the air to ground version in north carolina and as a wing commander of bagram airbase in afghanistan. host: can you make this quick? caller: thank you for serving and good morning, great. we are a military family and my brother just retired. regarding the budget of the air force -- host: will have to stick to one questions. caller: i understand civilian jobs will be cut. will this be u.s. only or worldwide? how much more military will be on food stamps? guest: we will need less of the civilian support. we will have to get smaller across the board. it is a concern as we get

smaller in the air force and the military with budget cuts that we will be asking all americans to remember that airmen, soldiers, sailors, and marines, their brothers and sisters, their spouses -- they will need your support as they come home from wars and return to civilian life and they will need your support as they move from a military career back into the civilian world. thank you for saying thanks. the best thing you can do for our returning service people is to listen to them and give them a chance to talk about what they have done and where they have been and help them in your local community, thank you. host: thank you for talking to our viewers. guest: to is a pleasure to be here. host: tomorrow, we will be live from arlington national cemetery to learn about its operations and reform efforts. on thursday, we'll talk about the coast guard and on friday, marked by the numbers will focus --the demosix democrats 6

demographics of who serves in the military parade when the above error calder testifying in front of the senate. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] \

>> good morning, everyone. i understand we will have a lot attendants this morning -- a lot attendance morning so i will run the clock more diligently than usual, including for myself. i'm glad to have attorney- general holder with us as we continue our important focus on

oversight. the attorney general is here in name. details are emerging about the successful operation that killed osama bin laden. it did provide closure for americans resulting from the horrific attacks of september 11. that was not an isolated success. during the last few years, the obama administration successfully reinvigorated and refocused the national security efforts. the attorney general is a key member of the national security team. the justice department last month foiled an assassination attempt in the united states of the saudi ambassador to the united states.

four men in georgia were arrested in a plot, accused of planning to use guns and bombs and a toxic poison to kill federal and state officials. earlier this year the christmas day bombing was convicted in federal court, pled guilty, and faces a possible life sentence. we'll provide the administration with options -- in my view, it is shortsighted for the congress to hamstring those efforts. as we proceed, we should remember that between september 11, 2001, and at the end of 2010, and number of suspects

were successfully prosecuted on terrorism charges in federal courts, 438. at the same time, five -- 6 have been convicted in a military commissions. only six. five of those have been plea- bargain. the record over the past three years with respect to crime has been outstanding. crime rates have fallen over the past three years, which is contrary to normal experience during tough economic times. as we proceed, each of us will have questions about matters that concern us. but we should not lose sight of the big picture and what the justice department is doing to keep us safe and secure. there'll be more questions about bureau of alcohol tobacco, firearms and explosives and

investigations along our southern border. it produced the transfer of firearms to known criminals. and administration officials have testified about these matters including before this committee. i urge day in gage and senators and address the serious threat of violence imposed by these brutal drug cartels. i do not think anyone wants to hamper enforcement efforts. there was a tragic murder of an

agent. so i think the men and women who work hard every day to keep a safe. i thank the attorney general and a look forward to is the testimony. i have kept within my time. senator grassley. >> this is a very important hearing. i have concentrated my oversight on operation fast and furious. over nine months ago, i handed attorney-general holder two letters. my letter mentioned the death of a border patrol agent.

the allegations of two of those weapons were found at the scene at the age in's death -- at the agent's death. four days later, the reply from the department stated that the whistle blower allegations were false. "atf makes every effort to interdict weapons that of been purchased illegally." mounting evidence has put the lie to that. documents came to light. ents testified and said that gun walking occurred during fast and furious. it was admitted that the

department's letters to me was false. but it gets worse. he knew all along it was false. he could not recall whether he helped edit it. he was aware of an operation called wide receiver. yet he remained silent for nine months. much has been said recently about guns being walked during operation wide receiver. we need answers. bush-era prosecutors refuse to bring the case. it.quarters revsieised gun walking was unacceptable.

mr. brewer admitted that one of his deputies informed him of gun walking in a wide receiver. he admitted the same deputy approved at least one wiretap fast and furious. the law requires that agents show they try everything else before wiretapping a phone. it would show the department knew these individuals were trafficking in weapons. the government should have stopped the flow of guns to these criminals. anyone review in the wiretap affidavits would probably know that is not happening. this tragedy should not be used to call for new gun control.

they should have been interdicted and arrested a year earlier than they were. u.s. weapons sold to foreign militaries, weapons that were transferred into mexico years ago, guns from fast and furious and from other sources. as we learn more, i'm eager to hear from the attorney general who replants to hold accountable. i want to know how we plans to prevent another tragedy like this in the future. it doesn't matter how many laws we pass if those responsible for enforcing them refuse to do their duty, as was the case with fast and furious. >> thank you.

attorney-general holder, please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you will give is the truth and the whole truth, so help you god? >> i do. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. i have addressed this committee on numerous occasions. i am proud of the department's historic achievements over the past two years. we have confronted a range of national security threats and public safety challenges. their efforts to combat global terrorism which have never been stronger. after the hon for osama bin laden came to a successful ande,

the department has achieved additional milestones. the attempted bombing of an airplane on christmas day in 2009. we work closely with partners to thwart a plot to assassinate the saudi arabian ambassador to the united states on american soil. we have disrupted numerous plots by homegrown violent extremists including one targeting a recruiting center in washington state. we have brought down a ring involving the 10 russian spies. a jury in manhattan convicted and arms dealers for his part in

selling surface-to-air missiles in killingak-47's americans. we have filed a record number of criminal civil-rights cases. our civil-rights voting division is hoping there are more cases and resolve more matters than in any similar time period in the past dozen years. over 5500 submissions for review under section 5 of the voting act including redistricting plans that would impact the access that some americans would have to the ballot box. we have work to ensure that states to have a patchwork of

immigration laws. lhasa been challenged in several states that conflict with the enforcement of federal immigration policies -- laws have been challenged. they can lead to potentially discriminatory practices. the department is also focused on the fight against financial fraud by spiriting the financial fraud enforcement task force and executing the largest financial and health-care fraud take downs in history. we secured a conviction in the biggest bank fraud, taking down in nearly $3 billion bank fraud scheme. we have secured record-setting recovers that exceeded $8

billion since january of 2009. i am proud of these and other achievements. i hope to discuss the work that is ongoing throughout the department. i like to address the public's safety crisis of guns and of local law enforcement operation known as fast and furious. any instance of so-called gun walking is unacceptable. this tactic was used as part of fast and furious, which was launched to combat gun trafficking on our southwest border. this operation was flawed. we will feel the effects from years to come as guns continued

to show up at crime scenes both here and in mexico. this should never have happened. to insure that it will not happen again, i took action. i asked the inspector general to investigate this matter and i ordered a directive be sent to the law enforcement agents and prosecutors stating this violates department policy and will not be tolerated. the new leadership has implemented reforms to prevent such tactics to be used in the future. i would like to correct some of the inaccurate and irresponsible accusations surrounding fast and furious. some of the rhetoric might lead

to believe that this was cause of the epidemic of the gun violence in mexico. fast and furious was a flawed response to the flow of illegal guns from the united states into mexico. the trafficking of firearms across our southwest border has long been a serious problem. is contributed to the 40,000 deaths in mexico -- it has contributed to the 40,000 deaths in mexico. over 64,000 guns were source to the united states of america -- 64,000 sourced to this country. the mistakes of operation fast and furious should not distract us from our critical mission to disrupt the dangerous flow of firearms all along our southwest

border. i supported a number of steps to do so and our work has yielded some significant successes. we have developed new procedures for using evidence gathered in mexico. ofre trained thousands mexican prosecutors and investigators. this year we have led successful investigations into the murders of u.s. citizens in mexico, and secure the extradition of 104 defendants including the former head of the tijuana cartel. this work has saved and improved lives. i am committed to reducing the

alarming rate of violence along the southwest border by using effective and appropriate tools. i want to know why and how the firearms that should have been under surveillance could wind up in the hands of the mexican drug cartels. we must be careful not to lose sight of the critical problem that this investigation has highlighted. we're losing the battle to stop the flow of illegal guns to mexico. we have a responsibility to act. we can start posting to the agents who have testified here in congress. they're brought the tactics of fast and furious to light. they need our help. the ability to stem the flow of

guns into mexico suffers from a lack of effective enforcement tools. congressional leaders should work with us to provide atf with the tools it needs to be effective. another would be for congress to fully fund teams to fight trafficking. the house of representatives voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase shotguns in southwest border gun shops. this is consistent with the rights of law-abiding citizens and critical of addressing the safety crisis along the southwest border. i have seen this firsthand. i've promised families to seek

justice and to prevent other families from experiencing similar tragedies. i am determined that there are more that headline-grabbing games and cynical point scoring. we have sacred responsibilities to fulfill. we must not lose sight of what is really at stake here. when it comes to protecting our fellow citizens, i hope that we can't engage in a responsible dialogue and work towards common solutions, and i hope that we can begin that discussion today. >> we will begin discussion. we have a number of issues. i agree with you that we are going to stop that flow of guns

into mexico. i have heard the same thing from the mexican authorities. we cannot expect it all to be done across the border. i will take a few questions. alas the majority leader and to refrain from bringing certain provisions into the defense authorization. the administration expressed serious concerns. it was reported, it would reduce the options for investigating terrorist threats. which options are off the table, including those which have been most successful.

the heritage foundation has argued the bill but have needless flexibility. do you believe we need to keep our options open when encountering terrorism? >> i would agree. our military power, power that we have in our judicial system. we need maximum amounts of flexibility. we also have to be practical. >> the vast majority -- almost by 90 to 1 convictions have been in our courts. >> that is correct. if you look at the history, they

are fully capable of handling any matter that is brought before them. >> that was the same in the bush administration and the obama administration. >> that is correct. >> there is an operation in yemen. the operation was conducted by the department of justice, which authorized the target killing of a u.s. citizen abroad. not going into the facts of that operation. i wrote to you asking for a copy of that memorandum. >> i will not address -- cannot address whether there is an opinion on this area. i understand your interest in the subject and we're committed

to working with you to enter your questions in an appropriate setting to the extent that we can. >> it notified congress to i had agree with you and i joined senator feinstein. she introduced the respect to marriage act which was repealed. running in marriage was awful -- providing a marriage was lawful. the president's provided his support. this will be considered by the committee. do you support the respect for marriage act? >> the administration does. it is consistent with the stance the government has taken.

the position we took in court. the administration does support the passage of that bill. >> the vaults against women act -- the violence against women act. we have had a lot of hearings in this committee on that. it is now time to reauthorize it. this legislation began when vice-president biden was sure of this committee. you agree the violence against women's act is a top priority, especially in tough economic times, protecting women -- victims of domestic violence? >> that is a party for this

administration. i hope it'll be a party for congress as a whole to reauthorize it. it has transformed our nation in a number of ways. not that is among the top priorities for this administration. >> this will be my last question. fast and furious has been explored. there was a hearing on may 3. you were asked when you first knew about the fast and furious program and you said you're not sure about the exact date. it probably first heard about fast and furious over the past few weeks.

critics tend to not put the question in there along with your answer. you say that you're not been precise. you are basically giving your recollection. by february 20, u.s. for an investigation into fast and furious. the testified in the appropriation committee. i will give you a chance to be more precise. when did you first learn about fast and furious and what to do about it? >> i first learned about the tactics and the phrase fast and furious when it became a matter of public controversy. in my testimony, i did say "a few weeks." i could have said "a couple of

months." i don't think that was inaccurate based on what happened. i got some letters from senator grassley. these letters talk about a connection between an operation and the death of agents terry and did not mention fast and furious. i asked my staff to look into this. in february i became aware of fast and furious. i asked my staff to get to the bottom of that matter. we received information from atf that contradicted some of these public reports. it became clear that the matter needed to be resolved. on february 28, i asked the inspector general to investigate

operation fast and furious. on march 9, i directed the deputy general and agents throughout the justice department not to engage in these flawed tactics that we sought in operation fast and furious. march 10, i testified about this matter before the committee. so by the time i testified in may, i fast and furious had and for several weeks, as i indicated. the focus on which day or month in some ways is a bit of a distraction. it does not concern the flow of weapons to the united states across the southwest border. >> thank you. senator grassley. >> i was going to start with those letters.

you have introduced my questions. when we met that day, tuesday know that the guns connected to and atf operation had been found at the terry murder scene? >> i didn't. >> your debit was informed that the guns found at the terry scene were traced back to fast and furious. we had e-mails on december 17. did mr. gringler say anything about the connection between atf and the guns found at the terry murder scene? >> it was not mentioned in the e-mail that you reference to.

he to not sure that information with me. >> documents suggest to your deputy chief of staff spoke with dennis burke about fast and furious surely after agents terry's death. >> the conversations that they had were about a variety of things. the possibility of talking about engaging in a press conference, other matters. there was no discussion about the tactics that are of concern with fast and furious. mr. wilkins did not share information about former u.s. attorney burke. talk aboutrewer gun running in operation at wide

receiver. what about his failure on february 4? is that example suit that he did not tell us about those false statements -- is that ok with you that he did not tell us about those false statements? >> there was information in that letter that was inaccurate. the letter could have been better crafted. people were relying on information provided to them by people who were in the best position to know was accurate. people at atf. people of indicated that they were not aware of the tactics that were employed. the information in that the february4 letter to you was not in fact accurate, and i regret

that. >> did he offer you his resignation because of that? >> he has not i do not expect a resignation offer. >> you will provide graphs about that letter -- it risk contempt of congress. what would you risk contempt of congress by funding who reviewed drafts of that letter? >> we will try to work with you in providing the relevant information that we can. we will act in a way that is consistent about what other information can be shared. i will act in a manner that is consistent with the history and tradition of the department. >> if those documents show that

mr. brewer failed to correct the statements that he knew was false, would that be a reason for his resignation? >> that would be a reason for concern. people responsible for the drafting of the letter did not know the information in that letter was inaccurate. we do not know the information was inaccurate. that is something our regret. >> the deputy was aware that atf walked guns. he briefed staff on february 10 in response to my letters. did you review a draft of the february 4 letter before it was sent to me? >> i do not know. >> who will be accountable? dispute, to r

with to respect -- with due respect. we only know the information was inaccurate in hindsight. at the time the letter was prepared, our best thought was the information supplied was in fact correct. >> a document was leaked to the press by someone in the justice department. this document was supposed to be so sensitive that you refuse to provide it to congress, but then somebody provided it to the press. the name of the atf agent was not deleted. this looks like a violation of the privacy act.

you told me in a private conversation that summit has been held accountable for this, by your staff refused to provide my staff with any details. who was accountable? >> it almost pains me -- we had a private conversation. you sent me a hand written note. i think i have a good relationship with you. and took at the note it seriously. i try to find out what happened. i tried to indicate to that i have taken that matter seriously, that action had been taken. in a different time, i'm not sure what you said it would have been shared with everyone here.

it is a different time, i suppose. >> i told you on the phone conversation that if you wanted me not to ask this question, have your staff inform my staff and give the details so that i would note that this would be an inappropriate question to ask at this hearing. >> the same rule applied to myself. >> you ask the question. >> you can answer his question. >> with regard to the question, the matter is under investigation. leaks.were a couple of w i'm not in a position to comment

on ongoing investigations. >> before i turn to my question, i like to thank you for working with us. congress passed the law enforcement-a bravery act. i'm sure was no easy task to choose only 21 award recipients from so many qualified nominees across the country. i was pleased to present the first of these awards to two deserving officers in wisconsin. james page and daniel bottick. they made the entire state of wisconsin proud. i look forward to working with you. my office has been informed of an fbi proposal to close some satellite offices.

they go to the western district of wisconsin and there will have to work with fewer agents. i have concern about the remaining two offices. our chief law enforcement in the western district opposes these quotas. people in rural wisconsin have a right that the fbi will be able to investigate crime in their communities. bank fraud in wausau is at least as important as a million-dollar bank fraud in milwaukee or chicago. these closures will lead to way more effective police presence in wisconsin. huckabee possible what agents will be located four hours away by car? will you commit to working with me right now to address these

concerns and modify the proposal if necessary to insure that wisconsin is not negatively impacted? >> i will work with you and look at the proposed closures and make sure they don't have a negative impact on the ability of the fbi to perform the services to which the citizens of wisconsin are entitled. we're trying to make sure we are configured in a way where we can be most effective. i have heard the concerns and i will work with you in that regard. >> thank you. the just department announced plans to close four of seven regional offices -- the justice department. they said it will save $8 million annually. we are aware that some staff in

these offices are opposed to these closures. they collect hundreds of millions of dollars in fines of violations. on october 19, "the washington post" reported there was a fine against a cartel. the philadelphia office obtained a fine. a career attorney said his office collected $20 million in fines annually on a budget of just $2 million. i'm interested in response to these reports. are you sure these office closures will be cost effective ? >> that was a tough decision that we had to make.

we thought with limited budgets that we could continue to do the work of the antitrust division in spite of the fact that those offices were closed. none of those investigations that those officers were handling will be closed. we will make sure that we maintain the kind of vigilance antitrust presence that has been provided in the past. i don't think the reconfiguring of the antitrust division of eight-affect on these offices. we can continue to be effective under the reconfigured structure that we propose. >> i have my doubts. i thought i would voice them to you. as i stated to you, i recommend

a merger be blocked. this merger would combine two direct competitors and reduce the number of national self phone companies from four to three. millions of people will likely face higher cell phone bills and choices. there is concern that the justice department might not be in this for the long haul. i do not believe that to be true, but can you reassure us? can you confirm that doj is committed to following this lawsuits? >> james cole is the person who is in charge of this. and people in jim

the antitrust division are committed to see this through. the justice to part does not file suits unless we're prepared to follow them all the way through. that is the structure that is been put in place. there is a trial team that is in place and they are ready and eager to go to court. >> good. i held a hearing early this year on elder abuse. we heard stories of physical and emotional and sexual and financial abuse. have beenniors ar injured or mistreated by someone on whom they depend for care and protection. sadly, elder abuse often goes unreported.

financial exploitation of seniors cost the nation an estimated $2.5 billion a year. there is a lack of leadership when it comes to stopping elder abuse. that is why i introduced the elder abuse victims act. we would coordinate federal, state, and local agencies. , count on your support for this legislation? >> the justice the part has tried to focus on the abuse that those people who are most vulnerable are forced to in endure. children and seniors. the bill probably goes a long way to helping us in that regard. i would be glad to work with you in looking at that legislation.

this is a concern that i have and those of us in the justice department do have. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator hatch. ago you made a controversial decision to reopen investigations. you and did you not raid the declamation report from prosecutors in the eastern district of virginia. this prompted seven former directors of the cia to write a letter to the president opposing this action. there are reports that almost all the real investigations have been closed. do you believe you should have read those reports, especially now that you are reaching the same decision as the career

prosecutors did. what message do you have for those cia employees whose lives have been in limbo for the past two years? >> i think the decision that made to order the investigation was inappropriate and one. i reviewed a series of reports. among them, an inspector general report and came to the conclusion there was a basis for a re-examination of the incidents. i was concerned about the way that americans had engaged in these interrogation techniques. i appointed -- i expanded the jurisdiction of john durham, a prosecutor who had been appointed to look up the matter by the attorney general. his work is continuing. i think we're close to the work

that he has been asked to do. i think the decision i made was a correct one. going to the process that i asked him to do was the right thing to do. >> you have the advice of people who knew what was going on saying you shouldn't do this. then you have seven former directors of the cia who were offended by this. the problem is i think it hampers the work that they do in many areas if they are going to be brought into court years later. it is a decision you made. i just disagree with it. i think it was something that should have been done. it kind of takes me back to ted stevens.

i have not seen much in the way of correction for those who took those prosecutorial approaches. there should have been some serious correction because of what they did to a great u.s. senator. frankly, to use an excuse that they just plain overlooked some of the most exculpatory evidence that has to be given to defendants, it would have acquitted him. it should have been used to stop any prosecution to begin with. it bothers me. it has bothered a lot of people on both sides of the aisle. you.ot necessarily blaming

if we had that kind of prosecution is going on in this country -- i know you share my view on this. if with prosecutors ignoring -- if we have prosecutors ignoring the law -- you can see why some people are losing confidence in what goes on. let me change the subject. >> i was bothered by what happened there. the matter has not been dropped. opr is looking into this matter. they are in the last stages in what happened with the steven's case. there is a report that is just about to be finalized and we will see what their conclusions -- that is up to the people at opr.

i want to share as much of that as we possibly can given the public nature and the decision i made to dismiss the case. i hope we can share as much of that report as we can. >> i hope you can share every aspect of it. i wrote to six months ago st. a senior has blocked field commander in our custody be tried -- a senior hezbollah field commander in our custody be tried. has the decision been made to put in before a military commission, or as a civilian trial in the u.s. or released to the iraqis -- is that is impossible? if you prepare to the fallout

for a civilian trial and if somehow he is found not guilty -- five americans were killed by this guy. >> that matter is still under discussion. we will see where he can most effectively be tried, but that is something that is still being discussed. >> laws protecting children. he received a letter in april that asked specific questions about the efforts to enforce the obscenity laws and law of those present sexually explicit material to keep records about the age and identity of performers. it has been more than six months without an answer. >> after this hearing, i will

speak to people at the department and we will try to give you a response to that letter. >> i appreciate that. your job is a tough job. >> thank you. i, too, feel there was some serious misconduct on part of the prosecutors in this matter. >> you are right, mr. chairman. i've never seen a greater injustice to a member of congress-- >> i would note to the senior senator from utah that i understand normally opr is coming public their findings -- does not make public their findings. i hope this might preclude future wrongs. i mention this so you don't

think this is a partisan thing. senator stevens was a republican. i stated a number of times i thought that was badly handled. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator feinstein. >> the tragedy of the stephens situation is that senator stevens is no longer here to be able to see the results of your examination. i would like to agree with what my colleagues have said. i think this is very important that whatever happened be made fully public and never, never happen again. if i may, i like to put in the record the official fire arms trace data from the department of justice from 2006 to 9-30-

2011. >> without objection. >> thank you. mr. attorney general, will coelcome. you spoke to us about the letters at the end january and february. you asked the i.g. to investigate in april. >> february. >> thank you. >> my understanding is the practice of letting guns walked as part of operation wide receiver and next year as part of the hernandez investigation -- as you review the records of this, did the attorney general's know about this

practice and what was done about i don't know about the knowledge of the attorneys general had. it signed a memo was sent to bouquets see -- i do not know what action was took. i do know when i saw it, indications that guns had walke d -- i was bothered, offended, and concerned about it and ordered the investigation and issued a directive to the field to make sure gun walking was not a program, inconsistent with justice department policy, and should not occur. >> do your records indicated this operation began in 2006 and continued virtually unabated since that time? >> laba recent fast and furious began in 2009, i believe. wide receiver began in 2006- 2007, i am not sure.

that matter was investigation -- investigated and lay fallow for some time until the criminal division in the obama just apartment looked at it and decided to bring the cases that had just been lying there. >> thank you very much. since july of this year, the atf has instituted a requirement that federal firearms licensees in the four states that border mexico -- california, arizona, new mexico, and texas -- report when it ever a single purchaser buys multiple -- whenever a single purchaser buys a multiple assault rifles and a five-day period. i pulled the federal register and looked at that. and it says that federal firearms licensees must report multiple sales or other

dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise dispose of two or more rifles with the following characteristics. a, semi-automatic, b, caliber greater than 22, c, ability to accept a detachable magazine, to the same person at one time or during any five consecutive business days. this requirement will apply only to federal firearms licensees who are dealers and/or pawnbrokers in arizona, california, new mexico, and texas. can you tell us a little bit about how that section has functions, whether it is being carried out, if there are lapses, or, if you believe it can be strengthened in any way? >> i think that regulation requirement is extremely reasonable. it has all the features you

described. i think significantly it is totally consistent, exactly what we have been doing for years with regard to the sale of handguns. the notion that somehow or another we are in litigation now, being sued trying to do the very same thing we have done with handguns for years with regard to weapons that are far more dangerous is really beyond -- i don't understand how that can be opposed given the fact that this would provide atf, and other federal agencies, with useful information to try to stop the problem that has been the subject of so much discussion. some of the harshest critics of atf has -- have voted against this very sensible regulation. of the house has voted to block -- the house has voted to block, 270 members of the house voted against what i think is a very reasonable regulation and

totally consistent, exactly consistent with what we have been doing with handguns since the mid-1980s. >> i feel, as you probably know, very strongly about this and i guess the 30,000 people who have been killed by guns in mexico, we know these guns go into the hands of the cartels and we know how they are used. so, the question that i have is, do you believe this is being carried out today in an acceptable manner -- let me change that -- in an effective manner to stop the flow of guns to mexico? >> i think it is -- we are only at the beginning stages. it has not been in effect for an extremely long period of time. but i think over time it will prove to be extremely useful and help us in our efforts to stop the flow of weapons from the united states to mexico. >> well, this senator is certainly going to watch it.

i would like to extend through you a real compliment to the fbi, particularly in the south -- a abdulmutallab case, not ebola zazi ks -- zazi ks but i was not sure there was the culture to -- i believe they have really done an excellent job and wished all be very proud of those plots that have been stopped, the successful prosecutions that have been brought in federal cases. i just want to say thank you for that. i think the fbi really has achieved -- my time has run out -- major, major prosecutions for us. and so, thank you very much. >> thank you. i would also put into the record

a letter sent to the acting inspector general about the operation fast and furious. i understand investigating allegations on that, and whether she also has in connection with that, the investigation operation wide receiver, is similar thing, involving mexico and arizona, now that we have heard that former attorney general mukasey may have been briefed on a similar operation back into thousand seven. put that into the record. senator gramm -- graham, you have been waiting patiently. then senator schumer and senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, i want to

congratulate you and all of those risking their lives on the war on terror and fighting crime. it is a very serious and substantial -- very serious and substantial tactical successes and i think it is appropriate we acknowledge the hard work that has gone in to keeping the country safe. from a strategic point of view, i think we are coming to some crossroads as a nation about what we need to be doing in the future. it i embrace trying to find a new confinement facility other than guantanamo bay. senator mccain did when he ran for president. senator obama, president was. but i have come to conclude -- and i may not be the best vote counter in the world -- we are not going to close did know -- gitmo anytime soon. in brussels i think you stated to the european parliament that we have an election in november of 2012. we will be pressing for the closure of the facility between now and then -- being gitmo --

and after the election we will seek to close it as well. and my assuming wrong that there are not the votes here to close it between now and 2012? >> you can certainly count the votes better than i can, having served there. but it is the administration policy to try to close guantanamo. with think it would be inappropriate thing to do for a whole variety of reasons. we have certainly run into opposition. >> if i may just interrupt -- i understand where you are coming from. i have embraced the idea of finding a new confinement facility. a certain legal changes need to happen in order for it bought the that to occur. but we do in a real practical world. you agree? we have to make practical decisions. >> not as practical as i would like to be sometimes. but somewhat practical. >> but i buy into the idea that

sometimes article ii courts may be the best venue for train terrorists. i have not said they denied a place in this war. i think we should have an all of the above approach and be as flexible as possible. but i think my point is we do not have a jail in the war on terror for future captors, and i think it makes us less safe. where would we put someone if we call them tomorrow a high-value target? where do we confined them? >> it is something we are discussing. >> would you put them in afghanistan? >> there are a number of options we are discussing and we are trying to work our way through to come up with a proposal that would be both effective and would generate the necessary -- >> i just honestly can't see an option that makes sense. the idea of putting them on ships for a limited period of time is not a viable substitute because ships were never meant to be permanent confinement

facilities. i don't see afghanistan accepting new warrantor captors -- certainly the iraqis are not going to do it. , what we don't use gitmo are we going to do? >> those are the options we are trying to discover. the president has made clear, the administration made it clear, we will not be using the guantanamo facility so we have to come up with options. >> mr. attorney general, i have tried to be as supportive as i know how to be to create flexibility for the executive branch, but i have come to conclude that gitmo will not close and there is no viable option other than guantanamo being used -- that the iraqi legal system is not going to allow was, they will not be the jailer for the united states, afghanistan will not, and naval ships are not an option. i just really believe that we need to embrace reality and the reality is we need a jail and we did not have one and gitmo is

the only one available. the one guy being held by the iraqis, he is a has a lot captured in iraq, an iranian -- is a hezbollah from iraq. if we did not put him in gitmo, where we put in? >> those are options we will be discussing. how he will be dealt with are topics of conversation that i am engaged with with my counterparts. >> we had a conversation about khalid sheikh mohammed and how i thought it would be ill advised to put him in new york city federal court because he was an enemy combatants. i think it did not go over well simply because it was an ill- suited case joyce, not the fact that you cannot use article ii courts. mr. attorney general, if you try to bring him back to the united states and bring into a civilian court or and military commission

inside the united states, holy hell will break out. if you turn them over to the iraqis, it would be like letting go. it is a huge mistake. charged with killing five americans. at the end of the day i tried to be as practical as i -- it would be a disgrace to allow this guide to escape justice. the only option available to this nation is gotmo because there is bipartisan opposition to creating confinement in the united states. i beg and plead for this administration to create an option that is viable, and the only viable option is to use guantanamo bay. guantanamo bay -- the believe it is humanely run? >> i have been to guantanamo and as the facility is now run, i believe the men and women down there conduct themselves in an appropriate way and prisoners are treated in a humane fashion. >> is it true every detainee at guantanamo bay will have access to our courts to make a habeas

petition? >> there are a number of cases in the d.c. courts. in any conviction from a military commission will be automatically appealed to our civilian court system? >> i think it is true. i am not sure. >> i think it is true. the bottom line is we all believe guantanamo bay is a humane detention facility that is well run, and we have civilian oversight over what happens in guantanamo bay. my view is we are less safe if we do not have a prison. please, tell me in the next 30 days, submit to this committee or the individually, a plan. because we are running out of time -- that would be reasonable, sound, and as political support to confine future captures and to move people out of iraq and afghanistan who are too dangerous to let go. can you do it in 30 days? and i don't know. this is a decision who will be made by -- i will be part of the decision process of the decision

itself will be made by people hire representative. >> tell those people higher up we are about to withdraw from iraq and these people in iraq will be let go and we are running out of ability to hold people in afghanistan. time is not on our side. the war is an ongoing enterprise and we need a jail. i urge and will have other senators urge you to find a solution with a 30 days. thank you very much for your service. >> one thing i would say -- and i will go back to where you started -- whatever the proposal, whatever the administration works through, i hope it will be viewed in a practical manner by members of congress and take into account the history that we have with regard to our ability to safely detain people, to try people, and understand that whatever proposal we make -- >> i tried to be practical, some time to my own detriment. but i tried to be practical. >> senator schumer? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am going to go back to the

fast and furious issue. there has been, of course, a lot of focus on the present administration's dealings with fast and furious, but what has been sort of missing certainly in the house investigation isn't that it did not start -- is that it did not start with the obama administration, it started with alberto gonzales and continued with the general mukasey, so we have to look at the whole thing. mr. attorney general -- and thank you for being here -- as we learned last week, some break in material on operation wide receiver of, the bush era version of fast and furious, was prepared for attorney-general mukasey shortly after he took office in preparation with a november 16 meeting with the attorney general of mexico. it was not the beginning. it is clear now atf agents and prosecutors in tucson as early

as 2006 discussed and atf proposal to provide guns with criminals "without further ability by the u.s. government to control the movement and future use." we know this operation was likely part of a wide receiver in which 350 guns were purchased by straw purchasers and as your production of material continues it is plausible to find out the strategy was discussed and maybe before 2006. the briefing material from 2007, which was prepared for general mukasey said "atf has recently worked jointly with mexico on the first ever a time to have a controlled delivery of mexico -- weapons by a major arms trafficker. while the first delivery -- attendance at this controlled delivery have not been successful, the investigation is ongoing and the atf would like to expand the possibility of such joint investigations and controlled the libris cents

only that it will be possible to live investigate an entire smuggling network rather than arresting a single smuggler." that is from the memo that i believe was made public friday. then emails indicate 80 of's assistant director for enforcement viewed this briefing language. so, i want to figure out who saw the briefing materials. i will ask you about some of the names that are listed. these are listed at the top of the briefing memo prepared for general mukasey for the november 15 meeting. what position did that through -- matthew friedrich hold? >> i don't know. >> deputy chief of staff to the attorney -- attorney general. kevin o'connor was associate journey -- attorney general. you may recall that. i think you can infer that both mr. friedrich and o'connor

probably received the material. given that, as well as the fact of the meeting was with general mukasey's of the part of mexico i think we can and for he is unlikely to live attended the november meeting and seen the material. are you aware of whether general mukasey reviewed the memo? >> i do not. >> i did not wanting out for anyone's attendance at the meeting. but i want to be clear about that. but with a that caveat are you currently able to say whether there were other high ranking doj officials who attended the november 7 meeting? >> i just don't know, senator, who attended the meeting. >> but it would not have been beyond the pale for other top officials to have been briefed on this, either in preparation or otherwise? >> it is certainly possible. i just don't know. >> another one -- do you have any knowledge whether deputy attorney general morford was

briefed on the program or tactics? >> i don't know that, either. >> knowledge of any members of any other departments briefed on the program of the tactics? >> i don't know how extensively it was briefed. >> lanny davis, current criminal division head, was briefed -- testified he was briefed after it was closed, wide receiver was closed in 2010 did you know if his predecessor fischer was similarly briefed? >> i do not know. >> yes, lanny breuer -- right. lanny breuer -- i get that next up. the two lannys. here is what i asked. can it go back and look at the files or have someone do that and get in summation as to whether these people were part of briefings or meetings that might have related to wide receiver, to that program, wide receiver? >> we are, as part of the

process and responded to requests for information from layhill we are trying to gather information and may be able to gather from the e-mail and other information we are gathering a better sense of who was actually briefed regarding wide receiver. >> one other thing -- in a prepared remarks made by the attorney general mukasey regarding the trip to mexico he made january 16, he said "i reiterated to the attorney general as i do now states is committed to addressing the flow of illegal guns into mexico. i indicated we deploy additional resources to arrest and prosecute violent criminals, trace the firearms, tools of the trade, used by criminal gangs. this indicates the and walking may be discussed at this meeting as well. once again, is there anything you are able to say without vouching for anybody's attendance about that 2008 trip to mexico? what was discussed and who might

have attended? if not, can you get us that information? >> we will attempt to obtain the that an animation. i simply don't have that information right now. >> what i am getting at here -- and why i think it is important to have answers to this question -- is because there has been a selective way and was -- in which this investigation has been pursued. one cited out rage when we know now that it began -- one sided outrage when we know it began before you took office, president obama took office. a house committee chair had said he would look at wrongdoing on both sides. that has not happened. it appears -- it is a pretty good bet that top officials at the bush justice department, perhaps the attorney general himself, learned of this operation in the early stages. we know a memo was prepared. we did not know what the new.

at the very least they let it continue and for all we know they endorsed. i think it is important to look at both sides and my suggestion, mr. chairman, is if the house would not do that, we should. >> thank you for the questions. senator cornyn and then we will go to senator whitehouse? >> mr. chairman, for what it does work, i agree with senator schumer that we need of information about the programs and the distinctions between wide receiver and fast and furious. attorney general walter, i know the fast and furious had a significant spillover effect in my state of texas, where 119 of the weapons of the 2000 weapons that were bought into the hands of the cartels, 119 of them have shown up at crime scenes in my state. investigations by senator grassley also revealed that the atf agents had ordered clerks at houston-based business to go

through with sales of weapons to suspicious purchasers, some of which may have been working as agents of the cartels. on august 7 i sent you a letter asking you about the texas connections and i got a letter back last friday from your subordinates saying that you were not able to provide more information at this time. i am hopeful you will be able to provide more information because we know that weapons from fast and furious have shown up at 11 different crime scenes in of united states, and this is far from, as stated earlier, a law local law enforcement operation in terms of its impact. many of these weapons and that up in mexico. one we know of, a death at the crime scene where brian terry was worried -- murdered. let me ask you a little bit about the time line. first of all, on february 4,

assistant attorney general wrote a letter denying gun walking and it wasn't until november 1, 2011, that lanny breuer testified the letter was false. from what that whole period, february 2011 and november 1, 2011, if your department left the impression on congress that the allegation that the department had engaged in the gun walking operations was false, when in fact mr. lanny breuer came in november 1, 2011, and said the letter sent to senator grassley and response to his inquiry, that that letter was false. how do you account for the fact that the department for the period of time from february 2011 until november of 2011 had misled congress about the correct -- the accuracy of that allegation? >> i think there is some validity in the concern you raised. as indicated before. >> i do, too.

and i hope so. it is your question. february 4, the information contained in that letter was thought to be accurate. it was not until sometime after that that we had a sense that the information was not in fact accurate. it was not as if the date upon which we knew the information was inaccurate was on february 4. it comes up sometime after that. i received things as late as march of 2011 from people at atf who assured me that gun walking did not occur. >> but your department -- you said you learned about fast and furious, made third -- he said probably over the last few weeks. today you say over the last couple of months. >> i think it could be expressed over last couple of months. i think the last few weeks is consistent with the time line. >> but the fact is, the department that the official response to senator grassley as part of his investigation was it did not happen, until you came

to the house and said you learned about it over the last few weeks, that was may 3, 2011. is that correct? >> i am as sure i understand the question. >> let me go on to something else. do you still contend this is a local law enforcement operation? >> it is a federal -- >> your words. you said it was -- and opening testimony. >> my fault. it is a federal law enforcement operation that was of local concern. it was not a national operation. >> it metastasized to mexico, texas, and obviously in arizona. so it was not local in effect. >> as i indicated in my opening statement, the impact of the mistakes made in the fast and furious will be felt in mexico, the united states, probably for years to come. >> a lot of the guns have not

been accounted for. >> correct, a number of the guns have not been accounted for. that is why it is incumbent on us and why i have taken the steps i have taken to try to ensure the state -- the mistakes that happen are not repeated. >> to this is the organization chart for of the department of justice. you would agree that the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives is an agency. the department of justice of which you are the head, correct? >> that is correct. >> this is your signature attesting to this organizational chart. you are not suggesting are you, that it is not your responsibility to have known about this operation, is it? >> there are 115,000 employees in the department of justice. i have ultimate responsibility for that what happens in the

department. but i cannot be expected to know the details of every operation that is ongoing in the justice department on a day-to-day basis. i did not know about fast and furious, as indicated in the chart you have up there, until i guess -- well, until it became public. >> you cannot be expected to have known about the operation fast and furious, despite the fact that we know you received a memo on july 5, 2010. you received another memo on fast and furious november 1, 2010. and you say it cannot be expected to have known about that? >> because of the size of your agency? >> a couple of problems with that chart, colorful as it is. received a memo -- incorrect. received recent events memo -- that is incorrect. >> those are memos with your name on it addressed to you referring to the fast and

furious -- fast and furious operation? then i did not receive them. and what happens is these reports are prepared with my name on them, but the deputy attorney general name on them. they are reviewed by my staff and a determination is made on what is to be brought to my it did -- attention. if you look at the memos, nothing indicates any of those -- that inappropriate tactics -- were used. my staff make the determination there was no reason to share the content with me. ag holder receives an emmy -- incorrect. recent events memo on fast and furious -- also incorrect. >> have you apologize to the family of brian terry? >> i have not apologize but i certainly regret. >> have you talked to him? would you like to apologize today for this program that went so wrong and took the life of a united states and forced the

agent? >> the 40 answer, it would have to be your last question. >> i certainly regret what happened to aids and brian terry. i could only imagine the pain his family has had to deal with -- his mother -- i and my father of three children myself -- we are not programmed to bury our kids. it pains debate with the death of a law enforcement officials. it is not fair to assume that the mistakes that happened in fast and furious tour led to the death of agent terry. feelings of sympathy and regret go up to the terry family and i hope the steps we've put in place will prevent other federal agents, state agents from being the subject with this kind of violence as well as civilians in

the united states and in mexico. >> i would put into the record a letter from the fraternal order of police, especially on the question of safety of officers and the work he has done with them following the spike in the attacks on police officers around our country. >> to way, chairman -- thank you, chairman. i spent four years as the united states attorney for the district of ryland -- the eighth district of rhode island. my recollection is that there was kind of a convention in the department of justice that a lot

of people got to write memos that were nominally designated to the attorney general. there was some value in that because it kind of major feel good to be riding a memo to the attorney general of the united states. it was expected that that was a common practice. that was my recollection, anyway. the filtration of that flood of e-mails and memoranda normally designated for the attorney general was filtered by the deputy attorney-general. it went through to the attorney general was kind of what the deputy perceive to be a need to know basis for the then attorney general reno. is my recollection correct?

does that remain the convention within the department? there is a large number of females that are now more directed toward the attorney general, but the attorney general never cease. sees. >> that is correct. there are a number of filters. without assistant attorneys general who of subject matter responsibility in a number of areas. we have an assistant attorney general for legislative affairs response to memos and things to come from members of the hill. there are a variety of things that neither of us would ultimately see. >> it appears to of christmas some misunderstandings in this particular matter. i would urge you not to depart from that.

my recollection is that the senior staff of u.s. attorneys and others worked very hard and that the feeling when you are preparing a document that is going to the attorney general of the united states is an important one. if mail have to be sent to more junior officials in the department -- i think it is a good thing for the many u.s. attorneys and others to be able to write memoranda with the feeling that this is going to the attorney general and it calls up a higher level of performance. i urge you to leave that in place. >> my staff and staff in the deputy attorney general's office reviews the large volume of this material.

and some things do get brought to my attention if they make the determination that needs to be brought to my attention as opposed to something that's more routine or something that can be handled at a lower level. i have a fair amount of information that i need to look at. these are not the things in the chart. those things were not brought to my attention. >> that is consistent with longstanding department practice. the new switch topics to the vulnerability that our country faces to a cyber attack. a lot of the committees of congress have done a lot of work on the subject. bills are out of committee and ready to go. there was a long pause while the administration did its work of

its interagency process, which has now concluded. many of us believed that it is time for congress to move forward in a bipartisan fashion with meaningful cyber security legislation. in that vein, i would like to ask you to make your recommendation to us today as to how quickly and with what urgency you believe we should be going forward to pass cyber security legislation. sometimes we pass legislation and it is not clear whether or when it will have an effect.

the prime area of real national security risk is to probably owned national critical infrastructure. do you have any information that you can give us on how quickly once we pass meaningful cyber security legislation the critical infrastructure in private hands in this country can have its cyber security level dramatically increased so that the risk to our country to the critical infrastructure is commensurately reduced? >> i think you're correct to focus on this question of cyber security. this is something we've waited too long to act upon. it has military implications. it has intelligence-gathering capability implications.

criminal fraud problems that can result from our lack of focus on this issue. i think this has to be the priority. there are a variety of things this committee has to consider. as we focus on those things that are of most concern to us -- we spent a huge amount of time focusing on this cyber issue, i would hope that we can work with this committee, members of congress to come up with the necessary legislation to deal with what is it real and present danger to this nation. the effect will be seen -- when you pass bills, frequently you don't see the results of those bills for years sometimes, a huge number of months. with other things, i think that

you would see the ability to protect that infrastructure in a relatively short. of time -- and a relatively short period of time. the protections of beckham the race can be done relatively quickly because you are dealing with switches of things that i don't totally understand but that can be changed relatively quickly. the positive impact of this legislation would be something that we would feel relatively soon. >> thank you. senator grassley. senator lee. after senator lee, senator franken if he is here. >> thank you. i understand the house judiciary committee has issued a request

this past friday for documents and witness interviews related to justice kagan's involvement in the health care legislation during her service as solicitor general. will the department of justice comply with that request? >> i am not familiar with the request or what materials have been sought. >> i believe the intent of the request is to get the documents or an indication that justice kagan may have participated in discussions related to litigation of the constitutionality of the affordable care act. >> one thing we did was to move for out of the room whenever a conversation came up about the health care reform legislation.

i can remember specific instances when we are going to discuss that topic. we asked justice kagan to leave, and she did. >> so they should not be a problem complying with this request. >> i can look at it. >> there were letters from the house judiciary committee. you acknowledge that mistakes were made within the department of justice related to fast and furious program. but without specifying who made those mistakes. what mistakes have you made the you can identify, things you wish you could've done differently. >> as i look at the reformation, i think i acted in a responsible way -- as i look at the

information. there was a directive to the field. we have eight report that will look at this matter. -- we have a report. on the basis of that report and any other information, those people who did make mistakes will be held accountable. >> you said people within the department of justice believe the initial statements denying knowledge of fast and furious were accurate. these were some people and not all people. some people knew. what can be done to bridge this gap in the future to make sure that some committee with the others? >> as a result of the directive that i've issued to this question of gun-walking, that is

not a acceptable. the inspector general report will answer a question that i do not know the answer to right now -- who thought this was a good thing to do and why didn't people discover sooner that they did that in fact what was occurring was not. >> i have been curious about some statements by lanny brewer, the head of the criminal division and in some ways likely to implicate some questions related to fast and furious. mr. brewer has stated that he and or is top deputies approved several atf wiretap publications

for operation fast and furious, as is consistent with law, justice has won a role in reviewing the wiretap act applications. "to ensure there is -- to insure the petition to the federal judge is a credible request. he explained is the responsibility of the district office caring out the operation so that the tactics used are appropriate. i find this interesting in the sense that the requirement outlined in section 2518 -- of title 18 requires an analysis at the justice level of you or your

deputy or of the assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division or one of those officials essentially. one thing they have to do is regurgitate back at the same facts. they have to undertake an assessment as to such issues as, have other investigative tactics proven inadequate? and if so, why is a wiretap -- a pretty invested -- a pretty invasive investigative tool. if he approved multiple wiretaps applications, then one of two things is happening. he is either not assessing in a penalty to make sure there was is representation made that the

department established the case for a wiretap application, or he was doing his job and was therefore made aware of what was going on with operation fast and furious, but did not disclose that. or when a sought initial denials about fast and furious, failed to raise the flag that is a concern. so which is this? >> lanny brewer would not have approved these requests. one of the deputies. the report directly to him. given the volume of these things, it probably does not exist. the assistant attorney general is required if there is a roving wiretaps. >> wouldn't they be in a

position once they saw the department of justice was on the line to have said, the department of justice did know about this program. we have approved a significant series of wiretap applications. >> i have not seen them. i don't have any information that talked about the tactics that made this such a bone of contention and would have raised the legitimate concern of congress as well as those in the justice department. the tactics of gun-walking or contained in those applications. i have not seen them. >> your time is up. the utah attorney general, a -- there was an op-

ed. i guess that it be put in the record. it was concluded that it would be tragic that fast and furious -- the cartel is our enemy, not atf or the department of justice. we do provide the men and women fighting this battle with the tools they need. >> thank you, chairman. thank you, attorney general holder, for being here today. thank you for your service. i want to highlight that i'm concerned about the emerging threat of cyber criminals. i think we need to use all our

resources at our disposal. we have a unique or promising national guard unit in delaware, a squadron. we sent to a letter of your position on whether the national guard would provide a pathway for the doj to make some use of their resources as the doj expands their resources. i want to thank you in advance. on the topic of industrial espionage, last week the office of the national counter executive -- there was an alarming report accusing china and russia of collections of sensitive u.s. economic technologies through cyberspace. software developers frequently know about software bugs before a patch is offered.

do we have the right incentives in place to encourage the private sector to respond quickly to emerging security threats to defend themselves from fraud and to promote our nation's security? >> the sheep of highlighted is one that should be of great concern to us. i took a trip to china last year to have a frank conversation with them about the concerns we had about intellectual property -- the theft of intellectual property, the stilling of industrial secrets -- the stealing of industrial secrets. that is a big concern that we have. it is one that we have expressed to the chinese. >> a follow-up question about

resources for the department. the aspen -- >> --- the espionage act was passed two years ago. i ask whether you thought the doj needed additional resources to prosecute those who steal those i.p. we're losing a vast amounts of treasurer. is the doj wrapping up efforts? d.c. need for more -- d.c. a need for more resources -- do you see a need for more resources? >> given what is at stake, this is an area that we have to focus on. this is an area that will

require -- i do with limited numbers of people. some decisions need to be made by me, hopefully along with members of congress to deal with these issues. it is not too much to say that the future of this nation is dependent in part on how we resolve the issues that you are raising. >> the customs and border patrol has interpreted the trade secrets act to bar it from sharing with trademark rights holders related to seized goods foot counterfeit -- that could be counterfeit. there is a hearing today.

many of the campus may be examined but they are not consulting with sources and a think it could be possible to more rapidly determine whether what they're intercepting is counterfeit or not. would the doj prosecute and aged for sharing information where the intention is to certify whether something receipt is or is not counterfeit? >> we have prosecutorial discretion. to the extent that impediment exists and given the need for a public-proprietorship to deal with these issues, that might be a fixed that perhaps we could discuss and somehow deal with. we'll learn be successful if we have the public sector -- government working with the private sector to deal with these issues. we cannot do what alone.

the private sector cannot do it alone -- we cannot do it alone. we have to try to knock down those barriers. >> i would be happy to work with you and your office to find a legislative fix. as part of the cr to fund the government, many programs took a big heit. the printer $40 million -- $340 million for one program. in my home state companies less money for information sharing and less monfort youth and quibble diversion programs and less money for officer protection. how are the cuts affecting you?

will the impact speed -- what with the impact be if that bill was enacted? >> those proposed cuts are not acceptable and place this nation at risk. we have a 30,000 vacant law enforcement positions in this country. we have lost 12,000 officers over the course of the past year. we put a risk the possibility these low rates will not remain there forever. there have been higher rates of shootings of police officers. the rates have been coming down generally in terms of crime. the amount of violence directed at police officers has risen to 20% over the past six years. the notion that some way at a

time when we're trying to take jobs, take people who are sworn to protect lives of the american people off the line is to make logical and unacceptable and dangerous. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. i look forward to working with you. >> thank you very much. lumenthal.ngaman fa >> thank you. i want to thank you for addressing the questions around fast and furious and dispelling any doubt you are determined to uncover all the facts around some of the regrettable circumstances here. a lot of names have been mentioned here, attorney general mukasey, kevin o'connor and

others in the department now. there is no evidence that they knew or participated in any of wrong doing, is there? >> i hope my testimony was clear. >> it has been, thank you. there's been an ongoing investigation about who knew what was going on. i want to thank you for being so candid and straightforward on the point. i want to join my colleague in expressing my determination that there should be more assistance and support for our police on the streets of connecticut, in our neighborhoods, as well as the firefighters and other personnel that i would regard as law enforcement, which are the cops on the beat who protect us day in and day out despite the

excellent performance of the fbi. they do the bulk of law enforcement for our nation. thank you for your support. i think perhaps for me one of the most important aspects of your testimony today is really the vigor and intensity that the department of justice is devoting out to stopping gun trafficking and drug dealing and gang violence on our border and throughout the country and in connection with the mexican gangs that oppose such a threat to americans and two mexicans. there have been record numbers of caesars, arrests -- seizures, correct?is that >> we're trying to stop the flow

of guns into mexico and to stop the violence along the border. we've worked in the interior of mexico to try to come up with ways to fight the cartels. a mexican counterparts have sacrificed a great deal, even with their lives. we've tried to be good partners in that struggle. >> would be fair to say the mexicans are increasingly becoming good partners in this effort? >> yes, i >> yes, i think so. through the use of other techniques we have shared with them, the use of electronic devices. i think they are becoming more proficient in this battle. >> there is no question that the department of justice will continue on disrupting and dismantling these gang-led

effort or other efforts on drug- trafficking and gun dealing and so forth? >> yes, this will continue to be a priority. it is a national problem. what happens along the southwest border can have an impact in connecticut or chicago. the person who has been leading the effort for the department of justice is the head of our criminal division who has devoted a huge amount of time to this fight, has established relationships with his counterparts, and has been a person who has stood for this country in developing good techniques to reduce that level of violence and the danger that cartels opposed to this country. >> i would like to turn to another subject that i think is equally important.

of the mortgage foreclosure crisis i know has been very much on your mind -- the mortgage foreclosure crisis i know has been very much on your mind. i wonder if we can expect criminal investigations that will be aimed at going after as far as a document submitted in court, inconsistent and contradictory information to homeowners that have received a loan modifications, a series of practice and abuses that i know have been under investigation with the cooperation of the department of justice and treasury. >> there are a number of investigations that are underway. we are working with our counterparts who have been extremely helpful and effective. we will be looking at these matters to see if criminal cases can be made.

if there are other ways we can hold accountable organizations or people perhaps using civil but it isoras well our intention that those responsible are held accountable. >> i would like to pursue this area in greater detail. my time is close to expired, but perhaps with your staff or your cell, i could do so in that regard. on a related topic, i know that so far as the department of justice has declined to intervene in a lawsuit that has been brought by two mortgage brokers in georgia, alleging that a number of institutions in the country have been cheating taxpayers out of hundreds of

millions of dollars by charging them illegal fees in hoam refinancing loans. all i am particularly concerned about the effect on veterans -- i am particularly concerned about the effect on veterans and whether they have been treated unfairly. i wonder if the department would reconsider that it become involved in what i view it as a whistleblower action and intervened to protect the interests of these veterans and other taxpayers. >> that is something i will have to review. i will check with the appropriate people within the department and see whether our decision to decide to not become involved is an appropriate one. i will get something back to you. >> i am not going to give you a 30-day deadline to get back to

us. i joined the mob by the way, with senator graham about the concern of the detainee issue. i very much appreciate you getting back to me on that issue. thank you for your service. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and mr. attorney general. many of my colleagues have mentioned the work used to endeavour terrorist attacks on our soil. i want to thank you for that and urge you to continue to support our local law enforcement. i cannot tell you the difference that the cops program has made in our state. so thank you. i was going to first ask you hear about some intellectual

property issues. recently, senator cornyn and i introduced a bill on a bipartisan basis designed to go after poeple who steal other people's work. it only covers intentional theft. it is about protecting everyone's rights from a children's writer in minneapolis to and guitarist with their first cd in-fill. as far as i can see, america is not a place where someone can write a book or make a song and then someone can copy it and make money off of it. the idea for it came from the administration when they suggested that u.s. law enforcement agencies to combat infringement have to be as

sophisticated as the crux that are breaking the law as. i appreciate the letter that we got from your department in which you talked about how the provision of the bill regarding streaming does not criminalize conduct that is not already criminal because right now it is a misdemeanor. if you would commit to work with us to take any necessary steps to make crystal clear that the bill does not criminalize and the new contact with the streaming issue, that we are not seeking to criminalize youtube or the posting of videos. >> we will work with you on the legislation. we will do what we can in conjunction with you to make sure people understand what the aim of the bill is and to put ease.'s minds at >> i appreciate that.

another important topic we have been working on is the growing problem with synthetic drugs. i have been shocked with the number of calls to poison control centers in the past six months compared to the same time a year ago with these drugs. we had a young man died from a synthetic hallucinogen. we have had bills passed through this committee. senator grassley's bill. these bills have unfortunately been stalled because one senator has put a hold on these bills. i ask for your help in getting them through. maybe you could talk about what we are seeing in terms of a whole new phenomenon with these designer drugs. >> da is taking emergency action with regard to the regulation of

bath salts. we have seen unfortunately incidences' are around the country where young people in particular using these substances have had negative health consequences, sometimes have even died. i am not familiar with the hold. i think the legislation is clearly needed and we will work with you on that to try to get it passed. i was not aware of the hold. >> on this bill, we were surprised. we are trying to work with the senator who put on a hold. i think it is incredibly important talking to law enforcement in our state and in smaller communities where they are having to bring in chemists and people to try to prove that it is an analog substance.

they keep changing the compound. it is not the end-all, be-all. i will start looking at that analog statue to see if there are some changes we can make to it to make it simpler to explain that when you have a simple change in a compound there are three or four factors that maybe we need to look at this dinner differently so i will be working with your attorneys and law enforcement on that issue as well. >> i think that is very important because as in these things -- they are made synthetically, so you can change the elements of these things. it should not be the case there we have to come back to congress in order to get a new statute to deal with this compound. we should be able to recognize that something is a derivative of something so we can take

emergency action, appropriate action so we can deal with these things as they come off because we know the reality is these chemical compounds, substances can be changed relatively quickly. we have to have the flexibility and the ability to respond as rapidly as we can. >> i know when i was a prosecutor, i did not know about this issue. suddenly, this switch where people are buying and easily, they think may be is legal because it is on the computer is becoming a huge problem. i think we madneed to take a lok at it. hard now it has been too of a hall to get these drugs on list. last month, i introduced a bill

with senator bill nelson of florida on guardianship. so many good guardians in our country doing a good job. unfortunately, some of them are using their positions of power for their own gain. i heard heartbreaking stories from the position i held. are you familiar with this issue? >> not familiar with it. i have heard about this problem. we would be more than glad to work with you both in the exploration of the problem and what the solutions to it might be. >> we are looking at some guidelines which are always helpful, a background check system. 8 is unbelievable but there is a number of states -- it is believed -- it is unbelievable but there is a number of states that do not even require

background checks. so we can do a better job over oversight. we are going to see a doubling of the senior population by 2030. we need to get ahead of the curve here. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> i will be a membered of that baby boom generation. i may -- i will be a member of that baby boom generation. >> i am trying to show a great deal of sympathy. senator durbin. >> thank you. i noticed you talked about the efforts to extradite those in mexico responsible for the killing of americans. i would like to take you to another aspect of this issue. recently, the chicago tribune did a series related to those

fugitives fleeing the country. many of them have been charged with crimes as serious as murder, rape, and child molestation. what we found in cases over and over again, in 1996, it is alleged that one suspect gunned down a single mother and restaurant owner in chicago for spurning his romantic advances and then fled. within two months, the relatives disclose his whereabouts to chicago police, his whereabouts in mexico, even giving local detectives the name of the street where he was staying with his parents in mexico and supplying a telephone number where he could be reached. no action was taken. since 1996, the family of mr.

rodriguez, her daughter, has found that there has been no help in trying to locate him. the chicago tribune reporters found him in 48 hours in mexico. in the following 15 years, all of the witnesses of the crime are either unavailable or incapacitated. it raises serious questions about the level of communications between local law enforcement and the department of justice and efforts of extradition. i would like to ask you to join me to try to bring all agencies and law enforcement together to try to resolve this breakdown in communication. i would like to give you a chance to respond to this. >> i think the issue that you raised is one of concern. the extradition relationship was not good in the past. we are in a much better place.

our commercial service is the primary agency within the justice department -- our marshall service is the primary agency within the justice department involved with this issue. we need to work with our local counterparts to get information like the case that you described for who these people are, where they are, and then try to get them back. this situation was simply unacceptable. >> the series also spoke of a fugitive in syria which is a different circumstance all together when it comes to extradition. mr. attorney general, how does the department of justice view muslim americans and our effort to keep america safe from terrorism? " we view that a community as a

center partners -- >> we view that community as a central his partner of our fight against terrorism. a great many of the successes we have had and some i have talked about came as a result of leads that we got as a result from the members of the muslim community. particularly the fbi to reach out to the muslim community to put at rest of the concerns and fears that they have about the interaction with law enforcement. i have been very encouraged by the response that we have got from that community. >> i thank you for that answer. after 9/11, i thought president bush's statements where spot-on in reminding people that our enemy is not those of the muslim

faith but those that correct it into violent extremism. guidelines were established on profiling in the department of justice. they are explicit. neither race nor ethnicity would be used for racial profiling. it is totally inconsistent with our values in this country. religion was excluded from that list. we have found that the fbi agents who were given counter- terrorism training were unfortunately subjected to many stereotypes of islams and muslims. for example, they were told that islam is "a highly of violent and radical religion. they are likely to be terrorist sympathizers, and the arabic

mind is swayed more by ideas than facts." one claims wearing traditional muslim attire, a growing facial hair, and frequent attendance at a mosque are all indicators of possible extremism. the fbi is engaged in widespread surveillance of mosques and innocent americans with no suspicion of wrongdoing. can you reconcile that activity and those training guides with your initial statement concerning your view that i share on the role of muslim americans? can you comment on how someone who is muslim and america read of these things and believes that the actual training under way and the surveillance on their way is inconsistent with your stated principles? >> the information that you just read has been inconsistent with what we have been trying to do

at the department. those views do not reflect the views of the justice department and the fbi. it is regrettable that that information was part of the training program. we are reviewing all of the materials, all of our training materials, to make sure that that kind of misinformation -- that can really undermine the really substantial outreach efforts that we have made. and really have a negative impact on our ability to communicate effectively as we have in the past with this community. when we say muslim americans, we are talking about american citizens who have the same desires as we have. they want their kids to be safe. that kind of information, that kind of training sets back those efforts. we have distanced ourselves from

that person and those statements. >> mr. chairman, could die prevail for 30 seconds? thank you very -- mr. chairman, could i prevail for 30 seconds? there are several states including florida which recently changed their state voting laws to restrict opportunities and access to vote relative to presenting photo identification cards, lifting early voting in the state, and making it more difficult including penalizing those engaged in the vote process to the degree to which many have pulled out of the state of florida and are not engaging in voter registration because of the penalties associated with it. the department of justice has the authority to review these

state laws to determine whether they would in fact disenfranchise voters. can you tell me whether this is under way or whether or not it will be reviewed in a timely manner? >> you are correct. there were two instances. with regard to section 5, section 2 of the voting rights act. the department of justice will be aggressive at looking at this jurisdictions that have attended for whatever reason to restrict the ability of people to get to the polls. i think a fundamental question is raised. who are we as a nation? should we not be coming up with ways to encourage more people to get to the polls to express their views? i am not talking about any one particular state effort but more generally i think for those who would consider trying to use methods or techniques to

discourage people from coming to the polls is inconsistent with what we say we are as a nation. i would hope that those kinds of efforts would not be in gat engd in. >> thank you, attorney general. >> i would note that senator grassley and others have asked for a second round of five- minute questions. i will ask -- senators are coming back to chair. senator cornyn. mr. attorney general, i have been very concerned that the appropriations bill considered by the senate last week completely eliminates funding

for the second chance act programs. the bureau of prisons budget was increased by $300 million. i know prisons are overpopulated and understand funding keeps prison guards and surrounding communities safe. i think they need to focus on reentry and rehabilitation. sometime, they are going to come back out. and when you consider the cost of $35,000 a year or more to keep them there, the idea of spending a tiny fraction of that to keep them from going back makes a lot of sense. i want to make sure that there is attention on reentry and rehabilitation programs for prisoners rejoining society and will stay out. i think that second chance act

allows that. it is a tiny fraction of what we spend on our prisons. congress will be finishing its work this year on the appropriation bills. >> yes. the investment of money in that way is ultimately financially smart. we will save money down the road. i think there is a moral component to this, and that is we have to try as best we can to rehabilitate people. is only through the techniques and the support that the act provides that we can be affected in that regard. i think the decision not to fund that effort does not make a lot of sense. >> thank you.

the violence against women act giving the department of justice important tools for domestic and dating violence, sexual assaults, and stalking. it makes it easier for law enforcement to apprehend violent criminals. now, law enforcement is requesting more of these then are allowed under the law. i am considering it as a number of increase in new visas proposal might become available. >> we will want to work with you in that regard and look at ways in which we can deal with this issue but i think that is one of the things we ought to be considering. >> senator grassley and i worked together in congress to fight fraud to protect taxpayers act

to give the department of justice additional resources to fight fraud no cost to taxpayers. we joined a bipartisan effort. the bill has notw stalled in the senate. it would be paid for by fines and reimbursements. then the department of justice could hire them if we pass the act. the americas -- will the american people benefit from that? >> obviously, mr. chairman. that is something we want to work with you on and support. that is clearly a benefit to the american people. >> senator grassley and i will keep on pushing on that. lastly, i keep reading even

after the facts came out about $16 muffins. now, the inspector general issued a corrected version of that report which apparently some of the media never sought even though everybody else did. we want to make sure what money we have it is spent correctly. $16 muffins' was incorrect. what steps have you taken to make sure that money is spent appropriately? >> i want to say that we have a very good inspector general. i think they are to be lauded for the fact that they did admit that they made an error with

that $16 muffin. we are reviewing all requests for conferences to make sure they adhere to the guidelines that we have set out, that they be done efficiently and cost effective way. i want to point out that conferences serve a useful purpose. it is a way in which teaching occurs and ideas are shared. we should not simply cast a wide net and think that conferences are not a good use of our resources. we are committed to doing it in an appropriate way. >> thank you very much. i yield to senator grassley for his five minutes. >> [inaudible] i got a couple of statements i want to make before i make a question. before the justice department produced documents on wide receiver, my staff asked for

additional information on previous cases of gun walking. however on september 30, the department declined to provide a briefing on such cases. so i am not limited in my questions on obama-era operations. it is hard to get answers when you do not get these briefings. now that the authority is interested in gun walking, they will probably help us get our questions answered. that is one reason why -- i am only interested in overseeing democratic presidents on gun walking. i want to speak to something senator schumer brought up. i think his facts are entirely accurate, but he referred to wide receiver -- he referred to

wide receiver, but all the facts are in regard to the hernandez case. i want to make clear something that was widely misunderstood. general casey referred to a controlled delivery in the case calledthe u.s. coordinated with mexican law enforcement, which was supposed to be waiting on the other side of the border to interdict these weapons. this is a distinct -- this is distinct from fast and furious wide receiver, where guns were clearly walked. first question to you -- your justice department stood by its february 4 denial, even after send the first set of documents that showed otherwise. the question for you, attorney

general holder, you say you were relying on others to correct misstatement incendy for a four letter, yet -- the statements in the february 4 letter shouldn't he then have notified either you and/or congress at that time? >> i think that is one of the things that he admitted. his testimony said he made a mistake in not bringing to my attention the fact of his prior knowledge. he admits that he made a mistake in that regard. >> your deputy received a lot of details about fast and furious in march, 2010 briefing, details that i believe should have raised red flags. for example, he was informed that just three straw barriers

brought 670 guns. he was informed that the atf followed them to stash houses, and he was informed that the guns and the up in mexico. so you can look at the charts with his own handwriting on these things here. yet you said, a recent letter, that acting deputy attorney general grindler was not told of the tactics employed during that briefing. if by unacceptable tactics you been watching strawberry ears -- straw buyers illegally buy guns without seizing them before they get to mexico, isn't that what he was told? >> i do not know exactly what he was told, but i of the stand that he got this briefing as part of a monthly interaction he had with atf. the person who did the briefing was the acting director of atf, indicating at that point he did

not know about these inappropriate tactics. nelson was also the person who briefed the chairman, understand it, with the same briefing. i do not know. i'm not sure i draw the conclusions that you do on the basis of what i and stand about the nature of the interaction was. one of the things i have been told is that the question of guns walking was not briefed to the then acting deputy attorney general grindler. >> one of the papers explicitly says that the strategy was "to allow the chance for a firearms to continue. one of the emails for reading the paper says it is likely to go to deputy attorney general.

you cannot know -- you can know for sure that no one informed of that strategy. >> i understood he was not told of the tactics, the gun-walking tactics. as i have also been told that the picture you have up there is of guns recovered in the united states. this is what, again, were delivered in the united states. i am not as intimately familiar with that interaction as perhaps you are. what i have been told is that the fact is that the acting deputy attorney general grindler was not told about guns walking. he got the same briefing that congressman issa got from the same person, ken melson. he was not aware of the them walking techniques. in fact, he did not know about it until march.

>> thank you, senator grassley. many of the members of the committee are at a vote, so i will begin a second round of questions from me, and then we have other senators who will return to ask additional questions. one of the central issues you spoke about a previous questions was aid to state and local law- enforcement. one of the things of great concern to me is officer safety. you spoke earlier about how we're seeing significant reductions in crime, yet increases in violence directed against officers, obviously as has been discussed at length here, tragic losses in the line of duty of officers. i wonder if you might comment on what sorts of programs the department is currently funding, what sorts of funding challenges these programs face. i am particularly personally familiar with the officer best program, and would be interested in other comments that you care

to make about officer safety programs and grants. >> we tried to focus on what we have come to call a summit meeting after there were a number of deaths of local law enforcement officers in shootings. as a result of that, we developed the officers say the initiative, where we are trying to channel information to our state and local counterparts so that they have ways in which they can receive training and how to handle themselves in violent situations. we have supported a bulletproof vest program to get these out there. we have the valor program that deals again with the whole notion of about how officers can protect themselves in these situations. we try to make them familiar with ways in which they can protect themselves and also tried to isolate, what are the things that most results in these officer shootings.

when officers tried to break into houses, that is oftentimes when you see shootings occur. by sharing this kind of information, getting state from -- information our state and local counterparts, and sharing that with them, we hope we will show a disturbing trend in officer shootings. >> we had the first ever loss of life by the county police department. an individual who was reported in our local newspaper and has been finalized through toxicology reports, reported to be on these that were discussed previously. can you speak to what pass for which we might take to make sure that -- that would criminalize these allegedly but i think realistically dangerous substances? >> we certainly want to work with you in that regard, not the least reason of which is that we have put potentially law

enforcement officers at risk, the people using these substances obviously putting themselves at risk. we do not want a situation where we have been affected with regard to the more traditional drugs, and then we have these new ones, the new synthetic drugs popping up that have the same impact or the same possibility of devastating communities in the way that the more traditional drugs have. we want to work with you to identify what the current problems are. we always have to be mindful of new situations, new trends, we have to be flexible, responsive. one of the ways in which we can do that is to interact with members of this committee. but our state and local counterparts to get a sense of what is wrong on out there and how can we in the federal government assists. >> our governor in delaware has taken decisive action on this, and i would be happy to share with you and your department on what results we have seen. in the hernandez case that

senator grassley was referring to, in regards to the 2007 case memo that has been discussed here -- to you know if the atf lost track of the guns and got to mexico in that instance? >> i do not know. i have focused on fast and furious, and that happened while i was attorney general. i'm not as familiar with the hernandez case. i'm just not as familiar with it. >> thank you very much for your testimony. >> mr. holder, let me try to tie up some loose ends. you agree that on february 4, in the letter mentioned by senator grassley, the allegation that 80th sanctions allowed the sale to a straw purchaser of -- the atf sanctions allowed the sale

of a straw purchaser. that is now falls? >> i said it contains inaccurate information. >> well, isn't that false? >> well, i do not want to quibble with you, but i think false implies people making a decision to deceive. that is not what was going on there. people in good faith were giving what they thought was correct information to senator grassley. we now know that the information was not correct. >> if you will not agree that it was false -- it is not true, you agree with that, right? >> i agree it is not accurate. >> it is not accurate. the person that wrote this in 2011, have they ever been held accountable for providing false information to a united states senator? >> the people who wrote the letter thought what they were sending was in fact accurate information.

at some point, somebody in the chain did not have -- did not give good information. that is one of the things that the inspector general i hope will be able to determine. >> did any brewer no -- nknow -- was the privy to either of these two memos, july 5, 2010? you said he was briefed in april of 2010? what office does he hold in the department of justice? >> he is the assistant attorney general of -- >> knowing him as he did back in july 2010, allowed a letter that went out on part -- on department stationery -- why would he let a letter that was false represent the position of the department of justice. >> first of all, the briefing,

that was about wide receiver, not fast and furious. >> by the way, do you know the difference between wide receiver and fast and furious? >> their different operations. >> do you know the differences? the factual differences between wide receiver and fast and furious? >> there were a number of differences both in terms of scope, a time. the bush administration is the one who started wide receiver. the obama administration is where wide receiver -- is where fast and furious began. >> are you winning this, or do you know? >> i know. >> neither was there the intention to follow the weapons on fast and furious, nor did mexico know that the united states government was allowing guns to go in the hands of the

cartels. >> senator, i have not tried to equate the two. >> i'm just asking you if you know the differences between the two. >> what i know about wide receiver, if what you said are correct, there are memos talking about gun walking that relate to wide receiver. but again, i am not trying to equate the two. >> when you got senator- grassley's letter, why didn't you investigate? >> i did. i asked people on my staff to look into the materials, the concerns in the letters. the january 27 letter i believe, and the january 30 letter. the 30th or the 31st or something like that. i asked people on my staff to look into that, and they did. they started asking questions within the department about the matters of the material contained in the senator grassley letter. >> that was shortly after the letter that senator grassley

gave you, surely after the murder of the united states law enforcement officer. >> the acting head of atf, ken melson, give it to me on january 31. >> who works for you. you said that staff made the right decision in not bringing fast and furious tactics to your attention, is that correct? >> that is not correct. i said there was no indication in the materials that contain anything about the tactics we used in fast and furious. as a result, there was no need for them to bring to my attention the reports. if in fact there was in those reports indications of gun walking or something like that, i think they should have brought that to my attention, but that is not contained in the reports. that is what assistant attorney general bir said was the mistake he made when he -- a assistant

attorney general bruce said was the mistake he made. >> can you name one person who was held accountable in the department of justice? >> we have made changes both in the phoenix u.s. attorney's office, the atf headquarters here, and i will certainly await the report, and i assure you and the american people that people will be held accountable for any mistakes made in connection with fast and furious. >> thank you. >> thank you for coming back. senator, did you have any questions? >> i'm sorry i have not been here. we had a meeting, so i missed the last 2.5 hours. i trust it went well. before i begin, i just want to take a moment to align myself with what i heard senator cole's comments were, the -- i am

pleased the deer leadership that the department was willing to send a message that the antitrust law was still relevant and should be applied to the competitive merger. thank you. i know you have had a long day, so i'll just ask one question. as you know, there is an academic against gay, lesbian, and transgender students. kids skip school in the past month because they felt unsafe. these kids are missing school, going as far as committing suicide because of this. literally being bullied to death. our nation does not have a law

that explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in our public schools. general holder, i have a bill, the student nondiscrimination act, that would fix this. it has been co-sponsored by 34 senators, including the chairman and almost all of the democratic members of the committee and the health committee. the department of justice has lauded the goals of this act, the student nondiscrimination act. in fact, it is even acknowledged that ltbt bullying was the greatest growth area in the civil rights docket. even though this administration is publicly -- has publicly lgbt bills,ther

it has not publicly supported the nondiscrimination act. general holder, does this administration support this bill, or does it not? >> well, i think the operative word that you used is "yet." i will go back and try to see where we stand and why we are not in a place where i think we ought to be formally. because i think you're right, as you look at the steps the administration has taken with regard to similar issues, we have been, i think, in an appropriate place, the right place. with regard to the bill you're talking about, hope we can get to that a proper place relatively soon. >> thank you very much, and i hope that is before we get to the floor with it on the esea

bill. >> attorney general holder, i want to thank you for being here. i know it has been a long time, but everybody has had a chance to ask their questions. everything has been said, sometimes more than once or twice or three times, but i appreciate you being here, and as i said, i will let you go to get back to those issues that really affect us. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> as the hearing comes to a close, republican presidential candidate herman cain will hold a press conference this afternoon at 5:00 eastern 2

"said the record straight" regarding sexual -- at 5:00 eastern to "set the record straight" regarding sexual harassment allegations. also, several elections be held today. oregon is holding an election to replace the former congressman who resigned in august 3 kentucky and mississippi are electing new government. -- new governors. ohio is voting with about collective bargaining by state workers. to compel and if it is unconstitutional to compel -- "washington journal" continues its series this week with its series on the military. wednesday, arlington national cemetery. also, news international

executive share james murdoch goes between -- before a british committee for the second time thursday to talk about the british from hacking investigation. members will ask him about the allegations of phone hacking. live coverage thursday morning at 6:00 eastern on c-span2. >> extremism in the defense of liberty is no -- let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> he lost the 1954 president -- the 1964 presidential election to lyndon johnson, but barry goldwater galvanized the conservative movement. this week on "the contenders," from the goldwater institute in .hoenix

>> i will you all to know that those of you who wanted me to run so badly and were so terribly disappointed, i'm doing the right thing. >> to establish a constructive and realistic working relationship with the soviet union. >> with every program since 1987, the c-span video library is the definitive source for on- line public affairs. now there is a new way to access our programming. download and listen to and the three audio for every available c-span program, just 99 cents each. takes c-span with you on your eye -- on your iphone, in troy, or any portable device. secretary of state hillary clinton was the keynote speaker at the national democratic institute's 2011 democracy awards dinner last night. she talked about the transition that is under way at the barracks spring country. -- the arabs bring countries.

-- the arab spring countries. comments are about 40 minutes. >> it is now my honor to introduce our keynote speakers. tonight i think is a little like introducing the sky to greet the sun. after all, it is not like we are unaware of hillary clinton's existence. she is a best-selling author, a grammy award winner, a former first lady, a former senator, from the great state of new

york, currently serving as america's 67th secretary of state. if that were not enough, she is also a prior recipient of the harriman award. we all know her well, and we're all aware that she has been doing an absolutely outstanding job in a world that refuses even for a minute to stand still. in less than three years, she has helped president obama restore our nation's reputation and leadership, with fresh energy to partnerships across the globe, and created a new foundation for progress on issues that range from terrorism and arms control to human development and the empowerment of women. in the process, she has assembled a stellar state department team, made creative use of every available foreign policy tool, earned the abiding respect of our armed forces,

and generated enthusiasm wherever she has traveled. those of us who have seen her abroad know that she is an incomparable representative for our country. she does not just make appearances, she makes connections by explaining the goals that guide our actions in the interest that we share with law-abiding people on every continent. what you may not know is that our secretary of state has also been a stalwart defender of ndi in a number of countries where our work has been challenged. given her position, it would have been easy for her to point -to other priorities. but she has made clear that defending the truth about what we do is a parody, and at her watch -- on her watch, -- is a parody, and on her watch, -- the arab democracy movement is one

area among many where our secretary of state has acted in a timely and effective way to keep our alliances together, and maintain our nation's commitment, defend our security, and uphold our ideals. it gives me great pleasure to introduce one friend to many others. please welcome secretary of state hillary rodham clinton. [applause] if i might say, everybody in this room supports you and offer our sympathy for the death of your really remarkable mother. >> thank you very much. [applause] thank you. well, it is a great pleasure for me to be here this evening, and

i thank my friend and my predecessor madeleine albright for not only that kind introduction, but for her extraordinary leadership, and in particular, of ndi. thanks also to sherry brian and ken for in writing me here today. i think it is important to recognize that back when the streets of arab cities were quiet, the national democratic institute was already on the ground, building relationships, supporting the voices that would turn a long arab winter into a new arab spring. we may not know where and when brave people will claim their rights next, but it is a safe

bet that ndi is there now, because freedom knows no better champion. more than a quarter-century old, ndi and its siblings in the national endowment for democracy family have become vital elements in america's engagement with the world. tonight i want particularly to congratulate the winners of ndi 's 2011 madeleine albright award, women of appropriate communication techniques for development. women risk everything to demand their rights for the egyptian people, and they deserve those rights extended to them. so we are grateful for their work, and we hope to see the rights that they fought for and advocated for enshrined in egypt's new constitution. egypt's new constitution. we are proud to