mr. chris. i think the debate is a bit confusing. it's not so much whether the individual accused has a constitutional status as an american citizen, but the courts will look at these trials in terms of due process and they will make a judgment as to whether or not it meets some minimum standards expected of an american court. is that correct? >> that is essentially exactly what i was saying. >> and i think that is correct. and when you look at the listry of military commissions, the world war ii is not exactly the show case you would like to use. those trials were conducted in a matter of days and they passed scrutiny but i think when we look back in time it's not something we would want to repeat. is that your opinion? >> i mean, i think i guess i essentially agree with what you just said. and i think justice scleia has ruffered to the karen case as not the court's finest hour. so i think there's some

question whether you could apply those straight on given recent decisions in the law. . .

there will be a category of people that we believe must be detained for reasons of public safety and national security. they're not necessarily people we will prosecute. >> even the evidence is not the type that you would take to a beyond a reasonable doubt trial. under domestic criminal law, is there any theory that would justify the indefinite detention of criminals -- suspect without a trial? correct in our own domestic law? >> yes. in a military setting, is it permissible behavior of the

country to hold someone under the theory that they are illiterate -- belligerent enemy combatants? >> yes. >> do you agree with that? >> yes. the supreme court held that in 2004. >> do you agree with that? >> yes. >> so to conclude that the only theory that would allow this country indefinitely detaining someone without a criminal trial would be the fact that we find him to be dangerous and are not subject to being released. is that correct? >> i am not sure how that dangerous as part of the initial judgment. >> that is true. it is not required. >> i do think the court said that at some point it has the authority to detain an

individual and that authority could run out. >> thank you. >> i think what you said in terms of geography is that -- and let me ask. dozen geography matter in terms of article 2 courts martial or geography may matter? in other words, military commissions and the hearings held, if it is outside of the continental united states, then perhaps a u.s. court would not or could i say could not intervene to provide extra protection under the constitution?

>> the analysis depends on a variety of factors. it may be that geography would have some impact on it. it would be very difficult to be precise and predict exactly what would happen. >> would there be a difference between guantanamo bay and another air force base? in terms of geography and what the courts may do. >> that is a matter that is currently in litigation. i think there could be some differences, but i cannot go much further than that. >> what are your thoughts about geography? >> much of this is uncharted territory in the courts in terms of what rights if any would apply to these detainees. i would say that it is our view

that the detainees -- whether in the united states or anyplace else do not enjoy the full plan of constitutional rights that an american citizen in this country would enjoy. . at the present time under the current law, the rights are visible. it is not clear if the courts would rule that those rights would increase in numbers or in depth. >> it is fair to say that it is our view that some level of a voluntary and is a requirement would be applied to statements that we would seek to offer in a military commissions case. the cost in the constitution would apply.

if hypothetically these cases were prosecuted in the united states. i would note that in practice, our military commissions a judge's have engaged in this analysis anyway. the prosecuting ability -- one shot went through an analysis at guantanamo bay. many of the judges have gone through an analysis in the admission of statement. >> can you speak to the progress of the guantanamo review task force? i think there were several people detained at guantanamo bay. there are some remaining. is that a fairly accurate number as far as you know? >> they sound accurate to me.

>> do we know the status of the remaining detainees? do we know how many have already been determined under article 3? that means they would come to federal croats -- coats -- courts for prosecution. >> i think it is fair to assume that at the end of the review, we would have detainees in the five categories the president outlined in his may 21 speech. we would seek to prosecute in article 3 some of the military commission. some in the fifth category. some that are not categorized for various reasons. we want to continue to detain

pursuant to the authority granted by this congress and the supreme court holding. >> do you know when the review will be completed? >> before the end of the year. >> this year? >> yes. >> in a written testimony, you address the amendment to the commission's report. beyond the issues you highlighted in your testimony, are there any other matters that should be addressed? >> no. those are the two that i was referring to that i was unable to get back to. >> update. with the military proposes to hold the tribunals, is it fair

for me to ask what the administration's view this of where to hold these based on the fact othat geography may matter? >> we have made no decisions about that. congress asserted its rights and prerogatives to note what we have in mind in this regard. no decisions have been made we consid, and we consider other o. thank you. >> i would like to ask how will

the executive branch make a determination for who gets tried under article 3? >> that is something that we have been working on. as he stated, as the president stated that we are feasible, we would seek to prosecutors detainees in article 3 courts. we are working through an expression of factors. >> do you have a preference? >is that by your preference or rights viewed from the

detainees? >> i would say that where feasible, we would press kit people in article 3 courts. then you have a variety of factors you have to go through. the identity of the victims. is there a way to more effectively prosecute them. we are working through a variety of factors for our prosecution teams to consider in terms of what direction to go. i think the intent is to have a flexible set of factors. many of these detainees -- those that are prosecutable -- >> i want to ask you about the appeals process. it seems to me that if a

defendant or charged with criminal crime, the u.s. system that -- that defendant has a one peart from a district court with a very unlikely appeal to the supreme court. a citizen of this country which cannot have as many appellate peers as one of the detainees in this instance. is that correct? >> yes. remember we are talking about conforming the commission's to our courts martial process. that process has all of these services a court of criminal appeals as a first tier of criminal rights. after that, they appeal to the court of appeals from forces which is the first civilian court within our military

justice system to which they can appeal. after that, they have a right to appeal to the supreme court. i think what we are saying is that if you want to stay faithful to the you see and j -- faithful to the ucmj, would allow the military commissions review that they would have a factual and legal sufficiency review powers. after that, you could go into the federal system for the d.c. circuit's or you could go and mirror the ucmj system. either of those paths would lead you to the supreme court. they are very skilled jurists.

if the committee -- if the bill continues to contain an appeal to them, and that body is given sufficient legal review, they can do that. i think i would prefer the current system because that they are used to doing factual and legal sufficiency. if you choose to go the cap route, they are capable of doing it. >> to make recommendations on how to handle classified evidence. are there any other recommendations you would make? >> no. there is a practical aspect to this. that is what my recommendations go to. we are finding that they are

having a lot of difficulty in using military will evidence. the recommendation to use a process regarding classified information where we import the good parts of article 5 which is to close a proceeding to the public when casa but evidence is being introduced. we would take that in and add it to the rules we have 20 years of federal practice that our judges have relied upon -- my opinion is that that is a better approach to get these commissions moving. one of the complaint from the prosecutors is that the judges are demanding that they do everything in a written submission instead of what the other allows which is an expert a hearing -- ex parte hearing.

that is why i recommend the committee take a look at the other route as a substitute for that provision that talks about 505. i do disagree with the administration. i think the committee hasn't right on the reliability standard that exists in the bill. i think fundamentally there is a difference. one is different from the law of war context we find ourselves in. i am worried that a military judge that has a voluntary standard imposed upon him is going to look at a statement taken at the point of a rifle when a soldier goes in, breaks down the door, and takes a statement from a detainee.

i am worried they are going to apply a certain standard to that. that is a coercive environment when you have a rifle pointed at you. i am concerned the judge will say that statement does not come in. i would rather see this as part of a totality of the circumstances leading to is the statement reliable. what i propose is a series of factors that would give the judge more guidance on how to d. >> thank you.

>> can you imagine a lot of other countries around the world having this discussion? this is very important. i was a member of the armed services committee in the house for four years. i voted for legislation identical to the bill being proposed by this committee in 2006. i thought it struck a balance between military necessity and due process. i voted against the military commissions act that we are discussing today. at the time, i thought about the requirements. i thought i might endanger our service members.

i thought it might undermine the basic standards of u.s. law. it departed from a body of law well understood by our troops. given that, i am glad you're here today looking at this opportunity to revisit this important legislation. if i might turn to you, you testified about the importance of reciprocity. you said that you would be concerned about other nationals looking into the united states and making a determination that if it is good enough for the united states, it is good enough for us. it could do some damage and harm on some of our international service men and service women if they were taken and held. how do you think the military commissions provision measure up in terms of reciprocity? are these provisions good enough for the united states in your

view? >> yes, they are. the major points here that we have to be concerned about whether reciprocity issue and are we creating a just and fair system. i think we need to be prepared to take any unlawful or underprivileged enemy combat cent to one of these commissions. if we believe that three of created a peer in just process with this bill, we should not be shy about taking anyone before these commissions. i would be very comfortable having a u.s. service members objected to these rules. >> thank you for that answer. if i might turn to you, the question about some provisions. he said at the doj supports such provisions. can you talk about that a little more along those lines?

i like to hear your response as well. >> with respect to it, i am not representing the department of justice along our basic idea that underlined that is as long as there is a continuity provision to allow cases to continue past the sunset, it is a good idea for congress to come back and take another look at this after a passage of time to see if there have been new developments or changes for a fresh look. i think that is what it boils down to it. >> i would agree with what he said provided that it does not jeopardize ongoing prosecutions. we think it is a good idea.

we do not have a magic year. given the reality of changing circumstances on an international level we think a sunset provision is a good idea. >> thank you. let me turn to a follow-up question and comments made in the opening statement regarding resources on the defense side on the efforts we are discussing today. the chief defense counsel issued a memo that i thought laid out some troubling issues. i would be interested in hearing if the committee addresses the needs of the defense efforts appropriately. i will start with you and move back across. >> i agree with the concerns expressed in the senior defense counsel's memorandum.

we have longstanding concerns about resources and access to experts. i think it is something that needs to be addressed. i do not see anything about it in the current bill. i do not see anything in terms of resources and that we get at epogen issue. i think the defense counsel needs more resources. >> the legislation itself, as a rule change we made. in terms of resources, the colonel who i consult what often 43 military lawyers assigned. i am told he is authorized to go

up to 52. in response to your question, can we do better? one of the things i am concerned about is whether or not it in this legislation something i intend to make sure our defense council adequately is trained in capital cases. in the civilian world, there is blended council. there are standards for capital cases. i think we owe it to the system to make sure our defense counsel is adequately trained. >> my time has expired. any basis in? >> yes. one thing to point out is that the committee bill does follow our will change. >> thank you for your

enlightening testimony. i appreciate your willingness to answer some important questions. >> thank you. i want to clarify. my understanding that in one case in 2008 that the supreme court recognized habeas corpus. there is one constitutional right that has been recognized which is habeas corpus. >> yes. so far, i believe that is the only what the supreme court said applies there. >> the issue that we talked about with respect to the geography of these trials, moving some of this military

commission to the united states might engender other appeals that could trigger requests for additional constitutional rights. >> regardless of where these cases are held, there will be appeals. a number of the appellate process these are under consideration. what results from those deals is very difficult to predict because there has been quite a lot of development in the law over the last 50 years is commissions were last used. . what the standard is is sometimes difficult to get -- to discern. i think it can be difficult to be sure. i think geography may play a role in the rights for the procedures that are required.

it is hard to know for sure. >> let me also raised another issue. we recognize the indefinite detention of combatants. my impression is [unintelligible] >> the 42 detained under the law of war -- the court left open -- the authority to add detained under the law of war -- the court left open an aspect of this. and i would presume that the category of individuals -- those that have to be held because of the potential will have the right to habeas corpus and raise

the issue whether they should still be detained or not. >> in fact, almost all if not all of the guantanamo detainees are suing the government. the president stated with respect to that category that there should be some form of periodic review even subsequent reviews. that is something we are working on now. >> one of the other reasons to move quickly but awfully in this process is that this is a way in which to ensure due process prior to the court deciding one of the cases. >> that is a fair statement. >> they are moving on this legislation. >> yes. >> you commented about the

voluntary standard. it might tend to complicate decision making military judges. ultimately, our mission in a position of speculate what the supreme court will hold? that is one reason why we're here today. >> yes. i would agree with everything that has been stated this morning about hon unsettled the lot is in this particular area. what i would propose is not only the only standard but one of the factors. looking at the reliability of the statement within the four corners of the document itself. my opinion is that the supreme court would recognize that there

are fundamental differences between a standard that grew up in a law enforcement paradigm versus one we are trying to understand in a lot of war paradigm. -- in a law of war paradigm. i think that will provide the judge with a guidepost. if you are evaluating a statement taken at the point of capture, you might wait it less because it is a more course of the environment and you would cooperation of the four corners of the document. as to become -- six months a year after the detainee is removed from the battlefield and in a facility like guantanamo bay, then the voluntary status

in the judge's mind may be more important. believe that to a military judgment to determine on a case by case basis. >> thank you. >> one final question. . and have decided to try and give everyone some type of due process or a trial or are there some people that will not get any procedure at all. they will be deemed as enemy combatants and be detained? >> i think it is accurate to say that the remaining population will either be detained because

we happen upheld in a cave is corpus litigation and are subject to the periodic review or those that violate the laws of war that we feel that we should prosecute in the military commission. and those can be referred to something else. >> thank you. >> we are hoping that some of the other countries will take some of the detainees that are remaining. some countries in the region such as yemen are incapable of mitigating the threat posed by the detainees, whether the

country last -- lacks the appropriate institutions or the counter-terrorism law or the ability to prosecute these detainees. many countries in the region may not be willing to accept them. i think we need to work with the countries in the region that have a proven track record of rehabilitating the terrorists to except detainee's transferred from guantanamo bay. according to the office of the secretary of defense, saudi of arabia remains one of the most reliable counter-terrorism partners in except in detainee's transferred from guantanamo bay. they have institutionalize the rehabilitation program that is developed by the minister of interior to rehabilitate the former detainees for we integration into society in saudi arabia. efforts are under way to convince some to accept some of

the detainees. my question for all of you is how did the department of defense addressing the problem that many countries in the region are not capable of mitigating the threat posed by the guantanamo bay detainees? can you provide your opinion on working with the country in the region to accept these the denny's that are transferred from guantanamo bay that share the same tribal affiliations? >> >> i agree with just about everything you said. many people do not understand that it is not as simple as this

country is willing to take the detainee back so we can give them back. there need to be and at a rehabilitation program or the ability to monitor in that excepting nations of that the detainee does not return to the fight. . we must minimize to the full extent possible in the access of recidivism. the safety of the american people is of the utmost concern. we believe strongly in bed rehabilitation programs like the one you referred to is something that we should encourage. we are very focused on it. >> i agree with everything he said. when we transfer people to

foreign countries, we have to do so under conditions that ensure safety. this is an excellent program from what i understand. >> i would agree with mr. johnson on this. we are concerned about returning fighters to the battlefield. this is a big issue for us. i think the way he characterized it is exactly right. >> thank you. we need to be mindful that detainees provided sources of information and intelligence. can you describe the process in which the department of justice is reviewing the information to

determine if the guantanamo bay detainees can be prosecuted? how does the department of justice working with others in this regard? >> we are working closely together on this. there is a review by the task force set up by the executive order that makes a judgment about whether cases are prosecutable. at that point, there needs to be a review both by the justice department and the defense department working together to try to figure out of these cases appropriate to indict in an article 3 court. we have talked about the judgment requiring a careful assessment of all the evidence and a variety of other factors.

i would point out that these kinds of choices are not unfamiliar to federal prosecutors. they at to make these kinds of choices in other cases as well. there has to be a process with the case is carefully be viewed in worked up by a joint team and a judgment made about where and when that can be prosecuted. >> thank you. >> we are gonna have another round with this panel. to you believe that our language conforms to the standards?

quest yet. >> i think mr. johnson said the preference would be to have three trials. we will hear some testimony that all the trials should be article 3. there should be no military commissions. why military commission that all that why not try every one under the article 3? why would you want to try anyone under military commissions or need to try anyone under military commissions? >> it goes back to the uniform code of military justice and federal law and its design for a different model.

it's designed for law enforcement. we are in a wartime environment. the practical parts of that environment should lead you to conclude that any direct military trials. it would go to that very coercive environment. we are relying upon our soldiers to go into a dangerous environment where in many instances they have to break down doors. we are worried about their safety. they are worried about it. we do not want them to have to stop and think about giving miranda rights were giving article 31 be rights. we do not want them thinking about whether or not the statement they are getting from someone in a house they had just broken into, whether that statement is purely voluntary or not. i think that is recognized.

the supreme court recognized that in one case. there are unique circumstances that come up in a law of war and damage the cannot be handled under two different systems. -- law of war environment that cannot be handled under two different systems. we need to be clear. as we go forward with the commission, we need to feel that these commissions contrite anyone. anyone that fits within the jurisdictional definition, the personal jurisdiction section, we ought to feel very comfortable taking anyone. i & the president prefers article 3 courts. in my opinion, when we leave here today, we should be looking

at this bill and saying to ourselves it is fair and just. we would feel very comfortable having our own service members tried under this kind of a process. i do not think we should kid ourselves. anybody -- any enemy combatants should be able to be tried under this process. >> in our bill, statement given under " treatment is not admissible. -- given under krolcruel treatmt is not admissible. >> in 2006, we pushed to

eliminate the discrimination between statements taken before december 302005 and a different standard given to statement after. statements taken under torture are eliminated. the cia statement are eliminated. -- cid statements are eliminated. >> i have to clear up one more thing. it is the question of location. our bill is not going to distinguish as to what the procedures are dependent on where the location of the military commission is. there is no way our statutory language can address this.

i think you are pressed to describe where it might make a difference in terms of a judicial court judge's opinion depending on where the location is. i do not see it at all. i do not see have the location of the military commission hearing can have an effect. it cannot have an effect in the way we read procedures. on the other side of the coin, if you are going to try people for article 3 crimes which is your preference, there is no way people can be tried in guantanamo bay. it would take months with hundreds of citizens dragged down to guantanamo bay to live while a jury is being drawn up in an article three criminal case. there are many reasons why we need to deal with people if

we're going to try them for crimes and bring them to the united states for practical matters. as far as where the military commission is held, i do not think there is a difference. i know you will give a spot on that. i just do not see how it could make any difference. as to where the military commission is held. that is a statement not a question. i am way over my time. if you want to react to that for the record, you may. >> despite the difficulties.

our best prediction is voluntariness will be required. it is based on the totality of circumstances. you have to take account of the realities of war. we come to that conclusion. >> we will welcome language on that from both of you. >> thank you. i think we will find some common ground about the evidence you're a standard -- evidenciary standard. when you are in contention -- in detention outside of the battlefield, the judge should be able to accommodate those all stances. i do not think there is a lot of

as between the two of you. this location issue is very important. is it your view that closing guantanamo bay would be an overall benefit to the war effort? >> my view which is also the view of the administration is that closing guantanamo bay enhances national security. >> i believe that because every other combat commander has said that being able to start over with the tinny policy -- detainee policy -- the best military run prison in history is good in one area? >> and yes. the professionalism of the guard at guantanamo bay is remarkable.

i agree that the professionalism of our personal there is really remarkable. >> i was very impressed by it. >> -- with your loved one goes through every day in guantanamo bay is a real sacrifice for the guards and their families. starting over with guantanamo bay policy could help the country. there is a legitimacy to the commission that we have not been able to have otherwise. that correct? one of the main reasons we are doing this work is to enhance the legitimacy. >> i totally agree. i just cannot believe given the supreme court cases that if you close guantanamo bay and move the detainees with inside the united states and form a trial

like we did in wwii it will make a substantial difference. if we close guantanamo bay and move the detainees within the united states that they will be conferred -- it will be conferred upon them certain legal rights they would not have otherwise. can you address that? >> there are a number of differences between the committee's bill and the administration's. the changes that we are recommending -- >> the location alone would not change the dynamics the court would apply in a dramatic way? >> no. we think what we will -- we are proposing will do well. >> we are not suggesting that people rent a constitutional rights would apply depending

upon location. we have referred to volunteering ariness. it is not that different from what the admirable -- admiral has described. >> i would align myself with this man. bringing the military commission in terms of additional constitutional rights should not matter. i think we probably could reach some common ground. >> thank you.

>> it chairman @ the animal a rhetorical question -- the chairman asked the admiral a rhetorical question. i thought your answer was compelling. to a certain extent, there is a different perspective here. why would one prefer -- why would anyone prefer to try people apprehended for violations of the law of war in an article three federal court? i was disappointed with your answer. it pulled me back from my feeling of appreciation for accepting a role in accepting

commissions. from the beginning of our country, the heaviest military tribunals to try war criminals for people we have captured for violations of the law of war. i think the unique circumstances of this war on terrorism against the people who attacked as on 9/11, some roads that are unjust and inconsistent. we have talked before about how the military commissions are within certain conditions. why would you say the administration prefers to bring these people before article three federal courts instead of military commissions is today's

version of the tribunals that we have used throughout our history to deal with prisoners of war in a just way. >> please do not misinterpret my remarks. i applaud this committee's effort to reform the military commissions act. i think military commissions should be a viable ready alternative for national- security reasons for dealing with those that violate the laws of war. and glad we are having this discussion right now. thank you for undertaking this. we definitely support which you are doing. the president has made that clear. when you are dealing with terrorists who is one of their fundamental and is killing innocent civilians, it is the

view of the administration that when you direct violence on innocent civilians in the continental united states that it may be appropriate that that person be brought to justice in a civilian public forum in the continental united states. the act of violence as well as the law of war -- we believe both should exist. >> i hear you. i respectfully disagree. we have stated a preference. the effect of it is to give these war criminals, people we believe war criminals the

greater legal protections of the federal courts because they have chosen to do something that has not been done before in our history which is to attack americans, to kill people here in america as in 9/11, civilian and a sense does not matter. to do it outside of bridgett i think it puts us in a difficult position. -- i think it puts us in a difficult position. they are at least as brutal and inhumane than any war criminals we have apprehended over the course of many wars we have been involved in. it may be an act of murder to

have killed people in the twin towers in 9/11, but it was an act of war. the people who did that do not deserve the same constitutional protections in our federal courts as people may be accused of murder. i am over my time. this is a very important discussion which i look forward to tcontinuing. >> thank you. to follow up on that. there was one person who did not wear a uniform. he infected great harm on civilians here and in other parts of the world. he considers himself to be part of a political movement. to have a preference for trying him under a an article record

as opposed to a military tribunal. if we are doing article 3 trials, do we then also closed guantanamo bay at the end of the year. there is no way that over 200 people can be processed through some proceeding whether article 34 military commission in that timeframe. where will they be? i guess they will be here. what about those who are acquitted? what happens to them? can you touch on those? >> you are correct. you cannot prosecute some significant subset of people before january. those that we think are prosecutable and should be detained, we will continue to detain whether it is at

guantanamo bay or someplace else. the question of what happens if there is an acquittal is an interesting question. we talk about that often. as a matter of legal authority, if you have the authority under the laws of war to detain someone, that is in respect of of what happens on the prosecution side. >> so the prosecution becomes a moot point? >> know i am not saying that at all. >> in my judgment as a matter of legal authority there might be policy judgments one would make. if a review panel has determined this person is a security threat, and they have

lost their habeas corpus, and we've gone through their review, we of made assessments. if for some reason they are not convicted for a lengthy prison sentence, then as a model of legal authority, i think it is our view that we had the ability to detain that person. whether that actually happens depends upon the circumstances of that particular case. as a matter of legal authority, pursuant to the authority, was granted as according to one stipulation, told the person provided they are a serious threat. .

>> senator udall? >> thank you. i will be brief. i want to thank the analysts for their excellent testimony. the judicial system is interfacing and working with the military judicial system. i am not a lawyer. i am getting into deeper water. it seems that the judicial system is a living and evolving thing. we are working to make sure that it is nurtured. another way to look at this is like integrating software systems. i want to thank the civilian judicial establishments for working together.

i will yield to the questions of the questions -- of the great jag officer. >> we do have two different legal systems going to bear. we do have the guantanamo bay detainee's. with the federal bill, every detainee would wind up in the federal court. the supreme court ruled that the habeas corpus rights apply to the detainee's. we need to look at creating uniformity to these rights. do we want these petitions to allow for lawsuits against our own troops? there could be a medical malpractice lawsuits brought under the old system. we can streamline the habeas corpus process. i would like to conclude with this. no one should be detained in america for an indefinite period of time that does not go to a civilian court or military

court without an independent judicial review. i do not want people to believe that folks are in jail because of people like dick cheney or another politician said so. it does not bother me that all of the cases will go to civilian judges and that the military and the c.i.a. will have to prove that these people are dangerous and the enemy. once that has been done, i think it's crazy to arbitrarily set you have to let them go. if our intelligence committee -- community believes the present a danger to this country, i think it would be crazy to say you have to let them go. you do not under the law. we need a hybrid system. we need civilian judges involved in the war. it is a war without end. as the president said last week, there will never be a definable in thend to this war. this can be a life sentence.

i want people to have a way forward based on their own conduct. some will be able to get out of jail because they had rehabilitated themselves. some may die in jail. but i wanted to be a process that is not arbitrary. i wanted to be a collaborative process with the independent judiciary validating our actions. that is what we have been lacking. that is what we need going forward. that is not being soft on terrorism. that is applying american values to the war. >> thank you. this has been a very thoughtful discussion. it has been about the value of trying everyone in a military tribunal or trying people in civilian courts. there is of value to trying some of these individuals in civilian courts because they are criminals. they try to claim the mantle of

warrior. that is feeding into their appeal in the greater islamic world. but in fact, they are criminals. they have committed premeditated murder. in that situation, i think we should not the case in court -- i think we should have the case in court. i think they should be convicted and identified as criminals instead of soldiers or warriors. there are other cases where the military tribunal will work because a practical considerations. admiral macdonald, do you have a reaction to that? >> my only point is this. at the end of the day, we need to have full faith and confidence that what we are creating in the military and in this bill is a fair and just process. i am sensitive to the fact that

there may be situations where going to federal court may be the right decision given the facts and circumstances that exist in a case. i think it is absolutely vital that when we leave. the end of the day, it is not because we believe that what we have created is that second- class legal system. we need to look at this and know that this can stand alone in the world. we must be willing to be judged by what we're putting together today. you ought to feel very comfortable sending anybody to these commissions with these processes and changes. it should be because we believe it is a fair and just system. >> if people are subject to these procedures, we would consider them to be a. . . >> yes, sir. >> thank you.

i will conclude by saying what this bill does not address or decide. we do not decide whether a person will be tried by an article 3 court or a military commission. we have been told there will be some of each for various reasons. we do not make that decision in this bill at all. secondly, we do not address the question of where a trial takes place. that is not addressed in this bill. we do address the procedures that would apply where there are military commission trials. it is obvious to me that those procedures will apply regardless of where the military commissions are held. there cannot be any difference

in the way we write a bill on that. i disagree with the suggestion that somehow or the other, it will make a difference in terms of a court ruling as to whether or not a military commission proceeding is held in the united states or in guantanamo. as a lawyer, i cannot imagine the supreme court or any other court saying that this commission was held in one place, therefore, one constitutional rule applies. if it were held someplace else, a different constitutional rule will apply. a just cannot imagine that there would be any difference in that decision in the trial court or supreme court as to where the military commission proceeding took place. on the voluntary nesiness issuee

have language in the bill that incorporates the requirements of the geneva convention in terms of coercion and whether a statement can be used against a defendant. thank you all very much for your wonderful testimony. your carefully thought out testimony will be made part of the record. we will have additional questions for the record. we will now move to the second panel. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> on sunday, a look at the life and career of judge sonia sotomayor from friends and former classmates. >> we were each trying to figure out where we fit in and what it meant to be a lawyer addressing the set of issues with a set of commitments. we were being socialized into a role. we were thinking about that and what one was trying to accomplish. one thing i remember being struck by at the time was the degree to which she had a deep appreciation overall of what it

meant to be a lawyer, a prosecutor, writing from the position of a law journal editor as opposed to a reporter. what it meant to be an advocate purses the judge. -- versus a judge. i remember having discussions about the role and content. the role was shaped by the content of the position. i remember having this kind of passion for the law and a deep set of commitments to figuring out what the role meant, whether you were a judge, legislature for, or an advocate. >> that has been some of the criticism of her. is she an advocate, a judge, a judge-advocate.

>> i think that is a misunderstanding of her. it was clear dent and has become much clearer to me now watching her on the bench and having social conversations with her even in the last year. having a strong sense of the world means that she really develops her opinions, where she stands, where she inquires, based on what it means to be a judge. she is not an advocate. in law school, she was figuring out where she was in this and the role that she wanted to occupy that would enable her to put bill -- fulfill her public

mission. having taken on the position of judge, i would say she is as committed to the legitimacy of that role as anyone i have ever seen. she is careful. she reasons for the decisions. she is not advancing any kind of agenda as an advocate. that is what it means to be very attentive to the role. it means that i am in this position. what does one in the position of the judge do in a way that will give both credibility and legitimacy to the institution that you are part of? that seems to be hard wired into the way that she operates. that is something that she started figuring out even in law school. >> you can see more from her friends and colleagues tomorrow here on c-span. we will also take a look at the confirmation process with the former staff director for the senate judiciary committee and

jamie brown. that is all tomorrow night at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m., eastern. >> how is c-span funded? >> taxpayer dollars. >> public donations. >> consumer findunded. >> private contributions. >> 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as the public service. it was a private business initiatives, no government mandate, no government money. >> the secretary of state hillary clinton held a town hall meeting yesterday at the state department to announce the launch of a new initiative to coordinate diplomatic and development strategies. she answered questions on this and other issues for about 50 minutes.

[applause] >> this is one of those occasions were a long introduction would be inappropriate. we want to welcome everyone. it is my distinguished pleasure to introduce the secretary of state, secretary clinton. [applause]

>> it is such a joy to see all of you. i am sorry there are not enough seats. there are a few in the ones for those of you who are still looking. it is a great personal pleasure for me to have this opportunity to meet with you again, report to you, and the answer questions. i want to thank pat kennedy for the introduction and the work that he does. sitting on stage with pat is our deputy for resources and management and the head of our planning program. i want to thank all of you for your efforts of the past six months. we are nearly at the six-month mark. it has been a high honor and privilege for me to work with the men and women of the state department and usaid. day after day, you prove your professionalism, patriotism, and

effectiveness. i think our country and the obama administration is very lucky to have each one of you on the job. i also appreciate the dedication and sacrifice is that your families, partners, and loved ones make it to serve by your side. we have been on this job for half a year. we have been working hard. some of us have the scars to prove it. [laughter] i have not been throwing sharp elbows. it was one of those slips and falls, to paraphrase president lincoln. we are seeing encouraging results from all of our efforts, including my physical therapy. we are preparing strange alliances. we're cultivating new partnerships. we're working to engage and

change the behavior of adversaries. we are prioritizing development along with diplomacy as part of our global agenda. we are working to build a world of economic stability and prosperity, clean and affordable energy, health care and education for our children, and expansion of the fundamental rights, tackling the threat of global extremism, terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. to sum it up, we are working for a world in which more people in more places can live in freedom, can enjoy the fruits of democracy, and economic opportunity, and have a chance to live up to their own god- given potential. having said that, it is only fair to add that we face an unprecedented set of challenges. in the face of those challenges, the state department and usaid

are frequently having to work overtime to try to catch up. too often, our policy structures, staffing patterns, standard operating procedures are insufficient to meet the priorities and challenges. we do not have the luxury of deciding which issues to deal with. we need a framework and a vision that will allow us to address all of them and multi-task to get the results and out comes that we are seeking. we have to work simultaneously on the urgent, important, and long term. i have been fighting for the resources we need to do our jobs. we cannot send diplomats and development experts into the field underfunded and under- equipped. unless we make better use of the talents and tools at our disposal, we are not going to succeed. we need to align our resources

with strategic priorities to direct our funds and maximize our impact. we need to work better, smarter, and work together with more partners in and beyond our government. instead of simply trying to adjust to the way things are, we need to get in the habit of looking to the horizon and planning for how we want things to be. to help us in that effort and enable the department and usaid to get a head of emerging threats and opportunities and to effectively make the case for congress and the people of our country for the resources we need, today, i am announcing that we will for the first time ever conduct diplomacy and development review. i served for six years on the armed services committee in the senate. it became clear to me that the

qdr process of the defense department was an important tool for the department to exercise the discipline necessary to make hard decisions, to set for the priorities, but to provide a framework that was a very convincing one to those in congress. there was a plan. people knew where they were headed. they have the priority is requested aligned with the budget. therefore, people were often very convinced that it made good sense to do what ever the defense department requested. i want to make the same case for diplomacy and development. we will be doing this quadrennial review. we hope it will be a tool to provide us with short-term and long-term blueprints for how to advance our foreign policy objectives and our values and interests. this will provide us with a comprehensive assessment for

organizational reforms and improvements to our policies, strategies, and planning processes. this will make our diplomacy and development work more agile, responsive, and complementary. this is what we mean when we talk about smart power. we need this type of bottoms up strategic review to coordinate our work and accelerate transitions from old ideas and programs. a state department protocol will give us the guidance we need to help us allocate our resources more efficiently. we can deploy people where they will have the most impact. it is a new way of doing business that will give us the dynamism that we should have. it will better equip us to deal with the accelerating rate of change that we confront. this effort is also essential to effective coordination between the state department and usaid. on monday, i will be going to

usaid to make the same announcement and talk to them about the implications, as well as is our questions. our development and diplomatic goals are best achieved when we are coordinated and integrated. we need a planning process that helps ensure this happens. i am happy to answer questions about how this will work in practice. we are starting this fresh. we are looking for your ideas and guidance about how best to implement this. . qddr will be co-chaired by the usaid acting administrator and the director of policy and planning. we want to learn from the processes of dod and the intelligence community. i think this will enhance our

capacity to make our case. that is what i am interested in. i want to make sure that development and diplomacy are right there at the table on any national security decision. it is designed to tell us where we are, where we want to be in the future, and how to bridge the gap between the two. we're going to coordinate with the inter-agency process. we are going to lead this. we're going to look for ways to better coordinate with the treasury, usda, the white house. i have been very pleased of the response that we have had since we began the sounding board, the online form i established to solicit your ideas on how to improve the department and usaid. you have submitted over 300 ideas.

i would say a significant number of those discussed ways to get greater access to mobile computing technology. this is not rocket science. many organizations have been using these tools for years. we have just not kept pace. because of your input, irm is increasing investment in our mobile computing program. we have purchased an additional 2500 mobile systems. this will make our team more productive. it will free people from their desks. it will enable some of you to actually go home that are staying in the office waiting for communication from a time zone many miles away. this could not have happened without your input. you came up with the idea.

we then worked it. we used stimulus dollars for it. [laughter] we thought it would stimulate you. [laughter] we are making other changes as well that are in reaction to the idea is posted on the sounding board. we need it to apply this spirit of evaluation, reform, and improvement to the entire organization. we expect that there will be some missteps along the way. we have never done before. but we need your immediate and constructive feedback. whether it is computer access, or new equipment for agricultural development, we will work as hard as we can. i will continue to make the case as effectively as i can for the resources that you need to do your jobs. in exchange, i need three things from you. first, i need your patience. i know there are problems.

we want to fix them. the changes may not come overnight, but they will come. we're working hard on this. second, we do need your ideas. the process will not work if it sits apart from the expertise within this building and at usaid. the whole effort needs to be powered by your ideas and experience. we're going to need your support. speaking bluntly for a second, any one of us that have been in or around government for more than a year knows that the halls and shelves of government agencies are littered with stale volumes of well-intentioned reform efforts. too often the reason these efforts fail is because bureaucracies have a hard time changing. people get in a groove. i learned it the other day that

i am the first secretary of state ever to ask the art collection to put modern art in my offices. [laughter] apparently, that was a big break with tradition. [laughter] i think we have the capacity for change. everyone of us in this hall has had to change. when i think about the changes i have seen in my lifetime, and how the pace of change accelerated more for my daughter and young people, it is breathtaking. we change. the organization that we are part of has to change as well. it is a living organism. we have to make sure that it is prepared to give us the best that it possibly can. the stakes are too high. we have seen in the last six months that the united states

and our new president are expected to deliver a lot. it may not be fair, but that is the way it is. in some of the meetings i have had in my travels around the world, foreign governments and leaders have made very aggressive demands on our country. on at least one occasion, i told them they did not meet the demands the last eight years. they said that they knew they would never get a response. [laughter] a lot is expected of us. the arms control team did an excellent job in starting up a framework. we're going to be working hard on that huge priority. everywhere you look around the world, we do not have the luxury

of being bystanders. we have got to be as prepared to and capable as we can be. i think that is exciting. reform needs to be part of our regular business plan and not just a slogan that we invoke on special occasions. this process is likely to be put into legislation. it will not be a one off experience. it will be expected of secretaries and apartments -- and departments long after i am gone. i want that to be an institutional part of how we do our business. we expect so much of ourselves because we want to deliver a high level of professionalism. i look forward to hearing your ideas and questions and working with you to build a state department and the united states agency for international development that are the envy of not only our government, but of

governments everywhere. we will prove that we are fully capable of producing a real change that furthers our interests and values, protect our security, and inspires millions of people around the world. thank you all very much. [applause] >> i think that we have two microphones. >> we have frethree microphones. we are also electronically connected to the field. one of our colleagues will present questions from the field. >> excellent.

people can line up behind the microphones. please identify yourself and where you work. >> i am the jefferson science fellow and a professor at cornell university. i want to make a plug for science diplomacy, in particular. more than saying nice words about it, for the words to mean anything, it has to come with funding. that means coordination for the programs. i was wondering if you can say anything about how the organization of usaid will develop to support new initiatives. >> i agree with you. thank you for taking time out. i love cornell. it is wonderful that you are here working in the state department. i think science diplomacy and cooperation is one of our most effective ways of influencing

and assisting other nations and creating real bridges between the united states and counterparts. we do want to put some resources behind that. as we are negotiating some of the strategic partnership compaq's that we are involved with, science and technology is one of the highest priorities for the countries with whom we are dealing. we need to be more focused. we need more partners. fedorov into russia and helped to create a cooperation between the sciences. we helped to broker that. we're also looking for other partners to step up. i assure you that this is a priority. we will look for more resources and war means of trying to

implement it. if you have ideas, let us know. >> i am in overseas building operations. i am not here to talk about that. i am also with the american federation of government employees. as you know, personnel or human- resources is a huge issue in any organization. in particular, i think we have a broken system. we are supposed to have rigid the civil service was supposed to end it nepotism and patronage. -- the civil service was supposed to end at nepotism and patronage. it seems that we're going back to that. people on the lower levels are

getting picked on or mistreated. the higher level people are retiring and then coming back for personal services contracts. i hope that you'll be looking into that when you are doing your studies. thank you. >> we will. thank you for raising that. >> the first on-line question comes from comes from tyler starks. has the department considered foreign language centers? it would increase the effectiveness of language training by allowing more hands on training, it would greatly enhance the cultural studies aspect, and potentially save the department money because of the lower cost of operations. >> it is an interesting idea. i do not have an opinion on it. i will make sure that we evaluate it. we will raise it with our

management. thank you very much for that idea. >> thank you for holding this town hall. my name is emily gowan from the office of international religious freedom. my question is not about religious freedom. it is about biking and running to work. it is about whether you would support an initiative to get us access to showers. [laughter] [applause] it would save the government a lot of money. we would not have to get our transit subsidies. i would much rather bike than take the metro. >> i love that idea. we will look into it. it does have a lot of positives

about it. i will see whether there is anything that we can do. most people would ask what that has to do with running the state department or usaid. but i think there is a real desire on the part of many people to lead healthier lifestyle and a greener lifestyle. the more we can demonstrate our commitment to that, the better. i cannot promise anything. we will look. i do not know about the showers. but we will look and see what we can find out. thank you very much for raising that. [applause] good morning. i work in the executive office of the bureau of western hemisphere affairs. i think that i can safely speak on behalf of the entire foreign service in thanking you for all of your efforts to help close

the overseas pay gap. we very much appreciate it. thank you. [applause] >> we made real progress on that in the supplemental. we are continuing our efforts so that it is a permanent change. it is unacceptable that there would be such discrimination on the basis of locality of assignment. thank you. >> the next online question comes from clarke fry. i remember a message on the sounding board about the embassies. the embassy's discussed a similar idea. i believe it would be a great addition to foreign posts. could you expand more on the concept and your intentions in pursuing it? how widespread with the concept be applied? are there any planning stages to implement it? thank you for your strong leadership over the past few

months. >> we are trying to evaluate how we could bring what is colloquially called main street america into some of our embassies and other facilities around the world. there used to be more outreach by american missions. we had a lot more libraries. we had centers before the security concerns became so intense. we do want to create more contact between people. one of the biggest complaints i have heard from many of you is that a lot of our new embassies are beautiful and very secure, but they really cut you off from feeling like you are part of the community. you get out into it, but it makes it difficult to serve as a convenient forum for people in the host country. i do not have anything to

announce. but we are looking at that. that person sounds like they may have some real ideas. i hope that they will convey their specific ideas to us. we are very interested in coming up with ways to get the linkage back between our representatives in countries and the people we are working with. >> thank you for your remarks. i was hoping you could share your thoughts on north korea and the situation with the journalists being held there. >> the journalists and their families have expressed great remorse for the incident. i think everyone is very sorry that happened. what we hope for now is that these young women would be granted amnesty for the north korean system and be allowed to return home to their families as

soon as possible. >> i am in the bureau of administration. i volunteered on human rights report section on persons with disabilities. what is the department doing in light of the fact that the eeoc ranks the department of state in last place among cabinet agencies for people with disabilities with the retention rates especially? i give you this for your consideration. thank you. >> i recently met with our advisory council on disabilities. they have some very good recommendations. we are trying to improve our treatment of and support for people with disabilities.

thank you. >> our next question comes from jim pickle. could you please let the staff use an alternative browser known as fire fox? [laughter] [applause] i was surprised the state does not use this browser. it was approved for the intelligence community. i do not know why the state cannot use it. it is a much safer program. [applause] >> apparently, there is a lot of support for this suggestion. i do not know the answer. pat, do you know the answer. [laughter] >> the answer is an expense question. >> it is free. [laughter] >> nothing is free.

it is a question of the resources to manage multiple systems. it is something we are looking at. thanks to the secretary, there is a significant increase for the capital investment fund pending. that is where we find our operations. we are hoping to get that increase in the capital investment fund. with those additional resources, we will be able to add multiple programs to it. yes, you are correct. it is free. it has to be administered. the patches have to be loaded. it may seem small. but with a worldwide operation, you are caught in the terrible bind of triage trying to do all that you can but not being able to do everything at once. >> we will try to move toward that.

when the white house was putting together the stimulus package, we were able to get money that would be spent in the united states. that was the priority. we try to get money for i.t. and upgrading our system and expanding its reach. this is a very high priority for me. we will continue to push the envelope on it. pat is right. everything does come with some cost. we will be looking to see if we can extend it as quickly as possible. it raises another issue with me. if we are spending money on things that are not productive and useful, let us know. there are thousands of people using it systems and office supplies. the more money we can save on stuff that is not cutting edge,

the more resources we will have to do things that will give us more tools. it sounds simple, but one of the most common suggestions on the sounding board was having better systems to utilize supplies, paper supplies, office supplies. we should be more conscious of their purchasing and using. it reminded me of something i sometimes do. i call it shopping in my closet. it involves opening doors and seeing what i already have. i suggest that to everybody. it is quite enlightening. when you go to the store and buy peanut butter and do not realize you have two jars on the back of the shelf, it sounds simplistic. but help us save money on things we should not be wasting money on. give us a chance to manage our resources to do things like

firefox. >> i am surely miles from the overseas building operations. i am the director of overseas research. i asked you a question about workplace bullying. since then, if you have mandated that a system be addressed tfor this issue. i want to thank you for being the first secretary of state to take a stance against workplace bullying. because of this, a committee is being formed to develop this policy. i have a couple of requests. i am requesting that this committee also include some of the folks that have been bullied to look a the best interests of those who have been abused. otherwise, it would be like letting the fox into the henhouse. secondly, i request that this

committee addressed the retaliation against those that have filed complaints. that has been done as well. when they are standing up for themselves, they are prevented from being promoted or rewarded for their work. they have been marginalized or stuck in the corner. they are kept from the dancing in their career. the third thing is that it has been stated by some senior management that if you work for a bad manager or do not like how your manager is treating you, then you should look for different job. i am certain this would not be your statement. bad managers make the department dysfunctional. you mentioned that you need the support to move forward on your programs. our request is that the bad managers returned to the good ones through training. if they do not change, they have to be removed. good people are still being placed under bad managers.

those people are moved out and other people come in who will be abused as well. i want to thank you for all the good work you have done in setting up the committee. >> thank you. thank you for those excellent suggestions. [applause] >> i am with the office of international religious freedom. president obama gave the cairo speech last month and outlined several foreign policy goals dealing with democracy, religious freedom, and human rights. what are some ways in which we can do more outreach and support for religious minorities? >> that is an excellent question. we began the follow-up efforts

to the president's historic speech in cairo. the policy planning office under dr. slaughter is coordinating that. we are looking for your suggestions. we have already passed on to the white house a number of very specific ways to follow up. we do not want a speech to be given with nothing happening and nothing changing. i would welcome your ideas and the ideas of the people working with you about how we could perhaps address these. you. ittwo -- you mentioned two particular concerns of mine with the minority and the egyptian government. but the swine flu, all of their pigs were slaughtered. that is a real economic hardship that they're trying to recover from. in iraq, we have seen some

glimmers of hope in the way that the iraqi government is treating and protecting minority religions. there has to be more to do. that is one of the issues we are discussing with the rockies. specific ideas are very much appreciated. -- that is one of the issues we're discussing with the iraqis. >> please tell us your plans for restructuring before and responsibilities. will usaid have an administrator before the end of the fiscal year? >> i hope so. we are working very hard to get to the point where we can announce a nominee for the director. it is an administrator that is a critical leader in our efforts. i hope that will come very soon. part of the reason for doing

this qddr is instead of running separate processes, we want to start at the beginning with an integrated process. usaid will be a complete partner with state. there is so much synergy. when you look at the work we do here with population, refugees, promotion of democracy, science out reach, health and economic work, there is so much synergy there that can be created if we are better able to work together and integrate appropriately. clearly, getting a leader on board is a very high priority for me. i am working very hard to make that happen. i hope it will be in the very near future. >> good morning.

i am an intern in the diplomatic security division. i am very honored to be here. i attended the university of miami. i applied online and i am here today. i want to know what intern's can do to help with the changes at the state department. what ways can they help the interns? sometimes they are not paid. they have to find housing. they have to live here in order to help the state department. if there is any way that we can help you, thank you. >> are you at the university of of florida in miami? donna shalala is the president there. that is a very good point. how many interns are here?

we have a lot of interns'. [applause] i think that is a great tribute to the state department. i know that there are interns over at usaid. we want to use the hard work of people like yourselves. we appreciate it. we run a very good intern program year. by the hands that went up, it has a lot of good out reach. any of your ideas about how we can improve its, utilize you more, whether there is a way to solicit opinions from young people like yourself about your experience and desire and interest to work full-time for the government, i am very

interested in what you might have to offer us. i think it would be useful to have an organized way of soliciting the opinions and ideas of the interns who are here. i also find it very telling that technology is changing so quickly. you may have new ideas we have done even thought of. we have a vigorous effort under way to make us more techno- friendly to be involved in the new technology. we're always looking for new ideas all the time. you can use the sounding board. you can make sure that the people with whom you work no of any ideas or suggestions that you have. we're looking for people to make a commitment to public service.

we hope that many of you will decide they want to go into the foreign service or the civil service and be part of your country's foreign policy. >> i work in the office of the chief operating officer at usaid. this is my personal question. americans are more conscious of global problems as they come home. your strategy represents an unprecedented opportunity to make a clear story of how our work addresses those problems. you have also mentioned that this would likely be institutionalized in legislation. our legislation does not present a clear explanation to americans of how we take on these problems and what we do for u.s. citizens. many thinkers point to the need

for a grand compromise between the executive and the legislature. congress can feel comfortable with the supervision it has, but the administration can have more flexibility in what it does. i would like your ideas on how to move forward with that. >> i think you make some very important points. we need a narrative, especially in difficult economic times. we need to be able to explain to the american people who are losing their jobs and feeling more insecure why we are spending money to send diplomats or development experts around the world to deal with problems that many people feel others should take care of themselves. we need to make the linkage between our humanitarian and moral values and our interests, our strategic interests in the world. we need to tell a story that is

convincing to our fellow citizens. one of the reasons why i want to do this qddr process is that we need to update and refresh our story. we need to listen to each other. we need to cut down the bureaucratic barriers that get in the way of common effort in our own government, with the private sector, and set forth a clear sense of mentionemission. we are beginning the process. i have ideas. you have ideas. i bet everybody here has their own ideas. that is why we want this to be a bottom of process. we want to hear what you think we should be doing. i want people to think about it in terms of telling your family members, people you go to see it

high-school reunions, hard- working americans, why would you do is in their interests and in the interests of their children. if we cannot make that case, we cannot sustain the increased resources that we are obtaining. i have worked very hard over the last six months to make the case for greater resources. we have done well. but part of the reason we have done well is because i kept saying over and over again that the united states cannot be a bystander. it will come back to hurt us. it will endanger the future of our children. therefore, what we're doing is most profoundly and fundamentally in the interests of the american people. we've got to make that case. i think we can make it without any question at all. but we need to make it.

that is what this process is for. i do not want to prejudge it and say what i believe we should do. i want to hear from all of you. i want to make sure that we come up with a very convincing story about who we are and what we do for the american people and for peace, progress, and prosperity around the world. >> the next online question comes from tommy grant. border security is a top priority. what are we doing now and water the plants in the future? >> we are doing a lot. i would hope that tommy would get a copy of our tips report that has just come out. it is the definitive analysis of

what is happening with the trafficking of persons around the world. i think that report is a critical part of our role in trying to raise the standards and protect human rights. next year, we're going to include ourselves. i want us to start looking at the united states with every report that we do. . .

work. i think that many of our missions are round of the world and agents were part of the overall american presence. the state department and usaid are very act did in our border security efforts. we do not have the lead. we are very active participants in the borders. >> good morning. i work in the messaging offices of irm. i am very excited to be in the program. do you have any extra -- interest in promoting the co-op program? i go to the catholic university school of law. i know that students look for an internship that would bring them in to the federal government. >> very much support those

programs. the young woman that spoke earlier about the internship program. i know it is a financial hardship for many people. i don't know what the legal constraints are, but it might provide the minimum mom subsidies for people who have financial need. anything that expands our pool of in terms of people coming in the department, i am in favor of. >> i am another intern. i really enjoyed my time here working at state, and i would like to encourage everybody here to stay in touch with the interns. that way we can find out about other job opportunities and stay in touch with everybody.

>> do we have any kind of website for insurance? we do? it is called in tuintern connec. >> it has just come out this last month. it is a great way for you all to share your ideas. >> i think it is great to have the interests of cells connecting, and i think the people who have worked with mentored and turns to stay in touch, because there is a lot of evidence that in terms become the best pool of recruits. they are much more likely to want to come to work. the more we can nurture those career ambitions, the better.

thank you. >> good morning. i served on the arabic diplomatic team. we are very proud, those of us that served under you and secretary rice. the leaders at the apartment and cursing site worth -- work like a balance and things like that. it is important to have a healthy mind and a healthy work force. one more point about allocation of human assets. and how they can tap into these different interests.

you must -- how they can bring something to the overall scheme. thank you very much. >> thank you. that is a good idea. >> i am a contractor employee under irm. as a former soldier, i noted during my time in the army that many of our field commanders have diplomatic relations with their counterparts. is it possible to draw on that

experience in state? and also possibly to exchange it with foreign service experts? also to help brief them and get them ready for this challenges. >> excellent. thank you for your service. we are trying to do more of that. you might not be surprised that a lot of military officers have been increasingly responsible for what we would consider diplomacy and development in the conflict zones. we are working closely with the defense department and congress to try to get some more balance and to that so that we can have more of our diplomatic experts working with the military, and that we can learn from the military experience.

one of the things that the military did was made diplomatic and debt thematic efforts more possible was to create the diplomatic front. when i went to iraq and afghanistan several times, particularly in iraq, i'm matt young captain's and lieutenant- colonel hoot -- they had a sum of money they were able to disperse without any real accountability. it was an important tool. we do not have that on the diplomatic and development side. it is a cumbersome process. lot of military officers told me that, they would rely on diplomats and usaid officials to

tell them. it is important that we try to learn from one another. both general petraeus and ambassador holbrooke are working closely together. they have had a lot of meetings to gather -- together. we need to get better at that. thank you all very much. [applause]

>> coming up this weekend on booktv. today, the late robert mcnamara from 1995 talks about his book, in retrospect, tragedy and lessons of vietnam. on afterwards, a former congressman and host joe scarborough on bush administration, republican party and the obama presidency. he is interviewed by columnist peggy noonan. afterward 3 airs on sunday night. and also on the economy, a financial editor said the can -- financial class was predictable and far from being over. and alan roth tells us how a second grader beats wall street.

a panel of authors tells about the economic crisis, and what to do about it. and henry waxman about his years in the white -- in congress. kunitz on sundayronald and allin president truman. >> german had guarded decided, and then they announced it. >> sunday at 88 -- sunday at 8:00 p.m.. you can also watches program on xmsatellite radio and online as a c-span podcast.

>> how c-span funded? >> taxpayer dollars? >> public support? >> private contributions? >> 30 years ago, america's cable companies created cspan2 as a public service from private business initiative, known mandate, no government money. >> live coverage of the confirmation hearings for judge sotomayor began on monday. here is a look now at the judge's questioning style. >> how did you prepare to argue for her? >> you prepared to argue before any judge, you have to know the case backward and forward. one of the interesting

differences between the american system and the english system is, i have never argued in england, but i am told that the house of lords takes as long as they need to decide an appeal, and to hear arguments. sometimes arguments there can go on for days. what is unusual here is that both in the circuit court and supreme court, there are time limitations as to how long you are committed to argue. they are usually strictly enforced. at the supreme court i am told, although i have not are you there, they are really enforce. you know in advance that you have 10 minutes, or 12 minutes. in a case that has taken years to get to the point of an

appeal. you have to figure out a way in preparation to get your argument down so that you get your point across to the judges. this is where judge sotomayor said reputation comes in. sometimes you can take the entire 10 minutes answering the same question. that was not my experience. i am told she will keep asking questions until she really understands the answers. sometimes the judges give you more time to finish. if you know what is bothering a judge and maybe the other judges on the panel, you have to focus in on the argument. i think that is what is so important about having a dialogue.

i prepared by knowing everything, obviously what the questions will be, and responding to them. >> now with nine justices there, she would be one of nine asking the questions, it is likely that there will be more give-and- take from the judges. >> i don't know. i don't know whether judge souter was an emperor of questions. from what i have seen from judge scalia, if she gets confirmed, judge sotomayor will be also. i don't know whether any one of them will dominate the entire proceeding, but i think you can expect that he would ask a serious number of questions.

if she had some problems with the issue. >> you can see the confirmation hearings beginning live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on monday here on c-span. also on c-span radio and on the web at c-span.org. president obama gives his weekly address from italy, the side of the g-8 summit. he talked about his economic recovery plan to stimulate the economy and the need for overhauling the health-care system. it is followed by the gop whip with the republican address. he gives his perspective on the president's plan, and his party's perspective. >> this week we have made many changes about abroad and at all. during my changes at russia, we started to reset the

relationship. the g-8 summit, the leaders had to discuss how we will confront the challenges of our time, fighting global warming, addressing global hunger and poverty. and donna i laid out supporting -- again ghana, even as we make progress. we came into office facing the most severe economic downturn since the depression. at the time we were losing an average of 700,000 jobs a month. many feared that our financial system was on the verge of collapse. the result of swift action, we have been able to pull our financial system and economy back from the brink.

we have been able to help homeowners say in their homes. we also passed the largest and most sweeping economic recovery plan in our nation's history. it was designed to spur demand and get people spending again. it was designed to save jobs and create new ones. in 100 days, this recovery act is working as intended. it has delivered $43 billion in tax breaks for american families. without the help, the recovery back -- a recovery act, the deficits would be twice as large

as they are now, layoffs of firefighters and police officers. the recovery act allows all businesses, to hire new workers, scrapping the plans to eliminate new jobs. in the months to come, thousands more projects will begin, leading to additional jobs. i know that there are those who fell doing nothing was an answer. it's today, some of those same critics are judging it as a failure. others believe that the recovery plan should have been larger, and are already calling for a second stimulus. the recovery act was not designed to work force in months. it was designed to work for years. we're committed to spending is

-- the money in a way that is transparent. we must let it work the way it is supposed to. unemployment tends to recover more slowly. i am confident that the united states of america will weather this economic storm. once we clear away the wreckage, the real question is what we will build in its place. even as we rescue this economy from a crisis, we must rebuild it better than before. without reforms, we are destined to see more crises in the foreseeable future. this is a feature i reject. that is why we are laying on a foundation that is strong enough to withstand the challenges of the 21st century, but one will allow us to thrive in the global economy.

that means investing in the future. training workers, controlling health-care costs that are driving us into debt. through clean energy investing we have made in the recovery act. in california, 3000 people will be employed in a new solar plant. in michigan, investment in wind technology is expected to create over 2200 jobs. two weeks ago, the house of representatives passed historic legislation that would finally make clean energy profitable, leaving home of industries and jobs that cannot be a source. getting our workers the skills and education they need for the future, we are working on reforms to close achievement gap and assure that our schools meet the high standards and performance and give them new pathways to advance. finally, we have made progress on health care reform.

we will control the costs that are drawn -- driving our families and business and government into debt. we have produce legislation that will bring down cost and curb the worst practices. that they can no longer deny americans coverage based on a previous medical condition. a plan that also allow americans, if they lose their job, it was set up a health concern and the marketplace will allow families and small businesses to access one-stop shopping to quality coverage. it will help them compare prices and choose the plan that best suits their needs. one such joyce would be a public auction, would make health care more competitive and keep health care and insurance companies more profitable.

although the recovery act covers a fraction of our long-term debt, people have questions as to whether we can afford reforms without making the deficit worse. i have been firmed in this that both health care reform and clean energy legislation not add to the deficit. i intend to continue the work to produce -- eliminating programs that do not work and in reforming our entitlement program to ensure that the long- term deficits are brought under control. i said when i took office that it would take many months to recover and ultimately prosper. we are not there yet. even one american out of work is one too many. we are moving in the right direction. we are cleaning out -- up the wreckage. we are laying a firmer foundation so that we may weather whatever comes.

this will be a year of wrestling our economy. just as important will be the building the economic engine for long-term growth. we have to put off our decisions, but we have already deferred this far too long. this generation, our generation, has to show that courage and determination. i believe we will. thank you for listening. >> i have the great privilege of representing the hard working people of virginia. american families and small businesses today are struggling. republicans have put forth thoughtful, comprehensive plans of action that put jobs first. we offered an economic recovery plan that would have revitalize

struggling small businesses and help middle-class families by putting americans back to work. yet, the president in tandem with democrats in congress, have pushed through the $787 billion bill full of government waste and massive borrowing cleverly called stimulus. there is no doubt that our nation faces many challenges. but the truth is that president obama's economic decisions have not produced jobs, have not produced prosperity and have not worked. president obama has are the schip and are owed trillions of dollars, and so far, nearly $3 million have been -- 3 million jobs have been lost to the share. they said jobs would be created immediately. they said that unemployment would stay under 8%. yet months later, they are

telling us now that they expect unemployment to climb of her -- climb over 10%. of simply put, this is now president obama's economy. the american people are beginning to question whether these policies are working. together, we can bring about -- about a strong recovery. we can create a government that empower small businesses. we must focus on job creation and restoring the if retirement insecurity loss of america. for the sake of our children and long-term fiscal viability, we must top spending money that we do not have. that is what every day our republican colleagues and i are fighting to enact policies that

will stabilize our economy, create jobs. you and your family deserve no less. since january, we have offered alternatives to the of control of big government democrats. it has failed to create jobs. our plan is simple and smart. its strength is that it invests in the american people. we believe washington should stop its war on the middle- class, and reduce taxes so every hardworking family in america will see an immediate increase in their income. in prosperous middle class critical for our nation's well- being. we believe washington must dop -- must stop -- must -- it is a

small business men and women who will reignite our economy by putting men and women back to work. washington should get out of the way and encourage small business to start. we believe washington must be responsible for every taxpayer dollar expense. washington must live within its means. we will not support tax hikes to pay for even more so called stimulus spending. the overwhelming majority of americans are working hard and are playing by the rules. they are providing for their families and doing their part to return america to the pinnacle of their prosperity. their reward, trillions more in debt, washington barrault's nearly $10,000 -- barrault's nearly $10,000 in american

households. do you feel $10,000 better off? if you don't, please know that most people agree. that's why we continue our 5 because during these tough economic times it seems to washington is offering you few choices except spend an hour. i am here today to let you know there are alternatives. common-sense tax relief, necessary reductions in spending, and intelligent policies that do not been gripped our nation. that is why i am asking you to join our 54 common sense. we can do better, and we will do better. but first, we have to come together to change what is going on. the time is critical, the choice is yours. on behalf of my republican colleagues, joined with us to get washington working for you

once again. thank you for listening. >> your watching c-span, created as a public surface -- service. the house hearing on mexican drug cartels hearing is coming up next. and later, america and the course looks at just -- judge sotomayor. this week on america and the courts, supreme -- three former law clerks talk about what is like to work with judge sotomayor, plus a roundtable discussion on key cases that the judge has worked on. america and the course, at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> live coverage of the confirmation hearing of

sotomayor begins at 10 eastern monday on on the web that sits on top court. we will replay the proceedings weeknight on c-span to. >> policies been funded? >> taxpayer dollars? >> public support. >> private contributions? >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiatives, no government mandate, no government money. now a house hearing on mexican drug cartels. we will hear about efforts to who stop violent clashes near the american mexico border.

it lasts an hour and 50 minutes. >> good mexico as long been an important ally to the u.s.. it is this country's third largest trading partner. it is one of the largest countries in the americas and. over the past few years, organized crime has made mexico and the transportation of legal drugs trafficking into the u.s..

as much as 90% of all cocaine entering the u.s. concern mexico. criminals in mexico are now the largest suppliers of marijuana and major supplies of methamphetamine. crime pays, apparently. this criminal enterprise is estimated to produce annual revenue estimated to 40 billion. the mexican president began a major crackdown on the drug cartels operating in the country. this is almost 11,000 people in mexico have been killed in drug- related violence, almost daily reports from mexico did picked acts of torture and death.

it is getting worse. this past june was the deadliest month on record with over 800 killed in drug-related violence. in mexico, drugs and violence are prevalent. mexico has faced one of the most critical security challenges in history. many who have had the courage have been threatened or killed. this includes policemen, judges, journalists, and even the clergy. there is some basis for optimism. there have been some important changes. law enforcement agencies and other federal officials have reported positive development with their mexican counterparts.

they say these changes are having a significant effect in addressing the drug threats posed to countries. at the same time, there is a front-page article in today's washington post which reads, mexico accused of torture in the drug war. army using brutality to fight back. we must be clear that abuses from the state are intolerable. i will seek to understand more about the facts related as the committee's investigation continues. nevertheless, i believe the drug cartels and their associated cartels have made the threat of safety along the southwest border. they have caused may's -- major disruptions.

because of my growing concern about this problem, i set a bipartisan team of investigators to the southwest border to get a firsthand look at what is happening on the ground. our investigators met with numerous federal, state officials, including law enforcement, military intelligence and others and observed operations in both daylight and at night. this hearing was designed as the follow up to the investigation, to provide that committee of an overview of federal efforts to disrupt and dismantle the mexican drug trade and to examine whether federal agencies have sufficient tools and capabilities to do the job required. over the past years, there have been nagging questions about how the effectiveness of federal

policies with regard to this. it is clear that this administration takes the drug cartel threat very seriously. cartel threat very, very seriously, questions remain. just one month ago, the administration published a document entitled "national southwest border counter narcotics strategy." this is a blueprint on how the administration will address the threats posed by mexican drug smuggling. but the key issue remains, who is in charge? we know who is leading the fight in iraq. we know who is leading the fight in afghanistan. what we do not know is who is leading the fight on our own border? is it the border czar? is it the drug czar?

will it be the national guard? perhaps we will obtain a better understanding of this question today. one more thing before we began. with us today are top representatives from keep law enforcement agencies involved in the ongoing struggle to address the mexican drug trafficking. the work they do is critical, both to united states national security into helping mexico in its progress to turning the corner on the threats in now confronts. i commend their efforts, and i look forward to working with them on this critical national security matter. thank you. before i recognize their ranking member for his opening statement, i would like to thank the minority for its assistance during this investigation, and all the work related to this hearing was conducted on a bipartisan basis. i would like to thank the ranking member for his

leadership and his staff for continuing to build on this important relationship. i look forward to continuing to work together on important matters such as today's topic. i will now yield to the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, but i would have led to go on for as long as you wanted. as the chairman said, this is a bipartisan issue in which there is no distance between the chairman and myself. our staffs did work closely on it and intend to continue. there is no surprise that we will reach different conclusions on some of the fixes and some of the things that should be done. we will read some differences in the priorities of the administration, including its representatives before us today, and the two of us. when it comes to finding the facts and to agreeing on the

portions that can be agreed on, so that we can then disagree on very little, i think this committee is setting a high standard, and i intend to continue that. i ask unanimous consent that my entire opening statement replaced on the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> with that indulgent, i will take a moment to recognize allen berson. i do not know the rest of you as well, but our new borders are is not new to san diego, and he is not new to dealing with border issues. his work in education and his work on the airport -- the list of work is too long to do as an introduction, but you have been a champion for so many causes in san diego, and i could not be more delighted that the president has selected you as someone who rises above the politics, rises above either party to do what is right for our country. i look forward to your testimony today. i am particularly pleased that

the border as a separate issue is getting attention. i must admit that the reduction of the drug czar from a full cabinet level position concerns me deeply. i think it sends the wrong message at a time in which your efforts and the efforts of the mexican government are going to be critical. the fact that we pulled away to 0.5 years ago from colombia, we curtailed our support for plan columbia, and on a partisan basis, failed to support the colombian free trade initiative. it sends a chilling message to countries who bled so long with us in order to eradicate drugs that once, literally, controlled the government in colombia. today in mexico we have a very brave president who is fighting the same battle, and so far appears to be making progress. i say that because you are only

one key assassination away from a dramatic change in mexico. we need to understand that the death of corruption in mexico -- depth of corruption, when it is in the hands of people with guns and a willingness to use them, 11,000 murders this year alone, says a great deal. we will hear about the spillover or lack thereof, and i believe that people in san diego at the border, the u.s. attorney and others, are doing a good job, doing everything they can to ensure that the activity north of the border is disconnected as much as possible from the activities out of the border. but let's be clear. whether you are in san diego or st. louis or cleveland, you are directly affected by our failure to stop narcotics from coming into our country. every city in america and many rural areas have organized crime directly linked to those

assets being made available and sold. some in my party would say that it is another country's problem alone. i am not one of them. today, with former speaker danny hastert, we announced a drug task force, one that had been somewhat dormant for several years. we felt we needed to work hard to bring new emphasis to this growing problem. but also because we want to make sure that the facts are very clearly stated to the american people. first of all, we are the consumers, and we are the suppliers of money. we all take a certain amount of blame for the fact that our money ultimately leads to these cartels' operations in other countries. additionally we will hear today about guns going south wall of drugs go north. i have no doubt that drugs and go south. one of the questions is, is it

through the tunnels that i have seen personally and move the drugs? or is it somehow through the border? would we do any real good if we set up an exit american checkpoint at the border, or would it simply be one more burden borne by our border patrol people at a cost much higher than either the mexicans doing their job or, in fact, would be accomplished very little other than to find a small amount of drugs and a small amount of paraphernalia, when in fact, anything serious in the way of guns or other activities are probably goi to the very means that bring drugs norrith. if we did not find the drugs going north, where just as unlikely to find a gun is going south. having said that, i look forward to a lot of information we do not have every day in san diego. i want to thank the chairman, because the only way we will really support the efforts of

this administration and hold the administration accountable is on a bipartisan basis. we are off to an incredibly good start, and i expected to continue. i yield back. >> i would now like to recognize mr. turner to make an opening statement if he would like. >> i want to thank you and our witnesses for being here this morning. in march, a subcommittee on national security and foreign affairs had a hearing on the issue of money, guns, and drugs , and whether united states inputs were fueling the violence on the mexican border. we heard testimony about what factors inside the the united states are contributing to the strength of the mexican drug cartels. they are continuing to -- it will be an endless task if we do not address the other related aspects of the drug trade. more progress needs to be made in drugs, guns, and cash.

according to some estimates, as many as 90% of the high caliber weapons being used by drug cartels to perpetrate the violence we of seen in the past few years originated in the united states. the violence threatens the safety of our citizens if we do not halt the flow arms into mexico. this is a significant challenge for the border patrol. we have to check the gun flow at the border as well as in the interior of this country. the second major factor in the drug trade is the cash flow coming in from the united states. we heard testimony at the march hearing that as much as $25 billion in bulk cash flows into mexico in drug sales in the united states each year. @@@@@@@@#i

at a credit legislation. there may be a lack of coordination in jurisdiction in this area. we hope they can address those issues as well. finally, the demand for drugs here in the united states did not help the problem. 90% of the cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana -- and marijuana come from mexico. there are no simple solutions to the problem. we need to recognize that our internal drug policies is -- has had a profound effect on our neighboring countries and our own national security. it is also a global problem. after the march hearing, we had

testimony that cocaine is now headed to europe and russia. mexican drug cartels made inroads in south africa. africa as well. our shared border makes the situation a particular concern to us, but it is just one piece of the global puzzle. i hope our discussion can of form -- in former approach with the adjure -- with the other regions as well. >> i yield to congressman bilbray. >> as a lifelong resident of the frontier area, i want to thank you for this hearing. it seems like everyone is talking about wars overseas, we are ignoring our own backyard, where fatalities are skyrocketing and the death rate among law-enforcement just out of our border was far beyond anything we had seen anywhere else in the world. we just sort of ignored it because it was not on the radar screen for the meeting. i want to apologize to the

other two gentlemen. i have to mention my friend mr. berson. when it comes to the choice of our guy in san diego in the western sector, no one could have been a better choice than alan, and i want to thank him for being willing to serve again. it is not an easy job. you knew what you were stepping into, and we do not have time for learning curve here. i want to thank the administration for bringing him back on line. the one thing i have to say is that too often we hear the media talk about the drug cartel. we need to change the terminology to the smuggling cartels, because we are talking about not only drugs going north, but we are talking about guns and money coming south, and the same cartel is involved in illegal alien smuggling. it is all a network. i grew up in an area where begun

in the habit of seeing illegals being used as the meals for the cartel's, and the abuses -- being used as the mules for the cartels. i just want to make sure we understand that we talk about this issue, they are all tied together. the cartels have controlled the border an illegal crossing for much too long. i am glad to see this hearing because too many people on our side of the border think this is a problem that is across the border and not a threat to the american communities. this is a major threat for all of us along the frontier area on both sides of the border. i hope i am able to get you photos that i do not think we will show in public, but just so the members understand how bad this is, we have a hospital in my county that has someone walking in with two fingers and

saying is there any way to preserve these fingers so that when we get the hostages back, we can so them back on? when you have law enforcement that finds the remnants of decapitation, this is the kind of thing we have going on in our neighborhoods, not just in tijuana, but in the san diego county region. it is crossing over, and now is the time to win this battle. present -- president calderon is the bravest elected official i have ever known. we have to give credit to him and throw aside our disagreements with mexico and work with him now. we either fight this battle on mexican soil and win it, are we will be fighting it on american soil at a much higher cost. i appreciate the chance to be able to be heard today and i yield back. >> i would now like to introduce our first panel of witnesses who will testify today.

the director of the office of national drug control policy in the executive office of the president. mr. lanny brewer, criminal division, united states department of justice, and mr. alan berson. he has been praised all day. assistant secretary for international affairs and special represented for border of affairs, united state department of homeland security. we will go as far as we can. let me just where all be in. please stand and raise your right hand.

[reading oath] that the record reflect that all the witnesses entered in the affirmative. >> i practiced all last night announcing your name correctly. >> i am honored to be with you and all committee members that are here today. last month, secretary napolitano, eric holder and i -- this is comprehensive interagency plan that was developed through the work of the office of national drug control. it was done in a way that ensured all of the partners that you see here today being actively involved in it. this is a plan that is not going

to sit on a shelf and gather dust. it is being put into action even as we speak. it is being done in partnership also with the courageous and dedicated work of mexico's president calderon. the commitment of all the federal agencies and the state and local agencies that we have talked to. to ensure it is turned into action, the administration will be announcing a dedicated interagency working group which i will lead to push for the full and effective implementation of the strategy. that framework is being developed. it will put -- we will provide a public report on the implementation of the strategy as part of the administration's first national drug control strategy which will be published early next year. as part of my oversight responsibilities, my office recently identified overarching national drug control strategy goals to help guide all of the

federal agencies as they develop their policy initiatives, the programmatic efforts, and the budget proposals. of the coming months, we will be working with the department of homeland security, justice, state, defense, and others to develop cross agency performance goals and metrics for the stock was border initiative. in addition, as the agencies update their she plans, will be working with omb and the departments and agencies for key southwest border priorities that are identified in the strategy. this will insure accountability and make it clear that combating the flow of drugs and money and weapons across the southwest border must be a core element of our nation's approach to the entire drug problem. it is essential that we work together as one team to stop the flow of drugs into our country as well as the flow of all currency and weapons that fuel cartel violence.

the congress and the ministration will need to work very closely together. i am looking forward to working with this committee, and i know that part of the focus you have identified is accountability, and we are proud to ensure that. -- we are proud -- we are prepared to answer that. i asked the directors of the high intensity drug trafficking areas to meet with me along the southwest border last month. what the director has told me and what i believe the members in this committee already know is that our front-line state and local law enforcement partners have been under enormous strain. the retiring share of of 50 years of law enforcement has been friends for many years. i listened to this very closely. although the strain is most acute on the border, as the

ranking member mentioned, clearly this is a national problem. it affected us in seattle during the nine years i was police chief as well as my colleagues in minnesota and across the country. the administration intends to continue to help those law enforcement agencies who needed and that are on the border and also within the interior. we will keep an intense focus on this threat and make a difference. the knowledge of local law enforcement, meaning the state, county, and city, is a great advantage to the work of the federal government. when it comes to the critical challenge of interdicting this out and flow of weapons and currency, a partnership with those agencies is essential, and i think i can be of great value in that. state and local law enforcement personnel possess unmatched knowledge about the organizations that operate in their jurisdictions every day. law enforcement operations are most effective when this knowledge is combined with a skilled technology and resources

that the federal agencies can bring. all of us in this administration are committed to pursuing a truly national approach to the critical problem. thank you, chairman, and i look forward to answering questions. >> thank you very much. >> chairman and ranking member issa and members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the department of justice's important role in the administration's overall strategy to address the threats posed by the rise of mexican drug cartels, particularly along our southwest border. the justice department's goal is to systematically dismantle these cartels which threaten the national security of our mexican neighbors, pose an organized crime threat to the united states, and are responsible for much of the skirt of illicit drugs and the increase in violence in mexico.

this commands priority at the highest level of the department's leadership. as you know, on june 5, attorney general holder, department of homeland security secretary napolitano, and office of national drug control policy director released president obama's shall southwest border counter narcotics strategy. the strategy is designed to stem the flow of illegal drugs and their illicit proceeds across the southwest border and to reduce the associated crime and violence in the region. i look forward to working with the director and assistant secretary berson and are many partners to ensure success of the administration's strategy. the department reviewed the justice department plays a central role in supporting the strategy.

the department's approach to the mexican drug cartels is to confront them as criminal organizations. to do so, we employ extensive and coordinated intelligence capabilities to target the largest and most dangerous mexican drug cartels and focus law enforcement resources. our intelligence and based, prosecutor led, multi agency task force focused our investigation on the x -- investigation, extradition, prosecution, and prosecution of key cartel leaders. destroying the leadership and seizing the financial infrastructure of the cartels is critical to dismantling them. stemming the flow iof guns and money from the united states to mexico is an important aspect of

the administration's comprehensive approach to the problem. in concerted efforts with the in concerted efforts with the department of homeland we're committed to investigating and parker is prosecuting for illegal firearms and currency from the u.s. into mexico. another key component is neutralize in the cartel's to work closely with the government. there's an important role in implementing the merrick initiative including serving as a lead and a mentor and programs expedition training and ng, and forensics. we continue to work closely with mexico to address the issue of cartel related public corruption, including through investigative assistance. we also work together on extraditions of key cartel leaders and other fugitives. the calderon administration has

taken bold steps to confront this threat. we are committed to assisting our mexican partners in this fight. we believe that the department is the right comprehensive and coordinated strategy to disrupt and dismantle the cartel's and stem the southbound flow of firearms and cash. the strengths of the department's approach are illustrated by for example of the tremendous successes of operation accelerator. multinational organizations targeting the sinaloa and gulf cartel's. we recognize there is much more work to do. last month, i traveled to the southwest border, along with my friend, assistant secretary berson is all the challenges that are brave law enforcement personnel confront on a daily basis.

the department is committed to working together with our working together with our colleagues and with our state, local, and travel partners and with the government of mexico to build on what we have done so far, and to develop and implement new and refresh our strategies. the recently signed agreements are emblematic of our glover to come a coordinated approach to the threats posed by the mexican drug cartels. by continuing to work together, we can and will rise to the current challenge. again, thank you for your recognition of this important issue and the opportunity to testify today. i will be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. we have votes on the floor, and we will adjourn for one hour and

be able to come back 10 minutes after the last vote, just in case we run into some problems on the floor. i think we should be back in an hour. at that time, we will continue with you. we have to vote around here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

again, we apologize for the delay, but boats are something that we have to do. -- votes for something we have to do. >> members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity. the rise of the mexican drug

cartels and u.s. national security poses the critical issue clearly and directly. this is a subject critical to our nation, and one with which i am familiar, having served as the southwest border represented for the department of justice from 1995 to 1998. since my appointment to dhs in mid-april, i have travelled to the border into mexico five times to meet with u.s. officials at the federal, state, local, and tribal level as well as counterparts in the administration of president felipe calderon. i have also met with advocacy groups and civic and business groups along the border in brownsville, laredo, del rio, a passel, albuquerque, tucson, phoenix, and san diego. my experience living and working on the border has given me an appreciation for the strategic importance of our political and law enforcement relationship with mexico, as well as for the

gravity of the crisis that we face presently, given the rise of the drug cartels on the u.s.- mexican border and within mexico itself. it is indeed a crisis, though in using that word, i note that the chinese word for crisis is written in mandarin by combining two characters, the characters for danger and opportunity. our current crisis certainly presents both. the danger comes from the fact that the mexican cartels or violent and have created a national security threat to the government of mexico, and therefore derivative bleak, to the united states. the power of the cartels is alarming. they have polluted the political system of mexico. that have corrupted the legal system. the second element of danger is the competition among the cartel's along with the mexican government's attempt to combat

them. it has led to unprecedented violence in the northern states of mexico. it resulted reportedly in 11,000 deaths in the last 3.5 years. our opportunity arises from the historic and courageous efforts and the heroic efforts of the calderon administration. first to fully knowledge the power of the cartel's, and second to willingly confront the stark reality and systematic corruption that exist in mexican law enforcement. the united states government has been bold as well, starting with the unqualified acceptance of the consumption of drugs on the u.s. out of the border is a major contributing factor to the power and influence of mexican cartels. for the first time, we view drugs going north and guns and balkhash going south as two ends of the same problem. it is not the occasion for

finger-pointing between mexico and the united states. the acknowledgement of a shared problem paves the way for cooperation between dhs along with doj and the government of mexico that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago, and even unsalable three years ago. dhs is working in full partnership with the government of mexico to respond to the dangers and the opportunities that the current crisis as presented. this is a relationship of trust with verification, and one that is expected by both countries on that basis. on march 24, secretary napolitano and david ogden announced the president's major southwest border initiative, a reallocation of agents, technology, equipment, and attention to the border. those deployments are now complete. dhs is also taking steps to

deepen our relationship with partner agencies in the government of mexico. . . >> there are positive changes i have noted that make me optimistic.

it provides a better resource capability to confront security issues at the borders than previously. it also has a unified chain of command overseeing our investigation and inspection responsibilities. have been impressed by the cooperation. it is embodied in a relationship that the director and assistant attorney general have forged in short order. this is particularly true on the initiative, the long-term vehicle for cooperation between u.s./mexican law enforcement agencies. it has been said that the challenge of our time is that the future is not what it used to be. when it comes to u.s./mexican relationships and the prospect for building on that

cooperation, to deal with mexican criminal organizations, that is a good thing, a very good thing indeed. i did forward to exploring this matter further with you. thank you. >> thank you for your testimony. we now will move to the question and answer period. i have a broad question for you. are we winning the war against the mexican cartels? >the mexican drug cartels. >> we are. that is thought to say we didn't have much to do. if you could get the work with respect to operations that we have, whether it is operation accelerator or predict reckoning, where we have systematically gone and

prosecuted the cartels, we have attracted enormous blows between lower cartels against the gulf cartels. we have hired letters of extraditions of drugs than ever before. we are making very effective strategies with respect to intelligence base investigations and prosecutions that is not to suggest that we do not have more to do. the battles among the cartels themselves are showing that the pressure we are putting on them do demonstrate that we are being very effective. >> generally, i agree with mr. brewer that this is a long-term struggle about reducing the power of the cartels from the government of mexico and turning it from what is currently a national security threat and into a more conventional law

enforcement problem. measured by that standard, i think we have a ways to go, but i am in accord with mr. brewer for the reason that he stated. we are making progress and it is measurable progress. if we can intensify what we are doing and continued to see weakening of the cartel power, which now is alarmingly high. >> it has been indicated that the president is planning to send national guard troops to the border. of course, if we send national guard troops to the border, who would be in charge of them? >> mr. chairman, the decision whether or not to send the national guard at any border is a decision reserved exclusively for the president.

secretary gates and secondary napolitano have been confirming -- conferring and will submit a recommendation to the president. the mission is a function of a presidential decision. i am confident that in due course it will be made one where the other. >> what are the implications for u.s. national security should the administration fail in its efforts to take on the american drug cartel? what the stakes for mexico and the united states? >> they are very significant. they are confronting a national security, a tremendous challenge right now in their battle

against the cartels. with respect to us right now, it is the equivalent of a major organized-crime challenge. we cannot permit president called a run to fail. his courage and willingness to take on the cartel to the consequences are very extraordinary. we need to deploy the private resources in collaboration -- deployed the appropriate resources in collaboration with him. >> i am in agreement. there is a window of opportunity. to the extent that we are not able to weaken the influence of the cartel's and the mexican political system, we will continue to seek the systematic corrupt system in mexico. decisions are made because they have been bought and paid for. that kind of system south of the

border presents a whole series of long-term security threats to mexico, which is why it is so important that we use this window of opportunity to weaken the power of these criminal organizations that do enormous damage to our society and even more damage to mexican society. the mexican society. >> what would victory really look like? what would really look like, victory for us? >> one thing it would look like this certainly that president called ron eric holder run - calderon has a highly skilled force to be responsive to the need of protecting the people rather than the heavy use of the military. the other thing that with the cat is has been remarked by

representatives from the government of mexico. that is the increasing addiction population, the size of the population involved in drug use. traffickers often pay their careers and product rather than currency. -- their couriers in product within currency. we have to be willing and a hard look at providing resources that work toward the prevention and end of drug use in the country and the treatment. those are other parts that we hope to play. >> i yield to the prime minister from california. bu>> during your tenure you were known for going after the coyotes, literally stopping

those who traffic human beings. along the way you lost a lot of drug charges that they were involved in and the meals they carry. can you give us your opinion of current laws, particular 1326 and 1324, some of the penalties that you have at the border as tools. are they sufficient? >> you raise an important point. this era has a sharp division that uses -- exists between drug organizations and other organizations has been blurred by the efforts of pressure being brought and the cartels by u.s. enforcement and by mexican enforcement. it is also by the recessionary economy. we began to see a blurring of those lines. certainly speaking from the perspective of 10-years ago, the series of statutes available to

prosecutors -- and i will defer immediately to mr. brewer -sendi where a farmer had is a prosecutor -- is that an enforcement official, 1326 and 1325 which is a misdemeanor work well. 1324, which is a penalties for alien smugglers is something that 10-years ago would lead to require review. it could stand a further review at this time. >> basically, what i'm trying to get to is that we have had the talent at the border that i have observed, which is that the first several times that he kept a trafficker -- you can a trafficker, he gets treated like an amateur who happen to stumble

by mistake. it is 60 days to serve. the second time is not much more. we have had cases of the dozens of time in which we cannot get, sometimes because the statute, and the kind of enforcement. do you believe, all three of you, that the congress should be looking into giving you as prosecutors and courts at least a greater ability to have the upper limits -- have the lower limits raised and/or give them the ability to have tougher sentences on the first or second time? >> thank you. i definitely think it is an issue that needs to be explored. i think what we need to do is that we need to give thit to our attorneys. i think we need to give our

u.s. attorneys, particularly in the southwest border states, the discretion antall said that they can effectively and comprehensive peace deal with the issue. i do not think candidly that there is one size fits all. i think we have to get the u.s. attorney's the discretion to prioritize. if we are going to charge under one aspect of the law we have to ensure that we appropriate -- we have appropriate facilities, whether prison or other. >> let me go through that. california has tens of thousands of people who are petty criminals and illegal aliens. are you saying that if we wanted to incarcerate every coyote, every person who is trafficking either in drugs for human beings, that you do not have the capacity today to incarcerate every single one of the people for a significant amount of time? >> i think there would be terrific challenges.

i think to have the appropriate facilities and infrastructure would require a lot. as it did get this comprehensive approach, would we really did what we want to do is give the u.s. attorney's the tools so they can dismantle the very cartels that you are talking about. >> the only truly have the ability to incarcerate. any tool sort of that is an alternate. if you turn on the rest of your cartel, we will not locked up for 10-years. that is a powerful tool. if you turn on your cartel or you are going to spend 60 days, somehow had nothing that is a horrible tool. i'm asking this for three reasons. should we have it? mr. burton was a more likely to say he would have it at his disposal. it can use it as a tool to get cooperation.

the bigger question for us up here is are we clogging the system without having a comprehensive immigration reform, without having relations with mexico that allows us to return more of their citizens sooner with a full faith belief that they will incarcerate them? although my time has expired, i would like it if you looked at it from that standpoint, because we are the committee of oversight and reform. we are the first top in if there are tools the do not have either north or south the week to begin shedding light on. >> you have identified exactly the issue. we absolutely ought to have comprehensive immigration reform. there is absolutely no question. secondly, and are building -- and are building a relationship with the mexican government, a very effective tool is that we do want to be able to return

people to mexico and know that the mexican government is going to treat them appropriately. those are part of the puzzle absolutely. >> i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> to be fully appreciate the amount of corruption and death of corruption? with the large amounts of money that is indicated that is involved that is going into mexico and the reports so we see about corruption and the police departments and military -- what can we do about this? what are we doing about it? do you have confidence that we will get a grip on this? otherwise, we are just spinning our wheels. >> it is an enormous challenge. you are right. one of the tools that we do have and that we hope to do more of is our ability to work with and

train law enforcement in mexico. we are making great strides with respect to training the unit that we have a lot of confidence in. they are not subject to bribery, whether there is subject to polygraphs and the kind of background review. >> your timing of the military as opposed to police? >> i am talking about the police. >> there is a significant amount of fear among the police, no amount -- no matter how much you pay them. sometimes taking money is a better alternative than having your family violated. >> that is an enormous challenge. there are many courageous law enforcement in mexico. these units are good representation of them. >> the internet to sending about the money? -- don't we have to do something about the money? what are your thoughts about

disrupting the cartels by seizing their money? what are we going to do to do that? >> you are right. i defer to my colleagues. what we are doing from the law enforcement point of view, we have levels of seizure of the profits of the money in the possession of the cartel's members. one of our training programs is to teach and incorporate in mexico the same concept of forfeiture and seizure. >> that we have to do that further back from the line? >> absolutely. >> one of the changes that has taken place daily is the acknowledgement on our end of the bargain that the consumption of drugs in this country that generates the traffic and the kind of sums of money that the current -- that

has corrupted mexican politics is something that will continue until we get a better handle on reducing the demand. >> how are we going to further this? >> with regard to the drug demand reduction, the south was border strategy that was unveiled place a heavy emphasis on that. >> it is still going to be cash. >> the cash is going south. having cbp and border patrol pay attention to that so that for the first time while we haven't in the past, we have systematic checks going south now. this is a project that is very much geared to cooperating with mexico as it builds up its enforcement capacity for the first time.

>> a couple months ago, you had sporadic checks southbound. they were much too sporadic to be affected. we may not have the impression it should there to really be affected. -- infrastructure there to really be effective. when the going to do to make sure we have southbound and steady in fact? -- what are you going to do to make sure we have southbound and steady text? >> it was not until april when the secretary change policy that we went from very sporadic checks to systematic checks from brownsville to san diego. we need to continue to assess the effectiveness of that to conduct the inspections. we need to assess that. whether not we should have a major investment is one that is

on the table. we need to learn a lot more about it. >> anything about coming further back from the chain? but no question. >> what are we going to do about that? >> there is a lot of progress. there are a couple of things intervene them. they are using local law enforcement to help. in seattle we sent officers trained with canine's along with the sheriff's department. all of these local agencies across the country are more than willing to do their part to help. that is only one part. the other part, at the hyatt trafficking areas are in 20 places around the united states. they often have the roots and mexico. they not only sees the drugs and make the arrests and work with federal prosecutors or local prosecutors, but they also go

after the money. you are not stopping the cache of the border. you are starting the cash in there is progress to more training being done. treasury is working hard under the new credit card act to develop ways of looking at just using the card. it is going to carry thousands of dollars in cash. there is a lot more work to be done. there is a lot of progress on that front. >> thank you. the canada from illinois. >> thank you. i know the issue of the national guard was raised broadly earlier. is it accurate there are about 500 national guardsmen on the southwest border as we speak? >> there are some national guards that are being engaged in

an ongoing project that has been in existence for more than several decades. it is supported by law enforcement activities. i believe that number is one that i need to confirm. i do notice that most of the guardsmen are away from the border and engaged in intelligence analytical activities and the like. i will be able to confirm whether it is 400 or some smaller number that are physically on the border today. >> i have a follow-up. the activities they are completing, do they relate to t? cartel of activities? >> the counter drug program that has been in existence for two decades and that i am very familiar with with my time as a prosecutor is definitely counter dragon nature. that is the basis that congress has authorized the activity.

these are activities that involve supporting law enforcement in a variety of ways that are consistent with the division between law enforcement and the military. >> you have probably read about the accounts that discuss the possibility of the administration increasing the number of national guardsmen, perhaps to another 15 under. is that your understanding? it is still in the planning? >> this is all in the discussion stage, as indicated, between secretary of peloton no, secretary gates. they plan to make a joint recommendation to the president to will make the final decision. >> excuse me if this has been discussed. where between votes. -- we are between votes. we have had in previous hearings about the conflicts between the a and -- between dea and i.t.

i anniston there has been an agreement signed. what is the problem and how was it solved? do you sense that it is all this? >> what it shows is that they just entered into a memorandum of understanding. it is fair to say that there is a remarkable commitment to work to get their and they have been working well together, but now what happens is that they can work together. patients can be designated to pursue drug-related crimes that are border related, but they can do that throughout the country. very importantly, the information that i gathered in the investigations can be shared in a day diffusion center so that all the information from i.c.e a share together.

it can be used to go after the cartels. >> there is an information live double follow back and make sure it continues to be the case. >> it is. there is a great commitment. homeland security in the department of justice is making sure if this happens. i am confident it will happen. >> you will have an agent from immigrations and customs who will speak very treacly to your inquiry -- very directly to your inquiry. >> the third point is that we often hear this figure of 90% of the guns compensated in this conflict come from the united states. given that we are not tracing all of the guns, how are we determining that figure?

>> i think the precise number may be a little hard to identify. you are absolutely right. of those guns recover, for which one can trace, the number you identified as the number that has been set. i think that is right. the larger issue that it is inescapable that a very large percentage of the guns enter mexico to come from the united states. as we are joining with our friends in mexico to combat the battle, that is one of the issues that we will have to confront here ourselves. but why are not more guns traced? is it because some of them are untraceable or is it the volume makes it difficult? >> what may work is in the second panel, billy hoover

explained in a better manner than i have. when possible, a good number of them have been trees. he will be in a better position than i to tell you some of the challenges. >> i appreciate that. i suppose it will be easier to control that if we continue with what the clinton administration did which was a ban on semi-automatic weapons. it is much easier to control of their not being sold. -- if they are not being sold. >> i like to pick up here. i was embarrassed by the performance of our country when the episodes, a terrible episodes, of armed conflict some thought might even bring down the government -- may have been

somewhat exaggerated -- guesses supplying the guns? -- guess who was supplying the guns? not only arena configuring -- not only are not considering to find these guns with the most elementary inspection capacity but the action when we did sporadic outbound inspections, they got their guns out anyway. the notion that this country would have been so central which

were in such conduct will supply that it was like an army that the government itself was over from. they had so much weaponry. we know we are not doing much. we know does not take much to get them to mexico. i'm far more interested in how these funds -- thugs so easily pick up guns in this country. many of these guns are being sold. how the can pick up large

amounts of guns, equip yourself as if you work and army with such force that the government for a while there was essentially fighting an internal army supplied in no small part by the united states of america and -- where do these guns come from? how're they able to pick them up in such large numbers? how are they able to get out would amount to enough guns to arm a virtual small army? many of them are from the united states. regardless of the figures and the notion that a lot of them came from x, y, or z, you know exactly where they came from,

mr. brewer. what you might not be able to trace them, and you have law enforcement jurisdiction and united states of america. why are you not keeping these guns from being either bought or otherwise in such large numbers so that they now are a small army? it is extremely embarrassing for the mexico has been very kind to us. i would have been very angry. i will have been angry of the big kahuna in the north that was essentially shipping down arms to tell my people. they will not do anything about its own weapons ban. nobody knew administration even spoke out about illegal guns and the proliferation of guns in our

country except the attorney general who did say something about it. it looks like body had to do is get some guns and you get them across the border very easily and nobody in the united states is doing very much to keep thugs from acquiring those guns in the first place. i am interested in this country what you are doing here before you get to the border. >> i share your concern. i want to begin by saying there are people who were working very hard. our atf agents are doing an extraordinary job with their resources. >> water they doing? he was selling the guns? -- what are they doing? who is selling the guns? what they are coming from license a fire arms dealers. the power of these calls is extraordinary.

-- cartels is extraordinary. in their reach is great. some are coming from a licensed firearms dealers. >> is there nothing you can do? >> our agents are doing a lot. they have limited resources. >> water they doing? what they are visiting -- >> there visiting in doing inspections. >> are they doing any undercover work? >> yes, they are. they are doing a lot of it. it is not fair to be critical of our agents. they are doing an extraordinary job every day. they are serving the american people well. >> i am critical of your leadership, not your agents. i love the atf. i am talking about what it takes to dismantle the gun cartel and this country that is not only enabling but making possible this. >> your time has expired.

let me for thank you for your testimony. i apologize for the delay. i am wondering if you could hold the record open and get some information for us. the rest raid which seems to be very aggressive in what is happening in mexico -- can he get some information on the conviction? it is one thing to make a lot of arrests, but if we get some information in terms of the percentage of convictions, we would appreciate it. >> absolutely. >> and also the length of sentences. we will hold the record open for that information. thank you very much. >> thank you very much.

>> now on to our second panel. >> mr. william hoover? mr. roberts

>> please rise. do you agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? you may be seated. let the record reflect that they all entered in the affirmative. let me introduce our second panel. anthony is the assistant administrator for intelligence and drug enforcement administration u.s. department of justice. welcome. the next person is the deputy director of the office of investigation of the united states immigration and the u.s. to permit a homeland security. welcome. the next guest is the individual from u.s. customs and u.s.

department of homeland security. another guest system the united states department of justice. jay roberts its assistant director of investigation and of course not office of foreign asset control, department of the treasury. it is our committee policy that five minutes will be given for your presentation. you allow us an opportunity to raise questions with you. let us go right down the line. mr. owens, you first and then we will go down the line. >> good afternoon. thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

i am pleased to be here with my colleagues from many agencies. i would like to express my gratitude to the congress for its support of the mission and people ofcbp, among the numerous parties that were recognized in the investment act of 2009. we provided cbp was $600 million for improvements to our infrastructure to enhance our technical communications equipment and upgrade our inspection technology. it will allow them to more efficiently meet the goals of border security and facilitation. then taken steps to protect americans from the threats that face our nation. i like to focus meyer remarks about the violence on the southwest border. the campaign of violence is being waged by drug cartels in mexico and remains a major concern. illegal drugs and weapons flow both ways across our border and

link the united states and mexico in this battle. the department homeland security has implemented a security strategy and the office of field operations is responsible for implementing the strategy at our ports of entry. we have taken significant action on the southwest border and have enhanced our outbound enforcement efforts with deployment of additional manpower and equipment and technology. teams of officers and border patrol agents and special agents along with local law- enforcement are now conducting outbound inspections of the report of entry with a focus on firearms in currency. the mobile response teams are also utilize to ship personnel between the ports of entry to further disrupt smuggling efforts. they are supported by non intrusive inspection equipment which allows this to scan for presence of anomalies which may indicate contraband.

the currently deployed 227 large-scale systems. many are mobile and are being used in our outbound efforts as well. we are grateful for the hundred million dollars in stimulus money which will allow us to agree their systems. there also deploying canines to detect currency in firearms. we are dying -- it adding additional canines during the summer. these tools will allow our of measures to quickly scan is up on traffic looking for cash and firearms. we are seeing the success of these efforts. since we began these initiatives on march 12, we have seized more than $15.8 million in currency destined for mexico. there also pursuing activities which increase support in

collaboration with their mexican counterparts at u.s. and mexico border crossings. thank you for your support. yet many of our responsibilities. i thank you for the opportunity to be here. >> thank you. >> on behalf but the secretary and assistant secretary, of like to thank you for the sovereignty in helping us secure the borders. as the primary investigative agency, we target national criminal networks and terrorist organizations that might exploit potential abilities. our partnerships are central to this effort. we recently strengthened to

these crucial precious by renegotiating agreements with the dea and ftf. it to approve and enhance information sharing. the violence on the border requires comprehensive and collaborative efforts. on march 24, the department of homeland security announced the southwest border initiative designed to crack down on mexican drug cartels. this was augmented by the recently released 2009 national southwest border strategy. since the announcement, we have seen significant increases in seizures of drugs in currency compared to the same time. in 2008. during the time between the two, together they have increased narcotics seizures by over 40%. they continue to work with the federal partners to collaborate in various ways. in 2005 they created the border enforcement task force.

the 15 best are a series of is led task forces that identified and stroke criminal organizations that oppose some of it again for a. they have reported over 4000 criminal arrests and seized over 2,000 pounds of narcotics, 2500 weapons, and three under 70,000 rounds of ammunition, including $26 million in u.s. currency. one recent success story iled to the indictment of four individuals trying to export weapons of the united states. the ones it tried to purchase included 300 rifles, 300 short barrel tellable rifles, 10 caliber sniper rifles, to 40 millimeter machine guns, and 20 and fans with silencers and a large amount of ammunition.

it had a street guy of over five and a thousand dollars. -- $500,000. we have doubled the amount of agents working on the southwest border from 95 to 190. a large number of weapons were recovered in mexico. this must be an urgent priority. in june 2008, ice and other partners launched an operation. it has resulted in the seizure of 1600 weapons, more than $6.4 million and over 108,000 rounds of ammunition. i says partnered -- ice has partnered in operation fire wall. it has resulted in a seizure

over $210 million, including 65 million seized overseas and foreigners in the five arrests. they also recently established a great transparency unit with mexico to identify trade anomalies which are in a thicket of trade based money schemes. -- which are indicative of trade base money schemes. these efforts have led to more than the million dollars in cash seized during the last fiscal year. we proactively act against those performing human trafficking. we have identified various methods used by criminal network to small people into the u.s. to target these routes, we partnership with the doj strike force. we combined our investigative

resources to target and dismantle foreign based criminal travel networks. complementary is the pivotal role they continue to play as a co-chair of the project of the working group on alien smuggling. ice is committed to working with this committee and congress to address the challenges we face to secure the borders to the enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. i am thank the commitment for your support. i would be pleased to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to represent the views of the drug enforcement administration on this issue regarding the rise of criminality in mexican cartels and their implications for u.s. national security. >> please pull your mighty little closer.

>> as a lead agency, we are keenly aware of the critical requirement to break the power and impunity of transnational crime groups such as mexican cartels. these groups and a supply enormous quantities of drugs to our country with adverse consequences in terms of addiction, lost productivity, and social costs, but left unchecked, they threaten regional stability because they undermine respect the rule of law, diminish public confidence, and promote lawlessness through violence and corruption. the good news is that together we are highly committed with mexican partners and their the generous support of congress, we are bringing unprecedented pressure against the cartels and helping fortified mexico's criminal-justice system to ensure that these gains can be sustained over time. the drug trade in mexico has

been a ride with violence for decades. intentionally gruesome violence and kidnapping, torture, and murder have remained at elevated levels since president calderon initiative his program to break the power of the cartels. i believe that it distributed some of the photos that demonstrate the extent of that brutality. >> i would ask consent of the would be placed in the record but not shown, because they are a little issue -- too gruesome for public view. >> they have been a spectacular violence despite the fact that all past and san diego are among some the safest cities in mexico. drug-related killings and mexico have escalated from 1200 in 2006 to more than 6200 in 2008. jennifer six months of this

year, there have been 3600 -- during the first clause of this year, there have been 36 under. 3600. law officials are being targeted by the cartels. in an effort intended to break the will of the government to mexico to confront these criminals, the mutilated and decapitated bodies of the victims are frequently left with signs warning of even greater violence. even if this carnage can be confined to mexican territory, it has adverse consequence to u.s. national purity. there is justifiable concern that the violence plenty mexico will spill across our border and have any more pronounced effect on americans. the u.s. enter agency has attended to distinguish before the criminal on criminal violence that has always been assisted with the decade and a new phenomenon of violence

against mexican officials and institutions. we have defined spillover violence to until delivered attacks by the cartels and u.s. government personnel weather in the u.s. and mexico, innocent civilians in the u.s., based on this definition, we have not yet seen as a dividend level of spillover violence. as you have heard, we must and are billed it in tennessee -- are building a contingency plan for the worst-case scenario. drug-related violence seriously undermines the respect for the role of law and the great confidence in mexican institutions. instability in mexico has serious consequences to security here at home. we are working with the federal, state, and local counterpart to

address these threats. the strategy is an attempt to disrupt and dismantle the command and control elements of these syndicates. the key to this strategy is sharing information in coordination with our counterparts to a special operations division and the el paso intelligence center. in mexico, there is the largest law enforcement presence in one area. it is mounting sustained attacks against these cartels. the seizure of their assets sears impact the cartel's ability to destabilize the region. there are recent examples of this collaboration. while these operations are intended to break the power of the cartels, in the short term, they exacerbate the violence in mexico. .

concern that is highlighted by a the gao. as someone who began my career with u.s. customs service, i want to underscore the importance of cooperation in law-enforcement and dea's unwavering support for the recently signed agreement between dea and i.c.e. this agreement is the most efficient and effective way to promote interagency coordination. the agreement addresses the concerns of both agencies concerns of both agencies without the need for legislative action by allowing an unlimited number of agents and strengthens information sharing and ordination protocol. i thank you for the opportunity to testify and stand ready to answer questions. >> thank you very much.

mr. hoover? >> thank you. i am william hoover, and deputy director for the poor of paul and explosives. -- bureau of alcohol and explosives. i want to discuss ongoing roles in districting firearms from being illegally traffic in the united states into mexico and working to reduce the violence along the border. for over 30 years, atf has been predicting a communities from criminal organizations by safeguarding them from the illegal use of firearms and explosives. we are responsible for both regulating the fire arms and enforcing the criminal laws relating to those commodities. atf has experience and commitment to investigate and disrupted groups and individuals to obtain guns in the u.s. and italy traffic them into mexico in facilitation of the director.

this is used to combat fire arms trafficking along the u.s. borders and to route our nation. we know we do not fight this battle alone. as we come atf hosted a violent crime and trafficking summit in albuquerque, new mexico and it was monumental in establishing a partnership between atf and i.c.e. a memorandum of understanding was signed, establishing how we will still firearm trafficking. it establishes a notification process that each agency will follow will conducting these investigations. the strategy for disrupting the flow far to mexico their project gun runner has referred over 882 cases for prosecution those cases include 415 for

firearms trafficking, which involve 1135 defendants and 13,000 firearms. atf has said that 90% of the firearms seized in mexico and traced come from the united states. the report those published on june of 2009 concurred with their findings. we of the status of the greatest amount of fire arms originated out of the selfless border. -- south was border. there also reap -- getting firearms mother states. mexican officials have seen an increase in the number of explosive devices used in these violent attacks. they are trying to identify determine where these devices and opponents become part of the region. there are 148 agents dedicated

to dealing with a firearm trafficking and 69th investigators responsible for conducting regulatory inspections of licensed gun dealers. we recently sent over 100 additional personnel to the houston field division to support our efforts against the trafficking of fire arms to mexico. atf has received a total of $25 million in new funding in 2009 and in fiscal year 20104 prada gun runner. as a single agency that regulates them, atf has the authority to inspect and examine the records and inventory of licensees. we will revoke the license of those that are implicit and firearms trafficking. we use revelatory authority to review the records.

a key component of 80 of's strategy is to curtail fire our strategy and trace firearms seized in both countries. our analysis of this that it can reveal trends and networks, showing where the fans are being purchased and who is purchasing them. let me share an example. 80 a's analysis of the trees that at least a man living in a u.s. city willing to three different crime scenes and mexico. further investigation uncovered a huge departure of a fourth virus recovered at another crime scene in mexico. he purchased over 100 guns and seven additional firearms within a short time span using nine different ffl to should is as sorcerous -- distributors as sources. he learned that he was manufacturing guns and his home.

he sold over 100 guns alone to an individual who was suspected of being linked to a cartel. leader being pursued in charges are pending. i would like to mention atf's operational presence at the center located in el paso, texas. we operate what is known as the atf gun desk. we identify and analyze all firearms and explosives related data collected from law enforcement and open source. this would include mexican military and also u.s. law enforcement asset operating on both sides of the border. we will continue their efforts along the southwest border and will harvest are partnerships -- harness our partnerships and will continue to work with ms. can officials to obtain more information to better

understand the flow firearms from our country into theirs. on behalf of the men and women ofatf, i thank you for your staff for your support of our work. reading it to me to fight violent crime -- tweaking and need to fight violent crime in our cities and on the border. >> thank you. >> sorry. i am pleased to be here today on behalf of the office of foreign assets control that the treasury department. i will try to compress the statement as we go through it. we control. our mission is to enforce

economic sanctions in support of u.s. foreign policy and national security. in the particular instance in mexico, we are talking but using the tool of the four narcotics designation acts which we passed in 1999. this act has been used in responding to the threats in mexico since the year 2000. the warning that time by president bush. we have continued to use them since that time. . . >> it is something we have been doing even with a small resources that we have. the authorities delegated our national security and foreign policy tools that provide power and leverage against a foreign country, regime, or non state actors such as foreign narcotics

traffickers and terrorists. one of burma's powerful instruments is feet specially designated nationals list. it is used to identify, exposed, disrupt, or incapacitate foreign adversaries with the intended result of denying them access to the u.s. financial and commercial system and mobilizing the resources. they are administrative in nature. the person subject to u.s. jurisdiction violating the censures -- sanctions calls for criminal penalties. every year, the president of the united states has added more things to the list. it is all mexico although they are roughly the% of those who have been named. -- roughly 50% of those who have been named.

president obama moved from the june 1 date and acted early on april 15. he named three of the mexican cartels that are currently at the center of much of the violence that is going on. in june, we named others that were not involved in mexico. these are referred as tier one and traffickers. we have been designated the authority to designate for sanctions controlled by or assisting tier one traffickers. tier 2 or derivative

designations included the money launderers, the family members complacent with the trafficking activities, the criminal members of the organization, the transportation cells, the existence of communication cells that make up the financial network of drug trafficking organizations. since 1999, the president has identified 82 tier 1 traffickers. in that same time, we have identified 251 tier 2 designations in mexico. in addition to that, under the program on which the acts were based, which is up or sanctions against colombian traffickers under another authority, we have also under the colombian program. in recent times named 30

mexican entities or individuals who are also involved in colombia to mexico market to market drug trade. the total over these last several years is 288 persons and entities that have been named for the blocking of their assets -- assets and the prohibition of their activities. i am going to skip through parts of this and just get down to some of the nitty gritty here. i said at the beginning our objective is to identify and expose and isolate and delegitimize, and mobilize, disrupt, dismantle however we can do it the drug-trafficking organizations. we do this by going after the heads of the organization, keep players in the organization, and perhaps most important, the networks, the whole support

structure that makes up a cartel, not just the people who are moving the drugs. the front companies that give them their backbone. our objective is to go after that backbone. we hope to be able to expose and reverse the penetration that has been done in the economy through our actions. we are working with all of our colleagues. all of the agencies at this table of working with us. we have relied on and are heavily integrated with the d e a. i cannot say enough about the work they have done in helping us carry out our program in mexico. at the same