Could you let this Committee know what union funds are involved in the transaction?

Would you consider the union pension funds and the other capital investments that went into this private capital or public capital?

I think all small business people are a minority, and they face a lot of the same kind of problems.

I don't know how we gain anything by handing someone over to a committee to be determined whether they're going to go to the United States where they can be released into the streets of the United States.

I would tell them that we have given them direction that's consistent with the Constitution, and we have national security at stake.

I suggest that we proceed under the laws that we had passed that were legitimate, because national security is more important.

This is a political decision, not a prudent one, and there will be more that will, and among them----

I think the Supreme Court has outstepped its bounds more than once with regard to these issues that have to do with the detainees.

I think that this Congress has got to jealousy protect its constitutional power, or we end up with these kind of analyses that cause us to jump through these hoops.

In the case of important national security issues, when the Court has made, in the collective judgment of the Congress and the executive branch, an extraconstitutional decision...

I simply want to illuminate the other side of the argument.

The nine Supreme Court Justices are the last nine people on the planet that should be amending our Constitution.

What is the Chairman and the Chairman of the Subcommittee and the full Committee, what's their alternative if the Supreme Court determines that they are going to make decisions that put the security of the United States at risk?

We have those circumstances that arise, yes.

I would submit this thought for the deliberation of the panel, and also the witnesses, because you're part of the brain trust here today, that if we had a statute that we could use to charge these detainees when they attack our guards…

I think the majority of the D.C. Circuit would agree with me.

this Congress has gone through, jumped through a lot of hoops to try to accommodate some judgments of the Supreme Court.

They are an organization that has been announced within the last couple of days that it is their endeavor to broaden their reach.

I would just seek to frame for this Committee that we have seen many of the members of the former Bush administration before this Committee during his tenure as President of the United States and then after.

There is a significant amount of disagreement and the clash that has just taken place between Mr. Cohen and Mr. Christie.

You certainly rank among the best we have seen.

It was an exemplary display of how a witness can come before this Committee fully informed, giving direct answers soundly based in legal analysis and theory.

I really take the opportunity to thank all the witnesses and glad to have the chance to do so.

I think we should adhere to them, even up to the point of allowing a witness to leave when the agreement is that the witness be allowed to leave.

Members of Congress instead just simply offer earmarks for their endowments.