the f.b.i. was intimately involved in a 15-year investigation what's culminated last fall in the holy land foundation that five of its former organizers be being found guilty of illegally funneling more than $12 million to the terrorist group, hamas. . that, a department of justice issue release may 27, 2009, reported that for relief and development and five of its leaders following their convictions by a federal jury in november of 2008 on charges of providing material support for hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization. the sentence is range from 15 years to 65 years in prison. according to the department of justice from its inception, the holy foundation existed to support hamas. government's case included testimony that in the early 1990's hamas parent organization, the muslim brotherhood, planned to establish a network of organizations in the u.s. to spread a militant islamist message and raise money for hamas. the defendants sent holy land foundation to hamas. among the unindict

former f.b.i. counterterrorism chief has called awad's former employee the islamic association for palestinian quote, a front organization for hamas that engages in propaganda for islamic militants, end of quote. a september 24, 2001, l.a. story described the connection between the islamic association of palestine and the holy land foundation this way, quote, the i.a.p. and the holy land were founded and funded by mazuk, he's also the political leader of the terrorist group, hamas. andrew mccarthy, a former federal prosecutor who led the 1995 prosecution against shake omar abdul rahman, the blind sikh, found guilty of the 1993 world trade center bombing in an article notes there are several persons connected to care who have been convicted of federal felonies, including terrorism, end of quote. mccarthy includes in this group one of the founding members of re of the dallas area chapter and also co-founder and former chairman of the holy land foundation. according to july 9, 2007, "dallas morning ne

last month, f.b.i. director robert mueller told the house judiciary committee he was concerned that detainees from guantanamo could support terrorism or radicalize others, provide intelligence or financial support to terrorist net yorks -- networks or take part in terrorist attacks inside the united states. for eric holder to do this against the better judgment of the f.b.i. and the department of homeland security and the bipartisan objection from this congress is unacceptable. this flies in the face of bipartisan congressional opposition to the release of trained terrorists into the u.s. including republican and democratic leadership in the house and senate. last month, the senate followed the house lead in removing funding for transferring detainees around demanding this administration come clean with the american people. about their intent. the attorney general expect this is congress to sit idly by after it announces it has released 17 detainees held at guantanamo bay into the united states. eric ho

the f.b.i. has put together a new intelligence capability along the southwest border, all designed to stop the flow of that material into mexico, but also to stop the flow of drugs from mexico into our country. this is a priority for us. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, welcome, thank you for your service. at your confirmation hearing we talked about the civil rights crimes and you had made a commitment to me at that time that you would do whatever you could in your power if congress failed to act to make sure that that was funded. number one, my first question is, have you been successful? and number two, the group that actually motivated the response for that bill and senator dodd and myself had an amendment to try to fund that that was rejected by our colleagues on the omnibus bill, would like to have a meeting with the justice department, have been turned away and i just think in the nature of your commitment to me, can you answer what

the evidence shows he lied to the f.b.i. and department of justice about the nature of his sexual conduct with court employees. in addition, he pled guilty to felony obstruction of justice and repeating acts of sexual contact with court employees. he was sentenced to 33 months in prison for committing felony obstruction of justice and this past monday he reported to prison and began his prison term. however, because the constitution provides that federal judges are appointed for life, samuel kent, despite the fact he is sitting in prison, collects to collect his taxpayer-funded salary of $174,000 per year, continues to collect his taxpayer-health benefits and continues to accrues his taxpayer-funded pension. this is the first time that a federal judge has pled guilty to a felony and reported to prison and still not resigned from his office. this shows how deep judge kent's audacity clearly runs. he sent a letter to the president explaining that he intends to resign one year from now. however, this purported resignation is no

the bill includes $27.5 billion above the requests and the f.b.i.'s operating level is funded at the president's request, which is necessary in order to continue current staffing operation levels which also fund the urgent increase in counterterrorism programs. too often we fail to recognize the critical and dangerous work the f.b.i. is doing at home and abroad in order to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. this incredibly important work and the -- the bill strongly supports those efforts while also providing necessary funding for the f.b.i. to fulfill traditional rolls -- roles while addressing problems such as mortgage fraud and child exploitation and gangs this bill includes a new $35 million initiative to fund the f.b.i.'s safe streets task force. this will fund new task forces, a new position on existing task forces in the areas which is pretty much the entire country plagued by gang violence. it increases state and local law enforcement accounts. fund for scaap is reduced and the chairman appropriately so as a drafted -- has drafted an antid

>> if there's a reason for the f.b.i. to investigate and the f.b.i. has the right to investigate, we would not stand in the way of an appropriate investigation. >> thank you. how many contracts has the fed signed with black rock to handle freddie mac paper and fannie mae mortgage securities under your purview and how much will black rock be paid for those services? >> we have hired four asset managers to manage our mortgage-backed portfolio, black rock is one of them. i don't know how much we are paying them. >> will black rock be handling freddie mac paper? >> um, they'll be managing g.s.e.-guaranteed papers including freddy, fanny and begin any. >> i would seriously urge your staff to go back and look at the operations of black rock and mr. fink's operations at first boston before he founded black rock in relation to what they transacted with freddie mac and when they did that. >> gentlemen, time has expired. thank you, thank you very much. let me thank the chairman for his time. and at the outset of this hearing, i said that it is time to shine som

in november, 2007, judge kent was asked and granted an interview with the f.b.i. during an interview he requested, he was asked about his alleged conduct and false statements he had made to the fifth circuit. in august, 2008, he asked for a meeting at the department of justice and he sat down with his attorney and f.b.i. agent and representatives of the department of justice. department of justice. and again, judge kent made

we had a statutory delay for any participation by the f.b.i. there was a lack of coordination that was not only in existence, but was promoted by law at that time. and i recall after john walsh and his wife testified before us , the slugging of shoulders by some who basically had to tell the walshes there was nothing we could do here on the federal level. john walsh and his wife did not take that as an answer. they spoke to many of us here the chamber, but actually those of us on the subcommittee and committee at that time and challenged us to try and find a way to make it possible that we could have a seamless web between the federal government, the state government and local government when the question was a missing child. and the strength and persistence of that couple, combined with others who joined them around the country was extraordinary at that time. it seems so commonplace now for us to talk about the 25 anniversary of the center. it seems so commonplace of hundreds of thousands of children being reported missing yearly and the fact

it's something that the f.b.i. director testified in the house of representatives about. is there anything that you would like to offer us today on that question about how we could prevent that from occurring? or if you'd like to respond in the same way. i'm happy to receive that. >> i understand the concern. i think there are measures to be taken that could minimize that possibility. terrorists, people who are considered terrorists are generally held out of the general population. so there's not the ability to interact with other prisoners in a way some might have an ability then to try to radicalize them. then beyond that, what we have tried to put in place are programs to deal with -- to occupy the time of the people who are in these facilities so that they have alternatives, they have the ability to think of a light outside the prison. and if they have options, if they think they have a life they can lead on the right side of the law they are far less susceptible to these efforts. >> guantanamo was constructed in such a way as to accommodate this particular requiremen

and had a form f.b.i. interrogator to testify publicly that they were able to obtain valuable information with the normal techniques and further said that these techniques that were veffed by the cia and justified by the bush memos don't work. they do lead to bad intelligence or unusable intelligence. with regard to the latest hearing. if that was part of the hearing, they didn't say. that information to believe to suggest that these don't work. they haven't come out with any new information to suggest that. it is difficult for them because you can't choose the republicans of violating the rules of a closed subcommittee hearing. and then the subcommittee come $out to say, what we know about these is that they don't work. that goes to my next question s. there any indication that rules were broken. >> congresswoman january who chairs the subcommittee who had the hearing has said that that's an issue that may be discussed in terms of sacks she didn't give any idea. other than saying she thought the account a

former attorney general ashcroft and the director of the f.b.i. were both named defendants. they thought threshold dismisal on grounds of qualified immunity. disagreeing with the district court and court of appeals, the supreme court held the plaintiff's pleadings insufficient to state a claim for relief against ashcroft and the f.b.i. director. the majority opinion and justice souter's dissent variously interpreted the court's 2000 decision in bell atlantic corporation v. tromley. under tromley, a plaintiff must allege facts that if taken as true state a plausible basis for relief. well, is district judge lynch with us? jerry didn't create the plausibility standard, but he did begin the whole business, so perhaps he can tell us which side got it right in this case. in my personal view, the court messed up the federal rules. justice breyer dissented separately in ichbal to underscore a key point the circuit had made. when a government defendant asserts qualified immunity, the trial court responsible for managing the case can structure discovery in ways that diminish the risk

it is something the f.b.i. director testified in the houps about. -- testified in the house of representatives about. is there anying you could tell us about how we could prevent that from occurring? >> i understand the concern, but i think there are measures that can be taken to minimize that possibility. terrorists, people who are considered terrorists are generally held out of the general population, so there is not the ability to interact with other prisoners in the way that some might and have an ability then to try to radicalize them. what we then try to do is put in place programs to occupy the time of the people who are in these facilities so that they have alternatives, they have the ability to think of a life outside the prison, and if if they have options, if they think they have a life they can lead on the right side of the law, they are far less consensus septemberible -- suscetible to these radicalization experts. >> it it may be easier to do that with the super max facilities. if you could includ

you can't make up f.b.i. bet at that cap pavment you can't make up that you have these high awards and that you're summa cum laude and phi bet at that kappa. these are facts that should go into evidence. since graduating, the judge has a varied and interesting legal career. she's worked as a private -- in the private sector as a litigator. she's been a district court and an appellate court judge and she's taught law school classes. but the one experience of hers that particularly resonates for me is that immediately graduating from law school, she spent five years as a prosecutor at the manhattan district attorney's office, which was one of the busiest and most well-thought-of prosecutors' offices in our country. at that time it paid about half as much as a scrob in the private sector, but she wanted the challenge and the trial experience, as she told me when we met, and she took the job as a prosecutor. before i entered the senate, mr. president, i was a prosecutor, managing an office of about 400 people in

these are essentially warrantless search warrants that the f.b.i. is allowed to undertake in the name of the war on terror. they can't produce important information. -- they can produce important information. information, but also, as another series of terrific reports by the inspector general indicated had been subject to very serious abuse and violations. the fbi and the department have made some reforms in this area. the ig is following up to see how effectively they've been implemented. we're following up as well. we're expecting a report reasonably soon by the ig on exigent letters, a particularly abusive method being used for awhile and discontinued, and we expect to continue to monitor this. there's actually been legislation proposed by congressman nadlor to reform the use of nsls. we continue to be very active, i think n that area. eighth, the issue of state secrets. again, something that we began in the prior congress. serious issues about the abuse by the justice department of the so-called state secrets doctrine not just to restrict infor

the f.b.i. had resources to send investigators out to mill through the crowds on tax freedom -- on tea bag day, april 15, tax day. the f.b.i. was looking at the people that came to the courthouse square to voice their objection to the oppressive taxes that have been imposed upon this country and the irresponsible spending, and they're identified as hate groups. conservative group, hate groups, i don't know of a liberal group that would be on that, but i hope we are able to make that request and get a list in the congressional record of who are the hate groups. i suspect i am probably alleged to be on some of them. then other groups that were not considered were law enforcement groups, anti-immigrant groups. i don't know what an anti-immigrant group is. i know there are some anti-illegal immigrant groups. i don't know of a single anti-immigrant group, but that gives you the sense of the bias ideology. and also people that are fearful of participating in the census. it gives them a way out. or any

is being investigated by the f.b.i.? this congress has a long ways to go to get where they're going. i would just conclude with this, mr. speaker. i'm going to paraphrase joe welch. let us not assassinate this process further. you've done enough. have you no sense of decency at long last? have you left no sense of decency? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, after that speaker, i find it necessary to correct him with regard to a portion of his screed. please no that in the process that he referenced, one of our members, who is a subcommittee chair of appropriations, the committee chair, mr. obey, handled the matters. when the member referred to by the previous speaker recused himself and on the floor, when the matter was brought here, the committee chair handled that matter. now i heard that gentleman talk about shenanigans. let me tell you something, mr. speaker. what happened in the house of representatives yesterday, and i'm only hear 17 years, bu

so if the f.b.i. warned an epidemic was ahead on something that the federal reserve regulated and the federal reserve failed to act, what makes us think that they can actually regulate anything and why should we give them more power, which the administration proposal does? many more questions need to be asked about financial regulatory reform. we should not rubber stamp the administration's first idea. our people want a sound credit system. we should act for no less. the first goal of our banking system as opposed to a security system should be to create a safe and sound and prudent credit system in this country. madam speaker, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton from indiana. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i wish to claim mr. burton's time to speak out of order the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: madam speaker, the state of texas lost a warrior this month in the forward operating base in afghanistan. a remote and december

about the other writings, her law review writings, the speeches she's given, the f.b.i. report, the a.b.a. report which we do not have, the questionnaire which has not been completed. a variety of things which have to be reviewed and read and then you discuss the nomination with witnesses to say this matter has been raised, this matter has been raised. what do you think about that? she will have a sraoeurt of people writing to the committee on -- a variety of people writing to the committee on her behalf. we will have reams of letters and comments from people who think she is a good nominee and we will receive a lot of comments, i suspect, from people who think she's not a good nominee. we need to go through all of that. when people write to us about these nominees for or against, we don't just ignore what they say. we take it to heart. that's part of our job. all of this takes a great deal of time and effort. the final point here, mr. president, we don't just want to leave this to staff. we're going to read those opinions. i have instructed my staff on the opinions that

and calls to mind the abuses in the f.b.i. national security letters. how do we -- i don't know how we justify continuing these expansive authorizations whether it's the pariot act, when they are being expanded authorities are being abused this way. what is the problem? what is the justice department doing looking into these reports of abuse >> the department works with the intelligence security to ensure that national security is conducted with the parties. there is a framework, congress establishes a variety of practices, and there are strict policies and guidelines. >> but the article today and my concern is that more and more we find out about the abuses not from the intelligence agencies, not from the government but picking up the newspaper. we are reaching a point that "the new york times" get the information quicker and get the cross word puzzle. what are we doing to go after that? if this continues i don't know how would reauthorization any of these things? >> the department and agency takes serious the requirements we are to follow. in a couple

director muller of the f.b.i. deafed that bringing the detainees to the u.s. involved serious risk to american security. the administration is ignoring or disregarding these risks and stone walling the congress. we need to stop the administration from bringing more detainees into our country. in addition, my motion would restore language included in senate section 315 requiring a detailed threat assessment of the risk to the american people resulting from the transfer or release of each of these individuals. that language passed the senate by a vote of 92-3. this motion is that the house receive language prohibiting the movement of detainees to the united states in requiring comprehensive threat assessments. all this language passed overwhelmingly in the senate. mr. chairman, i urge adoption of my motion as i express my appreciation for the work of the senate. >> i thank the gentleman, mr. murtha. >> i appreciate what the gentleman is saying. we have two million people incarcerated in the united states. two million. more than any other country in the world. we

this context of these detainees, and they are suing the former attorney general and the head of the f.b.i., and this is a sensitive matter, and we think discovery should be very limited. it wasn't a katie bar the door, let's get any kind of discovery the playoffs are seeking. still that provided a vehicle for the majority to import the other case into this set of facts. >> you mentioned the environmental cases. there were several important environmental cases this term. ted, will you take into that? >> yes. i will start with what john ended with, the standing point. there were five so-call environmental cases and the so-called environmental side lost all five. so i suppose it is going to be characterized as a big lows for the environmental interests and so forth, but most of these cases really had to do with other grounds for decision. one of which john mentioned, which was standing. one of them involved the extent to which people that were objecting to a forest service policy involving the cutting of trees could go ahead and bring this challenge, notwithstanding the fact that the case ha

last month before the house judiciary committee f.b.i. director robert mueller testified transferring the remaining detainees to u.s. securities, even maximum security prisons, would entail serious security risks. he said "the concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the united states run from concerns about providing financing, radicalizing others, as well as the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the united states." mr. president, the guantanamo facility is separated from the american communities. it's well protected from the threat of a terrorist attack. no one's ever escaped from guantanamo. why should we feel pressure to support president obama's arbitrary deadline to close the facility when the administration has yet to offer a plan about where to relocate the terrorists? and where i would submit a case has not been made for closing this facility and locating those prisoners elsewhere. in fact, other countries told us they don't want them, with the exception of france, which offered to take

the f.b.i. report, the a.b.a. report, which we do not have yet the questionnaire that has not been completed. there are a variety of things, and then you discuss the nomination with quints to say this matter has been -- with witnesses to say, this matter has been raised. what do you think about that? she will have people writing to the committee on her behalf. we will receive reems of comments from people who whether think she is a good nominee. i suspect we will see information from people who think she is not a good nominee. we have to go through those. when people write us, we don't ignore what they say, we take it to heart. that's part of power job. so all of this takes a great deal of time and effort. so final point mr. president, we don't want to leave this to staff. i have instructed my staff on opinions i want to read. now i'm used to reading court opinions, but not everybody has done that fairly recently in their career, and that takes a lot of time, considering all the work we have to do. to follow the k

misleading statements about the nature and extent of his nonconsensual sexual contact with the victims, f.b.i. agents and representatives of the department of justice. our purpose for being here today is not to punish judge kent. our purpose is to ensure the integrity of the federal judiciary. impeachment is invoked only when the caught erodes the public's confidence in government. judge kent has clearly violated the public's trust and dishonored his role. judge samuel b. kent, who by his own admission obstructed jusity by lying to cover his own misdeeds cannot remain a federal judge. he's the first judge in the history of our republic to plead guilty to a felony and refuse to promptly resign his seat on the bench. other judges have been convicted of crimes and refused to resign. but never has one pled guilty and attempted to stay on the bench. to permit him to retain his position would inflict grievous and indeed irreparable damage to the federal judiciary and i submit to the congress as well. there are two basic questions in connection with this impeachment. first is the conduct alleged in

when the civil rights division went in, they didn't just liberate her using the f.b.i. and the immigration service from the torture she was going under, they worked with nongovernmental organizations and civil society and a lot of those good groups in southern california have helped her put her life back on track. to me, the encouraging thing is she's going to have a great, productive life in america, and the people that did this to her are in prison. host: we're talking about human trafficking and the trafficking of persons report released by the state department this week. we will put the numbers up again if you would like to get involved in the conversation. tell us, how much of this human trafficking revolves around cultural acceptance of buying and selling human beings as opposed to just straight up criminal activity? guest: it is interesting. there is a remnant of that. that is something we try to deal with in the report. one of the things we look at in the other countries is what is their capacity to address the problem, what is the cultural situation in that cou

if it is f.b.i., get rid of them. guest: there are a lot of people who feel that way, that this should not be something -- with regard to talking about interrogation techniques, how they are developed and used -- that this shouldn't be talked about publicly at all. mr. miller, who again -- jeff miller -- the ranking republican on the subcommittee, told me last night that he intends to come back to d.c. monday and ask that the same hearing that was held thursday be held in open sessi session, which again would allow members to even more clearly enunciate what they are told. host: as a ranking member on the subcommittee, how likely is that to happen? are there ways for the minority party to be able to do this, to open up a hearing? guest: that is a good question. we don't yet know if through a resolution or letter they can force this to happen. but there's some speculation that we were headed in that direction any way with regard to democrats wanting to have these hearings held in a manner where they could actually open

the f.b.i. is stretched too thin they don't have the manpower to address this cross-border corruption and they are fighting domestic federal crime and jihaddists. right new we're asking local sheriffs in border states to do double duty as if they're agents of interpol. our domestic police forces should be fried up to do what they do west, fight crime in their counties and communities. our drug enforcement agency is doing a noble effort to control the international criminal cartels that more and more resemble an army at the border than the coe is a northeast rah but -- than the cosa nostra. the border patrol is outmauned and outgunned. our government has limited their rules of engagement. their standard operating procedure is nonconfrontational. heavy-armed bad guys come through with their contraband and humans yet little is done. these cartels are made up of a hybrid of the worst elements of organized crime they include terrorist crells, internationalest peenpee nagy agencies and others. why are

that i found to be very surprising and saw the results of some of these f.b.i. efforts. so we are going to be looking at not only the financial aspect of this but, in some ways, the ultimate fraud. whether or not patients are getting the care -- or the government is getting the care for which it is paying, and whether or not people's lives are being put at risk. to the exten tent that we procedure ties this, although the financial component i think will be important, to be sure that no one's life is put at risk, and that the kinds of treatment people are expecting to get they are actually receiving. >> one last issue, and i can talk to you about later, but it is the reauthorization for the violence against women act. we had a hearing that chairman leahy conducted, and we had focused on the new friends -- trends that are happening there, and one of them is states not being willing to help with things like rape kits and other things, and a line-up, i think l.a. county is the worst at some of these tests that haven't been done on the rape kits when we could be protensionly

attorneys are on record as favoring this requirement for the f.b.i., customs and border patrol, and the customs and border patrol does routinely videotape or electronically record key interactions and interrogations with those in their custody. video recording is the standard within the united states for interrogations of all types, in all agencies, and for prosecutors. what about the department of defense? is it appropriate there? earlier this year, a task force convened by secretary of defense gates to review our detainee policies issued its report. this is known as the welsh report. the report was unequivocal. it said, quote, we endorse the use of video recording in all camps and for all interrogations. continuing, quote, the use of video recording to confirm humane treatment could be an important enabler for detainee operations, just as internal controls provide standardization, the use of video recordings provide the capability to monitor performance and maintain accountability, end quote. but more than this. more than maintaining the standards for behavior in the interrogation roo

and so for the f.b.i., the c.i.a., the d.i.a., d.e.a., a.t.f., they deserve basically the same thing. secondly, i was the ranking member on children, youth and families years eeg. the leading child pediatrician came in and said at the initial moment of birth, and i have five children and 13 grandchildren and soon to have two more, at the initial moment of birth when the mother breathes on the baby, the bonding process begins. it begins, those early days, weeks are absolutely, positively critical. and so for me on a family issue and a family value issue, i think that's really important. the last thing is, i just want to remind my colleagues that one of the leading people in this congress, one of my heroes, two of the people i looked up to more than anybody, one congressman henry hyde and former congressman dan coates both supported parental leave. the words of henry hyde during the debate on family leave and it was not paid family leave. he reminded us that, quote, the family supplies the moral glue that holds society together and it is an essential institution that stands between us a

rogers from michigan, an f.b.i. agent who went to afghanistan, god bless him for taking the time for the oversight who serves on the intelligence committee, had a very important amendment regarding an apparent policy initiative by this administration to expand the practice of reading miranda rights to detainees in the custody of u.s. armed forces in afghanistan. it's called global justice. mr. rogers wanted to talk about that and offer an amendment whether we would pass it or not he had every right to do so. now mr. rogers and other members have legitimate concerns about such policies. he simply wanted the opportunity to offer his amendment and let the house vote. he complied with the printing requirement he testified late last night, sat up there late into the night, until 12:30 or 1:00 in the morning, testified at the rules committee and yet now he is unable to even offer this amendment that deals with the whole fundamental issue of the war on terror, what's taking place in afghanistan and all these issues. closin

united states citizens, being done without any warrants calls to mind the abuses we discovered in the f.b.i.'s use of national security letters. how do we -- i don't know how we justify continuing the expands of authorities, whether it's fisa or the powers authorized by the patriot act being the expanded authorities are being abused this way. what's the department -- what's the justice department doing looking into these reports of abuse? >> well, the department works closely with those in the intelligence community to ensure that national security's conducted in a way that's consistent with the legal authorities that are designed to protect privacy and our civil liberties. there's a framework, i believe, that we always try to follow. congress establishes staff wear safeguards in statutes among them, fisa. the department of and the intelligence agencies follow really strict regulations when we actually do these surveillance. >> but the article today and the concern i have is that we more and more we find out about these -- the kind of abuses, not from the intelligence agencies, not from our

indeed, our f.b.i. is greatly concerned about somali americans who have gone missing from american cities. they are worried that they have gone to somalia and are linking up with these terrorist groups. and it is eritrea that is providing the weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles that can take out an airliner and that are providing this military training. the case for adding eritrea to the state sponsor of terrorism list is compelling. it's even overwhelming. it has been so for sometime. the obama administration's assistant secretary of state for african affairs, johnny carson, has noted that, quote, we have clear evidence the eritrea is supporting extremists and that, quote, the government of eritrea continues to supply weapons and munitions to extremists and terrorist elements, unquote. and this isn't new. the previous administration took a similar view of the destructive role that eritrea plays in the horn. some will say that this is counterproductive or the wrong time. well, it has been a delic

further, according to the f.b.i.'s annual report on crime released last week, new orleans leads the nation in murders. and this says nothing about the incidents of other types of crime from sexual offenses to robberies. i hold in my hand a photo of sergeant manual curry. he was a popular and much loved member of new orleans police department. at 62 years of service he was one of america's longest serving police officers. tragically for new orleans he passed away last week and our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, his family, and his nlpd colleagues. and -- nopd colleagues. here is an article from today's newspaper. it reports that within hours of his death, three people broke into his home and stole guns, money, jewelry, and medication. his wife was notified of the burglary while at the funeral home arranging her husband's burial. and our thoughts and prayers also go to the family of this couple, orlando cassamir senior and his wife of 55 years. the older was scheduled to have preached the sermon this year at th

holding people who we actually captured on the battlefield, he observed the fact that now we have f.b.i. agents ma ran diesing -- ma yandaizing, that is giving miranda statements to those we found on the battlefield. in other words what, we have done is we have transposed the universe in which these people are being detained from one of a combat atmosphere to one of a criminal proceeding in the united states. now, why is that important? it's important because this is for the -- papping for the first time in the history of the united states. we did not do this during the revolutionary war. we did not do it during any war we fought. not the civil war, not world war i, not world war ii. if we had followed this same thinking in world war ii, our courts would have been overwhelmed. people forget we had two million p.o.w.'s that we held during world war ii. over 400,000 of them in the united states. never was it thought that they had all of the rights under the constitution. but this question has basically been treated by federal courts in the past with this perspective. the connection you ha

the f.b.i. director, robert mueller himself, testified before the house of representatives, that posed a lot of problems, real risks for the united states. nobody is saying it can't be done. the question; should it be done? most of us believe, no, it shouldn't be done. there are better alternatives. the final point is this: what's wrong with the alternative of the prison at guantanamo? it's a $200 million state-of-the-art facility in which i pointed out yesterday people are very well humanely treated. they have better medical and dental care they ever got in their home countries or fighting us on the battlefield or afghanistan or somewhere else. the bottom line is, this is a top-rate facility, the people there do not mistreat provides mores and that's the myth here. somehow people compare abu ghraib with guantanamo and this brings up the last point. it is argued by my colleague from illinois and others that terrorists recruit based upon the existence of guantanamo prison. now, think about that f

that were done were felony arrests and as best as i can tell, they were done in accordance with the f.b.i. and bureau of land management standard operating procedures. when arrests are made and even cases that seem to be nonviolent, there is always the danger for the law enforcement officer who is affecting that arrest. and it's a difficult thing to ask them to assume certain things as they're -- >> i'm with you on that but in this case, this is a doctor who everybody respected, everybody loved in the community. i'm just centering on his case since he was so overwrought that he took his life. to get outstanding doctors to move into these rural communities and do what this man was doing. now, again, i don't justify stealing or taking indian art facts if that's what happened here. but i guess -- and nor do i want to put you through a lot of pain here, i just hope you'll do something about that type of activity. in the future. you can bring all the force you want against drug dealers and people had who clearly are violent felons where people might be in danger but in in this case there wasn'

director muller of the f.b.i. testified to congress three weeks ago that bringing detainees to u.s. soil poses risk to national security. including providing financing, radicalizing others and undertaking a tax in the united states. additionally the department of defense has reported that at least 14% of former guantanamo detainees have returned to terrorist activity in the region, to say the least we ought to be concerned about the release of people of that kind who threaten our interest anywhere in the world. this administration is ignoring or disregarding those risks and stonewalling the congress. we need to stop this administration from rushing to transfer or resettlelement of any more detainees at the expense of increased risk to americans and help the president simply fulfill his campaign promise. the president has been very busy since his inaugural. there's little question he's been down many a pathway and he's even found some of those pathways might very well have been a mistake. well, this is a case where i believe a decision was made without being carefully thought through

>> the f.b.i.irector himtsfeffed to the house of representatives that there are big problems associated with bringing those prisoners to the united states. people talk about the supermax facilities. there are i think 13 or 15 of them around the country and they are something like 13,000 beds available and there are 20,000 prisoners. so they're already crowded. if i were the president, i would not have announced an arbitrary date by which it's going to be done and then try to figure out how to do it. i think i would have figured it out first and then made the announcement. >> but should gitmo be closed? >> in my opinion, no. and the reason is two fold. we spent over $200 million to build a state-of-the-art facility, which everybody who has visited it, all of the people who go down say it's well run, clean, much better medical and dental care for example than any of them have ever gotten before in their lives. their religious needs are attended to. and it's safe for those folks in our military that a

as a senior f.b.i. official told us, the reason they are going to do this and are going to do this is because, quote, they wanted to err on the side of prosecution. i said, mr. speaker, they err on the side of the safety of the men and women in our united states military and the people right here at home. if you don't think it's happening, it is. even with the letter from the f.b.i. director dated june 12, it says, the proposal would also ensure when possible that the intelligence is gathered in a manner that best preserves future option vis-a-vis the individual terrorist at issue, including gathering evidence in a manner that ensures its integrity in the event of prosecution becomes the most desirable approach, which is f.b.i. legal yeast speak listen we are going to treat them all like we are going to prosecute them. imagine the tension between the c.i.a. and the d.i.a. and the other law enforcement community efforts when this enemy combatant comes in, somebody reads them their rights, the c.i.a. know

we have f.b.i. agents who after our soldiers pick them up, after trying to kill members of the 82nd airborne or the 101 rt or our marines -- 101st or our marines, take them to a detention facility and read them their rights. they're nonunited states citizens, they're foreigners. we want the opportunity to tell america, we think that's crazy. you're going to tell a terrorist who just came off the battlefield that you have the right to remain silent. how much information will they not give that might save the life of one of our soldiers in afghanistan today? and the biggest trafficesty today ask you never gave us the opportunity to talk about it. to move the issue forward. we've had about three different opinions from this administration on if they are or aren't doing it. ky tell you, i've been there and i've seen it. our soldiers are going to get frustrated, i know our f.b.i. agents are frustrated, our law enforcement community is frustrated and the best you can do is say, debate is inconvenient for