in writing he wasn't going to get answers because he wasn't a chairman. you're aware of that, right? >> i am. and that's not an accurate statement. if i may respectfully -- >> more specifically, that chairman leahy would have to

request them. >> we answered senator grassley's letters, we have great respect for senator grassley, worked on many products over the years quite productively. it is the long time position of the executive branch through administration of both parties that they speak through committees as to oversight, so you are exercising the power of the house, no senate chairman has made a parallel request. >> i am well aware for two years in this administration there were no republicans able to make the requests and have them granted, and the requests generally were not made at all. that is, in fact, the position of the majority here, that it wasn't valid oversight for those two years. it is my personal position and i'll go on the record today since people were kind enough to read things from the past that we need to have legitimate minority rights and that at some future time in congress and each time the rules are produced, i'm going to try to have a party of the opposite party of the president, even if they're a minority, have rights, because i

think it's wrong that in fact the majority ultimately often finds itself asked and encouraged to protect the administration. i was here for the bush administration. i was more junior, but i certainly saw people in your position constantly cajoling us to protect the president. i don't approve of it. i now appreciate just how wrong that was. having said that, i will on behalf of the committee suggest something that you may take back to doj. if you're willing to do in camera review, 100%, unredacted, i repeat, 100% unredacted, please don't say it is unacceptable because it is obviously above your pay grade, you prepare, we come over, we being the staff. they look at the unredacted material. to the extent we can't agree on mutual redactions and the materials are sent over.

to the extent we disagree, then we can talk in terms of documents that have been seen, but are not available, are not releasable, do not fall within your concerns, because i share your concerns that our rules are such that once something comes over here with the exception of the select intelligence committee, it becomes more problematic as far as review or release. i want to get around that. i want to work with justice on it. i cannot from this side accept responsibility for documents leaked by third parties who get them, and i cannot enter into a negotiation where you tell us you're going to redact what we got around you, while you don't let us see unredacted versions in camera. there's never been a time in which i was more animated than when my staff came back from that break through meeting to find out that they had mostly black pages as your response in

camera. so please take back on behalf of this member and i hope the minority that we should be trusted to send over career professional staff to look at unredacted documents, understanding we're not taking them with us, until or unless there is an agreement how they would be appropriately redacted. that is the extension i am putting on the record. until that occurs, we will continue to expect discovery, and we will continue to object to getting virtually all black pages. with that, i think the ranking member has a question. >> yield for a second. >> of course. >> i'm assuming the message you send to higher-ups would include both sides, staff from both sides. >> that's exactly the intention. it is a simultaneous. our policies, and for those that may want to be aware of it, our policies are that in fact anything that is received is a document production is received to both sides, as you know, mr. weich, normally we ask you to send copies to both sides

simultaneously. in the case of in camera, we would expect staff would be detailed from both sides to go over and review it. but we will only come back for in camera review if in fact, and we will send cleared personnel preagreed to from both sides if that becomes an issue, but we have to look at the source material if in camera review will be appropriate. no judge will look at redacted material as in camera, certainly you wouldn't expect us to see part of a document that does us very little good, then say yes, we had production. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate your recognition, but i can't sort of negotiate this kind of thing at the witness table, but i can assure you, we will work with you on these process concerns. that's the mode that we're in, trying to help the committee address its oversight needs. >> we look forward to that. this has been difficult. i will go again last on the record that we believe there has been some break through in the last week or so.

we are thankful for the breakthrough, it has been awhile in coming, hopefully the last time we will have the log jam with that. with that, this hearing stands adjourned.

of mixed the second in a series

of hearings on the possible radicalization of american muslims. this one focusing on prisons. house homeland security committee chairman representative peter king says there are cases in which radical white inmates have planned and launched attacks for attempted to join overseas islamic terrorist organizations. this is two and a half hours. >> good morning. the committee of homeland security will come to order. the committee is meeting today to hear testimony on the extent of radicalization of muslim americans and united states prison system. the chair wishes to remind guests today the demonstrations from the audience including the use of science, plaques and team

searched delete -- t-shirts are violations of the house. we think the guests for cooperation maintaining order and proffered the vehicle proper decorum. as far as proper decorum let me welcome the members of the committee. it's always good to have another new yorker on the committee and even though you're on the other side of the ogle we welcome you and look forward to working with you. thank you for your interest in this issue. also i will make unanimous consent request congressman keith ellison has asked to have statements submitted into the record of the hearing and without objection so ordered. as does the ranking member have any -- >> yes, mr. sherman. i would also like to welcome the new member from new york who is on the right side of the committee. but i would also like to venture into the record letters regarding our hearing. i would also like to enter an article and type of prison reform and the age of secret

terror. >> good morning. today we hold a second in a series of hearings on radicalization and the muslim american community. specifically the important issue of the threat of islamic radicalization in u.s. prisons. i welcome our distinguished panel witnesses firsthand insight into this problem and we appreciate the willingness for the experiences to the committee for your witness, mr. ranking member. the issue of islamic radicalization in the u.s. presence is not new in fact this is the congressional kuran on the problem in recent years. the hearing which is necessary where danger remains real and present especially because of al qaeda's announcement to intensify attacks within the united states. a number of cases in september 11th have involved terrorists to convert to islam

or radicalize to islam the american presence then subsequently attempted to launch strikes here in the u.s. upon the release of custody. they also carried out terrorist attacks overseas cash. just last year john carey chairman of the senate foreign relations committee released a report which said, quote, three dozen u.s. citizens convert to islam while in prison traveled to yemen, possibly al qaeda's training. i will say that again dozens of ex-con became radicalized muslims inside u.s. presence have gone to yemen to try to join an al qaeda group run by a fellow american anwar al-awlaki, whose terrorists attacked the u.s. homeland several times since 2008 and generally acknowledged to the al qaeda's most dangerous affiliate. there are other cases such as mohammed, the 27-year-old xu moly american from indianapolis who's been invited natural carper fighting somalia as part of al-shabaab. according to family members and court records, he was a gang

member convicted for a number of crimes including assault with a deadly weapon, upon being released from prison when he was radicalized he began attending the islamic in minneapolis and was on his way to fight in somalia. the obama administration recognizes the prison radicalization as a serious threat. and the prisons are a fertile ground for recruitment. the department of homeland security announced the 63 janet napolitano and other state and local partners are, quote, collaborating to develop a mitigation strategy for terrorist use of prisons for radicalization and recruitment. the reality of the radicalization threat emanating from the presence was demonstrated again last month when michael was radicalized in the illinois state prison, pleaded guilty in illinois for attention use of a weapon of mass destruction. sent to is planning to assess the colleague and destroy the federal courthouse and office building in springfield,

illinois. and tomorrow in new york the committee was radicalized in the present sentenced to be set -- scheduled to be sentenced for his role in the conspiracy to attack troop transports at the air national guard base and new york and to attack a synagogue and jewish community center in new york city. they are not alone. today we will hear a lot kevin james, a radicalized former nation of islam followers who perform the jihadi group called ais and launched a plot from behind bars in california's present to be the was not just aspirational, it was operational. spreading from the prison to a local mosque and resulting in a plot to attack a u.s. military recruiting center on the 9/11 anniversary in a jewish temple. jose, known as the dirty bomb plot in a florida jail while on the inside he made a fellow inmate who led him to a radical mosque. he eventually moved to the

middle east and joined al qaeda. he was sent back to the u.s. in 2002 to attack our homeland with a bomb made of radioactive material and gas in apartment buildings to bring them down. prison radicalization is not unique to the united states. last week the british home secretary emphasized the growing threat of islamic radicalization and unveiled its new counter radicalization strategy to thwart terrorist recruitment behind bars. just as homegrown al qaeda terrorist attacks in britain including the 2005 subway attacks on london to the 2006 plot to blow up american planes flying out of britain and the 2007 car bomb attack on the airport were emulated several years later in the united states for the attempt of the new york bombings in september, 2000 - the fort hood murders in november, it wasn't mine, and the attempted times where bombing of may, 2010. we must assume the same for the prison radicalization.

i have repeatedly said the overwhelming majority of muslims americans outstanding americans yet the first radicalization hearing which this committee held in march of this year was not by much mindless hysteria led by radical groups such as the council of islamic relations and their allies of the liberal media in "the new york times." countering islamic radicalization should not be partisan issue. i would urge my democratic colleagues to rise above the partisan talking points. i am here to work with the obama administration. remember, as the president's deputy national security adviser dennis mick, who said just three months ago, quote, al qaeda is increasingly attempting to recruit and radicalized people for terrorism during the united states. the threat is real and it is rising. al qaeda is trying to convince muslim americans to reject the country and their fellow americans. there was the president's deputy national security adviser to read as a mentioned the department of homeland security is formulating a comprehensive

plans to stop radicalization, terrorist radicalization and recruitment in america's prisons. .. approximately one third of these prisoners claim some form of religious affiliation. islam is the fastest-growing religion among prisoners. about 80% of those who joined a religion while in prison turned to islam. multiple study showed that a typical inmate who converts to

islam is poor, black, upset about racism and not particularly interested in the middle east politics. in preparation for this hearing my staff spoke with representatives from the bureau of prisons, the state prison officials from across the country. i regret that none of them are here to testify today. the bureau of prison and state officials informed us that they routinely require religious staff, including imams, rabbis and priests to undergo rigorous -- including verification of religious credentials, background checks and personal interviews. they told us that any religious book and recorded message use must be screened and their guards monitor the services. when we asked about radicalization by outside influences, they told us that prisoners do not have internet access and all nonlegal mail is

opened, read and sometimes censored. judging from these accounts, it would seem that opportunities for radicalization are few and the evidence bears that out. according to the congressional research service of the 43 violent attacks carried out by muslims since 9/11, there were only two clear cases of radicalized release prisoners plotting a terrorist act. judging from this evidence, i think it is safe to conclude that the risk of terrorism originating from muslim converts in u.s. prisons as small. limiting this committee's oversight of radicalization to one religious -- religion ignores threats posed by violent extremists of all stripes and there are other threats to be concerned about. according to the national gang intelligence center, a study on

january 2009, approximately 147,000 documented gang members are incarcerated in federal, state and local jails. operational gangs within these prisons pose a security threat not only within prison walls but also in our communities. the ability of leaders of these criminal enterprises to control and direct operations outside of prisons cannot be ignored. further, the violent right wing ideology of many of these gangs must be discussed. let us not forget james bird was dragged to his death on a back road in texas by right-wing gang members who were radicalized and jailed. clearly the willingness to use violence to undermine order and commit mayhem does not depend on religious belief or political ideology. in may the committee held a

hearing assessing the threat to the nation's security following the death of osama bin laden. at that hearing be learned about terrorist aspirations to launch attacks to the u.s.. earlier this month, an american-born spokesman for an al qaeda released a video calling on muslims to commit violent acts on america to take advantage of the gun show loophole. he told his viewers that, in this country, you can buy a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check it most local gun shows, and he is correct. in march the gao reported that almost 250 people on the terror watch list were cleared to purchase firearms last year alone. in that hearing the expert testimony underscored that our greatest threats may be from solitary actors.

the video has given these potential actors encouragement, advice. mr. chairman as we consider threats to this nation's security, let us focus on eliminating known security gaps. we are not endangered by people who are already locked up. in assessing risk, we must look at the evidence. we are placed at risk by gangs who use prisons as a base for criminal operations. we are placed at risk by long rules exploiting the gun show loophole. i look forward to working with you on your legislation to close this known security gap. working together, we can reduce the risk to our nations from dangerous people roaming the streets of america. i yield back. >> i thank the ranking member from his statement and we will hear from the witnesses. i would ask each witness to try to keep your opening statement to five minutes and then there

will be followed by a series of questions from the members of the panel. our first witness this morning is patrick dunleavy retired deputy inspector with the criminal intelligence unit with big new york department of corrections. mr. dunleavy investigated terrorist recruitment in new york state prisons and is an author of the upcoming book the fertile soil of jihad, terrorism connections. would add mr. dunleavy has a long distinguished record prior to his activities and counterterrorism in counterterrorism working undercover and again does an outstanding job in the new york state criminal justice system and with that i recognize mr. dunleavy for five minutes. >> sorry about that. chairman king, ranking member thompson and distinguished members of the committee it is a privilege to appear today before you to discuss the threat of radicalization in u.s. prisons. the prison population is vulnerable to radicalization by the same agents responsible for

radicalizing americans outside of the prison walls. despite appearances, prison walls are porous and outside influences access those on the inside and inmates reach from the inside out. individuals and groups that subscribe to radical islamic ideology have made sustained efforts to targeted mates for indoctrination. in 1968 a sunni group was founded. one of its goals was to establish a mosque in every prison that would adhere to its ideology exclusively. two of its first converts in the new york state prison system were omar and al amine. he is regarded as a spiritual leader of the movement despite the fact is currently serving a life sentence for shooting two police officers. detroit michigan branch was led by imam abdullah who died in 2009 shootout with fbi agents seeking to arrest him. he did time in prison prior to

his conversion to this form of islam. as this ideology move through the correctional system in the 70s and 80s again increasing numbers of converts. essentially the ideology was a dominant force in the prison moss. that in the late '80s and 90s there was an influx of inmates from middle east some of whom are incarcerated for having committed violent acts against nonbelievers. individuals who had either killed, bond or stolen money in the name of allah. they had international connections with terrorist organizations such as egyptian islamic jihad, al qaeda, hezbollah and hamas. after they were arrested and incarcerated they have walked into the prison mosques and where hailed as heroes. they were inspired in deference by the muslim inmates in the muslim chaplains. some of them were given a position by the civil service chaplain is administrative clerks. this gave them access to a phone that was not listed by security

personnel which allow them to make calls throughout the united states and united states and overseas. one of them was serving a sentence in a correctional facility conspired with other individuals on the outside to bomb the world trade center in 1993. the jihad had come to america and one of its architects was an inmate. then in 1999, several law enforcement agencies received information regarding radical islamic activity in the prison system specifically detailing recruitment efforts in the prisons. authorities learned of a jordanian born in may 2 identified himself as if follower of osama bin laden and said his group was interested in recruiting inmates in the u.s. prisons. he stated his group intended to give inmates trained in the middle east after their release from prison and then have them return to the u.s. to participate in jihad. not surprisingly the jordanian jordanian born inmate's prison job was a chaplain clerk.

the initial exposure to extremist jihadi islam they begin in prison, however it often matures and deepens after the release. 2009, for ex-inmates were arrested for plotting to bomb synagogues in new york and shoot down military aircraft listing or missiles. they did not know each other while they were incarcerated but they met each other after their release while attending a local mosque connected to a prison ministry. that mosque had been founded by omar. in 2003 omar guimond interview. at the time he retired from the new york state fun of corrections where he was director of ministerial services. in his interview he went on to call the 9/11 hijackers heroes and he went on to say without just justice there will be warfare and they can come to this country too. he said the natural candidates to help press such an attack in his view are african-americans who embrace islam in prisons. in other words, prisons where crime played recruited terrace.

as a result of that the department of justice boston vacation into the hiring of islamic clergy. in its report among its recommendations they said that there was a need for a verifiable body that would certify islamic clergy prior to hiring. to this date no organization has been appointed to the fill that role nor has there have been any formal determination as to how a they vetting process would take ways or what the standards of vetting would-be. the result of that inaction brings forth two cases. a new york city corrections imam who was hired in 2007 was arrested in 2010 for attempting to smuggle dangerous contraband into the manhattan house of detention. administrative hearing in march of this year, imam should be deed asked for his job back. he was formerly known as -- and spent 14 years in the new york state risen for murder. how was he hired? new york city corrections was a rare for his criminal history

and they said that although a felony conviction would disqualify a person can become a corrections officer, that rule did not apply when hiring chaplains. the only civil service requirement was a certification of an endorsement body and the city in this case relied on new york. that organization is connected with a the muslim alliance in north america who lists among their leadership abdul a and al amine. the same organization also certified another prison imam, osama and alosi. in 2003 he was indicted by the u.s. attorney's office in new york for providing material support to its affected the sunni organization in iraq. the inmates clerk at that time the time was a convicted islamist terrorist. jihadi literature finds its way into prisons even though it is prohibited. anything can be gotten in prison. >> maybe you could try to wrap

it up and 20 seconds. >> anything can be gotten in prison including a pda or a smartphone. i would not be surprised to find a copy of the al qaeda inspired magazine in any of the prisons. and i will just close my comments about my. >> thank you for allowing me to speak. >> thank you mr. dunleavy. i'm not the only one who who is an accident like that. there are at least two of us. do you understand what i'm saying? >> not much. [laughter] >> now we have a transplant. our next witness kevin smith who was raised in my district that has the good sense to move away. he currently serves as the deputy district attorney for san bernardino county in california. is a former assistant united states attorney for the central district of california where he prosecuted kevin james co-conspirators who were convicted in one of the most significant domestic terror plot since 9/11. i will say however the highlight of kevin's career came earlier that when he attended the

university of notre dame and without mr. smith you are recognized for 10 minutes. >> thank you very much. chairman king, ranking member thompson and distinguished members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to testify today. by way of background i've worked in law enforcement at the local and federal prosecutors and 1996. from 2000 to 2007, i served as an assistant united states attorney with the united states department of justice working in the united states attorney's office for the central district of california. in july of 2005, i became involved as the lead prosecutor in the investigation and prosecution of a group of individuals who were involved in a seditious conspiracy to wage a war of terrorism against the united states government by murdering u.s. military personnel and jewish persons in southern california. these individuals were members of a group, which was created

within the california department of corrections prison system. today i intend to discuss a case and a seditious conspiracy which was engaged in by jis founder leader kevin james, his chief operative leader amar washington and the two other cell members, gregory patterson and hamad some on it. let me begin by discussing kevin james and jis. in approximately 1997, kevin james founded jis based on his interpretation of islam all serving a prison sentence in the california department of corrections system. in fact, james remained in prison throughout the conspiracy and the resulting investigation. james preach that it was the duty of jis members to target for violent attacks any enemies of islam or infidels. are infidels. james identified these infidels as the u.s. government and jewish and non-jewish supporters

of israel. james recruited fellow prison inmates to join jis but he also sought to establish a cell for group of jis members to raise war or jihad against these perceived infidels outside the prison walls. kevin james also created and disseminated throughout the prison system a document referred to as the jis protocol. in the jis protocol james stated that muslims must be allowed to govern themselves by sharia and jis must wage the educational as well as the organizational war or jihad. the jis protocol described jihad is the only true antiterrorist action and a defensive battle against the russian a theological posturing would i zionism. kevin james also wrote a document called nother 80 movement which is essentially proposed press release to be disseminated following an attack by jis. james wrote that on mission it

would leave an impression. the document would be left behind and 187 which is the penal code section for murder was involved that videotape would be sent to make sure new stations. lavar washington a convert to islam, met kevin james in late 2004 after washington was transferred to new folsom prison do sacramento. in folsom prison james recruited washington into jis. washington's war and oath of obedience to james. he was paroled in late 2004 and now had the ability to carry out a violent operation on behalf of jis outside prison walls. james tasks washington with a document known as blueprint 2005. he required washington to recruit five special operations members, preferably felony three and train them in covert operations.

acquired two pistols the silencers and appoint a member to find contacts to learn to make bombs from a distance. armed with instructions from james washington got quickly to her. into a mosque in inglewood california where he met gregory patterson that converts a convert to islam and hamas -- washington recruited both patterson and some on into jis and they swore an oath of loyalty, took washington to jis. their personal cell now has three members and they began to select targets for their attacks. ultimately deciding on military recruitment centers in southern california and the jewish temple. they documented their selection of targets in a document known as modes of attack. they had access to a shotgun would also to fund their jihad and to purchase an additional firearm, they engaged in a number of gas station robberies, series of over 10 robberies in the southern california area.

ultimately during the investigation, or during the conspiracy, patterson dropped his cell phone. local law enforcement were able to initiate an investigation based on that dropped cell phone. federal law enforcement, the fbi in the u.s. attorney's office got involved in that point in time and we were ultimately able to successfully indict kevin james, lavar washington and gregory patterson on the charges of sedition conspiracy to wage a war of terrorism against the united states government. which of these individuals openly pled guilty to that charge and received federal prison sentences including 22 years for lavar washington in 16 years for kevin james. it is my opinion that the jis case is an excellent example of the ability of both federal and local law enforcement to work together to secure our homeland. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. smith. our next witness is michael

downing who is the deputy chief and commanding officer with the los angeles police department counterterrorism and special operations bureau. chief downing was appointed lapd in 1982 and ended may of last year he was elected as president of leadership in counterterrorism alumni association. at the outset we express regret for regrets of the committee appointed lapd officers killed in off guinness and i guess the march of this year, a reserve officer serving in afghanistan. we look forward to your testimony and we thank you for flying all the way from the west coast to be with us today. >> thank you mr. chairman and good morning. chairman king, ranking member thompson and distinguished members of the committee -- thank you for the opportunity to discuss the los angeles police departments view and strategy of this most important a phenomenon relating to the evolving threat of muslim-american radicalization in the united states prisons. much has been written about this

topic over the last five or six years and just as we have seen a large surge in home grown extremist targeting innocent civilians with violence or plotting against the united states. we have also seen a surge in both converts and radicalization of those converts toward violent acts. fortunately, this still remains a phenomena of low volume, however the radicalization of even a small fraction of this population holds hide consequence for americans and innocent people around the world. we have the largest incarceration rate in the largest prison population of any country in the world. prisoners by their very nature are at risk and susceptible to recruitment and radicalization by extremist groups because of their isolation, their violent tendencies and their cultural discontent. los angeles is known for his outreach and engagement with muslim communities and the commensurate strategy to overlay

community community policing on top of communities that are either isolated, balkanizing on a feel oppressed or not integrated into the social fabric of society. the muslim communities are its greatest strength as a counterterrorism strategy. but in this context we recognize that islam expresses itself differently in los angeles than it does in the united kingdom, than it does in europe. even then it does in san diego or minnesota or new york. there there is no one organization institute or individual that speaks on behalf of the imam -- imam. of expression in the prison system is a subject which brings great concern. it is generally known the majority of prison converts assimilate back into what they were doing prior to going to prison however it is the exception cases, and to that rule that happen will continue to strike fear in the hearts of america. it is of great concern that up to three dozen african-american prison converts traveled to

yemen to train with al qaeda. we talked about the cases, the jis, josé padilla, richard reid, michael sent in all examples of prison converts plotting to commit acts of violence against innocent people. there are several ongoing cases who stories are yet to be told. the commented nominator though his conversion to a radical form of islam within prison. if islam expressed itself in the california prison system as it expresses itself in the los angeles region, we would be talking about the strength and value that islam brings to prisoners in terms of behavior and value-based living. however this is not the case and it is not the case because of the manner in which many prison populations are exposed to islam bearing the disguise of dysfunction, danger and exploitation. instead of providing a balanced peaceful contemporary perspective of one of the great and peaceful religions of the world, we are we are left with a

hijacked cut and paste version onto the counterterrorism practitioners as a term coined by my good friends. this is then allowed to propagate to the three dynamic dimensions of people, material and associations. as a matter practice the american correctional chaplains association recommends one chaplain for 500 inmates, yet we are seeing four, five and sometimes six times that ratio. the qualification of chaplains are different. there are different standards. some are allowed into a correctional institution and others refuse entry. the type of materials, effective policies and practices are designed to create understanding of a prospective faith-based efforts made life by way of materials to facilitate their purposes. there's radical materials inside the prison system still. anwar al-awlaki's materials inside the prison system.

the noble koran, english version, with the chapters entitled the call to jihad, holy fighting and the lost causes in the prison system. the spiritual philosopher of al qaeda who wrote the milestones along the road is in the prison system. meetings are not properly monitored because of the ratios of chaplains and prison guards to these things. aligning people purpose and strategy and leaning forward is a solution to mitigate this risk. in the policing world efforts to reduce crime mitigate risk and teach communities how to build crime resistant neighborhoods, focus takeover resources around three areas. high-risk people, high risk places in high-risk activities. this model can be translated into the prison system. furthermore needs to be looked at from a whole of government, full of community approach utilizing non-governmental offices thomas said of community volunteers and leadership

organizations. with the muslim-american imam and the united states proud of a commerce are learning about islam in prison, but say in some cases they would be shocked and dismayed. and one of my greatest concerns is the issue of convergence threats. we are beginning to see convergence of the areas of gangs, narcotic cartel, organized crime, terrorism and human trafficking. just as isolated and balkanize communities can be coming to of violent extremism, so too and prisons. if left unchecked prisons can and do become incubators of radicalization leading to violent extremism. in 2005 after the london bombings, prior to that, after 30 years the british said we defeated the ir a and they were ready to not fund terrorism and move onto other things and then the attack occurred. they realize they have this threat. americans at that time said we

are okay, we have good immigration policies. two years later we saw huge ramp up in this thread turquoise we began to uncover rocks, we see more and more of a problem. we haven't been covered the right types of rocks in the business system. we have the fusion centers, we have the tl low infrastructure in the prison systems. we have suspicious activities and today just in my seven county area at the fusion center sits on we are getting 15 to 20 suspicious activity reports in seven prisons a month that evolved into three to four open cases per year and that is only seven out of 33 correctional institutions, correctional facilities and the state of california. we do have a problem. presents our communities at risk. thank you. >> thank you very much chief downing. our next witness, professor bert

useemm is a professor of sociology at purdue university and person working at purdue he worked in the same field at the university of mexico or 13 years. mr. useemm is published several books and papers and magazine articles regarding prison organization and violence and you are now recognized for your testimony. >> good morning. i thank the committee for its attention to this very important manner. the crux of my testimony is that prisons have not served as a major source of jihad radicalization. three sets of facts support this conclusion. first, u.s. prisons now confined 1.6 million people. at each year, 730,000 inmates are released. second, from 9/11 through the first half of 2011, 178 americans have committed acts of

terrorism or were prosecuted for terrorism related offenses. third, for 12 of these 178 cases, there was some evidence for radicalization behind bars. putting these three sets of facts together, if prisons were a major cause of jihad is radicalization, we would expect to see a lot of it, but we don't. why not? in my research i've identified seven factors that have inhibited prison radicalization. first, over the last 30 years, u.s. prisons have been able to restore order and improve inmate safety. for example, prison riots which were once common in prisons have all but disappeared. the homicide rate in prisons has fallen by 90%.

a byproduct of this restoration of order is the appeal of radicalization is reduced. second, correctional leadership has consciously and successfully fused emission of observing science of inmate radicalization and to organizational practices. rather than waiting for the facility to be penetrated by radicalized groups, correctional leaders have fashioned, stabbed and energized the effort to defeat radicalization. third, increasingly in recent years, correctional personnel court made and share information with external law enforcement. forth, inmates cannot communicate freely to potentially radicalizing groups on the outside. the internet is unavailable. mail is inspected and censored.

fifth, a large body of evidence has shown that terrorists tend to come from better educated and advantaged backgrounds. u.s. prisoners can have low education and come from poor communities. the profiles of criminals and terrorists are different. sixth, a surprising finding has come out of my research that there exists a modest level of patriotism among inmates. it is the case that inmates are hyperconcerned with their own self-interest. still, inmates expressed some level of loyalty to the country. this make's prison a hostile environment for jihad radicalization. finally, in recent years, many correctional agencies have

improved their screening and supervision of clergy and religious volunteers. in sum, if prisons for a major cause of terrorism, we would see a large proportion of jihad terrorists linked to prison. that is not the case. still, a small number of prisoners have been radicalized behind bars and attempted terrorist activities. but, as long as law enforcement continues to be alert and worked collaboratively with each other, the threat of terrorist activity in and from prisons will continue to be diminished. >> thank you very much professor for your testimony.

mr. dunleavy, you and your testimony talk about what appears to be the lack of proper vetting to chaplains in state prisons and i'd know my staff has visited the maximum-security prisons and we have been impressed by steps taken at the federal level but 97% of prisoners are in state and local prisons. you gave the example of the imam chaplin who was arrested and convicted last year for smuggling razor blades into rikers island. he'd been certified as the chaplin by the islamic leadership council which actually is located outside of my district and i know the leaders are picketing my office. the fact is an organization such as that certifying a chaplain who was a convicted murderer and yet he was certified to be a chaplain in the state risen system. is that what you have proved it all? >> again, i don't think so. because there is no standard. one of the ig's recommendations

after that investigation in 2004 was that there would be a certified and ecclesiastical body that would do the vetting. >> but he was still serving in 2007. >> that is correct, so cities and states were relying on their own standards. in some cases no standards and in some cases there was no communication between a corrections department and the police department with respect to organizations or individuals that were then hired. >> professor useemm seemed to say the threat was not that significant from the prisons and yet chief downing usa the subject is an important phenomenon in the evolving threat of radicalization in prisons and prisons are in fact communities there is. is a person on the ground to us to deal with this issue every day do you consider to be a

serious issue? >> a very serious issue that i don't think we yet know the scope of the problem because we haven't had the collection mechanisms in place to really understand the depth of the problem yet. in the l.a. region, in seven counties with seven correctional facilities, we get 15 to 20 reports a month. they may not all be terrorism reports but they do develop into open cases which is of great concern because we are looking for it now. we have educated the prison guards and the institutions on what to look for and how to report it. >> i'm not asking two doubles and effects of ongoing investigations but in a written statement to say there are several ongoing cases in the story is it to be told however that, to dominate in these cases is conversion to a radical form of islam while imprisoned, so are you concerned about ongoing cases? >> indeed we are. we have ongoing cases. they involve convert prison radicals that are out in the

community now. and that story will be told in the case is prosecuted. >> mr. smith in the kevin james case, it seems to me it was a perfect confluence of a radical form of religion, organized gang members and almost an assembly line of radicalization in the prisons, going in post-prison to recruit and radicalized more and then attempting to carry out terrorist plots. can you say what makes -- is there anything unique about a religious radical as opposed to a gang member, a skinhead or a neo-nazi? >> well, i think the analysis needs to be a comparison for example between an individual who has committed to jihad that is on the outside of prison and one that has been in the prison system. the state of california can't be in the prison system unless you have committed a felony so those individuals who are committed to jihad in prisons have already

stepped outside the norms of societal behavior. they afford across that line. often with violent backgrounds, often with experience with weapons. washington being a perfect example of that. so you have an individual committed to jihad and already has stepped out and acted outside what we consider the norms of society and conducting criminal behavior. so these jihadists mentality is basically overlaid on an individual who knows how to handle weapons, knows no set the axis weapons, knows how to communicate even in the prison system and outside the prison system. and when that individual then steps out of the prison, that is happened to love our washington paroled been radicalized and being a member of jis, you are dealing with a very dangerous situation because this is an individual who already is operated has operated on the criminal side of the law and is very committed to carrying out violent acts.

washington is a perfect example because within six months time, he had recruited two additional cell members. they had acquired weapons. they were committing armed gas station robberies to fund their jihad and selecting targets. within a six-month period out of time essentially which is very very fast and shows the convergence of criminal sophistication as well as commitment to jihad. >> thank you mr. smith. ranking member is recognized. >> thank you very much. mr. dunleavy and mr. downing, you both have talked about issues around prisons and the fact that so much of what is happening is because of lack of resources to do certain things. are you saying that in the state of new york, the reason

chaplains are not fêted like in the prison system in the federal system, it is a matter of resources? >> no, i don't believe that is the case. >> so why aren't the chaplin's vetted? >> that is a good question and i think that question has been asked since the ig report in 2004. what are the standards? who will establish the standards? is there an islamic organization >> chaplains, period. my point is, if you knew in 2004 that a problem existed where chaplains can be certified without the bureau of prisons in new york having some standard, here we are eight years later and we still don't, so do you know why we don't have standards for chaplains?

>> again i have to go back to the fact that the igs report did not say all chaplains. it said islamic chaplains. >> is there a reason why islamic chaplains are not vetted? >> well i think because the fact that the individual omar had made the comments. do mom was not just an imam. >> no, i am just trying to get to the point that is the reason why new york does not that islamic chaplains? do you know why? >> i think new york does. the new york state department of corrections does, but i think the need for standardization between new york state, new york city, counties and you also have federal prisons within new york state. unique national standards for the fitting. >> so, so the weakness, whatever the issue is, is something those units of government have created by not for dating the standards?

>> green on the standards, that is correct. >> thank you. we all agree that there are bad people in prisons. your comment about someone getting out of prison, robbing and trying to promote a terrorist. we understand that there are a lot of people who get out of resin and who do bad things for a lot of reasons. so, i think if we look at it from that perspective, we all agree. whatever it is that is causing people to do bad, we need to fix it and if there is a terrorist nexus to it and we can close the loophole, we should. that if we look so narrow at just that, we have a real challenge. mr. downing, in your work in los angeles area, those counties, who were the most dangerous

people in prison? >> i would say, gang member certainly are dangerous. >> gang members. described the gang members to this committee. >> will come in los angeles, los angeles is probably the gang capital of the united states with maybe 60,000 gang members in the city of los angeles, the county of los angeles rather and/or hundred different gangs. they are violent. they are territorial. they have a culture that has developed that is exclusive, and they are vulnerable. and they are work routers. >> so, in your experience, those really bad people, do those gangs continue to operate when they go to prisons? >> very much so. >> so basically we have a lot of gang activity that is an ongoing enterprise in a lot of

residents? primarily state prisons, am i correct? >> that is correct. >> so the issue is, if we are looking at radicalization, are you saying that those radicals, bad people, our gang members by merrily in the percentages versus what we are looking at here today? >> the structure is interesting. when you go into a prison, you are in the crypt side, the blood's side, they lie them a side or this evolving muslim side, which is getting more attention but not enough. and many of the gang members are moving over to that side. as you know kevin james is rolling 30. people on the outside were vicious enemies but on the inside they became aligned with an ideology. >> i appreciate the indulgence.

and we understand, but the threat as of this date in terms of who the most dangerous people are that we have incarcerated are many of those individuals who are affiliated with gangs. based on what you said. aryan brotherhood, area nation and those individuals who basically operate their tip of these out of the prisons. am i correct? >> yes, you are. >> thank you. >> i recognize the gentleman from california and the former attorney general of california. mr. lungren for five minutes. >> thank you worcester chairman. i just want to say the political correctness in this room is astounding. as someone whose district includes the new folsom prison where the plot was hatched to commit the crimes in southern

california and as someone who represented the areas that one time where those crimes were carried out, to ignore what that is is to meet astounding, absolutely astounding. let chaos the experts here that we have on gangs and terrorism. how many of the street gangs in either new york or california have an ideology which is dedicated to the structure of the united united states? mr. dunleavy? esther smith? >> known that i know of. >> number that i know of. >> as serious as the gang problem is and i spent most of my life working on that problem, have you come across leaders in the various gangs who have indicated that there are specific purpose is to undermine the institutions of america and in any way associate themselves

with any transnational terrorist organizations? mr. downing? >> no but i will say that both represent a type of insurgency. one is to overthrow the united states and kill innocent people. the other is to survive in the shadows of society. >> absolutely. esther smith? >> i think a distinction needs to be made the between a radicalized jihadist and a gang member even a prison gang member like a exit can gang member. a criminal is interested in enriching themselves personally with criminal activity. it is a selfish motivation and so that is their aim and their general goal. when you contrast that with the individual like lavar washington of the jis case, they are not interested in engaging in criminal activity as anything other than a means to carry out violent jihad, to carry out there for terrorism against the united states and in that lies the difference in the danger.

>> isn't the aim of a terrorist attack to produce the greatest amount of terror and a community? that is, to try to do the greatest amount of destruction both physical and psychological, as opposed to gaining economic benefit? >> that is absolutely correct. i mean certainly one of the tenants or accepted tenets of terrorism is this need to create and exploit fear and the population and that is what a jihadist, that is what a terrorist seeks to do by targeting innocent people as we had targeted in the jis case. >> mr. dunleavy you have been asked questions about why we don't properly fed certain chaplains. isn't that the crux of the problem? i mean, we have a religion which is an accepted noble religion,

one of the great religions of the world, that is being subjected to radicalization by a certain percentage of its advocates, and there is no standard to make the judgment with respect to someone who is teaching or preaching in a prison that may be of a radical version versus a the non-radical version? isn't that the crux of the problem and how do we as a government try and somehow sift through that? >> well, i think in getting back to the question where the question was asked him who is the most dangerous inmate in the prisons? my answer is the inmate who you know little or nothing about. when you have an inmate who is of middle eastern descent, who may have been a wahhabi solid fist, there was an ignorant and the lack of knowledge between correction administrators as to the actual religion of islam.

what is the difference between a sunni, a solid fist, a sufi, a shiite. so there was a need for education and the need to learn. if you don't know you can't vet, you can establish standards and that i think was the weakness we have not come any further since the 2004 report. >> about five years ago the head of the prison system in california came to me and asked to have a meeting with the chairman at that time to talk of his concern about the radicalization of muslim prisoners in the california prison system. subsequent to that, we had a hearing. actually was a year later when the democrats had assumed the majority and the congresswoman jane harman conducted a subcommittee hearing in california for the purpose of looking at the kevin james case. i might note for the record there was no objection on the majority side and no suggestion that we were somehow involved in

an improper pursuit of the truth there, or that we were somehow wrongly confining ourselves to that particular case and not dealing with all the other cases in the united states. i salute congresswoman harbin for her efforts on that and i just wish we would see reflected now the same concern and why partisan support. i thank the chairman. >> i recognize the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson-lee, for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman and i do thank the ranking member for those an astute presentation they gave in their opening presentation. i would like to acknowledge congressman keith ellison who is here who was statements were initially submitted to the record. and very briefly, let me define what i political correctness is and it happens to be this document, the constitution.

i want to read it because i know everyone probably knows it by heart, but john marshall said the constitution intended to endure for ages to calm and consequently to be adapted for the various crises of human affairs. he was the number -- a number of individuals who try to interpret why we needed this document, because without having a stated vision of what america would become, he knew that we would be facing a number of crises and we face that today. and i want to thank the witnesses, each of them, for their service and their critical analysis that it's extremely important. but my angst with this process is that the topic lends itself as we have seen, to a myriad of analysis. i want to two sides to individuals. we had in a previous hearing, think the parent of carlos

bledsoe, abdul hakim mohammad was his muslim name any of the series of altercations with law enforcement, drugs, traffic offenses, nothing that we would applaud that he had not been a hardened criminal and not been imprisoned for a number of years but he did end up in women's -- yemen. you in overstay and ended up in the yemen jail and became radicalized. maybe we should talk about vernon j. merrill, who the chairman has brought before us, thank him for that. he writes a letter and he says prisons are fertile recruiting grounds for radical muslims and they are introduced to the subject by louis farrakhan. but he was arrested for bombing an abortion clinic as a christian militant. so, my point here today, information is welcome. condemnation is not.

mr. dunleavy are you familiar with the christian militants? >> yes, i am. >> can one say that they might possibly want to undermine this country because right now constitutionally the right for women to choose is a constitutional right. people disagree with it, but here is an individual attempting to land of mind the protections that are given to women. would you suggest that might be compared to trying to undermine this country? that is a possibility, is it not? >> i think that anyone that goes about killing in the name of god is an ideologue. but when i talk about solon there are two worlds and the ideology of that. there is the world of islam and the world of the infidel. there is no middle ground. >> i understand that but what i'm saying is as we look to be informational we should include an analysis of how christian militants or others might ring

down the country. we have to look broadly, do we not? >> i don't know that christian militants have foreign country backing or foreign country finance. >> i don't think that is the issue. the issue is whether not their intent is to undermine the laws of this nation and i think it is clear that is the case. so, it is not -- your distinction is not answering the question. let me go to mr. useemm very quickly because i think you made valid points. you indicate we are more astute and i do want to ask a question about the nation of islam. denote the nation of islam is? do you view them as promoting in the current 21st century the undermining of this nation? >> no, don't. >> can you post with the nation of islam is? >> professor your microphone. >> the nation of islam is a religious group that practices the muslim religion. >> and they were grouper, when the black community? >> that is correct.

predominantly but not entirely. >> or their underpinnings to your knowledge about improving lives are trying to straighten out come is that your assessment or do you know that? >> that is correct or coase beato want to put words in your mouth but that is the basic underpinning, whether or not you agree or disagree. >> mad at a point here? >> if you can quickly. >> very quickly. >> can i just ask this question then? can you defend your position about the oversight intensity of oversight in prison today that there is a massive radicalization going on in our prisons? can you defend your proposition? would you defend it now? that there is an extensive oversight and extensive oversight and prisons today. they are less violent if you will riots because of. >> the time of the gentlelady is expired. >> can he he answer the

question? the professor you may answer the question. >> prisons are much safer now, much more orderly, much for secure and rates of violence are down. you walk into a maximum-security prison now it is orderly, it is safe. not all but most of that is the case and that is promoted the ability of officials to maintain and looked mostly at the problem. >> the time of the gentlelady -- i'm sorry. >> can i speak on. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is. >> thank you to the witnesses for coming in but i believe discussing a very important issue and what is happening in the united states prisons. what i would like to first start off with this mr. downing if you could tell me a little bit more about the radicalization process within the prisons themselves. can you kind of comment on that

and how someone becomes radicalize? >> inside the prison systems, it is not too far from how a gang goes -- a gang member goes to the process to become a gang member whether it is an orientation. there is an identification. there is an indoctrination process and then there is a type of radicalization that goes through but that charismatic leaders, the materials and places of association contribute to that and we have evidence we have seen a little bit of convergence with the gangs. we have a higher african-american prison population that is being converted, and we have seen this come out onto the streets in terms of converts mosques coming up in the different communities as well. >> thank you for that. mr. dunleavy can you comment on that as well?

>> the process of radicalization particularly islamic radicalization in the prison system is very very selective. it is a filtering process. it does not occur with 500 inmates in the yard yelling jihad. they facilitated -- facilitators and recruiters that are in the system have the unique ability of profiling. they are able to spot an individual who walks into a cell block for the very first time and they can tell what that person -- first of all they know he has a propensity for violence. they know he is somewhat by himself and so he wants a sense of purpose to his life. they do all this profiling within the first day that they meet him and then they began to disciple, to convert him, then to move him when he is going to be released to an islamic mosque that they have recommended to him. and then from there he continues to move into an islamic center

either in virginia or in florida and then from there to filter him to overseas travel for continued studies. so it is a process that starts off in the county jail, move sue the state system and through the post-release and parole. >> could you explain, in doing some research, we found that due to the insistence of the justice department, attorney general holder, the bureau of prisons is forced to play louis farrakhan's nation of islam videos of sermons or chapel services for muslim prisoners. is that correct or incorrect? >> i'm not aware of that. >> can anybody comment on that? the next thing about sharia law, radical islam, would you agree or disagree, it and we will go across the panel here that radical islam with place sharia law is the primary law for their religion? would you agree or disagree to that? >> absolutely. ..

committed to jihadists fishery a lot is god's law and that is the only they have to follow. everyone else's man made and that isn't something that they feel has any authority over them in their actions.

>> i would agree however i would offer that and our outreach and engagement with muslim communities we recognize the muslim communities recognize the lookit similar to the jewish law but the long will of the land as the constitution of the united states. >> that's correct. >> i would add the muslim community in the united states is in compliance and well-educated but they do accept the constitution of law of the land. >> specifically radical islam you would agree then what it take sure real law would supersede and radical islam for a statement? >> i think that is the distinction that needs to be made. what i'm talking about this from a radical jihadist mentality, not mainstream muslims. and i think he would have to put violent radical islam. estimate the time of the gentleman is expired.

mr. clark is recognized for five minutes. >> i'm sorry recognized for five minutes and an extra 40 seconds. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and mr. thompson. let me just look at some of the conditions. i used to chair the budget for the prison systems and that's a pretty good size prison system. i've gone through the prison system and spend a lot of time trying to see what conditions there are and i think what is in texas or anywhere else you have three things that come into play. staffing issues is one of them. the conditions of recidivism and all of the markham ended with, so when you go in there we are talking about not only the presence of the state level, but you look at the federal level not only the federal level we are looking at this particular issue but when you look at the

majority of the prisoners that we have and the state prison is that correct compared to federal? so, how do we address the issues you want to bring in or of criminal gangs of mexican mafia, whatever it might become how do we address the issue when most of the prisoners are etched prisons where we have to deal with budget cuts and have to deal with issues like that, how long do we address this issue and not forget about the criminal gangs and most are not going to go abroad, they are going to stay here and have to come back and get part of our society. how do we address this issue? i know this is an issue important to some folks but i'm looking at the big picture. how do we address with all the conditions we are facing right now? >> whoever wants to take it. the first thing you have to do

is set a national standard. i think all prisons and as you said have the same circumstances , but i feel we have the resources in place, u.s. agencies, law enforcement agencies, correctional compost relief parole and probation agencies that work together but there has to be some sort of standardization. >> let me just -- i believe five years ago they held a similar hearing on radicalization. it is noted that there is consistently no applied standards and procedures in the state prisons to determine for example in this case what religious material was appropriate for prisoners. have we seen any improvement in the last five years since that senate hearing? >> i don't think you have on the state level found any standards. each state is kind of marching to their own step. islamic may i speak to that?

i think there have been significant improvements including the state of texas now much safer much more secure. what hasn't been done is a documentation of the changes. there is no work that i know what that compares documents, the standards that are used and they would be hard to look at. >> if i could we in for a second, i don't think it is as potentially complicated as it might seem. the particular groups that we are talking about, the particular radicalized inmates represent a very small proportion. that is exactly my point. this might be important to the chairman and i respect his opinion but that is a small portion. what about the larger amount of population, prison population that we have?

i believe the united states prison puts more people in prison than any other country. about that larger picture? i know this is important but what about the rest? >> it's a small portion with a much greater exponential danger to the community. that's the point. the reality is that there are procedures in place in the state institution. the institutional investigators to be able to look at all of these crypts, bloods, mexican mafia and the likes of it's not as if they don't have the institutional wherewithal to examine and investigate the groups. it's just another group so it's not as if we have to reinvent the wheel to look at and if all you read and assess the danger presented by the prisoner. estimate your point because i have an additional 40 seconds, but the point is it's one group of other groups we still have to look at. anybody that poses a threat to

our society to make sure our streets are safe, correct? >> as i said it's my impression all opinion that this particular group of radicalized inmates presents a greater danger to innocent individuals and civilians on the outside. >> thank you. i got just a few seconds, mr. chairman. can i allow -- >> an extra 30 seconds. [laughter] >> may i introduce these into the record. >> cannot yield just to introduce, nothing else. >> that can't be restrained if i'm holding up -- >> mr. chairman of like to ask to submit into the record on an fbi law enforcement bulletin regarding the to prison radicalization and on balance a statement on the texas base white supreme bigotry behind bars and also gangs with cartel ties and a brother who burial as

mexican mafia to show the balance and the need for an extensive review and i ask unanimous consent to have this in the record. >> so ordered and i would remind the members the years to control this committee to have hearings on any issues at any time if they wanted to. i've never heard any groups in these hearings until we held our first hearing on muslim radicalization and i wish he would have been as intended and i've recognize the gentleman in the united states attorney pennsylvania mr. marino. >> thank you. gentlemen, thank you for being here. excuse my back-and-forth because of the ankle. am i pronouncing your name correctly? i have a couple of questions because i applaud you on your study. i know how difficult it is to go into prisons and question people. i'm a former district attorney and former u.s. attorney. i've been in state prisons,

federal prisons, so i know how that operation works. but have you utilized any studies involving conversion of on a muslim gang members to jihadists? >> no, i don't know of any such studies. >> do you discern the difference between the members in jihadist which is most dangerous which one is most dangerous to the overall security of the united states? >> jihadis are the most dangerous. the point was made earlier they are held for themselves and jihadists are out to damage the country. in some ways that explains why the jihadists to radicalization in prison is difficult because they tend to come from individuals who are mainly guided by their self-interest. >> on to refer to gang members to a certain extent would you

agree with me that for the most part they are not truthful in their review and have a tendency to a degree to told the interviewer what he wants to hear because you did state on your comment, referring to page three, paragraph two, that you were talking to one islamic and made for example told us the only when your print to have a radical group in the prison more than five minutes without them the correction is knowing it. while al qaeda proclaimed the seek to recruit. these people aren't going to tell you what you want to hear and certainly, you're going to have to wait that with a pound of salt. estimate that is absolutely correct, and our study was more than inmates and is the case they may have assembled and not

told us the truth we talked to not only inmates but the security people, and five -- what was most striking to us is the consistency of responses. >> just recently i visited to federal prisons that i visited before but concerned among the officers who had private conversations not outside of discussion of the administrative and officials with the conversion from the conversion of the individuals who were not muslim, the conversion of gang members, the conversion of younger not so well-educated and mates into a jihadists. do you actually believe that a terrorist would share with you

his prison hierarchy mission and the execution of the recruitment mission? >> i don't believe a terrorist would tell us that. >> not to mitigate or pick apart your research, because i know how difficult it is. i want to go to mr. smith. we have somewhat of a parallel background. what is the number-one issue is the former u.s. attorney that you are faced with in the criminal justice system? >> as an assistant united states attorney counterterrorism was our number one priority, certainly, and that spent the majority of my time i worked on a fermenters certainly as assistant attorney working on counterterrorism and national security. >> and mr. downing, and you each have 18 seconds. would you like to respond to

that? >> well, i frank that the recognition that radical islam occurs in prison is necessary. first to acknowledge something exists to be able to effectively deal with it. >> and mr. downing please. >> one is targeting innocent civilians with violence and waging war much of the country and the others living in shadows of society conducting criminal enterprise profits. >> thank you. i yield my time. >> now why recognize the gentleman from michigan mr. clark for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. share. just from the outset, i want to talk from personal experience. i grew up in the city of detroit in the inner city born and raised and that area has a

reputation of being a tough place. maybe no tougher than a growing up and new york or brooklyn or something like that. but there is one issue that many young men in my opinion too many young black police and went to prison -- to prison. it would've been better off if they got treatment for mental illness, for drug addiction. if the had a chance to learn how to read it wouldn't have ended up in prison. so we do have a problem i believe with our sentencing policy. >> but needless to say, in my closest childhood friends spent years and decades in the penitentiary once these young kids go to prison when they

become criminals by virtue of their time in prison. so the focus of this hearing in the sense that we are looking at what's wrong with of the prison culture and how can we change it and improve it? i think it's the right focus. but to put it in the context of islam i think that distracts us. let me get to the point. i ask someone who served time in prison why do they convert to islam, why do other young men comfort is a complex for two reasons. number one, protection, to protect myself from other inmates in the prison staff. and number two, because these young men were tired of their past. they wanted to break away from their criminal past and become a new man so they became muslim. my question is this.

how can we change the culture of the prison so that for those convicted felons who will be released that they are rehabilitated going back in the prison or committing crimes on the street because that's a waste of money the taxpayers can't afford. not only a race to money it is a waste of life. we've seen it happen. we talked about political correctness you know what pieces the awful and a member of congress. my friends have wrought in prison and those that have gotten off the have never been the same again. some of them did commit crimes and they should have been punished for a but others were in the wrong place at the wrong time. they wouldn't snitch on their friends. and they've never been the same again. i know this firsthand. we have a problem in the prison

system. we've got to change it. we can't waste our money. and warehousing these people, making them worse off, having them come out, commit crimes and then go back to jail, go back to prison. it costs the taxpayers billions of dollars. look, political correctness aside, a democrat. some of you who are tea party members, this is the waste we've got to stop, we're spending too much money incarcerating young black men whose lives could be saved. it's not about islam, it's about the sentencing policy. it's about the prison system. we've got to change that. so, i'm not really distinguish fishermen is coming from on this committee. this is a right focus that is going on inside the prison is wrong we've got to change it. we've got to stop the present industrial complex. we are wasting too much tax payers' money. tea party members, we need your

support. we have to stop the waste. the waste of money and the least of lives. these young men are growing in islam to protect themselves. they want to change themselves. are they bad folks? yes, they are. why can the every other state and organization. i know i am making a speech, but in that is the question. let's improve the prison culture so that these young men are rehabilitated if they are going to be released if we are going to sentence them for life and punish them, that's a separate issue. >> each witness will be allowed to answer. >> i would like to speak to that having been a kid that grew up in brooklyn, and it's a hard neighborhood to grow up in a. if you would have talked to my friends when i was 16-years-old and told them i would be in the new york state department of

correction, they would have had no doubt. they would have thought i would be on the other side. so i know what you're talking about growing up in a bad neighborhood and going into prison and coming out and the need for rehabilitation. this is different. our adversaries of committed chehab noeth the pool of the have and the present environment. they are able to profile and select for the same individual you are talking about that wants to be rehabilitated. that wants to change, that once purpose in his life and they selected him and convert him, indoctrinate him and send him over. >> the time of the gentleman is over. mr. brooks is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your willingness to have this hearing today to focus on these issues but are of such great national important. my question is for either mr. down legal dhaka downing and ipod is speaking to the side

that's the way my table is set up being a freshman with least seniority no longer looking at each other. after the chairman announced the subcommittee of the hearing he received the following letter from the state prisoner who converted to islam while serving a sentence for the sexual assault and minor. he now claims to serve as an diman to his fellow prisoners. the committee staff confirmed the authenticity of the prisoner in his letter and refer to the fbi. it reads, and by the way i had to miss a little bit, so if i cover things covered by a first please, let me know. quote come on in jail for eight more months and then i will be free. i am a muslim and i feel because of america's war on islam i am the enemy of the united states. quote, the profit said all muslims are one brother and zero a duty to one another. the holy koran says fight those who fight you so by virtue of my faith, the united states is my enemy and i feel committed to

fight for my muslim brotherhoods and sisters and what do americans expect major mccaul passan work on a basis to salles everyday muslims being killed i'm sorry he ran out of bullets. and then further, i have heard kill americans, jews, christians, more in prison than i ever did in chechnya. finally, i will die allah. does this represent a sentiment of other prisoners and correction systems? >> in terms of radicalism it does. i don't believe we are talking about muslim. we are talking about the hijacked radicalized cut and paste the call and that is the difference. if it was islam he wouldn't have written that letter, and i just question his credibility in terms of what he knows about islam, who were his teachers and

how did he get accredited, where did he get his training and that is what we are talking about as the prison inmates become spiritual advisers in very short term and that is part of the problem. it is not islam. >> it's interesting that in the letter he mentions that he is a am imam. how's it is then in may to become a imam? we have civil servants and the way is to get to this idea was to come this rutka radical ideology it states that the imam is selected by the congregation of inmates will elect their own imam to supersede the authority of the chaplain. >> next, please comment on the propensity of the al qaeda prisoners and federal civilian custody such as the i-290 eight east africa in the sea bombers to attack united states district judges such as leonard sand and federal correction officers such

as louis. as our judicial system and law enforcement under threat? >> i think it is quite apparent that is one of the threats posed by the violent radical jihadists the reality is that whether they are behind bars or whether they are on the streets, they don't turn off the belief system. the government of the united states is a target for violent radical jihadists so the representatives of the government whether it is in the courtroom, the united states district judge and correctional facilities whether it is a state or federal facility that the staffing and the correctional officers. so indeed they are at risk because they represent a government which is the enemy if you will of these radical violent jihadists. >> a question for each of you on the basis of your professional experience in the subject what would you encourage the congress

to do about the problem of the prison radicalization? >> first i would try to meet the recommended ratio of chaplains to inmates, one in 500. i would create consistent policies and procedures for the material going into the prison and monitor and audit of those and then i would make sure all the prison staff is educated and oriented to what this fred is and the have the responsibility to not only share the information with the local authorities but know how to report these types of activities >> you have anything you wish to add? >> the we do much better and improve our capacity to at least have the means to transition them out and so they have a meaningful future when they leave. >> the time is expired. the gentlelady for five minute.

>> i appreciate this opportunity to come and listen. this is my first hearing and as i said when i was a candidate of wanted to come with a very open mind towards the issue facing our country and this gives me an opportunity to hear both sides of this debate. where i come down on this is i don't see a reason to draw the distinction between the threats of gangs in prison and radicalize jihadis because they're both threats to their different kind of threats. i assure you there are more people killed on the streets of buffalo and rochester as a result of gang activity generated in prison. that being said that was a problem we have to deal with but that doesn't diminish the need to make sure we are safe as a country which is what i am hearing the witnesses testify about today. and i'm glad the distinction has been made so many times about these radicalize the violent jihadis because those are the ones i am concerned about, and i want to know, are there ways to identify these individuals in prison and when they are

released? what happens next? we are not going to cause much are missing in prison at least i suspect not although they can be influencing others, no doubt about it, but what safeguards do we have in place to protect our citizens when they are released? and i come from the area we have the case and i will tell you the cooperation of our law enforcement received from the muslim community was incredible. they brought the issue to the law enforcement. these people were identified, prosecuted, individuals who had actually trained under osama bin laden in training camps and came back before 9/11, this is the culture i come from, but we've got to find some solutions and not to have us against them in trying to protect the united states of america and our citizens, so i want to know what is in place to assist in ensuring the safety of our country once people who have identified that they are radicalized released in prison.

why is this starting to occur before we protect ourselves is what i want to know that doesn't take away from our need to have vigilance and make sure that these members upon release do not continue to wreak havoc on the streets and slaughter individual's wealth, so in my judgment you can hit both issues. it's not an either or proposition. i want your comments on that. >> i.t. one of the things that has to be done as recognize correctional intelligence is a two-way street. correction officials and administrators have to know about the inmates they received particularly if they receive inmates from countries of interest. there was an inmate in new york state who was cleaning the cellblock in the pakistani national who had a degree in chemical engineering. again, corrections has to pass the intelligence of what they learned about the radicalization back to law enforcement on the street so that they can again know what's coming out. >> are there in the other provisions you are aware of on

the sharing of that information? >> not to my knowledge is that sharing of information occurring? >> i think it is, but it could be better. >> that mechanism was not in place. it's since been put in place. we have an excellent relationship with the fbi in the hilly region, joint terrorism task force model works very well and the fusion center model, the joint regional intelligence center has a squad and prison radicalization squad in the fusion center. it is excellent. the fbi hosts a monthly prison radicalization meeting and brings correctional officers from state, local, federal law enforcement together to share this intelligence and there's a mechanism in place where there's advanced notice of a violent extremist reentry into the community, and i think that is a smart practice that needs to be shared across the united states. >> i was going to say again much

of the mechanisms are in place for dealing for example with gang members. certainly in my community gang members identified by the institution certainly in the packet sent up after the are convicted of crime also in the institutions themselves are identified as a gang members when they're released from prison they go to orientation meetings where they are met with and discuss the situation with a gang officers from the local police department so the mechanisms are in place it is just a matter of expanding that process if you will as always identified as by a little jihadists say for example in the prison system that get paroled into the community. there is no reason that what we are currently doing can't be used to identify those individuals being paroled into the communities and potentially threatening our safety. >> five seconds left i'm constantly tracking my time to read how we identify the prison?

are we able to know who is going to become a threat in the prison guards or prison cells? >> i'm going to refer the answer is yes because we can identify members of prison gangs, the intelligence is there on these other groups so there's no reason again why the portfolio, if you will, can be expanded to include radical jihadists 64. >> by going over time on the first question you fit right in for everybody else. [laughter] >> with that i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania also united states attorney. >> thank you, mr. chairman and to each of the distinguished panelists for their presence here today, and for your work on this important area, and i want to follow up on the question because that is really what i am trying to comprehend here is how we look at distinguishing where

the association is being created among people find each other to share some sort of a growing prison versus those who are affiliating in some ways into a prison culture, the gang culture, and is it distinguishable? >> do you believe in the prisons and mr. smith? >> i actually think it is distinguishable, i think one of the things the what help is if the department as a whole reported the data for the change of religion. we talk about how many percentage of inmates are muslim and how many are catholic and jewish but how many actually change religion two or three times during a period, and then why. i mean, that would be something to be able to follow-up on, why do we have an individual who's now been in prison three times? >> before you go on, mr. smith, you touched on this earlier or some of the panelists did, which

is in a sense the qualification of those who are the teachers are given access materials and other kind of things in the present. is there any kind of a standard by which it's appropriate or legitimate for the government to determine who should be a shepherd of the flock? >> i think the government has the right to de ap ply come in.hem or who invites them and how do they get in? >> i was going to speak to that with respect to the kevin james case, every devotee is that there's obviously some issue with individual imam coming from the outside and meeting with prisoners, but the problem that we also have come and certainly less treated in the case is the fact that kevin james was self-taught, cut and paste version of the prisoner islamic you will and then was able to

because of his charismatic personality, because of his toughness he was able to recruit a number of followers and so the prison system is not in the position to be able to dictate no, sir, you know, you cannot preach islam or your version of islam to the fellow inmates, and so the problem you have there is that someone in that situation, and this goes back to your earlier question for example of the radicalization of the creation of the group overlaid on the prison gang model, james has the shock collar or the shape of the particular group. the communication protocol that they use the have the protocol and message i don't know if you're familiar with the term, you probably are, where there is a clandestine and communication system and probably every prison so they were able to get their information in the institution and it wasn't just the members just where james was, there were

throughout california the part of corrections and not only able to communicate within prison, the presence they were in but james set up a system he would send the pravachol on the outside because inmates couldn't send letters to each other, and then the person on the outside would forward it to another institution so he was able to get statewide coverage, if he will of the pravachol, and so that again, they just took the prison gang model and just overlaid their radical islamic jihad is some. >> what's the solution in other words as we are constantly amazed at the way the inmates are able to communicate and the engine of the associated with it, but is the goal for us than not so much to be worried about the method of communication but to identify those who seem to be sharing this philosophy and then do an appropriate job of following that? >> that's right. the solution is vigilance in terms of identifying the members in the groups because the

communication networks are always and find ways to communicate so we try to stop that might be futile but the judge allowance to those individuals participating in these groups. >> he made a comment the profiles of the criminals are different. how? >> difference in education, difference in poverty, and the terrorists tend to be from better educated backgrounds and criminals, offenders have low education. and the relevance of that is whether or not the act in their self-interest. to become a terrorist one has to have a lot of goals and that comes with education. there's a lot better straping bombs on their backs all round the world and walking into pleases because they've come under the influence of somebody who is charismatic or otherwise. >> do you think those people are well-educated >> there is a strong evidence that is the case. well-educated people were the

ones carrying bombs into buildings. >> terrorists tend to be well-educated. that's correct. >> the time of the gentleman is expired. the gentleman from illinois mr. davis is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. treen and i want to thank the witnesses for appearing here and being with us. >> doctor, you seem not proud of it, but i have one of the largest site incarceration places in america, something called cook county jail, where more than 10,000 people are often confined, and of course six to 7% of those are african-americans who are there and pretty much mirror the state prison system, which is much larger and that's something we would like to shape a little bit if we could in illinois, but

it's tough. a recent study suggests that that the largest number of individuals who convert to islam are african-americans. are you familiar with this study or this kind of information? and whether or not you think those individuals are doing so for personal development or terrorism. >> i'm not familiar with that particular study. >> do you have an opinion a relative to the conversion itself? >> the conversion to islam tends to be among african-americans, that's the case, but not in terms of terrorists themselves. the dirty bomber potentially was not african-american so it's not exclusive. >> mr. smith, mr. downey, let me ask you how do you suggest that

we monitor radicalization while simultaneously respecting the fate of islam, and i'm also concerned a great deal about what we do for individuals in terms of helping them reintegrate back into normal life, and so what kind of support activity would you suggest for these individuals as they leave? >> i think the same way we institutionalized the idea of reporting suspicious activity across the united states through indicators and warnings. we also used that process to educate people or get many reports of what would be called muslims with cameras, which have committed no crime, no indicator of the terrorist nexus but people were afraid and uneducated they would report this, so in the same sense to bring this into the prison system so that they know that there's a distinction between

somebody who is practicing a safe and somebody who is practicing a violent form of a hijacked state or cut and paste version of another and indicators and mornings that need to be an ingrained in the prison system so that we don't profile people, but we profiled behavior, and that is a big distinction. as far as the release and the reintegration into the society, that is just huge. in los angeles we are involved in a release program for integration and rehabilitation job training and that is a big part of our whole prevention strategy. we are faced with early release now because the economy and the shortfalls so we are expecting to see 6,000 parolees in the population, most of which is going to be in los angeles, so it's a big concern to us. >> thank you. i couldn't agree more with the chief.

the way to do it properly so that those individuals who are legitimately practicing their feet or their id is islami or another, they have to be protected and given the right to do that. i spent my professional career upholding the constitution and i have a conference woman from texas to begin talking about that. that's something i hold very dear obviously as a prosecutor. the consideration has to be education in the correctional institution of the personnel so that they can't be given behavioral indicators, behavioral indicators, not who people are but what they do and how the act so that they may be able to separate any sort of radical hijack as the chief said attempt of islam versus legitimate and true states. >> i think in a correctional facility that religion is a very positive aspect.

it helps the influence and helps the individual to change to have a higher purpose. and in other early riots muslim inmates were credited with having prevented additional deaths or injuries to staff, so islam in prison can have a positive effect. we have to recognize the foreign influence of this ideology which is different and the way that that works. >> thank you mr. chairman. the time is expired. before i recognize the member i would like to ask staff members. i want to tell you after many years as a reporter he is earning an honest living. [laughter] >> i recognize the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and a panel of members for being here and i first want to comment i

was surprised and disappointed as well when some members of the committee question why we are having this, and it seems to me we almost diverge into a discussion about prisons generally, and i don't believe that is the focus of our committee, our committee is homeland security and it's entirely appropriate that we are here today, and i will go where the risk is, and i believe other members of the committee was also if we need to look at other areas of the group i'm happy to do that, but i believe that radical islamists present a real threat and it's appropriate that we examine that today. now, i would like to address the first question to mr. downing on the may 19th committee staff visited the prison where those members have been captured but held in civilian prisons or cat and confined, and the staff

observed thus, that the insistence of the attorney-general's department of justice that some al qaeda prisoners are allowed to have on monitor conversations with defense attorneys and despite repeated requests for the available technology the bureau of prisons and fbi requested or at least would be available to them that that technology isn't there and they are not able to monitor conversations between al qaeda prisoners during the recreation time. so, those policies which are not fbi policies toward your prison policies coming from the department of justice, do they degrade our safety here as americans and also the personnel who work in the prison's? >> in terms of this threat, intelligence is key and we need to create an environment that is hostile to recruitment to

developing this ideology and also executing plots or planning plots so it does then managed the ability to further understand the planning. >> thank you the second question, but thank you again for being here, why don't we revisit the letter sent to the chairman recently come and just in part it states i am a muslim and feel because of america's work americas war, an enemy of the united states and so what threshold of speech must be met when a person is a self-declared enemy of the united states, a person who influences others as imam, what has to be met before we can isolate that person and keep him or her from influencing others?

>> i think the statement in itself is the threshold if you have an individual who states that he set format you have to recognize that and know your enemy if you were going to fight him to be estimate financial agreement so i trust this is happening in the prison system and this gentleman -- i was delighted to learn the letter had been sent to the fbi and i hope it is isolated and that there's a serious consequence for the action that he's taken in the letter he sent and what he stated. any person whose declared himself to be an enemy of the united states, needs to be isolated within the prison system and may be further actions. but thank all of you for being here today and i yield back the remainder of my time. >> thank you the gentleman for yielding and ms. richardson was recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. first i would like to request that you would accept and the

record by unanimous consent a summary of the letters that you submitted into the record. >> a synopsis of the letters you accept into the record would you accept? >> without objection to the estimate has a summary of the letter submitted the riss 16 from 14 individuals submitted. two of those individuals are convicted of a right-wing terrorist activities. the two others have threatened to commit an act of terrorism and three of the individuals are convicted of murder. one for killing two police officers on separate occasions, and another for killing a free people. on the fbi's ten most wanted list he stated in writing to the l.a. times singing in a little more than 15 months in all i will probably commit murder, mass murder and another stated while nailing a bomb to the u.s. attorney she attempted to send another improvised explosive device and a pattern substance

rebel anthrax so what i want to see for the record as to consider letters from these individuals i think is probably question every and any court of law. the second thing, according to webster's dictionary, the definition of radicalization is the process in which an individual changes to impassiveness or activism to become more revolutionary, militant or extremist. would you agree - webster's dictionary explanation? >> if webster has its in its dictionary it must be correct. estimate in light of that i would like to ask a question about newark. did you have to wait getting to the mark? >> i'm sorry? >> do you have asian gangs in new york? >> -- >> i'm not and new york anymore or deployed by the apartment anymore.

>> when you were there were were aging gains in new york? would you say there were mexican beans and new york? african-american gains in new york? >> probably. >> would you say there's white supremacist groups? >> absolutely. >> i think the question would really be would you say those groups kill people? individuals in those curves of people. yes or no, i only have two minutes. would you also say that individuals in those groups are to the definition i just read the dictionary but the groups would be in the process of individuals changing or have changed from custis ms. moore activism to become more revolutionary, militant or extremist. >> i think it is a generalization. >> i asked him question, sir. some of these that we eluted to but it's just in the prisons have also been radicalized.

that's my question. >> as some of the groups you didn't -- >> i just set my answer is a generalization to d'aspin nicoe que i'm going to repeat it. my question because you are here testifying on the record and claimant some sort of knowledge and expertise. so my question is based on the area that you worked in, would you agree members of the asian gang come mexican gang and white supremacists have been radicalized according to the definition i read in the webster's dictionary. and the definition of radicalized, i will repeat it again, are individuals who may have been passive or activist who's now become more revolutionary, militant or extremist in their actions and ideas. would you agree doing that? >> sutphen that brings me to the question of what my point is that i would like to see this

committee hearing. in california alone, there were 812 gang-related homicides in california in 2007. i'm trying to get the national number as we speak because i don't have that. i would like to say in light of the comments made, i do not disagree radicalization occurs according to the definition i read. i don't disagree that radicalization in effect occurs in present nefarious groups. what i disagree with and i would say with all due respect of the chairman is the scope of this committee's only focusing on one particular group. i actually believe that the focus of one particular group on the basis of race or religion can be the industry suggest and discriminatory, and i would asked for the record in the future that we as a committee i agree we need to look at the prisons and i wholeheartedly

agree we need to examine all the tax and to have my 100% support. but the continued discriminatory what i believe of one particular group on the basis of race over religion is not and should not be done in the house of representatives. i yield back. >> i will take the brunt of the fans and i disagree 100 prism. she's entirely wrong. the fact is this committee was set up to combat terrorism after september 11th. as mr. smith testified this procedures in place which follow gangs in the present three we have particles in place for that. unfortunately because too many instances of political correctness we do not have protocols to follow. that's why this is unique and i would say your party had control for four years and not one hearing at all on skinheads, nazis, white supremacist not all. suddenly this and she emerges when we start talking about

muslim radicalization. that is the purpose of this committee. we have the judiciary committee to deal with other prisons. to reach gangs are important, the nazis important, the purpose of this committee is to combat islamic terrorism, because this the terrorist threat to the country. if we find out that neo-nazis are a foreign power were coming to the country we will investigate but if we find out that every nation -- >> [inaudible] >> no, it's my time -- every nation allied with a foreign power we will address it. we are not going to spread out and investigate everything that needs investigating. we are going to focus on the target that threatens the security and why we are doing it without any way minimizing the threats to that. our committee is set up to combat terrorism and with that i yield >> you have for years on this committee and not once was a hearing held on any of those

issues. i recognize the gentleman from florida for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this very important hearing. question for the panel. we've been presented with the testimony of rutka was asian occurring in los angeles, illinois, new york prison systems among others. the dirty bomber jose padilla was radicalized i believe you referred to the associated with radical mosque in my home state of florida. the requisition associated with prisons seem to be more prominent in particular states, regions or hot spots and then also to what extent do facilitators or the prison radicalization move among and throughout the various systems and areas and what can be done to close the geographic spread of the prison radicalization? >> i don't think that it's contained just to certain cities or states. i think it moves nationwide

radical season particularly islamic radical ideology moves throughout. it can work in the federal prison. i think what has to be done is again to recognize it as a problem to recall what a problem not because there is 5,000 individuals being converted every five minutes or something like that. it's very selective and it's a process we have to recognize the process and be able to interrupt the process and have some standards nationwide in the bidding of clergy. >> how i would say the way i look at the issue of the prison radicalization that we are talking about today, it's part of an overall situation we've been experiencing a tom cochran radicalization and domestic jihad. this is an issue we thought

would never come to the shores that we would have a problem with the data was overseas and great britain or spain or countries in europe. the was the thinking then even around 2,005. certainly since that time we have seen there is a problem out of room radicalization and domestic jihad in the country not only in the prison walls on the outside in the communities and just as you can have a home grown jihadists in any state in this country the same is true in any institution state or federal throughout the united states and the not mutually exclusive, they are part of the same overall threat in my opinion. >> would you like to respond? >> i think you saw in 2009 we had a ramp up in homegrown terrorists. 85 individuals involved in 13

plots that is to signal a trend that we had and i think in the prison system we are beginning to establish collection mechanisms for the phenomena but they are not widespread yet and i think when we put the systems in place we will see what we have seen on the outside inside the prisons. it is still low volume of its high consequence, very high consequence and high intensity for america if we don't address this problem and i think we are on the front end of the problem right now. >> i would agree my bottom line prisons are in fertile ground for the radicalization. think of the case of kevin james. what isn't clear is if kevin james had been outside of prison whether or not he would have the same orientation and capable of acting on it and i think it is likely to be the case. >> i would like to address that having prosecuted the case. the issue we had with kevin

james is that he orchestrated the plot to target the jewish persons in southern california and personnel. he created the plot and presence of the reality is that danger was and whether he was inside or outside the prison. from prison to take away from the cases she was able to set up and set out and operational in the southern states of california so there can be no question in my mind of his commitment to raise that based on the evidence in the case. >> i would go further on that with respect to the organization and the ability to operate. he wrote a book literalists eg hot talking about 21st century jihadists at lacks the organizational structure for operation. when you plug it into a prison system that has an ability to communicate and the ability to send messages and operate its

like a u.s. speed court. the chehab just to plug the fun drive into it and they can operate. >> thank you. i don't have any time left but think you for holding this important hearing. >> as a previously mentioned a bipartisan committee staff in the maximum-security facility in florence, colorado. during a visit the chaplain of the facility provides to the staff by partisan stuff a six page list cataloging all of the nation of islam videos in the library of the facility includes 305 videos of which according to the business