to be a permanent residence for mek. the conditions are deplorable. the deplorable. -- deplorable. they do not want to be in camp liberty, and the united states does not want them to stay for a long time and risk possibly another assault and massacred by the iraqi government, why thingo pressure. we have no evidence that the mek will have any residents to go with refugees. the transition process began, not one person has been settled to another country or has been declared a political refugee. until people start being resettled, why should camp ashraf residents view this as a

temporary home? the whole issue is the designation of our government of the mek. our country may be willing to take some of the refugees, but as long as we call them terrorists, we are not going to take them and third parties are not going to take them e there. the fact is, ambassador, we know of no country as of today that is willing to take mek residents. i believe it is because of the designation. i hope you can explain to me why the designation is taking so long. secretary clinton told us back in february that she has folks working around the clock on this. what is the holdup? is there new evidence to be considered? confusion about what the law is?

what is the problem? why is there no re-evaluation? the fto designation is the one thing that affects the people in camp ashraf and the progress being made to move those people to other countries in the world. i have seen all the evidence we can be given about the fto designation. it is not compelling that the mek stay on the fto designation. i urge that the state department show us the evidence or de-list the mek. that is what they need to do. we need to treat the people in camp ashraf like human beings. they should not be confined to a concentration camp. it is interesting. today, we heard from not

government officials but private officials that north korea should be an fto designation but they are not. i think ahmadinejad should be designated as a foreign terrorist organization. but not the mek. i will have more questions later. thank you for being here. i yield back. >> thank you. we are joined today by ambassador benjamin. ambassador benjamin has been the senior adviser to the secretary of state since 2009. benjaminte 1990's, mr. served on the national security council as director for counter- terrorism in the office of transnational threats. before entering government, he was a foreign correspondent for

"time" magazine and "the wall street journal." he was also the author of a book that won several awards. we want to welcome you back to the committee. your complete written testimony is going to be entered into the record. we ask that you give us a five- minute summary if you could and then we will go to the questions. please begin. >> chairman, ranking member, distinguished members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i have submitted testimony to the record that provides details about the bureau's policies, programs, and budget. my office was upgraded to full status, fulfilling one of the recommendations of the diplomacy and development review. this will strengthen the ability to carry out civilian counter-

terrorism missions around the world. in coordination with department leadership, staff, and other government agencies, the bureau develops strategies, policies, operations, and programs. our efforts constitute strategic counter-terrorism. it is an approach that secretary clinton has championed. efforts require a whole of government approach that must go beyond traditional intelligence function. we are engaged in a broad, sustained, and integrated campaign that harnesses every tool of american power. together with the concerted efforts of allies, partners, and multilateral institutions to address short and long term challenges. our technical abilities are

exemplified by the mission against osama bin laden last year but they are only one part of our comprehensive c.t. strategy which includes their action to stop radicalization and create an international environment that is inhospitable for activities required to sustain international terrorist organizations. while these activities may not grabbed the headlines, they are wise investments against the long term counter terrorist challenge. this requires a smart power and the integration of power tools. together with defense, intelligence, and law enforcement capabilities. only this way can we deal with threats so they can address local and regional threats before they become global that demand a much more costly response. the state department as a prominent role to play as these

elements of our work are civilian-led activities. let me speak about capacity building. weak states serve as breeding grounds for terrorist activity. our capacity building programs, counter terrorist finance. lessons learned from our ongoing efforts have demonstrated that sustained attention partnered with political will and sizable investments make a difference. that we talk about countering violent extremism. what sustains terrorist groups are the steady flow of recruits. we must undercut the underpinnings that make the violent extremist world view attractive while also addressing local drivers of extremism. the c.t. bureau helps stand up

an interagency body that works with communicators in the field to counter counteterrorism. it challenges messages online in different languages on social networking sites and produces targeted, attributed videos. successful cve involves more than just messaging including social media programs to generate constructive local initiatives. we are supporting skill building and mentoring efforts. let me turn to multilateral engagement. in particular, the global counter-terrorism forum. strengthening partnerships is at

the heart of our efforts. one of our initiatives is building the architecture to address 21st century terrorism to fill a critical gap. allowing policy-makers and practitioners to share expertise, experiences, and lessons learned and mobilize resources and political will. the bureau created the global counter-terrorism forum. secretary clinton was quite clear mandate we do not need another debate. we need a catalyst for action. in this spirit, two deliverable is demonstrate its action- oriented nature. the first was approximately $100 million to develop rule of law and institutions. the united arab emirates announced the second deliverable. its intention to host the

international center of excellence slated to open in the fall of 2012. it will support research, dialogue, and training to strengthen the cve community. i see i have gone over my time. i will now conclude my remarks and i look forward to your questions. thank you very much they've been >> thank you. i am going to go to mr. sherman first for his questions. >> i am going to pick up where i left off in the opening statement about foreign terrorist organization designation. i have advocated for well over a decade that you and your predecessors for any listed terrorist organization that evidence is not a desire to be

on the list lay out what our expectations are of that organization and if they do meet those conditions to remove them from the terrorist list. i am concerned that the continued designation of the mek first does not meet that standard in that there were not clear expectations that we have laid out for the mek that they could meet. the second concern i have is that maybe the process has been influenced by poorly conceived notions that we will be nice to tehran and tehran will be nice to us, so therefore we list the and amazed that they hate the most as a terrorist organizations. the continue designation of the

mek negatively influence is the ability of the unhcr to promptly resettle people at camp ashraf and to prevent violent attacks on them. we have seen the iraqis and justify violent attacks on camp ashraf because of the mek's designation, and we have seen individuals from that camp unable to get refugee status in europe. when reviewing potential fto target, the state department considers a terrorist acts that the group carries out whether it has engaged in planning our preparations for possible future terrorism and whether it retains the capacity and intent to carry out such attacks. the organization's activities

must threaten our national security interests. there are times when perhaps we should add to the list more quickly. we did not designate al qaeda in the arabian peninsula until days before the attempted bombing of the airline in 2009 by one of its members. the pakistani taliban was not designated until months after the attack on times square. and we have not yet designated the afghani taliban. i have co-sponsored with m r. poe a bill to designate the haqqani network which i think the state department should designate long before we get that bill passed. so, ambassador benjamin, what can we do to make the designation process more nimble, better able to carry out its purposes, and to act quickly to

designate those organizations that are a real threat and either remove those that were never a threat or change their behavior appropriately? >> we certainly agree with your desired to be more nimble or at least to be able to work more quickly on designations. i would like to point out that in the last two years, the bureau has done more designations than the previous eight years combined. we have significantly stepped up the pace of work. mr. royce spoke before about additional staff. we are trying to build up our staff so we can do more in this area. we consider it an essential part of our national counter- terrorism efforts.

the last year was the most productive year we ever had. having said that, the practice established by the department over the last decade requires us to be extremely diligent, the liberty of, and complete and comprehensive and our efforts. we have not yet found any shortcuts to compiling the kinds of baseline analyses and inventory of information necessary both to list and de- list. we have not yet found the work around that will get us do an instant recognition of whether a group belongs on or off the list. we still have to do the hard work. >> thank you. i know you folks are working hard. we appreciate your service. at the same time, a list that

would list the mek and not the haqqani network is hard to justify. i yield back. >> just for the record, the overall question of elevating the bureau was discussed. we support the elevation of the bureau. the question was if the state department had the capacity to do that. what the state department see to circumnavigate during the process was that there were three elevations that they were attempting to negotiate. they had two slots. at the end of the day in terms of what the overall staff would be, you now have more personnel over there including a 17% increase. that was the issue at hand for us. the overall totality in terms of

what the state department says with its personnel positions and its ever increasing size and scope. getting down to the issues at hand, one that i wanted to ask you about was a quote from a columnist last week. i do not know the answer to this. here is his question. you can answer it. osama bin laden lived in five houses, fathered four children, had two children born in public hospitals. through it all, the pakistani government did not know when single thing about his whereabouts. can this possibly be true, he asks. i do not know the answer to what that is. i do want to ask for your judgment about it. >> if i may, first very briefly

on the 17 percent can figure, i would like to underscore that that protection had already been established well before the work to become a bureau -- >> ambassador, you and i really do not have an argument about that. is the overall decision by the state department to not live within the constraints put by congress in terms of the total number of bureaus and the easy way for them to get around it was not to elevate you to bureau status. i just want to explain that. we are good on that. it is the department that i think needs to play by the rules that are set out in terms of the constraints. go ahead. >> with regard to the issue of the osama bin laden's presence in pakistan during those years,

i can only reiterate what you have heard from other officials. we do find a remarkable but we still to this point have no evidence that suggests that the pakistani government had any knowledge of his whereabouts. we have certainly looked at this many different ways. it is certainly the case that there were some people in pakistan who knew where been a was but we haveden no conclusive evidence that the pakistani government knew where he was. >> we ask you in africa to get your thoughts and its

relationship with al qaeda as well as mali and the problems there. after the easter attacks on a number of churches in nigeria, leaving dozens of people dead. we had a high ranking member of the state department say religion is not driving extremist violence in nigeria. then you had, following that, the release of a military coup in mali. islamist fighters have now descended on the northern part of the country. top leaders of al qaeda have been seen in the area reported. i will ask you what is the outlook there.

i had a muslim governor of a northern province tell me that he was very, very concerned in the change of the indigenous islam of nigeria as individuals were being imported from the gulf state who would then set up shot and begin expressing a different type of islam than the indigenous islam. he was concerned for his safety and security in northern nigeria as a result. i would like your insights. >> thank you very much, sir. we are deeply concerned with what is going on in nigeria.

while i would agree with whomever made the remark, that religion was not a principal driver, it is certainly the case a that extremism in the north and in nigeria is being expressed and there have been a lot of attacks on churches. that is obviously the case. we are deeply concerned about any connections that the loosely organized organization, a cluster of organizations, may have with al qaeda. it appears clear that their ability to carry out terrorist attacks were learned from aqim. we continue to encourage the nigerian government at the very

highest levels to also offer actively engaged communities vulnerable to violence by addressing the underlying political and socio-economic problems in the north. the department is going to work through, together with other relevant agencies and the government of nigeria and international partners, to identify ways where we can erode their capacity to carry out attacks against the u.s. and other international targets such as the u.n. compound that was bombed and to prevent attacks against our friends and their interests in nigeria as well. >> if i could interject in terms of putting an end to that, the observations he made to me, the muslim governor, that as long as you have the importation of religious leaders, according to

him, he said the young men were wearing osama bin laden t- shirts. if you indoctrinate a generation of young kids with that type of ideology, the same issue we are talking about with pakistan -- as long as these schools continue to do that in pakistan, and now they are doing it in nigeria, you have to expect problems from the graduating class. you talk a lot about addressing these different factors. to me, it seems the brainwashing and indoctrination of this type of ideology so early in life when you are teaching people to commit jihad and giving them

that absolutionist viewpoint, if education in itself is a sin and the goal is to brainwash, without solving that problem, without shutting that down, the rest of it does not seem too persuasive to meet. the inability to get the government and pakistan to shut down those 600 schools over the last generation is something that is beyond me. it is beyond me why the pakistani government will not do it. the concerns in nigeria are the same. >> if i may, the world of islam is profoundly complex. there is no doubt that there are elements -- there are groups and individual donors who advocate

beliefs that involve a strong anti-western sentiment of the kind that you are describing that are funding activities a far from their own homes. this is a major problem. the ability to crowd out or to combat extremist ideologies will depend, to an important extent, on the ability of countries and their donors to provide the social goods such as education that will make those schools unattractive. >> i went and visited some of those schools that we have provided. they have been blown up, i assume by the graduates of the

other schools. until they are shut down by that pakistan, this is going to be a reoccurring problem for pakistanis, the united states, and certainly our troops in afghanistan, people in russia, mumbai, in caucuses, and in central asia. it is a problem that is getting exported today. the problem is the brainwashing going on in those schools and the ineffectual efforts to get the government to shut them down. >> we do approach other governments with regularity and intervene with them to tell them about individuals who are supporting extremism in ways that lead to violence and the unacceptable outcomes that it

brings with them. this is an activity that we embrace. it goes on in a number of different channels. it is clearly that it is something that will keep us busy because of the considerable amount of churn that is going on out there in the world which has led to a rise in extremism that we have seen in some areas. there are socio-economic grievances in places like northern nigeria that do need to be addressed. as they are addressed, extremists will have much less opportunity to get a foothold. i do want to mention the issue that you raised regarding northern mali. it is important to recognize that it has been a troubled area for many years and a traditional safe haven for al qaeda for a number of years really since that group was largely pushed out of its

traditional region in algeria. it is a very sparsely populated area and was always only barely under the control of -- the u.s. government has invested serious resources into helping mali and its neighbors reclaim that sanctuary and extend the rid of the government there. unfortunately, those efforts are at a halt because of the coup. i would not say there has been a large, new influx of extremists into northern mali. there has been a rebellion, the latest in a long series going back over a century, which has disrupted our ability to work against aqim in that region with their partners.

we have a lot of positive successes to report in that collaboration, but we are deeply concerned about the situation. we are working with others and africa to see to it that mali returns to democracy and we continue our efforts to rid the country of aqim. >> the profile of many of these people are there are engineers. the muslim government came up with one one-hundredth of a budget and he is not a radical. what has created the radicalism is the fact that we have not stop these people from indoctrinating kids. until that is done, the problem will expand. mr. poe.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. benjamin, we meet again. it is like groundhog day. we discussed the same issues. to my understanding, a foreign terrorist organization has to do several things to be a foreign terrorist organization. they must engage in some kind of terrorism or terrorist activity, and have the capability to engage, and they must threaten the security of the united states or u.s. nationals. in 2004, mek gave up their weapons to the united states military. since that time, name one terrorist act that they have committed since 2004.

>> it is not our contention that the mek has committed an act since the group was disarmed. >> i only have limited time. there has not been an act of terrorism by the mek against the united states since they give up their weapons? >> we do not allege there was some chilly act -- such an act. >> did they have the capability to engage in some terrorist act against the united states? >> we have not come to a conclusion on that. >> you do not know? you are the guy that is supposed to tell us about terrorism in the world, and you do not know whether they have the

capability to commit a terrorist act? >> mr. poe, and no one has been in to inspect or otherwise investigate what is in the camp right now, and we cannot rule out the possibility that the mek might have weaponry elsewhere. >> you do not know that. you have no evidence of that. >> i cannot go into the intelligence record on this in this setting. >> let me ask you this. since i have seen the evidence you have furnished this committee and myself, is there new evidence since the last briefing we got from your department and the cia? if there is, are we going to get a briefing on this? >> sir, we certainly would be happy to entertain a request for

another briefing from the intelligence community. it is safe to say there is always intelligence coming in, and frankly i do not know exactly what was in the briefing you got, which was quite some time ago. i would say this is a deliberative process, we are working hard on it, and we are not finished, but i want to emphasize that as the secretary has said, given the ongoing efforts to relocate the residence, closure of the main base will be a key factor regarding the mek's status. >> last year, you told me the state department would make a decision within six months on whether to continue the designation. we are one year later. how much longer is it going to be before you can make a decision? >> well, i certainly regret the

fact that my prediction on that was not correct. i cannot give you a date certain. as you know, the parties are in court on that. we are working as fast as we can and as i said before, the closure of the camp will be a key factor in any decision. >> without going into classified information, have you received new information about ae mek's activities as foreign terrorist organization? >> we have collected information within the last year, and receive information from the mek itself in june, and have had communication over this issue. >> have you received organization that they are a foreign terrorist organization? have you gotten any information

in the last year that the mek, who does not have any weapons, is a foreign terrorist organization? >> again, sir, that goes to a question of intelligence that i cannot request. >> i am requesting the appropriate briefing. may i have unanimous consent for another minute. thank you, mr. chairman. very quickly, when i was in iraq's last year, we want to go see camp camp ashraf. -- camp ashraf. one reason we were refused to go to the camp, and one reason he claimed he was treating the people at camp ashraf in an inhumane manner, in my opinion, was the united states continues to put on a foreign terror list.

is the united states succumbing to pressure to keep them on the list? >> absolutely not. our decision will be on the merits. we are not keeping them on the list because of anyone else's concerns or views regarding the group. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. tom lee, -- mr. gerry connolly? >> >> before it began, can i ask that my statement be submitted in full for the record? thank you. i came back from egypt and libya over the break, and have some views about what is happening in both countries. from the united states point of view, does the arab spring and its outcome so far, health, hurt, or have no impact on anti- terrorism, counter-terrorism policy? >> well, it is an excellent question, sir.

let me frame it this way. the air of spring, the arab awakening, presents at everyone who opposes extremism with an extraordinary opportunity, and that is to build the democracies in those countries, countries where people were denied their legitimate rights, to build the kinds of democracy is that what bridging democracies that would provide a place for -- build those kind of democracies where people would have a place for their voice -- >>, i understand that, but my question is the traditional governments, indeed find cooperation is about the same, improves, or actually degraded? >> i would saying the case of tunisia it has improved significantly. in fact, my office will be

conducting programs under the anti-terrorism assistance program there. there is no question there has been improvement. we have a better relationship with their government. i would say we have a good but nation's relationship on counter-terrorism with libya, and our counter-terrorism cooperation continues with egypt, which is a nation going through considerable, major events, but we continue to work closely with them, and we are optimistic that cooperation will continue into the future appeared >> thank you, mr. ambassador. -- that future. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. with respect to pakistan, is the united states satisfied that after the tragic incident on the border but we are back on track in terms of cooperation and collaboration with respect to

counter terrorism? >> as secretary clinton said, this is a complex relationship we have with pakistan, and there has been somewhat of a pause caused by that tragic incident. we are hopeful now that pakistani parkway -- parliament has concluded deliberations that we can continue to build the relationship and get over the tensions of the pest. this will not be easy. there are contentious issues, but we believe we are going in the right direction. >> are they cooperating? >> and a number of issues, they certainly are. >> on april 12, pakistan's parliament unanimous it unanimously demanded the end of all u.s. drone -- unanimously demanded the end of all u.s. drones' strikes. where is the reaction of the

united states government? >> well, we are still studying the resolution that the pakistani parliament passed, and we are engaging in talks with the government to see what the implications of that are. of course, this is a program that we do not discuss in public, so i am afraid i cannot go beyond that. >> well, without discussing the program, let's discuss the policy. when another legislative body unanimously does something, that would suggest that certainly at least from the legislative side that that government has taken a pretty firm position of non- corp. it is not a classified matter that the united states has deployed drones both in pakistan and across the border. should the congress of the united states not read into that a resolve to end corp., at

least with respect to the deployment of that technology cooperation, at least with respect the deployment of -- corp., said at least with respect the deployment of that technology? >> my own view is that the prudent thing to do is to allow us to have our conversations with the pakistani government, had and to see how it wishes to act on the basis of a resolution which i believe is non-binding. >> mr. chairman, i know my time has ended, but this is an important development, and i understand the diplomatic niceties been expressed here, by ambassador benjamin, but i would simply say for the record that i think this is a grave matter, and i think that while the ambassador pleas for patience and he deserves patients, patients is weighing thin in

congress on both sides of the aisle on this matter. >> thank you, mr. gerry connolly. i had one last question for ambassador benjamin. going for your testimony, you testified that we continue to see a strong flow of new recruits into many of the most dangerous terrorist organizations. i was going to ask you if that strong flow is still state of play. what do you see? >> it is hard to measure the flow of recruits, but we have a strong sense that in many different parts of the world, the terrorist groups are indeed gaining strength. this is certainly the case in yemen, where al qaeda in the arabian peninsula now holds

territory, as i mentioned in my statement, and it has picked up membership. we have seen what is going on, admittedly not in an al-qaida affiliate, but it suggests that that group has grown in strength. we believe the aqim has probably also added recruits to its ranks, though the exception is probably the al-qaida core in the federally administered tribal areas. that group is in particularly difficult circumstances, as i think is well-known to the subcommittee, but i believe that our warrenton strategic counter- terrorism, particularly countering voluntaryism is as essential -- of violent terrorism is as essential as

ever. many of the movements have been cut off, but there remains a large number of people that are committed to violence against the united states, its values, and its friends, and that is why i believe we need to do what we can to cut off the flow of recruits to these organizations. >> one of the areas where counter-terrorism has been pretty effective is in the philippines. do you see a continued joint special operations taskforce in the philippines continuing as it has sex -- as it has? >> i think that is a question best for the department of defense, but i would agree that both on the military side and the civilian side, we have had very good results in the philippines, and i think it demonstrates the kind of its

advances you can make with a robust capacity-building effort, and robust coordination between our military and others. when i look around the region in particular of southeast asia, i think we have a strong model of what you can do with robust engagement with these countries, whether it is the philippines, indonesia, where others, and i would certainly bring that to the attention of the committee. >> thank you very much, ambassador benjamin. thank you for your testimony. we stand adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> from the colonial era, prohibition, to today, drinking, for better or worse has always

been part of the american landscape. tonight, a history of the alcohol in america. why to our simulcast of back story. tonight, 8:00 p.m. eastern, part of "american history tv" this weekend on c-span 3. >> one of the things that i always remember because my office overlooked the building in the plaza was there was a day care center in the plaza, and some of the children were killed, others were injured, but they would always come play in the plaza, and you would hear their voices. that left a lasting impression when they were silenced. my son, a dear friend of his in high school had graduated and was working in the social

security office. her father was a good friend of mine. when i got home, i had messages asking what he could find out about his daughter, seconded that it did not look good, and the third message was when he was crying. >> watch our local content vehicle of the next stop, exploring the hitter rick -- the history and -- and literary culture of oklahoma city. >> the senate judiciary subcommittee on civil rights held a hearing tuesday looking at racial profiling in the united states, focusing on racial profiling in relation to state immigration laws in alabama and arizona, and anti- terrorism efforts to target american muslims. this is about two hours and 15

minutes. >> good morning. this hearing will come to order. hour hearing roger clegg today will focus on a civil rights -- hour hearing will focus on a civil-rights issue the -- protecting all americans from the scourges of racial profiling. racial profiling is not new. at the dawn of all republican -- republic, roving men subjected african-american freedman and slaves to brutal violence. many american citizens of spanish descent were deported to mexico. during world war two, tens of thousands of innocent japanese americans were rounded up and held confined in internment camps. 12 years ago, in march, 2000, the subcommittee held the senate's first ever hearing on

racial profiling, convened by then senator john ashcroft, who would later be appointed attorney general. in february 2001, guinness first address to congress, -- in his first address to congress, president bush said racial profiling is wrong and we will end it in america. we take the title of the hearing from the promise he made that night. in june, 2001, senator russ feingold of wisconsin, and predecessors held the second and most recent hearing on racial profiling. i was there. there was bipartisan agreement on the need to end bipartisan -- racial profiling. then came 9/11. civil liberties came face-to- face with national security. air the americans, american muslims, south -- arab- americans, american muslims,

south asian americans faced racial profiling. one example required them to properly register with the ims or face deportation. terrorist experts have since concluded that special registration wasted homeland security resources and, in fact, alienated patriotic american muslims and arab- americans. 80,000 people registered. 13,000 were place in deportation proceedings. even today, many innocent face deportation. how many terrorists were identified? none. next wednesday, the supreme court will hear a challenge to arizona's controversial immigration law. it is one example of extending

state and federal measures that under the guise of combating illegal immigration have subjected hispanic americans to an increase in racial profiling. the law requires police officers to check the immigration status of any individual if they have reasonable suspicious that the person is undocumented. what is the basis? arizonas guidance cause police officers to consider factors such as house some of his trust, and their ability to communicate in english. two former arizona attorney general filed a mantis brief in the arizona case in which they said "application of the law requires racial profiling." of course, african-americans continue to face racial profiling on the streets and sidewalks of america. the tragic killing of trayvon

martin is now in the hand of the criminal justice system, but according to an affidavit filed last week, the accused offended profiled trayvon martin, and assumed he was a criminal. the senseless death of this innocent young man has been a wake-up call to america. if so, a 11 years after the last senate hearing on racial profiling, we return to the basic question, what can we do to end racial profiling in america? we can start by reforming racial profiling guidance, issued in 2003 by attorney general john ashcroft, and prohibits the use of racial profiling in traditional law enforcement activities. that is a step forward, but the ban does not apply to profiling based on religion and national origin, and it does not apply to national security and border security investigations. in essence, these exemptions

are a license to profile. as the nonpartisan congressional research concluded, and numerous exemptions might invite brought a circumvention for individuals of middle eastern origin, and profiling of latinos. today, we are sending a letter signed by 15 senators and 33 members of the house asking attorney general eric holder to close the loopholes. congress should also pass the end racial profiling act and welcome the attendance of my colleague, senator ben cardin of maryland, who is taken up this cause and he is here to testify. let us be clear. i want to say this and stress it. the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers perform their jobs edward lee, honestly, and courageously.

-- admirably, honestly, and courageously. they put their lives on the line to protect us every single day, but the inappropriate actions of a few who engage in racial profiling create mistrust and suspicion that hurt all police officers. we will hear testimony to what is been done here in a positive way to deal with this issue by the superintendent of police. that is why so many police leaders strongly oppose racial profiling, which undermines rule of law and strikes at the core commitment of the full protection for all. you'll hear from experts on our panel today the evidence clearly demonstrates racial profiling simply does not work. i hope today's hearing can be a step toward ending racial profiling in america at long last. senator gramm is running late. senator leahy is out of the senate this morning. he was kind enough to let reconvene this character i am sure we will add the statement to the record.

i will open the fourth to sunderlands gramm when he does arrive, the we of many -- open the floor to senator lindsay gramm when he does arrive, we of many colleagues here, and i want to turn to the witnesses. i invited the department of justice to participate. they declined. we are honored to be joined by colleagues from the senate and house. in keeping with the practice of this committee, we will hear from members of the senate first, then the house. each -- each witness will have three minutes for an opening statement and a complete written statement will be included. the first witness is senator ben cardin, a sponsor of the end racial profiling act, which i am proud to co-sponsor. he testified last year of the first ever hearing on this committee of the civil rights of american muslims. we are pleased you can join us.

please proceed. rbin, first, let me thank you for your leadership on the subcommittee. the fact that we have the subcommittee is a testament to your leadership in making clear that human rights are a priority of the united states senate. so i thank you for your leadership. and thank you very much for calling this hearing. it's a pleasure to be here with all of my colleagues but i particularly wanted to acknowledge senator conyers and his extraordinary life leadership on behalf of civil rights and these issues. congressman conyers was a real mentor to me when i was in the house, and still is, and we thank you very much for your leadership on this issue. senator durbin you pointed out the nation was shocked. if i could ask unanimous consent of my letter into the record along with the list of the organizations supporting the legislation that i filed s-1670. as you pointed out, senator durbin, that the nation was shocked by the tragedy that took place in sanford, florida, the

tragic death of the 17-year-old trayvon martin, a very avoidable death. and the question i think most people are asking, and we want justice in this case and we're pursuing that. we have the department of justice investigation and we all very much want to see that investigation carried out, not only to make sure that justice is carried forward as far as those responsible for his death, but also as to how the investigation itself was handled. but i think the question that needs to be answered is whether race played a role in trayvon martin being singled out by mr. zimmerman, and that, of course, would be racial profiling, an area that we all believe needs to be -- we need to get rid of that, as far as legitimacy of using racial profiling in law enforcement. in october of last year, i filed the end racial profiling act, and as you pointed out, carrying on from senator feingold's efforts on behalf of this legislation.

i thank you for your leadership as co-sponsor. we have 12 members of the senate that have co-sponsored the legislation, including majority leader, harry reid, as co-sponsor. racial profiling is un-american. it's against the values of our nation. it's contrary to the 14th amendment of the constitution equal protection of the laws. it's counterproductive in keeping us safe. it's wasting valuable resources that we have. and it has no place in modern law enforcement. we need a hat law and that's why i encourage the committee to report 1670 to the floor. it prohibits use of racial profiling, that is using race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individual is too be subject to a spontaneous investigation, activity, such as a traffic stop, such as interviews, such as frisks, et cetera. it applies to all levels of goft. it requires mandatory training

data collection by local and state law enforcement, and a way of maintaining adequate policies and procedures designated to end racial profiling. the states are mandated to do that or risk the loss of federal funds. the department of justice is granted authority to make grants, to state and local governments to advance the best practices. as i pointed out it has the support of numerous groups and you'll be hearing from some of them today. let me just conclude, as my statement will give all of the details of the legislation, by quoting our former colleague, senator kennedy, when he said civil rights is the great, unfinished business of america, i think it's time that we move forward in guaranteeing to every citizen of this country equal justice under the law, and s-1670 will move us forward in that direction. thank you. >> thank you, senator cardin. i might also add we're at capacity in this room and anyone

unable to make it inside the room will have an overflow room in dirkson g-50, two floors below us here. senator graham suggests we proceed with the witnesses. next up congressman john conyers. the house sponsor of the end racial profiling act. serving in the house of representatives since 1965, john conyers is the second-longest serving member. i think second to another member from michigan, if i'm not mistaken. congressman conyers testified at both previous senate hearings on racial profiling in 2000 and 2001. we're honored to have you here as a witness. the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and to your colleague, who is another former house member if i remember correctly, and senator ben cardin, as well.

all of you are working in the backdrop of a huge discussion that has been going on for quite some time. when i came to the congress and asked to go on the judiciary committee in the house, and that was granted, emmanuel seller was then the chairman who did such landmark work in the civil rights act of 1964. and then we followed up with the voter rights act of 1965. and from that time on, a group of scholars, activists organizations, civil rights

people, and americans of good will have all began examining what brings us here today, and accounts for the incredible long line that is waiting to get into this and the holding room today. i come here proud of the fact that there is support growing in this area. only yesterday we had a memorial service for john peyton, known by most of us here for the great work that he has done and contributed in civil rights. not just in the courts and in the law, but in what i think it is the purpose of our hearing

here today. namely, to have honest discussions about this subject so that we can move to a conclusion of this part of our history. and so i'm just so proud of all of you for coming here and continuing this discussion because it's going to turn on more than just the legislators or the department of justice and i am -- i am with you in improving some of their recommendations and i commend eric holder for the enormous job that he has been doing in that capacity. but this is a subject that is a part of american history.

the one thing that i wanted to contribute here is what racial profiling isn't. racial profiling does not mean we cannot refer to the race of a person if it is subject specific or incident specific. we're not trying to take the description of race out of law enforcement and its administration. what we're saying that racial profiling is -- must not be subject specific or incident specific. and that's what we're trying to do here today.

it's a practice that is hard to root out. i join in praising the overwhelming majority of law enforcement men and women who want to improve this circumstance but you foe, one of the greatest riots -- race riots in detroit that occurred was because of a police incident was started. we have in detroit right now a coalition against police brutality, ron scott, an activist and a law student, is working on that, been working there for years. and so we encourage not only this legislative discussion

about an important subject, but we -- we praise our civil rights organizations that have been so good at this, the naacp, the legal defense fund of naacp, the american civil liberties union, and scores of cool lealitions o community and state organizations that have all been working on this just as we have and are. so i believe that there's going to be a time very soon when we will pass the legislation that you worked on in the house and the senate and that we will -- we will enjoy that day forward but we will celebrate this

movement forward to take the discussion of race out of our national conversation not because we're sick and tired of it, but because it's not needed any further. i thank you very much for this invitation. >> congressman coniers, it's an honor to have you in the senate judiciary hearing. next congressman luis gu tear rez. he's a longtime champion for immigration reform. there are many outstanding hispanic political leaders in america, but none more forceful and more articulate and more of a leader than my colleague. thank you for joining us. >> thank you so much, chairman durbin, ranking member graham, inviting me to testify here today. i'm one of the proudest things i am being in the state of

illinois is the senior senator from my state. so i'm happy and delighted to be with you here today. i traveled from coast to coast to visit dozens of cities and communities and listen to immigrant stories, some of my colleagues have visited their cities that are here today. immigrants tell me they are regarded with suspicion, frequently treated differently because of the way they look, sound, spell their last name. in alabama, i met 20-year-old marta, a young woman raised in the u.s. one late afternoon driving, she was pulled over, arrested for driving without a license, and jailed so her status could be checked. because her u.s. citizen husband was not present their 2-year-old was taken from the car and turned over to state welfare agency. south carolina i met gabino, who has been in the u.s. nearly 13 years, married, father of two south carolina-born kids who

works hard, owns his own home. he was stopped because he was pulling into his mobile home community, one of three other hispanic residents stopped that evening. he was arrested driving without a license and then placed and deportation proceedings. we guess why the police chose to stop them. profiling hispanics and immigrants is the efficient way to get someone deported but you can't tell if someone is undocumented by the way they look or dress or where they live. in chicago, a puerto rican constituent of mine detained for five days under suspicion of being undocumented. and indeed, sadly, senators, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of cases of unlawfully detained u.s. citizens and legal residents in the united states each year in violation of their constitutional rights. some of them have even been deported and then been brought back to the united states of america. that's not an old story.

that's a story of today. the federal government took a step in the right direction when it legally challenged the show me your papers laws in alabama, south carolina, and arizona. because the state laws are unconstitutional and interfere with the federal government's authority to set and enforce immigration policy. but it makes no sense to file suit against unconstitutional laws on the one hand, and on the other hand, allow those same laws to funnel people into our detention centers and deportation pipeline. gabion denied relief from deportation because he's been stopped too many times according to the federal government for driving without a license. the government is complicit in serial profiling because the states cannot deport him and break up his family of american citizens, the federal government is doing just that. and programs like 287-g, securitied communities, end up in snaring tens of thousands of gabinos every year because of racial profiling, the programs

ense incentivize. we need to back up our lawsuits with actions that protect families and citizens, and children and uphold our constitution. i guess the gist of it is, i'm happy when the federal government says, this is racial profiling, we're going to fight it, and they go into the federal court in arizona and south carolina and in alabama. but until we tell the local officials if you continue a serial profiling we are not going to deport those people. they're going to continue to do it, it just incentivizes. i hope we can have a conversation about that also. thank you so much for having me here this morning. >> thank you congressman. congressman keith ellison of minnesota, serving his third term, representing the 5th congressional district in that state, co-chairs the national progressive caucus. congressman ellison enjoys a

moment in history here as the first muslim elected to the united states congress, previously he served two terms in the minnesota house of representatives. congressman ellison, welcome. >> thank you, senator durbin. na thank you senator graham. thank you for holding this hearing. thank you for urging attorney general holder to revise the justice department's racial profiling guidance. it's very important. as you know, that guidance has a loophole allowing law enforcement to profile american citizens based on religion and national origin. while many -- any profiling of americans based on race, ethnicity, religion or national origin is disturbing, i think it's important also to note that it is poor law enforcement. law enforcement is a finite resource using law enforcement resources profiling as opposed to relying on facts based on behavior suggesting a crime is a

waste of that law enforcement resource. it leaves us less safe and more at risk when we don't target based on conduct and behavior suggestive of a crime, but based on other considerations informed by prejudice. my comments will focus on religious proproliferation filing of muslims. americans know what it looks to be -- muslim americans work hard and play by the rules and infinitesimally small number don't, many even live the american dream and send their kids to college and earn a living just like everyone else, yet many know all too well what it means to be pulled out of a plane, pulled out of line, denied service, called names, or physically attacked. like other americans, muslim

americans want law enforcement to uphold public safety and not be viewed as a threat but as an ally. when fbi, for example, shows up at homes and offices of american muslims, who haven't done anything wrong, it makes them feel targeted and under suspicion and it diminishes the important connection between law enforcement and citizen that is necessary to protect all of us. when muslim americans get pulled out of line in an airport and questioned for hours, ask questions and these are accurate -- questions actually asked, where do you go to the mosque? why did you give them $200 donation? do you fast? do you pray? how often? when questions like this are asked which have nothing to do with conduct behavior suggestive of a crime, it erodes the important connection between law enforcement and citizen.

no americans should be forced to answer questions about how they wheresh worship. i was particularly disturbed when i heard stories kochling out of the controversy in new york about kids being spied on in colleges at the muslim student association. i was very proud when my son was elected president of the muslim student association at his college. i wondered, was my 18-year-old son subject to surveillance like the kids were at yale, columbia, and penn? he's a good kid, never done anything wrong, and i worried to think that he might be in somebody's filed simply because he wanted to be active on campus. i am a great respecter of law enforcement, and i recognize and appreciate the tough job they have to keep us safe. but i think it is very important to focus on the proper use of law enforcement resources and

not to give a opening for someone to stereotype or prejudice. as one bush administration official once said, religious or racial stereotyping is not good policing. to fix this problem, i urge the attorney general to close the loophole and the justice department's racial profiling guidance and i urge my colleagues and congress to pass the end racial profiling act. thank you. >> thanks, congressman ellison. i could have added in my opening statement comments made by president george w. bush after 9/11, which i thought were solid statements of constitutional principle, particularly when it came to those adherence of the muslim faith that our war is not against this islamic religion but against those who would corrupt it distort it misuse it in the name of terrorism. i thank you for your testimony. congresswoman judy chu

represents the 32nd district in california. since 2009. she was the first chinese american woman elected to congress. she chairs the congressional asian pacific american caucus, formerly served in the california state assembly. we're honored that you're here today. proceed. >> thank you, senator. as chair of the congressional asian pacific american caucus, i'm grateful for the opportunity to speak here today about ending racial profiling in america. asian-americans and pacific islanders like other minority communities have felt the significant effects of racial profiling throughout american history. from the chinese exclusion act to the japanese american interment and the post 9/11 racial profiling of arab, sikhs, muslims and south asian-americans we know what it's like to be targeted by our own government. it results in harassment, bullying, and sometimes even violence. in the house judiciary committee

we recently listened to the anguished testimony of sikh americans constant lehoux mill yates as they were pulled out of lines at airports because of turbines and made to wait in glass cages like animals on display. pulled into rooms to be interrogated for hours, and even infants were searched. this has forced sikh americans and muslim americans to fly rles frequently or remove religious attire. and just last year, i was shocked to learn about the activities of the new york police department and the cia, who were secretly spying on muslim americans. despite the lack of evidence of wrong doing officers were monitoring muslim american communities and eavesdropping on families, recording everything from wear they prayed to the restaurants they ate in. the nypd entered self-stated in the northeast to monitor muslim student organizations at college

campuses. these students had done nothing suspicious. the only thing they were guilty of was of practicing islam. this type of behavior by law enforcement is a regression to some of the darkest periods of our history where we mistrusted our own citizens and spied on their daily lives and it has no place in our modern society. when law enforcement uses racial profiling against a group it replaces trust with fear and hurts communication. the community and law enforcement, instead, need to be partners to prevent crimes and assure the safety of all americans. when the civil libertied of any group is violated we all suffer. in fact, over 60 years ago, during world war ii, 120,000 japanese americans lost everything that they had and were relocated to isolated interme interment camps throughout the

country because of hysteria and scapegoating. in the end not a single case of espionage was ever proven, but there were not enough voices to speak of against this injustice. today, there must be those voices that will speak up. we must stand up for the rights of all americans. that is why i urge all members of congress to support the end racial profiling act. we must protect the ideals of justice and equal protection under the law so that our country is one where no one is made to feel unsafe, unequal, or un-american because of their faith or ethnicity. thank you. >> thank you, congresswoman. the next witness, congresswoman fredricka wilson, she represents the 17th congressional district which is, i understand, includes sanford, florida. previously, she served in the florida house of representatives from 1999 to 2002. and the florida senate from 2003 to 2010.

congresswoman wilson, thank you for joining us today, and proceed. >> thank you. to represent miami where trayvon is from, he was murdered in sanford. thank you. thank you, chairman durbin, ranking member graham and senator bloomen that and other members of the subcommittee. i thank you for inviting me to testify today on the issue of racial profiling. last week, after 45 days, an arrest was finally made in the shooting death of my constituent, trayvon martin. trayvon was a 17-year-old boy, walking home from a store. he was unarmed and sfrply walking with skittles and iced tea. he went skiing in the winter and horseback riding in the summer. his brother and best friend is a senior at florida international university of miami.

a middle class family, but that didn't matter. he was still profiled, followed, chased and murdered. this case has captured international attention and will go down in history as a textbook example of racial profiling. his murder affected me personally, and it broke my heart again. i have buried so many young black boys, it is extremely traumatizing for me. when my own son, who is now a school principal, learned how to drive, i bought him a cell phone because i knew he would be profiled, and he was. he is still fearful of law enforcement and what they might do when he is driving. i have three grandsons, a 1, a 3, a 5-year-old. i hope key can solve this issue before they receive a driver's license. i pray for them even now. there's a real tension between black boys and the police, not

percei perceived, but real. if you waublg to alk to any inn school and ask, have you ever been racially profiled? everyone will raise their hands, boys and girls. they've been followed as they shop in stores, stopped by the police for no apparent reason, and they know, at a young age, they will be profiled. i'm a staunch child advocate. i don't care what color the child is. i was a school principal, a school board member, a state legislator, and now in congress. i desperately care about my welfare of all children. they are my passion. but i've learned from my experiences that black boys in particular are at risk. years of economic and legal d disenfranchi disenfranchisement, legacy of slavery and jim crow led to economic disparities and prejudice against black boys and men.

trayvon martin was a victim of the legacy. the legacy that has led to fear, this legacy that has led to the isolation of black males, this legacy has throws racial profiling. trayvon was murdered by someone who thought he looked suspicion. i established the council on social status of black men and boys in the state of florida when i was in the state senate. i believe we need a council or commission like this on the national and federal level. everyone should understand that ooh our entire society is impacted. a federal commission on the social status of black men and boys should be established specifically to focus on alleviating correcting the underlying causes of higher race of school expulsions and suspensions, homicides and incarcerations, poverty, violence, drug abuse, as well as income, health and educational disparities among black males. i have spent 20 years billing a

mentoring and dropout prevention program for at-risk boys in miami-dade public school, it's called the 5,000 role models of excellent project. boys are taught not only how to be productive members of society by emulating moaner tos who are role models in the community, also taught how to respond to racial profiling. it is sad reality that we have to teach boys these things just to survive in their own communities, but we do. we need to have a national conversation about racial profiling now. not later. the time is now to stand up and address these issues and fight injustice that exists throughout our nation. enough is enough. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, congresswoman. unless my colleagues have question of this panel, i will allow them to return to their senate house duties. thank you very, very much for being here today. now, we'll turn to our second pan of witnesses.

and each of them will please take their place at the witness table. before you take your seats, i'll wait everyone's in place, please stand to be sworn. we have everyone here. ask the witnesses to please raise their right hand. do you affirm the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the

truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> thank you very much. let the record reflect that the witnesses all answered in the affirmative. the first witness is ronald davis. chief of police for the city of east palo alto, california, since 2005. before that, 19 years with the oakland police department where he rose to the range of captain. served on the federal monitoring teams overseeing police reform consent decrees between the u.s. department of justice, washington, d.c., and detroit. among other publications he's co-authored the justice department monograph, how to correctly collect and analyze racial profiling data. your reputation depends on it. he has a bachelor's of science degree from southern illinois university in carbondale. he testified at both the previous senate hearings of racial profiling and sorry it's been so long since we've resumed this conversation. but it's an honor to have you return a few years later to

bring us up to date. at this point, chief davis, the floor is yours for five minutes. >> good morning, mr. chairman and distinguished subcommittee members. i am ronald davis, currently chief of police for the city of east palo alto, california. i am humbled to provide testimony at today's hearing, as mentioned i did have the honor testifying at last senate hearings on racial profiling in 2001. when asked to come before the committee today the first thought was a question, what has changed since my testimony in 2001, when president bush then stated, racial profiling is wrong, we will end it in america. my testimony today is based on three diverse perspectives. first, as a racial profiling police reform expert, second, as a police executive with over 27 years' experience, working in two of the greatest and diverse communities in the nation, oakland and east palo alto, and third, as a black man and a father of a teenage boy of color. first, as an expert, i think it it's fair to say law enforcement

has made progress, albeit limb nitd addressing the issue of racial profiling and bias based policing. the department of the justice civil rights division, through its pattern and practice investigations have worked with law enforcement agencies nationwide to provide guidance on racial profiling policies and promote industry best practices. most recently, the cops office and partnership with the national network for safe communities is working on issues of racial remember, silliation and communities to strengthen relationships and reduce crime and violence in those communities. today there are few police agencies in the that do not have some type of policy prohibiting racial profiling and bias based policing. this progress is undermined by two focal points. first, there exists no national standard definition for racial profiling that prohibits use of race, national origin or religion except when describing a person. many state and local policies define racial profiling as using race as the sole basis for a stop or any police action.

unfortunately this policy is misleading and suggests use race as a factor for anything other than a description is justified, which it is not. simply put, mr. chairman, race is a scripter, not a predictor. to use race when describing someone who just committed a crime is appropriate. however, when we deem a person to be suspicion or attach criminality because of the skin, the clothing they are wearing we are attempting to predict criminality. the problem is that we are seldom right in our results, and always wrong in our approach. the same holds true within immigration context as well because a person looks latino or mexican does not mean theundocu. yet, according to reach laws in alabama and arizona, the police are not just encouraged to make these discriminatory stopped, they are expected to do so. most police chiefs agree engaging in these activities make our communities less safe.

this is within reason i joined the police chief association and 17 current and former law enforcement executives in filing a brief challenging the arizona law. we need to pass the end racial profiling act of 2011. this legislation puts forth a standard definition for racial profiling. it requires evidence based training to curtail the practice and provide support and developing scientific-based data collection and analysis. we need to revise the guidance. this will close as mentioned in the previous testimony's loopholes that could permit unlawful and ineffective profiling. it makes no sense to exclude religion and national horry again when profiling. i fear that without the legislation, we will continue business as usual. and only respond to issues when they surface through high profile tragedies such as the case in oakland and the trayvon martin case in florida. the second factor that

undermines our progress is the dire need for us to reform the entire criminal justice system. the last top to bottom review of our system was conducted in 1967, through the president's commission on law enforcement, administration of justice. we must now examine the entire system through a new prism that protects against in equiequitieh as racial profiling. i strongly encourage the passage of the national criminal justice commission act of 2011. mr. chairman, interest my perspective as a police executive with 27 years, i know firsthand how ineffective racial profiling is. as an example, in east palo alto, my community, we are more than 95% of color. 60% latino, approximately 30% african-american, and a growing asian and pacific islander community. in 2005, the city experienced the second highest murder per capita rate in california and the fifth highest in the united states. in january 2006, with the six

months serving as chief of police, east palo alto officer richard may shot and killed on line of duty by a parolee three months out of prison. wit the crime rate and violence against the police officer, my community had to choices, either declare war on parolees or engage in enforcement activities that would further the incarration of young men in color or do something different. we chose to strengthen our relationships. we chose not engage in racial profiling. we starred a parolee department, provide re-entry services. police officers now are part of treatment. we provide cognitive life skills, together we were able to reduce the recidivism rate to over 60% to under 20%. after five years the murder rate in 2011 was 47% lower than 2005. our incarceration rates have dropped and i have very

confidence in saying we have better police and community relations. for me and my community we recognize that racial profiling, that the focus on people of color especially young men are more likely to occur when law enforcement uses race to start guessing. i'm here to really reinforce that is an ineffective police practicing, it is sloppy, counting on guesswork. the notion that we as a community or we as a nation must use racial profiling to make ourselves secure or sacrifice civil liberty is not only false, it wreaks of hypocrisy. if we were worried about national security in the sense of compromising civil liberties it would make sense, those engaging in racial profiling, would ask for the prohibition of firea firearms. we have lost over 100,000 americans to gun violence since 9/11. that is more than we have lost in terrorism and the wars in

afghanistan and iraq combined, yet there's not an equal call for gun laws. i'm not suggesting there should be, i'm offering the idea of compromising civil rights for national security does not work. what is equally troubling with the idea of using race, national origin and religion and the national security context, a nation that is equipped with law enforcement and national security experts second to none, must rely on bias and guesswork to make ourselves secure, versus human intelligence, technology, experience, and the cooperation of the american people. i want to strongly emphasize this point, senator, there is no reason to profile on the basis of race, religion, national origin or ethnicity. as a black man in america, i am still subject to increased scrutiny from the community from my own profession and country because of the color of my skin. as i mentioned earlier, i'm a father of three, but i have a 14-year-old boy named glenn.

and even though i'm a police chief with over 27 years of experience, i know that when i teach my son glenn how to drive, i must also teach him what to do when stopped by the police. a mandatory course by the way for young men of color in this country. as i end my testimony today i want to thank you, mr. chairman, and the rheest of the senator forward your leadership. as much as i was honored to be here today, 10 years ago, 12 years ago, i hope there is no need for me to come back in another ten years. >> thank you, chief davis. since september 7, 2001, anthony romero executive director of the american civil liberties union the large effort civil liberties organization with over 500 members. he co-authored in defense of our america the fight for civil liberties and the able of terror, he graduated from stanford university law school and princeton and princeton university's woodrow wilson of policy and international affairs. mr. mero, please proceed.

>> good morning, senator durban and ranking member graham, senator franken, senator blumenthal. i'm delighted to testify before you today. we are a nonpartisan organization with over half a million members and hundreds of thousands of additional activists and supporters. in 53 state offices nationwide dedicated to the principles of a quality and justice set forth of the u.s. constitution and in our laws protecting individual rights. for decades, the aclu has been at the forefront against all forms of racial profiling. racial profiling is policing based on stereotypes instead of faxed evidence and good police work. racial profiling fuels fear and mistrust between law enforcement and the very communities they are supposed to protect. racial profiling is not only in

effective, it is unconstitutional and violates basic norms of human rights, both at home and abroad. my testimony lays out how race, religion, national origin are used as proxies for suspicion in three key areas of national security, of routine law enforcement and immigration. in the context of national security, recently released fbi documents demonstrates how the fbi targets innocent americans based on race, ethnicity, national origin and first protected political activity. some counterproductive fbi practices waste law enforcement resources, damage essential relationships with those communities and encourage racial profiling at the state and local level. in my native new york, the new york police department has targeted muslim new yorkers for intrusive surveillance without any suspicion of trimmal activity. according to a series of

associated press articles, the new york police department dispatched under cover police officers into muslim communities to monitor daily life in bookstores, cafes, nightclubs and even infiltrated muslim student organizations in colleges and universities such as columbia and yale university. when we tolerate this type of racial profiling and the guise of promoting national security, we jeopardy guise national security and compromise the basic set forth in our constitution. policing base on stereotypes remains an entrenched practice in routine law enforcement across the country. the tragic story of ray von martin garnered national attention and raised questions about the role of race in the criminal justice system. while we don't yet know how this heartbreaking story will end, we

do know that stereotypes played a role in this tragedy and yet they have no place in law enforcement. racial profiling undermines the trust and mutual respect between police and the communities they are there to protect, which is critical to keeping communities safe. additionally, profiling deepens racial in america and conveys the suggestion that some americans do not dee serve equal protection under the law. racial profiling is exploding. state intrusion to federal immigration authority has created a legal regimen in which police are stopped based on race and ethnicity inquiry into their rim gragz status. the department of justice needs to continue to expand response to these state laws using probust civil rights protections. additionally, congress must defund the department of homeland security 287-g in security community programs which promote racial profiling

by turning state and local law enforcement officials into police organizations. when police officers not trained in immigration law are asked to enforce the nation's immigration laws, they routinely resort to racial stereotypes about who looks or sounds foreign. but you can't tell by looking or listening to someone about whether or not they're in the u.s. law -- in order to achieve comprehensive reform, congress needs to provide law enforcement with the tools needed to engage in effective policing. we need to pass the end racial profiling act which would prohibit racial profiling once and for all. and we should urge the administration to strengthen the department of guidance to address profiling by religion and national origin and to close loopholes for the border and national security. in america 2012 and beyond, policing and stereotypes must not be a part of our national

landscape. law enforcement officers must base their decisions on facts in evidence, otherwise, america's right to liberties are unnecessarily discarded and individuals are left to deal with life-long circumstances of such intrusion. on what have of the aclu, i wish to thank each of you for your leadership on this critical issue. i also would like to thank you, chairman durbin in particular to partner with our illinois office to address the issue of profiling. i look forward to working with you in the years ahead. >> thank you, mr. romero. frank gale served for 23 years in the denver county sheriff's department where he had responsibility for the courts and jail. captain gale is currently the commander of the training academy in the community relations unit and the public information officer. he has received numerous awards and declarations from the internal order of police and the sheriff's department. captain gale, it's an honor to have you here today. please proceed.

>> thank you. my name is frank gale. i'm a 23-year veteran in the denver police department and currently hold the rank of captain. i am the national second vice president for the fraternal order of police, representing more than 330,000 rank and file law enforcement officers in every region of the country. i'm here to morning to discuss our strong opposition to end racial profiling act. i want to begin by saying that it is clear racism is morally and ethically wrong. and law enforcement is not only wrong but serves no valid purpose. it is wrong to think a person criminal because of the color of their skin. but it is equally wrong to think a person is a racist because they wear a uniform and a badge. this still provides a solution to a problem that does not exist unless one believes the problem to be solved is that their universal training is based in practicing racism. this notion makes no sense.

especially for anyone who truly understands the challenges we face protecting the communities we serve. criminals come in all shapes, colors and sizes. to be effective as a law enforcement officer, it is necessary to be colorblind as you make determinations about criminal conduct or suspicious activity. there is the mistake and perception on the part of some that the ugliness of racism is part and culture of law enforcement. i'm here today not only to challenge this perception, but to refute it entirely. we can and must restore the bonds of law enforcement and the minority community. to do so would require substantial effort to find real solutions. restoring this trust is critically important because minority citizens often suffer victims of crime, especially violent crime. i do not believe that f-1670 will help repain the bonds of trust and mutual respect between law enforcement communities. in fact, i think it will make it more difficult because it lends the suggestion that all cops are racist and that we engage in a

tactic that has no purpose but to violate citizens. that can result in a base belief by the community that law enforcement officers should not be trusted or respected. this bill proposes to prohibit racial profiling which it defines very broadly and is not a legitimate police practice employed by any law enforcement agency in the united states that i know of. in rand versus the united states, the supreme court made et clear that the constitution based on consideration such as race. further, as one court of appeals has explained, citizens are entitled to equal protections of the law at all time. if law enforcement adopt aes policy, employs a practice or in a given situation takes steps against a citizen solely on the citizen's race without more then a violation has occurred. the united states constitution prohibits racial profiling. yet here we have a bill that

proposes to prohibit it. the premise of the bill seems at odds with common sense and current law. the bill does not prohibit racial profiling as the definition of racial profiling and the bill is far too fraud. it inhibits officers aimed at detemperaturing involved in a crime or criminal activity. the bill purports to allow exceptions to these exceptions when there is a -- of a specific suspect's race or ethnicity, but in real life this is not practical. and the practice of routine investigatory action, law enforcement receive and develop information through a wide range of activities and authorized that are designed to identify suspects, prevent crime or lead to an arrest. this bill would ban many of these types of methods. therefore, a whole range of legitimate law enforcement methods would be prohibited beyond the unconstitutional purely race-based activity. the legislation also threatens

to personalize local and state law enforcement agencies by withholding federal law enforcement funding unless these agencies comply with the requirements of the bill to provide all officers training on racial profiling officers. collect racial and other sociology logical data in accordance with federal regulation and establish an administrative complaint procedure or independent audit program to ensure an appropriate response to allegations of racial profiling. the fop has testified before you about the entire and dangerous consequences of budget cutbacks for law enforcement in the past. how can we fight the battle if we also propose to deny these funds to agencies that need them because they cannot afford new training or new personnel to document allegations of racial profiling issues? how can we achieve a colorblind society if the policies of the federal law require the detailed recording of race when it comes to something as common as a traffic stop.

will police officers now be required to ask for driver's license, registration and proof of ethnicity, please? at a time when citizens are concerned about protecting their identification, it seems at variance with common sense and public policy to collect racial or other personal data and turn that data over to the federal government for analysis. why would something as simple and routine as a traffic stop require such an extraordinary imposition on a driver? i smut to this subcommittee that we do have a problem in our nation today. the lack of trust and respect for our police officers, police officers have a problem in that they have lost the trust and respect and cooperation of the minority community. this is tragic. because as we have already discussed, it is minorities in our country most hurt by crime and violence. this, however, is not the

conclusion. it will make matters worse, not better. for these reasons, the fraternal order of police strongly opposes the bill and i urge this subcommittee to reject it. thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. >> thank you very much, officer gale, for being here. roger craig is the next witness. he's held a number of senior positions including deputy assistant attorney general and deputy assistant attorney general in the environment resources division acting as attorney general in the office of legal policy. he was a graduate of yale university law school. thank you for being here, mr. clag. please proceed. if you would, turn your microphone on. it's in that box in front of you. >> thank you very much, senator durbin, for inviting me here today. i'm delighted to be here. let me just summarize briefly my

written statement. the first point i make is that here has to be taken in defining the term "racial profiling." and in particular, i think that it's important to bear in mind that racial profiling is disprit treatment on the basis of race. good police activities that happen to have a basic impact on race are not racial profiling. the second point i make is that the amount of racial profiling that occurs is frequently exaggerated and that care needs to be taken in analyzing the data in this area. all that said, racial profiling, as i define it, is a bad policy. and i oppose it for the reasons that a many of my copanelists here are giving. there is one possible exception that i would make, and that is in the anti-terrorism context. in brief, i think that it is

quite plausible to me that in the war on terror where we are fighting an enemy that has a particular geopolitical and perverted religious agenda, that it may make sense in some circumstances to look at organizations that have particular religious and geopolitical ties. i'm not happy about that. i think it should be done as little as possible. but the stakes are so high that i am not willing to real it out altogether. the last point i would make is that there are problems with trying to legislate in this area in general. and i think that the end racial profiling act in particular is very problematic. i don't think that this is an easy area for congress to legislate a one-size fits all policy that's going to apply to

all law enforcement agencies at all levels of government at all times in all kinds of investigations. and i think it's also a bad idea to encourage heavy judicial involvement in this area. and these are things that the end racial profiling act does. let me also say that i think that chief gale does a very good job of identifying some additional costs in the end racial profiling act, the fact that it is insulting, the data collection is time consuming, and that inevitably, we're going to either have to guess on -- inaccurately on people's racial and ethnic background or else train the police on how to identify people racially, which is a pretty creepy enterprise. with respect to my other

panelist testimony, i would say briefly in the terrorism and border security context, as i read some of this testimony, they would equate racial profiling with taking a particular look at visitors from particular countries, at considering immigration and citizenship status and at considering language. i don't consider any of those things to be racial profiling. let me make one last point. i think that this is an important point to make whenever we're talking about racial disparities. as i said, mr. chairman, i am opposed to profiling, particularly to profiling in the traditional law enforcement context where frequently it is african-americans who are the victims of that profiling. i'm against that. nonetheless, i think we have to recognize that it's going to be attempting for the police and

individuals to profile, so long as a disproportionate amount of street crime is committed by african-americans and there will be a disproportionate amount of street crime committed by african-americans for so long as more than seven out of ten african-americans are being born out of wedlock. i know this is not a popular thing to say, but i think whenever we are discussing racial disparities in the united states, that is the elephant in the room and it has to be addressed. so ultimately, people like me and everything else i think in this audience who don't like racial profiling is going to have to face up this problem. >> i would ask those in attendance here to please maintain order. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think i'm at the end of my five minutes, anyway. >> thank you, mr. clay. david harris, associate dean for research at the university of pittsburgh law school. he's one of the nation's leading scholars on racial profiling.

and in 2005, "good cops, kay case point of view for preventive policing." professor harris appeared at both of the previous senator hearings on racial profiling. so welcome back. thank you very much, senator durbin, members of the subcommittee. i'm grateful for the chance to talk to you today. senator durbin's statement opened by recalling for us president bush's promise that racial profiling, quote, is wrong and we will end it in america. sad to say that that promise remains as of yet unfulfilled. instead, we have a continuation of profiling as it existed then with a new overlapping second wave of profiling in the wake of september 11th, as other witnesses have described. directed mostly at arab americans and muslims.

now we have a third overlapping wave of profiling, this one with undocumented immigrants. but the context and the mission of whatever these law enforcement actions are does not change these fundamentals. the fundamentals are these. racial profiling does not work to create greater safety or security. instead, racial profiling ethnic profiling, religious profiling all makes our police and security personnel less effective and less accurate in doing their very difficult job. i would define racial profiling as the use of racial, et nick, religious, national origin or other physical characteristics as one factor, among others, used to decide the question, frisk, search or take other routine law enforcement action. this is very close if you look

at it to the definition of the profiling guidance of the justice department. and i would note that it does not include actions based upon description. description of a known suspect, a person who has been seen by a witness. that is not profiling. that is good police work. all profiling falls on the same set of data, data from across the country, different law enforcement agencies, different missions. when we talk about effectiveness, what we're asked is what is the rate at which police officers and security officers succeed or hit when they use race, ethnic appearance, religious appearance as opposed to when they do not? and the evidence, the data on this question is unequivocal. it comes from all over the country. when police use race or ethnic appearance this way, they do not become more accurate.

in fact, they don't even stay as accurate. they become less accurate than police officers and security agents who do not use these practices. in other words, racial profiling gets us fewer bad guys. why is this? a lot of people find this counterintuitive. there are two big reasons. number one, profiling is the opposite of what we need to do in order to address asset unknown crimes by asset unknown suspects. that is addressed most effectively through the observation, careful observation of behavior. and when you introduce race, even as just one factor into the mix, what happens as the option of behavior becomes less accurate? measurably so, by police officers efforts are damaged and wasted. second, using profiling effects

our ability to gather crucial intelligence and information from communities on the ground. and this is true, whatever the context is in which profiling is used. particularly in a national security context, this is absolutely critical. if we are in danger, if there is a threat from international terrorists and if, as some say those international terrorists may be hiding in communities, the people we need right now is our partners like we have never needed other partners are people in those arab american and muslim communities. and i want to say that those communities have been strong, effective, continuously helpful partners to law enforcement in case after case across the country. these communities have helped. but if we put the target of profiling on these whole communities, we will damage our ability to collect intelligence from them because fear will replace trust.

in response to some of the comments made by my fellow panelists, a bill like f-1670 which deserves support is not insulting to law enforcement. it's all about accountability. and everybody who is in law enforcement or any other pursuit needs accountability just like i do as a professor, just like everybody else does. racial identification is not an issue. you will not have police officers asking people what their race or neglect nick group is. in fact, that's not what we would want at all because it's all about the perception of the officer. that's all that would have to be recorded. and black street crime is not the issue. the issue is how we deploy our law enforcement officers in ways that are effective, fair and carry out the most important ideals of our society. so for those reasons, i would support any efforts to pass

f-1670, the end racial profiling act and to revise the department of justice's profiling guidance. i thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you and i look forward to the committee's questions. thank you. >> thank you very much, professor harris. chief davis, you spent your lifetime in law enforcement and you've heard the testimony of officer gale that suggested in various strong and pointed language that raising this question, racial profiling, really -- he says unless you believe police are racist, he suggests this is unnecessary. so what is your answer to this? as i said at the outset, you trust, we trust these men in uniform, women, as well, who risk their lives every day for us. and the question he's raised is if we cannot trust their judgment and assume that they are going to violate the constitution and the law, then we are suspicious of them when

we should be more trusting. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for the question. i completely disagree with my colleague. the idea that a police officer or police department should not be held accountable is counter to the idea of democracy. if any group should be held accountable, it might be the police. we have awesome power and possibility. the power to take life and the power to take freedom. the idea that we could not collect data to ensure that that power is used judiciously and prudently would be counter to sound managerial principals. we collect data every day. we collect data on crime. we collect data for budget purposes. we collect data for our very justification and existence. we use it to tell you that you need on increase budgets to the state. we use crime to justify why we deplete resources. intelligence led policing prevent the need to do guesswork or by state policing. and so where i do appreciate the notion that we should respect

law enforcement, as a law enforcement officers, i think there is no more profession that the idea that i'm exempt is counter to why i got into the job. i don't think it's insulting. i think what is insulting is to allow police officers to come under the threats of accusations of racial profiling and not be in a counter to counter it, not be in a position to make sure that your own policies and practices does not make them unintentionally engage in this practice. laws are designed to set standards, to hold us accountability and to set a clear message. i think that's what we're doing. >> before i turn to officer gale, i'd like to note that this celebrated case involving trayvon martin involved a person being accused who was not a law enforcement official, per se. he was an individual citizen as part of a neighborhood watch. 49 states now, my own state being the only exception, have concealed carry law which allows individuals under some

circumstances to legally carry a firearm. in this case, i don't know if mr. zimmerman complied with florida law. that will come out, i'm sure, in terms of what it took to have a concealed weapon. but it certainly raises a question that wasn't before us as many ten years ago. we are not just talking about professionalizing law enforcement and holding them accountable. we are talking about a new group of americans who are being empowered to carry deadly weapons and to make decisions on the spot about the protection of their homes and communities. which i think makes this a far more complex challenge than it was ten years ago. i'd like your response. >> yes, sir. i agree, the issue for california, we have st issue of open carry, carrying of loaded firearmses with very limited requirement. i think the idea that people should be held accountable including our community is very real. the issue of racial profiling is in many cases, and maybe the

trayvon martin case gets into the role law enforcement plays with its community. and so when people call the police and say there's a suspicious person walking in my neighborhood, what makes that person suspicious? and the police must ask those question. and the idea we simply respond and stop without inquiring why the person's position? is it their behavior, is it because they were engaged in community and is it because they're not wearing a hoodie or because they're black? this is where we need a justification with the law to stand firm and tell community members, i'm not going to stop this person. law enforcement not only enforces the law, they set in many way egz the moral enforcement in the community of how to react with each other. >> officer gale, your statement was very strong. but the conclusion identity raised a question. and i don't have it in front of me, but as i recall -- and is tell me if i'm stating this

correctly. you said many members of the law enforcement community were not trusted in the minority communities. can you explain that? you need to turn the microphone on, please. >> my apologies. i think it's pretty clear from what we've seen in media reports recently, especially, but over the course of several years that there's work to be done by law enforcement in the minority community. rebuild that trust. and i say that -- i say that openly. i think the to be acknowledges that and, in fact, we are engaged in activities where we are attempt to go help law enforcement officers and agencies do just that through community work. so i think that's an important piece. you know, i think the professor talked about the fact that a lot of times in minority communities you have people in those communities that are a valuable resource to law enforcement. i agree with that. in the aspect of law enforcement and the profession of law enforcement, it's necessary to have people in community where crime is occurring assist you

with the enforcement activities. and so he think the problem has become we seem to blame the enforcers to everything that goes wrong. the enforcers show up on the scene to deal with the information that they have available to them at the time. and our job, when we show up, is to stabilize the situation. >> but you don't coral with -- i hope you don't kwarel with chief davis' premise that the law enforcement community has extraordinary power in the moment, the power to arrest, the power to detain, the power to embarrass. and holding them accountable to use that power in a responsible, legal, constitutional way, you don't quarrel with that premise, do you? >> i don't think the fop quarrels with the fact that law enforcement officers have that power, nor do we quarrel with the fact that law enforcement

officers are held accountable. in fact, we are accountable. the court in ruled that officers had to be accountable in issues of race and rewe accept that and embrace it because we believe it's proper. we believe it's appropriate. >> mr. clay said a number of things which caught my attention. and you said that you thought the war on terror justified some measure of profiling. >> well -- >> well, let me come to the question and then you can certainly explain your position. and i wrote notes as quickly as i could. we need to look at organizations with geopolitical and political ties i think is something that you said in the course of that. you've heard testimony here from congressman elison and others about what is happening to muslim americans across the board and many of them are not affiliated with any specific organization. they are affiliated with a faith. and it appears that that has become a premise for surveillance and investigation.

i worry, as an amateur student of history how you could television what you just said from what happened to japanese american in world war ii where 120,000 were rounded up with no suspicion of any danger to the united states and their property taken from them, detained and confined because they happen to be part of an ethic group which just attacked the united states, the japanese, i should say, attacked the united states and, therefore, they were branded as possibly being a danger in the second world war because of some connection they have with a political or geopolitical group. how do you make that distinction? >> no, i don't. and when i say that in some limited circumstances some consideration of individuals or

organizations, geography and religion can be justified in the war on terror, i am not saying that that means that any consideration under any circumstances of ethnic profiling and religious profiling is okay. all i'm saying is that i am unwilling to say that it can never be used. and i'll give you examples in my testimony. for instance, you know, suppose that on 9/11 the fbi had gotten reliable information that an individual on one of the grounded airplanes, one of the grounded jets, jet liners had a backup plane.

and that he was going to fly a private plane into a -- >> but there's a clear distinction and let's make that for the record a predictor and a scripter. >> no, no, no -- >> when you talk about the class of people guilty for 9/11 and say why wouldn't we go after that class of people in training to fly and so forth and so on, that sa scripter that law enforcement can use. but when you conclude that because they were all muslim, we should take a look at all muslims in america across the line. >> well, i didn't say that. and i think that the line that you are drawing between predictor and scripter is inevitably a gray one. this is one reason why i think legislation in this area is a bad idea. isn't it predictive when the fbi, in my hypothetical, says, you know, the individual who is going to fly this plane into a skyscraper is not on somebody -- it hasn't already been done.

you know, we are trying to predict who it's going to be. and we are going to look at the passenger list on the grounded airplanes and we have only limited resources and limited time. we're working against the clock here and we are going to start by looking at individuals with arabic names. that is racial profiling, according to your bill. but i think it would be imminentment reasonable. >> i certainly disagree. >> you don't think it would be reasonable? >> no, i don't. when you start going that far afield, why do you stop with arabic names? why don't you include all of muslim regions? that strikes me as if very core of the reason why we are gathering today. if we are going to say to people across america, you have certain rights and freedoms because you live in america and we have certain values, that it does create perhaps more of a

challenge to law enforcement. police state may be much more efficient in those respects, but it isn't america. >> listen, in my testimony, my organization's whole focus is on the principal of e.plueribus unum. i take that very seriously. but what i'may