the secretary of health and human services, kathleen sibelius and i, have launched a new effort to have increased tools and resources and sustained resources and senior leadership with both agencies. we recognize health care fraud has a debilitating impact on our most vulnerable citizens, the elderly and those in long-term care facilities. our elder justice and nursing home initiative coordinates the efforts of attorneys and agents through the country to better understand and address the abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of these victims and bring to bear the full weight of my department to ensure that these types of crimes are prevented and/or prosecuted. finally, the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 included $4 billion for the department of justice grant funding. this funding is being used to enhance state, local, and law enforcement efforts, including

the hiring of new police officers to combat violence against women and fight internet crimes against children. that will also help reinvigorate the department's traditional law enforcement initiatives, a key element which is partnerships with local, state, and tribal law enforcement agencies and is vital to keeping community's strong. .

i am glad the department has decided to seek an injunction and civil penalties against the person who was charged with [unintelligible] career decisions being made. it would be helpful if the president's nomination the civil-rights division -- abbott also note that we do not have that to make these kinds of decisions because of my friends in the republican party who have held up that nominee for confirmation. i want to make sure we have accurate use of what has happened. last week's tragic shooting at the holocaust museum in washington reminded us of the ongoing serious problem of violence and hatred.

certainly the reports i receive both in open sources and classified areas shows that the number of hate groups is growing and their positions are hardening. i think we have to strengthen the hand of law-enforcement against these threats and crimes. we noticed an increase in hate crimes over the recent years. this great country of ours -- we should do everything we can to stop them. the hate crimes of one act of two dozen 9 -- of 2009 -- it is long overdue. we mentioned officers as an

example. do you agree that this hate crimes prevention act is a good tool for investigators and prosecutors? >> absolutely. if there was ever a doubt about the need for this legislation, i think that has been done away with by the events we have seen in our nation here in washington, d.c., in kansas, and arkansas as well. if you look at the statistics, there has been a rise in hate crimes over the last few years. i am troubled by the amount of hate crime violence directed at latinos. 10 years ago, i testified in favor of this bill, which i think is limited in its scope irrational in what is trying to do. with of the legislation to in cantor gender, disability, sexual orientation.

it does away with unnecessary jurisdiction requirements. i think the time is right and it is now for the passage of this legislation. >> thank you. i had objected to one amendment because i thought there was a lack of adequate protections in it. today "the new york times" is reporting that it is violating the permissive standards imposed by our authorities. [unintelligible] how do we -- i do not know how we justify this?

some expanded authorities are being abused. what is the justice department doing to look into these reports of abuse? >> deparle and works closely with our party is in the intelligence committee to ensure -- with our partners in the intelligence committee to ensure that we are protecting privacy and civil liberties. there is a framework i believe that we always try to follow. our congress establishes safeguards. the department of justice and intelligence agency follows strict regulations. >> the article -- we find out

that the abuse is not an the intelligence agencies or our government -- we are reaching a point where we get the information quicker through the newspaper and in more detail. what are we doing? if this continues, i do not know how we we authorize any of these things if they are going to be of use that way. >> we take very seriously the requirements that we are supposed to follow. in a couple of instances, provinces have a protected. we have altered the program. we informed members of this committee about what we found.

i have not had a chance to review it in great detail, the article in the new york times. >> i wish you would. we really need an answer. it is based on both sides of the aisle. i would hope that you would look at this. i find it very troublesome. i have heard similar rumblings and the first time i have seen any kind of detail if the article is accurate. then we have some real problems. we want to be able to use our ability to gather intelligence. we also want americans who are not subject to any criminal

investigation -- to have emails that can send back and forth. some artists seventh and doing it. we have had similar things where we saw the irs looking into people's report of interest. this goes way beyond that. i hope you will look into it. i would also hope you would redouble your efforts to work with me on a bill. do you want to respond to any of that? >> i think what i would say is that there are some members who are frustrated at the lack of a position with regard to those

measures. what we have seen to the paper today is an indication that some of the things we look at and consider. we want to take into account how these measures have been used, see if there are issues or problems. i note some do not expire until december or some other time. we want to get as much experiential information as we can. >> the chairman would say that with regard to this, i do nothing there would be any difference between intercepting and e-mail as part of a legitimate intelligence mission than intercepting a telephone call. there is no exceptional reference you want for one or the other. we have wide authority to do that dealing with foreign

intercept. >> i read the new york times article this morning. i will assure you there are inaccuracies in that report. the assumption that it is right is an erroneous assumption. >> if the article is right on -- i like to hear this from the attorney general. >> thank you. one person, says he has three letters that have gone unanswered by the department. he has serious concerns about that. i am sure you want to address that. >> with regard to the hate

crimes legislation, i would suggest that we have a hearing on that. it is a matter worthy of attention. there is a 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 urging that -- but against the hate crimes prevention act. it would do little good in great harm according to one person. i will offer that for the record. hopefully we can do that and not have that pop up on legislation on the floor. president obama signed an executive order to establish procedures to close guantanamo detention facility in to return -- review the case of every detainee to determine if they should be transferred, release,

prosecuted, or handled in some other way. we want to make sure that you as the attorney general, the person responsible for coordinating the review. do you agree that you bear responsibility for their release and transfer of the detainees in guantanamo bay? >> i bear responsibility along with other cabinet members who make up the principles committee. i think i am primarily responsible for it. >> the administration has some controversial figures are ready. on friday, the administration transferred one person to saudia arabia who was responsible of

the murder of william jefferson, a u.s. citizen and deployment and 19 -- planting a car bomb in bosnia in 1997. he was involved in the attack of one of the u.s. ship. >> he was approved for release by the bush a ministration. the determination was that there was not sufficient proof to bring a case against him. he is hoping to transfer to saudia arabia where he will be subject to judicial review and a re-education program that they have. >> was that based on a question evidence that cannot be utilized? military intelligence shows he was responsible for the shooting

death of a diplomat, william jefferson. was there evidence that you felt was inadmissible to make this case? >> the determination we made is that there was insufficient proof to tie him to those very serious and regrettable crimes. it was not a question of the admissibility of the evidence but the insufficiently of it. >> another detainee reportedly received instructions directly from one person and is believed to be the accomplice in the al qaeda plan for a second wave of attacks after 9/11. the charges 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 been done with my approval and i take responsible for them. >> were you aware of the serious allegations that he was involved with? >> in the determinations we made, we made the conclusion that with regard to any charges or allegations that have been lodged against people that there was insufficient proof to bring those cases -- anybody who poses a danger to the united states or has committed an act against the united states will be tried. the president has been clear about that. this process is designed to protect the american people. that is what i tried to do to the best of my ability. >> should not retain the person

in custody if they were part of the 9/11 incident? >> we want to ensure that the person no longer poses a danger to the united states or american interests. the determination we made is that we have made the determination based on reviews of career people in the intelligence agency. these people do not pose a danger to the united states. in releasing and transferring them, we can minimize the danger they could pose to this country. >> you have taken on an awesome responsibility. people had -- these people had a clear intent on attacking the united states. my time is up. i will not run over. thank you. >> thank you. i your confirmation hearing, the senate guantanamo would be

close. the is ministration -- you said guantanamo would be closed. the administration is moving to do this. president obama has indicated that some detainees may have to be have a -- may have to have prolonged detention. some cannot be tried for their crimes. are we meeting the goals beyond closing guantanamo if we bring detainees to the united states for what could be in definite retention? >> we are trying to make individualize determinations about what should happen to the people at guantanamo. some will be tried. some will be transferred. the possibility exists that some will be detained in a way that we think is consistent with due process to determine if they

should be detained and how long the detention should occur should they continue to pose a threat to the united states. the president indicated the possibility that people could be placed in that category. it would only happen pursuant to a pretty robust to process procedure. >> there are some who might be retained indefinitely without due process? >> with the due process consistent with the laws of war, the due process of would focus on would be the initial determination. that is with regard to making the decision that they would be placed into that the attention mode and then a periodic review that would be done. we want to work with members of this committee in congress to come up with the exact parameters of that due process. we all want to do that in

conjunction with congress and with the assurance that what we're doing is consistent with our values and due process. >> last week the washington post reported that the administration has abandoned plans to release detainees and allow to live in the united states. is this true? multiple countries have agreed to accept detainees or have already accepted them. what will happen if there are others that do not have countries to go to? what will we do with them? >> we will work with our allies and friends to try to place these people will have been approved for transfer or release. we have made pretty significant -- significance last year. the italians are willing to except three additional ones. we are in constant conversation with our allies. we are attempting to place these people.

we will continue our efforts. the state department is working with us. we are meeting with people in various countries to come up with ways to place these people. those efforts will continue. >> if we cannot find a place for them overseas, what will we do with them? >> i am not sure that we are not going to be able to. by sharing information about who these people are, responding to questions posed by our allies, that we can come up with the way to assure them that they will not pose a danger to their country or to us. i think we will be successful in placing these people. >> at her confirmation hearing you committed to restoring the integrity of the justice apartment. what steps have you taken to

accomplish this goal? >> with regard to the civil rights, i have met with every employee in the civil rights division to make sure they understand as the division that has had the greatest political harm done to them will no longer be accepted. they will not be timid in the enforcement of civil rights laws. they have to report to me any kind of issues they may detect. they should work in the tradition of the justice to permit lawyers. -- under the justice department lawyers. it is a new day in the justice department. especially in those places where

there was the greatest amount of political the terence in the past. >> the department of transportation has been able to allow some alliances to set their schedules and marked the alliance together. critics of such alliances say it makes it difficult for smaller airlines to compete. critics argue that it is not appropriate for the deity to grant such antitrust immunity -- for the dot to grant such antitrust immunity. what is your view? do you think it is appropriate for them to be able to grant antitrust immunity to international airline alliances without input, recommendations, and coordination with the department of justice? >> that is a very timely question.

we have reached out to the department of transportation. piatt net -- i have had conversations with secretary lahood. we are trying to make a determination about how this particular alliance should be viewed so the justice in an apartment will have input into that determination. we will come to a joint resolution on how that will be resolved. >> that is good to hear if i am interpreting what you are saying that the department of transportation and the department of justice will be working together on these matters and hopefully will arrive at some sort of an agreement. >> that is correct. we will be working with attorneys from the department of transportation trying to resolve this issue. >> thank you.

>> one of the reasons we would contemplate closing get mull -- get smal gitmo -- the people one ground in different regions of the world indicate to me that it has hurt our efforts to bring people over our side. do you share that view? >> i do. i have spoken with members of the military about the impact that guantanamo has had as a recruiting tool. it has alienated us from nations that should be our allies. i think the closure of it is a correct one. >> i think secretary clinton shares the view that it would help us abroad if we had a start

over. >> that is correct. >> i like to mention that detainee policy becomes important. it could help or hurt the war effort. the way people are captured in kept really does matter. i see a chance to start over here. the problem the american people have is that we need a plan. let us talk about how we view the guantanamo population. there are those that can be repatriated. some countries who are talking about repatriating them concerning. the saudia arabian rehabilitation per gram, what is your view about that? how successful is that program?

>> they have been people who have gone through the program who have returned to the battlefield. we have to be honest about that. it has not been 100% correct. it provides a useful tool. we combine that program with what we will be doing on our side about who can be transferred, it would increase the success rate of that program. i hope we can use that tool in the transfer of the release of some people. >> i would urge you to do that. i think it is important to look at the security of that country to make sure these people are followed and taken good care of. then there are people who will be tried in the united states court. of the 250 people we have a

guantanamo bay, what percentage do you think will go through a military commercial and -- well -- military commission court? >> it is hard to say. we have gone through about half of the tape -- of the detainees. >> would use a less than 25%? >> that might be about right. >> among the public to understand that in terms of repatriation, it has its limits. trial is a way forward. only 25% will actually go to trial. that leaves us with the third bucket of people we have in our custody. that third but it is the most problematic.

we want to make sure we have a legal system that will allow every detainee in that third bucket to have their day in federal court. no one will be held indefinitely in this country without a federal judiciary review. is that correct? >> we want to work with members of the committee in congress to determine exactly what the parameters would be. there would be some sort of a review with an initial determination and a periodic review as to whether or not that person should continue to be detained. >> i think you are on the right track. anyone in the military or civilian prison without a day in court -- a month to make sure we validate what the insurance -- what the military in says about