>> later, secretary of state clinton and afghan president karzai spoke at the institute of peace. >> and the relentless revolution, ec a professor

describe what capitalism is a social system, not just a political one. defending the u.s. against cyber attacks. saturday, the deputy undersecretary of homeland security on the department's work with the pentagon and white house and the role of private networks in cyber security. on c-span. >> eric holder testified on capitol hill today as federal officers raided several locations in the northeast as part of the investigation into the failed times square car bombing. mr. holder said that federal authorities continue believe that the pakistan me -- pakistani taliban was behind the attack. coverage begins with opening statements from tell members and then questions.

>> >> we are honored to have the chief law enforcement of the united states does it with the committee. i wanted to note from the outset that attorney general holder has reinvigorated the civil rights division which suffered for a while from low morale and under the cysteine -- assistant attorney general, is doing a good job in protecting the rights, including voting of all americans.

>> the attorney general has raised the issue of statutory modifications to the miranda public safety exception into the national debate. i would hope that he can go into this in some detail. the most important thing, it to me, that we are dealing with in this country is the failure of the so-called war against drugs. we spent more money incarcerating more non-violent people under an antiquated, mandatory minimum sentence to less and less effect. one and half million people are arrested every year for drug

violations. we spend too dollar billion per year to imprison people who violate a federal drug laws. but we incarcerate more people than any other nation on the planet earth but the drug use in the u.s. and around the world is more prevalent than ever. if there was one thing that we could accomplish successfully between now and the next time the committee meets with the chief law-enforcement officer of the country is that we get on top of our drug problem. one and a half years after the executive order of president

obama, we have still not closed the prison at guantanamo. the plant track khalid sheik mohammed and other 9/11 conspirators has been derailed. no institution that i know of is better equipped to show the world how america deals with then with the trial was originally intended to occur. i hope these plans can be put back on track. the administration has taken some steps to curb the misuse of

.he state's secrets privilege while the justice department has issued new guidelines, the privilege continues to be overused and i think they need for uniform and consistent handling by the courts remains. it is true, and i commend the administration, for ending the practice of secret prisons and calling to halt to waterboarding an enhanced derogation -- interrogation techniques. these tarnished the nation's reputation as a beacon of liberty. and this served as a recruiting tool for our enemies.

the attorney general has released rejected torture memos and has brought a much needed attitude of transparency to the department. this has helped us understand the workings of the office of legal counsel which has sigrid opinions which may have helped insulate those responsible for torture and inhumane treatment from legal accountability. the attorney general has also directed an independent review of possible crimes relating to interrogation and torture.

clearly, there was, as usual, pressure on all sides within and without the administration, to ignore the past and move on. to his credit, he came down in favor of the rule of law and accountability. after almost one and a half thes, we're moving beyond past and we are trying to deal with the present and also worked on the future, as well. i'd joint every man and woman on this committee in welcoming you and look forward to the discussion we will have. i turn now to lamar smith, the ranking member.

>> thank you. welcome. last year, three serious terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, have occurred in the u.s. ndal hasan killed 14 innocent americans and wounded 30 others. of the metallic -- abdulmutallab was stopped by a poorly constructed on an alert citizens. this latest attack in new york was stymie -- was stymied by his ineptness and pedestrians. our national policies should consist of more than, bombers and smart citizens. sooner or later, a terrorist will build a bomb that works. as commander in chief, the president is responsible for protecting the american people.

unfortunately, several of the policies and this administration have put america at greater risk. the president's campaign promise to close guantanamo bay has not reduced the threat of terrorism. in fact, those transferred to other countries can be and are released. former gitmo detainees often return to terrorism. trying gitmo terrorists and court has no legal precedent. once in the u.s., terrorist can argue for additional constitutional rights making it harder to gain convictions. treating terrorists like common criminals makes americans less safe. giving terrorists the right to remain silent and have the intelligence that could prevent attacks and save lives. according to news reports, you recently said that you walk to

work -- you want to work with congress to amend brenda rights. -- miranda rights. the administration -- if they treated terrorists like more criminals, they would not be read the miranda warnings. the administration wants to repeal the law which was enacted after 9/11 to prevent terrorists from identified -- from obtaining a legitimate forms of identification. this would give terrorists cover to plan and carry out attacks within the u.s. the amnesty for illegal immigrants make america less safe. the rest of the times square bomber, a recently naturalized citizen, is another reason we need to reject proposals to give amnesty to millions of illegal

aliens. if we cannot stop a terrorist who said that himself to our process, how can we identify other terrorists who will apply for amnesty? it could legalize many would-be terrorists already in the u.s. and give them cover to plot attacks against innocent americans. it makes no sense to deny the link between immigration enforcement and national security. if we want to prevent attacks, we need to stop terrorists from getting viseas. if we do not enforce our immigration laws cannot terrorists are not slip into the cracks, there are coming through the front door. success in the war on terror means preventing attacks, not just making arrests after the bomb is set. to achieve this goal, we need to improve our intelligence gathering by interrogating terrorists, not reading them

miranda warnings. we need to and the failed policy of releasing terrorists overseas and we need to prevent them from using the immigration system to enter or state in the u.s. thank you, mr. chairman. >> good morning. i am very pleased to appear before it could discuss the accomplishments of the department of justice in the past year. let make thank you for your ongoing support of the department's work in your recognition of the central department place in defending our nation and its highest principles. they're all my confirmation process, and since becoming the attorney general, i have worked to establish and articulate a clear set of goals for the department. protecting the american people against foreign and domestic threats. in sharing the fair and impartial administration of justice. assisting state and local law enforcement and defending the

interests of the u.s. i have repeatedly pledged, as i did last may before this committee, to pursue these goals in service of the cause of justice and in a way that honors the department's commitment to integrity, transparency, and the rule of law. the thousands of men and women who serve the justice department have made meaningful progress in keeping the schools -- meeting these goals. seeking justice and our committees, transparency and our government, and in forcing our tax laws. despite the unprecedented challenges and new demands that have emerged, we are on the right path to filling our obligations and achieving our goals. protecting americans against terrorism remains the highest priority of the department of justice. the administration will continue to use all lawful means to

protect our national security, including military intelligence, law enforcement, diplomatic, and economic tools and authorities. we will aggressively defend our nation from the attack by terrorist groups consistent with our constitution, laws, and values, as well as our international obligations. as one of the tools available to us, the criminal justice system has proven its strength both in the past getting terrorists and gathering intelligence. 12 days ago, we believe that he attempted to detonate a car bomb in times square. that was less than 50 -- less than 53 were region less than 53 hours later, things to several partners, had been identified, located and arrested he provided

useful information. we now believe that the pakistan taliban is responsible for this attack. we are currently working with the authorities in pakistan on this investigation and we will use every available resource to make sure that anybody found responsible weather in the u.s. or overseas is held accountable. this morning, we executed search warrants in several locations in the northeast in connection with the investigation into the attempted bombing. several individuals who were encountered during the searches were taken into federal custody for alleged immigration violations. these searches are the product evidence since the attempted bombing and do not relate to any known immediate threat to the public or plot against the united states. i share that information to indicate this is an ongoing investigation and we're actively pursuing all those who were

involved in it. this attempted attack is a sober reminder that we face aggressive and determined enemies. january of 2009, 14 individuals have been indicted for traveling to foreign countries to train with terrorist groups. another suspect was charged with crimes for the attempted bombing of northwest airlines flights to 513 over detroit last christmas. another suspect pled guilty for plotting to use explosives and conspiracy to commit murder and providing material support to al qaeda. he admitted that he brought

explosives to unit -- to new york is part of the plan to attack this of the system. this was one of the most serious threats to our nation since 9/11 and but for the combined efforts of law enforcement and intelligence communities, it could have been devastating. several associates have been charged with participating in a plot. the department's work to combat l rrorism includes civi proceedings. in addition to these efforts to protect our nation from terrorism and other threats over the last year, we have reintegrated what i have come

to call the traditional mission of the department. we have strengthened our efforts to protect our environment, to combat health care fraud and to enforce antitrust laws. we have worked to safeguard civil rights in our workplaces and neighborhoods. we have made strides in insuring that jails are rehabilitative and we have worked federal criminal laws more fair and more effective. as part of our focus on combating mortgage and financial fraud, the department is leading a financial fraud enforcement text -- task force that president obama established last year using new tools provided by congress. ike thank you for your support of this most urgent and important work. i am more than happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you very much. we will recess for some folks and we will return immediately.

the committee stands in recess. >> the last time you were here, i asked you about whether or not if somebody had been tortured to death and you answered and the positive. what is the statute of limitations for torture if somebody dies and the statute of limitations if somebody does not die. i have a lot of questions and if you prefer to respond in writing, that would be fine. >> i think i would like to respond in writing to at least the second part with regard to the first part, there is no

statute of limitations. >> there has been a lot of controversy on miranda rights. the last case and the supreme court was ruled on a constitutional basis. if we tried to change the statute, might we not cause more problems than we solve because nobody would know whether what we did was constitutional or not? how would that affect the practice on the ground of a police officer who has all these exceptions. are they as citizen, maybe they are a terrorist. might you end up missing up a lot of cases where miranda it turned out to be required rather than fixing something? would we make matters worse by changing anything? >> it is our view that the use of the public safety exception, i want to make clear that what

we are focusing on is the potential of modernizing and clarifying the public safety exception. not the miranda rule itself but to come up with a way that we give to agents and police officers could clarity to how the public safety exception can be used but it was crafted back in the 1980's with connection to a case that involved a police officer asking a person where is the gun. we now find ourselves in 2010 dealing with very complicated matters. with regard to that small sliver, only terrorism-related manners, not in any other way, that modernizing, clarifying, make more flexible the use of the public safety exception would be something beneficial. >> from the point of time the interrogation starts, they might not know it is a terrorist or

not. you could mess up an otherwise fairly good case. the bureau of prisons is under your jurisdiction. is that correct? >> it is correct and the cards -- that is correct. >> do you have a statement on how we can make that program stronger and any support you want to give to that program as to why it is so important? >> the critical part of our efforts to make our prisons more than just a place to warehouse people, to give people an opportunity to gain skills to make them successful upon leaving prison. what people have to focus on is the vast majority of people who go into prison are going to come out at some point. to the extent that we can provide rehabilitative services and vocational opportunities, i think those should be supported. i am a big supporter of that program.

>> i mentioned the office of legal counsel memorandum from june, 2007, that essentially suggests that the religious freedom restoration act provides a blanket overriding statutory nondiscrimination provisions. has your office reviewed that memorandum and if so, can you tell us the status of what you are going to do with it? or to you want to get back to us in writing? what i would like to get back to you in writing about that. i have not had a chance to have the in that kind of conversation i need to have about that in order to respond. >> you are aware that the president, during his campaign, indicated that if you get a federal grant, you can use a and you cannot discriminate against

them for against the people you are hiring on the basis of religion. that is what he wanted to do. since then, there is a suggestion that discrimination would be allowed on a case by case basis. it seems fairly unusual that you would allow discrimination on a case by case basis. do you have any comment on where we are in restoring the civil rights for employees that existed from 1965 until 2001 or 2002? >> i think the administration is committed with partnering with database organizations in a way that is consistent with the law. the department will continue to evaluate any legal questions that arise with regard to how we do that on a case by case basis. overall, >> the law apparently allows discrimination as a

policy. you have to set the policy to executive order and statute. is it the policy of this administration to allow discrimination on a case by case basis? one group can say we cannot hire based on race and religion and another group says that we will not allow you to discriminate. is it the policy of this administration to allow discrimination? it is not the policy. the policy is to interact with faith based organizations or any organization. operate with them, interact with them any way that is consistent with the law and consistent with the way in which this administration has postured itself on a range of issues but the clear. there is a policy is the policy of the administration going to be that discrimination will not be allowed? yes. that is not the view that we

share. we do not have the view that discrimination is appropriate. we want to interact with these organizations were these issues are presented in such a way that we are acting consistently with the law and consistent with what our values are both as a nation and administration. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> the gentleman from texas. >> thank you. the times square bomber, faisal shahzad, was a nationalized -- naturalized citizen. current law allows -- current law allows us to -- >> i cannot hear. >> to the technician checked the microphones?

>> i only regret my earlier comments might not be heard. [laughter] >> is somebody working on this? >> they are. there it is. >> the times square bomber,, became a naturalized citizen less than one year ago. under current law, we can denaturalize a citizen who has become a naturalized citizen in the last five years if they are a member of an organization whose intent is to overthrow the government of the u.s.. the you consider terrorist organizations to be among the prohibited organizations that would allow us to denaturalize somebody? i am using the definition of a terrorist action.

>> i am not familiar with the immigration law for that particular and i do not have an ability without having a chance to study answer that question in an intelligent way. >> you are unsure if somebody that is a member of a terrorist organization would be able to a naturalized? my answer is that if in fact there is a statute that allows that to occur it is not a statute ibm converse of with. i look forward to your kidding back to me. would you consider the pakistani taliban to be a terrorist organization? >> if not formally designated, we have seen to their actions and their attempt that they are. if not technically this committee, there certainly its territory as asian. >> would you take action to

initiate this to denaturalize the times square bomber? on the basis that he was a member of the terrorist organization? >> we have a wide range of things that we can do with regard to the defendant in this manner. we have an ability to put him in jail for an extended period of time to the course you do not intend to denaturalizing? >> i am saying we have the ability to do a variety of things and whether or not there is an ability to denaturalizing, and whether or not there are constitutional issues that are involved in that process. i think those would have to be considered. >> i read your answer to meet you are not prepared to say that you would denaturalizing. let me go to my next question. in the case of all three

attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical islam. do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions they did because of radical islam? >> there are a variety of reasons why people have taken these actions. you have to look each individual case. we are in the process of talking to faisal shahzad to havestand what' he could led to these actions. >> there are a variety. >> is a radical islam one of them? >> there are a variety. >> all i am asking if among those variety, radical islam might have been one of them. >> radical islam, people who

espouse a version of islam -- >> are you uncomfortable contributing their actions to radical islam. >> i did not want to say anything negative about the religion. >> i am talking about radical islam. i am not talking about the general religion. >> i am saying that a person who has a version of islam that is not consistent with the teachings of that and who espouses a radical version -- >> i think that it is possible that people who espouse a radical version of islam have had an ability to have impact on people like faisal shahzad. -- >> could that have been one of the cases in one of these cases? apparently you feel that the could of been. >> potentially infected by people who have a few of islam that is inconsistent -- >> it is hard to get an answer.

but make a one to the next question. this has to do with the transferring both -- transferring from guantanamo. i hope our federal government and you have assurances from the country's that receive these people if they are detained or not? >> when we make these transfer decisions, we worked out in a dance security arrangements with the receiving nations so we have a sense of where they are, what steps will be put into place. >> or any of these transfers made under this administration return to terrorism? >> i have read reports but i cannot confirm that. >> let's say that one person did. does that give you pause about transferring every any bridging

anybody from gitmo -- transferring anybody from gitmo? >> we put into place a very comprehensive program that looked at the 240 people to go but it is not working if anybody that has been transferred does return to terrorism as you it knowledge might have been the case. it seems to me you would want to stop the program. >> i am confident that what we did by putting together law enforcement, our military people, our intelligence people and looking at those 240 people in making determinations -- >> it is clearly not working if you have people return to terrorism that you transferred to other countries that you did not need to transfer. >> let me the clear. i have not said that on the basis of anything i know that is credible or authoritative that anybody we have released.

>> you set one may have. >> i said i have read reports in newspapers. i am not in a position to say that in fact that is accurate. i would not comment on the intelligence to cut the gentleman's time has expired >> i yield myself five minutes for questioning. you have had innumerable challenges. i would almost call it a mine field. let me thank you for the delivery of manner in which the department of justice has handled these matters for the american people. you are to be credited for working too difficult issues and being thoughtful along with your staff. we have difficult issues before us. i would like to start off with my questioning on the whole concept of too big to fail. the department of justice is now involved in the financial markets, the to vindications market, the aviation market.

there have been efforts to merge. there is certainly a communications merger that is before the department of justice. i will focus my time on the continental airlines and united and raised several questions quickly so that you can, and on what kind of structure the investigation will take. unlike comcast and nbc, which has a number of other agencies, it appears that the department of justice in this instance may be the overriding agency. the question becomes to we have a concept the merger that represents too big to fail, are there major impact competitiveness routes involved and do we hold to the comments made by one of the ceo's that

this is in essence an easy do, a piece of cake, and will be done in a certain period of time. closing routes, closing hubs, losing jobs. my direct question to you is the justice department is going to be guided by public statements as a piece of cake, guided by comments that it is an illinois deal and they will look the other way and will they be guided by the fact that the star alliance, which you also reviewed, was supposed to represent making these entities strong enough to stand on their own. maybe it was a step toward monopoly. what will be the structure be of that investigation and was you finish it in two months? >> we have a revitalized

antitrust division headed by a very capable woman. whenever a proposed transaction raises significant competition issues, the department's antitrust division will conduct a very vigorous investigation and that is what we will plan to do here. to the extent that the merger of united and continental would substantially lessen competition, we would take the appropriate enforcement actions. the department will examine this merger as it does all those that are within our responsibility very seriously and take into account all of the information that we can and take very seriously the responsibility but and i am proud of the work the antitrust division has taken. >> will you put in a self- imposed deadline on yourself? >> we will take the time necessary for us to look at it and to make sure we are

comfortable in the decisions that we are making. we will not unnecessarily delay things but we will take the time that we need to come up with a decision. >> and thank you. let me very quickly, major questions have come up. the arizona law that seems to racially profile in number of classes of individuals. the basic question i have beyond racial profiling is the question as it relates to immigration law. does the justice department intends to pursue how this law relates to federal pre-emptive mess? dealing with the times square bomber, based in your experience, can you compare the effectiveness of the interrogation methods used for the attempted flight 253 in times square bombers? and the enhanced interrogation they have addressed in the past? such as methods like waterboard ding?

do you think the family of the flight 253 would have cooperated if he had been not given miranda warnings which were given two alleged terrorists by the bush administration. as we present ourselves to the world on fighting the war on terror. >> if one looks at the facts and looks at the questioning that was done by experienced fbi agents with regard to faisal shahzad and others cannot we have seen that the customary fbi techniques that to not involve the use of the enhanced interrogation procedures have proven to be effected. we have gotten useful information and useful intelligence from all of the individuals as a result of the use of techniques that are recognized as traditional and

are recognized as consistent with our values. there is not attention between conducting ourselves and law enforcement in a way that is consistent with our values and being effective in having an ability to protect the american people. if one looks at what has happened over the past year, that is proof of that. >> the arizona law to go as i have indicated, we are in the process of looking at that law. we are looking at the potential impact it would have and whether it contravenes federal civil rights laws potentially leading to racial profiling. we are also concerned about whether there is the possibility that it crosses the line with regard to preemption. there is some immigration problem. this country needs to face it. the concern we have is that this is something that should be done on a national basis as opposed

to doing it on a state-by-state basis. >> i doubt recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. -- i now recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you. i appreciate your appearance before us. i have to comment, we seem so careful not to use terms like radical islam for fear of offense but we readily referred to racial profiling being either the consequence or the motivation of the voters and elected officials in arizona. i find that remarkable. >> please do not misinterpret what i said. i did not say that was the motivating factor for the people in arizona. i understand their frustration. i am saying that one thing we need to look ahead at the department of justice is whether or not we should have a national policy. >> i appreciate that.

it must be frustrating for people of arizona who say in the law that there shall not be racial profiling by specifying you cannot use that as the reason for stopping an individual and yet immediately there is a comment on this panel and other places that that must be racial profiling. when it is something not when it is not a baby every question. -- may be a question. faisal shahzad was not motivated by passage of the health care bill. >> excuse me? with that was suggested by the mayor of new york is the possible reason for the activities. we seem to be reluctant to talk about radical islam possibly being the case. let me ask you this on the miranda warnings. what is the position of your

administration? what is the position of the justice department on this question? do we believe that no miranda warnings should be given until we have gotten from suspected terrorists, for whom we have reasonable suspicion that there are involved with their response that we have got from them every bit of information that they have with respect to public safety demands? >> we do this on a case by case basis and make use of the law as it exists. we certainly know that in this initial interactions with people read suspected terrorists, there are questions that can be asked of them. we try to glean as much information as we can appropriately inconsistently with what the supreme court has said what we can do. >> i appreciate that. at what point in time do you believe that you have to seize

that and it mr. miranda rights? was it is a time when you feel you have exhausted the questioning you have done under the public safety exception. whether you have made the determination that there is perhaps no immediate threat to the public or the officers who are involved. >> that is the question i have. there is a distinction between the public safety exception as previously understood by court decision. the city. you have the case of the ticking time bomb. you have to get that information e immediately. in this case, in cases involving suspected terrorists, presumably, we are trying to get more information than just the immediate danger. we are trying to solicit information with respect with

the terrorist network. is it not a somewhat different application of law or the foundations of the exception of the lot? to use it in these circumstances as opposed to the conventional notion. >> the definition of immediate danger can be different if one looks at the traditional context as opposed to the terrorist context. that is one of the reasons that we think that we should think about modernizing, clarifying, the public safety exception so that we would have a public safety exception that is prepared that we can use and deal with. >> i understand that. what is the basis of that? as i am offended, one terror suspect give you information some weeks after you arrested him based a statement that have been made from the justice department's. if that be the case, that

information with voluble and allowing us to further understand terrorist plots, one would question whether or not we should have tried to get that information earlier, prior to the time that we gave him the miranda warnings. if in fact the justification is that it is danger not just to the immediate short time period, that is, do we know if he has another bomb, but we are trying to gain information with respect to terrorist activity, that notion is different and the underlying legal argument would be for the court is different. what is your basis for the use the amended danger exception in terrorist cases as opposed to criminal cases? with the question is where is the gun, a simple question that was allowed.

in a tariff situation, there are a variety of other questions that one would want to put to a person are there other people who are similarly engaged? we know how out kite that likes to do things in hand and foot are there other bombs? with the gentleman's time has expired. or >> are there other bombs we need to be concerned with? are there other people who are going to be coming this way? these are all questions that we think can be appropriately asked under the public safety exception. we want to have a greater degree of clarity with regard to what the public safety would entail. that would be useful for agents and police officers who have to do with terror suspect. >> i recognize the gentleman

from north carolina for five minutes. >> thank you. it has been a bit disjointed process. i hope it is not broken up your whole day. i am happy to have you here. let me ask three quick questions to the extent that you can comment publicly, that would be great. to the extent you want to follow in writing, that would be great. we got some information several weeks ago that one professor was coming over to assist you all with the access to justice program. it has gone quiet since then.

one of the things i would like to try to find out is what he is doing and whether we are making any progress on the program. maybe you are not ready to rule that out and i respect that -- rule that out. i will ask all three and then let you attack all three. i note there was a settlement in with a i g four $6.10 million for african american customers. i never thought i would live to see a day when i thought $6.10 million was a paltry sum given the magnitude of the stress

that aig others caused african- american customers, that seems like a fairly modest settlement. to the extent that you are able to provide any details on that case without violating whatever ethical standards you have, it would be helpful to get some information on that. finally, i want to explore the objections to the proposal of kinston, n.c., to change the voting system under the voting rights act provisions. i would like to get in writing,

i am not sure five minutes will do justice to it and come up some assessment of the kind of preparation you are making for the onslaught of cases that are likely to come as soon as this census is over. i suspect there will be a whole new round of voting rights cases filed and i think we need to be as prepared and doj needs to be as prepared as possible to meet that onslaught. those are the three areas of inquiry. i will shut up and you can use the rest of my five minutes to respond. whatever you do not respond to, perhaps you could send me something in writing to the >> i will take you up under offer to respond in writing to the second and third questions that you raised about the settlement and the question of the interaction

with kingston. with the access to justice initiative, that is something that is critical to me as attorney general and to the president, as well. to come up with ways in which we make sure that people, irrespective of their economic conditions, irrespective of their socio-economic status, have an ability to all the fruits of our system. there is this question of indigent defense and whether or not people get adequate representation not based on their economic condition. we have seen studies and reports about people in critical parts of criminal proceedings acting without a lawyer. we are trying to understand what the various systems look like

around the country. in particular, and board generally, we will make sure that all american citizens have equal access to justice. he is an eminent scholar. expect he will make a major contribution to the justice department. >> thank you. i yield back my time. >> i recognize the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> thank you. we are pleased to have you here today. as you know, i have had some conversations with your staff regarding a case that is of great importance in virginia, in the last days of his gubernatorial term, timothy kaine and explicitly requested that a man convicted in the

virginia state court of the brutal and violent murders of two presidents of central virginia, he transferred from virginia's prison system to germany. he is serving two life sentences but in germany, he could be released within two years. the decision to approve or deny a proposed transfer is committed to the discretion of the department of justice. i understand that the seriousness of the offense and the potential public outrage of transfer are factors that the department considers in its value in such transfers. i can attest to you that these crimes were heinous and the public outrage about about the potential transfer is extremely high. i have been contacted by many constituents citing opposition including some involved in the original case. i forward it to you a letter signed by 75 of the 100 members of the house of delegates opposing this transfer. the letter was signed by

republicans, democrats, and independence, i like. -- an independents, alike. >> i would agree but those were heinous and very serious crimes. -- that those were very heinous and serious crimes. whether or not the recission by the governor of what the previous governor did is in fact going to be upheld by the courts in virginia. until that determination is made, the justice department cannot act. we are waiting to see that. i will agree with you. we are talking about the most serious crimes that one can imagine. lives were lost as a result of the action taken by this

defendant. making any kind of assessment would be uppermost in our minds. we are waiting to see what the resolution is of the contrary positions of the two governors. >> it seems to me that in your capacity, you could make the decision not to honor the recommendation of governor timothy kaine whether or not governor mcdonnell's letter overturning the request being recognized or not. it does not seem you need to get to that question to simply make a determination. i find it hard to believe that the department could contemplate transferring this meant to germany when the public outrage over this is so overwhelming and justice is being served by the virginia criminal justice system and in germany, he could be released in as little as two years or less. virginia has required him to serve the full two life

sentences. >> it makes a lot of sense to get with the state's position is going to be. in that case, it makes sense for us to await the at--- the official determination of what the position of the state of virginia is with regard to the request that has been made. factoring that in, i want to emphasize that i have been a prosecutor for a good portion of my life. i've prosecuted violent crime cases and dealt with them as a judge. this is as serious a case as i have seen. that would obviously be something that weighed into any decision i have to make. >> let me ask another question about another issue that is pending in congress and of importance. party frank has introduced legislation to repeal the recently enacted on lawful internet gambling enforcement act, a bill that passed with

overwhelming bipartisan support. his repeal bill legalizes and regulates internet gambling at the federal level under the financial services regulatory agencies. among the press provisions, the bill got to the wire act, by stating that the wire act will not apply to any activities regulated by the licensing scheme division of the bill. i would like to know that if you believe the legal, offshore gambling operations should be legalized by the federal government and do you support or oppose this legislation? >> we do not support the legalization of offshore gambling. when one looks at the negative impact that has had on the lives of individuals, the potential that it has four problems that could be created, it seems to us that that is not something we necessarily want to support.

>> i appreciate your understanding of the risks that internet gambling and poses. i see my time has expired. >> time has expired. thank you. the chair will recognize the gentle lady from california for five minutes. >> thank you. i would like to two weeks ago, i issued a directive for the department of justice that includes all the departments components,

including the fbi and other components that make up the department. there are people who are going to be in place to monitor these diversity effort. all the efforts have to come back by the end of june about what their plan is to give the department is committed to -- plan. the department of justice is committed to this. >> if you have a backlog? >> i do not know. i will have to check. >> the report is public? >> the diversity plan? yes. >> in the media merger and purchase of nbc by comcast. how the view these things? we are concerned.

there are broad bands, you name it. some of these mergers and not have the hearing some. we worked with the sec. they agreed to extend the comment area. >> we did get these four. they do not necessarily consolidate these things i should be separate. the justice department does that typically hold hearings. it is certainly in there for them to decide. the work the justice department does is going to be non-public.

>> we to be advantaged if you had information from a public hearing about the lack of access of ownership? with that help you in any way? >> sure. we make our best decisions only have access to the greatest amount of information. >> it could be helpful? >> it could. we will be taking our own steps to reach out to the affected parties and individuals. anything that develops the record that we can have access to will be good. >> can i have my staff talked about what said she will be taking? -- about what steps you will be taking? in los angeles, we have a lot of people in production that they are talked about. >> i'll be glad to talk to you

about that there is only so much that we can discuss. >> whatever you can. that me ask you about the malicious and the right-wing terrorist organization. i am concerned about one that plan to kill the police of this. once the police arrived, they had a lot in place to kill. i have not heard of terms like domestic terrorism. i am concerned about the possible timothy mcveigh type incident. i know homeland security has some responsibility. what is your responsibility? >> here is a good point. we have focused a great deal on international terrorism as we should. we have within our country domestic terrorism that we also

must confront. this case is an example of that. they have a plot to kill a police officer -- that is an indication of the kind of activity and heinous acts that we have to be concerned about. yeah see there has been a critic dramatic rise in a number of these domestic hate groups. the fbi monitors the groups. they are always mindful of the fact of keeping the first amendment right. we monitor them to make sure they do not cross the line. it crosses into that which is criminal. >> is there a formal kind of definition of raising the level of attention on domestic terrorism the way we have done?

i do not hear anything coming over to us to talk about. i did hear that a kid was accused of being a terrorist in school because this autistic kid gruesome pictures of what looked like violent pictures. i've never heard of this kind of terrorism being described domestically. what can you do to help focus this country on domestic terrorism? >> i have a briefing with the fbi director. >> if you can wrap it up. your time has expired. finish the answer, please. it component of the conversation focuses on what is going on domestically. the american people should be reassured that the law

enforcement agencies and the justice department is focused not only on international terrorism but on domestic terrorism as well. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. as i said in my opening statement, i am deeply concerned that a seated member of congress has alleged to what amounts to three felonies. the former u.s. attorney, now senator, was confirmed in his opinions -- if they are to come a day are felonies. what are you presently doing? what will you commit to do including a special prosecutor?

>> that is done on a case by case basis. >> what can be more a case by case that an allegation that this white house has committed three felonies and offering a member of congress a high- ranking position and his administration in return for his getting out of the primary? what could be more appropriate than that? what do you doing about it? there are regulations that are in place. there are requirements that have to be done. i have great faith in the people in the public integrity session .andle these matters for i sent you a letter. you have not responded. what is your response? these are allegations the three crimes. allocations -- elections will be

held in three days. there are on answered allegations. >> at the we had responded to your leisure. if we have not, we apologize for that. any matter deals a lot with the intent of the person. i am not speaking specifically about your matter. we do not talk about any matter that might come into the purview of the department of justice. >> let's talk hypothetical. section 211, which prescribes a bribery is, the author of a government job to section 600 by an official, are the serious matters? >> offering someone a job? >> if i offer you a job in the white house, but say secretary

of the navy, in return for you are doing something such as shopping out of an elected office, is that a serious crime? >> i think we are talking about more than hypothetical. >> i am asking if that hypothetical is a crime . do you answer hypothetically? >> i do night answer hypothetical. >> there has been in allegation by a member of the body. the allegation that he was offered a high ranking position in return for getting out of the primary. he declined to say in the primary produce. you are saying to let them handle it? he did not comment on the. i asked if the allegations similar were true if they would be a crime. you are saying you did not answer hypotheticals. you are here before us today. if you will not answer literally

or hypothetically or apparently investigate, we have an allegation of a three felony. the congressman says they are felony a u.s. senator has said is true is a crime -- you are not investigating whether it is a false statement by a member of congress or crime about the white house. what are we to do? >> the danger with hypothetical is it does not tell in the totality what a real case looks like. >> it is not a hypothetical when he says he was offered a job by this white house in contradiction to at least three sections of the u.s. code. i as to what you are doing about it. you are not willing to say that it is being handled by the public integrity sector. had he put any attention to following up on the allegation?

>> at the we had responded to your letter. >> it could be in the mail. it is very close some time. we have not received it. >> i apologize. the premise that you make that there are violations of the statutes, would have to be looked at. >> i am only asking if you load up on the allegations by a member of congress. that is all i am asking. i'm not asking for all the details of how you would follow up. had he followed up on these allegations that we brought to your attention? >> it is the department's policy not to comment on anything of pending matters. that is not the way in which department of justice it conducts business. that is not what we do.

that is the way i handled your question. >> i yield back. >> the chair is being sent it to members who are in the middle of questions. we want to allow members to be able to finish their questions and answers. with that, i will recognize you for five minutes. >> thank you again. i'd like to address a bit further and arizona matter. i heard you say that you are looking into the matter. the way i see it, i find the whole matter of offensive on behalf of all hispanics in america. i cannot speak for others this is a nation of immigrants.

most of them are u.s. citizens or are legally residing in this country. i am very perturbed by this law. regardless of the motives. and talking about a lot of land itself to racial profiling. with the way i see what the department could be doing, they to be doing any of three things. first, challenged the law in court. second, challenged the pre- emption issue. third, assuming the law and of being safe, dealing with its implementation. i just want you to be a bit more specific. what are you looking at? what can be reasonably expect

from the department in this matter in the near future? >> we are examining the law and trying to determine if it contravenes the federal responsibility. whether or not what they have tried to do is pre-empted by federal law. with the men from the civil- rights perspective to see whether or not the law contravenes federal law statutes. that increase -- inquiry is on the way. we are trying to determine what action we will take. >> thank you. i will add one thing that troubles me. i think it is so effective in america. this matter also raises the possibility of affecting the

ability of local law enforcement to deal with our community and gain trust of residents in our community when they are under siege by all kinds of crime. not only immigration populations. that troubles me. i like to hear from me about that. >> the frustration of people along the border, with the concerns i had is one that you have in whether not the passage will serve a wedge between law enforcement that they are supposed to serve. if they feel it is being unfairly, that is being profile, people share information with law enforcement are having less ability to solve crimes. those in the issues that they wish to take into consideration. >> the gentleman yield back.

we recognize him for five minutes. the din demand from north carolina. >> that they extend my opening remarks this morning. what criteria could mohammad and his co-conspirators separate them from other detainees rather than military commission chiles? >> determinations that i have tried to make and where they can be tried a case specific. on the same day i made the announcement that the case would be tried in a civilian court, i sent five other or six cases to military commissions. it deals with the acquisition of evidence on the battlefield.

we make these cases on a case by case basis, following protocol that i have that is used by me and by the department of defense. each case is a set in a determination made about where we can try the case. >> he said the department is reviewing whether to try him and his co-conspirators. what issues is the department still addressing? >> there is a review under way about the determination's i made in november. we talk about a variety of things, the reaction of political leaders in particular areas, the reaction of the public in that area we are

taking into account a whole variety of things and making that determination. we are not ruling anything in or out. >> how many guinea's are you considering? venues are you considering? >> a variety of forums. >> specifically what i am driving edit it in your opinion, does the capital vilnius statute, the punishable by death avocation be in the county. with that limit it to new york, pa., and virginia? >> that is a stat sheet we have to do with for these determinations. if you are going to seek the death penalty, it has to take place where the offense took

place. we are limited. there are some questions in about how strong the particular statute is to do it is a factor that has to be taken into consideration. >> i yield the gentleman from virginia. >> following up to the comments of the gentleman from california, i am not taking a position against the comcast and universal merger. i think the department job is to conduct a fair review and apply the facts of the law. i have every confidence that you will do just that. >> thank you. >> i will yield back.

>> we now recognize the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes. >> we have talked about racial disparity last year i have a bill that i have introduced it was to look at a steady. we have held back on the bill and the request. have you concluded the study? >> the studies we are doing are fairly close to coming into a landing. on the basis of some of the reports i am receiving, i will be announcing a variety of things pitta the ones you are talking about i have not. >> when you think you might see

a report on that one? >> we have certainly been looking at the question of rachel this -- racial disparities with regard to the criminal law. i had seen a report on that. we will be issuing some guidance in that regard. >> very soon. that is good. this'll be released to the public i presume? >> it to be certain the release in the field. i am sure the public will have an ability to book. >> i have introduced legislation to states and localities that receive [unintelligible] to you agree they have a responsibility to make sure federal funds are not used to

perpetuate racial and ethnic disparities? >> the grants of one of the ways we support our state and local counterparts. we would expect it would be done in a non-discriminatory matter. it did not promote disparity that would be responsive to the needs of particular communities. we are trying to make sure that those grants for the cause of equal justice as opposed to retarding it. >> has the justice department intended to do any comprehensive looks at our laws and tried to reform them so they are in the

21st century? >> one of the task force's i could and place has a depth federal sentencing laws. it will be issued very shortly to the field. it ase looked baat modified. >> are you familiar with the dead? he issued a 41 page written order by a man named charles lynch that was convicted of merrill -- medical marijuana and suspension. he said it could be alleviated from schedule one. what are your thoughts about how the department will approach the rescheduling hearing of the marijuana, which is in the highest class at the federal

government? it is on the level of opium and heroin as being habit forming, and troublesome, expensive, and bad. >> one has to look at the issue a mere one in the totality. the mexican cartels get residue from the trafficking in marijuana. it is something that feels violence in mexico. it is something that can have an effect on violence in the united states. what the administration has done is to say that in the states for determination has to be made that we would not huge -- use our limited resources to go after marijuana being used in that way. we are focusing our attention on

those people who are major traffickers of marijuana and other drugs that have such a negative impact on some many communities. >> if i could have the chair for 30 more seconds? i concur with you and commend you on that. i would like to suggest that the reason there is such a demand for that product that causes all the violence is because it is illegal. maybe if it was not class one and there were other determinations -- it must be popular someplace. maybe we should take into consideration the popularity in the demand and maybe change cultural norms about using it in the supply and demand and we could reduce violence there another way. we could work our way through this.

>> it will help our mexican counterparts. is the responsibility of the u.s. to try to do that. the uss tried to do that for treatment facilities. i think that is a way we can decrease the amount of islands that we see. -- violence that we see. >> thank you. thank you for coming forward to testify it. it has been a long day. she spoke earlier in your opening remarks about how arizonas immigration law institutionalizes racial profiling to said that people are being detained because they forgot their driver's license at

home. could you add some clarity to that statement for this panel? >> i am not familiar with the incident that perhaps she was talking about. the concerns i have expressed our with regard to the whole question of preemption and whether the statute get into areas more properly handled by the federal government as to what the impact of the law will be. >> it does not go into effect until 90 days. we could agree that any action that will be taking place on immigration laws would not take place until 90 days after signed by the governor. the balance might have been inspired by the press or the dialogue, but nothing on the

authority of the legislation. with this familiar situation she mentioned. >> would that be the standard if there were federal law? and until it is enacted, it cannot have an effect legally. >> i do not know whether some police officer is going to be taking affect. i do not know anything about the situation. but then let's try this down the path of the constitution preemption. as i understand arizona law, it mirrors federal immigration law. presumably, it would evaluate

the constitutionality and whether it was violating any federal statute under that pre- emption clause. can you point to anything in the constitution that would prevent arizona from passing and enforcing immigration law provided it did not go beyond the bounds of immigration law? is there anything in the constitution you point to that would define it as unconstitutional or potentially unconstitutional? >> the regulation of our borders in the immigration that occurs is something that is inherently is something i believe for the national government to take responsibility for. i understand the pressures and that people feel in arizona. we have not done enough as a nation to do with the very real problem that people in the south border had to deal with.

it is more than them. it is a national problem. that is why the president has said a comprehensive look at this issue dealing with the causes of illegal migration as well as what we deal with the people who are here without documentation is a way in which we can hopefully solve the problem. >> now we have digressed into policy. as far as specificity with regard to the constitution, our current federal statutes -- and yet already investigated this so you should know whether there is a constitutional point that can be made or the federal statutory point that can be made. i will suggest that i have looked at this. our attorneys have looked at this. we have not found a constitutional argument that would indicate that arizona has violated the federal constitution nor have we have found a way that they have gone beyond the immigration statute.

in the constitution, there is nothing that define immigration laws as 6 frissell province of the federal government. >> cannot make a determination if it is something that we are examining the bill we must take some legal action. we have made the determination that it contravenes federal law. >> i would point out that there had been a significant amount of resources that have been invested in looking at arizona immigration law. it appears to follow a pattern of political actions of your office.

the investigation cannot get done with one single auction. it threatens the underpinnings of our constitution. that is one thing that would break this country down is if we lost our confidence in the electoral process yet we cannot investigate a.c.o.r.n. and we cannot find out what might have brought your attention to that. >> the time has expired. >> the determinations that we may between what such as the liggett in what cases we investigate are done in a political way. i am proud of the time i have spent in the department of justice. i consider myself a career guy. i am very proud.

i understand the traditions of the department. i will not allow the department of justice to be politicized. people may not agree with the decisions, but i want the american people to know that the decisions are based on the backs and the law and not in politics. that is not what is attorney general is about. >> there have been a number of myths that have been perpetrated by politicians seeking to inject politics into the political process. one of these myths that has reared its ugly head has been the notion that the obama administration in view as the

attorney general placed the u.s. address a prosecuting terrorists in federal court including the christmas day bombers and the 9/11 terrace and now the christmas day underwear bomber and the gentlemen who was recently arrested for leaving a car packed with explosives in times square. prior to this issue becoming a political football, the bush administration had tried numerous terrorist suspects in federal court. including the issue bomber --

the shoe bomber whose case is strikingly similar to the underwear bomber's case. also they 20th 911 hijacker. is it true there have been 300 anti-terrorism cases? >> i think that number is accurate. they can handle these matters. history shows that.

they want to bring the cases to the federal court. you take away from us an extremely valued tool. we should not have this toll taken away from us if we want to win the war. >> during the bush said of ministration, when these 300 cases were making their way through federal court to final disposition, the success rate and those prosecutions was

phenomenal. was it not? >> it is a high 90% rate. >> if you could, i have been having trouble with this. if you could tell me what has actually changed from the time that these 300 bush's administration cases were prosecuted in civilian courts to the current side where the courts are an adequate, ill- equipped and an able to do what has already been established what has changed now other than the ascent of the counter party in power to that position?

>> i've often asked myself that same question. they were silent when actions were taken by the bush administration previously. i will be to them to decide exactly what it is that has caused them to change their views when we have the consistent policy when it comes to the use of the federal criminal justice system to handle these cases. i do think that the party that is now making these determinations has changed is certainly a factor. >> if i might add a little commentary on to the back of that. i think it is another illustration and political as

of the justice of fair play that i've come to expect during my 30 years as a lawyer. >> that is something that is extremely worrisome. i should think that the one place in which politics might not enter islamic talk about issues involving the national security -- not injured is when we talk about issues involving the national security. it should be something that should unite is.

>> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. >> they carried out attacks in the united states. arizona and the federal government tully fails to secure the border and as for the past laws to protect its own people. the law supported by 7% of the arizona and 50% of all hispanics done by an nbc poll. i understand that you may file a lawsuit against the law. it seems they are not .hallenging the laws for th

it is shorter than the health care bill which was 2000 pages. i'll give you my copy of it if you like to have a copy. do you have an opinion as to whether it is constitutional? >> i have not been briefed yet. i'm sure they will put that in front of me at a meeting. >> i have gone through it. it is pretty simple. it takes the federal law and makes it a state statute.

it implements the requirement that the subsection of this law. do you see a difference in the constitutionality of a statute of the application of the statute? >> there is a potential for challenging a lock on its base in challenging a lot as it .pplies pitt >> when you think you have an opinion on whether the law is constitutional? >> i've used this term may not produaa lot. i think relatively soon. there has been much discussion about the review. the department of justice and homeland security is involved in

this treaty. i would expect our view of the ball will be dealt with relatively soon. >> you have concerns about the statute. you haven't even read the law. it seems like you and not make a judgment about whether it violates civil rights statutes if you have not read the law. can you help me out here a little bit how you can make a judgment call on that they have not read the law? >> what i said i have not made up my mind. i've only made the comments that i have made on the basis on things i've been able to glean by newspaper accounts. i have not reached any conclusions i am not in a position to say when i have not

had a chance to interact with the people. >> it is a federal law that helps implement federal immigration statutes. they had the authority to enforce that she. deeply that constitutes? i believe that is constitutional. the folks in arizona seem to me like folks in texas. the federal government --it is their job to secure the borders. we secured them to -- third world countries secure the borders better than we do. acting for political reasons. we do not secure the border.

this is not the first administration that has not secure the border. i hope it is the last. the law it seems should be enforced and it the federal farm at perform its role, ariz. when not need to take these measures. other state talking about the same thing. we would not have to have these measures if the government was in the job. >> today think it is a constitutional quest? >> the time has expired. >> we have to have a comprehensive look at this. we have to secure our borders. we have to deal with the millions of people who are here in an undocumented way. this is a national issue. it requires a national response

not necessarily comic even understand the frustration people fear, but not during the state by state. -- doing this state-by-state. this requires our national government working with the state to come up with a solution, a comprehensive solution. >> california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much. i have concerns about the civil rights act about the arizona law. i believe it is unconscionable for our citizens to have to live in fear about forms of identification everywhere they go. it is something people would expect from a cold war country. i know you said you are looking into a review of this lot of you make a final decision.

if you decide not to challenge the law, do you intend to monitor the implementation? >> i think we would do that in any case. i do not know exactly what we are going to do with regard to our preview of the law, but with regard to the law and any other law that exists, we will constantly be monitoring it to see if there are civil rights violations and concerns that it generated by the implementation of the law. >> there are also three bosses that have been filed, -- lawsuits that have been filed. they claimed it was illegal because it [unintelligible] two police officers are suing because it would hinder police investigation and by late the 14th amendment.

-- violated the 14th amendment. >> our review is under way. exactly what procedural step we are going to take we have not yet decided. i will need to interact with our team who is looking at the law as it has been conducting this review. we will decide what action we are going to take it any. >> another troubling aspect is that it requires law enforcement to confirm with federal authorities the legal status of anyone that is arrested regardless of the pins. it would take days of the department of homeland security to honor such a request. if the police decide not to press charges, when it violates the rights of due process if the person were held without charges? do you believe the federal government can realistically respond to all such inquiries? >> that is an interesting

question. we are working with apartments -- our partners. that is one question we are trying to deal with. what is the impact of this statue? what is the potential impact of the statute on the federal government that the federal government would be able to bring their? -- there? that is a part of the mix that we will consider in determining what have we will take. >> in 1996, the office of legal counsel concluded the state and local police lacked authority to obtain individual solely on the suspicion of being in the country illegally. in 2002, they issued a memorandum concluding that several laws and not prevent them from arresting aliens on

the basis of civil deport ability. >> i have not read it yet. as we go through our review, one thing that has to be taken into account is the 2002 opinions that you referenced. this is all a part of what our review team is looking at. >> why would you keep that 2002 opinion in forced while it is under review? >> i do not think that we could take up an extended time to decide what action we are going to take. we need to understand the statute in its totality and the impact it will have and take

into account what policy the federal government has put in place. there is a wide variety of things that go into the determination. i want to make sure we take a comprehensive look before we make a consequential decision. >> ok. turning toward another issue that these doj had some action on is the active negation against the civil-rights violation. what is the status of that investigation? >> that is under review. i cannot say an awful lot about that. it is under preeti.

they have decided not to cooperate with the investigation. that makes our task a little more difficult. it is a matter under way. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes the defects thank you. -- five minutes. >> thank you. he announced that muhammed would be tried in a speedy trial in new york some of us were kind of stunned because of the discovery that this offered a terrorist and their ability to penetrate much of our intelligence gathering and the potential of them having a platform before the world, a recruiting mechanism. it seemed like a terrorists interim. dreamnk -- terrorist's produce i think i.

i think it is so we could show that the american system was superior. that seems like an honorable commitment. then the administration said if they are not somehow convicted the we will let them go. in an interview with in this scene news -- nbc news, obama declared that mohammed will be convicted and executed. then before the senate, and you stated "failure is not an option." i do not know how that undermined our system if we hope that. you and mr. obama must know that he and his co-conspirators are awarded the presumption of innocence and our courts . does the department

believe they can defend assertions that the statement have painted a civilian jury or commission to such a degree as to deny them the presumption of innocence? >> maybe i can clear this up when i said the year is not an option, that is not a prediction. [unintelligible] it is a way in which a coach talks to the players about winning the game. that is what i was saying. >> i will give you that. the notion that obama said that he will be convicted and executed. that is a notion they have said many times. does that undermine our system and afford attorneys the opportunity to say the you tainted the jury pool and we are not afforded the presumption of innocence? >> we would have an extensive

law they would have to go through. the jury pool and not be able to give them a fair trial is belied by the fact that we have done this in the past with high- profile terrorism cases in the bush administration. we have cases that are underway right now in new york after being handled in an inappropriate way. i think we have done in the past. we can do it in the future. i didn't think anything anyone has said has tainted our ability or impacted negatively our ability. >> he will be convicted and

executed. you do not think that is suggesting there may not a presumption of innocence? >> from my perspective, i think the lawyers who will try the case our experience. the evidence that we have is good. i am hopeful that we will have a good outcome. it does not mean that i think the ability to say the trial was fair is -- >> respectfully, i do nothing you are going to into the question. i think he put a judge in the impossible position of doing what is right for the country or breaking rules of the judge. the administration is too quick to say this person was water boarded. you have a plethora of options to undermine the trial. everyone knows that. >let me shift gears. you stated that if 9/11

mastermind was brought to the u.s. for a trial and were acquitted that "there are other mechanisms we might have to employ like immigration laws with the possibility of detaining him." were you referring to the patriot act section 236a which allows for the indefinite detention of detainees? >> i do not -- i am not sure about the particular section. the loss of four allow us to detain -- laws of war allow us to detain those who are at war with the united states. we have habeas corpus rights. there is the possibility that he could be detained under the law of war.

>> what certification is your beckham plan to protect the safety of america in the cannot rely on a detention law? what is the plan here if those things felt? >-- fail? >> i have confidence in our ability to try the case fairly and effectively and to get a good result. there are the laws of war. with regard to mahomet, there are other charges that could be brought before him. >> i guess time will tell. thank you. >> the time has expired. i am delighted to yield to the new member of this committee from florida. >> thank you.

i am delighted to have the opportunity. thank you for being i wanted to spend a minute about terrorism and trying terrorists on the prevention, part to go lead the terrace screening data base which i understand is comprised of individuals who are expected -- suspected of constituting relating to terrorism. . .

about the access that people on the terrorist watch list have to obtaining weapons, although i think we have to key in mind and this would be part of the dialogue that the f.b.i. is notified when somebody on the terror watch list in fact tries to obtain a weapon and there are law enforcement equities, reasons why that is something that is valuable to us. and so i think taking into account the law enforcement equities we have, the law enforcement realities that we now have, we would want to work with congress to talk about the issue -- the very real issue that you have raised. >> attorney general holder, in

order to balance these law enforcement inequities, wouldn't it be possible to both prevent those weapons, those assault rifles in particular from being sold to that suspected terrorist while at the same time still deriving the benefit of these equities and notifying the f.b.i.? >> i don't want to get into too much with regard to techniques and how the f.b.i. uses actions by certain people on terrorist watch lists and what that leads to, but it is part of the conversation that i think we should have in dealing with a very real issue. i don't mean to denigrate the issue that you have raised, but the very real issue that you have raised. that is something i think we should work together and try to resolve. >> i appreciate that. i would point out as we try to prevent all forms of terrorism that the terrorists in mumbai

that killed 173 people, dozens of those murdered and injured were murdered or injured with an ak-47 and it does seem, and i appreciate your willingness to work with us, but if we have an opportunity to keep those sorts of weapons in particular out of the hands of wood-be terrorists, it would be, therefore, possible for us to prevent tragedies of that magnitude from occurring here in this country. and i look forward to having the opportunity to work together to make that so. >> please do not take what i said as disagreeing with your last statement. there are a variety of things that we need to do and can appropriately do. i just, as i said, would want to make sure that in looking at this question, looking at this problem, that we surfaced all of the law enforcement equities that we have and deal with the very real problem, the very real concern that you have identified, especially in the last statement that you made. >> i appreciate that, general,

i hope we have the opportunity to do that soon. thank you, i yield back that time. >> the gentleman yields back his time. it gives me great pleasure again to yield to another distinguished new member of the committee from colorado for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. my first question is with regard to drug enforcement administration and marijuana policy building off what my colleague asked earlier. i certainly applaud and greet with warm welcome one of the states that has medical marijuana law and regulates the sale of marijuana. the memo describing the d.a.'s and u.s. attorneys, i would like you to describe the process of whether individuals are in "clear and unambiguous" compliance with state law. how is that determined? >> people get -- i get tired of

hearing this, but it is true. it's done on a case-by-case basis. we look at the state laws and what the restrictions are, what the -- how the law is, how the law is constructed and there are a number of factors in that memo that are guides. is marijuana being sold consistent with state law? are arms, are people, are firearms somehow associated with the sale? there are a variety of factors that are contained within the memo that went out from the deputy attorney general that the united states attorneys and assistant united states attorneys are supposed to apply, supposed to consider when trying to make a determination about whether or not federal resources are going to be used to go after somebody who is dealing in marijuana. >> i would certainly encourage that the question of whether or not it's consistent with state law certainly be left to state enforcement actions. in particular, i brought to your concern in a letter of

february 23 requesting the clarification of your policies regarding medical marijuana with regard to several statements that were made by one of your agents in colorado, jeffrey sweeten, along the lines of as quoted in the paper. "the time is coming when we go into the dispensary, find out what the profit is and we seize the building and arrest everybody. they're violating federal law." i would ask what steps you might take to make sure that the spirit of the enforcement mechanisms that you outlined to me in the answer to your previous questions are not contradicted by the statements of agents that, in fact, then strike fear into legitimate businesses in the eyes of our states? >> it's incumbent upon me as attorney general to make sure that what we have set out as policy is being followed by all of the components within the department of justice. and to the extent that somebody at the d.e.a., somebody at,

some assistant united states attorney is not following that policy, it is my responsibility to make sure that the policy is clear, that the policy is disseminated, and that people act in conformity with the policies that we have determined. >> do you believe, do you agree that statements that could be reasonably taken as threatening to businesses that are legal in our state are, in fact, category to your stated policy? >> well, again, if the entity is, in fact, operating consistent with state law and is not -- does not have any of those factors involved that are contained in that deputy attorney general memo and given, again, the limited resources that we have in our determination to focus on major trafficicers, that would be inconsistent with what the policy as we have set it out. >> den graces, i'm worried about denying immigrants'

access to federal judicial review in light of the arizona law when they will be dragged into state courts in a fashion when the ultimate responsibility and authority regarding immigration is supposed to be that of the federal government. are we worried about arizona courts effectively trying to enforce federal immigration laws? >> that's one of the primary concerns that we have. whether or not the impact of the arizona statute preempts or is -- whether it improperly interferes with what is ultimately a federal responsibility, whether or not federal law preempts the arizona statute. that is one of the things that we are looking at. >> finally, there is a significant backlog in our immigration courts. i would like you to briefly outline the steps that you're taking to restore fairness and efficiency to immigration courts which have been identified by several studies as a need of reforms and

additional financial resources? >> we have been engaged this fiscal year and next fiscal year in hiring a substantial number of immigration judges, which is one of the problems that we have. we simply need more people to process these cases. we have also engaged in, i think, training to make sure that the people who serve as judges and who are part of the system are conducting themselves appropriately. we have a new chief judge who i think is doing a good job in the training component and we're trying to make sure that he and the people in the system have all of the tools that they need so that our responsibility with regard to immigration is done in an appropriate way. >> thank you, and i yield back. >> the gentleman has yielded back. general, i believe that we are better as a nation for having a u.s. department of justice, and

i think we are better as a nation to have a lawyer who represents the american people. i think it is important as i close to try to give you an opportunity to clarify a few points that may still be somewhat unclear. one is an inquiry that i would appreciate if you would respond in writing within the parameters of that investigation, that is, of course, regarding the hairs county jail when which is located in hairs county, texas, there has been an inquiry and a comment of what federal funds under the d.o.j. could be helpful to local jurisdictions with jail overcrowding problems, impacting mental health issues and the health and security of the incarcerated persons. if i could have that in writing, i would appreciate it. i would like to pursue, to be clear on the record, there are

overlapping jurisdictions between the department of justice and homeland security. let me just focus on what the administration is for and what it is against, what position it's taken. has the administration, department of justice, taken any position to be against strong border security, both at the northern and southern border of the united states? >> not at all. we understand the primary responsibility for protecting our borders is a national responsibility, it's one that this administration takes very seriously. it is one component that we think has to be taken seriously as part of the comprehensive view of immigration reform. >> and if this congress was to undertake what we call a comprehensive immigration reform on the issue of benefits, falls under the judiciary committee, does the administration hold that that reform is mutually exclusive in being strong on its position on securing the borders, both

northern and southern border? >> if one looks at the totality of this problem, there are a lot of moving pieces but there is not necessarily tension between them. how we deal with people who are here and undocumented, the whole question of what benefits people have and should have, should not have. the maintenance of strong borders along our southern frontier, our northern frontier as well, those are all things that have to be a part of this solution and the resolution of that big problem does not necessarily mean that there is a tension between the component parts. >> so fixing, for example, the opportunity for a child not born but raised in the united states to attend college, for example, which is a problem plaguing a lot of nonstatus immigrants is not mutually exclusive if that was to occur, if congress was to move from the administration's position on securing the borders? >> well, yeah.

we can certainly secure the borders. then the whole question of how we deal with people who are here illegally and putting them on a pathway to citizenship which is what we had talked about, which has been talked about i guess in previous congresses. these are all of the kinds of things that we need to discuss. >> following up and on the arizona law and it is my understanding and i think you have made it clear, but i think it's important is there is nothing in your testimony that suggests that you would not read this bill, but presently you have tasked your staff to do a thorough review of this legislation at this point. is that my understanding? >> yeah, i'm old enough now that i don't read things too far in advance and then forget them before i need to know them. i ultimately will -- believe me, the statute will be read. i will understand it. i will read all of the reports that the review team puts for me. i will meet with that review team and on the basis of all of that will make an informed decision. >> we would not want the record to reflect that america's lawyer did not read either

legislation we wrote or legislation that was relevant that was written by any state, but pursuing that question, i focused on federal preearnings and i think my -- preelse, i think my colleagues have probed that, but in terms of the assessment of the state law, i want to raise in terms of the arizona law, the question of potential racial profiling. i say it in this sense. you don't have jurisdiction over the census, but there are reports suggesting that states like, and there are members of the larger bodies of states, albeit they are unique states, california, new york, arizona, and texas among others have been impacted negatively by a lot of, should i say, reflections on immigration in terms of the count. that truly impacts an authority embedded in the constitution and certainly designates to the department of commerce to count

everybody. it does not put qualifications on who gets counted. on the question of racial profiling, if your team is reviewing this and if you read this law and there is grounds for seeing that this broadly without basis racial profiles, i think one of our members indicated that you might be stopped for a traffic, that is a legal contact, or you might have someone knock on your door trying to solicit funds for the local police department. i don't know if that's a legal contact or not. but if you find that there is a racial profiler which is under the jurisdiction of the justice department, for example, if you find there is racial profiling going forward on pakistani americans, obviously, the pakistani americans or pakistanis have been in the news. i tell you that the community is frightened. what is the position of the department of justice on unfair racial profiling within your jurisdiction? >> well, i mean, i think that first and foremost, people have

to understand that racial profiling is not good law enforcement. and we should understand that those who want to do this nation harm understand or are trying to take advantage of the possibility of racial profiling. what you see is their desire to come up with people who have clean skins, people who do not fit profiles, people who do not come certain countries, people who come from the united states. people who do not look like what you would expect a terrorist to look like. those are the people they are trying to recruit. if we restrict ourselves to profiling, we will be handing a tool to those who seek to do this nation harm. so that is certainly in that context. but racial profiling just more generally is never good law enforcement. it has all kind of collateral negative impacts that drive wedges between law enforcement and certain communities.

there is no good basis. i have never seen a good basis for racial profiling. >> and as your staff reviews in particular the arizona law, i would imagine without predicting all of they review, that's certainly an element as you review the arizona law as it reviews the stopping and arresting individuals with sur names and other aspects of that law? >> i think we'll look at the law as it is written, look at the law as it is applied, potentially applied in trying to make our decision about whether or not we should take any action with regard to it. >> let me also, thank you, just follow up and put into the record some language that i paraphrased dealing with the clayton act section seven. the act seeks to cap prohibiting particular types of conduct not deemed in the best interest of a competitive market if there is ever a question of a competitive

market, i think one that we are attempting to have competitive is the aviation industry. as i read the law, and i would like you to correct me if i'm incorrect, it seems as if submissions dealing with aviation mergers is presented to the d.o.j., but there is notice given to the f.t.c. if you would either correct that or suggest that it is. if you would give the procedure, if that is the case, as to whether or not the f.t.c. is, in fact, just notified and the d.o.j. takes lead or my question will be whether the d.o.j. would take the lead. the second question would be -- and i just want this to be further confirmed -- have you sent or the justice department sent a december 2010 deadline for your review of this present merger in particular that i have mentioned, and that is continental airlines and united.

and if you speak just from the law, clayton action section 7 or any aspects of antitrust law is obviously appropriate, is the question of pricing and price increase, are those variables that will be under the eye and scrutiny of the department of justice. and lastly, i would ask, and this is a pointed question. i want to pay tribute to chairman conyers who developed an antitrust task force under his initial leadership of this committee showing how important it is that a vigorous review taking into consideration president theodore roosevelt's initial thought on this process of con glom rats recognizing that we are a capitalistic society. i understand one of his quotes is that we have to save capitalism from the capital lists. chairman conyers thought the antitrust was extremely important.

we had a task force that we ultimately merged into one of our subcommittees. the question that i know pose that i think someone has asked on another approach whether there is any politics that would play in any decision that you would make on, really, any matters, but in this instance, for example, that one of the parties involved happens to be housed in illinois. all of these comments that are going around and, again, i said to you that one of the c.e.o.'s said this was a done deal. this will be done by -- we see no problem in its completion. i yield to the general. >> well the justice department has primary responsibility for the assessment of the continental-united mergerant whether it has an anti-competitive impact. there is no deadline as to how long it will take us to do that. we will do the job as best we can and use the amount of time

that we need. i can assure you that political considerations will not be a part of that process. as i said, we have an antitrust division that i think has been revitalized it by the woman who heads it. she has been appropriately aggressive in looking at mergers and will do so with regard to this one. i'm confident that we will give this a good, thorough, vigorous look, and make a decision on the basis of that examination. >> let me close very quickly. i know that you have been very gracious. just give me these last two points that i wish to clarify. and that is a question of national security. and i started out by saying that you have traversed a lot of land fields, a lot of mines, and i believe deliberation is key to being an american and as

well the lawyer for america. there is a lot of talk about the initial decision for cleedcleed -- khalid shake mohammed and i complimented the d.o.j. for its declaration and its studiousness. i would like you to clarify that and i would say this, comments made by a president and commander and chief who is also a citizen among many comments that have been made. the president has the right to make comments because he has the first amendment right of freedom of speech. my understanding is that lawyers go into courtrooms many times around america, in this instance, u.s. attorneys against all kinds of comments being made in the general forum. but that does not take the place of a vigorous

prosecutorial presentation, as i understand it. so if you would comment and clarify, again, with the times square bomber whose family members came and encouraged that individual to participate fully, and i think you said there are so many bombers. let me finish the sentence and i'll clarify it. that came and asked him to fully participate and to give answers and that individual was initially questioned under civilian justice miranda rights and, of course, that was the christmas day bomber, yet the times square bomber likewise provided additional enhanced information. give us your sense that that does not undermine the justice

system in this country and the ability to defend the american people against terrorism and does not show weakness as it relates to national security. >> the only thing i can point you to is the facts and the history which has shown that the giving of miranda warnings has not had a negative impact on our ability to get information from people charged with terrorist offenses. one can look at the terrorist in detroit, shahzad here in the times square bomber, headley, the person in chicago, all of whom were given their miranda rights and nevertheless decided to continue talking and sharing information, sharing intelligence with us. there is not a tension -- there is a misconception that people have that the giving of miranda warnings necessarily means that someone is going to stop talking. that is inconsistent with the facts. the facts in the cases that i

have just mentioned and certainly what i think you see through the criminal justice system, the determination that people make as to whether or not they are going to continue to talk or talk at all to law enforcement is not determined solely by miranda warnings. there is a lot more that goes into it. the rapaport that interrogators are able to make with him they are questioning, the strength of the evidence of the case that we can bring, i actually think that we also have to consider the reality that once a person is given miranda warnings and if that person decides he wants to take advantage of them and get a lawyer involved in the process, that frequently a defense attorney looking at the facts that are arrayed against his client frequently becomes an advocate on behalf to try to convince that person to cooperate with the government in the hope that a sentence would be lessened so that even

where miranda warnings have that at least initial impact of stopping an information flow, it does not necessarily mean that that flow of information is forever stopped. i think that one thing that i would really want to clear up is this whole notion that the giving of miranda warnings necessarily means that people stop talking. that is inconsistent with the facts. >> one final question to you and it's something both of us have spoken about, and i think it's very close to your personal beliefs. chairman scott has worked very closely on this whole issue of juvenile crime, juvenile justice, and we have managed with his leadership, i believe, to pass this committee something called the promise gram. looking at best practices of juvenile justice, you have a section that deals specifically with the issues dealing with juveniles. if we look at our history over

the last two decades, we really have done poorly. we had two 16-year-olds, among others, shot and the killed at a 3-year-old's birthday party in new york. tens upon tens of juveniles have been murdered in chicago. the lacrosse murder at my alma mater, university of virginia, and down in houston, a fine college student at a party shot dead without any hopes of survival. what is the focus of the department as relates to juvenile violence and also the access of juveniles to guns and how can we work together as a committee and the department of justice and the administration on this ongoing sickness and violence? >> well, i don't know if you remember that in chicago late last year, there was an incident where a young man was

taped, was killed by a gang of young people, a board hit him over the head, the secretary of education and i went out to chicago to assess what had happened there and to deal, just to get a better understanding of what was going on in chicago with regard to youth violence. that has led to an effort, very soon the administration is about to announce with regard to how we're going to deal with this issue of proposals that we have, this issue of youth violence in a select number of cities where we're going to try a variety of different things and see what actually works. when we deal with a problem of youth violence, i think too often we think of it in a microcosm and we don't understand what we're talking about, in essence, is the future of our nation. and kids who can't go to school and feel safe, don't learn as well, children who are exposed to violence, it has negative

impacts on their lives as they get older. so we want to try to deal with this problem, exposure to violence, violence itself as what we like to say to be not tough on crime, but to be smart when it comes to crime and to come up with solutions that will prevent youth violence to the extent that we can, but then deal with the impact of people who are either victims of violence, youth violence, or who witness violence. that is also something that has an impact on young people and impacts them as they mature. >> guns and juveniles? >> obviously, a very large problem. the prevalence of guns in certain communities, the possession of guns by juveniles and the way in which they use

them is a primary concern. disproportionate number of these unfortunate homicides happen because too many young people have too easy access to guns. we have to deal with that. >> let me thank you very much for your openness and your integrity and honesty during these hearings. let me as well thank chairman conyers for convening this hearing and for the leadership he has given on any number of these issues that we have addressed throughout this hearing. this will conclude our questioning. i will add that there will be potentially, potentially, a number of hearings on some of the questions that members have asked, some having to do with the antitrust question and mergers. i would hope that the justice department would receive the transcripts of those hearings as they might be very helpful in the deliberation for those

particular issues. i acknowledge that the general is nodding yes on those comments. i would like to thank you, attorney general holder, again for being with us today. without objection, members will have a number of five legislative days to submit any additional written questions for you which we will forward and ask that your answer be forwarded to us as promptly as you can and that they be made part of the record. without objection, the record will remain open for five legislative days for the submission of other additional materials including those from the department of justice and i noted for the record that you indicated you had responded to a number of members including the chair's questions by writing and we appreciate that. i believe the hearing has been a useful contribution to our efforts to help insure that the nation's premiere law enforcement agency is dedicated to being a shining example, not only in how effectively it pursues its cases, but equally in how it respects the questions that we hold

particularly near and dear and that is the fundamental question of freedom that is a hallmark of american democracy. today i believe we made one more step toward promoting democracy in this nation and protecting the constitution as it should be. general holder, thank you for your presence here today. and with that, the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> supreme court nominee elena kagan was on capitol hill today where she continued her visits with senators ahead of her confirmation hearing. she met with judiciary

committee members specter and schumer and brown. this is about 15 minutes. >> it's an overwhelming moment. >> the publications is about four new yorkers from different sections of the senate is really very surprising. do you think there is a little protection of the law? >> thanks, guys. >> thank you. >> have a good day.

>> hello, again. >> that's why you are for the mets. anyway, there were no -- just sit over here. there were no -- i was a yankee fan. how could you be from brooklyn and be a yankee fan? >> there were no mets. there were no dodgers. the yankees were the only game

in town. and the nationals, baseball is everything. so i think the cardinals and they had a st. louis cardinal seat. so it was st. louis cardinals and i'll you one story. so in 1967, they were playing the red sox in boston for the world series. i said i have to go. i couldn't get a ticket at fenway park. there was a guy on my corner, he called -- he said call my father. call my father. he has tickets. he'll get you a ticket. i called him. he said i'll get you a ticket for $47. i didn't have $47. i sell harvard college rings. $47, 47 rings get to $47.

first in, lou brock, cardinals left fielder. >> you're going the wrong direction. i think you want to go up, right? >> she is such a good lawyer and somebody who i think would be a great supreme court justice who is able to combine brilliance and practicality. that's a rare combination. one of my worries has always been for judges in general and certainly supreme court justices that they're way up in that ivory tower and they don't quite appreciate the practical consequences of their decisions on businesses, on government,

and on people. i have no doubt that elena kagan will understand that and understand that instinctively. it's in her bones. one thing people forget. they say, well, what kind of -- now people are saying what kind of real practical experience does she have? she ran a business. she ran a legal business, a budget of -- harvard law school, had a budget of $160 million, 500 people. it was sort of like a legal factory and she ran it with so many different factions and so many different egos and she made it into a well running smooth business that gained in stature while she was there. my daughter was at yale law school and she said one of the reasons i hope elena kagan is picked is she is luring all of our best faculty to harvard. i think she has just the right kind of experience that is

both, that is practical and in a court where we don't have anyone who has had that kind of practical experience, i think that's a welcome, welcome addition. i believe that she is a moderate. one of my criteria as you know in choosing judges is that i help to choose at the lower federal levels is moderation. i don't like them too far right, too far left. i think she is a moderate and i also believe knowing her and seeing the warmth and strength of her personality that she would meet a criteria that the president laid out and i said as well which was that she is very likely to be one of five votes, not one of four votes. i think that is perhaps the most important criteria for the next several years. >> you were not impressed with myers and they are making

comparisons between the two. you're in a completely different direction? >> what my problem with haterette meiers was she simply didn't have legal acumen. when i sat with her and asked her questions that i thought, you know, anyone who would be a nominee as supreme court, she didn't know the answers. that is not hers at all. practical experience is a good thing. i think if you had to pick some practical experience that would help you be a good supreme court justice, running a large law school is probably a pretty good one. you have to meet a budget that will bring people together. you see the practical effects of your decision. >> it was brought up the fact

that she is confirmed that there would be four new yorkers on the court to which was said that is a bit too much. your reaction? >> quality of people, that should be the number one criteria. we think we have a lot of high quality people in new york. >> talk about other issues, judicial power. >> i talked about some of those issues. her answers were thoughtful. >> what did she say? >> we talked, we mainly talked about just who she was, where she comes from and her judicial theory of being a justice. i think she is balanced on executive power. >> senator, there is a dispute over the funding levels in her funding in new york? >> finished with supreme court, everybody? >> can you discuss the forth rightness of nominees in front

of the judiciary committee and did she criticize any sitting members of the supreme court? >> she did not but i did discuss it because that is something i stood for for a long time. i told her that, for instance, when miguel estrada if you asked him is the sky blue, he said i can't answer that because a case came before me that i would have to judge it. she would have to answer questions far more directly than that without jeopardizing her future as a future justice and she understood that. >> did you discuss a specific justice on the court? >> no. >> the lirnls arer liberals have thought that she has some issues possibly with her decisions -- >> we discussed different ways, different people approached it, we did, but i'm not going to get into the specifics. >> the possible problem at

harvard, her hiring practices, did you discuss that? >> no, we did not. i'm not familiar with what they said. i couldn't do that. ok. >> so the white house is pushing back that they're cutting this funding and i think you may be have a disagreement with that could you discuss that? >> i spoke to both rahm emanuel and general general holder this morning about this here is my view. first, in this round, new york got 11% of the transit anti-terror funding and the port anti-terror funding. we get far more than 11% of the threats. we seem to be 75% to 100% of the target. 11% is way out of line. second, in terms of the view that new york got a lot of money in error in the stimulus bill, that's true. a, that was last year, and, b, the threats have increased. we have seen over the last three or four months a new group that clearly is targeting

u.s. citizens and targeting new york, the pakistani taliban. we have seen -- thank god they didn't have success, but they came all too close. the hold formulas don't work. one thing i suggested to the white house is that they could make up for this in the largest pot of anti-terror money which will be allocated in the next month. they could make up for those losses. there is no question in my mind that given the level of terror threat that new york does not get our fair share on a percentage basis or the amount that we should get in terms of all of the things we have to do to protect our citizens. >> and what did they responded to you -- >> they're looking at the upcoming money. they said to me, well, what about stimulus money, i said that's last year and there are new threats. they left it there.

here is what i think. i think it is unfair to blame this on the president. these budget numbers were probably put in place in december and january before all the new information that's come about has but i do say at o.m.b. and at homeland security, they should have seen this and caught it. my hope is that the president, given -- no one can doubt his sympathy for new york, his understanding for the threat that he is under. that is why he is visiting the nypd this afternoon. we need to take that sympathy and that understanding and translate it into action and dollars. that's what myself and the rest of the new york delegation, both democrat and republican, will try to do. ok, thanks everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> we'll get to work. just so you know, i'll be maybe cutting in a little early to make some votes. >> then what happens? >> this for a while. >> thank you, guys. >> thank you. >> it's a little premature. >> thank you. >> thank you, everybody. >> thank you. >> welcome to washington.

>> sorry about the picture. >> i know who you are. >> thank you. >> thank you, everybody. >> let me just say one thing. i'm going to be very brief today. >> did you talk about the restrictions at harvard? >> is there a bug in my office? absolutely i did. that was the first question i actually asked her. being in the military, i had concerned about that position

at harvard, she answered it very honestly and it was clear after we spoke about it at length is that she is supportive of the men and women who are fighting to protect us and very supportive of the military as a whole. i do not feel that her judicial philosophy will be hurting the men and women who are serving. >> one more question. >> senator, you're going to introduce her at the confirmation hearings, is that right? >> i'm not sure who is introducing her. frankly, i'm waiting for the process to start. it's obviously my first process and i'm looking forward to it being fair and open and respectful. those are my three top priorities and i'm going to learn about her. obviously, you can't do much in a 15, 20-minute meeting. so i'm going to continue to evaluate and i'm going to reserve my decision until then. >> thank you, senator brown, we

got to go to vote. thank you, guys. >> you were satisfied? >> i was. thank you. >> senator have you been briefed at all -- >> we got to get going. >> this weekend on america and the courts, supreme court nominee elena kagan moderates a conference. that's here on c-span, saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. in a few moments, general stanley mcchrystal's briefing on afghanistan. in a half hour, secretary of state clinton and afghan president karzai speak at the u.s. institute of peace. after that attorney general eric holder testifies about justice department operations including the continuing investigation of the attempted

bombing in times square. later we'll reair our coverage of supreme court nominee elena kagan meeting with senators on capitol hill. the defense department will conduct aircraft training over washington, d.c. tonight. the exercise will include air force jets, coast guard helicopters, and small civilian aircraft. that's scheduled to begin about 11:30 eastern. >> watch this week's hearings on the gulf of mexico oil spill or look back at the exxon value disease hearings from 1989 at the new c-span video library. over 160,000 hours of searchable c-span programming. it's washington your way, search it, watch it, clip it and share it. every program since 1987 available free online. >> c-span, the public affairs content is available on television, radio and online

and you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube and sign up for our schedule alert emails at c-span.org. >> the leader of u.s. forces in afghanistan, general stanley mcchrystal says the outcome of the coming battle on the city of kandahar would not be known until at least the end of the year. the city is seen as a taliban stronghold of a technical problem, we are unable to show the first minutes of this half hour event. >> there is much more work ahead to secure afghan security forces. i'm pleased with the progress made thus far. while our strategic priority remains building the ansf, our operational priority lies in securing the southern part of afghanistan, an area that includes kandahar, the spiritual center of the taliban, and helmond, an economic hub of the insurgency and for afghanistan overall.

10 months ago we began a series of operations into taliban-controlled parts of the helmond river valley expanding the afghan's government's influence in key areas. there has been considerable progress in security and governance, but as is expected in counterinsurgency, progress is often slow and deliberate. this reflects the challenge of changing not only the dynamics of security, governance, and development, but also the attitudes of a population long pressured by insurgents. as additional forces flow into afghanistan, we will reinforce ongoing efforts to secure kandahar, an environment that is uniquely complex and will require a unique solution. this effort is being led by the afghans and will focus on the complex political and governance aspects of kandahar. i suspect you'll have several questions regarding kandahar.

i also want to make a point that there will be considerable efforts in other areas of the country as well, but i would be happy to discuss further. ultimately our efforts across afghanistan are about changing the perceptions of people. afghans believe more of what they see than what they hear. this is a process that takes time. it will demand courage and resilience. we should expect increased violence as our combined security forces expand into taliban-controlled areas. over time, security responsibilities will transition to afghans. thank you. i would be happy to take your questions. >> can you tell us a little bit about the effort to head the major operations in kandahar to secure local buyin and support for that operation? you spoke ahead of the other operation about how important that would be and i know at one time it was part of the plan in

kandahar as well. have you been able to carry that through and what obstacles are you encountering as you get closer to the real operation. >> that's a great opportunity for me to describe what we are doing in kandahar already. we're not using the term operation or major operations because that often brings to mind in people's psyche the idea of a d-day, an h-hour and an attack. kandahar is not, in fact, controlled by the taliban, so it's not a case of having to recapture an area under enemy control as the other was. but similarly, it is important that we engage the population so that we shape the leaders, the natural leaders, the elders, political and economic leaders, so that their participation helps shape how we go forward and also so that clearly we have their buy-in for the operation. now that has begun actually months ago. and so when we talk about our efforts in kandahar, this is

something that is ongoing and it's a process, not an event. i went down with president karzai some weeks ago for the first of a series in kandahar in which leaders from not just the city itself but the environs or the district itself were brought in in a candid series of meetings over two days. they gave him their feedback and he described his vision. there are a number of other things that the government of afghanistan is doing to try to shape the power of the governor, the effectiveness of the mayor, capability of the police and we're partnering with them on that as well as being partnered with security operations which will happen inside the city and in the areas around it. >> general, the institute for the study of war just came out with a report saying that the kandahar strike force and other private misches in and around kandahar should be disbanded. i'm wondering, do you agree with that? if not, what is the role of these militias in the upcoming

mission or operation, whatever you want to call it? >> i think over time, all armed groups in afghanistan should be under the government, the control of the government of afghanistan, both to protect their sovereignty and to reflect it. there are private security companies that operate and they have been a necessary requirement in some years past and there have been some other forces as well that have grown up. increasingly president karzai is committed to bringing all of those under government control and i personally think that that's the right -- >> in the short term, for the kandahar mission, operation, whatever you want to call it, what is the role of the kandahar strike force and these other groupings? >> i'm not going to discuss any of the specific forces like that i think all of that will reflect president karzai's intent to move things under government control. >> general, there has been a lot of focus in recent months about civilian deaths in afghanistan. i wanted to ask you about the numbers of u.s. killed and

wounded. the numbers have increased drastically. the same time last year, they have doubled. how has this impacted the force and how has this impacted you as their commander? >> before coming here this morning, i spent time with president karzai at arlington and walked through part of the cemetary. ran into soldiers that had worked directly for me and been lost in iraq and now in afghanistan as well. president karzai, every single casualty effects people. it affects leaders but more importantly, it affects families, children, spouses. so each one of them is sacred and we all know that. the force is strong. the force believes in the cause. the force understands that what we're doing is important, but

casualties are something that i hope the american people will keep in their minds and their hearts, not just the killed, but we also went to walter reed this week and we up and visited wounded and life-changing wounds also affect individual families as well. before we came over, president karzai and i also went to the medical facility where we visited afghan forces, police, civilians and coalition casualties as well. so it's important we keep all of that, casualties, our casualties, our afghan partners, our coalition partners and americans and then, of course, afghan civilians. they all matter. but i think everybody is committed to the task. let me go toward the back. sir. >> yes. the u.s. government has been investigating possible links between the times square bombing attempt and the pakistani taliban. i know that's not in

afghanistan, but obviously related. can you give us some sense of your view of whether or not the pakistani taliban may indeed have more global reach? this morning there were additional arrests or detensions here in the u.s. of pakistani nationals in massachusetts. talk if you can broadly, how much have you been briefed on this investigation but this also bigger question about the pakistani taliban. if indeed they are connected to these operations, is that more of a threat to the american homeland than some of the insurgents you're fighting in afghanistan? >> i only know some of the intelligence on this. but i think what this disappoint out is the rise of extremist groups, whether it's t.t.p., pakistani taliban or al qaeda or others, they all represent to some degree or another the ability to generate threats that can go outside of

the local area that they are. so the degree to which the government of pakistan is focused on bringing to an end the insurgency they faced from the pakistani taliban, i think this highlights just how important that is, important for them and important for our partnership with them to do that. >> can you give us an assessment of the ongoing security situation inside kandahar city and in particularly the wave of assassinations there and are you concerned that the fear, the threat is going to prevent you from, you know, reaching out to the population there and gaining their trust? >> it won't prevent us from doing that, but i think it highlights the importance of doing that. many insurgencies use targeted assassinations as a way to intimidate the population and undercut the ability of the government to establish