tv Today in Washington CSPAN May 8, 2010 2:00am-5:59am EDT
responses is inherited and can be seen in families. if you have a family history of allergy, it could be a fever, allergy to a variety of substances, if you have a family history, the chances of your being allergic is greater than someone who does not have a family history. it is not at all-or-none phenomenon. . . istory of allergies w get a very serious drug reaction. and there are people who have a heavy family history of allergy who never get a drug reaction. so, it is not an all or none phenomenon, but there is a contribution of hereditary. host: an article that says the use of antibiotics has possibly led to the increase in allergies in this couny, have you seen that article? guest: yes, but that iseally
confusing. so, if you use drugs a lot and expose somebody to any substance, after a period of time in a population there will be more allergic responses to t it. whether that is just the fact there are people who inherently will be allergic and the support you treat you will notice more who are allergic, but there is no real evidence if you give a lot of antibiotics in a given person that person will get an allergy. host: jim from manatau beach, chigan. caller: thank you for c-span. it is a wonder we don't get ts news coverage on the commercial networks and that is sad. i guess they are just all being bought off. my question, doctor, i he a fact ary farm -- factory farm, a dairy farm a few miles from my ho and they are constantly spreading millions of gallons of
their waste fertilizer and stuff all over the local farm fields here. and this bacteria -- not bacteria -- the antibiotics that they are putting in these things, they went from like 1le 800 -- they went from 1800 goes to almost 7,000. and antibiotics that are in that manure are being spread on the fields and you have runoff from this. now, i have a pitch pond. -- i have a fish pond. do i have to worry about that and stuff breeding in that? guest: it depends on the concentration. the point you make is something that is being actily discussed about one of theeal dangers of the widespread use of feed is when you have waste om the animal particularly manure that runs off into the ground or streams that you will wind up getting the antibiotics themselves or evenome of the resisting mike roebgs. i don't think it necessarily
means a direct threat to the fish in your pond because it is going to depend on the concentration. and even if there is antibiotics it may not have an effect so i wouldn't say it is an absolute danger. i think you would have to check that and see what the concentrations of bacteria and antibiotics are in the runoff into your stream. i don't think it is an absolute sin kwa none that you have a danger to your fish. host: why do they call the antibiotics in animals a growth hormone? guest: there are certain mechanisms that are not well understood. it alters the bacterial flora of the animal's intestine that allows it -- and this is speculative but likely a contribution that allows the animal to greatly absorb more efficiently nutrients that makes it bigger, stronger and bulkier with more muscle.
that is what they mean. it is not just growth hormone, likely works by altering the bacterial flora. host: do you personally eat meat that has growth hormone? guest: a-i don't eat much meat at all. i'm not a pure vegetarian but close. when i do i have no idea whether the at came from an animal that was given antibiotics. host: next call is a democrat from long island. caller: there is noisrespect from you but the problem and this is similar to [inaudible]. when you are in front of congress and you talk to these people, give tell medical answers. this is wrong, this is right. don't give political answers
because it has a tendency to let you agree with them. so stay away from the politics of medicine and gave tell straightforward medical answers. ho: caller, are you suggesting that dr. fauci doesn't give that, he gives political answers? ller: there is a 10 enof deny seu -- for a long time i have been observant. i almost literature to c-span -- listen to c-span every morning and there are too man political answers when the leaders are in front of congress. guest: so, let me for the record i have been testifying before conggess for about 26 or 27 years and i have never, ever given a political ly corrected answer. they rely on me and trust me becae i give a completely scientifically based answer. so i can understand his concern that some people with the aura of the coness feel they have to give a political acorrect
answer. host: why are you still in public service? guest: because i love it. it is the most important thing i can do with my ability, energy and talents. my way of getting the greatest impact of the things i do is in public service. and i wouldn't trade it for anything. host: with antibiotic resistance what are some of your other fields you oversee at n.i.h.? guest: probably the most visible i'm in charge of the aids research program of n.i.h. and we do all of the research that is involved with developing the drugs that have been so successful in transforming lives of people with h.i.v. i'm responsible for the malaria, tuberculosis, tphepged tropic-- neglected tropical diseases. as well as a variety of other issues. so there is a very robust portfolio that i'm responsible for. host: would you like to see d.d.t. used again to preve malaria?
gues that is a broad question. you have to be more specific. i think that the issue of completelyanning d.d.t. resulted unfortunately in a re surpb resurge generals of the mosquito -- resurgence of the mosquito populations in certain regions of the world. i don't think you should haphazardly use d. it d.t. but most health officials feel completely dropping its use for insect control was not the right choice. host: when it comes to aids and h. eufp h.i.v. drugs are you finding that generations are getng resistant to the earlier ones? guest: as we discussed earlier in the show, whenever you use widely an antibiotic or antiviral you will have the natural evolution of resistance. certainly a certain percentage of the i.v. are resistant to some of the drugs. fortunately, we have such a
robust menu of antiviral drugs for h.i.v., more than 30 individual drugs have been approved by the f.d.a. in this country, that even though you have resistance, you very often, inact almost always you can find another combination of anti-h.i.v. drugs that would suppress it. so resistance is something you don't want to take lightly we have been able to circumvent that because we have so many good drugs. host: 15 minutes left with our guest dr. anthony fauci. boca raton, florida. caller: my kquestion, i read a recent article that said it is now becoming an infectious disease and that the h-pylore is resistant to first line drug treatment and many people are having second and third
treatments because it is coming back. host: what is h-pylori? >> it is a bacteria that affects the g.i.tract. guest: it is a fascinating medical story in that foreve for decades and decades, people thought that alwaulcers were du stress and a variety of other factors when in fact the overwhelming majority of gastric ulcers are due to a microbe referred to as h-pylori wch inhacketts the -- inhabits the upper attract of people when that was discovered which one a nobel prize for that, when that was discovered antibiotics clearly were used to get rid of the h-pylori and dramatically
decreased the you willers. and -- ulcers. and the more you use antibiotics, microbes will find a way to survive that and mutate and develop resistance. that has happened with some strains. but fortunately we have alternative drugs for it. so what you need to do if you have h-pylori you have to make sure you are deem with an organism that is sensitive to the antibiotics that the physician chooses to use for the treatment of that person. . the way to cut down is to end
the epidemic. the way to do that, you can read about eradicating lyme disease. there is a connecticut coalition with information. there are seven great towns where and never ended. guest: lyme disease is problematic. we had a vaccine that turned out not to be that good. we still do not have a really good vaccine that we can widely used.
there is a lot of controversy and debate about that. you should not use very long- term antibiotics for their there is been a lot of debate and controversy about it purdah -- about it. h1n1 is a virus. you do not use antibiotics. if he gets a shot of the h1n1, it is used to prevent infection. if you get affected -- infected with h1n1 or you get significantly bill, there are anti-viral drugs that can be used for other influences.
h1n1 is a common viral illness. common and -- for influenza. is it common illness. host: call comes in from new jersey. caller: i wanted to know about the study that you did in 1991 when i was up there. the medication was bactram and folic acid. is there anything new on that? guest: yes, there is. the study that we did in the 70's and 80's -- in the 1970's and 1980's was for serious diseases, particularly kidney disease.
host: unrelated with our conversation is this tweet. that is completely unrelated to dr. fauci, but ihought you might be interested. we go to wisconsin. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been watching a program for over four months and taking notes, and i have been interested in all strands of medicine all my life. never won, going on the 63 years old. what i am reading -- number one,
i am going on 63 years old. what i reading right now is by a doctor who talks about taking products -- probiotics. you have the evidence to support that, but most doctors do not support that. host: what is a probiotic? guest: it is a substance that contains a relatively benign substances that is found in your gut and nasal passages. if you take an antibiotic, it counters the affect that you are giving -- should she take an anti biotic, it counters the effect that you are taking it for, but it will kill all of the bacteria that cause you no harm. with a probitic you repopulate
the harmless, or good, and bacteria. most people do not necessarily feel that you have to give that and the overwhelming majority of ysicians do not do that. host: what about yogurt and other things? guest: yogurt is good and there are some harmless bacteria and there are microbes that are harmless and symbiotic and work well in your body without calling disease. host: mass., your honor. caller: thk you for your long public service to all of us. is there an antibiotic better than most to treat pediatric your infections?
-- your infectionear infections? i am hearing a amoxicillin, and it repeats itself. guest: let's break it up into two components. there are good antibiotics. a amoxicillin that you just mentioned is the classic antibiotic for a job with an infection. pneumococcus is a common cause of middle ear infections in children and pneumonias in children and adults, particularly elderly adults. we have very good vaccine against pneumococcus that we give to children and the derly. what w really need to do is to get more children vaccinated with the pneumococcal vaccine so they do not end up with these
your infections that are so troublesome. -- ear infections that are so troublesome. host: i know someone who gave their infant as acipro for an infection. guest: that is not good for children. physicians generally universally say you should not do that with children under 13 years old. host: with the rcent scarce that we've had, acipro became a familiar word to all of us. has it been overused? guest: probably, it has. whenever you gean antibiotic that is commonly thought of as a really good antibiotic, you
would almost certainly see some inappropriate use of that. i cannot give you the numbers of how badly it is overused, but i cannot imagine that it is not used i circumstances where it probably should not be used. is a very good antibiotic. host: michigan. caller: doctor, i've liked to have more appropriate use of kordell minerals -- colloidal minerals in the water rates, for example and i would like to see them on a national scale. host: any reaction to that call? guest: there is no scientific basis to do that at all.
st: teresa, go ahead. caller: if i have an autoimmune system, such as diabetes, does that mean my system more susceptible to bacterial and anti- -- and viral infections? you had mentioned the intestines allow for more absorption of nutrients, but doesn't it also allows for more absorptions of toxins? guest: two entirely separate questions. the first, if you haven't -- if you have diabetes, there is a greater susceptibility mostly to a certain bacterial infections among people with diabetes, particularly poorly controlled diabetes. that is a well-known observation since we have
recognized diabetes as a disease. getting dr. the question regarding -- getting back to the question regarding the changing the flora of the gut, you do not change the lining of the debt. you change the bacterial composition of the colonies of the gut. that would allow for more efficient absorption of certain nutrients. there is no indication when you do that that there are more toxins released. because the animals, if anything, are much healthier, rather than getting sick. if you were observing toxins, you would see the effect on the animals, and you do not see that. host: last fall in virginia. -- last call in virginia.
caller: a couple of years ago, about seven years ago, i was treated for non-hodgkin's lymphoma. a treatment with other chemotherapy agents. the very soon after, my thyroid decreased significantly and my levels -- might t h c levels went up. is there any link here? guest: you have four powerful side of toxic and imnosuppressive agents. there is no one directly between an decressin function and the use of those, but it is not surprising -- between endocrine function and the use of those, but it is not
surprising that wheneople undergo treatment for something like hodgkin's disease, there would be some of new melik -- abnormalities. it grows to be something unrelated, but since you had such a reaction, i would not be surprised that there is a relationship between that and your subquent function. host: how much money is spent on research for anbiotics? guest: my institute does the invest majority of that. i would not say, all of it is done by us, but we spent a short of $800 million per year on antibiotic research. of that, about to enter million dollars is spefically to study antibiotic resistance. -- about $200 million in specifically to study antibiotic resistance. host: if you, wanted to say anything to the people of t
country that are listening about the use of antibiotics, what would you say? guest: there are many life- threatening things that eded antibiotics, but do not pressure your physician or yourself to go on antibiotics unless you have a bacterial infection that is proven or bear very -- or very, very highly suspected of being in you. and you will not do your body any good by creating g a resistance. >> he said to me, i would like to announce his my selection to the next associate justice of
the united states supreme court. i caught my breath and started to cry and said, thank you. >> learn more but the nation's highest court did the eyes of those who served there. the supreme court, available now in hard cover and also end in e- book. the midterm elections are six months away and could change the balance of power in washington. what the debate said yardy taken place. it is online at the new c-span video library producer to come and watch it, quebec, and share it. >> michelle obama talked about aising her doctor during
mother's day event in the east room of the white house. her remarks are a little over 10 minutes. >> where you? i cannot keep up with everyone. mrs. carter, you have been just a wonderful support and a source of knowledge for me. during my time here. you have been so generous. we tried to have lunch together whenever you come into the city. the time that we spend together means a great deal. i cannot tell you how much i appreciate your support. mrs. carter is an advocate for mental health ward. she has just written a book. we will be doing more work on posttraumatic stress disorder. she is not stopped moving yet.
>> [inaudible] >> thank you. mrs. carter is also joined by her granddaughter, sarah. we thought we were going to have mrs. carter's great granddaughter, but she got a little fuzzy. the mom had to go home. maybe next time. i am also that patricia nixon cox is here. this is president nixon pose a dodger. [applause] -- nixon's daughter. [applause] and susan eisenhower, and eisenhower's granddaughters. they are here as well. please come and stand. [applause]
thank you all for being here. it means so much. the girls and i have our favorite picture, it is your wedding picture. it is downstairs. we all stand and at that. they are not thinking about marriage, by the way. do not write that down on a blog. of course, there is the photo of president eisenhower meeting with civil rights leaders in 1958 that is in the oval office. there is much history in this room today. i feel pleased to welcome generations of women back to the white house. it is just an honor to have the law. if you look around the room, it is here. when many generations here this afternoon.
we have family members and friends. wheat that cabinet secretaries. we do we have a cabinet secretaries and students and everyone in between. many of you came with a woman that means a great deal to your life b. oh, really? mothers, daughters, granddaughters, sisters, best friends. it is a wonderful combination of women who were important to us. the people here today show us just how crucial women are in guiding their families panetta -- families and neighborhoods and countries. they are the shoulder that we lean on as individuals but collectively these are the shoulders that form the foundation of our community. they are our friends, teachers,
mentors, bosses. they find time to car pool and do projects. they lead our businesses and birthday parties. our lives and communities are blessed by everything big and small that mothers and other figures give us every single day. that is really what mother's day is all about, showing our gratitude for all that they do. it is about attempting to give back to some of the love and care of these women have given us. when you think about it, you could do 15 horsts -- do it 15 or 28 sleepless nights in high school equal a bouquet of flowers or chocolate or brunch? i do not know. [laughter] the mothers of teenagers really laughed at about one. i do not quite know that yet.
there is no way to quantify how important these women are in our lives. there is no way that i could ever fully measure all that my own money has done for -- mommy has done for me. here she is. [applause] this woman who tries to take the credit for to ibm for some reason -- for who i am, for some reason. she is my rock. she has pulled me up when i stumbled. she has pulled me back when i run out of line. she really does push a to be the best woman that i can be treaty as a professional and a mother and as a brand. she has always, always, been
there for me. as our family has grown, she has managed to expand the love for all of us. raising our girls and the white -- and notith my mom one to do this -- is a beautiful experience. it is beautiful. i am pretty sure the president is happy about it too. [laughter] in this world, there is so much going on. we know that we are blessed, the obama's. even though we live in the white house, we know that our day-to- day family interaction is not really different than families living in atlanta or sioux falls or tucson. everyone is busy. ours is to televise. everyone is doing the best job they can to raise their kids. everyone is looking for support.
in his mother's day proclamation, president carter wrote, "in this time when the family subjected to many new pressures, the job of nurturing future generations is more difficult and more important than ever thought " it is as true today as it was 31 years ago. one person cannot do it alone. for in a mess that think we can or should, we should just get over it. it is in nearly as ports and as my mother has them for their there other women who played significant roles in my development. the new perspectives and learn from teachers and co-workers has really helped shave to me, too. it is not always have to be a mother -- helped shape me, too.
it is not always have to be a mother. that is why we started the white house leadership and mentoring initiative here. even with our busy schedules, and the women here are busy, we believe in the importance of giving our young men tease a piece of ourself. -- mentees a piece of ourselves. i want you to stand. you all look so pretty.
these women have been with this for several months we have gone to event together. a.q. view that to write a motorcade with me. if they come to some of my events. we get to eat some visitors from the state dinner before anybody else. we have done some committee vice together. we've met some of the supreme court justices. they met with us for a long time. it was powerful. this program is also about ensuring that these women really see their possibilities. it is by helping to realize who they can be, the leaders of tomorrow. that is what we expect in showing them that they can
create their opportunities. that is what we talk about, right? we want them to imagine the possibility that they could one day be a cabinet secretary or an officer in the military who mentors a young girl once a week ago we want them to imagine being business leaders who balance their kids and their professional lives. there is so many of these stories. they may have different characters and sound tracks, but what did you grow up on being crosby or beyonce, each story is important. we share so much as women. the plan to help us clear hurdles we thought we were too high, the way to our mothers did this when major proud and woman may not so proud.
you on the looks. -- know the looks. today is a day to enjoy one another. asked questions. talk. open your mouth. celebrate let's just each other. thank you all for taking the time to come. thank you, mommy. let's have some tea. [applause] >> his documentary about the 1937 massacre and what it means
to 1a professional sports team. >> now senate hearing with eric holder. he testified about the president's fiscal year 2012 budget request. he is joined by the inspector general. this is one hour and 35 minutes. >> good morning. this is the subcommittee on appropriations. today we reviewed the budget for the department of justice and take testimony from eric holder. after mr. holder complete his remarks and we have had our
questioning, we will also hear from the inspector general glen fiein. he is very practiced at the subcommittees. i want to note that those senator shelby is not here, he is a libertine -- he is the ranking member. he is required to be here. with yen as miss -- with its unanimous consent, we will put to the shelby statement into the record the gi. are going to discuss the justice department's 2011 budget request. we will be examining how
counter-terrorism and the safety of u.s. citizens. taays' dollars. we welcome mr. holder, who brings the experience of a career osecutor, experience in the private sector, but also he himself has worked diligently on e protection of the public from terrorism and violent crime as a assistant u.s. attorney. i have three priorities that i'll be examining with the justice department today. number one, national security, which is how is the department of justice keeping america safe? al, community security, what is the partment of justice doing to keep our community safe from violent crime, gangs and drugealers and our families safe, whether it's against mortgage fraud or the despicable
stalking of sexual predators. as the chair of the commce justice subcommittee, i'm going to make sure the department of justice has what it needs to carry out its mission and its mandate to protect the country from predatory attacks, whether they occur by terrorists in times square or in our neighborhoods and, hey, inimes square it was in both. we have worked to pu dollars in the federal checkbook to be able to do that. as we riew president obama's request, we note that the request is for $29.2 billion, a 1.5 billion increase over the 2010 omnibus level. the five levels of the budget include safeguarding our southwest border for $584 million, that is pursuing and dismantling the drug cartels in the smuggling of illegal narcotics, drugs and human
beings. the other is the funding for state and local law enforcement, where we worry that that blue li is getting tnner and needs all the help they can in the local communities. because all crime fighting begins with the locals, and i must say as we will be hearing about the times square incident this morning, the fact that local vendors cooperated to see something, say something but the nypd right there on the job moving as swiftly as they could because they had -- they were there and had the right training and the right equipment, then backed up by federal agents. it worked i think the way it should and we look forward to hearing that but also there is the rise of white collar crime and this committee believes that that crime too needs to be followed through with inveigation and prosecution and jail if necessary, particularly in the areaf mortgage fra in the financial
scams that go on but last but not at all least we're here to also look out for the civil rights of our peop and that enforcement. previous administrations have cut funding for local law enforcement by 50%. we don't want to do that. we want to make sure that the crime rates don't rise. we want to get crime rates down. we want to get unemployment rates down and this subcommittee wants to do its part. this budget invests $3.4 billion in state and local and tribal partners and look forward to working with our local communities. last month we heard -- we know about the partnership, of course, with the fbi and we reviewed this extensively with the fbi director. we believe those joint task forces, whether it's on violent crime, terrorism or mortgage fraud, is the way to go. we look forward to your budget
on that. i know we've started late and i just want to make one other emphas emphasis, which isn protecting women and children. we really salute the obama administration for increasing funds against the violence against women and know when the hot line was created in the judiciary committee and senator leahy played suchn important part in that along with our vice president, we nownow that hot line, over 1 million women have called that hot line and they've either been saved from death or danger. we want -- that's as important as standing sentrygainst any other attack. the protection for children, as a former child abuse worker there's nothing as vile as a crime against a child anticipate want to make sure you have the right resources to do the job. there are other issues referring guantanamo bay, the purchase of the illinois prison and detention of prisoners but we
are fortunate this morning to have also the chair of the judiciary committee and i know he will have his own particular questions, and then also someone who's been very vigorous in the area of the justice department, senator leahy. i'm going to ask you now that i have unanimous consent for my full record going -- or my ful statement going into the record and attoey to theattorney general. >> good morning, chairwoman mikulski. senator leahy and senator lautenberg. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the president's fiscal year 2011 budget for the department of justice and provide an update on the progress, its key priorities and also our future plans. i appreciate your recognition of the department's critical mission and look forward to your continued partnership and support. now, when i appeared before this subcommittee lt may, i set forth several goals for the
department. to protect our nation's security, to reinvigorate the department's traditional missions and to restore integrity and transparency at every level of the department's work. i also pledged that under my leadership all decisions and policies would be based on the facts, the law and t best interests of the american people regardless of political pressures or political consequences. now, almost one year later i'm pleased to report that the department has made i believe historicrogress in meeting these goals. although new allenges and demands have emerged, the thousands of men and women who serve the department have advaed efforts to protect our country, to enforce our laws in a nonpartisan manne to defend r interests in court and to ensure the strength and the fairness of our justice stem. the president's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the department o justice which totals, as you said $29 billion and includes enhancement will
allow the department to build on the progress that's been achieved over the last 15 months. now, during this time we have enhanced our national security progms and capabilities. we've strengthened efforts to support our most vulnerable communities. to safeguard civil rightsn our workplaces, our housing market, voting booths, our border areas and also to protect our environment. in light of last week's oil spill in the gulf of mexico i want to note that the justice department stands ready to vigorously enforce the laws that protect the people who work and reside near the gulf, the lol wildlife, the environment and the ameran taxpayers. i recently dispatched a team of attorneys to new orleans to monitor the oil spill and the department will continue to provide critical legal advice and support to the agencies that are involved in the federal response. as part of our focus on securing our ecomy and combating mortgage and financial fraud, the department is now spearheadinghe financial
enforcement task force that president obama launched last year. and in collaboration with the department of health and human services we have made meaningful progress in combating and deterring health care fraud through the health care fraud prevention and enforcement action teams also called the h.e.a.t. teams. through this initiative we have brought the full resources of our agencies to bear against individuals and corporations who illegally divert taxpayer resources for their own profits. just last week this work resulted in a $520 million settlement, the largest er amount, paid by a company in a civi only settlement of off label pharmaceutical marketing claims. and over the past 15 months, the justice department has recouped mo than $2.8 billion in health care fraud cases through the use of the false claims act. money that will be fed back into the federal coffers. the president's budget request will allow the department to build on these achievements and continue making progress in meeting its responsibilities. let me assure you that in
distributing and using these funds we will do them carefully and think strategically and we will act to ensure accountability and transparency just as we have in managing the billions of doars that have recentlyeen recovered. now, the investments requested in the president's budget would allow us to continue aggressively pursuing and prosecuting health care fraud, to expand the mmunity oriented policing services program -- hiring program, the cops program. to reduce violent crime and drug trafficking, to assist our state and local and tribal law enforcement partners, to ensure that detention programs are adequately funded and effective prison and jail re-entr programs are avaable to protect civil right, to combat international organized crime and enforce immigration laws. as you knw, the department is currently working with agencies across the federal government and with congress to support corehensive immigration reform in a way that keeps faith as president obama has said with our heritage as both a nation of
immigrants and a nation of laws. the budget would also allow the department to strengthen its critical national secury work. as you've seen $300 million in program increases have been requested to help strengthen national security and to counter the threat of terrorism. these resources will enable us to expandn therogress that we've made in the last year. due to the vigilance of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies we have succded repeatedly in identifying and avert i averti ining nascient plots. faisal shahzad was arrested in connection with his alleged role in the car bombing in times square. on tuesday, he was charged with acts of terrorism, transcending national boundaries, attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and otr federal crimes. if convicted, he faces a potential life sentence in prison. now, during ongoing questioning by federal agency shahzad
provided useful information and we will continue t pursue a number of leads as we gear intelligence relating to this attempted attack. now, although this car bomb failed to properly detonate, this plot was yet another reminder that terrorist are still plotting to kill americans. in february nji buhlazazi pled guilty. less than two weeks ago we secured another guil plea from one of his co-conspitors and revealed the role of a senior al qaeda leader in ordering the plot. three others have also been charged as a result of our investigation. these attempted attacks are stark reminders of the threats that we face as a nation and must confront for t department of justice and our partners in the national security community, there is simply no higher priority than disrupting potential attacks and bringing
those who plot them to justice. and the shahzad and zazi cases that is exactly what the dedicated federal agents, law enforcement officers and justice department prosecutors along with their state and local partners in particular the nypd, whate achieved through exemplary investigative efforts. it is in america's best interest to ensure that these public servants have the resources necessary to continue their outstanding work. now, in this time of unprecented challenges and new threats and ongoing war, your support will be critical in helping the department meet its goals and our obligations. as we move forward i look forward to working with all of you, as wel once again i thank you for inviting me here today and i am now happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you very much, mr. attorney general. we are going to proceed this
morning and in terms of a rival we note the chair of the judiciary committee. i'm going to ask some questions serve my right for a second round to be sure that members who have really demanding schedules have their opportunity. obviously the times square bombing aempt is in everyone's -- the news. ere are those who will raise issues relat to the miranda reading rights and so on. that is not my focus. my focus is the questions to you related to the way it worked and the way you feel you have the resources for it to continue to work. as press accounts report, veors saw a smoking car. they said something and nypd arrived. they took the actions they were supposed to. then federal officials came in. you can relay that story. my question to you is is that the way -- you can't have an fbi
agent on every corner butyou can have police ficers on many corners. how do you see that, first of all, i think it's amazing that this man was apprehended in 53 hours and 24 minutes. >> yes, that was -- >> i think we really have to congratulate law enforcement for at. the watch list is a different bag, talking toe about watch lists is like chalk on a blackboard but let's talk about what our law enforcement did, both state and local up the chain and then do you feel you have -- what did it take to do that and do you have the resources to make sure whether it's in los angeles or baltim e baltimore, et cetera, that we have these security mechanisms and people. >> yeah, well, i think that the success of that effort is a direct result of the joint efforts that we have between the federal government and our state and local partners, the work
that the fbi did in new york with the new york police department, as well as our counterparts at the department of homeland security. i think all of that combined for making the -- our attempts to disrupt that plan sucssful. and that is why the budget focuses on getting money to these joint terrorism tas forces, getting money to our state and local partners. i think what you said is exact right. we have to use our state and local counterparts as force multipliers. they are the people who are going to be most familia with the communities in which they operate. there are far more of them than there are federal law enforcement officialsnd without their assistance, without their partnership, we will not be as successful as we were in foiling thi plot. >> so what is it then do you feel -- do you want to elaborate on your c.o.p.s. program, your burn grants. do you feel it's because of this or do you feel that lice
departments where there' high risk of threat, new york obviously being one, l.a., we know the list, washington, d.c., that there needs to be specialized training? what do we need to put in the budget so that we can deploy people in communits and that they have the right training and the right equipment? >> well, i think we have to >> just notutting someone in a uniform on the street. it's like boots on the ground in urban neighborhoods. they have to be train ed and equipped. >> right. there are a number of steps. we have to certainly first support the hiring of state and local law enforcement officials. the cops hiring plan has -- 600 cops hiring program have a fiscal year 2011 request for $600 million, up $297 million from this year. so that's the first step. to get these people on the force, but the point you make is an excellent one and that simply having them there is not sufficient. they have to be adequately
trained. they're interacting with their federal counterparts and these joint terrorism task forces, training opportuties that we can make available. the training that the knowledge that we can glean from them in the interaction that we have during training. we have built upon the billion dollars that was in the recovery act that was dedicated to the cops program to try to make sure that we have a constant level of pport for our state and local partners both in terms of hiring and with regard to the specialized training that is needed in dealing with these terrorism cases. >> aren't you cutting the cops program by $100 million in the president' request? >> well, i am not -- >> the fiscal 2011 budget request provides for $690
million, in 2010 there were 792 million. tell you what, mr. holder, why don't you check that out with your am, because i know this committee on a bipartisan effort, if there's one thing we really do support, it's the cops program and the burn grants. i think as we look at the justice department, that's where everyone on either side of the aisle because every community needs it. why don't we take a look athat and see and come back to it. >> the numbers that i have show us increasing the amount pretty substantially from about $298 million to $600 million. so in terms of cops money, cops hiring and, again, as i said that's built on top of the billion dollars in money that was dedicated from the recovery act. but we'll certainly -- let me work thrgh those numbers and
share them with you. >> right, because ihink the point that i'm making, let's make -- that there is no reduction of support for the cops program and also for the burn grants which allows them to get what ty need depending on the needs of the local communities. but i want to be sure that we accommodate as many people as we can. i'll come back to my questions. senator leahy, we're so glad to have the chair of the judiciary committee here. >> thank you. thank you and i apologize that i'm going to have to lea because the committee is going to be having a markup. attorney general, i all the commissioner ray kelly to applaud the new york police department for their work on the times square bombing, and i have spoken to you. i applaud you and the department of justice and the fbi for what
they've done as it is one of those things where it is nice to see everybody working together. i should also applaud the citizens who in this case, the vendor who saw somethg suspicious and reported it to the police. the poli reacted immediately and i won't go into all the things you were able to do and tracking phones and everything else in this hearing. it was a pretty remarkable to see all the pies come together. i was rather surprised to hear members of congresscriticize law enforcement for doing what law enforcement has always done since the miranda decision came down and offering up and giving miranda warning to the suspect.
now, the fact that you had to give miranda warnings, which is required, did that in any way hinder your investigation? >> no, it did not. as we have seen in prior investigations, the giving of miranda warnings has not deterred people from talking to us and mr. shahzad is, in fact, continuing to cooperate with us. >> in fact, wouldn't it be safe to say and you can rely on your own experience as a prosecutor even before you were attorney general, as i rely on mine, isn't it safe to say that there are many, many, many cases where a person is given great deal of information about a crime they've committed after they've been given the miranda warning. >> that's absolutely correct and it is not conferring a right on somebody or giving them -- treating them in a special way. it is allowing us to make sure statements they give to us will
be admissible in court. if you look at what we have done in the recent past, the following people have been given the miranda warnings and have after that continued to cooperate. daviheadley, colleen larose, jamie pauline ra mire rest, daniel boyd, dylan boyd, zahira boyd. even after getting warnings cooperating. mr. zazi and his co-conspirator, abdulmutallab and all these people who s ultimately decided to speak with the government >> again, i can think back even to murder cases where -- i prosecuted and now you're dealing with far more serious cases where, again, people are given the miranda warning and they went ahead and gave the information, but you also had then, as you said, the ability to use the -- use the statements in court. now, since taking office, i
believe -- and madam chair, wearing my hat as the chair of the judiciary committee, i've seen you use all the options available to try terrorists, suspects including federal criminal commissions. since september 11th, there have been over 400 terrorism-related convictions in federal court. there are hundreds of terrorists locked up in our prisons. over 400. now there's been three people convicted in military commissions. i think the new manual for military commissions was issued last week. without puttingords in your mouth is it safe to say that the federal courts know what they're dog when they handle these kind of cases? >> i'll use those words. we want to make sure that we use all the tools that we have
available to us in trying to prosecute this r. if you were to take from us the ability to use the federal courts, you will weaken our ability to win this war. you will weaken the strength of thisation. we have to have the ability to use the article 3 courts, the reformed military commissions, our military power, our diplomatic power. we need to have all these tools soe are successful in this fight against al qaeda and others who would do this nation harm. >> in wake of the sastrous oil spill in the gulf of mexico there were reports that bp was requiring the fishermen who volunteered to help clean up the spill to waive their rights to sue bp. now, these fishermen are out of work because of the bp spill and also reports bp was offering settlementcapped at $5,000 to residents facing damage from the
spill if they give up their right to sue. the are people facing financial ruin, lifetime building up their fishing operations being wiped out. are there ways thatgovernment might make the fishermen and small businesswners and residents and other victims of th oil spill whole immediately while still holding those responsible for the spillike bp and halliburton and whatnot, holding them ultimately liable? >> well, that's one of the reasons why i dispatched a task force of lawyers to head up our civil division, the head of our environmental and natural resource division to get down there to make sure we protect the federal government's rights with regard to the cost th will be potentially incurred in this cleanup and to make sure those costs areborne by bp but to ensure that the residents in that area, the business people in that area, have a-- maximize
their opportunities for recovering whatever moneys they can have. it's my understanding that bp has backed off on that effort to get people to sign waivers and i think that's the appropriate thing to do. trying to get people to away for a re $5,000 damages that you might have would far exceed that is clely the right thing to do. >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you, pad dam chair, i apologize for having to leave. >> i think we're very fortunate to have the chair of the authorizing committee of judiciary and the intell committee here because of the work of the fbi and because of the anti-terrorism issues and we are going to really ask our two authorizing chairs to look a this budget and welcome their advice and their insight as we put this tother. senator lautenberg, you were the second to arrive. >> thank you, madam chairman.
>> and then we'll go to senator murkowski and finestein. >> thank you, madam chairman and welcome atrney general holder. i say thank you for the leadership that you have brought -- provided to the a.g.'s operation. everyone knows how energetic and positive yourleadership has been and we're grateful to you. one of the things that's happened in the world thatwe live in now is with the internationalization of everything. with the instant communications, electronic access to data has changed the world. uh-huh. >> we are ever-more threatened in my view to terrorist attack and confirmed by though a bumbling one last week the fact
of the matter is that it is posed as a question, as well as a statement, and that is, you know the state of new jersey, you know it very well has a two-mile stretch from the airport to the harbor deemed to be the most dangerous two-mile stretch in the country as a target for terrorist attack. and yet we are so lean, i wish we could be mean, but we are lacking in resources, and the fact that have an expansion of the cops program that torney general is terrific. it's very heful to us. my state, like so many, is without -- almost without resource. in atlantic city, new jersey, prominent place, we drop terminated 59 cops, 59 cops out
of the police force. a huge number, and some part of that can be redeemed by the cops program that we have here, have seen here today. mr. holder the suspect was around five months recently pakistan, came back and talked out bombmaking training in waziristan. would doj and fbi, were they looking at this fellow at all times prior to the attempted bombing? >> well, we're in the process -- this is an ongoing investigation and we're in the process of looking at indices and files to see exactly what we knew about this gentleman and when we knew it. i'm a little at a disadvantage
because this is an ongoing investigation and there are leads that we are still pursuing om getting into too much detail about what we know at this point because some of that serves as the basis for things that are in the process that are ongoing. but we are -- in answe to your question, we are in the process of trying to determine actly what we knew about him and when. >> well, i want to get to a key issue as far as my agenda is concerned. and i ask this, it was reported that the times square bomber left a loaded handgun in his car at jfk as he tried to make his escape. the state of georgia, state legislature recently passed a bill that that would allow peop carry a loaded gun into an airport. do you support allowing people to carry loaded guns into an
american airport? this one happened to be the largest in the world. >> i mean, we certainly have the supreme court's decision in heller that says theecond amendment is an individual right. we have to respect the supreme court's decision in that regard. that doesn't mean, however, that that right is one that i absolute and we have to balance that individual right against our collective security, and there has toe a way in which if there is a tension, we try to resolve that tension. the notion that people could bring guns to airports, especially given the al qaeda focus on the use of airplanes as terrorist tools, is one that to me is very worrysome. i would hope that we would try to keep weapons, guns, away from the very instruments that al qaeda and other organizations successfully used on september the 11th and have continued to try to use in the present and i suspect in the future as well.
>> mr. holder, last month john biddell woded two pentagon police officers before he was shot and killed. at least one of the handguns was linked to a prite gun show sale. i brought the legislation to the nate when vice president gore was in that position and he broke a tie, 51-50, for us to close the gun show loophole, to close these -- shut down these dealers that don't have to ask your name, who you are, whe you are, anything. would you recommend congress actingo close the gun show loophole once and for all? >> well, we are committed to keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. we know that people who have access to these guns have committed any manner of crimes. we have certainly seen a disproportionate number of gun crimes in our inner cities and
in other places, the incident that you described being among them. we want to make sure that we take advantage of the tools that we have and that we enforce these mechanisms, enforce these tools, and make sure that as i said, we're keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not ve them. >> thank you for that yes answer. i authored the juvenile mentoring program, created one-on-one mentoring for a modest cost for at-risk youth during a brief hiatus i had, it was deauthorized. i plan to reintroduce this legislation for reauthorization in the coming weeks. do you see any value to that program, to this mentoring, i don't know how familiar you are with the results that we had, in
rms of crime prevention and giving our youth an alternative to gang >> that's exactly the approach th we have to take. we have to understand that crime fighting happens not only by police officers and by prosecutors. crime fighting happens in schools, it happens in mentoring, through menting. there's a direct correlation between schools that work, between mentoring efforts, between high levels of emplment, a thosehings counter, counter crime, are good crime-fighting measures. we have to get beyond the notion that crime fighting only happens through people i uniform or from people who are lawyers, who act as prosecutors. we have to look at the social conditns that tend to breed crime and if we want to keep the crime rate down, we have to deal with those underlying social conditions and mentoring, mentoring is one of the key ways in which you do that. there are too many young people, especially young men, and i saw
this when i was a judge here in the d.c. superior court, who came before me who had no man in their life. women did a great job in trying to raise these young guys but i think that mentoring, especially of young men, is a critical thing in o successful crime fighting efforts. >> thank you, senator. senator murkowski? >> thank you. welcome, attorney general holder. >> morning. >> good morning to you. question for you about a vacancy at we are looking at in the ninth circuit. andrew kleinfeld, who has been alaska's sole judge on the ninth circuit,as notified th president he will be retiring from active service in mid-june, june 12th. by my reading, that will place the ninth circuit out of mpliance with the u.s. code 28
usc 44c which requires there shall be one circuit judge in regular active service appointed from the residents of each state in a circuit. so my question to you is whether or not you understand as i do that this requirement under 28 usc, that judge kleinfeld's st must, in fact, be filled by another resident of the state of alaska and if you agree with that, can you tell me how the process to fill that vacancy is moving ahead? >> sure. we are trying to fill vacancies that exist in all of the circuit courts as well as the district courts as quickly as we can, working with elected officials in all of those states, including reaching across the aisle to our republican colleagues to get names of qualified people. this president i think is committed toppointing and putting on the bench qualified
people who are not ideological in their views. one of the thing i will certainly look at, this having been brought to myattention, is to assure that with regard to that vacancy, we will interact with you if there are suggestions that you have. the white house counsel is chiefly responsible for the organization of our effort, the justice department works with the white house counsel's office in vetting candidates and identifying possible candidates and we will do that as quickly as we can to ensure that that seat is filled as quickly as we can. >> well, we appreciate the expediency, but again, i will remind you that that is t only seat that is occupied by an alaskan and as i read the u.s. code, it does require that there be an appointment from the resident of each state so we would like to work with you on that, not only ensuring that it's filled quickly but in consultation with members of the alaska delegation.
we appreciatthat. we also have a u.s. district judge who has announced that he's going to be ting senior atus next year and i will assume but i guess i should ask it by way of a question that the administration's plan to consult with the alaska delegation will be very similar to what we're talking abou with the ninth cit vacancy? >> yes. that is the way in which we have operated. we have talked to i think the senators in the states where those vacancies have occurred. as i said, we have reached across the aisle. we are always open to suggestions that senators have, be they republican or democratic, and we try to get the best people that we can for these vacancies. m troubled that in at least some of our district courts and some of our circuit courts, the number of vacancies is getting i think almingly high and we need to move as quickly as we can both in nominating people
and getting them confirmed. in the senate,here are a number of judges i think who have kind of lingered in the senate, either in the judiciary mmittee or on the floor. i think mainly on the floor. awaiting votes. i would hope any spirited bipartisanship we can get those people votes and get them on the bench so they can serve the american people. >> we appreciate that. want to talk just a little bit more about the ninth circuit. i have long been of the opinion that the ninth circuit covers far too much territory, its caseload is too heavy, it's understaffed, the judges of the ninth circuit are being asked t spend a lot of time away from their families to hear cases in far-flung states that make up the circuit and i have long supported a split of the ninth circuit into two circuits. the question to you this morning is whether or not you see any justification in maintaining the ninth circuit in its present form and what is the administration's view on the
legislation to split the ninth circuit? senator enson has had legislation introduced this year, we worked with him in the past. if you could just address the workload and the situation as to how the ninth ciuit could best and most efficiently operate? >> the ninth circuit i think does present unique problems, both in its geographic size and with regard to the workload that it has. i think we want to look at that, look at those two issues, and make a determination about whether there is t need for some reconstruction, some reconfiguring. this is something that i have not really focused on in the recent past but i know i have certainly read articles about that, had conversations about that possibility. we'll certainly want to work with congress in looking at the workload, the geographic dispersion of the ninth circuit in making the appropriate determination. >> appreciate that. thank you, madam chair.
>> senator feinstein is also the chair of the intelligence committee, and alsos an outspoken person on the funding for the detainee trust fund that is often skimpy and spartan. you know where we ask local jurisdictions to hold the prisoners that are federal and then don't pay the bill. so i hope you ask some of those questions. >> well, thank you very much, madam chairman, i appreciate it. i want to ask a question in my capacity of chairman of the senate caucus on international narcotics control, and we've been spending some time looking at both afghanistan and mexico and the cartels and you could say that there is eruption i mexico and the cartels and you can say that there is major eruption in afghanistan with the
taliban increasingly taking over drug lab activities, transportation of narcotics and in effect, transforming themselves into a narco cartel which i happen to believe will be the result. we have found that as much as $169 million comes from a single heroin trafficker in a ten-month periodn afghanistan. at present, the dea, which has units to address this type of narco terrorism, does not have the manpower to stand up and devote full-time operations in afghanistan. i think they have been very effective. i've talked with former agents, mr. braun, others, about operations in southern afghanistan, and believe that for a fraction of our national investment in that country, a dea un could, in fact, be
dedicateto removing narco terrorists from the battlefield in direct support of the administration's top priority. so am asking the distinguished chairman to add money either in this bill or to try to put it in a 2010 supplemental to stand up a new terrorism investigations unit at dea special operations division to focus on afghanistan. would you support such an effort? >> yeah. i think the dea has been particarly effecte in afghanistan. at the end of fiscal year 2010, we expect to ve a permanent staff of about 81 positions, dea positions, in afghanistan. i think tat the reality that given the nature of the problem that i think you curately described, additional dea agents, additional prosecutors, additional people from the martial service, could all help
both with regard to the fight against the narcotics trade which helps fuel the taliban and also help that nation in its efforts to adhere to the rule of law. i think we have to view this comprehensively but i think the point that you make about the need for expanded dea resources in afghanistan is exactly right. >> second question. yesterday at the request of senator coyn, i chaired a hearing of the caucus on international narcotics control, particularly on drug violence in mexico and the implications for the united states, and what appears to me is that kidnappings in the last three years are up substantially. they are in southern california, they are in arizona. stash houses are up and home invasis are up, and i think that has really fueled the arizona law which i think is an unfortunate law, but
nonetheless, i understand the fear that people have. the question comes, have you looked at beefing up even more the law enforcement effort in these particular areas and if so, what is justice prepared to do? >> we have deployed stice department resourc from the atf, from the dea, from the fbi, along the border. i'm concerned about the level of violence that we've seen increase really pretty dramatically even in the last three to fouweeks, and i think that we are going to make sure thate keep a sufficient presence both in mexico and along the border, that we work with our state and local partners in those affected areas along the border to keep the violence level as low as we can. the efforts that our mexican colleagues have taken, president calderon has taken, those have been heroic efforts. we have to make sure that we are
supportive of those efforts. we have to i thi as i said, make sure that we maintain and increase our presence within mexico, but also maintain that presence along the border. we have deployed atf agents there on a rotating basis and i think one of thehings we're going to havto consider, given the violence level that we see in mexico and i'm concerned about that spilling over, is to make -- perhaps make that presence on a more permanent basis. >> just one of the things that came up yesterday, a captain by the name of martinez, 24 years experience, chula vista police department, they got a gran and what they began to do is really develop intelligence. a lot of these kidnappings related -- in mexico related to somebody in the united states, the person in the united states won't call up and say my relative has been kidnapped but they will talk about it. they pick up this talk so they're able to go in and make
an arrest in concert with mexican police or prevent something from happening, and i think that's a very good effort. additionally epic, my undersnding is that dea has requested funding for an expansion and renovation project to enlarge the existing epic facility. since 22 of the agencies are planning on adding personnel, is that something that is critical in your view? >> yes. i think it is. the need for -- for us to be successfuln this effort, we need to have -- need to gather as much intelligence as we can. we need to be able to process that intelligence. we need to have the enforcement agencies co-located so they can all make use of that intelligence and then efficiently deploy the resources that they have. the department's request for fiscal year 2011 seeks really significan resources to combat
violence along the southwest border and one of the ways in whicwe can do that i think is by supporting epic which i think is a critical part in our efforts. >> would you allow me one more question, madam chairman? >> absolutely. i think this is absolutely critical and was going to be part of my second round. please. >> you're a good sport. i appreciate it. let me ask a couple of miranda questions, because i'm seeing and reading everything -- >> wait a minute. >> -- that's going on. is it true that every american has the right under the fifth amendment to a miranda warning? >> yeah. the supreme court in the dickerson case, when chief judge rehnquist was arrived live in a decision, said the miranda warnings were ofonstitutional dimension and struck down a federal statute that tried to get around the earlier miranda ruling that was first established by the warren court. the rehnquist court said that
the miranda warnings were of constutional -- >> so this is now well-established that every american under the fifth amendment has this right. >> that is the way in which the supreme court has interpreted -- >> is there any exception? >> yes. ere are exceptions to miranda and that is one of the ways in which we conduct our interrogations of teorism suspects. it's what we did with abdulmutallab. >> could you concentrate on the national security exception? >> yeah. there is what's called a public safety exception. it comes from the quarrels case and allows a police officer and federal agent to question a suspect, potential defennt, a terrorist, for -- in order to protect the public safey, to ask questions such as are you acting alone, are there other bombs that we need to be worried about, are there oer people flying in who are going to be helping you, things to ensure
the public safety. we are allowed to ask those questions without giving miranda warnings and with regard to abdulmutallab and also with regard to shahzad, we made extensive use of the public safety exception before a decision was made to give them their miranda warnings. >> now, difficult question. according to process and precedent, what is the vicinity of time that that you call the public safety, i ll it a national security exception, can last? >> that's not really been defined by the courts. it is not -- it's not a prolonged period of time but i will say without getting into too much detail, that certainly it has been publicly reported that with regard to abd abdulmutall abdulmutallab, there was a one-hour interrogation period under the public safety exception and useful, valuable intelligence was gained in that one hour. a lot of people have said you only spoke to him for about an hour, they say 50 minutes.
without recognizing that in that period of time, qualified, experienced fbi agents can elicit really substantial amounts of information and again, without getting into too much detail with regard to shahzad, the questioning under the public safety exception far exceeded the amount of time that we had with mr. abdulmutallab. >> is it fair to say that process and precedent take that to around three to six hours? >> i don't think -- the courts ve never really said exactly -- >> courts have not said. >> -- how far you can go. >> prior use. >> i think that as long as you are asng questions, appropriate questions, probing about public safety issues, i think the courts are generally going to be supportive and we have asked those questions, i think, appropriately. minding the dictates of the supreme court in the quarrels case, and as i said, with regard to shahzad, really made use of that exception to elicit a very
substantial amount of information from him before the decisi was made to give him his miranda warnings. >> could shahzad be declared an enemy combatant and if that were to be the case, could he retain counsel and overturn the decision? >> he could certainly retain counsel in whatever forum he was in to try to challenge the decision that was made to not give him his miranda warnings. one of the things that -- >> what would be the likelihood of his succeeding? >> well, i'm obviously an advocate here but i think on the basis of the way in which the interrogation was done here and the care with which was done, i don't think he would be very successful. >> you do not? >> no. >> everything i've seen says he would have a high chance at being successful because he is an american and that seems to me to be a heavier prior right.
>> i'm sorry. i didn't hear the question. no, what i was saying is he would not be successful in -- i was saying he would not be successful in trying to say that the interrogation that was done was ne inappropriately. that was what i was saying. he would not be successful. >> in other words, declaring him an enemy combatant would not avoid his basic right? >> yeah. i think, again, the courts have not totally weighed in on -- in all of these areas, but i think the courts have really kind of indicated that there are certain basic rights that are going to apply no matter what forum you are in. it's a very big misconception that somehow or other people have far greater rights, terrorists have far greater rights in the article three courts than they would say in the military commissions. under the reformed military commissions act, there are
substantial procedural rights that defendants have. it's one of the reasons why this administration feels comfortable in using either military commissions or the article three courts. there is not a distinct advantage that people get, if they are in the article three courts. we have seen that we have successfully prosecuted over 300, close to 400 people who were charged with terrorist offenses in the article three venue. >> thank you. thank you, madam chairman. >> we could pursue is line of questioning but we have another witness and i have one other substantive question, then something related to marylan then we will go to the inspector general. attorney general, one of the issues that we are deeply involved in, whether it's the judiciary committee, the intel committee or appropriations, is cybersecurity, and we regard this as one of the greatest threats facing the united stat of america, and as we examine it, for example, the task force
that i'm on, we're looking at gornance, technology delopment to maintain the cybershield, the development of a work force to be able to be involved in this, and then there is the issue of civil liberties. my question is, this goes to the justice department, in the area of governance and civil liberties, there are new definitions th are going to have to be developed because essentially, the mother ship of most knowledge on protection lies with the natial security agency whose job is to protect dot m and our military options but there is dot gov, dot com, there is the power grid. has e justice department been tasked by the white house to look at, i'm not ging to go into t policies today, that will be a subject of other hearings and other forum, but has the justice department been
tasked by the white house to begin to look at what are some of the laws pertainin to governance and also, the laws of civil liberes where we have defined fisa rule we have defined firewalls which the military can't -- the role of the private sector seeking help from government, do they go to homeland security that doesn't ha a lot to offer right this nute, or if they do, but they're getting it really from the dot-mil. could you share with us what you have been tasked to do? >> well, we certainly are tasked with the responsibility of making sure that the internet which is a great tool, is used in appropriate ways. one of the things that we are tasked with is making sure that on the one hand, it is not used in a criminal way by people who would perpetrate frauds, by terrorists who use it to spread the -- their ideology and
potentially radicalize people and also, they use it in an operational way. we are also tasked with the responsibility of making sure that we do this in such a way that people who are on the internet, who are online, are protected. for fiscal year 2011 -- >> mr. attorney gener, i'm not asking that. i'm asking about the law and the fact that every report that has been issued says the law is now either gray, dated or nonexistent on this. we have mr. schwartz, a very capable professional, the white house czar. we don't know who in the hell's in charge. that's number one. number two, there are these issues where the private sector is really apprehensive about the ongoing attacks on them. google comes to the natnal security agency. that's really new ground. so we want to, as we look at this, protect -- we have to have a kind of lel framework also to be able to define what are
the parameters, how can various sectors in our government, do we maintain the current structure, do we look at it. have you been tasked to examine this inna comprehensive way? >> well, we are working with our counterparts in various parts of the executive anch and working with the white house as well to deal with the issues that you have raised. we are conrned about intrusns, we are concerned about privacy, both for corporations as well as individuals, and we also want to make sure that the laws that we have on the books are up to date to deal with this new reality that we confront. many of these laws that we try to apply in this cyberage are not necessarily consistent with the threats that we face in a variety of contexts, so what we have tried to do is to look at the laws as they exist. we have people within the justice department, in our criminal division, and in other parts of the department, that are always coming up with suggestions that we take to the
white house and thenould obviously work with congress to -- >> i'll be honest, mr. holder, i'm not looking for suggestions. i'm looking for a comprehensive effort tasked by the white house to the attorney general's office that says you've got to put a team together and look at this and give the white house a report and give the congress report to see if we have to move in a direction. has that entity or something similar to it, i don't want to get lost in semantics, or is it kind of we look at one area and we look at it in another, because that's been the problem. >> well, again, i would say that there is -- that comprehensive effort is run through the white house and in conjunction with the other branches of -- >> but you are the president's lawyer. you are america's lawyer. any new legal frameworkust me from the advice, counsel, legal memos, et cetera, from the attorney general's office. or am i wrong? >> no. we certainly play a big,
substantial role in that, bills that go through, suggestions that are made all have to be vetted in the justice department to make sure they are legal and our office of legal counsel looks at proposed legislation in that regard. >> well, i would like your team to talk more extensively to senator feinstein and i, and about something we might ask of the president and so on, rather than i don't want a linetem in an appropriations committee directing it. but there needs to be clarification of governance and there has to be clarification and perhs new law in this new world that we have to protect the american people. you did a great job, when i say you, everyone that got the times square bomber. there could be somebody out there right now that's got their eyes on the grid or any number of other things. we have to have our legal framework. meeting with entrepreneurs, they're stealing our secrets from the patent office, theye raiding our ideas. the private sector needs all the help that it can get and we have
certain constrictions that have served us well in the past, so we want to maintain privacy. we want to maintain civil liberties but we also don't want to be operating in an area where in our desire to protect the people, we have inadvertently made them or our entrepreneurial enterprises vulnerable. why don'we talk more about that, involving the intel and judiciary committee. >> that's fine. >> senator murkowski, i understand you have another question? >> i do, just one question. this follows up o some of the comments that have been made about the times square bomber, the recognition that in conjunction with the federal, state, the local law enforcement individualon the scene, it was an effort that we recognize and nd of in view of the fact that we've got national police week benning next week, i think that it is a testament to the work and the coordinated efforts
that go on. we appreciate that. but i -- as good as that was, i think there is a lot of concern out there about why the spect was not apprehended until the jet has pulled away from the gate. i come from a state where we all fly and we've got a level of scrutiny at our little airports in some pretty remotend out of the way places where people feel like the level of scrutiny and surveillance is justver the top, and they look then at an individual that has all -- he's triggered all the flags. you've purchased the ticket with cash, you've purchased it just immediately before the flight, international flight, all of the indicars. one really has to nder, where was the failing here, what
happened with this watch list and senator mikulski has used the terminology the watch list is like nails on a blackboard i think that gets all of us charged up as we talk about that, but we really do have to wonder, why was he not take into custody at the screening point, at the gate, in the jetway. it makesou wonder whether or not there's a lapse in communication then between the fbi and ntsa or perhaps between the fbi and other law enforcement agencies that are working at the airport. so the question to you this morning is whether or t you are satisfied with t way that this take-down went or whether there are ways that we can improve on this and then secondly, whether the take-down of a fugitive on board an
aircraft presented safety risk to the other passengers on the airplane. so if you can just speak to that end of this issue. >> i guess in direct response to yo question, i'm never satisfied even with an operation like this one, which i think we all have to understand was successful. the personho was responsible for placing that bomb in times square was apprehended in a relatively short period of time. now, i don't take too much from that. we were successful here. it does not mean that we don't have to continue to be vigilant. there will be other attempts and we will have to make sure that we are up to the task. we were successful here, but am i satisfied, no. we have to always look at our failures, our successes, and figure out ways in which we can in the next occasion, be even better. here, the tsa has already announced that it is going to make changes with regard to how often airlines are required to
look at changes that are made on the no-fly list. it was 12 hours. they will move it down to two hours. so that it is, if that change had been in effect, it's possible that he would have been caught before he got on the plane. with regard to the take-down -- >> can i ask you about that, though, because i have -- you purchase a ticket at the last minute to go home, i purchase it on my credit card, it's not cashand yet i am subjected even as a united states senator, i'm subjected to the full-on screening because i've purchased a one-way ticket at the last minute. tell me why, given all of the red flags again in this particular instance, why we were relying only on that watch list, on that no-fly list.
was there not sufficient information to cause further questioning? i think people are really concerned about how he was able to board that aircraft and have that aircraft actually leave the jetway before we were successful in apprehending him, and we're pleased that he was he was stopped, but we all have to wonder how did he get on that airplane? >> well, as i said, we have to look at tis successful operation and determine how we can do it better the next time. but again, i go back to the fact, the foundation here is that the effort to determine who was responsible for the placement of that bomb and his apprehension, we were successful in doing that in a relatively short period of time. the screening that goes -- that people go through, he was not while on the plane necessily a danger. he went through all of the metal detectors and all of those things. the informatn that was passed
to tsa was done in a way, under a system that is now in the process of being changed. in recognition of the fact that as we look even preliminarily, as we look back on what happened with regard to him, that we aladhave noticed there are things that we eed to calibrate in a different way and those changes have already been announced and are being instituted. >> i would like to help the senator from alaska out. we're really grouchy about the watch list and what happened. we were really proud of law enforcement because they knew where to go, but when you have a bomber that we know is loose in erica, woften presume they want to get out of america so there should have been a significant kind of red alert for the methods for leaving the united states of america, particularly when you're in new york. you either go north or you get an airplane. so the northern border should have gone on red alert.
tsa should have gone on red alert. some of these questions, senator, i think were also appropriate for the secrery of homeland security. that's the tsa part. but the president of the united states was volcanic after the christmas day bomber and ordered significant reforms..o cf1 o once again, the watch list seemed to be dysfunctional. >> well -- >> are you in charge -- who's in charge of the watch -- who's in charge of watching the watch list that they really do watch and who's in charge of the watch list, making sure we use the watch list? well, the information that we were concerned about him was shared with -- many hours before i guess he actually got to the airport, but what i would say is this. there were, as i indicated to senator murkowski, weearn from the experiences we've had and changes have been -- have
already been instituted with regard to the watch list so that if we were faced with a similar situation, i suspect that we woulhave detected him earlier than we did. but again, as i said, i guess at the press conference, i never was worriedbout whether or not we were going to apprehend him, given all that had been done with regard to the surveillance that we had of him, the notice that we gave to the airports in advance to look out for him, and as a result of that notification, of those notifications, he ultimely was apprehendebefore he left the country. >> madam chair, can i just ask -- >> because i do have to move on. >> iknow. this is just very quickly. it's prompted from something that you have said. we have instituted in this country this amberlert when a child goes missing, andhere is a network around -- >> right. and it's worked well. >> and it's worked very successfully well. it would seem to me that if we can have a system like that when
a child is missing, that when an incident happens in new york, that instantaneously, there is an alert that goes out again to all of the exits, whether it is the border exits or the airports, and just seems to me that we can be doing more. i ok forward to working with you, attorney general. >> first of all, i want to thank you for the question. second, the president's got to give us a tsa nominee that we can confirm and then we have to stop screwing around with holds i thk it would go a long way. tsa needs permanent, vigorous leadership. you're not the head of tsa. but i bet the president's pretty proud of one group of government, but after the christmas day bomber, he did order significant reforms and the watch list issue and the tsa issue does not seem to have been
one of the areas that have quite clicked in. so that's not for oday. we're going to excuse you. we have so much to talk about from the third r border on our southwest border to the war that's going on against our children. we have a terble situation in maryland with another violent death on a college campus. all these things which we can talk about, but your justice department is working hard to be working th locals on so many fronts. we want to say thank you. i do want to raise an issue specific to baltimore and to maryland. you might recall, mr. attorney general, that a young fire cadet, rachel wilson, died tragically in a training exercise two and a half years ago. they have filed for the appropriate federal benefit and
the public safety officers benefit program. it took a long time to even get a hearing and to get the attorney -- the a.g.'s attention. now there was a hearing on january 20th, there was addional information, it's now been 90 days since the hearing. the family's had no contact. they're really frustrated. it's one thing to se someone you love in a training accident where government failed her then and we cannot let vernment fail her now. i'm not commenting on the outcome of the decision, but i would like a well-paced decision-making process and contact with the family. could i have your assurances that you will look into that? >> you he my personal assurance that i will ok into that. the concerns that you have raised are ones that worry me as well. people who put their life on the
line in order to protect the rest of us i think are owed a special obligation and the families, the survivors of those people are deserving of i think special attention. i will make sure that i examine where that case is and to the extent that i can speed it along, i will do so, or work with you if there are legislive ways in which this matter might be ultimately resolv. however we can do it >> i appreciate that. i know you will bring sensitivity and expedition to this. excused. >> thank you. >> we look forward to working with your team. we're now going to call up mr. glenn fine. as mr. fine comes to the table, we want to note he's the inspector general of the department of justice.
he was confirmed in december 15th, the year 2000. he has worked there and been extensive history -- he has worked in the office of inspector general ever since 1995. so we just want to thank him first of all for his service, and as you can see, thereas so much we had to go over and the vote also delayed it, but mr. fine, it is the hope of this committee that we function in a very fiscally prudent way and we look forward to your testimony in terms of what you think are things the committee needsto be aware of in the area of management, that we could encourage management reforms, if appropriate, and then also where you think we could have better spending. >> thank you chairman mikulski and meers of the committee. i appreciate your inviting me to
teify about the office of the inspector general's oversight work related to the department of justice. in my testimony today, i will focus on significant challenges facing the department, as you consider its fiscal year 2011 budget request. overall, i believe the departmentas made progress in addressing many of its top challenges, but improvement is needed in important areas. first, the department has made progress in its highest priority, counter terrorism. but the department continues to face challenges in this area. for example, last year, the oig issued an audit report examining the fbi's practic for making nominations to the consolidated terrorist watch list. a failure to place appropriate individuals on the watch li or a failure to place them on the tch list in a timely manner increases the risk these individuals are able to enter or move freely within the united states. our review assessed the accuracy of the watch list and the timeliness of entries made to
the watch list. we found that the fbi did not consistently ninate known or suspected terrorists to the consolidated terrorist watch list and did not update or remove watch list records as required by fbi policy. in rponse to fbi's made progress addressing our recommendations including the development of a training course to eure all counterterrorism personnel are familiar with the current fbi watch list procedures, improving internal controls to ensure that known or suspected terrorists are nominated to the watch list and also ensuring that watch list records are modified or removed as required. while the department's highest priority is counterterrorism, it must also focus attention on its traditional law enforcement functions, including the investigation and prosecution of financial crimes, cybercrimes and violent crimes. one critical issue for the department is how to alloce its resources among these competing demands. for exame, the oig is regularly revvewed how the fbi
allocates and utilizes its personnel resources. we issued last month an audit that determined that in 2009, the fbi had used 26% of its field agents on counterterrorism matters while itsed 51% on criminal matters. a review determined that the fbi actually used its field agents in line th the allocations it had made to its highest national priority, including counterterrorism. however, we found that the fbi used fewer field agents than it had allocated to some other national priorities, including gangs and criminal enterprises, white collar crime and violent crime. in order to maximize the effect of its resources and counterterrorism and other areas,t important the department components coordinate effective wli each other one of our recent reviews found that jurisdictional disputes occurred between the fbi and atf in explosives investigations and that both matain separate and uncoordinated explosives related data bases and training programs. in pursuing its counterterrorism
and law enforcement missions, the department must also balance its responsibility to protect individual civil rights and civil liberties. this issue was highlighted by several reviews we conducted regarding the fbi's widespread misuse of national security letters. in response to our recommendations, the fbi and the department have taken action to seek to ensure that such misuse does not recur. restoring confidence in the department is also an ongoing challenge. in theast several years, the department of justice has faced significant criticism for alleged misconduct in prosecutions, the dismissal of certain u.s. attorneys and politicization in the hiring of career attorneys. while these issues involve a small number of the many important responsibilities the department handles, they can affect public confidence in the objectivity of the department. the department also faces challenges each year in managing the award of more than $3 billion in grant funds. this challenge was heightened when the recovery act provided thdepament an additional $4 billion in grant funding.
the department must distribute this large at of grant funding quickly and effectively monitor the use of these grant funds while continuing to manage its other grant programs. the department also has ongoinn challenges in managing information technology systems and in ensuring that its i.t. planning, development and security measures maximize the effectiveness of these expeitures. a major challenge in this area has been the fbi's development of its sentinel case management project. the oig has issued a series of reports examining the fbi's ongoing development of sentinel. in our latest report, we identified significant concerns about the progress ofsentinel. the cost of the project is rising and the completion of sentinel has been delayed. while we believe th sentinel can succeed, it will take close scrutiny and careful oversight by the fbi to minimize any fuher schedule delays and budget increases and to ensure that the final product meets users' needs. my testimony also discusses other challenges for the
department, such as safely and economically managing the bureau of prisons' risingederal inmate population. in conclusion, the department has made progress in addressing many of its top management challenges but further improvements are needed in immortant areas. the department must maintain its focus on counterterrorism while effectively pursuing its traditional law enforcement duties, protecting civil rights and civil liberties, restoring blic confidence in the department, providing effective oversight of the billions of dollars in grant awards each year, ensuring safe and economic detention facilities and effectively managing information technology and financial management systems. these are difficult tasks which require constant attention and strong leadership by the department. to aid in this effort, the oig will continue to conduct vigorous oversight of department programs and prode recommendations for improvement. that concludes my prepared statement. i would be pleased to answer any questions. >> well, thank you very much, mr. fine. as i saidarlier when we
welcomed you to the table, you have been at justice since 1995, am i correct, sir? >> that's correc yes. >> so we really want to thank you for your service and we would like to thank the entire staff of the inspector general's office for the work that they do. as you can see, i intend to be a watchdog and a reformer in terms of the administration. it's not whether you're for big government or small government. it's are you for smart government. i think we're in alignment here. i'm not going to ask questions about sentinel but i will thank you for bringing that forward as an issue well before this hearing, this chair and staff have been actively involved with both the director of the fbi, the contractor and so on to make sure that the original purpose, that sentineloes happen and happens the way it's supposed to
happen within appropriate budget parameters. we're not going back to the boondoggle we had with the previous attempt. you heard today from the exchange by senator murkowski and even myself with the attorney general, this watch list issues. in your testimony, you say that the fbi needs to do more, you talk about in your audit report that you made 16 recommendations to the fbi and they have improved nine, but we're all deeply troubled by this watch st, and the watch lists don't seem to be working the way they were intended. and you know the story, in this case this man got on this plane when there was active hot pursuit going on. the same tim i know in my own state, there is a prominent businessman who travels to the west coast every single week at the same time, getting on the
same plane, everybody knows him because of the regularity of his habits, because of his last name, he's on a list and he has to gthrough it like he just arrived in the country and is paying cash for every sile thing in the world. so it's two sides of the coin. do you have any further thoughts on how we could make this more effective or given in light of what has hpened ov the last couple of days, where some things worked well in a spectacular way and others really raised some flashing yellow lights, like the watch list. >> we have done a series of reviews on the watch list and we have had concerns about it, both -- in both areas that you talk about, making sure that people appropriately are put on the watch list in a timely fashion, in an accurat way, and also that people who shouldn't be on the watch list are taken off. we found problems with the fbi getting people on quickly and also accurately putting them on. in fact, our revie found that
15% of the fbi terrorism investigations we reviewed had failed to nominate terrorism suspects to the consolidated wah list. that's unacceptable because it increases the risk that these people can move about freely. so we think that needs to be done more quickly. we think also the information needs to get the front line screeners who need it in a quicker fashion, bot customs and border patrol peop, the individuals at the aport, d one the things that we looked at a long time ago was the issue of secure flight and who is going to tually be doing this screening, the people on the manifest of the airplanes and now it is with the airlines. my understanding, it's moving towards the tsa who will take over that responsibility and hopefully with that, there will be more expeditious, quicker and effective screening hose passengers before they get on the plane. >> well, in light of what has happened, i think there's going to be a lot of recommendations and we would welcome your views on that.
let's go to the issue of grant disbursement. we want it to be fair, meet criteria a be done in a timely way. we have asked them to do what, i think you said $3 billion? >> $3 billion each year. >> that's like 10% of the government's funding, and i know at another hearing, our colleague senator mccaskill raised issues abt how in the previous administration, the grants were handled and so on. i'm not here to finger point. i'm here to pinpoint. are there things that we need to encourage through the appropriation process a way that -- to improve the grant disbursal, the grant management process? >> i think there are some things that the department can do to improve and that this committee can spur the department to do. i think it's important to get that money out but it has to be used effectively and there has to be monitoring of where that money goes. so we need to have a fair and
open process, there has to be documentation about why we're giving it to one person or the other, not simply discretionary subjective views, and that when it goes out there, there has to be training, how it's to be used, there also has to be an assessment of whether there's high risk grantees that need extra monitoring and extra training to ensure that that money is used appropriately. ojp, office of justice programs, has an office of audit assessment management. that should be an inteal screening mechanism to go out and do monitoring, to make sure the financial reports are in, to make sure that the money is used for its intded purposes and is being effective. i believe ojp has made progress in beefing up that office but it ought to do more of that. it shouldn't wait for the oig to come in and find problems. it ought to prevent the problems in the first place or find problems o the own, a not wait for an outside entity like the oig to find problems. so i think that's a critical area. >> could i -- you think it's an issue related to staffing, training or culture?
>> i think it's all of the above. all of those. it's not bn staffed up adequately, i don't think. i think the culture has been in the past toet that money out quickly, but not to ensure that it's being used appropriately. i think that's changing with the new head of ojp. but i also think that there needs to be training on that money as well, and not simply expected it will be used appropriately. >> you know what have found, you heard me raise some of the issues with making sure we have law enforcement, that it's not only putting quote, boots on e ground, we often in congress will provide money for staff, but then not for training or for technology that maximizes the efficacy of what they're doing. would you say that this is an area we should focus on whichis not only the adequacy of people, but that we rely look at training and the -- well, of
course, the technology issues in the government are a whole other one, but would you concur with that? >> yes, i think there does need to be adequate training. that's a core function of what these grant-making entities need to do, not simply to get that money out there, but to train people how it's to be used, and how it's to be used effectively. it only takes a small percentage of that $3 billion to be held back for adequate management and oversight to have effective use of it. i think there ought to be a small percentage of that to go for effective management, to go fortraining, to go for adequate oversight by -- internally by the departmt of justice and also by the office of the inspector general. i think that's an important thing that should be considered in the appropriations and makeup of those grant programs. >> well, thankou. there are other issues that we want to talk about as well with you, particurly in the area of the detention of prisoners. and you very rightfully brought forward that when we have the responsibility of holding people
in incarcerated situation, the issue of violence against prisoners and then concurrently also violence against prison officers, are deey troubling. we're going to ask my staff to talk with you in more detail about that tn today. but you know, i want to ask a question where it sounds like senator mikulski meets senator coburn. onof the areas where we absolutely agree is where the federal government provides funds, but we end up in conferences where it's 66 bucks per person to provide bagels and i was at a community fair and there was something that someone gave me a little plastic shopping bag with the name of a agency, not a federal agency head, and said here, enjoy it, you paid for it. well, that's not what i go to my taxpayers to ask them to do. there are aot of -- and that's where we get a bad rep.
that's where quite frankly some of the folks who are cranky with government have every right to be cranky. you know the famous $4 swish meatball, i think there was some extravagant spending at at conferences and so on. how does the igc getting a grip on that? i do believe in conferenceses. you go to like the gang conference that we have? maryland with the pport of the u.s. attorney and all of us at the local level, and they really do share information and further those important relationships that are so critical in law enforcement for rapid response and so on. but, you know, $66 for a bagel breakfast is a little high. >> you're sligabsolutely right. and we did a review of
conference expenditures and those found those ob babuses. you don't need lavish spreads and we were concerned by that. we found $4 meatballs, a can of soda would cost $4.50 they'd charge that one can of coke. and as a result of our review, the department has implemented oversight procedures. they made sure that the funding for meals is at a reasonable level. they made sure that there are alternative locations or that it's done in an economic fashion. they look at the per diem cost. so i think there have been reformed made as a result of the issues that were bruought to th table. but you're absolutely right, you don't need that kind of funding or that kind of excess to have an effective congress and i think the department of justice
has a handle on that. we're doing a follow-up review, we're about to initiate one, to see what reforms have been made and do they have a handle on this. >> we estimate that we won't be mashing up our bill, of course, until june waitingor the house. but we'll look forward to your report if it comes again. and th's all part of our smart gornment initiaves. and, again, i am for conferences, the kinds of meetings that occur. i think that's the only way that you can do training and i think you would concur in your many years at justice where law enforcement, particularly at the state and local level, can come together and form those relationships that work so well. you know, after the terrible events of 9/11 and our local law enforcement ash tround the belt
which meant maryland, virginia, the district, really developed much more close relationships. an along comes something like the terrible snipercase. remember that? you're a local guy. but because they knew each other, talked with each other, trusted aech other, we didn't have to federalize our response, that the local -- because they had been trained, equipped and trusted, we were able to bring that smniper to justice. so i believe in the training and came madry that comes. so i want to say thank you and we'll have other ongoing conversations with you. and you have to know we really to appreciate the work of the attorney general and if you could convey that to your staff, i in speaking for senator shelby himself as a watch dog on these issue, we would ry much appreciate it. good tha
. >> hang you very much. >> before i conclude, i want to resit rate the fact that senator shelby wanted very much to be here's might have additional questions for you and we invite his staff if there are any other. if there are no further question, the senators may submit additional questions to the subcommittee. we request the department of justice's response within 30 days before because of so many contversial issues in the committee, would he resere rese to hold ongoing hearings. so the committee will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair in cooperation with the ranking member. we're in recess.
>> i guess i agree that a disclose-everything policy can be problematic. still, i think there are important things that can be done to get consumers ideas about what is happening as opposed to what is thought to be happening. often there is a common sense of expectation that customers will have based on how a product is presented to them. i had no idea you were going to use my data for that. i also want to respond to something that she said. i am a little bit more optimistic about our ability to analytically get ever had around what can be inferred from a
product. we are just starting to build a fundamental theory of what can be inferred from the data set in what cannot. we see this starting to take root in the research community. we have not gotten to the point where we can apply the theory to anything we really rely upon in our everyday lives. there is hope that we may get there. i do not want to leave the impression that it is completely hopeless to reason what might be in for both from this or that. i would not go quite that far. i hope that we will start to be able to make strong guarantees in some cases that we care about. >> she did not say that. there are datasets and being
able to know how much it is and how much it is not is important. the flip side of what you ask for that i expected you to say is if you give me complete transparency, i might be learning things about other customers. this question you started out with was what about the things you learn about others. you cannot give complete transparency between those things. i think a another arena is to do the best weekend to help people visualize what is going on with their data.
we can do better than what we have done. there are things that show meters and things like that. they are not going to be perfect, but they are a lot better than what they are now. that is what i mean by privacy innovation. i do not necessarily mean regulation. we want to bring to the forefront of these issues that deal with people's privacy. >> during our last five wordes, let's get the last before we finish. >> building on what she said, privacy can be an area of competitive advantage for u.s. companies. they have gotten into these issues.
we have an environment that allows more innovation, some televised, but much of it's not. it is a different way of dealing with data. the more privacy becomes an issue, the more u.s. companies can get an advantage by being proactive in getting on top of these issues. >> a lot of what is going on is something that has occurred for decades. it is happening much faster. some are using the example of the secondary, what your friend is doing in casting. that happened 20 years ago. it happened in completely different ways. rumors become a facts much faster than they used to. people get freaked out when that
happens. there is going to be continued communication changes. that is what most of this is ultimately about. it is the distribution of information much faster than they used to be able to. that will continue to happen. it will happen in ways that are entirely unforeseen right now. it is not in a way a runaway freight train or anything like that. a lot of what is happening and a completely different of context. from a cabalist society stand point, i do not care about 99% of it. i think there are a lot of dollars. the majority of the data out there is a non-profit. that is where the majority of
focus is going to be. i encourage with the communication channels are occurring, that is where a lot of privacy innovation and regulatory issues should be. >> a couple of ideas of want to put out. we did not have a chance to talk about it in depth. a consensus is really important. i do not believe consent is equivalent to privacy. it is not that simple. the second thing is it underutilized and area of thinking in data retention. a lot of these problems can be addressed. it is in large part by a renewed look at how data retention is
accomplished. if we kept the data for 24 hours versus 24 months, how does that change the privacy equation. these of very interesting questions we need to ask and explore much more deeply. i think there are some good solutions there. >> there are applications that we want to do that we will not be able to solve with retention, because we need the data. the last thing i want to add it is there is a role of people here that government can play as a buyer and purchaser. when you think about a lot of help the kids pay for -- there are roles we can play as employers and as government and individual consumers in trying to have different options as
well as our regulators and analyzers of the law. there is an important interplay between what happens in congress and what we purchased here. >> thanks. off we have the opportunity to have a quick over time that i want to take advantage of. i want to thank the panelists for taking their time to be here. [applause] the overtime bonus that it just before lunch is we could get peter here for a few minutes. i have a very unique question to throw his way. he is a colleague of mine is unique take on privacy is that [unintelligible]
they dug into these issues in the 1990's. now we are back 12 years later. i am sure they were very important things. i respect your privacy. [laughter] i do not want to speculate on what those things might have been. in the last 10 years, a lot has changed, from the regulatory side. what these think this change from the regulatory side effects >> thanks. he has been leading a lot of process seized in the white house lately. reprocesse -- processes in u.s.-led.
-- in the white house lately. seeing the revived attention in congress is one thing that is the same as before. one thing that is very different is the number of people who have had a chance to work on this. we had 150 members in two dozen month. today is 7000. there was a set of people that worked on this and had expertise on it. that is something that the growth of the expertise has increase. a big way to frame the change --
i think there are some compelling visions within the obama administration. one is how it is useful in empowering businesses to do things. we are hearing today that there needs to be a way where we have dignity and privacy in a personal space going forward. we need to know that inappropriate and scary things will not happen to us when we go on line. we need an essential trust in the controls of the data. that is the challenge to those listening that i hope people can
think through and come up with an answer to the things we have been building upon over the last decade. >> thanks. [applause] >> this is the indulgence that we are building upon the previous indulgence. we will pay it back at the end of the day if we are lucky. what i want to do before everyone disperses for lunch is recognize that some of you will not be able to stay until the end of the day. i want to a knowledge of the people who made this day possible. they come from many parts of the government and the private sector. i want to first thank our colleagues from other agencies such as the federal trade commission. we have been able to work with
them over the years which has been very valuable to us. we have had a chance to work with andrew, and peter, which has been invaluable to our efforts. we have put it together a task force. on the privacy issue, we have been working with others on this front. they have been very valuable to us. jessica who may not be here anymore has helped with the press. this entire effort at the commerce department started because of the inside early on
from the congress of army general counsel, who recognize that the privacy in cyber space would be critical going for. i have had incredible support from my bosses. i arrived here about one year ago and not having any clue about how to do any of this. they have been very indulgent. mark arrived the same week, which was an incredible surprise. being able to do this with mark has been fantastic. i think the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. i appreciated the chance to work with mark. the energy behind this, they
have made this happen. [applause] some of us were around 15 years ago not quite sure what we were doing, but got going. watch out for these guys. you will see them a lot in the feature. have a great lunch. come back at a quarter to 2:00 sharp. we will hear from can. make sure you get here. please here with he has to say. thanks so much. [unintelligible] >> senate majority leader dick durbin is our guest today on ". "" he will look at the political landscape heading to elections. that is 6:00 p.m. eastern today. >> the outcome of the british
elections is still in the air. the conservatives have won 360 seats. the democrats 57 seats. we will show you the statement from the three party leaders. first we will hear from the liberal leader. then prime minister gordon brown. and then the conservative leader. this is a little over 15 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> thanks for coming in numbers. last night was a disappointment for the democrats. even though more people voted for us than ever before, even
though we had a higher proportion of a votes than in it -- than ever before, it is a source of great regret to me that we have lost some really valued friends and colleagues. we have returned to parliament with fewer. many people during the election campaign were excited about the prospect of doing something different. it seems that when they came to vote, many of them in the end decided to stick with what they knew best. at a time of great economic uncertainty, i totally understand those feelings. that is not going to stop me from redoubling my efforts and our efforts to show that real change is the best reassurance that things can get better for people and their families. it should not be something that unsettles people.
we are as a very fluid situation. s said said before, a situation like this, it is vital that all political parties and leaders act in the national interest and not as a matter of party political advantage. which ever party gets the most votes and seats, it is not an absolute majority, as the first right to seek to govern on its own or to reach out to other parties. i stick to that view. the conservative party has more votes in seats. they are an absolute majority. that is why for the conservative party, it must prove that it is capable of seeking to govern in the national interest.
everything time, this election campaign and made it abundantly clear that our electoral system is broke. it simply does not reflect the hopes and aspirations of the british people. are repeated in my assurance that whatever happens in the coming hours and days and weeks, i will continue to argue for not only the greater responsibility in economic policies, but also for the extensive real reforms that we need to fix our broken political system. thanks very much. [unintelligible] >> with the outcome of the general election, we find ourselves in a position unknown to this generation of political leaders. with no single party able to have a common majority and have a majority government.
i felt that i should give you my assessment of where we are. i do so as prime minister with a constitutional duty to seek to resolve this situation for the good of the country, not as a leader of the labor party less than a day after the election. what we have seen in it no ordinary election results, we have been talking about the possibility of a hung parliament. that possibility has become very real and pressing. the question for all political parties now is whether the majority can be established. it seeks to reflect with you, the british people, have just told us. it is well understood that we face immediate economic challenges that must be met. a meeting of the euro group is being held tonight to discuss grease and other issues.
the g7 finance ministers including america and britain are meeting by conference call to discuss the deteriorating situation in the europe area. one person is participating for the uk. our economic priorities is to support economic recovery in 2010. as the recovery stabilized, we must move swiftly to implement our deficit reduction plan. on the critical question, the formation of a government, i understand and completed respect the position of mr. clegg that he wants to make contact with the leader of the conservative party. we already have mechanisms in place to give the political parties in the civil service support they may need.
mr. cameron and mr. clegg should be entitled to take as much time as they feel necessary. i should be willing to see any of the party leaders. clearly should the -- [inaudible] there are a couple of areas in particular where such discussion would be part of focus. the first is to insure continuing economic stability. whether there is substantial common ground. to go through far-reaching political reforms into the voting system. we have made clear of this in our manifestoes. we have sent a very strong message which must be heard.
my view is clear. denny's to be immediate legislation on this. we must restore the public trust in politics and to improve understanding. this system is essential. i believe that you should be able to decide in a referendum was the system should be. what all of us need to be reminded is the imperative for strong and stable government. we must have the authority to tackle the challenges ahead. we need support in parliament. it is with this in mind all of us should be facing the times ahead. i understand that people do not like uncertainty or want it to be prolonged. the outcome has been delivered by the electorate it is our
conservatives in parliament. i am very proud that this will be a new modern conservative party in power. to all those conservative party supporters, members, and activists that fought so hard not just in the last few weeks, but in the last few years, i want to give you a big thank you. i want to remind you how proud you can be of the results of a bigger increase in seats that even margaret thatcher achieved. a share of the vote in 1983. the mother how much pride we can take in that enormous advance, we have to accept that we fell short of an overall majority. as i said last night, britain needs strong, stable, the size of government.
it is in our national interest that we get that on a secured basis. we are at war in afghanistan, with our troops putting their lives at risk for us every day. we are facing a financial and economic situation with great seriousness as a result of our dangerous debt and deficit. we need a government did reassures the national market. economic recovery. we need a government that understands great change is needed to restore great faith in our political system. britain voted for change yesterday. but also voted for a new politics. our country's issues are too serious for grandstanding. we must show leadership.
we must do that as quickly as possible for the good of the country. nick clegg has said that the conservative party won the most votes and seat selection.. we should have a chance to form a government. i thank him for that. we will begin talks with other parties to see how that can be done. one option would be to give other parties reassurance and seek their agreement to allow the minority conservative government to continue in office without the country continually facing the threat of this government. this is a confidence and supply arrangement. it has been done before. we can try to do it again. i am prepared to consider alternative options. it may be possible to have stronger, more stable and more collaborative government than that.
we would go further than and arrangements that would just keep one type in office. i want to make a big, open offer to the liberal democrats. i want us to work together in tackling our country's big and urgent problems, the debt crisis, our deep social problems, and our broken political system. let me explain my thinking. it is right and reasonable to a knowledge that there are policy disagreements between us. many are highlighted in debates. the fellow conservatives that worked so hard to achieve the results, i want to make it clear that i do believe any government should give more powers to the european union. i do not believe any government can be weak or soft on the issue of immigration, which needs to be controlled. the country's defenses must be
kept strong. on the basis of the election results we've achieved, it is reasonable to expect the bulk of the policies should be implemented. there are many areas of common ground. there are areas that the conservative party can improve upon both in the national interest and the interest of forging an of an interesting option. we share a strong desire to make opportunities more equal in this country. the liberal democrats who have given a certain premium in our schools. we agree with this idea. i am sure we can develop a common approach that recognizes the urges that the liberal democrats have attached to this proposal. they have made the achievement
an absolute piracy, and we support the same. i am sure we can agree on a common plan to achieve it. there are proposals to reform the tax system. labor's a job tax is a damaging tax, and we will seek to reverse it. it has been an aspiration for the conservative party to reduce taxes especially on those that earn the least. we want to give that a much higher priority and work together to determine how it can be done. we want to get rid of this labour's id card scheme. a performance is urgently needed to help restore trust. that reform should include the alleged moral system. we have our ideas.
boats can have an equal value in a certain system. other parties have constructive proposals to put forward as well. i believe we will need an all party committee of requiring political and electoral reform. i think we have a strong basis for a strong government. the negotiations would involve compromise. that is what working together in a natural -- national interest means. no government will be in the natural -- national interest unless it deals with the biggest threats to our national interests, which is the deficit. starting to deal with the deficit this year is essential. this has been more than confirmed by recent events in other european countries, recent instability in the markets, and recent conversations we have had with the treasury and the bank of england. the national interest is clear.
the world is looking to britain for decisive action. the new government must gripped this deficit and prevent an economic catastrophe that would result from putting of urgent action that needs to be taken. our big comprehensive offer to the democrats involves helping them to implement key parts of their election manifesto, providing the country with political and economic stability, and finding further waves -- ways to help them get involved in making this happen. we have terrible problems. this financial crisis, deep social problems, a political system to which people have lost faith. the new government will face the worst inheritance of any government for a least 68 years. that is what it is so important that we have strong, stable
governments in place. a government that has the support of the public to make difficult decisions that are needed. we will put this country back on the right track for a stronger future. it is not just important for the country to have a strong and stable government, it is important that we get that type of government quickly. i hope we can reach an agreement quickly on a big open and conference of offer that i have outlined today. i think this is a great country. we could be doing so much better. we do not have to settle for the debt and the ways and the texas left to us by labor. we can put aside the political division and the other problems of 13 labors -- 13 years of labor miss roe.
we can start making changes that our country badly needs. all of my colleagues in parliament and activists from around the country want what i want. they wanted something more than just that. the want the best for britain. the conservative party has always been a party that put the national interests first. the best thing, the national interest thing, the best thing for britain now is a new government that works together in that national interest. i hope that is something we can achieve with all my heart. that is all i have to say for now. i help you understand. i will not be taking questions. this urgent work must begin. thanks. >> today, remarks by utah republican senator at his party's nomination convention.
he will address the delegates along with seven other candidates vying for the seed. you can watch coverage at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> the bureau of labor statistics said the unemployment rate for april increased to 9.9%. the most jobs in four years were created. one person testified about the latest figures for the joint economic committee. this is one hour.
>> although the unemployment rate rose to 9.9%, the increase is due to reach entrance into the work force, a sign of increased optimism about job prospects. we have come a great distance in the past few months since the lows of the great recession. giving back the jobs lost in the past decade is going to take some time. by moving quickly and taking bold action, the obama administration and congress slowed the decline and restore the economy to growth in the second half of 2009. the recovery act, which president obama signed into law , provided tax relief to 95% of american working families. expanded credit to small
businesses, extended unemployment benefits, and created jobs all investing in clean energy technology, infrastructure, and education. additional action to create jobs and help small businesses include worker home ownership in business assistance act. the first time home buyer tax credit and a small business tax relief. tax incentives for businesses that hire out-of-work americans, the house of representatives passed a summer jobs act of 2010, which purports to an additional 300,000 summer jobs for our young people. in addition to today's job numbers, we are seeing more evidence that the actions taken are working. after four straight quarters of negative growth, the economy has grown for three quarters.
retail sales have increased for three straight months. sales of existing and new homes increased in march, with sales of new single-family homes rising by almost 27%. we will need stronger growth to get all employed americans back to work. as the focus on getting our national economy going, families are grappling with their family economy. working mothers are key contributions to both. on monday, we will lease a report on how working mothers have a feared during this great recession. for the overall work force, unemployment remains at high levels. with more than 15 million americans out of work, almost half of the unemployed have been out of work for more than six months. almost one-third have been unemployed for more than a year.
african-americans and hispanic workers face 16.5 and 12.5% respectively of unemployment rates. that is well above the 9.9% overall unemployment rate. a series of reports has been done to better understand the employment challenges among different demographic groups. earlier this week, we put out a report on unemployment among hispanic workers. later this spring we will examine the challenges facing younger members of the labor pool. hiring has increased, but it is uneven. just a couple of days ago, a chief economist at the treasury department testified before this committee that hiring among smaller companies remains a week. he testified that small businesses are generally the drivers of jobs during a
recovery. larger establishments and have expanded hiring during this recession. access to credit for small businesses is a large part of the problem keeping them from hiring. my republican colleagues share my commitment to doing everything we can to help small businesses get the loans they need so they can expand their operation and hire more people. we need to identify new policies to unleash the job- creating power of small businesses and support the sound proposal that has been put forward by the obama administration. i am supportive of the small business lending fund proposed by the administration, because it targets the small banks at the center of small business lending. these banks represent 20% of all bank assets. they account for more than half of all small-business loans.
by transferring funds from tarp to create this, we can get new loans added to the community, growing businesses and adding jobs. i have sponsored the small business job creation and capital act. it would raise the cap from 2 million to 5 million. raising the cap on loans can have a powerful act on small businesses. it is something we should move through congress as quickly as possible. while today's report on the april employment situation shows progress, we need to keep our eye and the most important things, creating jobs, jobs, jobs. a look forward to hearing additional information about the april employment numbers from the bureau of labor statistics commissioner. i will recognize my colleague
first. in welcoming dr. hall. day's report is mixed news for american workers and their families. on the one hand, apparel implement increased by two and a 24,000 jobs, excluding -- unemployment -- overall employment increased by 224,000 .obs the unemployed long-term have increased. a painfully slow recovery is better than a recovery, but for those out of work and waiting for washington democrats to finally focus on jobs, this report is this morning. at this slow pace, it will take
a long time to return to normal employment levels. consumers an businesses are increasingly concerned that runaway government spending and the dangers web of debt couldn't send america down the path tha greece is finding itself. small businesses are reluctant to hire workers while government is demanding new taxes and more expensive health care costs. washington is standing firmly in the way of america's recovery. although real gnp grew at an annual rate of 3.2% -- although real gdp grew at an annual rate of 3.2%, some of it was from restocking inventories in lineith this modest growth trend, the most recent blue-chip consensus forecast predicts that
gdp will grow by 1.1% in 2010 while peril employment will grow by an average of 117,000 per month this year. unfortunately, such slow growt in payroll employment means that the unemployment rate will remain elevated. the blue chip consensus forecast predicts that it will stl be 9.4% in the fourth quarter of this year. at the same point, the reagan recovery of 99 -- of 1981-1992 was twice as strong as gdp growth from the current recovery these have vastly different economic policies. they could either hav a tail wind with accelerating gdp growth.
combined with the disinflationary monetary policies under paul volcker, reagan laid the foundation for two decades of prosperity. in contrast, president obama and congressional democrats have pursued largely anti-growth policies that will hinder this policy. based on cost and mandate, premium increases, and higher taxes, the cap and trade and financial services reform and other regulatory initiatives. instead of providing encouragement, president obama and this congress have given entrepreneurs a reason to worry. yesterday, the u.s. stock market fell by more than 3.2% and widespread fears that the greek debt crisis would spread to
ireland, lee, portugal, and spain, n.j. ireland, italy, portugal, and spain. -- would spread to ireland, italy, portugal, andpain. after use -- after years of reckless spending, the greek government must slash spending. there is another country whose government budget deficit and debt could readily reached alarming levels found in europe. unfortunately for the american people, that country is the united states. according to our own congressional budget office, the federal budget deficit will be over 10% of gdp this year and
the publicly held federal debt will be 6.2% by the e of fiscal year 2010. if the congress adopts obama's budget, the budget deficit will exceed 4% of the fiscal year during the next decade and a drill it held public debt will be 9% of our economy. president obama -- they are following fiscal policy that is clearly unsustainable. reverse,t is quickly resol the u.s. could find its own debt crisis. unlike degrees, there will be no one to bail us out. >> thank you very much for lding this important hearing. like congressman raheem
devaughn, i am also concerned about the debt. that is why i am a strong supporr of the bipartisan debt commission. at the sam time, i think that we need to be honest about what has happened here. when preside obama took office from president bush, we were in a major financial crisis. we lost the same number of jobs in the first month when president obama inherited this mess ashe number of people livi in vermont. this month, while we have the 9.9% unemployment, which is clearly traveling and not good news, this month we have added 290,000 jobs, which is the largest gain since march 2006 and the fastest growth in the last four years. clearly, it is still much good enough.
i hear time and time again in my state from people who do not have jobs. even though our unemployment rate in minnesota is 7.4%, which is significaly lower than the national average, they say that in their household it is 100% grand mayas working an extra job at nig to get christm presents for their --s 100%. granma is working an extra job at night to get christmas presents for her grandchildren. these areeal people experiencing these real problems d that is why having a 60 net in place and making sure that we have adequate -- having a safety net inlace and making sure that we have adequate pgrams is important. i am looking for -- i am
looking for to delving into that with you. the money went to wall street. most of it has come back. but there are still so many problems on main street. at one of our past hearings,t wasike wall street got a cold but main street got pneumonia. we also need to get the tax cuts, the standards, for our important -- the extenders, for our important businesses. if we do not stem the tide of some of these problems and plug some of these loopholes, we will run into the same problem. yesterday's decline in the stock
market was one example. it is an example of what can happen with latility i the financial markets. i view that as part of the solution as well, to really move ahead with this economy we can get that wa street reform done. i did note that you were featured in a profile recently. i thought you were sort of under the radar screen. was that in "the washington post?" he will might even say yes because he is still under the dar screen. it was a nice profile of you and the importance of gatheringhe statistics. we look forward to asking you about that today. thank you very much. >> i guess the time is the new status, the new celebrity.
[laughter] madame chair, i do thank you for calling this hearing. first, we know that the consequences of unemployment are severe. the unemployed are not only vulnerable to conditions like depression, but are also at higher risk for heart attacks and her stress-related eves. studies show that the unemployed experience a shorter life span jusfrom being employed. let me say that again. the unemployed expere shorter life span. basic unemployment is a virus and an epidemic and requires the attention that we would give to any public health concern.
for many employed workers, substantial reach training is now necessary. this retraining often requires a return to the classroom, which requires a significant financial commitment. we are asking workers to commit to serious change. as a result, we owe them a serious return in this investment in education. therefore, we need to learn it and build on successful programs that we highlighted last week. they successfully get the unemployed into training and backed out to work. however, t record vestments in education do not end with worker retraining programs in gher education.
one program is in dire straits itself. the recovery act provided over $100 billion to state and local governments to ward off future layoffs. as we had hoped, the stimulus money did prevent these losses. however, we are far from out of the woods on this issue. the american association of school administrators issued the results in which they predicted that two hundred 75,000 education jobs across the nation are at risk for the 2010-2011 school year. george miller told the washington post yesterday that the hardest hit by layoffs or the youngest. teachers, exactly the people we need to keep teaching their kids, are affected.
not only with the job losses be a tragic blow, but it is estimated that it would lead to 82,000 additional b losses from lost spending by the schools and the employees that were laid off. that is why we cannot reject focused policy. the money in this bill will love only help local economies grow, allow state and local government to avoid a tax increases, and keeps sufficient police and fire personnel on the streets, but will provide crucial on the job training in the private sector and give -- and keep teachers in america's classrooms. i am prone to add my name to this bill because it makes investments in education that will help us thrived in the long
run. with that, i look forward to hear the commissioner's report and i yield back. >> thank you. i would like to introduce commissioner hall. he is the commissioner of lab statistics for the u.s. department of labour. it is an indepdent national statistical agency that collects, processes, and analyzes the central statistical data to the america public, the u.s. congress, state and local governments, business and labor. dr. hall also served as chief economist for the white house counsel for economic adsor for two years under president bush. prior to that, he was the chief economist for the u.s. department of commerce. we welcome you and look forward to your testimony.
>> thank you for the opportunity to discuss the employment and unemployment data from this morning. growth -- the employment rate edged up to 9.8%. widesprd with gains in manufacturing, professional, and leisure and hospitality. non-farm -- non-farm employment has grown since december and 483,000 jobs were added in the private sector. manufacturing continue to add jobs in april. three industries --
three industries have accounted factory job gains so far this year elsewhere, mining employment continue to trend up. the dustry has added 39,000 jobs since october. in construction, nonresidential building and heavy construction each added 9000 jobs in april. employment in professional and business services increased by 80,000 over the month. within the industry, job growth continued in temporary help services, where employment increased by three and a 30,000 since september. it also rose in services