government resources. >> thank you for that. i'm going to turn towards a different topic, and it's on tsa and the racial profiling issue. first i'd like to ask unanimous consent that this letter from the collision can be entered into the record expressing the current concerns about the treatment by tsa. while this year marks the tenth anniversary of my 11, yet south asians continue to be the victim of discrimination, and here in the judiciary committee heard the testimony of a sikh americans who were pulled out of lines in airports just because they were wearing a turban. they were put in cages on display like some animal, pulled into rooms and interrogated for hours where even their babies were searched, yet nothing has ever committed a terrorist attack in the united states. but when they complain about the racial profiling, they're has

been a lack of response from the tsa and when the guidelines are passed down many times they are ignored. both tsa and the the part of homeland security claim to have the complete and redress system however the experience for the travelers have been woefully inadequate, complaints oftentimes go unanswered for several months. and in fact, there was an instance of one complete i looked at where the response to six months and basically said you don't have any documentation now we met with administrator pistol and he said they were going to have a review of the complete system. i want to know what the status is of that review. we've waited for three months for some kind of system to be put into place the would be more timely. >> yes, there is that review and our civil rights and civil liberties group has been looking into that issue specifically. we have greatly be used the time

that it takes to address complaints. we do have outreach to the other communities. i would suggest, however, that we are very respectful of the community and work with them on a number of serious the issue from the tsa security perspective is if there is bulky headgear or clothing the current technology cannot ascertain whether that maybe something in it that is explosive and they have to find some way to clear that passenger. some of the gentlewoman's time is expired. the gentleman from utah, mr. chavis. >> madam secretary, thank you for being here. you said you disagree with the gao analysis of the percentage of the border that secure. what percentage of the border do you think is secure? >> i think that having lived -- >> i'm just looking for a number. i have to go quickly. >> having lived and worked on the border post of my life i would say it is secure as it has

always been. >> you don't have a percentage? >> well, i would say it is very secure. >> okay. when did you first speak with eric holder about fast and furious? >> i don't believe i've ever spoken with eric holder about fast and furious. >> how many agents, since you've taken office, how many of your agents have been killed in the line of duty? >> too many. >> do you know slic you have any number? >> well, i would have to double check. but i would say at least 12. >> how many guns from tosk and furious operation were detected crossing the border? >> i do not know. >> how many guns from fast and furious were seized at the border? >> i do not know. >> why is it that an operation that big and that important and that much in the news you don't have the details on?

>> welcome a representative, as you know, it was an atf operation. >> in 2009 we know of two instances where i.c.e. seized investigating at the request of the atf. are there any other instances where you were asked, in your department, your agency, was asked not to pursue cases that potentially have a conflict with fast and furious? >> in the wake of your investigation of fast and furious i have been made aware of those instances. i don't think i've been made aware of any others. >> let me go to testimony that you had last week. last week you were with senator grassley. you asked about communication with mr. burke regarding operation tested furious. question for senator grassley have you had communications? your response and i will read it quickly not about fast and furious. when agent terrie was killed was december 14th. i went a few days after to meet with fbi and attorneys who were

actually going to look for the shooters. at that time nobody had done for in six of the guns and fast and furious was not mentioned. he went on to say i wanted to be sure those responsible were brought to justice and every doj researcher is brought to bear the topic, so i did have conversations and it would have been december of own mind, i think to that december, ted, about the murder of agent terrie. but the point in time, nobody knew about fast and furious so that's a different question. and yet, we have documents that show -- and this is a quote -- in urgent firearms trade requested by atf agents on the scene to determine that these firearms came from custody hearing is. why is it that you, as the secretary of homeland security with one of your agents dead on the scene, did not get briefed about fast and furious? >> i do not know. >> how is that acceptable? do you think they withheld that information or is it your responsibility to actually find the information? >> welcome i think the focus, representative chief it's come is we have a did agent and a

dead agent killed in a very rugged area in arizona, and the number one thing that was on my mind when i went out there was to make sure that the appropriate resources were being dedicated to that investigation. >> but have guns from fast and furious on the scene. you testified here just last week that there was no knowledge of fast and furious at the time. you went out of your way and -- deck that's not true. >> i'm not going to comment on that. i don't know the document to which you refer. what i can say i think it's clear from the context is i was speaking to my knowledge at the time and i did not know about fast and furious. >> did you direct -- was there any direction from your department and agency to allow the guns to go across the border that were involved in fasted furious? stood fast and furious was an atf operation. >> if your agent detected what is going south across the border you let them go because it was an atf operation?

>> as the two incidents you referred to cover the two i.c.e. incidents, i think they reveal when they picked up guns and ran them or asked atf to trace them come atf came back and said these are part of a larger operation. stand down. after the second incident, in which that occurred, that matter was taken by the assistant u.s. attorney which is common. that happens in the field. the u.s. attorney said that the atf operation would take precedence. -- the was it the department of homeland security's policy to allow guns to go south to mexico if they were involved in fast and furious? i'm looking for a yes or no. >> no. >> how was it you can make a claim the border is now more secure than ever come in and did the obama administration purposely allows literally to thousand guns to be released knowing that they're going to go to mexico with hundreds of people killed by those weapons,

to did u.s. agents and yet you don't even know if we have detected one of those. in fact on june the worry 14th you did detect somebody in new mexico. there were eight guns found and they didn't run a trace on them and you let them go into mexico. i find that absolutely stunning. for you to have to did agents and never have a conversation with eric holder about fast and furious is totally unacceptable, totally unacceptable. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> mr. chairman i know representative chaffetz has his opinion on the matter as the tone of the question reveals, but i simply would suggest that no one takes the death of agents more seriously, and also, that one of the reasons that we have not directly dealt with the attorney general on this is he quickly and appropriately to this matter in the hands of the inspector general. thank you paris and the chairman from arkansas, mr. griffin. -- before mr. chairman. madam secretary, i want to talk

to you about the memo that has been raised earlier here today. the memo from june and the point in particular factors to consider when exercising prosecutorial discretion. i'm certainly familiar with the concept of the prosecutorial discretion. in my experience that has been more of a bottom-up discretion exercised by individual prosecutors. that having been said, when i look at the list of factors and the degree of specificity in that list, it strikes me that what they're intended to be this or not it strikes me that it is a road map retaining illegal immigrants coming and it seems to me you can look at this list and meet a few of these

categories and have a good chance at being pushed to the bottom of the prosecutorial list. that is particularly so when i look at the draft memo that referred to the gerry that came out of u.s. citizenship and immigration services last year and understand we have had assurances that a draft memo was just a draft and parts of it were not included in the martin memo. my question is looking at the extensive nature of the list of factors to consider in your experience as a prosecutor have you ever seen, or are you aware of other memos like this in the context of other crimes? for example, in the context of federal crimes of the department of justice or any other crime

are you familiar with the memo this extensive that lay out with this specific cities what prosecutorial discretion is because i've never seen such detail and i would be interested to hear your view on that. the department of justice has the u.s. attorney manuel which is to guide the exercise yard the prosecutorial discretion and it's pretty thick. so there's a lot of their come and also, representative, there is a november come i think -- i have to go back and check the date, i want to say 19 -- it is a memo that lays out the exercise of the prosecutorial discretion and immigration cases and specifies what a significant federal interest is in that connection. that memo has been cited by the subsequent directors of the on ns or i.c.e. as recently as

julie miners and the previous administration. >> sure. i would say a couple things. the u.s. attorney manuel certainly leaves of brusquely for individual prosecutors the guidance for domestic prosecute cases. this i have never seen and i would like -- if you can point to other guidance with this specificity i would like to see it particularly when these factors consider things like whether the person subject to prosecution's spouse suffers from an illness that seems extraordinary when you are deciding whether to prosecute someone for a criminal act. >> if i might explain. >> yes. >> here's what can happen in the immigration context. you have a u.s. citizen spouse

who is very ill and requires home care, and the issue is do you deport someone who has been taking care of that u.s. citizen spouse and then put that spells an to the much more expensive health care and allow the spouse to stay in the country. those are the kind of scenarios that need to be adjudicated or looked at on a case by case basis. >> if you take this list, you can come up with a number of different individual circumstances. certainly most prosecutors know in my experience the difference between prosecuting a petty thief and a terrorist without the specific city here. i can make the case that certain aspects of the dream act are implemented in here not verbatim, but when you read all of the policy documents that

relate to this stuff it's not difficult to see if this in my opinion and a lot of people in the second congressional district of arkansas in our opinion this looks more like a policy document, and let me say a couple things. i'm running out of time here. if you look over at the i.c.e. union issued a press release in response to this these are union members. they said, quote, unable to pass the immigration agenda through the legislation, the administration is now implementing it through agency policy event bypassing congress. now this is a union agreeing with the which doesn't happen now lot. but all in this particular instance i would welcome your comments. >> i would say we are not by passing the congress as much as we would like the congress to address these issues come and in fact would invite that kind of

engagement. what we are is suggesting or giving guidance to the field. by the way i met yesterday in chicago with all the area directors for i.c.e. in this area and we went through and talked about the operations that are going on and how they are going to impact public safety and how they want to guide the resources. this is a group that is fully engaged. they get it. >> let me mention a couple things. it seems to me that a lot of what we see in terms of state legislation and arizona and alabama and florida and virginia and other states that is the path to address immigration issues. it seems to me that that is simply the state's reaction to what they see as the federal government's failure to do its job on the order, not just in this administration, in administration after administration, including the

one that i served in in the last one. it seems to me if the federal government was truly secure in the border you would not have to deal with a lot of the state laws barp circulating up to address what folks back at the state see as the federal government failure to do its job and again, it goes across the administration. but i have one quick unrelated question -- >> i would like the ability to respond to that. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we will let the secretary respond to the question read >> i would suggest first of all that much of the information about the border that is distributed is not in fact accurate and one of the things i'm trying to do is get the accurate information to the congress and invite anyone from the congress to come to the border but secondly, in my judgment i think a number of the states are acting because the

congress has failed to act. >> thank you. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you very much for sharing your time with the judiciary committee this morning. recognizing the challenges of multi jurisdiction for homeland security. i wanted to compliment you on one aspect of your resume and that is yours graduate of the university law school. one of the best law schools in the country to become a nation. i happened to pass through very couple years and so i wanted to make no of our fellow or common law school and i hope it serves you well as it did for me. let me raise questions and repeat what i heard you say in your opening statement that 90% of the deportations are priority

deportations as islanders to the customer. >> for fiscal year 11. >> 55% were criminal alien; is that about the right number? ander looks as if you said that two-thirds were recent border crossers or repeat violators is that accurate? >> two-thirds of the remaining 45% fell within the categories. >> so i think if we look -- the reason i want to clarify this because many of us that have been advocating for a comprehensive approach to immigration right to defense to the recitation by the administration that they have done more than bush, clinton, it's a recommended deportation. we might take offense because we believe that it might have an impact on the people we believe could readily be, if you will, legalized or given some status through the comprehensive approach. but when you look at the numbers and clarify them many of us would not have a disagreement

that this is the appropriate approach to take so i just want to make sure the numbers i want to recite them into the record and i would ask the question is the administration stepping away from its commitment to comprehensive immigration reform? >> not at all. the president wants it. i would like to stand ready to work with congress on a moment's notice. >> before i go into my questions about the comprehensive immigration reform let me pose a question on the detention facility which you have overlapping jurisdiction. i have worked through my years on this committee and the judiciary on trying to improve the committees, those facilities particularly as it relates to women and children. we've made progress in the past legislation where there are facilities that address the question, women and children waiting for deportation putting families together. it's come to our attention that we have had incidents at the detention facilities impacting. i read an article already, on

the assaults by officers in those facilities. are you aware of that and if not, what kind of procedures are in place to protect those incarcerated who are noncriminal who are waiting for action through the court or waiting for action in deportation? the input families and children in particular women. >> as i explained earlier, we have a zero tolerance policy for any misconduct of that nature. there is a grievance process. there is a process by which we will immediately deal with officials or officers who've committed that kind of conduct. we are constantly auditing or reviewing particularly the facilities that we contract with. we've reduced the number of contractors but to improve the conditions of detention. >> could i ask whether or not you are ensuring sufficient

attentiveness and staffing to insure the highest level of protection of those noncriminal -- of r. dee should be protected the dimond criminal families and children who are waiting on a civilian or noncriminal processing. >> i think we are. >> let me proceed with and i would ask if i can follow-up after the fact even with your office directly or on a specific question in the region in texas but i want to go to the amendment that seems to have caused so much attention and part of it is delineates and let me say that i claim a good relationship with unions from all over the sectors including the union that my colleague just mentioned but we can have differences of opinion, and i appreciate the prosecutorial discretion that's used all the time. one aspect of his delineation and i think it should be noted

the memo includes factors the land of time a person is in the united states and circumstances of a rifle military services by a person, the strength of the tie is a contribution to the community and strengthen ties to the home county commissions and whether the person has a u.s. citizen lawful parent child or spouse do you think that is unreasonable? you've been an attorney general for the state and have prosecuted. do you think that is an unreasonable if you will framework that ties the hands of prosecutors making inappropriate decisions on behalf of the people in the united states? >> that is an important factor to consider given that the congress gives the resources only to remove about 400,000 a year. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> mr. chairman. >> i have one last question. the gentleman went on and on on the red light and you allowed -- >> most members have been granted an additional 30 or 45

seconds. you have reached but like all the others but we would be happy for you to ask one more. >> thank you so much mr. chairman. there have been a number of legislative initiatives introduced by members of congress upwards of 175, 200 on the comprehensive immigration reform. i want to defend the congress in the sense that there is a body politic of those of us in the house and in the senate the desire comprehensive immigration reform. i would like to just point to one save america comprehensive bill that was the ortiz bill but in particular come access the legalization where you have a process for those who have been here to access the legalization. is that still a readily acceptable approach to look at that would answer some of the concerns of our colleagues? these are individuals that are working, paying taxes will that be an aspect what we would look at if we ever got in the comprehensive immigration reform? >> yes. but with a clarification, i

think because the terms get confused, access to legalization forces access to citizenship, that's something i think what -- >> two distinct points. so the legalization is giving them status while they pay fines and look at how they would process the citizenship. is that my understanding? >> that is, yes, that is a common sense word of the -- >> the time is expired. the gentle man from south carolina is recognized. >> now consider you for a state and federal prosecutor. did you ever approve or sanction investigations that allow the gun walking? >> no, not to my knowledge. spec what would you not allow gun walking? >> i don't think those matters or those kinds of investigations were presented to meet the estimate had they been presented

to you there's a reason you don't allow contraband cash and guns to walk. as a former federal and state prosecutor, can you give us those reasons? >> well, i don't like to speculate. >> i'm not asking you to speculate to this but every prosecutor make different decisions and i don't believe i was ever presented with that decision. >> see you can't give any reason not to let contraband walk outside of the custody and dominion of the law enforcement officer? >> well, i think and, in context in the drug cases or firearms cases or whatever when you are trying to work the case up from below level to the higher levels and put somebody more serious criminal law of the streets, oftentimes you let contraband get into the hands of others. >> and you immediately interdict and arrest them. i've done it for 16 years, madam

secretary. you never let drugs, cash or guns walk. you immediately interdict them. when did you learn of the fast and furious for the first time? >> i learned of it after the death of agent terrie. >> when did you learn that the gun walking was part of fast and furious? >> why was a sometime between his death and the early spring. >> to your knowledge has anyone ever communicated or did anyone communicate with mexican authorities that guns were being allowed to cross our border into mexico and contravention of their gun law? >> i can only speak for the communications the know of, and i know of no such communications. >> when your the united states attorney in arizona did you make your team use of proper rule 35's? >> sure. >> so there is no prohibition the district of arizona from using the same investigatory and prosecutorial tools to be jews

and every letter district? >> not that i know of. spec there's no reason that this, quote, drug-trafficking case can be handled like it is handled all the other states? >> i'm not commenting to this one. i'm not second-guessing fast and furious. it's under investigation now. >> everyone else second guest. the attorney general said there were problems. so i'm not asking you to say anything they haven't already said. do you agree there were problems with fast and furious? >> i thought you were asking me much more specific question. but what i would say is obviously there were problems with fast and furious. >> what were those problems? >> obviously you don't want to let guns with the kind of firepower that we now know were involved to get out of your country. it's been a gas-fired power the only reason you don't allow the guns what? >> there's a number of them if you to cross-examine the -- >> i'm not cross-examining. i am asking you about fast and furious we >> what i explaining to you is that the case itself and the

matter in which it was handled is under the jurisdiction of the inspector general. but obviously from the what we know perspective there were problems. absolutely. >> you were the united states attorney in the district of arizona did you ever have the title of the cases? >> yes. >> and those were approved by whom? >> the court. >> and ultimately before they got to the court they had to be approved by the the part of justice, correct? >> yes. >> for the department of justice to contend the title iii case that they didn't know about fast and furious would be disingenuous at best; correct? >> i just am not going to comment to that. i don't know the specifics. it wasn't within the department of homeland security. >> i am asking is a former prosecutor who did the cases the department of justice has to approve the supplications, correct? >> that is the procedure, yes. >> in those applications is a narrative or summary of the case. >> that is correct.

some one of the department of justice had to know about fast and furious 43 to ever have been approved, connect? >> i can't comment. i don't know that there ever was a t3 approved. sprigg if there were a t3 approved and fast and furious, and there were, the departments of justice would have had to have known about it; correct? >> i'm going to leave that for your own investigation, sir. i'm not going to go comment beyond what i know, and what i know is that after the death of agent terrie, the fast and furious legal became apparent and we became knowledgeable about it. obviously there were problems with the operation. obviously it did not succeed and the inspector general has that under investigation right now. from a law enforcement perspective, from a law enforcement perspective, yes, fast and furious is very troublesome. >> mr. chairman, if i could have just an additional 30 seconds,

which may be the cost on this morning -- >> without objection. >> madam secretary, my point on fast and furious is that there were not just problems. it was called from the inception. in the investigation, the gun walking across the border is small in its inception. so what i take offense that is when the attorney general and others on the other side of the aisle say that only when problems became apparent this investigation was a problem from the very beginning. i will ask one final question because you've mentioned twice this was a atf investigation. it was in fact a ocidef investigation which means what as a former u.s. attorney? >> welcome it means -- now you are into something i don't know anything about to be i don't know if a ocidef handled by an ausa i really don't know that. >> if it were then there would be more than one federal law enforcement agency involved,

correct? >> i just can't comment to that. i just don't know the answer to that. >> fair enough. >> the gentleman's times expired. .. >> that witness has no control and just has to respond to the questions, sometimes the insinuations, sometimes which can border, which can be political in tone, and totally

inappropriate, but you have endured through this process. in fact, part of your job, and i know it's not probably one of the most pleasant aspects of the job, but you have acquitted yourself well before this committee, and i appreciate your service to the nation, and i'm not going to blame every problem that exists as far as immigration or federal law., i'm not going to blame that on you or make you appear to be responsible for that nor will i infer that the obama administration is immune to the normal prospects that prop up in the courts of the federal government's dealing.

i mean, there's going to be mistakes made and bad choices made, and some good things too. those things should be pointed out, but i will say that you in 1999, the department of homeland security itself was not created until three years later, but back in 1999, we saw members of congress express frustration with the ins, about the issue of prosecute discretion, and when we heard today when chairman talked on that topic, he specifically urged the ins to use "unjustifiable hardship".

the following year, according to anthony louis' op-ed in the "new york times," chairman smith complained that the ins was spending time on cases that cry out that, "on cases that cry out for compassion." instead of focusing research on "hardened criminals or hardened criminal aliens." i'd like to enter both the letter and op-ed into the record. is that permissible? >> it will be made part of the record, but i want to say the gentleman from georgia might want to put the context of the letters in context. they were referring to legal immigrants or legal and also was referring to not making general

categories of individuals, but going through on a case-by-case basis. i don't 79 -- to have a misimpression. >> and no intent to do that, mr. chairman, and the letter and the article will speak for themself, and you have made -- you have doily noted your position for the record, and i look at the immigration laws that we're creating unfairness and unjustice in 1999, and they look like the same -- they look like the same laws that we're dealing with today, small wonder that the need for prosecution discretion has not diminished during that period. you have spoken about the need for discretion in order to meet smart law enforcement

priorities, but what about the cases that "cry out for compassion" to use chairman smith's words? >> well, thank you, and thank you for your opening comments, and i would simply say that nothing in the memo suggests a categorical amnesty for any group. what it suggests is that there be a case-by-case evaluation of the individual circumstances and there are very clear cases that require immediate deportation, very clear cases where we know the nation's public safety evolved, there's repeat violaters, we have fugitives, but there are other cases that are different in context and kind and part of having a reasonable immigration system is the act to look at those. >> thank you, and i'll yield the

balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman johnson. we'll now go to the genten woman from florida, ms. adams. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. secretary. i'm listening with great interest as being in law enforcement for four year, and i'm interested in what you said about alabama and that you were part of that, and you said over and over again this morning you don't have the funds so you have to prioritize, so why not accept state's help to be a force multiplier for your agency? >> well, we do, and let me tell you the most important way that states help us right now and localities is through secure communities. that is ab important tool as we've been able to expand it to help us identify criminal aliens in the nation's jails and

prisons. >> i listened as many of my colleagues asked questions, and the one in particular had said something, and i was watching your reaction, and i was surprised that you said, if, in fact, that's the problem, then we need to look into it, and, you know, had something been compromised, and if someone's dropping the story, that concerns me that you didn't step up and say we'll put gnarl security over any type of politics, and i will look into it. will you commit to look into what was brought up earlier? yes or no? >> well, i apologize. i don't remember specifically what he brought up, but, yes, if there's national security issues or important policy issues -- >> we need national security above politics at all time. >> of course, of course. someone else said -- >> can you yield for just a moment. >> i will in a minute. i want to get through my questions.

you talked about limbo indefinitely, but, in fact, isn't it true that if there's deportation status and their home country does not accept them, you release them back into the communities? >> well -- >> based on ruling 1234 >> there's a supreme court case which is a due process case which if the home country cannot accept or will not accept gives us a six month detention period. >> and, in fact, some of the people have come back into communities commits heinous crimes like one who killed a young woman, i believe after china refused to repatriotize him, and they have still not located her heart and lungs, and so i mean, another one killed a police officer in fort myers after being released into the community because the home country would not take them.

in section 243d of the nationality act requires the government to sanction countries that refuse to issue visas or both to nationals of the country until it takes the aliens back. you, now, dhs, is supposed to order or give the country that refuses to take back to the secretary of state shall order that visas to its citizens be suspended. how many have you recommended under section 243d? >> oh, we have not -- what we have done is work with their countries that refuse to accept their aliens back -- >> so you tell me you have not done any? >> not that i'm aware of. >> and so we could possibly have -- >> if we're talking about the same thing.

i'm having -- >> well, it says that these are people who were pending removal, but their home countries are not taking them, you have the ability to recommend that they, you know, upon notification by the attorney general now given by dhs that a country refuses to take back aliens, the secretary of state shall order further visas to the citizens to be sus -- suspended. how many times has that happened? >> i have to look into that. >> it seems to me, madam secretary, you said you had not, and now you're looking into it, i listened to that all morning long, and i'm amazed with your answers knowing you're coming before this committee, you have death of agents in fast and furious, iran coming across the border because they see what you do not, that we have an open border, and we have death of our citizens and law enforcement officers based on people being -- not because their own

home countries will not take them, but because they are relaced into our country after committing crimes, and you're telling me you don't know now -- first you said you hadn't done it, and now you don't know if you recommended there be a diplomacy push forward on the countries because now -- >> well -- >> let me finish. >> i want to be clear. in this comes, i'm trying to provide accurate information as i can -- >> correct. >> what i'm suggesting to you have we have been working through the state department with the countries that refuse to accept illegal aliens back, but i don't know for other reasons -- >> tell me this -- have they not dealt with this dually enacted statute? >> again, that's a got-you

question. we're working with the state department with some of the countries that routinely refuse -- >> that's not a got-you. these are statutes. what i've heard from my members 1 they asked you several times have you been complying with statutes or is there a statute that you can rely on for not complying to statute. so, i will ask respectfully if you will get me that number -- how many times since you do not have the number now. you said first no, now you don't know, i'm more than happy to put it in writing so there's no misinformation or misunderstanding. i yield back. >> the time expired. the gentleman from puerto rico recognized for your question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, i want to applaud you for crafting a common sense policy of exercising this discretion over when immigration cases to prosecute, but i would now like to address the department's drug

intradiction work in the region, particularly puerto rico. many experts, include k the u.s. attorney in miami recognized as the federal government curtails the flow of drugs across the southwest border, drug trafficking organizations are turning to the caribbean as an alternate means to get their product to users in the u.s.. according to estimates to my office, approximately 80% of the south american cocaine arriving in port puerto rico is subsequently transimportanted in the u.s. mainland and 20% of cocaine that remains in puerto rico for consumption is primary cause for unacceptably high number of murders. you share my view from the federal government's per peck spiff, the death of an american citizen in puerto rico is of no less consequence be it florida,

new york, or any other state. i have made several high profile drug arrests over the past year. there's component agencies not devoting sufficient resources to address the surge in drug trafficking in puerto rico. i thus have a couple questions for you. first, how has dhs responded to the balloon effect that i just describes whereby drug traffickers are shifting part of their operations from the southwest border to the caribbean? have you increased the person tell and -- personnel and assets you deploy in the caribbean? i'm a former port puerto rico, and i know this is a moving target. you have to make sure the resources are well placed, but you can want just leave one -- cannot just leave one area unprotected because they just go there. the second question, and i want

to know whether you gave additional attention on puerto rico, but the second question i have is the following, and it's related. most of the drugs entering puerto rico come from the dominican republic these day, but there's been a surge as well entering the island from the east coast, particularly from the smaller caribbean islands, and i understand that it takes the coast guard over an hour to respond to a suspected incoming drug shipment in the eastern part of the island and presses in the area is minimal. again, what is the department doing in terms of cbs resources, coast guard resources. first question is in general, are you looking at the additional resources that you should in terms of protecting our border? this is the southern most border. secondly, eastern caribbean, what's happening over there because i am concerned.

>> first, i think it is -- don't want to make too big a point of this that the fact that drug trafficking moved into the areas you suggest, i think it's evidence of the fact that the southwest border has been fortified to a large degree. and we have assets deployed there, but do we need to change the number and the kinds of vessels we have, we have the best team now in puerto rico, we will evaluate and continue to evaluate whether we have the right number of agents associated with that. we are working with the unit down there among other things, but the answer to the question is, yes, i'm aware of it. yes, i share your concern. yes, we are looking at our deployments there. >> okay. i have met with attorney general holder to go over the details of

this situation in the past, and i would really appreciate it if you give me the time to sit down with you and get to the specifics at some point in the near future. >> we'll make sure you get briefed. >> thanks. >> the gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> thank you issue mr. -- thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, madam secretary. earlier you testified that congress' appropriated about 400,000 deportations. is that based on the $23,000 number you based the cost after arrests, removal, and deportation? >> i'd have to check. >> so -- >> it's a commonly used number. it's been the same for several year, and it is the number referred to in the appropriations bill. >> so the appropriations bill has 400,000 -- >> in some of the supporting materials -- >> because usually it's the actual dollar amount. >> right. it's the materials provided to the committee. >> o.k. because i'm trying,

earlier it was talked about the discrepancy between the ice number and the number you have used in testimony where you are saying it's $23,000-$30,000 per actual person deported, and basically said it's 12,500, and i appreciate you're getting the information, but you said off the top of your ahead that might be the ice one doesn't include the amount into trials; right? >> it may not include the justice department factors in there, and i just have to look into that. >> what i say to make it clear or make a clear understanding is that last week with when you testified by the senate you stated the number was 23,000 to 30,000, and that was for what dhs has and that excluded the department of justice. is the 23,000 to 30,000 with the department or justice or not?

>> i'll get back to you. i want to be clear on that because you all want to make some points with those numbers. you need the accurate numbers. >> yeah. we want to figure out where the cost break down is and i would also, if you could, kind of -- if that number came from internal computations with the break down in the costs, and is that actually from internal computations or external sources? >> i'll find out from you. it could be a number of sources, internal, omb, appropriations committee -- a lot of people have input of what's appropriated there. >> that number jumped out at me when it was stated, and we called over and they said that number came from the center of american progress, a liberal think tank pushing the high costs of deportations, and i hope that dhs is more reliant on their actual internal numbers

rather than relying on an external think tank. if you could get clarifiation on that as well. >> well, i think your point, and it's important for this committee in particular the judiciary committee. the system crosses federal agencies, and indeed, it crosses branches of government, and one of the things because we've never addressed comprehensively immigration in the congress what gets lost in there is what the total cost of the system is gets divided between different appropriation subcommittees, gets divided, you know, some here what doj gets, what we get, ect., one of the things i think that's beneficial is to look at the system as a whole. >> well, i appreciate that, but i think the other thing we're looking at is that as the administration officials and you as well said you don't have the resources to be able to actively pursue deportation just because the money's not there. you said that there's only 400,000 people you can --

>> i understand the point. >> i'm just saying the break down of costs ensures we are doing this in an efficient mannerment i think that that's extraordinary important, especially in these tough budgetary times. >> indeed. >> and switching topics, and this has nothing to do with any specific state law, but as we look at federal government and federal budget restraints and the problems that the federal government is having to live within its means, and we don't have the resources as some have said to actually enforce our immigration laws, they are making it more difficult, if statesment to actually act as force multipliers, shouldn't we be looking to them and embrace that to enforce the immigration laws? >> well, i think it's important to recognize that what's involved with the country.

that's a federal responsibility. >> absolutely. >> the way we do it now is through secure community, and as you heard in earlier conversation from some of the members, we've been criticized by some communities that don't want to participate in secure communities, but i believe it's an essential tool moving forward to help us direct prosecution resources. >> okay, great, thank you, madam secretary, i yield back. >> the gentleman from -- [inaudible] mr. deutch. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for the fruitful exchange. i'm familiar with the tier status of urban security initiatives for purposes of receiving funding. i'm concerned with the application of the department's formula to the miami part of florida. it em compasses monroe counties including the distribute i

remit. the miami has more than 5.6 residents living throughout the counties population with the highest level of density and diversity, more than 100 municipalities, four international airports, large convention cementers, major sporting events, and other critical water infrastructure, and it's home to agriculture, banking, health care, and major industries. the u.s. coast gaitered operations and station miami beach, the national access point center for the americas, turkey point nuclear power plant, and the narnl hurricane center are located in miami. it covers more than 300 miles of coastline, extensive coastline that's porous and a risk for drugs and arms trafficking and other threats, and they dock here and the port of miami. both of which are located in the

miami, and port everglades is the home port of more ships than any other ports in the world transports many in and out of the united states. in addition, it is a gait away to south america and central america for business tours and international trade of millions of people and commerce cross the borders in ports of the in fact, the port of miementsdz, madam secretary, imports and exports cargo annually to more than 100 countries and 250 ports around the world, and florida is the 12th leading con taper point in the nation for more than 150 ports in 70 different countries. the port is primary source and distribution center for refined petroleum products for all of south florida securing the energy requirements ranging from propane and diesel and jet fuel. despite being major centers of

tourism activity, the area inexplicably does not qualify for funding from the department of homeland security's current funding formula. because they do not qualify, it will have its funding for the upcoming year reduced cut almost in half reduced to almost $17 billion down to $9 billion. the formula is limited to border crossings, and this does not include the more than 300 miles of coastline, and several crew imports located within the area. several questions. shouldn't these air and water entry points the u.s. be considered as crossings by the department in its formula? it's my understanding that the secretary of homeland security has the discretion to expand the number of that are included in tier one funding. in fact, there has been

expansion recently. currently, 11 are eligible for tier one funding, and so for the reasons that i laid out, for the safety and security of the millions of americans who live and do business in and visit south florida, i urge you in the strongest possible terms that you expand the tier one funding to include miami, and i welcome any response now or following this committee meeting. >> well, two points. one is the reduction in tier one identification was in part a reaction to congress' reduction, and the question presented to us and to me

initial elements as you described, coastline, nuclear reactors, critical infrastructure, economic impact are all taken into account. as a result, when we made the decision to cut back and then to identify tier one and tier two, there was a clear stand point between the top ten and 11 was io identical, so top 10 and those below it. we can consider that decision. >> but the decision to expand tier one is a decision made by your office. >> that's correct.

>> and they have been expanded in the past -- >> when there was money. >> i understand, but i also understand the decision congress makes about funding, but it's the decision of the department of homeland security to keep the funding the same and slash dramatically the funding. >> i think the reason representative is because these evaluation of risk and consequence did not put miami into the tier one stay -- status. >> i urge you to reanalyze the risk and consequences involved in the decision. i yield back. thank you. >> the time expired. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, back in february, we were on the phone on another important issue, but it had to come to the premature end or come to an end because you had to attend a moral service. do you remember that

conversation? >> i don't remember the conversation, but i do remember the murder. >> i won't forget it because it was sort of just to the point in which fast and furious obviously was becoming a major issue both with senator grassley and with my committee next door. since that time, we've done a lot of work, and i want to run through questions that concerned me that fall within your lane. you repeatedly said this is an atf operation. out of concern for the investigative process and prosecutions ongoing, we've avoided interviewing lane france. do you know lane? >> i do not. >> do you know he works for you? he's an agent part of fast and furious? >> i know there was a field agent assigned to the task force, and this is what i learned in wake of your

investigation, assigned to a task force in the wake of the two ice matters that were resolved by the ausa to be within the context of atf. >> well, it's our judgment that he likely was very aware there was gun walking going on, had that information. the question is when you assign somebody like that, do you have a flow of information back to your department so that somebody in your department could have, should have, or would have known about the operation? >> representative, we have hundreds of operations, and thousands of agencies on a daily basis, so to my knowledge, the fact that an agent was assigned somewhere about some matter would not necessarily come to -- even to ice headquarters. >> i'll make an assumption here that it's a fire and forget. you gun the people over there

-- >> sorry? >> fire and forget, like the missile that you just send off and it looks for heat, and if it hits something, so be it, even if it's a friendly aircraft. >> i don't think -- >> let's go through this. you testified in december you were aware of a fast and furious. >> i said after the death of agent terry, yes. >> and the details you were aware of after the investigation began putting the details out. >> i became aware as i testified here after the committees of agent terry, and i knew some of the details and the name fast and furious, certainly no later than march. >> okay, you testified here today that you have not talked to holder about this. >> that is correct. >> he testified here that he knew about it a few weeks before the interview they had in may here before this committee, and 245 he basically heard about it in the newspaper, so you have

two dead agents that worked for you, one north of the border, one south of the border, and in the case of brine terry, he was gunned down and it's been months. you're telling me you were not doing it because of an ig investigation. let's go through a few questions here. >> well -- >> no, no -- >> wait just a minute. >> let me finish my question -- >> wait a second. >> madam secretary, let me finish my question. >> go ahead, but -- >> we can have the record read back. >> it's the insinuation, but go ahead and ask the question. >> you said you were not having further investigation except you became aware of this in december, the ig investigation began in february. for three months, you had a dead border patrol agent, and there was no ig investigation. what did you do between december and february to find out about fast and furious since a -- and

we have the documents. we can get you the unredacted documents from other parts of government, you -- people on the ground knew they were fast and furious weapons found at the scene within hours. it was not something that wasn't known. it was known at the time. homeland security employee is gunned down, two weapons found at the scene part of fast and furious, agents on the ground know it's fast and furious before brian terry was led to rest. three months go by, and today you told us about an ig investigation. the question is, first of all, do you have an ig, and are you going to have your ig look into what happens when you gunned agents, and they are aware of gun running or gun walking and do nothing? is that appropriate for you to have your ig investigate? yes or no, please. >> well, that -- i think that

question merits a lengthier response, and i'll give it to you -- >> i look guard to it in writing. when terry was gunned down, you knew, in fact, he was gunned down, people on the ground knew it, and three months went by. what did you do between december and feb to find out the details about his loss of life and aren't you outraged here today that if you were not informed that you were not informed that weapons allowed to walk into drug hands killed one of your agents and for three months kept it from you? >> i think your insinuation that -- >> ma'am, please answer the question. please don't talk in terms of insinuation. >> can i have the opportunity to answer? >> madam secretary, if you would try to answer the question, and then if you'd like to elaborate, the chair will give you the time. >> well, let me make a

suggestion if i might because the representative's combining 5 lot of things. if he gives me the questions, i'll be happy to respond in writing. >> the one question i want an answer to is you were aware terry had been gunned down. people on the ground at that time knew it was fast and furious weapons. that was december. between december and feb what did you do to conditions surrounding his death, one, and aren't you here today furious that the justice department, not atf, the justice department with held from you the knowledge of fast and furious this time including one in which you had an agent dead? >> you think we should all be outraged at the death, and i think the first thing is to recognize who actually killed him, and that our number one priority was to make sure the shooters were found. some had gone back into mexico,

and that the fbi was in charge of that investigation. several somedays is quickly as i could get to arizona after his death, i met with the fbi, their agents in clarnlg. i met with the asua going to conduct that investigation, and that was my number one concern, that those responsible for the shooting death of agent terry were brought to justice, and that's what i was being kept apprised of. i'd be happy to answer other questions in writing. >> we'll be glad to follow-up in writing. >> time expired. ms. sanchez? >> thank you. madam secretary, we appreciate your presence before the committee, and there's a broad range of question that people asked. >> i noticed that. >> you're asked to be an expert on each and every one of them and know information at the tip of your fingertips, which i know is not always possible. earlier, we appreciate the effort flunls.

you mentioned the secure communityings program, and it's principally that program i want to discuss with you. studies at the warren institute show 93% of those identified through secure communities were latino of 2010, and given the scope of secure comawnts -- communities, that number seems high to me and hard to explain by saying it's mathematical variance. many of my constituents for example look at that number and conclude the secure communities program may be inadd vert tonightly law enforcement officials to racial profile. i'm not suggesting this is conscious activity on behalf of law enforcement, but that number troubles me. i'm wondering if, perhaps you have a way to explain the 9 #%

figure -- 93% figure, and what steps dhs has taken or could possibly take to address concerns raised. >> and, again, we get into the number thing, and look at the period evaluated and the sample and all of that, but i think more fundamentally, what we have done is through our civil rights and civil liberties unit establish monitoring of the numbers as we now have enough communities 245 are in the program -- that are in the program, that you start to get a substantial number, to monitor those number and see if they are out of kilter with criminal prosecutions generally in an area, and if statistically there was significant variances that have the ability to go in and look at files of that nature to see what underlies the numbers, and this is a transparent process. we do not intend to keep the

numbers secret. they will be put or posted when they become available with appropriate explanation. >> okay, but can you understand the concern that folks might he hesitate to cooperate with local law enforcement if this perception, you know, backed by the initial figures lead people to suspect that certain communities are, in fact, being racially profiled? >> i can understand that concern. we want to understand how police departments conduct their relationship with the local community and how you use neighborhood policing in the right way with respect to secure communities, and there's best practices developed that are being shared, so i understand the concern, and what i'm suggesting is we need to continue to watch it, to watch

the numbers that do it in a statistically valid way to be able to make those numbers transparent, and then to work with and share best practices among all the jurisdictions now using the program. >> okay. following up on that, when u.s. citizens or legal residents are there, how long are they detained for? >> well, under the new form, they cannot be detained longer than 48 hours. >> and during that process, what information are they given? are they allowed to contact com or families during that process? >> there's a new detainer form that's available in spannish and other languages as well with all numbers to call with information. we can get you a copy. >> that'd be helpful of the the

concern is if citizens are arrested under this or taken into custody i should say under this program that they be able to communicate with family -- >> they are not arrested andrew secure communities. secure communities comes into play after arrest and a booking, and what secure communities is is a data sharing agreement between us and the fbi to check fink l printses not just against criminal data bases by it's not like there's a secure communities task force arrests people after the booking process. >> i understand. i misspoke, but my concern being there could be a legal permanent residence for citizens that are caught up in this, and not having the opportunity to contact family or counsel to -- >> the reason is if one of the things we run them through, and if there's an ident match and

shows they are lpr's or citizens, we stop there and nothing else happens. >> there's never an instance in which a citizen could be accidently deported because -- of a program -- >> we deal with so many, and what i'm suggested -- >> but it's happenedded in the past. >> there have been instances in the past, but under this program, once a match is made, and the match reveals this person is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident, that's it, it's done. we don't put any detaper on that individual. the local authority can hold them whatever criminal law they violated, but no detainer is put on them. >> the time expired #. mr. king? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll yield to the gentleman from texas. >> thank you.

and since you seemed fuzzy, let me make sure you leave here understanding, he was a featured speaker at the try butte to the -- tribute of the great islamic leaders this 2004. he had the counterextremism working group. you promoted him, and from your own website, secretary napolitano swears in members, you swore him in, and according to your testimony here today, that's where he got the security clearance. he has written glowingly of cut b on who bin laden relied heavier for his barberrism justification. he wrote against the trial and conviction of the holy holylands

of terrorism, and he's still remained this this homeland security advisory counsel, and now he has accessed a week ago the state and local intelligence community data base. he took documents that said for official use only and shot them out with national media. it appears not only as our security being compromise, a secure system, but he's using it to help his friend politically, the president. i'm got one question, and it's not a got-you question. there's nothing confusing about it. before you came in here today, were you given information about him using the state and local intelligence committee -- the community data base and taking

information he down loaded and shopping it to the media? >> no. >> if you or your staff advised anybody else you were briefed last night, they would be wrong; is that correct? >> yes. >> nawng. thank you, mr. chairman king. i yield back. >> thank you, i reclaim my time, and thank you for your time, madam secretary. just caught my attention when they responded to the gentleman from texas, and in discussion about prosecution discretion and referenced article two of the constitution. can you expand on that a lilgt -- a little bit? >> article two, section three says the executive branch shall take care to faithfully execute the laws of the united states,

and when you read the u.s. supreme court authorities interpreting that, and the league specific to immigration, that's put into analysis in how you exercise -- >> thank you. i expected that was the response, but i wanted to make the point that the constitution doesn't say so. you can't make references to those cases, and i'm not going to take issue with that, but says he takes care the laws are faithfully executed. in the president's oath, by extension, that oath applies to his officers that also take that oath. would that not be correct? >> that's true. >> okay. i wanted to clarify that. it's not so much an issue, but it's this that when we see the litigation coming forward against alabama, arizona, and it

looks like my state that wants to pass immigration laws, the executive branch litigates that through the courts. if they are successful, is holder is successful in scrubbing the laws from the states, that leaves the federal government with the exclusive authority to enforce immigration law, does it not? >> well, again, as i referenced several times when we have partnerships like secure communities, thatting helps focus -- >> let me restate the question. >> if the attorney general is successful on these laws rather than the secure communities component of this or the 287g component of this, there would be no latitude for states to pass immigration laws they enforce at their discretion. >> no latitude for states to pass law that change federal immigration policy. >> i don't think that -- i

disagree with that, but rather than dig into that and burn up the time, i'll make the point that it looks to me that the administration ask going down the path of shutting down all state legislation on immigration regardless of whether it goes beyond the mirroring of the federal law which is what arizona was designed to do, and that in the end it takes away the authority of the states to do that, to do immigration enforcement. i'll take you also to other data that judge poe addressed and that is 34.5% of foreign nationals occupying the jails in the border states. are you familiar with a gao study that is march 2011 criminal alien statistics and addresses -- okay. i have it in my hand. i'll reference it. in it, there's data data showing we have 25,000 arrests of criminal aliens for homicide. now, that covers some years, i will admit, but i'll put that up

against the losses that we have had on the southern border. 25,064 arrests for homicides generally means one grave, and those are americans that are killed at the hands of criminal aliens, and so when i heard your reference to the 34,000 and that's all you have to work with and you have to use discretion in order to utilize bids to the best of your ability, what i don't remember hearing, and i've been here nine years is the request from administration first to look at all the assets deployed on the southern border, not just your department obviously. i'll suggest that ranges in the area of dplr -- $12 billion across the border, about $6 million a mile, i have yet to hear anybody put the assets together and make the ask, how many prison beds, how many prosecutors, how many judges, how do you get 100%

enforcement to save some of the 25,000 lives? have you put together any kind ever prepare to rearrange assets to bring 100% enforcement rather than letting snug leers go because we don't have the prosecutors or having to do if it is something you are reluctant to do this amnesty. have you put that package together? >> well, i'm going to take this into two bites. one, under our policies, somebody who is accused of homicide would be detained and would be a priority case, and we would have created room on the master docketed to move the case through, and we get the case after the person served his sentence -- >> but they might be -- >> secondly, it's important for this committee to look at it the entire immigration system from where we get investigation to prosecution to incarceration and

then potentially and then to the removal and each one of those crosses different federal agencies, so we have a comprehensive southwest border strategy we use with ice and cbp, some degree cis. we moves resources down to the border, moves detention bids to the border and more resources at the southwest border than ever existed before, but that's not to say that the congress in its own organization doesn't have the ability to look at it overall. >> what is the sum total of the assets and what do you ask of the congress to get 1 00% enforcement? >> the time expired, but answer that question, and we'll move on. >> i -- i -- i think the best way to answer it is to say we believe with the asks we have made for particularly for cbp at the border and the movement of resources to the border, that from the dhs perspective, we

have been able to greatly improve and secure that border. >> time of the gentleman expire. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, welcome. the u.s. border patrol agents that are employees of the department of homeland security and under your jurisdiction have tough, tough jobs. they are out there in the middle of the night trying to track down illegal ail aliens and tracking weapons, and they are sometimes wounded and sometimes killed. i wondered if you could comment on a court decision that came down in the case of the prosecution of one of your agents, a jesus diaz jr.

sentenced to two years in prison that's described as inproperly lifting the arms of a handcuffed 15-year-old drug smuggling suspect who was -- that's a common technique used by law enforcement to force people to the ground to control them is to lift their arms to force them down on to the ground if they are struggling or attempting to escape and so on. this prosecution apparently took place at the be of the mexican government and conducted by the same u.s. attorney's office that prosecuted two agents, not under your watch, but under the previous administration for having shot at another drug smuggler. they were subsequently granted a pardon or had sentences commuted

by president bush. you may loll the two agents. are you familiar with this case involving jesus diaz? >> i'm not familiar with that decision. i can, agree, however with your beginning statements that the border patrol agents have difficult jobs under difficult circumstances, and they do, it's a 24/7 job. >> this case has been pending for a few years now, and that seems like a serious sanction, two years in prison, both your inspector generals' office and the office of professional responsibility at ice cleared this agent of any wrong discoing, but nonetheless, he was subsequently prosecuted. the law enforcement officers add advocate's counsel and organization that looks out for the interest of people doing these dangerous jobs says that this was a totally improper

prosecution of this individual, and you're not at all familiar with this? >> i'm not. >> would you look into this and report back to the committee and let us know your thoughts about this prosecution of one of your agents? >> i'd be happy to review the decision. >> i'd appreciate that. let me ask you this, if you're not familiar with this, how often do you meet with attorney general holder? >> oh, it varies. not that often really in the context of things. >> do you think it would be helpful in lite of the fast and furious debacle and in light of prosecutions like this one that that department of the government ought to be informing your department on a more regular basis of what they are undertaking so you can be better informed and be outspoken in representing the interest of your agents and the responsibilities of your

department? >> well, sir, i think i'm outspoken in the interest of my agents, and i think there's lots -- >> if you're not informed and don't know about fast and furious and you're not informed, how can you be effective? >> you know, what is the question? >> the question is shouldn't you have closer communication with the other principle law enforcement agency of the federal government so that you can know what's going on when your agents are being endangered by they allowing weapons to walk, they are prosecuted by their u.s. attorney -- if pressure was on our government by the mexican government to do this prosecution of one of your agents, don't you think you or somebody in your department should have been informed by that either by the secretary of state or the attorney general or somebody involved in this kind of cross border politics where

drug smugglers here for the second or third time, i'm aware of a prosecution of a deputy in texas as well for attempting to stop drug smugglers, and yet the people getting prosecuted are not the smugglers in these cases, but the people trying to enforce the law. >> well, as i said earlier, i think my number one interest when we had a dead agent, agent terry, was to get the shooters, get those who killed him. some of whom had fled into mexico. >> i think that's a lot laudable goal, madam secretary, but it's too late. the fact of the matter is there needs to be better communication so somebody can say, woah, this is a crazy idea, giving guns to drug smugglers that come back to be used by other agents? >> representative, it will be, and i think this committee has

to avoid a rush to judgment here, but it seems to me that there will be less pes learned -- lessens learned from this, and there very well may be changes in the field as a result of this. the question you asked me, however, was how much i met with attorney general holder, and i was saying in the context of things given his schedule, my schedule, the myriad responsibilities we each have, not that frequently. >> i hope that you will make an effort -- if i might have the leeway to ask one more question -- >> without objection. >> you indicated you'll investigate the matter with regard to jesus diaz jr., one of your agents now facing two years in prison, if the prosecution in this case, if the conviction is not overturned on appeal, will you recommend to president obama that he parredden agent diaz -- pardon agent diaz as your

inspector general found and the office of professional responsibility found that there was no wrong doing on his part, if you find that to be, indeed the case, will you recommend to the president he protect your agent? >> you know, i don't play what ifs. i'll review the case and get back to you. >> thank you. >> the time expired, and for the record you made the commitment you'd review this officer's prosecution, and i would -- >> i said i would review the decision. >> the decision, you would review the decision. further would you make a commitment to this committee that you would respond in writing to mr. goodlatte and also to the committee your assessment of the review? >> we will get back to the committee, yes, sir. ..

so i do have total respect for those individuals. you raised an issue concerning the case which i think -- within what is it 60 days -- >> six months. >> they would be released if nothing is done. does that just pertain from the country or if they have committed a crime?

>> i think it is a process removal case. >> so if there is a crime committed by an individual who is here illegally -- >> they still serve their sentence. >> do you see a problem with that time period whereby you may not in conjunction with the u.s. attorney's office have the time to get the prosecution completed >> i have to be guided by the supreme court when it says you have to move you have to move. you have to take the time line they said. >> you stated earlier congress needed to act more so when it comes to immigration. can you explain to me what should congress be doing pursuant to enforcement? >> one of the areas where i think congress should look at enforcement is in terms of

employers. right now it's important to get in a felony case against employers, the fines are too low to be as a deterrent, the employers are the magnet for much of the illegal immigration that goes on so that i think is an area that deserves examination. >> i prosecuted one of those cases as a u.s. attorney and we did send hundreds of illegals back but want to ask the employers i would like to see more of that because a i ask a question and if you would care to share it with me do you support total amnesty? >> no. >> you stated earlier -- and i don't play gotcha so i'm just paraphrasing -- we ask prosecutors have slight differences in variations on our discussion on why we prosecute a case and why we do not prosecute other cases. do you agree with me that there's just not a strict line to fall on?

>> that's accurate. >> i want to go back to the factors for considering a prosecutorial discretion, and give me your input, give me your feeling on something like this when there's a list of them and i haven't seen a list like this in the prosecutor% to other crimes at least federal and i taught the manuals on my desk and memorize them by any stretch of the imagination gone through them do you have any problems i'm just going to rattle off three or four and you heard one of these, when a person as a u.s. citizen or private residence from a child with the person is the primary caretaker with mental or physical disability minor or seriously ill relative whether the person or the person's spouse is pregnant or nursing and finally whether the person or the person's spouse suffers from severe mental or physical illness i am not familiar with

any other federal crime code that applies such strict parameters before enforcing the law. >> here's what we are doing and i think what the director morton is doing is saying look we want to prioritize those who are criminals, those two are fugitives, those who are repeat violators, those capturing a board to the kuhl border, those who raise the national security interest and so in terms of planning our operations and where we want to put our manpower and the like, those are the things that affect the public safety in our community. and by deploying secure communities among other things we are seeing the composition of the numbers deported change and the competition is changing to reflect we are reporting more criminals than ever before. now with respect to others who

don't fit in those priorities they are not given amnesty but they are are some factors to take into consideration and i think the memo is an effort to elucidate some of those factors. >> so you don't see this as a strict guideline? you are looking at this as a prosecutor because he or she is qualified to put in that responsible position they do have the discretion we speak with the lawyers who handle these matters and treat them like a usa who have discretion to the given number of factors just as they would in any of the kind of criminal case. >> as was stated by the commissioner who participated in this this is an invitation to violate or ignore the law. >> it is to enforce what the smart and effective way. >> i will get through these

quickly a trustee was a law enforcement colleague as i said before i believe we have something in common as being prosecuted going to keep politics out when it comes to enforcing immigration lawyers we have to keep the political arena very far from us particularly when it comes to immigration. >> one of the things the insinuation of politics has been made by others and i would remind the committee, and i have the testimony when i testified in the senate in the spring of 09 not long after i had become the secretary of homeland security, i said specifically we were going to focus on criminal aliens and we were going to prioritize within the immigration universe and there was no question at that time as to whether there was proper or not and that's really -- we've

done what i said we would do two years ago. >> do i have a couple minutes -- >> would you please make a . >> we have two more witnesses. >> i would never criticize you on a political aspect i know how tough a job is let's switch gears a moment and talk about fema for a second. we had quite a disaster in pennsylvania where i'm from, the tenth congressional district. many communities were destroyed and people lost their homes. one of the questions i raised on homeland security is do you feel that fema has two or is there some way that we in congress could give fema the authority to step into a state when fema feels is necessary even before a governor asks for that help? >> well, in reality that's what happens because one of the

things we've been successful but in terms of disaster management is when we see a disaster coming, hurricane flooding and a weather system like and i mean is to deploy resources and pre-declared disaster before the disaster hits. it allows us to put the maximum target. >> thank you. >> the time of the gentleman is expired. at this point i'm going to yield myself five minutes in the sequence that the chairman have listed a first of all apologize coming in a little late starting at the national security things or i would have been here and i want to associate myself with a couple of things to my good friend from pennsylvania diluted to. you have a tough job. we all recognize that, and there's some very tough issues we are all dealing with, and i

don't want to make your job more complicated, and i think when i finish here you will accept the fact that i have not done that. when i walked in, leggitt friend and colleague was talking about the number of precious dollars we have to do the jobs we have to deal with. as the chairman of the immigration subcommittee of this committee i've been working on immigration issues for 25 years, and it seems to me that there's some issues that still boggles my mind how we are dealing with them. one of them is the issue and there's not a simple the answer to it. it can be spun in many ways but at that time when we have the millions and millions of people unemployed, if the president of the united states would put out in order to put on hold

approximately 300,000 deportation, people in the actual deportation process and there's been millions and millions of dollars prosecuting -- >> that's not exactly what happened but go ahead. >> for the sake of brevity here i will let you have some time and set the record straight. however many there are we will set aside for a second. are you aware of the earned income tax credit program? these are where individual earn money but not quite enough money to pay any income tax and they are eligible for a tax refund even though they paid no taxes. are you also aware that last

year there were 2.3 million people illegal in this country this is for the obama treasury department's rickards, 2.3 million people the legal working in this country that received over $4 billion in tax refunds and this is what over illegal immigrants were receiving in tax refunds after paying no taxes over the past five years. >> i'm not going to ask you to respond to that. however, you may or may not know the answer to this and if you don't i would like to see if you could get me the answer. of the 300,000 or whatever the magic number is of people that are in the process of being deported, how many of those have received in in these tax

refunds, and also, of those that have received tax refunds, how many have any form of a criminal record? >> first of all i don't know the answer of the top of my head as you might anticipate, but the case by case review of the case is ongoing is designed to make sure that we are moving priority cases through the detained dhaka it to the removal from the country. those that have a criminal record are those that fit within the priority categories. what we are trying to do is -- crimber the docket is setting cases of 2014 and 2015. >> i know some of the cases that have been pending for five or six years with just one extension or continuance after another, some arbor turley and capriciously to my opinion with the hopes that one day amnesty

will solve all these problems and the cases will disappear. >> i think what we are trying to do is read prioritize the case in the systems of the most serious ones go first. >> this gets back to the issue of what constitutes criminal, and this prioritization is important. is three drug driving arrests considered criminal, is it robbery, is it an assault, is it a burglary? how does that -- may be you can give a written assessment of how these priorities work because some time when someone has been arrested at three drunk driving arrests and on the fourth time they kill somebody we have case after case after case where they are still living and they've been under the deportation process. >> i agree with you read those canned cases are the ones we want to put into detention had removed. >> i would be happy to describe to you level one, two, three how

that works. secure to send it to the kennedy in writing? >> i think we provide a briefing to the staff already but we will get you something. >> if you would for my benefit and the community's benefit send me an assessment. it might take a little time to get these together. of the number of people that have received income tax for of least four plus billion dollars in the last year, how many of those individuals have actually had a criminal record? to be a criminal record is being put in jail for drug driving. >> with my stuff for the treasury report submitted to look at it would be helpful. >> we would be happy to get that to the appropriate person on the staff. i appreciate the job your doing. don't always agree with everything you are doing the buying interest and it's complicated and i hope we can work together for the sake of the country. >> indeed.

>> madame secretary -- >> i'm sorry i didn't mean to slander you. >> madame secretary of want to continue if you don't mind with of the discussion of what some people call at the ministry of amnesty and i realize you cut the prosecutorial discretion and its rival called prosecutorial discretion. we talked about the fact you have the limited resources but the reality is that a prosecutor has limited resources so that doesn't justify bad policies to happen to be bad policies. i want to come back on some of the items in the memo and kind of elaborate on what he was talking about a little it. do you know of any situation where the violation of law, a prosecutor would be correct in a discriminating by prosecuting

more people who were uneducated or have less education than those who had more education? >> educational attainment in and of itself is as an isolated factor is not a prosecutorial issue in that sense. >> you talked about we should be prosecuting more employers perhaps i think. is that a fair representation? >> we are auditing more and finding more. that's correct. >> with the situation where a prosecutor would ever be justified discriminating against employers who have less education by prosecuting them more than by those that had more education? >> the things we look at our employers who are intentionally

and repeatedly violating -- >> that's not my question to the estimate it's an impossible question to answer. >> one of the criteria you have in your discretion is to that person's pursuing education and the united states. so effectively with those people who couldn't afford to pursue that education who might be undereducated or less educated you are having a discrimination against them. >> i would disagree and that's why -- >> it's important to look at factors altogether. you have one of your criteria person would therefore be a situation where someone who violated the law you'd think a prosecutor could prosecute more individuals who were on married or in same-sex marriages and therefore didn't have a spell store was pregnant is there every situation there would be

justified? >> i think that discussion memo speaks for itself and it lists the categories or things that can be taken into context by trained agents and trained attorneys looking at -- >> i'm simply asking is there any other law to which you would allow a prosecutor to say if you have a pregnant spells we are going to be less likely to prosecute you than if you don't have a pregnant spouse. >> i think in being a former u.s. attorney and attorney general with county attorneys and district attorneys there are always situations where he main situations are taken into account. >> madam secretary, are you telling me that if you have an employer that you want to go after that you think a prosecutor should be able to prosecute those individuals who were unmarried or perhaps do not have spouses are pregnant more

than those that have a pregnant pause? >> madame secretary with all due respect, these are the policies you have written were approved from your department and what you have said is a prosecutor can discriminate in favor of people that have more education when you're talking about whether you're going to prosecute them for being here illegally but there is no crime anywhere you would just say the prosecutor saying if we are going to prosecute people with less education more than we do with a large kitchen so it's a bad policy. there's no situation where you began unclear and say if you have a pregnant spells we are not going to prosecute you for violating the immigration law least less than we prosecute somebody who might not have a pregnant spouse and then when you look the situation on somebody that has a spouse that has an illness there is no situation you can suggest to me where in the agency in the country have said y'all to be able to have prosecutorial

discretion on the would be this violated the law in case they have a spouse with an illness. give the knicks in what you can of other situations where prosecutorial discretion is there. >> prosecutorial discretion as always there. there are always factors taken into account and if i may finish i think the way that you've deposited the question is determined to reach a particular result and i just cannot answer it the way you deposited it. >> in all due respect you just don't want to answer the question because they are the policies he wrote so when going to ask is the way this day chairman did. will you give me in writing a single situation where in the agency in this country has given to their prosecutors and situation where they said just the the use prosecutorial discretion and they use one of these criteria. either one, you should prosecute if somebody has an education or

feel you should prosecute them less if they are a spouse gets pregnant or you should prosecute them less if they have a spouse that is ill. you can't say that year. i understand. the reason they don't know is the song to the cut because it doesn't exist. if you would tell me in writing where it exists around the country and if it doesn't and you ought to look at your policies and maybe say your policies are not appropriate. >> time of the gentleman is expired. we have no further requests. it's been a long morning. you have -- think you for your testimony and [inaudible]

submit additional written questions -- >> thank you mr. chairman. [inaudible conversations]

that's been the idea. unfortunately the reali has been different. >> while almost a the other founding fathers are thinking of the colonies on the eastern seaboard, jefferson is already dreaming of his empire for

liberty that will go all were a baby to the mississippi, up the missouri and even to the harbors on the pacific coliseum diego, monterey and san francisco. >> i covered in the military up to that in the years you've before and after 9/11 and as a reporter i had seen things grow of our of me i wasn't sure of that is the didn't exist before, they have no titles for agencies i have never heard of and after ten years of working in that realm you sort of say what is going on. >> finally i decided to call it the ripple effect which was a chapter title because i realized that every time we use water, it sets off a ripple effect, a series of consequences most of us are aware of. >> watch eni fed from the coverage last weekend that the texas book festival of the

library. archive and searchable. watch what you want, when you want. >> former president pervez musharraf talks about his country is the u.s. and also discusses pakistan's neighbor, afghanistan. the former presidents took done to and some 80 and runs for the post in 2018. he spoke at the carnegie endowment for international peace. >> like to welcome you. i think it's worthwhile because the countries have been as important to each other as the u.s. and pakistan have been since dearly 1950's. yet as anyone who reads the paper watches the news knows the importance of the u.s.-pakistan relations doesn't make it satisfactory to either country nor does the importance been the

government's trust each other. in washington that feeling is that the relationship in the past was broken because pakistan% interest in activities that it knew where contrary to u.s. interests in the nuclear program in the 80's and that washington would have to go back. in pakistan it is increasingly to the united states is a fair weather friend and it has abandoned pakistan before and it will again. we see a similar tension here today in the relationship with this course between the two. the concern that of course they are contrary enough that they will be yet another separation. there's a number of elements of mutual frustration but again, the point of the mutual importance remains. therefore it's worthwhile to explore ways to assure purposes and understanding even if the mutual trust is too much to

expect for it now. there are few people better qualified to address these issues than the former president pervvijze musharraf. he served on the pakistani army for more than 40 years, rising to its highest position as the chief of staff. from that position he took power in pakistan in 1999 and became the president in 2001. he continued as president until 2008. he's a civilian today but remains keenly well positioned to address the future of the u.s.-pakistan relations. president musharraf has been squeeze on the front end of congress today. he has to go back to the help he said he would find ways here to make some remarks and then well take questions. with that let me ask you to

welcome general musharraf. [applause] >> [inaudible] of my apologies for being late. may i express my gratitude to georgia and the carnegie endowment for international peace for having invited me. i would like to get straight on to the subject and i will speak about the region and about pakistan and must cover obviously the united states relations which have achieved some kind of criticality of the

moment. .. which believed in containment of the soviet and created a pakistan because the soviet union was trying to get to the ocean through pakistan. there was a collusion of the u.s. and pakistan interest and

therefore fighting against the soviet union. we decided to launch a jihad. jihad is a holy war. and when i say we, the united ud states and also pakistan in the lead role decided to launch a jihad, a holy war, for the reason of attracting mujahideen holy warriors from all over the muslim world and may i say we succeeded in growing about 25,000 to 30,000 mujahideen from the whole -- from the muslim world extending from morocco to indonesia. not only that, we recruited trained, and armed taliban from the tribal agencies of pakistan and pump them into afghanistan. this continued for 10 long years ladies and gentlemen, this jihad, the holy war with the united states and pakistan assistance for the people of

afghanistan. there are two points that i want to highlight here which are very significant. number one, that the elites of afghanistan abandoned afghanistan during this period. they came to the united states and europe. and this war against -- the jihad against the soviet union was spearheaded by religious militant groups. this is the one point that we need to understand. the second is that when the soviet union occupied afghanistan, a year before that through their their own imaginations they deposed the king. afghanistan was held together through an arrangement called -- which translates into a national covenant, and national agreement between all the four major ethnic groups, the pashtuns, tajiks, hussars and uzbeks who live together, stay together under the sovereignty of the king.

but when the soviet union deposed the king, that glue which held afghanistan together was no more there. so that when we are talking of a political solution we are talking of creating another masako millie, national covenant which will hold contrary together which obviously implies their propositional representation of all the ethnic groups, the major ethnic groups from pashtun. i will talk more about it later. so this much was 79 -- 89 and then comes the period of 89 to 2001. this was a period of disaster because the united states somehow decided to change force and abandoned afghanistan without any rehabilitation, resettlement of the 25,000 refugees armed to the teeth and knowing only to fight. and this was unfortunate and

also maybe a shift of policy of pakistan being put under sanchez. we remember as far as pakistan is concerned that pressler amendment which denied all military assistance to pakistan also have policy towards a more tilted towards india, street teach -- strategic relationship developing with india. so this was a policy shift unfortunately and also may i say with this policy shift, abandonment of afghanistan and the mujahideen, 30,000 mujahideen in afghanistan. they are all products of the mujahideen. not only that, in 1996, the taliban emerged. now while from 89 to 96 in

afghanistan, about 10 ethnic groups, all were fighting among themselves. a ravage the country and destroy the country. total anarchy in afghanistan. but in 1996, it became taliban, who are all questions, versus northern alliance who was tajik, uzbek, hussars. this continued until my 11. the total ravaging of the country and destruction of the country. as far as pakistan is concerned another element started. freedom struggle in kashmir in indian held kashmir, started in 1989. its impact on pakistan was there were dozens of mujahideen groups have sprung up from our society inside pakistan. volunteers preparing, wanting to go to india part of kashmir to fight the indian army. so therefore an in an effect why have highlighted these elements

is that religious militancy was introduced by us from 79, continued in 289. then having abandoned the place by the united states, it continued in a different form, all bodies fighting each other, ethnic groups, taliban emerged. al qaeda becomes and the kashmir freedom struggle, mujahideen in pakistan. religious militancy from the east, from the west of pakistan, from east to pakistan. pakistan became a victim of religious militancy. so therefore my deduction ladies and gentlemen, pakistan is not the perpetrator of terrorism. until my teen 79 we were in perfect harmony. all that happened within pakistan is that we became a victim of circumstances in the region. then comes 9/11, ladies and gentlemen. now after 9/11 there was

obviously the terrorist attack here. it was most terrible and an obvious attack by the united states in afghanistan. might pakistan joining the coalition. now i was on the scene then. i took the decision of joining the coalition in pakistan's own interests, more than the u.s. interest. pakistan's own interest was and i realize, i knew that pakistan is a moderate country. pakistan wants to be a progressive, enlightened, moderate country. and talibanization and taliban culture of obscurantist understanding of islam is not for pakistan. therefore quite clearly we could not -- we would not have liked to be on the taliban side. in there darfur there for rejoined the coalition. now here i want to highlight a few blenders en route. the first blender i see was 1989 when the united states abandoned

afghanistan without rehabilitation and resettlement of the pashtuns, of the mujahideen. the second blender was in 1996 when the taliban emerged and pakistan was the only country which recognized the taliban. and at this moment, i remember back in 2000, march of 2000 when president clinton came to pakistan, he was persuading me not to deal with the taliban. i told him at that time that i would suggest a different strategy that we all recognize taliban and the world should open missions in afghanistan and let us then moderate them from within. certainly i'm not the with the idea of obscurantist ideas but confronting them or not recognizing them is better than to recognize them and moderate them from within. not doing that was the second blender. had we done that maybe we could

have saved the budha statue. if there were 100 missions threatening to quit afghanistan, if they did not agree to moderation. so that was the second blender. the third lender after 9/11 i would like to highlight that in 9/11 with the u.s. attack, coalition attack in afghanistan and with the northern alliance, the taliban and al qaeda were defeated. they ran helter-skelter to pakistan into the mountains and cities of pakistan. there was a vacuum in afghanistan, a political vacuum. here was a situation where the military had delivered. the military of the united states delivered victory to you. that this military victory had to be converted into a political victory. and political victory, meaning that the proportional ethnically

or portion all balance legitimate government to be placed in kabul. now this was the time when, from a position of strength, we could have done that. when we say ethnically balanced, proportional government, we had to have pashtun on board. it had to be pashtun dominated because the pashtun have always ruled afghanistan and 50% of afghanistan is pashtun. so while all the taliban were pashtun i coined the term that all pashtun are not taliban. so we must win away the pashtuns from the taliban and give them the dominant position in government in kabul. this was not done. to date it has not been done. today, dominant position of governance in afghanistan is by tajiks and a section of tajiks which are called panjshir ease

who are a person of afghanistan. now i personally feel that this persisted from 2002 until early 2004 for four long years. taliban, al qaeda were dismantled. they were disorganized. their command structure was totally broken. there in pakistan and we were acting against them successfully. all the people, al qaeda people, from number three downward, all of them were apprehended in pakistan. all the cc in guantánamo or anywhere are all actually by isi and pakistan, all i repeat. not one has been caught in afghanistan by anyone else. so this was done very successfully in pakistan but then while al qaeda went down, the taliban resurgence started in 2004.

it started because pashtun were not taken on board and this military success was not converted into a political success. their resurgence started in 2004 and their resurgence carried on even now unfortunately. so this was the third lender where we could have utilized this two-year window of opportunity and we failed. and now, in 2011 we are trying to talk to taliban now. now, the taliban is not a monolith by any means so when we talk to the taliban i don't really know which taliban is anyone talking to. mullah omar is the taliban. siraj haqqani is a taliban commander. gulbuddin hekmatyar is taliban. ttp of pakistan is taliban. which taliban are we talking to is not very clear.

so therefore we are in a complex situation now. what is the complex of the now? barisal qaeda in afghanistan. there is taliban resurgence in dominant positions in taliban now. in pakistan also there are some al qaeda, but mainly taliban. pakistani taliban who go across and fight in afghanistan and also harbor afghan taliban. the third issue as far as pakistan is concerned, they try to spread their talibanization into several districts of pakistan. the fourth issue is that there are mujahideen within pakistan. the groups which initially were oriented towards fighting indian army in kashmir but they have developed a nexus with the taliban. the fifth issue is that there is extremism within our society and in certain areas. they are rising because they

have been developing with the taliban. this is the complex situation in pakistan. each element whether it is al qaeda who are foreigners, the military actually is the only solution -- taliban of pakistan, military political socioeconomic requirement. expansion of taliban trying to spread obscurantist talibanization. forces the only requirement. mujahideen, orientation towards kashmir, now involved with taliban, resolution of kashmir dispute and also political action is the requirement. extremism in our society a long-term strategy of education, of enlightenment, of economic welfare is the issue, the property alleviation. this is the complexity of problems pakistan faces. but i would be remiss if i did not point out what is fair in

india. there there is mujahideen activity in kashmir but there is a rise in the extremism in muslim youth in india. and that is what indians should realize themselves. the last bombing attacks in bombay, the finding in india is that they had been by local mushers -- mujahideen so there are local mujahideen in india. what is the reason? whether the reason is an equal treatment of the muslims or their sense of alienation or whatever, it is for indian government to find out and rectify because there is a tendency to develop a nexus of all these people with extremists in pakistan and all that. as if this is not enough ladies and gentlemen there is an eti me's turkish van islamic movement in china. many of them have calm into our tribal agencies in afghanistan to join hands with al qaeda. this is not enough.

there is aqim, maghreb, algeria, mali, eight q. ap, al qaeda and arab peninsula is yemen and somalia. all trying to have underground nexus. now this is the complexity of the situation. i don't want to predicted doomsday scenario but certainly this is the complexity and we must understand the entire complexity of the situation. within this pakistan and united states relations are terrible. they are at the lowest ebb. it's the most unfortunate thing. i fear it is unfortunate because we have to have commonality of thought and action if we want to defeat terrorism and extremism. if you are going to combat terrorism and extremism. one thing that i want to highlight here with full conviction, one has to look at

the strategic plane in pakistan. what is pakistan's policy? what is pakistan's overall strategy and direction as far as terrorism and extremism is concerned or the taliban and al qaeda are concerned? but certainly it cannot be pro-taliban or pro-art qaeda. why can't it be? because pakistan's army has suffered over 3000 dead, because the same isi, the much-maligned isi, has suffered about three -- 350 operatives dead, killed through suicide bombings. by whom? by taliban, by al qaeda, the same enemy. and this much-maligned isi may i also point out, that this is the same isi which has saved many lives around the world, by

unearthing a lot of plots. the major one which isi honors was in 2005 when 10 airliners were on transatlantic flight were to be bond. and it was isi which unearthed it. and this issue of the containment of liquids on the airline that you cannot have three liters or more of liquid or something, because of that. they were going to blow them up with liquid explosives. who did this? isi did it. isi is much aligned today. they are the rogue elements. therefore is it possible that should teach equally they are pro-taliban, those who are killing us? 35,000 civilians have died.

this doesn't stand to logic. however i would like to clarify what the hell is happening. [laughter] we must understand there's a problem at the tactical, the modality, at the handling of the situation, the dealing with situations. there may be a misunderstanding. there may be a difference of opinion, but anyone who tries to convert this tactical mishandling and difference of opinion to reflect or to cast aspersions at isi and army at the top level by design are facilitating, abetting and encouraging, army-navy, the haqqani group to go across and kill united states soldiers and bombed u.s. embassies i think is diverse from reality ladies and gentlemen. i'm very sad may i say that

admiral mullen came here i believe and made certain remarks. admiral mullen's stature says that haqqani group is an extension of isi. he means that the dg-isi, therefore the army, is against the united states, is abetting with the haqqani group, is with the taliban. that means pakistan is the enemy. pakistan is not a friend. pakistan is not the coalition member. we have to be very discreet, very understanding, very accurate in this understanding. i think it is totally against the interest of the united states and pakistan and the region and also the world because it violates this.

what i say as the unity of thought and action against taliban, al qaeda and terrorists. now i would like to bring out why this has happened and what can we do to maybe fix this problem. from the united states point of view, would like to say clarify to elements which are casting very negative aspersions and leading to this trust and confidence deficit. number one, why was osama bin laden and abbottabad where he was killed. the issue there was complicity or negligence. i would be prepared to answer questions so with the problem of limitation of time, i would only like to say that the fall my honest conviction, it is a case

of terrible negligence which ought to be investigated and punished. but it is not a case of complicity. the second issue, but the onus of grouping this to the united states which is a very difficult thing to prove, because nobody believes. but we have to still prove it because i know it to be the truth that it is not a case of complicity. the second issue is siraj haqqani, a group which is in north waziristan. why is the army not acting there? now again, the onus of clarifying lies on pakistan. they must do it. and i would like to admit that they are not doing a good job of both of these. they must prove to the world and to the united states, is there a

problem? do they have a different strategy as as far as siraj haqqani is concerned? is there a problem that the army is overstretched? is there a problem that this enemy is too strong and we will hold that later? they have to clarify why. but i would be remiss if i did not point out that these are some areas where the united states should also understand pakistan sensitivity and also give comfort i would say to pakistan. number one is, the united states has decided to be been told 2014, leave afghanistan. if even i was a leader there, i would have come in an interactive. you analyze, give me an analysis, what do you see when you leave afghanistan? are you leaving a stable afghanistan or an unstable left aniston? because based on that i in

pakistan will have to take my own countermeasures. this is very important. if we leave afghanistan in an unstable condition or not a fully stable condition, and when i say fully stable, fully stable militarily and politically, then i presume there are two possibilities. this is my personal analysis. either afghanistan goes back to 18 -- 1989 when all ethnic groups were fighting it ends to each other or it goes on back to 1996 when it was taliban, pashtun taliban on one side and uzbek, tajiks hazara's and northern alliance on the other side. in both cases, pakistan has to fend for itself and there's a different strategy required to deal with each, because its

direct influence, impact, negative impact, adverse impact will be on pakistan. and a leader in pakistan must think of securing pakistan's interest. so i think it is for the united states to sit down with pakistan and discuss these issues very seriously. the second element, which needs clarification, and i know there are a lot of indians may be sitting here. [laughter] unfortunately, yes indeed, he's a good friend of mine. and may i say my bluntness doesn't mean that i am very unpopular in india. i'm recently popular in india. >> you were born in india. >> yes, i was. >> have indian blood, like me. >> i admit, yes indeed. [laughter] that is why i say that india and pakistan must have piece. i am a very strong believer that

we must have piece. now, india is trying to create an anti-pakistan afghanistan. this is most unfortunate and i'm not saying this because i have calm in the centric and i'm anti-india. i know this through intelligence. i know this to be a fact. just to give you proof, today in afghanistan, afghanistan diplomats, the intelligence people, the security people, the army men all go to india for training. i had my time was bending backwards offering to president karzai to send them to pakistan, all our training institutions open, free of cost. not one until today, to date has come to pakistan. now they go there, they come back and they get indoctrinated against pakistan in may i say over the years since our

independence, afghanistan always has been anti-pakistan because the soviet union and india have very close relations in afghanistan. and the intelligence agency, kgb, raw and khad of afghanistan a boy spend and corporations and talking since the 1950s. so he must not allow this to continue because then one must not grudge if pakistan orders isi to take countermeasure to protect its own interest. so i think this needs rapprochement certainly between india and pakistan and rapprochement also between the two intelligence organizations, the raw of india and the isi of pakistan. because they have been on a confrontational course all through since 1950s, harming each other. so this is i would say, and if

i'm also allowed to -- one rather minor but still becoming very significant -- wind leadership from the united states or anywhere, say pakistan, has not done enough. we need to do more. now this has become almost so annoying to a common man in pakistan. we have suffered 35,000 dead, 3000 soldiers killed, 350 isi people killed, generals killed, generals children killed. what more should pakistan do? yes indeed we are doing our best. we are the first victims of terrorism and extremism. at least don't keep saying that we need to do more. guess we need to do it together and we must conquer these problems. having said that, lastly, let it come to a little bit on pakistan itself.

today pakistan is suffering. there is a dysfunctional government. arise arise of terrorism and extremism, arise of law and order situation and karachi which is the economic hub. there's an economic collapse in pakistan. pakistan is in terrible shape. my dismay is that pakistan has all the resources and all the potential to stand on its own feet and i say that it is my dismay because in the eighth year that i govern, all the socioeconomic factors were going up, even if we see our strategic location in the center with the west asia and the gulf on the west, landlocked central asian republics in afghanistan yearning to reach out to the sea in our north. east china, west china to the northeast. india, south asia to our east. we provide the connectivity for

all trade and energy at davidian the region. no energy, no trade within this region as possible without pakistan's involvement. that is the strength of our strategic location. the other issue is that we are a country which is self-sufficient in water, self-sufficient in food, self-sufficient even in energy. we have hydroelectricity, much more than our total requirement, double our total requirement. we have mastered nuclear technology. we have tremendous energy through cole, through gas, alternate source. the only thing we lack maybe is oil. so we have to fix -- but all the capacity is certainly available. a tremendous amount of natural resources. so what is the problem?

we are economically self sustainable. the proof of it is that when i came in 1999 we were failed state that in 2006 pakistan was declared one of the na levin, next 11 economically vibrant countries of the world. after the big four, brazil, russia india, china, the big four who are doing exceptionally well. pakistan was one of the next 11 country of the world. how did this happen? i have a magic wand or something? i did not. it was the potential and the resources of pakistan. wherein we utilize their own resources, our own potential to control the budget imbalance, the budget deficit, the fiscal deficit, the balance of payments deficit is was controlled by increasing our earning, reducing our expenditures.

the problems the united states is facing and when i -- may i say that the debt-to-gdp ratio which was at 103% was reduced to 52%. that is how we turn the economy around. i don't want to get into details here but the per capita of income rose from $430 to over $1000 in six years. so what is the problem again? why is it that the same country, the same people, the same resources in 1990 are a failed country? in 2006/7 prayer and mac 11 and now we are again going down heading towards disaster again. the answer lies that there is a leadership vacuum. it is the leadership. it is the governance which fails pakistan and governance, government and leaders are

thrown up by the political system through the elections. it is here that we face it. no government is elected through a elections in a democratic way has ever done good governance for pakistan and when i say good governance, really the responsibility of the leader development of the people in development of the state. these are the two things i believe any leader and any government should do. otherwise the people reject it. that is the problem of pakistan. no good leadership, not doing welfare on the people and the development of the state. so therefore the problem is in throwing up right leadership through the political process. and now we are heading towards another election in 2013, year and a half away. if at all we don't bring about a

political change, breaking the political status quo, people of pakistan rejecting those who have been tried and tested and failed, we will continue on the path, a downward slide. so we have to produce another of alternative in pakistan which can deliver, which can understand the problems of pakistan, will have the courage to deal with these things and is honest and -- enough to deal with pakistan's problems with determination. it is for this reason that i, i, while i am very comfortable delivering lectures through harry walker agency, which looks after my interest, paying me very well also. [laughter] not that i charge anything here. [laughter] i am very comfortable for myself, but i have decided to

join politics because there is a bigger cause themselves and that is pakistan. and therefore i've decided to rejoin politics. either myself or my party, third political alternative or in combination with light and the people we have to do that. i'm going to try to do that. and that is why i have entered politics and decided to go back to pakistan in march of 2012 or earlier if i am to spring a military surprise and deception and go earlier than 2012. so that is what i intend on doing. because i believe it's better to try and fail rather than go down without trying. and for the sake of the country at at that will take further risks. that is all but i have to say. thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. [applause]

>> we are going to take questions now. when i call on you, we will bring a microphone and just please briefly say who you are. let's start with this lady here in the fifth row and then we will come over here. sogeti mike to each of them. great, please. >> my name is ie ships collide and i'm a tv reporter with voice of america broadcasting to pakistan. my question is that a few days ago on one of our shows, voa shows, english-language show you said democracy is a mindset and that you did a lot of things which were pro-democracy. my question is, why has your party not been able to attract support from pakistani public so far in this context? >> first of all let me correct. i never said democracy is a

mindset. issa dictatorship is a mindset. actually i believe dictatorship is a mindset. i believe always in my country believes in democracy and many -- most of the civilian governments in pakistan are the biggest dictators. the people of pakistan know that they been the biggest. so it's not a matter for the rhyme in uniform or not. democracy i do believe does not start and end at having elections and a political government. it starts from there. how you govern is the essence of democracy and that is what i did. through the empowerment of the people and the empowerment of women and empowerment of minorities, freedom to the media. that is democracy and i did all

that. therefore i am a strong believer in democracy. now coming to your next question, why do the people not support? i would be mad if i'd went back without people support. august they know how much support is there and how much is not. i'm keeping a pulse and certainly there is support. do you know my support in 2007? it was 70%. is it possible that in one year it dipped and there is no support at all? there is always support. when i resigned from my president ship, and many many people were crying and pakistan. the six cameramen who were filming me, recording me, four of them were crying right in front of me because i was speaking at that time. let me tell you there is support for me. there is certainly subport for me and pakistan. however, if i am to believe

today that there is so much support that i will win the next election -- i am a realist. i cannot over assess myself. i must not under assess myself. i try to carry out my own self-assessment. there is support and i'm now trying to build that support through organizing my party. i have already done that at the four provinces. we have gone down and we have organized committees in 52 of the 124 districts in pakistan and i now call them to go down to 23 test hills of pakistan into the 6500 union councils of pakistan. in one year the achievement i've done internationally, in the united states, u.k., uae and canada and internally and pakistan i think nobody has done from scratch with a new party in place. so let me assure you i'm giving

it a good try. i can never be sure that i can develop that kind of support that i will win alone but i will give it a good try. >> nine men -- name is judd haring and i'm a documentary filmmaker. when you are elected president in 2013 will you take a new approach towards the festering problem in the vale of kashmir? we take a new strategy to resolve this? i'm referring to the activities of. she mohammad and lashkar-e-taiba. will you make efforts to bring these two under control? >> thank you very much for saying when you get elected which means you are sure i'm going to get elected. [laughter] thank you very much, sir. on kashmir, yes indeed. let me say that it was a passion

with me to resolve disputes and bring india and pakistan closer. it was in my time that there was so much interaction, people-to-people interaction, that when we had a cricket match between india and pakistan at lahore, which was the hub of cricket and which has been quite anti-india, the people of pakistan where cheering the indian team. i was encouraging the indian team and encouraging this interaction. kashmir issue has to be resolved. other than that there is sir creek and -- betook them to a stage myself and prime minister manmohan singh. sign it and finish it off. kashmir is the problem.

we have moved forward on kashmir because of certain for parameters that i laid down. it was my thinking. demilitarization, graduated to miller's chases -- demilitarization giving maximum self-governance and also making the line irrelevance or opening six routes, root for trade and people. people-to-people moving forward. i believe in peace, because it is sin advantage of india and pakistan, sosa you nunn economic advantage of both countries. when we talk over lashkar-e-taiba, jaish-e-mohammed, i had and jaish-e-mohammed and his bull mujahideen in my time. they have great sympathy and

they need to be they need to be dealt with in a sensitive manner. but yes indeed we will pull the rug from under their feet if you resolve the kashmir dispute. the dispute is over. what are you doing? pack up and go home. it is easier said than done. and to handle them with care because when there is -- they are well organized and i said public support. than we had the earthquake in 2005, their branch organization called -- >> jamaat o..dawa. >> was probably the best ngo and became popular there've been kashmir for the relief effort they had. they were so well organized and we couldn't ban them. there were a lot of people were suggesting that spanned them and stop them. i said if you do that, and god

for bed one of the chinook helicopters -- i call them the angels of mercy -- if they shoot one of them down, no relief will be possible in that area without the american chinook. so let's go along with them. we have to handle these things with understanding and with care and we would like to do that again. >> general i would like to follow-up follow up on the kashmir question because there was a lot of progress made in the back channel with india during her time. but what you said come and others say about the importance of afghanistan and the great concern that pakistan has about india's role in afghanistan, even if you then somehow formalized an agreement on kashmir, where would this afghan concern then fit in the overall relation? has and that got more important anyway? >> yes. i personally have always been

believing that interstate relation or more to do with interpersonal relations between leaders. and very proudly can i say that why was there so much trust and confidence between the united states and pakistan when i was there? that was because i have excellent communication and interpersonal relations with president bush and colin powell. the day before yesterday i went for coffee with colin powell. i went to his house. we used to speak to each other very regularly. i could pick up the phone and talk to president bush, which i used to. this is the interpersonal relation. on pakistan india, developed very good interpersonal relations with both prime minister badge payee and prime minister manmohan singh. may also add without any reservation that i found both of them to the very good people.

i found both of them to be very flexible, very sincere to reach peace and we were moving forward. now with this relationship i'm sure we can address all issues. what i said about afghanistan is certainly with full knowledge. otherwise in an audience where there are indians sitting, i would not have mentioned anything which was in doubt. i know this was happening. this was unfortunate that at the two leadership have relations, i'm sure we will be able to address them to the common good of everyone. i think it is doable but we need to address it, yes indeed. but it needs all three to develop an understanding, pakistan, afghanistan and india. >> this lady here and then i have to go back and forth. right side -- yeah there.

go ahead. >> nancy with the pakistani spectator. my question is regarding the was sharif. nawaz sharif. >> my good friend. [laughter] >> he was twice democratic elected. he was very pro-business, relaxing the business laws so that pakistan became very attractive to foreign investment and which resulted in even more jobs for the people. and even today, he is one of the most popular viable leaders and very loved by his people. so my question is, did it concern you when you depose him with no democratic process whatsoever, that it would be viewed negatively by the international community? >> thank you. that is my favorite question.

[laughter] the figures are totally distorted. 1999, i come on the scene. pakistan is the failed and defaulted state. do you know the fdi in pakistan? $400 million. this is the investment coming from pakistan. and you know where we took it? $8.4 billion. do you know our experts were stagnating? do you know our revenue collections four at 408 alien dollars. do you know where we took it? 1 trillion rupees. this is the performance of nawaz sharif. the joblessness, poverty do you know? the poverty was at 34%. we brought it to 17% and these figures are not isi figures by the way. united nations figures. so please find out from the united nations whether this is true. and you are talking to a person who did this.

i am amazed that -- please correct your figures. don't believe me, go find out on each. i'm not saying anything. go find out about industry. we had 2.9% teledensity and only 500 or 600,000 mobile telephones. our teledensity is over 70% and 18 million mobile telephones now. so this is his performance. this was his government or three years. do you know what people were doing because i was the army chief and? they were coming to my office and telling me when you going to take over in pakistan? this is what they were telling me so please understand that was happening in pakistan. and now coming to the second part, and he's a very man. yes indeed but let me admit that the man when he came back, when ben is there was assassinated, we had to get him back.

he gained in popularity. yes your right to that extent. he had come up in popularity but then with the wonderful governance that they are doing in punjab province, where there were power outages for hours on and, where villages got only two hours electricity and there's total misgovernance and punjab, there is a sharp decline in his popularity. he has noticed in the three smaller provinces, the sindh, frontier and baluchistan. in the south punjab he is almost out. so his base is not in punjab. i could talk for hours. he is not as popular as you think. also may i say, i called him a closet taliban. [laughter] he appeases extremist. there are extremist groups in

punjab who are now his political partners. so he will be a bigger disaster if god forbid, he comes in governance. i'm sure he will never if he comes to governance in pakistan. a bigger disaster than the present situation. >> we will be happy to host a debate between you and him here in washington if you would like. >> let me assure you, he will never. you call him and i will sit right beside them. [inaudible] >> good afternoon sir. ion with the american jewish committee and we were privileged to give a donation of $50,000 in the pakistan earthquake and partner with the american association of physicians of the pakistani origin and washington hebrew obligation to send

800,000-dollar kosher meals to the quake affected area. in recent years we have reached out, try to reach out to the pakistan american committee. >> which community are you talking about? >> that -- when you are president for foreign minister matz with foreign ministry salam and non-current. india has traditional strong ties with the arab world and now growing relations with israel. the israelis and many american jewish saw pakistan as it raged between israel and the jewish world and the islamic world. sir you also attended a kosher dinner. >> is there a question? >> attended a kosher dinner with jewish leaders in new york. which you reach out and see that ridge between israel and pakistan?

>> american jewish congress? yes indeed. now i personally believe that we have to bring peace not only to the region but to the whole world and therefore i even started a strategy, an idea of enlightened moderation which i proposed that the oic summit which is a double answer, a two-pronged strategy. one prong to be delivered by the muslim world, reject terrorism and extremism and for the west end the united states the prong to be delivered, salt political disputes which bedevil muslim world and also assist in the -- within the strategy i personally believe we must have peace. if we want to have peace we have to resolve the palestinian-israeli dispute.

this holds the key to al qaeda and all this activity of hezbollah, hamas, al qaeda and also al qaeda. they are mainly politically indoctrinated or motivated people. those who carried out 9/11, who were they? they were probably people who are antagonized at these israel u.s. relations and anti-palestinian attitudes around. so as far as i'm concerned and as far as pakistan is concerned i thought we need to have balance to relations. and i personally commented once that we need to review our relations as we progress forward on the resolution of palestinian-israeli dispute. towards this end i even came and

addressed the american jewish congress. towards this end i requested the turkish president to invite the foreign minister is israel to turkey and i will send my foreign minister. they should meet so that there is progress to contribute to the palestinian-israeli dispute resolution. i would like to play a role. may i also in form this august gathering in 2006, i initiated a different peace process. and that was, i thought that on one side in the muslim world, the united states on israeli side and dealing with peace, maybe has become unacceptable to the muslim world. therefore there is a requirement at may the european union and mr. solana, the secretary-general, who is held in certain esteem in pakistan -- in the muslim world, to play a

role on one side. and on the muslim side i thought instead of arabs who have been reaching a conclusion we include non-arab muslim players. and that i thought was turkey, pakistan, malaysia and indonesia. and i went around to develop this team or this group to deal with palestine israel dispute. i thought this may be a different approach and maybe because israel will have more confidence in the four that i have spoken of, and muslim world would have more confidence on solana, mr. solana and we could make some progress. but i think we have to think out of the box and i am for peace as far as pakistan is concerned with all the countries in trying to resolve all disputes, political disputes.

>> general we will take two questions at a time because we are running out of time if that's okay with you. i have got this woman here. >> i will take my time because i was so late so therefore i owe it to them, whatever question and whatever time you want to take. >> right here. thank you. >> hello, suzanne kelly from seeing them. can you tell me if you believe pakistan is doing enough when it comes to working with the international community on securing its nuclear facilities or should it be doing more? >> on the nuclear facility? what did you say? >> working enough with the international community say the iaea on securing these facilities or should they be more open? >> pakistan is very very sensitive. first of all pakistan's nuclear capability, everyone must understand it is a pride to every man in the street. number two, that pakistan nuclear capability is in direct

relation to the threat perception, to the existential threat that pakistan has always faced like israel. so therefore we are nuclear. now, unfortunately in pakistan, a perception has been created that the united states or many other powers that be are for pakistan to be denuclearize. that goes totally against pakistan's interest and the people of pakistan will never allow it because it is unfair, also. and now, the iaea and custodial control, what the world ought to be interested in is are they secure? yes indeed. it is unfortunate for pakistan that there was proliferation by an important personality like

dr. a.q. khan. that was most terrible and we suffered in our prestige. but may i say after 2000, when i came on the scene, the first thing that i did was establish custodial controls and that we had been in ca, national common authority on top. we created nspd strategic planning division a big secretariat headed by a lieutenant general who heads it even now. and we took away all the economy from the science organizations especially of finance and security, the two which were given to them. monies to be given to them, no questions asked. security with their own and therefore since nobody was overseeing it this proliferation was possible. when we took away these two, proliferation was no more possible. and then while all these assets were held by the science