ensure that these types of crimes are preventing and/or prosecuted. and finally, the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 included $4 billion in department of justice grant funding. this funding is being used to enhance state, local and tribal law enforcement efforts, including the hiring of new police officers to combat violence against women and to fight internet crimes against children. in addition, it will help reinvigorate the department's traditional law enforcement missions, a key element of which is partnerships with local, state and tribal law enforcement agencies and is vital to keeping our communities strong. chairman leahy, ranking member sessions and members of the committee, i want to thank you again for this opportunity to address the department of justice's priorities and i'll be pleased to answer any questions that you might have. thank you. >> thank you very much. there was mention of the new black panther party. i understand that the attorney

in the department of the civil rights division made the final decision regarding which defendants to charge and which defendants to dismiss and the employee was there during the bush administration and past administration. i just thought i'd point that out so that it doesn't end up -- it i just want to have the facts here. and the department decided to seek an injunction and civil penalties against the person who was charged with intimidating, again, career decisions being made. it would be helpful if we had the president's nominee in the civil rights division. i would also note that we don't have that to make these kinds of decisions because the -- my friends in the republican party have so far held up that nominee from confirmation.

i just -- i want to make sure that we have accurate views of what's happening. last week's tragic shooting at the holocaust memorial museum shows us violence motivated by hatred. certainly the reports i received both in open sources and in classified areas so that the number of hate groups is growing and their positions are hardly. i think we have to strengthen the hand of law enforcement to respond to these very vial threats and vial crimes. a report issued yesterday by the leadership conference on civil rights education fund noted be a increase in hate crimes in recent years linked to the rise in extreme anti-immigrant rhetoric on the internet and throughout the country. in this great country of ours,

it is bad to see these hate crimes. we should do everything we can stop them. the matthew shepard hate crimes prevention act would give federal as well as state and local law enforcement additional tools to prosecute hate crimes. it's long overdue. we remember steven jobs and matthew shepard and so many others. do you agree that this hate crimes prevention act that we had pending for sometime is a good tool for investigators and prosecutors? >> absolutely, mr. chairman. if there was ever a doubt about the need for this legislation i think that has been pretty much done away with the events we have seen in our nation here in washington, d.c., what we saw in kansas and what we saw in arkansas as well. also, if you look at the statistics that indicates there has been a rise in hate crimes over the last few years, particularly troubled by the amount of hate crime violence

that's been directed at latinos. 10 years ago i testified in favor of this bill which is i think limited in its scope but rational in what it is trying to do. it expands the scope of the federal hate crimes legislation to include gender, disability, sexual orientation and does away with what i believe are unnecessary jurisdictional requirements and would allow the federal government to assist state and local counterparts in prosecuting and in investigating these offenses. i think the time is right, the time is now for the passage of this legislation. >> thank you. last year we passed a foreign intelligence surveillance amendments act of 2008. i objected to it because i thought there was a lack of adequate protections in it. today, "the new york times" is reporting the national security agency is violating even the very permissive standards by our questionable authorities. it's collecting and reading of immense numbers of emails to

and from united states citizens, being done without any warrants calls to mind the abuses we discovered in the f.b.i.'s use of national security letters. how do we -- i don't know how we justify continuing the expands of authorities, whether it's fisa or the powers authorized by the patriot act being the expanded authorities are being abused this way. what's the department -- what's the justice department doing looking into these reports of abuse? >> well, the department works closely with those in the intelligence community to ensure that national security's conducted in a way that's consistent with the legal authorities that are designed to protect privacy and our civil liberties. there's a framework, i believe, that we always try to follow.

congress establishes staff wear safeguards in statutes among them, fisa. the department of and the intelligence agencies follow really strict regulations when we actually do these surveillance. >> but the article today and the concern i have is that we more and more we find out about these -- the kind of abuses, not from the intelligence agencies, not from our government but by picking up the newspaper. we're reaching a point that "the new york times's" top secret and we get the information quicker, we get it in more detail and we got the cross word puzzle. the -- crossword puzzle. what with we doing to go after that, because if this continues i don't know how we -- how we re-authorize any of these things if they are going to be abused that way? >> well, the department and the intelligence agencies takes seriously the requirements we are supposed to follow.

in at least a couple of instances where their problems were detected by those of us in the department. we halted the programs, informed the fisa court, informed members of the intelligence committee, members of this committee about what we had found, corrected the problem and only after all those things had occurred did we re-authorize the beginning of the program begin. i have not had a -- again. i have not had a chance to review the article in "the new york times." >> i wrote to you about three months ago, asked you to provide the department's legislative proposals for extending or modifying the patriot act authorities. we really need that answer. it's been raised on both sides of the aisle. if we're going to re-authorize it, we need to know what the department wants. i would hope you would look at this article. i heard similar rumblings, this

is the first time i have seen this any kind of detail. if the article is accurate then we have some real problems. and we want us to be secure. we want us to be able to use the abilities to gather intelligence, but we also want americans who aren't subject of any criminal investigation or terrorist investigation at least they can send emails back and forth to families, to their friends, to their businesses without being it read by somebody who is having fun doing it. and it's -- you know, we had so many things when we saw the i.r.s. look into people's reports because of interest. and this goes way beyond that. and i hope you will look into it. i would also you will redouble your efforts to work with me on a media shield bill.

i've gone over my time. i yield to senator sessions. did you want to respond to any of that? >> well, i think what i would say is with what the patriot re-authorization of it, some members are frustrated at the lack of a position, at least at this point, with regard to those measures. and i think that what we've seen in the paper today is an indication of at least some of the things that we need to look at and consider. one of the things i think we have not yet settled on a firm position, we want to take into account how these measures have been used, see if there are issues, problems with the way in which they have been used before we take a final position. they don't expire until september and i know the time grows short. but to base our position on as much experience information is i think a wise course. >> senator sessions. >> mr. chairman, just would say that with regard to these

intercepts that legally i don't think there will be any difference between intercepting an email as part of a legitimate foreign intelligence information than intercepting a telephone call. and there's no exceptional prrch. do you want or the other -- preference. we have wide variety to do that in dealing with intercepts. justice i read "the new york times" article this morning. i will assure you there are inaccuracies in that report. and the assumption that it's right is an erroneous assumption. >> well -- >> as the senator knows, i said in my question, if the article is right. i'd like to hear this from the attorney general. >> thank you, senator. i'd offer for the record senator grassley's statement and, mr. holder, i've been

disappointed having responding about the uyghurs, he said he has three letters that's gone unanswered by the department and he has serious concerns about that. i'm sure you'll want to address that. mr. chairman, i will just briefly note with regard to the hate crimes legislation that i would suggest we should have a hearing on that. it's a matter that's worthy of attention and i would note -- offer for the record a june 16, 2009, letter from the united states civil commission on civil rights. i believe six of the eight members signed it and they say -- they write to us and the president and vice president urging that we vote against the hate crimes prevention act. they think it will do, "little good and great harm." so i'd offer that for the record and hopefully we will be

able to do that and not just it pop up on legislation on the floor. mr. holeder, on january 22, -- mr. holder, on january 22, president signed an executive order to close the guantanamo detention facility and to review the case of every detainee to determine whether the detainee should be transferred, released, prosecuted or handled in some other way. the executive order makes clear that you as the attorney general, the person responsible for coordinating the review and i guess the other agencies of the government too. do you agree that as a person in charge of it this guantanamo task force you bear responsibility for the release of transfer of detainees from guantanamo bay? >> yeah. i think i bear responsibility along with my other -- of the other cabinet members that makes up the principals committee but i think irme' primarily responsible, yes. >> they are looking at you to coordinate, at least, and file

the consensus, set the agenda. the administration has released transfers from controversial figures already without any form of military commission or criminal trial. for example, on friday, the administration transferred zuhair to saudi arabia. he's allegedly responsible for the murder of william jefferson, a u.s. citizen and diplomat in 1995 planning a -- planting a car bomb in bosnia in 1997, and the involvement with the attack on the u.s.s. cole. do you a-- did you approve the release of zuhair to saudi arabia? >> i did as did the former administration. he was approved for release by the bush administration. the determination that we made was there was not sufficient proof to bring a case against him. and he was transferred, not released. transferred to saudi arabia where he will be subject to

judicial review. and in addition to that, to the re-education program that they have. so -- >> was that based on a question of evidence that could not be utilized? i understand the military intelligence showed that zuhair was responsible for the death of william jefferson. was there evidence that you felt was ined a missable to make -- inadmirable to make the case? >> well, i think consistent with the bush administration was there was insufficient proof to tie him to those very serious and regrettable crimes. it wasn't a question of thed a -- of the admissable -- admissability of it. >> and one received directions from khalid shaikh mohammed and

is believed to be jose padilla's acomp police for second wave of attacks after 9/11. military commission charges against him tie him to a plot to blow up high-rise apartment buildings and explode a dirty bomb in the united states. did you approve his release? >> the releases that have occurred have all been done with my approval and i take responsibility. >> were you aware of the serious allegations that he was involved with, facing? >> in the determinations that we made, we made the conclusion that with regard to any charges or allegations that had been lodged against people that there was insufficient proof to bring those cases. anybody who poses a danger to the united states or who has committed an act against the united states or american interests will be held, will be tried. and the president has been clear about that. this process is designed to protect the marn people. and that is what i have tried

to do to the best of my ability. >> well, if he's been captured as part of the war on terror, is he not -- is the united states and any government in the world, really, entitled to maintain that person in custody until hostilities are over, until you can assure us that the suspect is not a danger? >> well, i think the last part of your statement is where i would focus. to ensure the person is no longer poses a danger to the united states or american interests. and the determination that we made with regard to the releases that we have so far done, which i think are above 50 at this point, we've all made the determination based on the reviews that have been done by career people in the justice department, the intelligence agencies is that these people do not pose a danger to the united states and that in releasing them or transferring them we can do so with measures in place that we minimize the danger that they could pose to this country. >> well, you've taken on an awesome responsibility to

divine these people's intent, people who pretty clearly had serious involvement in plans to attack and kill americans and attacking the united states. my time is up. i won't run over. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator cole. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, at your confirmation hearing you said that guantanamo will be closed. the administration has been making progress in finding countries that will accept those detainees who have been cleared for release and recently began court proceedings for one detainee in a federal court in new york. this is good progress. president obama said some detainees will have to be held for, quote, long detention, because some detainees who pose significant threats cannot be tried for their crimes. are we really meeting the goals behind closing guantanamo if we simply bring detainees to the united states for what could be indefinite retention? >> what we're trying to do, senator, is make individualized

determinations of what should happen to the people presently held at guantanamo. some we think will go into a category where they will be tried either in article 3 courts, federal commissions, some can be transferred and released and the possibility will be in a third category where they will be detained in what is consistent with due process. both in the determination as to whether they should be detained and then with periodic reviews as to how long that detention should occur, do they pose a danger to the united states? it's not clear to me there will be people in that third category. but the president in his speech said people could be placed in that category but it would only happen pursuant to really, i think, pretty robust due process procedures. >> so there are some who might be retained indefinitely without due process? >> no. with due process consistent with the laws of war, the due process that i would focus on would be in the initial

determination. due process would be afforded them with regard to making the decision that they would be placed into that detention mode and then a periodic review that would be done. we would want to work with members of this committee and with congress to come up with the exact parameters of that due process. but we'd only want to do that in conjunction with congress and with the assurance that what we're doing is consistent with our values and with our commitment to odue process. >> last week "the washington post" reported that the administration has, "all but abandoned plans to allow guantanamo detainees who have been cleared for release to live in the united states." is this true? in the last week multiple countries have either agreed to accept detainees or have already accepted detainees. but what will happen if there are others who do not have countries to go to, what will we do with them? >> well, we're going to work with our allies, with our friends to try to place these

people who have been approved for transfer or for release. i think we made pretty significant progress last week where nine people were placed in different countries. the italians have indicated their willingness to accept three other once. we are in constant talks with our allies in attempting to place these people. so we will continue our efforts. the state department is working with us. dan freed is flying over the world meeting with people, meeting with various countries to try to come up with ways in which we place these people. so those efforts will continue. >> and those for whom we cannot find a place overseas, what will we do with them? >> well, i'm not sure that we're not going to be able to. i think that by sharing information about who these people are, responding to the questions that are posed bri our allies who -- posed by our

allies that we can come up with a way that they will not pose a danger to their countries, will not pose a danger to us. what steps have you taken to accomplish this goal? >> with regard to the civil rights division, for instance, i have met with every employee in the civil rights division in several meetings to make sure they understand as the division that i think had the greatest amount of political harm done to them that is no longer is going to be accepted. that they are not going to be timid in the enforcement of civil rights law. that they have to report to me any kind of political interference that they might detect. and that they are to work in the traditions -- the tradition of the justice department lawyers in the civil rights

division have always worked on it, be it under republican or democratic attorneys general. so we tried to get that message out. i have visited with and continue to visit with other divisions and have tried to bring that message there as well. telling people that, you know, it is a new day in the justice department and especially in those places where there was the greatest amount of political interference in the past? >> mr. attorney general, on the current law the department of transportation has the power to grant antitrust amunity to alliances. this enables international airlines to form alliances in which they can jointly set theirs, coordinate schedules and market the alliance together. critics of such alliances say they can lead to higher prices for consumers and make it difficult for smaller airlines to compete. critics also argue that it's not appropriate for the department of transportation to grant such antitrust immunity as the agency has little experience to antitrust laws.

what is your view? do you think it's appropriate for the department of transportation to be able to grant antitrust immunity to international airline alliances without input, recommendations and coordination with the department of justice? >> senator, this is a very timely question. there is presently under consideration by the department of transportation one of those alliances, and we have reached out to the department of transportation, deputy attorney general has spoken to the deputy secretary. i've had conversations with secretary lahood, and they have said that they will work with us in making a determination about how this particular alliance should be viewed. so the department -- the justice department will have input. i think we'll come to giant resolution of how that issue should be resolved. >> well, that's very good to hear. if i'm interpreting what you're saying is that the department of transportation as well as the department of justice will be working together on these matters and hopefully will

arrive at some kind of a joint agreement as to how to proceed? >> no, that's correct. our antitrust division will be working with attorneys from the department of transportation in trying to resolve that issue. >> thank you so much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator kohl. senator sessions, senator graham is next. senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, about gitmo, let's -- one of the reasons that we would contemplate closing guantanamo is that our commanders in the field have suggested that it would help the overall war effort. are you familiar with their statements? >> i looked from the statements of general petraeus, senator mccain. i looked at a couple of statements that you made. >> and i'm just echoing what they're saying. people on the ground in different regions of the world indicate that gitmo has hurt our side. and starting over with detainee policy would be a good idea. do you share that view? >> yeah, i do.

as i look at and have spoken with members of the military about the impact that guantanamo has had as a recruiting tool and as a thing that has alienated us from people, nations that should be our allies, i think the closure of guantanamo, the decision to close guantanamo by the president is a good one. >> i think secretary clinton shares the view that it would help us abroad that if we have a startover regard rg detainee policy. >> yes. >> and in every war detainee policy can hurt the war effort or help the war effort. the way you treat people in your capture does matter. the german people housed in the united states were i think well taken care of and it made us -- it easier to win over the german and japanese people over time. i think it's hard to start over here. i think the members on both think we need a plan. we need to view the guantanamo population.

there are three buckets. those who can be repatiated. there is one path forward -- repatriated. there is one path forward, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> bermuda is probably ok but i'm not sure that bermuda will take more than the uyghurs. the saudia arabian rehabilitation program, how successful has that program been? >> i think it's been successful, pretty successful. there have certainly been people who have gone through the program that have returned to the battlefield. >> well, that's true in our own system. >> we have to be honest about that. so it has not been 100% correct or right. and yet i think it provides a useful tool. i think if you combine that program, for instance, with what we'll be doing on our side in making determinations who can be transferred we can probably increase the success rate of that program. i hope we will be using that tool in at least the transfer or release of some of the people who are presently held at guantanamo. >> i will certainly urge you do

that. as we you try to find countries to repatriate detainees, i think it's important to look at the security of that country, the willingness to make sure these people are followed and taken good care of. so that's one bucket. the second bucket is the people that will actually be tried in a united states court. you know my position. i prefer the military commission system. but of the 250 people we have at guantanamo bay, what percentage do you think at the end of the day will go through a military commission article 3 court? >> it's hard to say at this point. i'm not sure the trends have necessarily developed. we've gone through half of the detainees at this point. i don't think we are going to have a very huge number. >> would you say less than 25%, 25% or less? >> that might be about right. >> yeah. i just want the public to understand that in terms of disposition for repatriation has its limits but a possibility. trial is a way forward, is the

preferred way forward, but only i think about 25% will actually ever go to trial. and that leaves us with the third bucket that people we have in our custody, that we are not going to repatriate, not go through a criminal process, goes back to senator kohl's view. that third bucket is the most problematic, but as i understand the administration's thinking on this is we need to make sure we have a legal system that will allow every detainee in that third bucket to have their day in federal court, that no one would be held indefinitely in this country without a federal judiciary review, is that correct? >> yes. as i said, we want to work with members of the committee and with congress in determining exactly what the parameters will be. the thought is there will be some kind of review with regard to the periodic determination and whether that person should be -- >> i think you're on the right

track. the one thing we want to avoid is say to the world anyone who is in a military prison or civilian prison held as an enemy combatant without their day in court, i want an independent judiciary validating what the intelligence community and the military says about this person. and if the labeling is correct in the eyes of an independent judiciary, we want an annual review process or some collaborative effort that will meet on a regular basis to make sure that the detainee has a pathway forward, is that something we are looking at? >> somewhere along those lines. the exact parameter of which we will work with congress, with you i think what we want -- but i think what we have to stress is due process has to be part of this component should people underened up in it. >> i agree. it has to be robust and it has to be transparent and no one will be held based on an arbitrary decision based on one group. i think you're on the right track. now one it comes to another base, i know -- have you been