certainly would support an effort to have the cost of congress defending this provision, that the president and you have refused to do so come out of the justice department's appropriations so the message is sent down the street that an attorney general for president cannot willy- nilly decide that a lot that they may have voted against have they been in congress at the my time is up, and i have not said the last about this, but you made the wrong decision and i think that there ought to be a little skin of the departments of back as a result of the wrong decision being made, and i yelled back. >> with all due respect, with the addition to the determination i made and the president agreed with, there was an assessment of the legal situation on front of us and there are several lower courts, several that have moved that is

unconstitutional. to think that there should be taken off the back of the justice department and a financial is inappropriate. and they will have to use the time that might have been used in them -- indian doma. defense. they will use it in other areas. that is an appropriate -- >> with that objection, the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. >> well, mr. attorney general, i guess what i can say is that we're in a tough budget time. and we all know we're in a tough budget time. if you take the potion that this should come out of congress' budget, which we willingly cut on the second day of the session, essentially what you're saying is there shouldn't be money -- government money to pay a lawyer to argue the constitutionality of this law. and, you know, i'm one of those

that beliefs everybody's entitled to a lawyer no matter how wrong their position may be. and you know what u're saying, as well, just because you and the president have decided not to defend doma because you and the president decide it's unconstitutional, there should be some knd of financial shifting around so that the lawyer gets paid for. because this is a sious constitutional question and the best lawyers ought to argue both sides of the case. i yield back. >> thank you, i'm very heartened to hear -- let me just say, i don't disagree. and you apparently hired a great lawyer. but congress it seems to me has the ability to pass an appropriation to pay mr. clement for a great defense i'm sure he will render. i think out of the justice department, however, is

inappropriate. >> i'm delighted to hear the observation of the gentleman from wisconsin. and i look forward that everyone is entitled to a lawyer. and i look forward to his support of greatly increased appropriations for legal services and legal aid so that people who need lawyers in this country can get it. and we'll be working together on that, i'm sure. mr. attorney general, i want to offer my sincere appreciation to the administration for its daring and successful mission to eliminate osama bin laden. i want to commend our military, intelligence personnel, and the administration for never forgetting 9/11 and pursuing terrorists tbring them to justice. and please bring that message back to the president. a number of us worked tirelessly to pass the 9/1 health an compensation act. this new law reopens the victim's compensation fund which will allow thosetill suffering from their work at ground zero to the apply for financial compensation for their losses.

again, i want to encourage you to make rapid progress. i'm appoting a special master, setting up the mechanisms necessary to process claims and doing everything you can to ensure they will get their the compensation they deserve. i hope it goes as smoothly as possible. now, getting back to the little discussion of doma. i don't believe that the administration had any choice in the matter at all by looking at the legal precedent. and tell me if it isn't true that he was a little mistaken because he said you chose one circuit over the other. in fact, number of circuits established the relationship, the second circuit hadn't established any test, which is why you had to look into the position of the department. what should you do? not whether you agreed with t second circuit or not. but isn't it true that the cases

in the other circuit that determines the rational relationship test was the right test, all were done in a legal context in which the supreme court had said that the act of consensual sodomy, the homosexual act itself could be made a crime. that was a, what, 1986 case, overturned by the 2003 case of lawrence which said you couldn't do that. and this had to give an entirely new context. and there'd been no determination by any court as far as i know. but certainly by any circuit of the proper scope of review or standard of review after the lawrence case. and if you look at the normal criteria for determining the standard of view, that the supreme court has joined upon us. does this class have a history of discrimination, does it have the political power to stop

discrimination? et cetera, et cetera, it meets all the tests. and you really had no choice but to go that route. >> well, i would agree with you. the legal environment, the lel landscape was fundamentally changed in some of those earlier decisions made by those other circuits. and we confronted in the second circuit a jurisdiction -- or a circuit that had not ruled. and therefore we had to examine the legal environment as it exists today. and on that basis, not on any political basis, but on the legal basis, a constitutional basis, the recommendation that i made to the president was that there was not a reasonable argument that could be made in favor of the constitutionality of doma and the president agrees. >> in a context after lawrence, not just a context of social change. >> exactly. in terms of what the courts have said. understanding what the courts said and when they said what the supreme court said, what many lower courts have said, and then looking at the -- trying to

decide what the appropriate standard is. >> i commend you for that determination. i think it was compelled by the court. i certainly hope we will not start trying to intimidate the department in terms of its legal decisions through the use of the appropriations process. that would be inappropriate. let me switch topics, if i may. we have here your letter from ron weiss actually on the state secret doctrine. and you make some very intesting points, but the key point is the courts should have the information. you're going to exercise this power very sparingly, et cetera, et cetera. but still a power the executive is going to use. in the ninth circuit, the initial decision in the ninth circuit, i thought the most important sentence was a sentence where the three-judge panel said the executive could not be his own judge. and all the criteria which you set forward are fine criteria. but, they all say in effect trust the department, trust the

executive branch. no recognition of separation of powers. and my contention is that you say in here that the department recognizes the courts have an essential and indendent role in playing to review the assertion. it should be in approving the executive decision. a secret proceedings and so forth if necessary. but the key is that the courts should have to okay or not the assertion of the fact that -- a motion to dismiss on the grounds of executive privilege should have to be okayed by the court, not simply noted by the court regardless of our restraint. that seems to be fundamental to our system of checks and balances and completely missing from the department's position. >> what we have tried to do, what i've tried to do is really reform the process by which the invocation of that privilege is

made. there are a whole series of levels of review that have to agree to. and i ultimately must agree that the invocation of the privilege is appropriate. since the invocation -- since the this new process we put in place, we have only invoked the privilege on two occasions. and we only will do it in those instances where it is to protect national security and not to hide anything that might be appropriately done. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> may i have one additional minute? >> the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. >> all of which may be true. but the decision is still reserved for the department, not the cot. and that's the fundamental problem, which i think is inconsistent with our general system of government.

>> as i said, i think we have in place a new process that handles the concerns that you have. and we make sure the invocations of the privilege are rare and are appropriate. >> thank you. >> okay. >> gentleman's time has expired. you can double check this mike for me, please. the gentleman fromnorth carolina is recognized for his question. >> good to have you on the hill. mr. attorney general, last june the justice department contacted the county in my district to inform the county board of commissioners that it was commencing an investigation concerning allegations of discriminatory policing and unlawful searches and seizures. the county assures me there's no factual basis and it'll be a convenient time, mr. attorney general. i'd like to meet with you and

the appropriate staffer regarding this matter. >> we are -- we are trying to negotiate with the sheriff's office to get some relevant documents. but to the extent you have concerns, i'm sure we can work out some interaction between our staff. >> i thank you for that. an important element, will attorney general of our federal bankruptcy law is a requirement that debtors consult with an approved agency to receive a briefing and a budget analysis from a credit agency prior to filing for bankruptcy relief. to assure high-quality standards, the executive is charged with approving non-profit agencies that may provide this service. there are allegations that the trustee office has approved a number of credit counseling agencies that are not

immediately braimmediate ly interactive with debtors. there are also allegations that many of these non-profit agencies are related or linked to for profit entities. are you familiar with these allegations? >> i've heard -- i'm not intimately familiar wi them, but i've heard conversations in the department about the subject that you're talking. i know we are looking at these matters to the exnt you have information, though, that you think we have not adequately addressed,again. that would be information you can share with us. i'll make sure that the appropriate people in the department examine it. >> i'll thank you for that. if you'd get back to us on what you'd find out, as well. finally, mr. attorney general, as has been mentioned, we're in a cutting mode on the hill, as you know. what are your priority areafor cuts?

>> i always like to ask the question the other way. >> well, i didn't mean to induce laughter when i asked that question, mr. attorney general. >> well, you know, we are mindful of the fact that we have tough budgetary times and the congress has to step up as other agencies have. we have our priority areas which revolve around the protection of the american people, national security, financial fraud, prevention of violent crime, the protection of the most vulnerable among us. we want to have andequate budget that will allow us to do those kinds of things. there are budget proposals that are floating around. we have talked to our counterparts at omb, have made known to them what our priorities are. and my hope is that recognition was made of the unique responsibilities that the justice department has and a budget that will allow us to serve the american people in the way i describe will actually be

enacted. >> i thank you for that. mr. chairman, i yield back prior to the illumination of the red light. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> thank you, chairman. one of the things that i hope we can take a new look at is the state secret privilege in which the exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted by the government stating that the court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which could endanger national security causes the information to go and the case collapses.

and i think that is a serious problem in the way the previous administration and this one is proceeding. what bothers me general holder is that there have been cases challenging the use of rendition ofwiretapping, of torture, and the administration has used the secret privilege state secret privilege to have these lawsuits dismissed. i think it's very troublesome and problematic. and i'm wondering if a number of

us here can begin to persuade you to re-examine the use of this technique. because it makes it very hard to challenge those -- in those cases to bring a case against the government. >> ll, i certainly heard the concerns that were expressed by members of this committee and frankly other members of congress and people outside of congress. and i was concerned myself about the invocation of the privilege. and i think have put in place a regimen that as i indicated to mr. naddler would make the use of the privilege rare and appropriate and transparent to the extent that we can't. we have sent a report to congress about the invocation of the privilege, which has not been done before. i put in place a series of review steps that did not exist before and required that the

attorney general himself or herself actually sign off on any invocation of the privilege. all of which is new. and it would seem to me that that, i think, would deal with many of the concerns, if not all the concerns that have been raised. but this is a fluid process. and to the extent that there are other ideas that you or other members of the committee have, be more than glad to listen to them, work with you, and see if there are further changes that we need to make. >> well, thank you. i'm familiar with that new report, but look, many in the legal community don't think that it changes really very much. and we've got a lot more meetings to do in discussion, and i'm glad you're open to it. let me turn now to anti-trust. now, the anti-trust division hs

been dormant for many years in my view. and the global corporations get larger and larger and larger. it works against our economy, and it certainly takes jobs away from this country as badly as we need them. and i haven't seen one major case. in which your department has refused to approve a significant merger. isn't there some way we can begin to review that? and i'd like to be able to meet with you a others on this committee. that think we can make a good case that is -- it's not good

law. it's terble for the economy. and that it would be the right thing to do to start refusing. doj hasn't refused one merger. >> well, we have, i think, a very vigorous anti-trust policy. we've got a great assistant attorney general, christine barney, the head of the anti-trust division. and she has, in fact, revitalized the work of the division to the extent that proposed mergers have come before the anti-trust division. they have often times been approved, but approved with conditio that were required by the department. changes in business practices, divestment of certain components in the businesses it sought to merge. and i think that the way in which christine is going about it is appropriate. again, based only on facts, there are mergers that we presently havehat we are in the process of considering.

i can't talk about those. but in the examination of those proposed mergs, we will be vigorously enforcing the anti-trustaws. >> thank you, chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman from virginia, is recognized for his question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general holder, thank you very much for coming to be with us today. a few weeks ago, director muller testified before this committee and highlighted the threat of cyber crime. please let us know what measures the department is making to strengthen our nation's cyber security. >> well, it is an issue that is great concern to us in the department we have within our criminal division, a computer crime section that does a great deal of work dealing with with issues that come before it. it has been publicly revealed about steps we have taken with regard to a matter that was

in -- center ed. the national security is potentially threatened by cyber issues. there's economic fraud that c be perpetrated through the use of cyber components. we work with the fbi and other agencies within the executive branch to try to deal with these cyber issues. child pornography was indicated before. a whole variety of things can happen. the cyb world can be a positive force,ut it has also the potential for great negative activity there. we are very active in a variety of ways in dealing with these cyber issues. >> are there additional tools that the congress can provide to the department that would help you in this critical mission? >> well, i think that is actually a very good question because the reality is that the cyber issues evolve. and wh was state of the art six months ago isn't state of

the art necessarily today. and to the extent that we can come before this committee, work with members of this committee, and looking at the issues we're confrontg now that we eect we'll have to confront in six months a year from now and make legislative reests, that would be something we would appreciate. and i would take advantage of that offer. >> well, thank you. and so i take it you would be willing to work with us to identify these additional tools and try to enhance our nation's cyber security as well as your ability to combat cyber crime? >> absolutely, absolutely. >> another subject relates to intellectual property, which is a subset of cyber crime, if you will. there's a great interest to better protect the public by enhancing respect for intellectual property online. one of the proposals being considered has been to give the department enhanced authority to petition federal courts to block access to websites, many of

which may be based outside the united states which are dedicated to offering illegitimate goods to american consumers. i wonder if you could address some key concerns. -- to serve as a meaningful deterrent to the scope of elicit online activity? >> well, i think you're again right to identify that as an issue that is of concern -- of legitimate concern. i went to hong kong, then to china a few months ago and raised -- gave a speech in hong kong about this very issue raised with chinese officials who i met with about the concer that our government has with regard to these -- to these matters. to the extent that we can identify the need for new tools or the extent that there is proposed legislation, we would want to work with you, look at that legislation, and see if, in fact, there are ways in which we

can either pass it, modify it, but there are huge economic concerns, huge economic concerns around the issue that you've raised. >> what protections does the law currently provide before the government can seize or seek forfe forfeiture of a domain name. and are there additional steps to ensure that the constitutial requirements are met? that legitimate users of these domains are protected? >> those are the difficulty, really are, the difficulty constitutional in nature. that allow the department to seize domain names, to take other actions and do so in a constitutional way. that is something that we should explore. and we don't have all the answers in the department with regard to how that legislation might be crafted. and so i think working with this committee and frankly other

senators who have raised this issue, as well, i thk would be a wise use of our time. >> and given that around 100 websites have be ordered seized, what's your best estimate of the number of websites you suspect the department will be able to target on an annual basis if something along the lines of the existing law was enacted outside of the borders? >> i don't know if i could give you a real good specific numerical estime, but i can say that with different tools given the nature of the threat that we face that we would have substantially greater than the 100 or so that you have mentioned if we had to additional tools. and as i said, working with you, to identify the tools that we need and making sure that those tools are constitutional in nature would be of great use to the department. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman from virginia, mr.

scott is recognized for his question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome, mr. attorney general. you talked about the importance of all religions getting along. you're aware that then senator obama in ohio said that if you get a federal grant, you can use that grant money, and you can't discriminate against them or the people you hire on the basis of religion. is it possible in this administration today for someone apply for a federal grant and articulate an intention to discriminate against people of a particular religion? for example, they don't want to hire catholics, jews, and muslims. would they be entitled to run a federal program? >> well, we want to make sure we partner with faith-based organizations in a way that's consistent with our values in a

way that's constitutional. and we will continue to evaluate any legal questions or concerns that are raised with regard to -- >> does that mean yes, they can get a federal grant and discriminate? >> we don't want to be in a position where people are, in fact, getting federal grants and discriminating. >> you have at least one administration official who s suggested tha eed they're going with discrimination on a "case-by-case" basis. in what kind of case would that be okay? >> obviously that kind of situation would not be okay. would not be legally appropriate, would be inconsistent with our value. >> is it legal under this administration? >> it's not a question of being legal under this administration, it's what the law says. >> does this administration provide grants to organations that actively discriminate based on religion, or not? >> we don't want to do that, we

try not to do that. but the question is, what -- >> wait a minute. either you do or you don't. do you not give grants to organizations that actively discriminate based on religion or not? >> the attempt we make is not to do that. as i've indicated, our hope is that we do -- the grants that we give are consistent with the law. but beyond that, are consistent with our value. >> we don't have time to go into the legal memo of june 29th, 2007. could we give -- could you for the record provide the administration analysis of that legal council memo that stated that the restoration act of 1993 provides a virtual exemption to statutory nondiscrimination provisions. could you provide that to usfor the record >> i'm sorry, provide you -- >> with whether or not status of the -- of that policy, and

whether or not that legal council memo is is still in effect. can you provide that for the record? >> well, as i understand it, the memo is still in effect as i understand it. >> the religious freedom restoration act gives exemption to non-discrimination provisions? >> if you're talking about the 2007 olc world vision opinion, i -- >> if you're running a head start program, running a head start program, they can discriminate even though there's a statutory provision? they can discriminate any way? >> what i was saying is that in terms of with regard to that specific olc opinion, we're not in the process of reconsidering it. >> i'm not talking about the memo, talking about the policy. can they discriminate notwithstanding a specific statutory prohibition against discriminate, they can

discriminate anyway based on that interpretation? >> obvioly discrimination cannot occur that contravenes federal law. >> well, let me ask a number of -- my time is running out. let me ask a number of questions for the record since we don't have time for the answers. the regulation act apparently overlooked juveniles prosuted and jailed as adults. weapon wa we want to work with you on making sure they are covered. we also understand the changes that we made in the crack cocaine law are still not being applied for those who committed the crimes before the law went into effect we need to know what changes need to be made since we have ascertained that those are unjust laws. we also want to ask you whether or not you believe poker is a

game of chance oa game of skill. and whether or not the anti-gambling laws apply to poker as they would for roulette and other games like that. we like to know -- in fact, another 30 seconds just to ask the questions for the record. the news reports have talked about the compromise of a lot of identity information. prosecution of identity theft and organized retail theft, not shoplifting, but organized including everything else are resource intense activities. if you could give us an opportunity of what kind of resources are needed to effectively combat identity theft, consumer identity theft, and organized retail theft. also on reentry, your remarks

talk about the reentry and that you're studying what works and what doesn't work. we know that a lot more applications are in than we have money to fund. so we'd like to know how that study is going. and also hope that you're going to continue to support the federal prison industries. if you can give us a comment on that, that is shown to have a significant reduction. >> the gentleman's time is expiring. >> i appreciate the chairman's indulgence. >> i'd be more than happy to answer those questions except the one about poker being a game of chance or skill. that's beyond my capability. >> thank you, mr. scott. the gentleman from california. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. according to espn, it's a sport. mr. attorney general, in 1996, the attorney general of california, we helped work with congress to pass the effective death penalty act. one of the things was try and create incentives for states to

improve their habeas corpus proceedings and allow an exception by federal courts. unfortunately, no court ever found any state to do that. so in 2005, we passed legislation which changed that responsibility for certifying om the courts to the attorney general. you published draft regulations on march 2011. the comments on the draft are due june 2011. i would hope that i could have your commitment that we will move on this since this goes all the way back to 1996. >> we have -- i tried to move this as quickly as we can -- >> as long as i'veot your commitment, that's all i need. >> i would say with respect to doma. it would have been helpful that the president of the united states, as a former constitutional law professor, during the time he was running for president would've understood indicated he had constitutional questions about the doma when he was going around the country saying he

believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. these newfound understandings of the constitution after one's elected are somewhat troubling. and particularly when it goes to the question of defending a law that was duly passed by the congress and signed by a president. mr. attorney general, do you support and approve the action of the president and the military took going to pakistan, killing osama bin laden, and taking his body? >> yeah, i think that the act that weook were both lawful, legitimate, and appropriate in every way. the people who were responsible for that action, both in the decision making and the effecting of that decision handled themselves quite well. >> can you tell us for the public record whether we can therefore be assured that any intelligence which led to this capture and killinof osama bin laden was not the result of enhanced interrogation techniques?

>> well, i think as has been indicated by other administrations, there was a mosaic of sources that led to the identification of the people who led to -- >> i understand that. but were any pieces of that mosaic as a result of enhanced interrogation techniques? >> i do not know. >> if that were the case, would that have made the action we took against osama bin laden illegal? >> no, i mean, i think that in terms of the attenuation to the -- let's assume that were true, the attenuation between those acts that mighthave been problematic and the action that was taken just two days ago, i think was sufficiently long so that the action would still be considered legal. >> could we use the same tactics against khalid sheikh mohammed that we did against osama bin laden. would that have been lawful? >> could we have? >> used the same tactics against

khalid sheikh mohammed when we captured him in pakistan as we did against osama bin laden. that is killed him rher than captured him? >> well, the aim with regard to bin laden was to kill or capture him. i would think that with regard to khalid sheikh mohammed, we could probably apply those same stanrds. we have the ability there. >> does it seem some ways inconsistent or difficulty for more relevce to say that it is per se so shocking to the conscience that one would subject khalid sheikh mohammed to waterboarding, but it would not shock the conscience to put a bullet in his brain? >> one has to take into account a variety of things. and when you're on the scene, you want to get the person you're trying to capture. but you also have to make sure you're protecting the lives of the people who are on our side and who put themselves at risk. and it is for that reason that there's a safety component

there. and the killr capture component raises itself in a way that would not of somebody else. >> since you imposed a military commission trial for khalid sheikh mohammed, would you have imposed a trial for osama bin laden had he been captured and not killed? >> well, that's a hypothetical. i'm not sure it's particularly relevant. >> well, you're taking a strong position against the military commissions and the reluctance that you showed towards closing guantanamo, you issued a rather strong statement about the disappointment with the congress with respect to our efforts to keep guantanamo open and the efforts to military tribunals. i think it's an important question to ask you whether or not since you imposed a trial, whether you would have imposed a military trial for osama bin laden and rather given him the protections of a civilian trial.

my position is often times mischaracterized. >> i sent five or six other cases to military tribunals. i don't have a problem with the commissions. but the decision i made in the khalid sheikh mohammed case was based on my review of the facts and tactical decisions that no member of congress had the ability to see. >> so it was tactical rather than civilian courts being the one that can uphold the constitutional notions of fair play as opposed to a military tribunal. >> i think our military commissions are, in fact, especially since they have been modified are constitutional and can give fair trials. but the decision with regard to khalid sheikh mohammed dealt with a whole variety of things that i uniquely had access to.

and that's why i made that decision and why i would have been so vehement in my comments that i think is an appropriate and wrong decision by congress to block our ability to try the case in that forum. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for his questi. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, attorney general holder. i'm going to submit if i can get the unanimous consent, a copy of a letter i received from the attorney general for north carolina asking me about funding for the elimination of -- of meth labs, meth lab cleanup. you may not have the information at your hand, but if you could, just let me know what the basis

was for the u.s. dea halting all funding across the country for meth lab hazardous waste cleanup. >> right. >> apparently is having substantial adverse impact, not only in north carolina but throughout the country. and it'd be helpful to kw why they stop that funding. i'll submit -- i ask unanimous consent to submit a copy of the letter. >> without option, the letter will be made part of the record. >> in august of 2010 after a joint working group ftc and senior attorneys and public

workshops and comment opportunities that the department of justice made a substantial revision to its horizontal merger guidelines, let me ask you three questions and then i'll just give you the rest of the time to respond to the extent that you can. and if you don't have time, maybe you can provide written responses. first of all, could you briefly explain the impetus for the revisions and describe generally what the department hoped to achieve in making the changes? second, could you highlight some of the most significant changes made to the guidelines and briefly assess the impact these changes have had on recent merger reviews? and third, what role if any did the new guidelines have in the department's analysis and the -- of the merger between google and ita in particular, and if there

are other mergers that these guelines were significant in i'd like to have your response probably in writing to the last question. but if you could respond briefly to the first two questions, that would be helpful >> i think what i'd like to do is be able to give you a more detailed response in writing. but to say that the changes that we made, that were done under the leadership of our assistant attorney general were all designed to make the department's enforcement efforts more effective, to make sure that as we look at matters we have the tools that we need and that those tools are transparent. where the department is coming from, what -- people have some degree of uncertainty, things have to be structured. all as i said, with the aim towards making the enforcement of our anti-trust laws as

effective as we can and as aggressive as we can. with regard to these specific questions, we will get you something in writing. >> okay. is it likely that this new approach, though, is going to make it less likely? it seems to me you're moving toward a more compromised approach as opposed to an enforcement apprch saying is violates the anti-trust laws, therefore we will not approve it. am i isreading that? and i think that may be the discomfort that he was raising earlier. there have been no disapprovals, not that we're looking for disapprovals. is this a shift in policy in the department, i guess, is a better question. >> to the extent that you're concerned or others are

concerned that we're somehow stepping back from being aggressive in the enforcement of the anti-trust laws, i want to put your minds at ease. that's not what we're attempting to do. in fact, you know, we take these cases and examine them one-by-one as we have to. and as i think i indicated, with regard to the decisions that have been made, we have often times required things of the parties before the merrs were approved. the fact that there has not been one that has been rejected, i'd have to look to make sure that's active. let's assume that's true. that is not an indication that there is any timidity on the part of the justice department, or any indication that going forward some of the more high profile ones we're in the process of considering might not pass. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you, mr. watt. the gentleman from ohio is recogned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, i'd like to comment on the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott whom i age with on one of the few issues i think we agree with. the importance of the federal industries and would encourage you to loo into that matter. you think it's an important program. i think once we have people locked up and at this level it's federal presence, i've dealt with them at the local level, as well. we have to make sure we're utilizing those resources, and most of them out in the street some day. and to the extent they can get job skills and improve themselves so they can become productive citizens, i think is very important. let me move to an entirely different topic then and that's guantanamo bay or gitmo. i've been there three times. the first time i was there was shortly after it -- after it

opened, it was about nine years ago. not much to it at the time. that's where we, of course, held that the detainees or terrorists or enemy combatants, most of them captured in afghanistan. and the reason, of course, we needed a safe and secure place to keep the most dangerous people, essentially, the worst of the worst, the terrorists, most of them. and the goal was not to do it on u.s. soil. and at that time, they were within guantanamo bay, it wasn't much more than a bunch of cages out there. and i think a great disservice was done when we had the initial photographs where they had bags over their head and they were knling. and the wrong impression was given that that's the way we kept them all the time. and the world press went wild. and i think it was a blow to the

united states around the world because that's not how these prisoners are treated. for the most part. and i was there a second time about five years ago, and most recently about a month ago. so i've seen it pretty recently and through the whole process. at its height, we had somewhere around 800 detainees is what my information is there. we're now down to about 172 -- a number of them have been transferred back to the countries of their origin. in some cases the countries didn't want them back. and we tended to try to give back the folks we thought were the least dangerous in the country. but the record shows about 25% have taken up arms again against the united states or some other country. and essentially, so 1 out of 4 have become terrorists again. and that's to me very disturbing. and they're treated -- there's a lot of allegations out there about how terribly their press treated, for emple, the

waterboarding. first of all, waterboarding is out there, this did not occur at guantanamo bay, is that correct? >> i think that i think that is correct. >> so no waterboarding there. so first of all, when we hear that term and we have the uivalent that it's torture, people can thi what they think, but the definition, it's not torture, but it did happen at guantanamo bay, and i think that's an important point to make. they probably eat better than they he in their lives, get the same medical treatment that our own soldiers get, have cable tv, 22 channels, exercise equipment, a koran, a prayer rug, clothing access to legal care among other things. would that be accurate, sir? >> i don't know about all the specifics. i was guantanamo shortly after i became attorney general. and it is a place that i think treats people as they should be

treated. i don't know about all the details. >> and there's a separate section, and it's classified so i can't go into a lot of this. but there's about 20 people there, the worst of the worst is khalid sheikh mohammed. but i think our men and women in uniform have been really disparaged unfairly. and these are quality people who have handled a tough job with great professionalism and restraint. are you familiar with the term a gitmo cocktail? >> a gitmo cocktail? >> yeah. >> i think i know what it is. >> and it is what you think it is. it's pretty horrific things that get thrown by prisoners at our guards and even under those circumstances, there's an awful lot of restraint. i know this is one thing where i agree with the administration now where they've changed their opinion about closing down gitmo and bringing those people back here to the united states. there's absolutely -- that was a

terrible idea, sir, to bring them to the united states, try them here. to have the anti-american vile mind set spread among the prisoners in our federal prisons. and that's where they ought to be tried. we shouldn't give people -- can i have 30 seconds, mr. chairman? >> the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds without objection. >> thank you. to give master propaganda -- a soap box is not the way to go. so i commend you for bringing them back here now and -- excuse me, for keeping them at gitmo. we also built a $16 million core facility there that was virtually unused. and so now it is going to be used and it should be. and full speed ahead with that. thank you. >> thank you.

>> t gentlewoman from california is recognized for her questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you mr. attorney general for being here today. you know, a couple of years ago the immigration subcommittee held a hearing. and the factory workers there were literally rounded up and herded into a cattle area and then figuratively treated like cattle. they had group hearings, no translation services, and very questionable guilty pleas and prison time. -- who sentenced a number of the immigrants said this about that proceeding. and i quote. i found the plea agreement that the immigrants were asked to sign professionally and personally to be offensive. i thought it was a travesty. i was embarrassed to be a united states district judge that day. now, that was then, this is now. one way to look at these prosecutions is the impact in terms of due process rights and

our adherence to w. as to the defendants, another way to look at it is how are we using our resources? and i've had my -- the attorneys on the subcommittee take a look at the data. and i understand that illegal reentry after deportation is now the most prosecuted federal felony in the united states, and that misdemeanor prosecutions of immigration defenses in border districts has tripled from 2007 to 2010. and thathese prosecution decisions making reentry felony prosecutions e most commonly prosecuted felony, federal felony has come at the expense of prosecuting other crimes. and non-immigration felony prosecutions in non-border districts have declined 6% to 8% in the same time frame. now, i raise this because many

of us when we go home everyweek get this question from our constituents. as far as we can tell, the department has not brought a single prosecution of a high-ranking wall street executive or major financial firm in the wake of the wall street scandal that contributed to the global economic crisis. so it looks to me that the department is spending its resources prosecuting nannies and busboys trying to get back to their families, illegally reentering, and yet we have not brought any prosecutions othe bandits on wall street who brought the nation and the rld to the brink of financial disaster. could you explain these priorities, mr. attorney general? >> well, there's a lot packed into that question. the fact that there are so many prosecutions along the border is an indication of the nure of the problem that we confront. this administration has always stood for a comprehensive

approach to -- >> to, no, no, no, i'd like to about wall street. the lack of wall street prosecution. >> well, i was dealing with some things you said -- the fact that we have these prosecutions on the border is not any indication that we're not taking the wall street potential offenses seriously. we have prosecuted a great many cases that deal with fraud with regard to the mortgage area, financial schemes, a case was brought -- just decided in the last couple of weeks, a $3 billion fraud scheme that involved colonial bank. the department is looking right now at the report prepared by senator levin's subcommittee that deals with goldman sachs. the notion -- people have to s

disamus themselves with the notion that they don't want these cases. they come to apply the law, look at the facts, and to bring these cases. we are extremely aggressive in that way. >> can i ask how many investigators are assigned to the prosecution of exetives on wall street whoay have committed misconduct? >> i can't give you an exact number, but i can tell you a substantial number of people in the district of new york as well as the criminal division here i washington -- >> wl, maybe we can get that number after this hearing. i'd like to turn to the whole mortgage industry. there was tremendous misconduct undertaken relative to the mortgage industries, including fraud. and as you're aware i'm sure all attorney generals have engaged in settlement discussions with

banks about their misconduct. recently t controller of the currency released a draft cease and desist order, which one expert described as the regulatory equipment of a village. i'm wondering if you could tell us -- i understand that the department is also engaged in the negotiations. what should the top priorities for a global settlement of legal claims against a servicing industry include? do you concur with the attorney general's outline settlement? or do you have a different approach? >> well, i'm not sure you can say that the attorney generals are a model. they have a variety of approaches. the associate attorney general is intimately involved in that process. and we're trying to work with

the financial institutions as well as the state attorneys general to try to work our way through an appropriate settlement. >> well, they have a framework. i'm wondering if you agree with that framewo or not. >> well, yeah, there's a framework. there is a framework. but there's a whole bunch of different views. there's a stated framework. but in terms of the interaction that goes on in these negotiations, there are a variety of positions that we are trying to harmonize and work with. >> could you tell us if the -- if the -- >> the gentlewoman recognized for an additional 30 seconds. >> if the settlement discussions fail, are you prepared to prosecute these institutions? >> if there is -- if the negotiations fail, if there is a basis for prosecutions, we will bring them. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman from california is

recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general i'd like to thank you for the work that the u.s. attorney is doing in san diego, going after gun traffickers at the border. the work in my border district area of making our city safer because the crime in mexico often stops at the border because of her work and willingness to prosecute human traffickers, gun traffickers is very much appreciated. so just so you hear two sides of the california story for a moment. mr. attorney general, we -- we have two border patrol agents who are dead, who were killed by guns that were allowed as far as we can tell to deliberately walk out of gun shops under the program often called fast and furious. this program as you know -- and

the president's been asked about it, you've been asked about it, allowed for weapons to be sold to straw purchasers and ultimately many of those weapons are today in the hands of drug cartels and other criminals. when did you first know about the program, officily i believe called fast and furious? to the best of your knowledge, what date? >> i'm not sure of the exac date, i probably heard about fast and furious for the first me over the last few weeks. >> now that you've been briefed on it, the president has said on march 22nd that you didn't authorize it. did your deputy attorney general james cole authorize it? >> i'm sorry, did -- >> the deputy attorney general? >> did he? >> did the deputy attorney general authorize it? >> my guess would be no, mr. cole, i don't think was in the -- i think, i don't think he was in the department at the time that operation started. >> but he's been aware of it much longer. >> he's been aware of it much

longer? >> than you have since you've only been aware for a few weeks? >> i'm not sure. >> did he authorize it? i'm not sure whether mr. brewer authorized it. you have to understand, the way in which the department operates. although there are operations, this one has gotten a great deal of publicity. >> the there are dead americans as a result of thi hasn't gotten enough attention, has it, mr. attorney general? >> it's not necessarily -- there's an investigation that is under way. >> i'm aware of that investigation. let me follow up with a couple of questions. >> we'll have to look at that to see exactly what happened with regard to -- >> mr. attorney general -- >> i take very seriously the allegation -- >> mr. attorney general, do you take seriously a subpoena signed by the clerk of the house? >> of course. >> after 14 days awaiting a letter to be signed or acknowledged or responded to, we sent a subpoena signed by the

clerk of the house. 32 days later, last night, your people responded by giving us 92 painls representing three documents that were public record already, all of which are available. saying that the other 400 or so responsive pages were not going to be produced. do you stand by that? and were you aware of that? >> i think we indicated that the other 400 pages would be made available for review. to be accurate. i think those were being made available as well. >> and that took 32 days to get that answer. >> the information was gathered as quickly as it could. i've taken steps to enhance our ability to respond to subpoenas and document requests in that regard. i was not satisfied with the pace at which these things were happening. as i've said, i've taken some steps that we are more responsive. >> mr. holder, do you agree that congress has an independent responsibility, particularly when u.s. persons have been

killed because of a failed and reckless program shl, to investe whose who thorszed, approved, knew about it and i some way was responsible to it? >> as i indicated to you last night when we spoke at the white house, i think there is a legitimate oversight responsibility that congress has. but i think also congress has to use that reonsibility in a responsie way. we have cases, 20 matters, that will go to trial in june o this year. >> mr. attorney general, isn't it true that those case that will go to trial in june -- i have very limited time, i'm sorry -- are basically a bunch of meth addicts who did the buying, that you do not have what this program was supposed to produce. you don't have the king pi, you don't have the places it went. what you have are the people that you already had on videotape, many, many months before indictments were brought, isn't this true? >> there are cases that are important that we are trying to bring that we want to try successfully and they're part of a scheme. th're a part of a scheme. you can't look at a case as an

individual matter and think it's unimportant because small cases lead to larger ones. that is why it's important -- >> i'd ask for unanimous consent for an additional. >> t gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. >> mr. attorney general, my final question is, from what you're saying about a scheme and so on, do you stand by this program, in other words, and it's not a hypothetical, really, if y knew this program, knew about this program, 90 days ago, 180 days ago, would you have allowed it to continue? and if not, then what are you going to do about the people who did know and allowed it to continue? >> what i have told people at the department of justice under no circumstances in any investigation we bring should guns be allowed to be distributed in an uncontrolled manner. >> that would be consistent with the march 9th letter from deputy attorney general james cole in which he said that we should not

design or conduct undercover operations which can include guns crossing the border if we have knowledge that guns are about to cross the border we must take immediate action to stopped firearms from crossing the border and so on. that's your policy today? >> that's the policy that i'v tried to impose -- >> isn't fast and furious inconsistent with that policy? >> that's one of the questions we'll have to see whether or not fast and furious was conducted in a way that was consistent with what jim wrote there, what i've said today and that's what the inspector general is looking at. >> will you agree to work with both this committee of course and the other committees investigating this as to we're not looking at the straw buyers, mr. attorney general, we're looking at you, straw purchasers, we're looking at you, your key people who knew or should have known about this and whether or not your judgment was consistent with good practices and whether or not instead the justice department is basically guilty of allowing weapons to

kill americans and mexicans. will you agree to cooperate with that investigation both on the house and senate side? >> we'll certainly cooperate with all the investigations. but i'm going to take great exception to what you just said. the notion that somehow or other this justice department is responsible for those deaths that you mentioned, that assertion is offensive. i want to tell you -- >> but what if it's accurate, mr. attorney general. >> -- to protect law enforcement agents, it is one of the reasons why i ha tried to lookt a whole variety of methods, techniques that we can use to protect the lives of law enforcent agents. it is something this country is not focused enough on. over the last two years the rate at which our people in law forcement hwas killed -- >> what do i tell agent terry's mother that he died at the hand of a gun that was videotaped as it was sold to a straw purchaser

fully expecting it to land in the hands of drug cartels? >> we'll have to see exactly what happened with regard to the guns that are at issue there. and i have attended the funerals, you know? this is something -- this isn't theoretical. this is not political. this is extremely real for me as attorney general. >> it is for us, too. >> i think the chairman. >> no. i've had to look into the eyes of widows, mothers who have lost sons. i have felt their pain. and the notion that somehow, someway we are less than vigilant, less than strong in our determination to keep the people who put their lives on the line every day to protect the american people, that we're not doing all we can to protect them is inconsistent with the facts, inconsistent with the people who serve in the department of justice. >> thank you, mr. chairman. e gentle woman from texas, mr. jackson-lee is recognized for her questions. >> thank you very much. mr. attorney general i consider

these opportunities a chance for us to work as a team. we are in fact a team. i have beenrivileged to serve on this committee since being elected to the united states congress, and it is an honor because we hold in our hands, as you do, the lives of americans as it relates to the laws of this ld. first of all, i too want to add my appreciation for i know what was a combined effort on the capturing and of course the ending of the evil actions of ama bin laden. obviously the intelligence and various law enforcement officers, certainly the cia at the lead, had over the years a longstanding effort. i thank you, the expanded team, and president barack obama, and it should be said over and over again. i thank you also for the very astute team, legal talent, tt you have combined under your leadership at the doj. and what i would like to see most of all is our enhanced cooperation.

we have worked together in the past and i have a series of questions, some of which i want to have answers but i'd rlly like you to be in touch with and that person, please have them be in touch with me and my office. some of these require a detailed answer. you may not have had the details i associate myself with congresswoman wasserman hultz on the ruberso case. i think we can talk about this very briefly only because this person has been convicted and has been sentenced to 27 years. it is a nonviolent crime, first offender. they have eight or seven or nine children, maybe ten chdren. and they have been disallowed bail while they're on appeal. i think on the basis of an issue of flight risk. i would ask for a review of this case on the basis of the

potential avail. i need to work with someone on that. i'm givi you the parameters. i don't want to engage. i want to do it not as interfering in a prosecution, which has already been done, the question of a bail. the second question quickly is regarding the communication management units, 60 to 70 individuals are in it. two-thirds are muslims. it is a he very harsh unit. a story was cold to us, no communication with his children. i would like to know your thoughts about the practices surrounding cmus and whether or not they are extremely harsh in light of the population, seems that needs to be someone getting back to me. that is on the cmus. the irs criminal division we've had a lot of colorful stories abt actors and others, but it's serious when it comes to our neighbors and friends. i would like to meet with the irs doj individual dealing with

the ability to resolve what seems to be innocent cases, meaning bad facts, payroll taxes i know sends horns out of our head. but individuals who have been in small business who have had some mishaps in their health and they're now caught up in the system. i really think we're better than this, and i really think the justice department is better than this and i think we have the latitude as a barred lawyer, someone who has a license, i'm certainly aware of ex parte contacts. i would be interested in having that opportunity. would you be able to let me work with individuals under your staff? >> we'll try to look at the requests you've made and get information back to you. >> i would appreciate it, particularly on the rabbi not having a bail. let me go to the atf situation. we had a report by the oig that ticketed that the greater guns,

that long guns have a shorter time to crime than handguns in mexico. we know the atf has no permanent director, but i believe as the oig has said, atf needs to have reporting responsibility or be able to get da and have more enforcement responsibility of this ak-47s killing people on both sides of the border with these horrible drug cartels. what is your answer to that? >> we've certain proposed that with regard to long guns along the border with regard to four states that there be a reporting requirement if somebody buys two long guns over the space of five days that are larger tha .22 caliber, if they're semiautomatic and have detachable magazines. it's a process that omb -- >> so we are working on that. i'd like to see that happen. i'll pursue it later with respect to harris county, i have a series of questions but i will ask them in writing.

we submitted to the justice department a police brutality tape regarding chad holly and have asked for the justice department to investigate. we have heard nothing on that. we've heard aouncements from seattle and miami, florida, nothing for houston, texas. i also need to have a status report -- i'd like your answer on this -- on the question of the harris county jail. you issued a report that there were constitutional violationsment the question is, what has been the oversight of the department of justice and have they completed? i also want to ask the question -- i'd ask an additional 30 seconds so you can answer this -- the issue of the continental united merger that finished. i would like to thank your assistant atrney general f antitrust for a very open discussion. i would like to know whether there's a follow-up, whether we need to strengthen the clayton act for the justice department because werankly feel there's no oversight. could you answer the question

about the brutality case, excessive force and why there's not been a response including that in the police brutality case and then the status of the harris county jail. >> we'll try to get you answers. i might ask you about a budgetary increase given the nature of the things you've put on our plate. >> i can say, mr. attorney general, i am one of your strangest advocates and supporters. so i would expect no less from you. you can assure sheila jackson lee will not ask to cut the cops' budget 600 million or the fbi at 38 million. anything i would do is increase the funding for the department of justice because i believe in what you do, both in terms of your juvenile division, civil rights division and if i can add one more thing, i need to understand what you're doing with respect to redistricting and oversight in the number of cases coming forward in the department of justice. >> we'll certainly answer all of

those questions. i was kidding you. you have been a big supporter of the department and i thank you personally and institutionally. >> i will add amendments so you can get more monies on this appropriation. i'm sure chairman chijmidge wi smith will support me in that. >> mr. forbes is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, thank you for being here. forgive me for talking quickly but i only have five minutes. i want to begin, i was interested that the ranking member deferred his questions at the beginning today to the head of the democratic national committee who asked two questions, one relating to gas prices and the other child pornographimey pornography. the first question on gas prices was this, the indication was that somehow this spike-up is a result of illegal activity by major oil companies in terms of price gouging or illegal influence in the market. six months before the administration came in to office in july of 2008, it was the

highest spike we had, $4.11, president talked about it on the campaign, administration came in concern about energy and the price of gas at the pump. in the last 2 1/2 years since you've been in office, can you tell us what evidence you have uncovered you can present to the committee today that the prices at the pum have been affected by illegal activities of major oil companies in terms of price gouging or illegal influences on the committee? i mean, on the market. >> ll, the purpose of the task force is to -- >> i'm sorry so interrupt you. i'm talking about evidence you currently have. not studiys, task forces. do you have any evidence you can present today of such activity snz. >> i'm not prepared to present them at this point. what we're trying to do with the task force -- >> you don't have any to present to us today. have you made any prosecutions? >> but the task force will look at this and see what has happened over the course of time. >> when did you set up the task force, mr. attorney general? >> the task force was

constituted i would say over the last couple of weeks of. >> so we've had is 2 1/2 years, knew the concerns were there. except for the last 2 1/2 weeks, you haven't done anything to ascertain evidence and have none to present to the committee today. >> giving the situation that we are now confronting relatively recent in terms of the price hikes we've seen. >> in july it was higher. today it's 3.9 per gallon, 4.11 then. no prosecutions, no rems of any changes to the law from anything you found out in the last 2 1/2 years. let me skip that and go to the pornography issue. do you believe that there's any connection -- we talked about child pornography -- between rdcore adult pornography and child pornography, human trafficking, violence to women, and sexually violent behavior? >> there are relationships between certainly some of them. >> which ones do you feel are

connected? >> we've certainly tried to look at those issues, violence against women. >> which one do you feel there's no connection to? >> i -- >> let me repeat them again, human trafficking, any connection? >> with? >> between hardcore pornography and human trafficking? >> yes, l probably. >> violence to women, yes or not? >> probably. >> sexually violent hardcore adult pornography. >> congressman, if you let me answer the question, i have an answer for you. but i have to speak. >> go ahead.

if i could get time -- p. >> i'd be glad to give you mo than five minutes if the chairman is willing. we have a childenforcement and obscenity section that handles as part of its responsibilities examinatioof obscenity matters. it is not only a child exploitation section, it has recently been reformed to include a task force that looked at strictly obscenity matters. >> we had a task force that was set up under the previous administration that got 52 kojss for hardcore pornography cases. have you disbanded that task force? >> it has not been disbanded but inrporated into -- >> can you tell me how many prosecutions in the last 2 1/2 years of hardcore pornography cases this administration has undertaken and how many convictions you've obtained? >> we have a number and you i can get it to you. i don't have it at my

fingerprints. >> will you get that number for us? >> certainly. >> also let us know how many attorneys you've assigned to adult hardcore pornography and how many agents that you've ra signed to adult hardcore pornography. and if you would, when you give that to us, would you let us know the evidence you've received of my major il companies illegal activities that resulted in higher gas prices, secondly any prosecutions you've had to date and third any recommendations you've made to change the laws. with that, my time is up. >> thank you, mr. forbes. >> with regard to the oil question, the task force we're putting together would look at noonly what is going on now but what has happened over the past and make determinations about whether or not there are inappropriate market manipulations or price gouging. which is not to say we're not dealing with something that might be market-driven. we don't go into this with any preconceived notions. what the task force will look at is the situation and then make

appropriate determinations. we don't go into this with preconceived notions. >> my only point is we knew this s a big problem in july of '08. we've got 2 1/2 years and we just set up a task force 2 weeks ago. with that, i yield. >> i was not the attorney general of the united states. >> the gentleman from mr. tennessee, mr. coyne, is recognized for his questions. >> mr. attorney general, you we asked a question earlier, which reminded me, you smiled when the question was asked, and it reminded me of a nicerticle i read on the web this morning that said that president obama, when he engaged in activities over the weekend, going to alabama, going to florida, dealing with mr. trump at the the dinner and all of those things that he had a poker face. now, it's been said, i believe, that you and the president have played poker together. is that correct? >> no, we've never played poker. never played poker with the president. i don't know if the president

plays poker. >> you se to think that maybe you didn't know wheth it was skill or luck in poker. do you think phil ivy is just lucky? he's the world's greatest poker player? or do you think it there's skill involved? >> i'm not sure i know who mr. phil ivy is. i'm sure there is some degree of skill involved. i'm not a poker player myself. >> you're not. well, okay. i didn't realize that. you might become one because it's one of theapidly increasing, popular activities in america. it's been going on for years. people used to play it at tables like in the kitchen. now they do itn the inrnet because there arehings like -- it's amazing the things you do on the internet. i've even got one of these. i'm moving into the age. >> i've got one, too. >> you pay bills and do things you used to not do there. do you really think we ought to be spending a lot of time in trying to deal with internet poker, or dow think we should find a way to make it legal, to

tax it and bring revenue that will help pay for the folks that mr. sensenbrenner wants to take out of your budget? >> we have to force the law as it exists, and there are laws on the books with regard to internet gambling that we have to enforce. we recently announced an action in the southern district of new york. it is for i guess congress to decide what the law is going to be and then we will enforce those laws. >> well, i agree with you generally. i mean, i understand like there are civil rights laws in the '40s and '50s the government had to defend and then maybe 10, 12, 15 years later after thurgood marshall's argument, they realized those weren't valid laws and the law changed becaus society changed, people's thinking changed. same thing with doma. certain things change, you change even though it's the law congress passed, there's a change in the cultural lag and it kind of catches up and the people's perception of it

changes. some of the same people that gave us doma, most of us gave us the laws against internet poker. it was that family values crowd that -- yeah, quotes. they gave us those laws. but sometimes they might not have been the right laws. some of mr. forbes' folks who you could be prosecutie ining sf the obscenity cases with some of the people you've got otherwise concerned with some of these laws conceing internet poker. there are priorities. we can't do everything. n't you think in the priority range internet poker would be at the bottom of the level, beneath obscenity and hardcore pornography and child rape and things le that? >> well, there are a whole variety of things we have responsibilities for. you know, the cases that we brought, for instance, in the southern district of new york involved pretty substantial amounts of money and big financial institutions. and i think those cases are appropriate. there will be some other cases in this area that aren't really

federal cases because they're not really large enough, people are not -- the degree of harm is not serious enou. so even within a certain class of cases, certain ones are going to be worthy of our attention and some will not be. >> did the southern district coordinate with the criminal division or you particularly about the policies of your office, which have been kind of in flux underlying the decision to effectively criminal size poker, going after these folks? >> the southern district worked with main justice in the formulation of that case. though the primary responsibility was in new york. >> we're coming down on time. freedom is a big issue with me and the opportunity to do things. a lot of people -- the cocaine ancrack sentencing we made progress, but is the department seeing thattor we're asking for tns sentences that are maybe in the lower range for those people that were indicted before the law changed? >> what i have told our

prosecutors, i've given them discretion so they ask for sentences that are appropriate looking at the facts of each individual case. the department is going to make up -- we're going to take a position with regard to whether or not the law shouldbe made retroactive before the sentencing commission, but while we are still in that process, i've asked my prosecutors to make sure that we only ask for sentences that are appropriate and consistent with the facts. >> expungement is an issue i'm interested in, too. do you believe for low-level crimes, misdemeanors, an expungement law whereby after seven years a first offender for the nonviolence offense could get their record exnged to maybe get a job? >> that's something i would want to consider and work with the committee. it's something we had here in washingt, d.c., when i was a judge for a relatively small number of offenses, obviously nonviolent, so that the stigma that goes with a conviction,

especially for younger people, might not harm their abilities to get meaningful employment, to otherwise make themselves productiveembers of society. so the ability to have that as a tool in the federal system is certainlsomething i'm willing to consider. >> the red light has come on. the hypothetical, i'm going to yield back the remainder of my time that doesn't exist. i'm going to bring up in the extra 30 seconds -- >> without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. >> i'm going to bring up a fact that the chairman would not want me to bring up. >> in that case, he's not entitled. >> the grizzlies beat the spurs. i know you play basketball with the president. has he recognized the grizzlies as -- >> the gentleman's timis definitely expired. mr. franks is recognized for his question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, general holder for

being here. sir, money is indeed the lifeblood of terrorism. without funding, terrorism would be nearly impossible. the 2008 holy land foundation case was the largest terrorism finance case in u.s. history, as you well know. according to the volumes of case history and evidence available on the web site of the federal court of the northern district of texas, hundreds of u.s.-based persons or entities are listed as unindicted co-conspirators who allegedly funneled millions of dollars to the designated terrorist organization hamas under the guise of funding a muslim charity. sources have told us that the case was the product of 19 years of instigations consuming thousands of hours, thousands of man hours, and manpower and miions of dollars. the department of justiceas signaled it will not further prosecute thiscase, despite the

voluminous evidence that the unindicted co-conspirators are financing terror from within the united states. chairman smith of this commiee and chairman king of the home land security committee are interested obviously learning why this case was dropped. as you well know, you received correspondence recently from both of them. you claimed the career attorneys made the decision to drop the case, but the press reports are saying that prosecutors, fbi agents and even your own spokesperson at doj are telling a different story. they claim that the decision to scuttle the largest terrorism financing case in u.s. history, spanning threed administrations, was made not by career attorneys but instead by senior obama administration political appointees. the scuttle of this case has obviously outraged the career lawyers and, according to congressman king, we've just learned from his office that his letter today was responded to in

a completely unresponsive way. it never did speak to the questions that he asked. so i guess i ask you here, then, today, which individuals -- and i hope you'll say their names -- are responsible for scuttling the holy land foundation prosecutions of the unindicted co-conspirators? >> well, the premise of your question is inaccurate. there was no scuttling of the case. >> do you intend -- i'm sorry. i wa't yelling at you. the microphone kind of went off on me. do you intend to procute these cases? >> the decisions that were made not to prosecute those cases were made initially in the bush administration, continued in this administration. and i have to take exception -- >> i have to stop you on that. you claim the decision was a continuation of the approach taken by the bush administration, but that really isn't true. the bush administration successfully prosecuted the first round of defendants, they aggressively secured convictions

on all 1 counts. and the first round didn't colude until three weeks after the election of barack obama, essentially the bush administration ran out of time. they were pursuing this. peter king has said that it's hard to hide behind the deliberations of the bush administration that predate the successful prosecution of the holy land case. so obviously you're not following the bush administration's path because they did prosecute and they got 108 convictions. >> but a decision was cearly made in not indicting certain organizations and people i that initial case. that is why they were, as you said, unindicted co-conspirators. but the other thing is, what you say about the concern by the career prosecuts, that seems very inconsistent with the press reports that i have read from the guys who handled that matter. a career prosecutor who said that there was no political pressure brought to bear on anybody in connection with the

decision. that was in the dallas morning news, i believe. i'd be more that glad to get a copy of that article. >> i'm sorry. the microphone is giving me trouble here. let me just ask you, did you or the case abandon or not? did you do that? >> no. >> did anyone in your department do that? >> no. >> okay. with were you personally involved in any decision to delay any prosecution of the case? >> no. >> have you communicated with the white house about the holy land foundation case? was the white house involved in any sort of issue to try to delay or not to prosecute the case? >> no. >> were any of the unindicted co-conspirators communicating outside the legal process with the white house or the department of justice about the holy land foundation case? >> not to my knowledge. >> well, i think my time is up here. thank you, general, for come. >> thank you, from franks.

mr. quigley is recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome. you know, coming from chicago, i can't help from reflect on there's a trial taking place there andhy i don't ask you to comment on that, i note that there always seems to be a trial taking place there or other places in the country that deal with public integrity. as you know, the court has struck down the honest services section of the statute, a very valuable tool that prosecutors had to do after public officials using their office for personal gain. we could really use your office's help preparing a replacement. i think it was probably appropriate the statute was struck down because it was probably, as they said, too vague. but i appreciate your comments on what we need to do to fill that void. >> well, there's -- that

obviously is a very valuable tool. it's been used ove ed over the t any number of instances. it's a statute that has a some had what troubled history. it's been unconstitutional, applied on a couple of occasions. i guess we need to come up with a statute that will survive constitutional scrutiny once and forever. obviously we would be willing to work with this committee and others so that we could have that tool back in place. >> thank you. and liked to afford you the opportunity here to talk about another issue that's important to everyone here, and that's the recent extraordinary increase i the country. i think since january 29 police officers have been shot in this country. this is an increase in fal police shootings of more than 50% over last year. i believe you convened a conference on this last month.

again, would appreciate your office's help on what else we can do to help you in this vein. >> that is something that is of great concern to me, the reason why i convened that summit a few weeks ago, one of the rasons why we have tried toin creay ie our funding of bulletproof vests made available to agencies and why we have tried to require a mandatory wear policy. that's why we also have something called a valor program so officers can be trained on how to handle themselves in these situations when their lives are likely to be put at risk. that is something that i think is worthy of thiscommittee's time, certainly my time, and i would be glad to work with you in that regard to try to keep our law enforcement officers safe. >> i can't help but inject another statistic that is bothering to me. of the 29 officers fatally shot this year, 20 were killed by

individuals who would have been barred by federal law from possessing guns. in my vein, this gets to the greatest loophole of all, and that's the gun show loophole. the fact that you could be barred from getting on an airplane, you can have multiple felonies, you could have been adjudicated as being dangerously mentally ill, but you can go to 33 states and go to a gun show and buy just about anything you want without a background check whatsoever. your thoughts on this? >> well, i think we have to look at the laws that we have on the books. we need to certainly enforce them. we need to be askinguestions about whether they're adequate, whether they're keeping our people safe, law enforcement officers safe. i think we also have to focus on -- and i think your point is very, very go -- who has these guns. it's not only a question of what guns we're dealing with but also

who has them. obviously erybody has second amendment rights, the supreme court ruled that in the heller case. this department of justice respects that decision. but i think questions can be asked about, are there too many felons who for whatever reason are in possession of guns, peopleho have mental issues, whether they should have guns, people who have domestic violence issues, whether they should have guns. there are a whole variety of questions as to the who i think we need to focus on as well. >> i agree. to close, i would suggest to those who are very supportive of the second amendment that, while that case did grant second amendment rights, the majority opinion did talk p about limitations. one was who and one of the others was wt. i think it's fair to ask if you're out to protect your home or you're hunting deer whether you need a 30-round clip. that's my own editorial comment

for the day. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. quigley. mr. goe mert is recognized. >> thank you. i want to follow up on what mr. franks was talking about, the case volving the holy land foundation. you have mentioned the dallas morning news article. i have copy of it her i've also got a copy of the politico article and the person you're talking about is jim jacks, who is the interim u.s. attorney for the northern district of texas because the president has not made a nomination for u.s. attorney for the northern district of texas. so as long as mr. jacks stays in the good graces of the president, he serves at the will of the president or the judges in that area, he might even get the nomination if he does a good enough job from the president. he serves at his will. so let's go to this. are you aware that this same

career prosecutor that you had mentioned filed pleadings in the case before judge solis and before the fifth circuit where he supported the decision of judge solis that there was evidence to keep the unindicted co-conspirators listed? because some of them were wanting to be eliminated as co-conspirators. he filed documents with the court -- and i'm rather sensitive as a former judge and chief justice to lawyers filing things and say things they don't believe. because it seems that the position mr. jacks is taking now, which could be viewed as supportive of the president's position on some of the people and some of the organizations that are unindicted co-conspirators, are inconsistent wh his position in his pleadings. and i have copies of those a

well. but the judge found, after reviewing mr. jacks' pleading, that there was plenty of evidence to keep them in as unindicted co-conspirators. now, if a lawyer files something that he doesn't believe and he knows he doesn't believe it, some judges think it's a fraud upon the court that requires punitive actions to be taken. so i'm also aware that when someone makes a statement to the "dallas morning news," even if he believes it's not true but it may help him in a political appointment, there is no actionable punitive measures that may be taken. so i wonder which mr. jacks' opinion we're relying on, the one that's the interim that possible ly hopes to be nominat or stay in that position or the one that filed pleadings before

the court. now, are you aware that one of the unindicted co-convispirator is the islamic society of north america? isna? were you aware of that? >> there's not an inconsistency on the position that -- >> wait a minute. my time is so limited i have to ask questions and get short answers. the fbi has recruited through the isna magazine isna has advertised in fbi publication -- in their publications and even in the white house's own deputy assistant national security adviser went out and spoke and met with and spoke out at the all-dulles area muslim society or short for that is a.d.a.m.s. iric. deputy national security adviser

dennis mcdone know, even in his opening remarks thanked t president of isna, and that thank you is on the white house web site. so i'm wondering, when you say that you nor anyone else, as i understood, in your department assisted at all in the decision not to pursue prosecution of the most important funding case for terrorism in american history, do you need time to reflect on that? or can you absolutely be certain that no one in your department haany consultation with mr. jacks or anyone making the decision in this case before the decision was made not to pursue it? >> i'm not sure that's a question that i was asked. but beyond that, the notion -- >> well, that's the question i'm asking. >> well -- >> it went beyond mr. franks. that's the question i'm asking. >> now you asked me one

question. now your question is what now? am i referring -- >> my question is, very specific, is there anyone in your department who consulted with mr. jacks or whoever made the decision before the decision was made not to pursue any of the unindicted co-conspirators in the holy land foundation trial? >> my understanding that in fact there was contact twin washgton national security professionals and the u.s. attorney's office in texas in that regard. but one thing -- >> are those washington national security professionals part of your department? because that's the question. >> that's the national security division. >> are they under you? >> yeah, the national security division is part of the united states department of justice. >> did they consult with you in any way? >> no. >> thank you. >> one thing i want to say that i think was grossly unfair, you have cast dispersions on a

person who i don't know who has served, i understand, the united states department of justice and the people of this country quite well for a good number of years. i've implied that he would take a position in order to -- a position in a case in order to maintain a position as an acting u.s.ttorney or to become the u.s. attorney. these are the kind of things that will get reported in the newspapers, people don't know this gentleman, they'll wonder about him. i think that's a very unfair thing to do, given the fact that i don't think there's any basis for the assertions that you have made. >> wait. now wait a minute. you are saying there are no basis for assertions -- >> the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. >> -- that he said one thing in the pleadings before the trial cot and the same things before the pleadings in the fifth circuit and yet he comes out and says something entirely different later, that there's no evidence to support that?

and basically what he's telling the dallas news there was no basis for a case there. and you're saying i have no basis for saying that? i've got the dallas news article. i've got the pleadings he filed. that's what i'm basing that on. >> no. it's not inconsistent. his saying that there is a basis to keep these people, these organizations, as unindicted co-done r conspirators -- >> have you looked at the documents that were made available in this case before you say that i'm being unfair by making allegations? have youooked at the evidence in the case? here's isna. here's documentation of the money they provided which ended up supporting terrorism as found by the court. and you're saying i have no basis for saying what i did? there is a basis for what he said before the fifth circuit and before the trial court. so i don't appreciate the

allegation that i am making unfounded allegations. >> i'm just responding to what you said. you essentiallsaid that he would take a position in order to maintain a position. that's certainly what you implied. >> i raised the issue. sir, i don't know how many cases you've ever tried in court or prosecuted, but i can assure you, if you tried a case and you had someone with the impeachment material that was available from mr. jacks on his inconsistencies and you didn't pursue it, you would no be an efgtifective tri lawyer. these are basis of impeachment of his stating that there was no politics involved because there was no case there. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. chairman, what the attorney general is trng to explain why there was no inconsistency and he kept getting cut off. could the attorney general respond to the question? >> i was responding to the allegations about me having no basis for my statements.

>> well, can the attorney general -- >> does the attorney general have anything to add? >> i was simply saying that the notion that the filing of something that says that these people, organizations, should be treated as unindicted co-conspirators is not inconsistent with this notion that there wasn't political pressure brought to bear on that decision. i don't see how one necessarily affects the other. and, you know, i'm going to stick up for my people. that's what i'm doing. i'm not going to let people who work in the united states department of justice have their characters assailed without any basis. now, that might be something that people in this committee feels is easily done. it not going to happen as long as i'm attorney general of the united states. it's not going to happen. >> now, mr. chairman, i should have a chance to respond since there were allegations made about me. but i do appreciate the attorney general now letting us know that mr. jacks is one of his people. thank you. >> as are the 114,000 other

people who work in the united states department of justice. >> thank you both. >> so they're part of your department. >> thank you both. >> so people in your department did make that decision not to prosecute. >> the gentleman from florida can ask his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general holder, thank you for being here. the "wall street journal" reported that the united states fid a lawsuit against deutsche bank. in clear violation of mortgage insurance program. these government-insure ed mortgages were sold off earning the bank a massive profit and the government on the hook to payillions on insurance claims. the claims are startling and the charges highlight the efforts to

seek profit at any cost while leaving thousands of people and their families to lose their homes and the taxpayers being forced to pay for the banks' actions. first i'd like to commend you for the department's vigorous pursuit of these kargs against deutsche bank. and i'd like to ask first whether the department is investigating other large banks in possible deceptive actions that they may have taken to fuel the mortgage crisis that the country has been facing. we'll start with that. >> we have a very active program under way that looks at a variety of players in the mortgage field. we've brought a number of cases already. there are a number of investigations that are pending. >> next, would the department pursue criminal charges which would result in jail time for the heads ofhe banks and servicers if it's found they knowingly took actions sh as the ones described in this

lawsuit. >> the scrutiny we would bring would not be simply at the organizations and be looking to punish the organizations. in are individuals who have taken actions that would warrant individual liability, that is something that we will pursue as well. >> and if i could just pursue one possible line of prosecution that's been raised, i'd love your thoughts on it. that is under servings/oxley that executives at wall street firms have to establish and maintain adequate systems and internal control, that they've got to regularly test those controls to make sure they're adequateequat adequate. and as i understand it, that statute provides that in the case of knowingly making false claims, one is in jeopardy of fines and jail time. if the claims were willful, the violations were willful, fines up to $5 million and jail time up to 20 years in prison. is this -- would this be the basis of potential claims

against individuals in connection with the mortgage foreclosure cases that are being pursued? >> those are are potential statutes. there are other statutes that we can bring. i mean, some as old and tried and true alz wire fraud, mail fraud. there are a variety of tools including those you've mentioned. we'll try to make use of all of those as we continue in these investigations. >> so as you pursue these aims, at what point is the determination made -- obviously my colleague asked, others have asked, certainly been a big topic of conversation, while there's a $1 billion case file today, wch i applaud you for, given the vast array of potential indidual claims that could be brought that would bring the potential of criminal violations, when might we expect to e some ofthose cases filed

as well? >> that's hard to predict. we're serious about the investigating we're going. it's hard to determine exactly when decisions will be made either to prosecute or to decline prosecution. all i can tell you is that we are looking at these cases seriously, we're going to pursue them aggressively. and as soon as we can make a determination and share that with the american people, we will. >> so then there is, just to conclude, general holder -- we should know, the members of this committee and the american people, should know that your justice department is vigorously investigating these claims and under an array of statutes, the possibility for criminal prosecution against individuals in connectionith the mortgage foreclosure crisis is real and we should look forward to the potential of those cases being brought. >> i don't want to overpromise, but the possibility that those cases could be brought, yes, that is certainly the case. we are in the process of looking at a whole variety of these

matters, and it is possible that criminal prosutions will result. civil actions might result. we're going to try to take whatever enforcement action we can to try to hold people responsible where that is appropriate. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz is recognized. >> i'd like to go to operation fast and furious. in the last few weeks is when you had heard this, you said. the president made statements to this in a report on union i vision back on march 22nd. were you aware of this operation before the president or after the president made those comments? >> my guess would be probably before the president. >> who briefed the president about this? he obviously knew something about it. he made a statement about it. who briefed the president? >> i don't know. >> who would typically -- who would do that, if not the attorney general? who would brief the president on this? >> well, we have a white house contacts policy so that the

justice department interacts with the white house counsel's office. i don't know what goes on within the white house. >> are you familiar with the president's comments, then, on march 22nd? he said, quote, there may be situation re in which a serious mistake was made. if that's the case, then we'll find out and we will hold somebody accountable. would you agree or not agree with that comment? >> i would agree. >> would you agree that there were some serious mistakes maid in this situation? >> i don't know. that's one of the things we're investigating. what i've asked the inspector general to look at. >> it's been reported that at the death of brian terry, one of our border patrol agtsents, tha railroad guns from the operation found at that scene. is that in dispute? >> i don't know that to be factually accurate the i don't know. i've heard that, asked the inspector general to look into it. >> is there a scenario if those guns were found at that scene? is there a possible scenario that mistakes weren't made and yet we have guns at the scene of

the death of one of our border patrol agents? >> i think thas right. with if those facts are accurate, mistakes were in fact made. >> this program was improved by the justice department my understanding is in january of 2010. i guess i'm struggling to understand why an operation as big and large and important as this has not come to your attention for more than a year after it was originally authorized. can you help me understand that? >> well, you've got to understand it's something that is big, you've described as big, in comparison to all the other things that are going on in the department, at any one given time, might n seem quite as large. i have, as i said, 114,000, 115,000, the atf, dea, a whole variy of tngs we've talked about here today. >> i guess my concern here is, here's an operation where we're knowingly allowing more than 1500 guns to go across the border, maybe with good

intention, but obviously with consequence that is unparall unparalleled. i'm just not aware of us on a regular basis allowing and knowingly allowing guns to be put in the hands of bad guys and now we've got -- i just don't understand why that doesn't come to your attention. also, my understanding is that they are receiving task force money and these types of programs a task force must be approved at high levels, including the level of deputy attorney general. who did know about this? who did authorize this? and when did they authorize it? >> again, that is part of what the inspector general will be looking at, who exactly was invoed, what the level of knowledge was, who should be held accountable, if in fact there were mistakes that were made. that's what the evinspector general will be looking at. >> is it your intention to not comply with our subpoena because the inspector general is doing that? or do you believe -- that is, are you precluded from complying with the subpoena because the ig

is looking into it or can you do both simtaneously? >> we can do both simultaneously. what i've asked with regard to the subpoenas that we try to minimize the impact on the ongoing cases. it's not the inspector general report. we've tried to come up with ways we'll make information available to the committee in a timely fashion and not harm those ongoing investigations. >> the atf office involved in this was evidently the phoenix office. are there any other atf offices that you're aware of that may have been involved or engaged in this? >> involved in? >> the operation gun runner and fast and furious. or was it just the phoenix office? >> i don't know. >> let me move to a different issue, if i could, in my short time here. i just recently went down to the border with mexico. i think one of the statistics that the border patrol puts out is that they only have 15%, 15%, operational control. what do we need to do to secure

the border? because i was shocked and surprid. i went for hours in places right along the border where there's nothing more tha a barb wire fence cut in many places and never even saw an agent. we're pouring lo of resources into it, but what in your opinion do we actually have to do to secure the border? because it's not happening. >> the situation along the border is better now than it prably ever has been, wich isn't to say -- >> but how do you come to that conclusion? >> you base it on the number of people who are stopped, the amount of drugs we recover, the amount of guns -- >> so that stat goes up, the number of apprehensions goes up, is it better or if the number of apprehensions goes down, is it better? >> well, it depends on a whole bunch of things. certainly a function of the number of people trying to get in, it also is a function of how effeive our enforcement efforts are, which is not to say there aren't issues, still problems along the border. i think we have to do all that we can to secure our border. and i think that one of the ways

in which we do that is to really look mprehensively at this whole immigration question. >> no doubt. i think we have to fix legal immigration, do a lot of other things. but the statistic of apprehensi apprehensions, if it goes up, are we doing a better job of securing the border, or if apprehensions go down? >> like i said, it's a difficult one to answer. >> i know. that's why i asd you. >> you can say that, if we are apprehending more people, that means we're stopping more people. on the other hand, if we're getting fewer people, it's entirely possible our enforcement efforts are working and fewer people are trying to get in. it's a difficult question to answer. >> i at some point would love to know the answer to that question, mr. chairman. thank you, i appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. chaffetz. the gentleman from mr. puerto rico is recognized. >> greetings, mr. holder. in the brief time that i have, i want to address the problem of drug-relat crime in puerto rico. through the first three months of this year, 301 homicides were committed in puerto rico.

a 35% increase over the same period last year. and this is unacceptably high for 3.8 million people. you might say, you know, why am i raising this local issue? well, the fact of the matter is that, unfortunately, puerto rico has long been a transshipment point for drugs coming to the u.s. mainland. so this is tied to the u.s. as a whole. when i look at the federal government's efforts to coat drug-related violence in puerto rico, i'm troubled that key doj offices on the island have vacancy rates between 17% and 57%. from speaking with you and others at the department, i understand that apparently you're having difficulty recruiting agents for places like puerto rico, high-crime localities or h

high-cost-localities. i wonder how you're making ziegs decisions. when you make assignments through the different organizations, fbi, atf, are you considering homicide rates, for example, the levels of violence, issues such as recruitment difficulties? are you giving any incentives to your agents to locate in places like puerto rico? or it could be miami or it could be in places like puerto rico, miami, l.a., different places maybe, detroit, places facing high crime, new orleans. how are you doing this? >> w try to employ resources in places they are most needed. the concerns you raise are legitimate ones, not only because puerto rico is a trans shipment point but the people that live in puerto rico are american citizens and deserving of the protection of their government. we try to come up with ways in

which we get investigators agents into puerto rico by coming up with incentives, tdys, temporary duty, putting people there -- if people don't want to relocate put them there for 90 days, 180 days to try to keep the numbers up. we are doing the best we can trying to get resources to the places they are much needed. you and i have talked about that issue. i'm very concerned about the homicide rate in puerto rico, drugs in that part of the country, on the island. >> one other thing, in looking at this issue, i got statistics from all the different agencies within your department but for the fbi. would you assist in providing me this is the number of positions you've authorized and available and the numbers cant. i just want to compare and i

believe i should have that information. >> i'll get you that information. >> thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general holder, if you would, i would be indebted if you would like ausa and federal enforcement officers knows how grateful i am for their service and how much i appreciate it. they do a fantastic job. m sure it would mean more to them to hear it from you tn it would for me. if you would let them know that, i'll be grateful. >> thank you, and i will do that. >> what i hope to do with the remainder of my time is have a constitutional conversation not political conversation. you do not believe the interstate commerce clause doesn't allow us -- you're not making a states right argument.

you're making an argument based on the three tiers of constitutional scrutiny, right? >> typically marriage is defined as something that has been a state issue as opposed to the federal government. >> it is but there's thousands of instances where congress has to define what the family is to be instructive with other statutes. you're not challenging congress has the authority to define marriage. >> well, i think we may be quibbling here, not to define marriage but how to define how marriage people are treated. i think i would agree in that regard? >> and would you agree with me that the rational basis test is the appropriate test to be used with respect to the marrying of family members. that's the appropriate test, right? rational basis. you're not arguing on a heightened level of scrutiny on whether cousins can marry each

other. >> i wouldn't argue that. i don't know if there's law on that. off the top of my head, i don't know if you'd need heightened scrutiny in that regard. >> age restrictions. we wouldn't need heightened scrutiny with age descriptions. >> there's a four-part test i have here. i don't thinyou'd have heightened scrutiny as well. >> don't need intermediate or heightened scrutiny with respect to polygamy, right? >> i would think that. >> since two courts of appeals have upheld a rational basis test for sexual orientation. that's two that have upheld the rational basis, one applied a heightened level of scrutiny. my question is why would you single out the one court of appeals that has applied a higher level of scrutiny, ignoring the two that applied a rational basis test. that strikes me as a political calculation and not a constitutional calculation. >> not a political calculation.

i think what we had to do was look at -- the court of appeals make decisions that sometimes the department of justice will disagree with to the extent that court of appeals have taken different views of what the appropriate level of scrutiny is. we think those courts of appeals are wrong. the supreme court will ultimately have to decide against this issue. i want to assure you and everybody else that the decision we made with regard tooma did not have a political determination to it. it was a legal determination. >> i want to believe you. i really do. i mean that earnestly. but when i was in ausa, the was a court of appeals that said law enforcement officers didn't have to read miranda warnings anymore. it was an unusual opinion and one we didn't follow. it was one court of appeals that ruled that way. heaven knows the night court of appeals is presumptively wrong. we don't change our course of conduct -- i said that, not you. when the ninth circuit court of

appeals comes up with something crazy, we don't change our course of action. it is difficult to explain why it's not a political calculation or decision when two courts of appeals post lawrence have said ratial basis test is the one that applies and only one that argued for a heightened level of scrutiny. it's tough to see how that's not political. >> i think one example. i might be wrong on this one but my memory serves me correctly, when it came to the dickerson case, the fourth circuit indicated that that statute that was patched that overled mirand the supreme court said that statute wasn't that constitutional. the juice department argued against that statute saying it was unconstitutional before the supreme court. you have the justice department arguing in the supreme court against the statute passed by congress and also taking on a federal court of appeals. there's history to these kinds of actions that we took with

regard to doma it's unusual, rare but happens. >> supreme court never applied a heightened level of scrutiny, only one court suggests there's a heightened level of scrutiny and one does not. can i have 30 seconds to have a question? >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we'll continue this conversation hopefully at some other poi. you said that there were tactical reasons to try terrorists in civilian court rather than military tribunals. you would agree the evidentiary rules are more relaxed in military tribunals than civil court? >> there are certain rules -- the difference is not as great as some people think. certainly with regard to hearsay, you can get more hearsay in military commission

than article 3 courts. >> jury qualification a selection is certainly different. >> yeah, different systems there. >> right. so to the extent you can, what tactical dcions made you believe that it was better to try these defendants in civilian court than in military court? you used the word tactical. as a prosecutor i'm thinking more likely to get a conversation >> you would be right when it comes to tactical and how i viewed that. what i don't want to do, with all due respect, because you've asked questions in good faith, i don't think i can answer that question out of concern that what i might say could have a negative impact on the case that is pending now in military commissions, tactical reasons, tactical concerns that i saw were i to reveal might give to the defense, an opportunity to

raise issues that otherwise might not exist. >> fair enough. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. gowdy. >> i do wan to say i thank you about what you said about the assistance there and i will share with them the good thoughts. >> thank youery much. >> mr. johnson recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, i welcome you here today. as head of the justice department you are responsible for among other things enforcing federal criminal laws, defending the united states against civil actions, and also protecting our national security. now at a time when your department has been adversely impacted by the ravenous budget cutting, i was puzzled by one of my colleagues on the other side questioning you about the allocation of your precious

resources to the issue of adult hard core pornography. and i was -- i really would like to know what is adult hard core pornography. but because my time is limited, i will forego that question. but mr. attorney general over the last couple of years, you have successfully prosecuted many terrorists cases. in fact, under your leadership the justice department has successfully prosecuted more terrorists than any other two-year period in history. the recent military opation, which led to the death of osama bin laden is a testaments to how this administration handles

national security in a disciplined fashion using all the tools at its disposal that are available in an effort to protect the american people. i must take this opportunity to recognize the great -- t fabulous success ofhe mission which was carried out by the cia and joint special operations command that resued in the apprehension of osama bin laden over the weekend. and i kow that your department is just as effective when it comes to prosecuting terrorists, and i deeply regret the fact that your decision to prosecute

khalid sheikh mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, your decision to prosecute him in the criminal courts of this country, i regret that congress -- politicians in congress usurped your ability to exercise the discretion that you have with respect to where to try that gentleman, because he'll be tried in a secret military tribunal, many of the things about the case that have not been publicly revealed the not be revealed so the american people will be left without the information which i think would generate true cosure for them

in this matter. i appreciate all that you've done at justice to protect all americans at home and abroad, and i applaud the justice department's commitment to transparency. under your leadership, the department has processed a record number of freedom of information act requests and you've testified before this committee numerous times and your dedication to state and local law enforcement by supporting the cops program certainly does not go unnoticed especially in this tight economy. now, general holder, i sent you a lett on march 28th this year requesting information pertaining to three federal intelligence contractors, who

collectively refer to themselves. are you familiar with my letter? >> i can't say that i am. >> in that letter, i express concern that the three firms ght have broken the law by conspiring to harm american citizens using illegal techniques such as hacking, planting malware, blackmail and fraud. nineteen of my colleagues in the house of representatives echoed those serious concerns in a letter sent to house committee chairs earlier in march, and i also requested copies of all department of justice contracts with those firms within 10 days. i have great concerns that the law may have been broken and i understand there are many demands on your time and that your staff is busy, but will you commit to look into that matter? >> yeah.

we will. -of- great staff, many of whom are behind me and they are undoubtedly making notes about -- i hope they are. >> i hope they are also. >> they are writing. they are writing. >> i'd appreciate you all getting back to me. when additional information arises, i will definitely send it to you on that case. with that i would yield back. thank you. >> thank you, mr. johnson. the gentleman from iowa mr. king recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you attorney general holder. it's always a challenge when the secretary-general of the united states has to testify before the judiciary. i have a series of statements to examine, perhaps not the depth some of the other have. i recall your testimony here roughly a yea ago. we had a discussion and exchange about arizona's sb 1070 law.

at that time i had asked you if there was a provision in the constitution that you believe it had violated or if there was federal preemption it had olatedr controlling case law it had perhaps crossed the line on. at that point you weren't prepared to respond to that. i don't ask you to do that today but make the point that subsequent to that, justice filed a lawsuit against arizona. and in reading that, i come across this seemed to be something i hadn't encountered before, careful balance that makes the case that congress has established a careful balance between the various and sometimes competing immigration laws and this job of justice in the other departments to maintain that careful balance just to put that in summary. >> i'm sorry, what kd of balance? >> a careful, careful balance. i've been involved in a lot of immigration debates, and i don't

know anyone ald they introduced legislation on immigration that was designed to achieve or enhance a careful balance, so i just ask if that -- i'll call it illegal theory, careful balance theory, does that exist anywhere else in law that you know of? >> the positions that we have tape in that lawsuit have been upheld by bh the district court and court of appeals, thries we have brought, theories we have used, which i think are mainstream theories, said by two courts now that we are in the right. >> your honor -- this is the micro phone. it's not attorney frank's fault. the careful balance theory, however, regardless of the two courts ruling and we're on the way to the supreme court, i presume, do you know that careful balance theory exists anywhere else in law? >> to the extent that we have used particular theories or particular phrases, i'm sure the

lawyers that filed those briefs did so carefully, did so with regard to -- >> okay,ttorney general, let the record show i think it's a unique theory myself. i'd be interested if there's any other place you could direct my reference. it seems to me that's the one that's convenient for this case. if it's anywhere i'd like to knowhe answer to that. lete move on. i didn't ask the question whether you'd read 10 b 70. we have another piece of information passed by one of states hb 116, utah's legislation that i will contend for the sake of simplified vernacular creates utah as an exemplary state. have you read that? >> i have read the utah law. >> have you made a determination whether to bring suit against utah? >> i have not. i think in a prior question what we typically do is try to interact with the state and try

to work our way through any disagreements we might have without bringing suit. the statute doesn't go into effect until 2013. we are prepared to bring suit if necessary but that is a decision we would make in about a year or so. >> let me just the make the point that if arizona is preempted, then utah establishing a sanctuary state certainly is preempted, what that point between us today. move on also, you've reviewed since your last testimony before the committee, the sworn teimony of christian adams and chris coats before the civil rights commission when they had made the point the justice department has a racial component tohe equation of whether they will enforce discrimination if it disadvantages a minority, do you review that testimony and accept it as truthful their sworn testimony? >> i've not reviewed the

testimony but their characterization is totally inaccurate? >> i just ask for your own benefit, have you looked into the department and evaluated -- done a further investigation, though? you disagree with that. have you done an extra investigation within your party to satisfy yourself. was that your judgment a year ago and your same judgment today? >> if you look at the insertions they have made, seems to me they are inconsistent with the findings the office of professional responsibility made looking at the plaque panthers matter, made the determination that politics, race, did not play a part both in the filing of the case or inhe decision how the case was disposed of, which seems to me is inconsistent with what they are claiming. >> mr.ttorney general, i point out i believe thomas perez was less than truthful with the committee when testified they achieved the highest penalty under the law. just ask consent for an additional minute. >> with that objection the

gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also wanted to bring up the issue of bigford farms. can you cite for this committee the authorization you had or may believe you had to open up negotiations for a second round. >> the attorney general has the -- >> would you cite the farm bill exclusively on pigford 2. >> i not sure i understand your question. >> i can understand why. so i'd ask did you negotiate with john boyd on settlement for pigford 2. >> did i? >> yes, or did anyone from your office authorized by you do so. >> i'm not sure i know who mr. boyd is. >> that's insuctive to me and i won't push my ti limits any

further. apprecte it. >> the gentlewoman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. two nights ago president obama announced osama bin laden had been killed. as persons around the country rejoiced, president obama also reminded us on that day no matter where we came from, what race we came from,hat god we prayed for, we were unitied in the american family. the hatred in the muslim american community and those thought to be muslim. the committee held hearings that targeted the muslim community. considering the importance intelligence played in findg osama bin laden, how could an antagonistic relationship between the american muslim community and law enforcement rt our efforts to combat any

home grown terrorist threat and what have you been doing to engage the community and maintain their trust? >> i think that's a good question. if there were an antagonistic relationship between law enforcement and those commities, that would have a negative impact on our ability to protect the american people. what we have seen is a pretty consistent level of cooperation and provision of information from the muslimed kmuntd in the united states. the department of justice has en leading the way in order to dispel myths, make sure there's open lines of communication, make sure our aim is to protect all americans, muslim americans as well as everyone else. to the extent there's inappropriate actions against

the community, our law enforcement has tried to step in and take action. >> let me ask you about the guidance the doj has. even ten years after 9/11 there's profiling against south asian and muslim kpluncommuniti. the u.s. attorneys office investigated violence threats, vandalism, arson against muslim in the united states between march 11, 2007. in 2003 the doj issued guidance for racial profiling. given that it's counter-productive policies that prohibit it are certainly admirable. however, there needs to be much more strength on this kind of guidance. and the guidance doesn't

profile -- doesn't ban profiling on the basis of religion or national origin and lacks a meaningful enforcement mechanism what is the progress of the review you're doing right now involving this guidance? where is it? >> i would say first as a general matter,se of profiling techniques is not gemelli good law enforcement -- is not generally good law enforcement. we have under review the policy that was initiated back i believe in 2003. that review is under way. my hope will be i have recommendations from the group that is looking at that policy. >> a i certainly would urge that you do look at the issues of religion and national origin as well as the enforcement mechanisms. let me also say that the doj has

engaged in much needed outreach and i acknowledge that. there certainly is a need to better institutionalize better ad hoc initiatives. would the doj consider initiatives to combat 9/11 discriminatory backlash by designating a special council for post 9/11 discrimination? >> that's an interesting idea. i think that, you know, we have laws that our civil rights division traditionally enforces. it handles those kinds of issues. we have a community relations service as well in the justice department that can contribute in this regard. i think we have the tools that we need and certainly have the dedication of the people who are career employees and hole be there after i leave as attorney general, who i think will remain dedicated to the enforcement of those regulations and those laws. >> i hope you might consider that. my las question has to do with

hate crime statistics. the hate crime statistics act mandates collection of data on hate crimes but lumps together those acts anti-muslim or anti-arab, hence, those acts that are actually committed against are not distinguished. formally tracking those by arabs, hindus, sikh. >> the greater amount of granularity we have with regard to who are the victims of these kinds of acts, the more effective we can be in our law enforcement efforts. your suggestion is agood one. that's something we can conder and work with you in trying to determine whether that is something we can appropriately do. >> thank you and i yield back. >> thank you. before i recognize the gentleman from arizona mr. quayle for his

question, let me say two have been called and we'll need to stand in recess and go vote and return mr. attorney general if that's all right with you. there are still several members who would like to ask questions. gentleman from arizona. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. holder. i want clarification what you talked about with mr. king. the reason there wasn't any action on the utah case based on the fact it's not impblmented to 2013 and you still do see possible supremacy clause violations within that law? >> i think there's certainly issues we see now. our hope would be now between now and 2013 we can work our way through concerns without bringing lawsuit. but if we have to, we will. >> working through legislature, passing a different law, making amendments to that law? >> that way interpretations that the attorney general might take -- there are a number of ways we might work our way through it. >> changing gears, i read i

think it was last month "the wall street journal" reported doj and ftc resorted to coin flips, sometimes trades and bargains determining which agency would have jurisdiction, which would cost time and expenses. doj antitrust division and congress have conducted investigations into online search engines and online advertising markets. as this area of our economy continues to grow, how do you plan on dividing the work between the agencies while preserving institution knowledge and consistency. >> a very good question, something we're trying to work our way through. the ftc and justice department have generally been in good place dividing up responsibility for any trust enforcement. there have, however, been instances where we've not been on the same page. i think we need to get together to work together.

that's what we're trying to do to figure out what the rules of the road will be so we don't end up with coin flips or other ways to decide these matters. >> they are working together to get guidance on who will oversee those matters? what roll do you think the antitrust division has in helping maintain an online marketplace that rewardsithout necessarily for closing new competition and preventing ideas from reaching consumers? >> i think the antitrust division, it's an interesting way you phrase it. it's right. we generally -- antitrust generally seen as trying to stop mergers, consolidations. but i think the affect, collateral impact of that word is to make sure things are kept open, things are kept free. that's especially important when one looks at cyber issues, internet, where innovation happens so rapidly,

consolidation, intel is not necessarily a good thing. we are constantly looking in at sphere for things that might in exhibit the growth, development. internet. >> in those investigations, have you seen any active and actual bottlenecks or gatekeepers keeping content from consumers? have you seen any actual evidence of that or are we starting to get down to conjecture and it's going to the possibility of the gatekeepers rather than actual factual evidence pointing to that? >> i'm not sure i'm capable of answering that. we can get you something in writing from the folks at the antitrust division who would be able to tell you more and more complete and contemporary way what concerns they have in that regard. i'm not aware of any but i wouldn't want to -- just because i'm not doesn't mean there aren't things in the antitrust division responsive to your question. >> you don't know anything but you could give me information if

there is an thank you. i yield back. >> we'll stand in recess 20 minutes and be back then. >> thank you. >> now available, c-span's congressional directory, a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. inside, new and returning house and senate members with contact information, including twitter addresses, district maps, and committee assignments. also information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at -- c-span.org/shop. >> over the next several hours, we will have more reaction to the killing of osama bin laden. first the head of the senate committee, at dianne feinstein of california. then new york representative peter king, chairman of the

homeland security committee. and then, senate debate on a resolution commending the u.s. military and intelligence community for the bin laden mission. >> on washington journal tomorrow morning, we will look at the issues of raising the debt ceiling, with a member of the financial services committee. brad sherman, the ranking member of the terrorism subcommittee will take your phone calls about strategy in afghanistan and pakistan in the aftermath of the killing of osama bin laden. and then we will focus on the future of guantanamo bay with scott chain. "washington journal" live on c- span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on our companion network, c-span3.

janet napolitano note testifies before the senate homeland security committee on the threat of terrorism and border security at 10:00 a.m. eastern. at 12:30 p.m. eastern, mitch daniels is at the american enterprise institute to talk about public education. >> every weekend, experience american history on c-span3. it is 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. here first-person accounts. the country's best known history writers of the past decade. travel to important battlefields to learn about key figures and events that shaped in error during the 150th anniversary of the civil war. those that college classrooms across the nation as american professors tell them to the american past. join historians behind the scenes on american art attacks. and the presidency, focusing on

policies and legacies as told through historic speeches and personal insights from administration officials and experts. american history tv on c-span3, all weekend, every weekend. get our schedule e-mail to t u. >> for over two decades, bin laden has been al qaeda's leader and symbol and continue to plot attacks against our friends and allies. the death of bin laden marks the most significant achievement in our efforts today to defeat al qaeda. >> watch reaction from capitol hill and around the world all in their entirety whenever you want online with the c-span video library for a search, watch, clip, and share -- is washington your way. >> senate intelligence committee chairman dianne feinstein told reporters today that congress

may cut aid to pakistan if it turns out the government there knew where osama bin laden was hiding. she will meet with leon panetta for more details. this is little more than half hour. >> ok, this is your show. i will answer any questions you might have. >> have you been briefed as to what has been found in the raid on the bin laden property? >> i have read a briefing memo on some of the things that have been found. >> what can you tell us? >> it is a secret briefing.

let me put it this way -- john brennan has said and i believe that is correct that considerable materials were found. they are going to be examined. that would lead one to believe that they might be various aspects of the computer world, and i would anticipate that that was the case. as much was gathered as could be in the 45 minute period that the forces were there. >> a quick follow-up -- do you have a sense as to whether or not the materials make a small, medium, or a giant leap in what we know about al qaeda and their operations? >> i think all materials are held. i think our ability to analyze materials is better than it ever has been. the ability to read team that

material is better than it has been. i would say that virtually all material is helpful. >> the reporting of the detainee's information, what kind of like in new shed on how that process play out? there has been some indications that that information was gained by the harsh interrogation program of the cia. what do you know about that? was the product of water boarding, that kind of process? >> we are in the process of a big study on the detention and interrogation of the detainees. on the intelligence committee. the republicans have pulled out of the study, so this has been carried out by the democratic staff, essentially. they have gone through more than 3 million e-mails, cables, pieces of paper, looking for

this. to date, the answer to your question is no. nothing has been found to indicate that this came out of guantanamo, and people were questioned, but there were no positive answers as to the identity of this number one courier. >> where did this affirmation come from? >> i do not know exactly where the information came from. but it is pretty clear that they were able to track this one gentle man for a period of time in islamabad and then tackle him back to this facility >> tracked him back to this facility, a much bigger than anything a rounded, and it was designed to in a manner which would lead one to believe that it had superior protection. and for -- and so the reason is

why did it have superior protection? if it was the courier's home, that probably was not necessary. that led people to believe that might be more than that and that this might in fact be the home of osama bin laden. senator bond and i were briefed in december. since that time, since senator bond is no longer in the senate and senator chambliss is the ranking member, we have both been briefed. it was a very gutsy call on the part of the president. it was a title 50 effort. it worked. as chairman of the committee, i am very proud of the intelligence community. putting this together was not an easy feat. it meant a sustained analysis

over a substantial period of time. and to the best of my knowledge, no one ever physically saeb bin laden. -- saw bin laden. to gain enough to enable the president to authorize by executive action this move, it was very impressive on the part of the intelligence community. >> from what you have seen, any indication that any pakistan i officials hint or sheltered him anyway? >> i have no information to that effect. it does cause one to question how this kind of facility, which stood out, which was closed by a military academy, could exist for the length of time that did exist. and we now know that bin laden was there up to six years.

that is a substantial period of time when trashes burned rather than picked up by sanitation authorities. it was noted that there were no electronic access, and yet it was a sophisticated facility. some questions had to have been asked, i would think. whether those questions were asked for -- answered and not by the pakistanis, it is hard to say. i will get back to that. >> [inaudible] >> we will of the meeting tomorrow morning with leon panetta and the admiral in charge of chase sought -- j-soc. >> do you believe the u.s. and

congress how can trust pakistan? >> before i answer that, i think we have to know whether they knew. if they knew. if they did not know, why did they not know? why did they not pay more attention to it? with this just the nine in difference, or was it in difference with a motive? we need to find that out. >> you said yesterday that this is a time of budget cuts and austerity. >> i think it is premature to say that. here is the problem. if we do not, what then? and that "was then" is really important. does china step in? does anybody step in?

the pakistanis have been good at going after some terrorist. on the other hand, there has been the haqqani network protection. it put them off limits to the united states predator efforts. so they have very subtle way walked both sides of the street. that is a concern to many of us, i think, because you have to declare yourself. having said that, we are in the united states of america, not in islamabad or karate. -- karachi. it is difficult. from an intelligence point of view, we would want to know more about why this was not discovered by the pakistani

authorities. >> [inaudible] >> no question it complicates. there is real concern that pakistan remains ground zero for terror today. we know the taliban or we believe the taliban, if things went badly in afghanistan, the next that would be pakistan. it is a movement that would not be content just to remain with partial victory. that is a very complicating factor in the past two the well considered before an action is taken. the united states, i believe, would want to support the strongest possible pakistani government, one that would be willing to work with the united

states, one that what -- that might one day be willing for a reconciliation with india over kashmir, and a country that would want to see it citizens economically upwardly mobile. i think humanitarian assistance is much more important than military assistance. >> [inaudible] >> we have been embarked on a story about a year. -- on it for about a year. >> [inaudible] you do not have any information about being the result of harsh interrogation. >> to the best of our knowledge , none of it came as a result

of harsh interrogation practices. >> [inaudible] do you had any concerns about where the original tip came from? >> not precisely, no. we are going to find out all there is to find out about it. but at the present time, i think it was good intelligence, a piece here, appease their put together, plus this man coming in and out of this compound, going 90 miles away, using a phone, taking out the batteries, destroying the fund, that kind of thing. >> adam goldman. any reason to believe that u.s. intelligence was aware of the compound before the track that courier back to it? >> based on what we know, the

courier led to the compound. that is all i can say. that is what i believe. that by following this career, he led them to the compound. that is what i know so far. >> can you elaborate [inaudible] >> i cannot speak to that. i do not know that. hall is the other part of your question? yes, i can. there is no question that at least since i have known about it, which was december, there has been 24/7 surveillance of

the compound. obviously nsa is a part of that. >> [inaudible] >> you do not need electronic signals to survey the coming and going. i beg your pardon? i am not going to comment on the surveillance. >> to you know what was taken from the compound? what types of things? >> the types of things they took, i believe, or related to computers. and probably some records. no, that is all that i know. >> [inaudible] >> i have no knowledge of that. >> john brennan yesterday spoke almost mockingly of osama bin laden using his wife as a human

shield. now there are reports that that is not accurate. i wanted ask you what is your level of confidence in the information coming from senator brennan and the administration? >> i have a very high level of confidence on information coming from the administration in coming from john brennan. this is a problem with everybody wanting to ask questions so fast, so soon, and it is very difficult to sort everything out. he did correct himself, as you know, and we are all subject to that kind of thing. apparently there was a wife who stood in front of her husband, and i believe the person may well have been the courier i have been talking about, but whether she was forced to do it or she did it voluntarily, i have no idea. >> she was married to the

courier? >> that is my tentative understanding, subject to change. [laughter] >> will the committee be reviewing that those of the video of the burial? >> i expect us to ask to see that, yes. >> have you seen that? >> know. >> i would assume that it has been video. i do not know that. >> do you think it should be released? >> i think that this is been very carefully considered. for purposes of 1% eye the vacation -- 100% identification, it would be good to do so and that would be the only reason. i just do not see a need to do

it. the dna has been deposited, people may still doubt that. therefore there may be cause, i do not know, to release of total which i understand is very graphic. >> aside from your meeting tomorrow with leon panetta do intend to hold public hearings? >> that is a good question. that is under consideration. i think we have to go step by step. the first step is to get a full briefing from the head of j-soc as well as mr. panetta. then we can make a decision on where we go from there. you know, this is not the end of the battle. this is one step. i think that overly dramatize it, it does not do a tremendous

service. one of the things that has been happening and particularly ending fata area has been a rude metamorphosis between these terrorist groups, haqqani or any other group, they are not just going to disappear. so how they regroup, when they go from here, what kind of act of vengeance that take is something that all has to be considered and considered very carefully. >> [inaudible] when you learned where he was, were you surprised? >> was i surprised? i would not say that i was surprised. the first time i saw a total of

the place, i thought, it just may well be. because it is so much bigger, and no one approach is it except a few people coming and going, the way the walls are, the razor wire, the design -- it is there for some purpose. now you get to come out well, maybe it is a high value detainee. then who? it was a masterful job of intelligence. for those of us that saw the iraq national intelligence estimate, the nie, the fact that the intelligence community is now so able to do this kind of analysis and really do it well, and the administration was willing to make a very gutsy call and go and -- they could of

cent of predator with hellfire missiles and killed everyone in the place. they did not do it. it was a very gutsy mission. i think the one helicopter failure that took place indicated just how gutsy it was. and the fact that no one was injured or killed, the fact that the mission was accomplished cleanly, precisely, and they got in and got out, i was just very proud. -- thepresident's question of president karzai. [unintelligible] >> hometown girl. >> [inaudible] do you think this is a vindication of the interrogation methods? >> i do not.

i happen to know a good deal about how those interrogations' were conducted. in my view, nothing justifies the kind of procedures that were used. >> what recourse does congress have that pakistan does not respond to questions that the u.s. government has about bin laden? >> what recourse does pakistan have? >> congress. >> our records would either be a resolution of policy, a sense of the senate, or an appropriation bill, when the money is appropriated in the foreign operations arena, the senate in my understanding, the total is $1.1 billion and $1.3 billion. some of that could be changed, that is for sure.

the question comes, is it wise to do so? that is a decision that has to be made. some of it depends on what we find out about the pakistani government's knowledge about this and doing nothing about it. >> [inaudible] 1 said that the helicopter pilot was lost to mechanical failure. can you explain the discrepancy? >> i was told that the temperature was 17 degrees higher than anticipated. based on the temperature and the load in the helicopter, the helicopter began to descend.

and so it was the kind of controlled hard landing. that is what i know. well, i guess that is right. >> summit focused overwhelmingly on the tribal areas. to find a high level target in the center of pakistan does this say anything about improper targeting or focus on where the drone war is taking place? >> no, it does not. here is the reason why it does not. it does not because -- and i can only talk about the intelligence area, not the defense area -- but the use of the drones or the predator by the intelligence community is very carefully done. as part of our oversight, we have a team of staff that goes out there periodically, spends

time out there, looks at the intelligence, watches what is happening, just to be able to provide a measure of oversight that real care is being taken to avoid collateral or civilian damage. i think that they have done a very good job. that has been a concern of mine from the beginning. i asked that this effort be established. it has been. i think that finding is that the intelligence is very solid, that a procedural change of approval is very solid, and the way in which this is being done is very careful. >> is there a concern -- >> there is a large number of high-value detainee's. the problem is they get to replace. th