and reform efforts. that is next on c-span. a hearing on capitol hill. eric holder and knowledge mistakes on a weapons trafficking program that allowed guns to leak into the mexican black market. the hearing isrick santorum talw hampshire newspaper a about his campaign. >> in the defense of liberty has no bias. let me remind you also that moderation and the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> he lost the presidential election to lyndon johnson, but

barry goldwater's ideas galvanized the movement. from the cold water institute in phoenix, live at friday at 8:00 eastern. >> gop presidential candidate herman cain a response to allegations of sexual harassment made against him by former employees of the national restaurant association. he spoke to reporters in scottsdale, arizona close to phoenix. >> good afternoon. i am one of the lawyers for herman cain. i have been practicing law in georgia for a little over 34 years. i have had the opportunity in my practice of law to represent a

female victims of sexual harassment. serious legitimate claims of sexual harassment are not settled for nuisance value. i have also had the opportunity in my law practice to represent the victims of sexual assault. they resolved their claims in a court of law.

i am also had the privilege to represent a number of innocent victims accused by the media of serious crimes -- false accusations. those individuals found themselves on trial and the court of public opinion. on trial in the court of public opinion were there are no rules. the rules are made up by the media. there are no procedures designed to safeguard the integrity of the process -- to ensure that a fair and a fear -- a just result is achieved. herman cain finds himself over the course of the last several days now on trial in the court

of public opinion. he is falsely accused. first by anonymous sources, and now yesterday by sharon bialek who chose to come forward for what ever reason after 14 years when recollections have faded, witnesses cannot be located. for the first time in 14 years, she will tell her story to a third person for the first time. and now herman cain in the court of public opinion has to respond not to admissible

evidence. he has to respond to here say. he has to respond to rumors and speculation. he is not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine his accusers. he is not afforded the safeguards that are part of our system of justice. he comes before you today to defend his reputation. a reputation that he has built over 40 years of being a good and decent man and a successful business person. i ask that you at least afford him fairness. that you review his efforts to

defend his reputation and his good name by maintaining commonsense. remembering your own life experience to decide whether or not a story that is so inherently improbable on its face should be utilized by others with their own agendas to attack this man's reputation. it is my privilege to represent him. it is my privilege to step aside from this podium and let you hear from him -- herman cain. >> thank you. good afternoon. i am herman cain, and i am running for president of the united states of america.

i normally don't have notes. in this case, i wanted to make sure that i did not miss any points that i needed to cover today. secondly, i chose to address these accusations directly rather than try to do it through a series of continuous statements. that is the person that herman cain is. is to take my message directly to the people. with respect to the most recent accusation, i have never acted inappropriately with anybody, period. i saw ms. gloria allred and her

client yesterday in the news conference for the very first time. as i sat in my hotel room with a couple of my staff members, as they got to my -- as they got to the microphone, my first reaction was that i do not even know who this woman is. secondly, i did not recognize the name at all. the time that she referenced was during the time that i was the ceo and president of the national restaurant association. it is headquartered in washington, d.c. where about 150 workers work. and we have about 150 people in chicago where she said she

worked for our educational foundation. i tried it to remember if i recognized her, and i did not. i tried to remember if i remembered that name, and i did not. the charges and the accusations i absolutely reject. they simply did not happen. they simply did not happen. you know, for decades the american people have wanted a businessman in the white house and not just another politician. for decades all the politicians have been doing is kicking the can down the road, trim a little bit here and a trim a little bit there, when a america's biggest problems simply got worse. a businessman by the name of her mccain stepped forward.

here i am. -- herman cain stepped forward. we are not going to allow washington or politics to deny me the opportunity to represent this great nation. as far as these accusations caused me to back off and make me withdraw from this presidential primary race, it is not going to happen. i am doing this for the eighth american people and for the children and their grandchildren. i will not be deterred by false anonymous, incorrect accusations. in america believes that washington is broken. in america believes that our

system of getting elected is broken. in part it is. in another part, it is not. as long as we have decency and honesty in the electorial process, it will work. when they allow the seat and false accusations to rule the day and distract us, that part is broken. nine days ago the media started to beat me up covering anonymous accusers. yesterday, another accuser came forth and identified herself. she went on tv and made some other allegations. was it tough last week? yes. has it been tough the last couple of days? yes. that is one thing about herman

cain i think a lot of the american people know. just because it is tough is no reason for me not to do what i feel like i have to do. because of what the american people have said to me during these turbulent times, we will get through this. we will get through this. the fact is, these anonymous allegations are false. now, the democrat machine in a america have brought forth a troubled woman to bring accusations. statements, many which have no common sense. exceed the standards of decency in america. i have been married for 43 years. 43 years i have been married to my wife, gloria. after watching the press conference yesterday, i called her and i said, sweetheart, it did you see it?

she said, yes. i said, what do you think? my wife said -- and this is a direct quote -- i have known you for 46 years. we were engaged 40 dead years. that does not even sound like anything he would do to anyone. sexual harassment allegations are serious. respect for women and all people i have worked with or people who have worked for me over the years has been a top priority with respect to me. now, my family fully supports my candidacy. they know the man that i am. they have been with me all of their lives -- my kids. in know who i am and they know

the man i am. however, i ask that the media not dragged my family into this. they are not running for president. some members of your profession have even stopped my family members, calling members of my family and extended family members. i ask you as professionals to direct your questions, or criticisms toward me, not my family. my reputation is something i have worked over 40 years to build up. i have managed many entities, many companies, i have managed organizations with thousands upon thousands of employees. now that i am running for the highest office in the land, accusation after accusation,

some anonymous, some not so anonymous, are now coming to light. this is not a surprise. it was expected. i will vigorously defend my reputation because i will not allow false accusations to compromise or in any way shed badly on my character and my integrity. this is why i have decided to address these issues directly. i will repeat -- i have never acted inappropriately with anyone, period. these accusations that were revealed yesterday are simply -- they simply did not happen. we are going to take some

questions. we will take a few questions secure >> when you ask a question. please state your media organization. >> i would like to ask you a two-part question. do you think it is appropriate for a candidate's character to come under a microscope in a campaign? secondly, you are now basically a day he said she said situation. would you be willing to do a lie detector test to prove your honesty in something like this? >> yes. i absolutely would. i am not going to do that unless i have a good reason to do that. that is one of the first, made with my staff. of course i would be willing to

do a lie-detector tests. secondly, i believe the character of a president should come under a microscope. with facts, not accusations. >> mr. herman cain, 40% of republican voters see you less favorably after monday's accusations. given that reaction, how can you convince not supporters to vote for you? >> first of all, you don't need 100% of the voters, you need 51%. it is natural that some voters would be turned off by the mere mention of the accusations. that is normal and that is expected. all you have to do is look at campaigns historically a and you are able to identify both situations where some members of

the public -- some of the voting electorate are going to be influenced by the court of public opinion in formulating their impression. the good news for me and my campaign is that most of my supporters have not reacted to this in terms of believe. many of them have expressed their outpouring of support for the fact that these incidents is simply did not happen. rebuilding the trust on the part of some people, yes, that will be a challenge. i want to continue to represent those who chose to support me and those who are willing to look at the facts and not here say. >> hi. i in from the l.a. times. yesterday called these charges insignificant stuff. i think anyone who has ever

worked in a restaurant environment knows that sexual- harassment can be commonplace. a question to you is do you believe sexual harassment is real. have you ever seen it? what did you see? how did you deal with it? >> let me reiterate that sexual harassment is a serious charge. in no way have i tried to minimize sexual harassment in the workplace. having led many organizations, yes, i have seen instances where it could be interpreted as sexual harassment. if i saw it and if it were an employee or director report of mine, i dealt with it immediately before the other person perceived it as an infringement of their privacy. i might add, it is not just men who have sexually harassed

women, i have also seen situations where women have attempted to sexually harass men. it is very serious. i have made sure that is not something that was tolerated in any organization i was responsible for. >> jonathan carl with abc news. now another woman has come forward to work with you at the restaurant association. she is now spokesperson at the treasury department. she has come forward publicly. what do you say to her and her allegations, somebody still working in the u.s. government? are her allegations not true? issued lying about it? >> to the best of my recollection since you mention that particular man, that is the one that i recall that filed a complaint but it was found to be baseless. let us separate something. the accusations were made up

sexual-harassment. they were found baseless. there was no legal settlement. there was an agreement between that lady and the national restaurant association. it was treated as a personnel matter because there was no basis to her accusations. those are the facts. she could not find anyone to corroborate her story. she went to a process to get to the point where it ended up being an agreement and not a settlement. let me clarify that little point. i have been criticized by some members of the media that i have changed my story.

when the firestorm started one week ago on monday, i was presented with the accusation that some settlement was made. settlement to me means there were legal implications. later during the same day, i'd then recalled after all of those years that there was an agreement. that is what businesses fine with employers that are departing the company. they call it an agreement. all of the potential legal complications and ramifications or accusations were found to be baseless. >> there are now a total of four women who have accused you of some form of sexual harassment. how'd you explain that? are they making it up? can you explain where he think this is coming from? >> well, i happen to think where it is coming from is some people

do not want herman cain to get the republican nomination and some people do not want herman cain to become president of the united states of america. when you run for the highest office of the land, there are going to be some accusations that are going to come out of the woodwork and will come out of anywhere. i have said this before. there will probably be others not because i am aware of any, but because the machine to keep a businessman out of the white house is going to be relentless. if they continue to come, i will continue to respond. i can't answer why the ones that are already making these one anonymous accusations and one that put her face on tv, started a media campaign to basically try to slander my integrity and my character, i cannot tell you what their motivation is other than is to stop herman cain.

i believe the american people are saying that they are not going to let that happen. >> mitt romney has been quoted as saying he finds the accusations to be disturbing. can you react to the observation by mr. mitt romney and tell us what you think is behind it? >> sure. sexual harassment is a very serious matter as i have said. i find it the accusation is disturbing. but false. i don't believe governor romney was saying he thought i was guilty of any of these accusations. but, yes, they are disturbing. they distract me from taking out a message to the american people. talking about solutions, they distract from the whole republican primary process. he is right. i don't think he was saying i was disturbing because i have been accused.

i believe what he was saying because i know mitt romney and his integrity that he was referring to the fact that is disturbing that these accusations that are not factually based are disturbing to this process. >> you made several mentions of the machine -- the democratic machine. who are these people? who is involved in this? is it a conspiracy? >> i cannot say that it is a conspiracy. we do not have a definitive factual proof. we can only look at some coincidences to suggest that maybe somebody is deliberately behind it this. we have not been able to make any determination to point any fingers or place any blame on anybody at this point. when we step back and look at the fact that there are no

factual evidence to back these up, we can only infer that somebody is trying to basically correct my character. and like the other gentleman alluded to, plant doubts in the mind that will go to the polls and vote. >> what role do you think the past financial troubles plaguing her allegations against you? >> she glanced that the number of civil lawsuits she has been involved in, she claims it does not play a role in her coming forward. i cannot respond any further than that. that is her claim. from a common-sense standpoint, one would have to ask if in fact that might not be a motivation for her being

subjected to this. >> in terms of the other case that was found baseless from that accuser, who found it to be baseless? why was she paid tens of thousands of dollars? >> i am not sure of the tens of thousands of dollars you are referring to. i will not get caught in that trap. it was negotiations between -- i am only referring to the one lady that actually filed charges. that is the only what i can respond to. she got an e turnip -- she got an attorney. they negotiated with the attorney for the national restaurant association. i cannot even remember if we got outside counsel. i think we probably did. they came to the conclusion that it should and with some sort of personnel separation agreement.

[inaudible] >> she worked at the restaurant association for a period of time. i do remember that before i left the restaurant association, she was in the process of leaving the association. i did not have regular interaction, although periodically i would see her. since she reported to one of my vice-president, when we but have a planning meeting, she would attended the planning meeting. particularly what i would do a planning meeting, i would not only bring in my direct reports, i would bring in the next level down. that was the interaction in terms of the seeing her on a regular basis. during that particular period of time, because i was the president of the national restaurant association, today it has over 14 million people working in the industry. thousands and thousands of restaurants. i spent most of my time traveling and giving speeches around the country to stay

restaurant associations as well as other speeches i needed to give. i was not in the office a lot. i was out in the field more than i was in the office. >> he said again today that it has been so many years -- you letter recall there was a financial agreement that you did not originally remember. now you say you did not remember sharon bialek. is there a possibility that it has been too many years and you might recall details later? >> that is a possibility, but i think it is a remote possibility. this or not an expert on how the brain works, but i do know that i sat there and went over and over in my mind, do i know this lady? the answer kept coming up know. i watched her again today when she appeared on fox news with her attorney doing this interview sitting there trying to remember if i know her. i did not recognize the face. i did not recognize the name or the voice. you are right.

is that a possibility? yes. i happen to think it is a remote possibility. here is why trade one of the people who have worked with me for years will tell you that i am pretty good at remembering people -- especially people who have had a positive impact in my life. i am pretty good at remembering people i have met and who have made some sort of impression on me. in this particular case, i seriously doubt i am going to have an a-ha moment later and remember that. i don't think that will happen. >> karen kraushaar who just spoke to our newspaper, can you tell us what she accused you of specifically at what your interactions with her word? you can close to answering that you stopped. this is your press conference where you are going to level

with us. tell us what she accused you of and tell us what really happened? this is your chance. thank you. >> i can only recall one thing that i was aware of that was called sexual harassment. the one thing that i remember that i remembered during the day when all of this broke loose was that one day in my office at the national restaurant association, i was standing next to ms. kraushaar and i just heard standing near her like this, "you are the same height as my wife, because my wife came up to my chin." that was the same gestures that i remember. the door was open. it was not anything behind closed doors. i compare her to my wife's height. and of story.

other things that might have been in the accusations i am not even aware of. i don't remember. that when i remember because that was the one at my general counsel came to me and said, "the one that appears to be -- the one she was most upset about was that." i cannot tell you more than that because i do not recall any more. that is all i remember. she did not react at the time. let me say this, folks. in closing -- thank you for your patience. thank you for us having an opportunity to share my perspective on this. this nation faces tremendous crises. i would hope that we could get back to sharing with the american people solutions to the problems that we face. we are not, to allow ourselves to be continuously distracted by these sort of instant --

incidents. i will respond to that. we cannot slow the campaign down. we need to be dealing with our economic crisis, are spending crisis, and our energy crisis. our foreign policy crisis. illegal immigration crisis. a crisis of leadership in the white house in washington, d.c. that is what i am going to continue to focus on on the behalf of the american people. not for me, but for the grandkids. thank you for your attendance. [applause] >> see more videos of the candidates at c-span's website. read the latest comments from candidates and political reporters and links to c-span some political partners.

all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> onto mar's washington journal, we will get the latest on the republican presidential race including the allegations against herman cain. matt lewis joins us. thenbeau biden will discuss how states are looking at misconduct of financial institutions. then a roundtable discussion with kathryn condon and patrick hallinan, the superintendent of arlington national cemetery. later in the day on c-span 3, more about the presidential campaign when we joined the radio program "new hamshire" today. guests include ron paul and john

huntsman. that it's under way at 3:00 p.m. eastern. attorney general eric holder testified about the government to talk fast and furious operation meant to track and in the u.s. and smuggled into mexico. two of those guns were later found at a shootout in arizona that left a border patrol agent dead. at this oversight hearing, attorney general eric holder is asked about cyber security, the proposed at&t and t mobil merger and voting rights. the hearing is just under three hours.

>> i will probably run the clock a little more diligently than usual including for myself. as we complete our continued importance on oversight, the attorney general is your. details are just emerging about this operation that killed osama bin laden. that was not an isolated success. during the last few years, the obama administration has successfully read and they greeted retooled our national security efforts. the attorney general is a key member of the national security team. under his leadership, the

justice department last month world and assassination attempt in the united states of the saudi ambassador to the united states. last week for men and georgia arrested of a terrorist plot. the toxic poisons to kill federal and state officials. earlier this year, the christmas day, who was convicted in federal court pled guilty and it faces a possible life sentence. we have to ensure we do all we can to assist efforts to bring terrorists to justice and provide the administration with a full array of options we needed those efforts. it is my view is that it is shortsighted for the congress to

hamstring the efforts. as we proceed, we should remember that between september 11, 2001 and the end of 2010, 438 suspects have been successfully processed by the bush and obama administration. 438. in that same time, six have been convicted in military commissions. only six. the record over the last three years with respect to crime has also been outstanding. over the past three years, crime rates have fallen rather than prison which is contrary to normal -- rather than prison which is contrary to normal times. as you, each one of us are going to have questions about matters

that concern us. this morning there will be more questions about the bureau of alcohol and tobacco, explosives, gun trafficking going on along the southern border. i urge that they engage in respect the ability of prosecutors to do their jobs to address the threat of violence

posed by these drug cartels. i do not think anybody wants to convert the efforts of law enforcement agents against the mexican cartels including the ongoing criminal investigation and prosecution related to the tragic murder of agent brian terry. i thank you the men and women of the department of justice to work very hard to keep us said, upholding the rule of law. i thank the attorney general for returning to the committee. i look forward to his testimony. i have kept within my time, and i will expect everyone else to respect that. >> this is a very important meeting. there are a lot of issues to bring up. however, over the time the attorney general was last year, i concentrated my oversight on operation fast and furious. just over nine months ago, the attorney general said in the office and i handed him two

letters i wrote to atf. my letter mentioned the death of border control agent, that the atf has sanctioned the sale of assault weapons, the allegations of two of those weapons had been found at the scene of agent terry's death, and for the allegations of the whistle- blower were being -- were already facing retaliation from the agency. four days later, the reply from the department stated that the whistleblower allegations were false. it also claimed that the atf makes every effort to take weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to mexico. in the nine months since then, of mounting evidence have put the lie to that plan. they have -- six atf agents testified power fully at

oversight hearings pretty also confirmed that gun walking occurred in operation fast and furious. just last week assistant attorney general admitted in this room that the department's letters to me in february were false. it gets worse. mr. brown also admitted that he knew all along it was worse -- it was false. he could not remember whether he helped edit it. he knew it was false because he was aware of previous operations called "wide receiver." he was aware that congress had been misled yet made no effort to correct the department to talk official denial. much has been said recently about guns being locked in operation wide receiver during the bush era. it does not happen -- it does not matter to me what happened,

we need answers. bush era prosecutors refuse to bring the case. despite the gun walking issues, it was mr. brewer's responsibility to communicate that gun walking is unacceptable. to ensure that it did not happen again. he did not do that. mr. brewer admitted last week that one of his deputies inform him of the walking in april of 2010. he also admitted at the same deputy approved at least one of the wiretap application said operation fast and furious. the law requires that agencies show they have tried everything else first to tap the funds. d.c. -- the very same facts that would show to obtain wiretaps which showed the department knew these individuals were trafficking and weapons. the government should have

stopped the flow of guns to these criminals. anybody reviewing the affidavits would probably know that was not happening. i would also add that this tragedy should not be used to call for new gun control. there were already breaking the law, they should have been a rested one year earlier than they were. statistics from some include u.s. weapons sold to foreign military, weapons that were transferred into mexico years ago, guns from fast and furious, stolen weapons, and many other sources. as we learn more about the utter failure to enforce our existing gun laws in fast and furious, i am eager to hear from the attorney general who he plans to hold accountable. i also want to know how he plans to prevent another tragedy like this in the future. let me be clear, the bottom line is it does not matter how many

laws we pass of those responsible for enforcing them refuse to do their duty as was the case in fast and furious. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. attorney general holder, with the stand and raise your right hand. these were that the testimony you are about to give before this committee is the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. "i do. >> i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. over the last three years i have been privileged to address the committee on numerous occasions and to partner with many of you in advancing the goals and priorities i think we all share. i am extremely proud of the historic achievements over the past two years. despite financial constraints, we have confronted a range of national security threats and public safety challenges.

i am especially pleased to report there are efforts to combat global terrorism have never been stronger. since i last appeared before the committee in may, just three days after the decade long hunt for osama bin laden came to a successful and, the department has achieved several additional milestones. for example, last month we secured a conviction for his role in the attempted bombing of an airplane traveling from amsterdam to the chart on christmas day in 2009. we also worked closely with our domestic and international partners to thwart and attempting plot to assassinate the saudi arabian ambassador to the united states on american soil. -- so well. -- soil. another targeting u.s. soldiers in taxes. meanwhile and one of the most

complex counterintelligence operations in history we brought down a ring involving 10 russian spies. last week a federal jury in manhattan convicted one of the world to talk most prolific arms dealers for his efforts to sell millions of dollars worth of weapons including missiles and 30,000 ak-47s for use in killing americans. we have made progress in protecting civil rights, combating financial fraud, said carting our environment and advancing our fight against fighting crime. we have filed a record number of civil rights cases. in the last year, are voting section opened more investigations, participated in more cases, and resolve more batters than any other similar time period in the last dozen years. the section is also immersed in reviewing over 5500 submissions for review under section 5 of the voting?

including redistricting plans and local election law changes that some americans would have to the ballot box. we have also worked to ensure states do not institute an unconstitutional patchwork of immigration laws. in recent months, the department has challenged immigration laws in several states that conflict with the enforcement of federal immigration policies. not only what they divert critical law-enforcement resources from the most serious public safety threats, they can lead to potentially discriminatory practices and undermined trust with the communities they serve. the department is also focusing its efforts on the fight against financial fraud. they are spearheading the interagency financial task force and successfully executing the largest financial and health- care fraud take downs in his story. in addition we secured a conviction in the biggest bank fraud prosecution in a

generation taking down a nearly $300 billion fraud scheme at the are enforcement of the false claims act, we have secured record-setting recovers that exceeded $8 billion since january of 2005. i am proud of these and many other achievements. the soy committed to building on this progress. i hope -- i am committed to building on this progress. i would like to take a moment to talk about guns flowing into mexico and local law enforcement operation known as fast and furious that has brought renewed public attention to this shared national security threat.

this operation was flawed. it was flawed in its execution. unfortunately, we will feel the effects for years to come as guns that were lost during this operation continue to show up at crime scenes. this should never have happened. it must never happen again. to ensure that it will not, after learning about the allegations raised by agents and fought with fast and furious, i took action. i ask the department inspector general to investigate this matter and i ordered a directive be sent to the department's law enforcement agents and prosecutors stating such tactics maile department policy and will not be tolerated. the new leadership has implemented reforms to such tactics for the future including oversight procedures for all significant

investigations. some of the overheated rhetoric might lead you to believe the cause of gun violence in mexico. in fact, fast and a furious was a flop response to and not the cause of the flow of illegal guns into mexico. as we all know, the trafficking of firearms across our southwest the border has long been a serious problem that has contributed to the 40,000 deaths in mexico in five years. the senator highlighted last week of the 94,000 guns that had been recovered and retraced in mexico in recent years, over 64,000 of those guns were sourced to the united states of america. 64,000 of 94,000 guns sourced to

this country. it should not deter or distract us from our critical mission to disrupt the dangerous flow of firearms of water southwest border. i have supported a number of aggressive steps to do so, and our work has yielded significant successes. we have built crimefighting capacity on both sides of the border by developing the procedures where using evidence in mexico to constitute a gun trafficking in u.s. courts by training thousands of mexican prosecutors and investigators are -- by pursuing multi district investigations of drug trafficking rings. this year alone, we have led successful investigations into the murders of u.s. citizens and mexico, and secured the extradition of 104 defendants

wanted by u.s. law enforcement including the former head of the tijuana cartel. this work has undoubtedly save and improve the lives in the united states and mexico. i am personally committed to combating drug trafficking and reducing violence along the southwest border by using e effective and appropriate tools. i.t. to view, 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. beyond identifying where errors occurred and making sure they never occur again, we must be careful not to lose sight of the critical problem that this investigation has highlighted. we are losing the battle to stop the flow of illegal guns to mexico. this means -- i believe we have a responsibility to act. we can start by listening to the very agents that serve on the front line of this battle and testify here in congress. not only did they bring the

inappropriate and misguided tactics of operation fast and furious to light, the also sounded the alarm to congress that they need our help. some acts by the agency's ability to stem the flow of guns into mexico suffers from a lack of investment tools. provide us with the resources and a statutory tools it needs to be effective. another would be for congress to fully fund our request for teams of agents to fight gun trafficking. unfortunately this year the house of representatives voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase multiple semiautomatic shotguns in southwest border gunshots. providing law enforcement with tools to detect and disrupt a legal gun trafficking is consistent with the constitutional rights of law- abiding citizens. it is critical to addressing

the public safety crisis along the southwest border. it by somebody who has seen the consequences of gun violence firsthand and to many grieving families that i would suggest this on behalf of their loved ones but also to prevent other families from experiencing similar tragedies. a sore determined that our concerns lead to more headline grabbing games and cynical point scoring. we have at sacred things to fulfill current we must not lose sight of what is at stake here. when it comes to protecting our fellow citizens and stopping illegal gun trafficking across the border, i hope we can engage in a responsible dialogue and work toward common solutions. i hope we can begin the

discussion today. >> we have a number of issues. i a agree with you that if we are going to stop the flow of guns into mexico, we are quite to have to take some steps here in this country. 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, 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 defend the -- 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. 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. beenay that you're not 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. >> lanney brewer talk about 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? >> i have to dispute, 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. i looked at the note and took 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.

not different time, i'm 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.

there were a couple of leaks. 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. i'm sure that jim and people in 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. 14% of seniors have been 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 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. >> two years 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. i'm not necessarily blaming you. 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, welcome. 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 at that time know about this practice and what was done about them?

>> i didn't know about the analysis of the attorneys general had then. i do not know what action they took. what action was took. i do know when i saw it, indications that guns had walked -- 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. so, if we don't use gitmo, what 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>>s 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 me whenever there is the death of a law enforcement -- it is not fair to assume the mistakes that happened directly led to the death of agents and terry.

i hope we can prevent lawmakers from being the subject of this kind of violence. >> i would put on the record a letter praising attorney general holder for his commitment, especially for the safety of officers and the work he has gone and the spike in the attacks on police officers inside the country. good >> thank you. i spent four years as the united states attorney for the district of rhode island, and while some time has gone by since then, my

recollection is the there was a i guess you could call a convention in the department of justice, and a lot of people got to write memos designated to the attorney general, and there was some value because it made you feel good to be writing a letter to the attorney general, and it was fairly agreed upon that was a common practice, and it is that filtration of e-mails and normally for the attorney general was filtered by the deputy attorney general, and was

perceived to been on need to know basis. i wonder if about who remains a convention within the department of there is a large number of e- mails normally directed to the attorney general that he never sees a year ago -- that he never sees. >> you have assistance attorney general. you have the deputy attorney general. we have an assistant for legislative affairs who responds to memos and things that come from the hill, so there are a variety of things neither of us

would see. >> even though it appears to have created some misunderstanding in this matter, i would urge you to not apart from about, because my recollection is but a senior staff works very hard and that's the feeling when you are preparing a document that is going to the attorney general of the united states is important, and if that got shut off so male had to be sent to more junior officials, other than the confusion, i think it is a good thing to be able to write a memorandum with the feeling this is going to the attorney general, and i think it calls of

a high level of performance, so i urge you to leave that in place. >> let me make clear. my staff reviews a large volume of material, and some things actually do get brought to my attention if they make the determination is something that needs to be brought to my attention as opposed to something that can be handled at a lower level. i get a fair amount of information to look at. is not the things in the charts. those were not brought to my attention, and my staff made the correct decision in that regard. a long-termisn' practice. let me switch to the vulnerability our country faces to a cyber attacks. a lot of committees have done

all lot of work on this subject. bills are out of committee and ready to go. agency process is now concluded, and many of us believe it is time for congress to move forward with meaningful cyber security legislation, and in that vein, i would like to make that recommendation as to how quickly and with what urgency you believe we should move forward to pass cyber security

legislation, and that is going to be part one. part two is sometimes we pass legislation, and it is not clear if it will have an effect. the risk is to privately owned infrastructure. if you have any information, once we pass legislation, we can have the cyber security level dramatically increased so the risk to our country is reduced. >> i think you are right.

cyber security is something we have waited too long to act on. it has civilian infrastructure implications. it has intelligence implications. it has criminal fraud problems that can result from lack of focus on this issue. there are a variety of things this committee has to consider, but was we focus on these things, we spend a huge amount of time focusing on this cyber issue. i would hope we could come up with the necessary legislation to deal with real and present danger to this nation. >> the effect of getting it done? >> it is interesting, because

when you pass the bills, you do not see the results for years sometimes. i think you would see the ability to protect that infrastructure in a relatively short time. one thing is the protections that can be raised can be done relatively quickly because you are dealing with electronic stuff i do not understand but that can be changed relatively quickly, so the positive impact would be something we would feel relatively soon.

>> next will be senator leave. -- lee. after that senator franken. reich's they have issued a request for documents related to involvement.agan cost's will the department of justice comply with that request? >> i am not familiar with that request. >> i believe the intent of the request is to get any documents or any indication that justice kagan may have participated in discussions relating to actual or anticipated litigation involving constitutionality.

>> i can tell you one of the things we did while she was solicitors general was soon moved her out of the room when conversation came up. we were going to discuss that topic, and we have justice kagan to leave, and she did. i do not know the nature of the request, but i can look at it. >> there were requests from the judiciary committee. >> you have been acknowledged mistakes were made within the department of justice. without specifying who made these mistakes, i would be

curious what mistakes can you identify that you wish you had done differently? at what waslook brought to me, -- >> of the look of what was brought to me, we have an inspector general report that will look at this matter, and i think we will glean from five of better sense of what people did, who should be who did from that a better sense of what people did, who should be held accountable. those people who did make mistakes will be held accountable. >> you have reiterated people within the department believes the initial statements denying knowledge of fast and furious the ninth they were involved --

denied they were involved. what can be done in the future to make sure they communicate with the top? >> one would be a result of the directive with regard to the question of gun walking the people understand that is simply not acceptable, but the inspector general report will ultimately after question and i do not know the answer to a. who actually thought this would be a good thing to do, and why didn't people discover sooner that what we thought was a recurring was not? that would be the subject of the report. >> i am curious about some statements.

in some ways it is likely to indicate some statements. mr. brewer has said he and top deputies to approve several wiretap applications for operation fast and furious as required by federal coiffure a good -- when required by federal law. "to assure there is the government who petition is a credible request. he went on to explain it is the responsibility of the district offices carrying out the investigation "who determines that message use are appropriate and not to second-guess them here " -- second-guess them."

i find it interesting but it requires an analysis of the department of justice level. it requires an analysis of you or your deputy or the assistant attorney general in charge of the investigation. good one thing they have to do is rather than regurgitate the same facts, they have to undertake an assessment. have others proven inadequate? why the wiretap? congress is understandably requiring the department of justice at the top levels approved these, so if she

approve multiple wiretaps applications, her one of two things is happening. he is not assessing each one to make sure there is this a establish the case. when he sought initially they failed to raise the flag but said this is a concern, so which is it? >> he would not personally approve the request. >> one of the deputies who report directly to him. >> yes, but my guess would be that given the volumes of the

news, the conversation probably does not. >> given that they report directly to him, wouldn't they be in a position once they saw the department of justice was on the line to say, the department of justice did know about the program. approved wiretaps. >> i have not seen them, but i do not have any information that indicates they have anything that talks about the tactics that have made this such attention and have made legitimate concerns. i would be surprised if the tactics themselves were i actually contained in these

applications. i have not seen them, but i would be surprised if that was the case. >> you top's attorney general -- attorney general is a republican who, and they concluded it would be tragic if fast and furious has caused our country to abandon mexico to the cartel's three of the cartel's are the enemy, and we need to provide men and women with the tools they need. >> thank you, and i would like to thank attorney general holder for being here. s i thank you for your service

and for your testimony here today. i am concerned about the emerging threat of cyber criminals. i think we need to use all of our resources. last friday, we sent a letter asking your opinion, and i just want to thank you in advance, and i look forward to the response triggered an -- to the response. an alarming report accused china

and russia of a collection of sensitive technologies through cyberspace. corporations running software often do not apply who matches necessary to protect against some vulnerabilities. do we have the right incentives to encourage the private sector to respond appropriately to security threats and to promote some who are nations security -- to promote our nation's security? >> i took a trip to china last year and i believe who have a frank conversation about the concerns which intellectual .roperty and copyright go

we are going to compete, and we should do so on a level playing field. that is a concern we have. it is one we have expressed to the chinese. >> the economic as pianalto should act was passed years ago. there have only been who -- the economic espionage act was passed years ago. you ask whether i thought they needed new resources to criminally prosecute. given this report, given the real prospect we are losing vast amounts of national treasure, are they ramping up efforts to enforce the death be not act? -- enforce the espionage act? >> i think it as a priority to

the department, but i think even in these tough economic times and given the nature of what is at stake and for its economic well-being and for an area we will focus on. this is an area that will require some decisions have to be made by me and others in the apartment. it is not hyperbolic to say the future of this nation w. >> they have barred it from sharing photos or documents or samples relating to seize goods that could be counterfeit.

there is a committee hearing today on the grave threat posed to servicemen and women by microchips have made their way in apparently significant quantity. many of them may be examined, but they are not consulting. when they prosecute of border control agent for sharing information where the intention is to service via -- to certify whether something is counterfeit? >> it would be hard to imagine why we would have such a case, but it is hard to a imagine there would be such an impediment, and given the need for a public-private partnership to deal with these issues, that might be a legislative fix that

perhaps we could discuss. we are only going to be successful if we have government working with the private sector to deal with these issues. we cannot do it alone. the private sector cannot do it alone when in that there are barriers to information sharing. >> thank you, and i would be happy to work on finding a legislative fix. as part of the efforts to find the government, many programs so fairly deep cuts. especially hard hit were those designed to support state and local law enforcement. many of the grant programs took a double digit cuts.

it means less money for use in criminal diversion programs, less money for officer protection. how are the cuts affecting your ability to provide cost- effective support for state and local law enforcement, and what would the impact the if the house appropriations bill were to actually be enacted? >> let me be very clear. those proposed cuts are unacceptable the place this nation and race. though we are enjoying low crime rates, we have 30,000 vacant positions in this country. wheat put at risk the possibility that these historic lead to lower rates will not remain there forever. there have been higher rates of shootings of police officers, who although the rates have been

coming down generally in terms of crime. the amount of violence against police officers is up 20%. the notion that we would somehow take people who are sworn to protect the lives of the american people off the line is to me a logical -- who logical, unacceptable, and dangerous. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. senator glenn stopped. >> thank you for being here today -- senator bloomenthol. >> thank you for being here today. good y 12 thank you for dispelling any doubt that you are determined -- i want to thank you for dispelling any

doubt that you are determined, and just so we understand, a lot of names have been mentioned, there is no evidence before us here that they knew or who participated in any wrongdoing, is there? >> i hope my testimony has been clear. >> also there is an ongoing investigation which will disclosed who knew what was going on, and i want to thank you for being so straightforward on that 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

firefighters and other personnel i would regard as law- enforcement which are in more than once as the cops who protect us day in and day out despite the excellent performance by the fbi. they are the ones who do the level of law enforcement, and i appreciate and thank you for your support, and i think perhaps for me one of the most important aspects of your testimony is really the vigor and intensity the department of justice is devoted to stopping gun trafficking when a gang violence on our borders and throughout our country if and in mexico, and as i understand your

testimony, there have been record numbers of seizures, arrests. is that correct? >> that is correct. we have moved substantial resources across the border in an attempt to stop the violence across the border. we have worked in the interior with our mexican counterparts in trying to come up with ways in which we could fight the cartel's three good -- the cartels. they sacrificed a great deal, when we have tried to be great partners in that struggle. >> would it be fair to say the mexicans are increasingly becoming good partners in this effort? >> i think so. i think through the use of vetted units and other who techniques we have shared, through their growing sophistication with electronic

devices, i think they are becoming more proficient in this battle. >> there is no question the department of justice will whirred from continuing to -- will work on continuing to dismantle these efforts in drug trafficking and gun dealing and so forth. >> yes, too often we describe this as a southwest border problem, when in reality if is a national problem. it could have an impact in connecticut, in chicago, and the person who has been leading the effort in the department of justice is the head of our criminal division, who has devoted a huge amount of time to this fight and who has been a person who has really stood for this country in developing good

techniques to reduce the level of violence and the danger cartels' opposed to this country. >> i would like to turn to another subject i think is equally important. a mortgage foreclosure crisis i know has been on your mind, and i wonder if we can expect a criminal investigations or other investigations that will be aimed at going after documents that have been submitted in court on documentation for homeowners that have sought and sometimes received loan modifications, a serious of violations but i know hives been under of some -- i know have been under investigation. >> there are a number of

investigations that have been under way. we are working with our counterparts that have been extremely affective, so we will be working to see if criminal cases can be made. if if there are other ways we can hold accountable people, but it is our intention to make sure those who are responsible for this mortgage crisis are held accountable. >> i would like to pursue this area in greater detail. my time is close to expired, but i hope perhaps with yourself or your staff, and i kid -- i could do that. i know the department of justice has declined to intervene in a lawsuit that has been brought by two mortgage brokers in georgia,

alleging a number of the largest institutions have been cheating taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars by charging them illegal fees in home refinancing loans. i am particularly concerned about the affect non veterans and the possibility they have been treated illegally -- the effect on veterans and the possibility they have been treated illegally. i am wondering if this will be reconsidered, and i urge that it become involved in what our view is a whistleblower action and intervene to protect taxpayers. >> i am not as familiar with that as you are, but i will check with the appropriate

people in the department and see if our decision to not be involved is appropriate. we will get something back to you. >> i am not going to give you a 30-day deadline, but i am joined with senator gramm more seriously, and i know you are concerned about the detainee issue, but i very much appreciate you getting back to me on that issue, and thank you for your service. >> thank you. >> thank you. many of my colleagues have mentioned the work that the justices department has done with terrorist attacks on our own soil. i want to urge you to continue to support our local law enforcement. i cannot tell you the difference

the program has made in our states. it changed because of tough law enforcement. i was going to first ask about some intellectual property issues. recently the senator introduced a bill on a bipartisan basis. now the bill is designed to go after people who steal other people's works, whether it is to books or movies, including foreign piracy. it only includes intentional fast -- theft. as far as i can see, america is not a country where people can write a song or of a book only to have people copy it or make money off of it without

permission. i know members have expressed support for this legislation and the idea came from this administration when they suggested u.s. law-enforcement agencies have to be as sophisticated as the crux of our breaking the laws, and i appreciate a recent letter we got from your department in which you talked about how the provision of the bills regarding streaming does not criminalize conduct that is not already criminal, because my only question is if you would commit to work with us to take any necessary steps to make crystal clear the still does not criminalize in a new contract with the streaming issue, that we are not seeking to criminalize youtube or harmless posting of videos. >> sure, we will work and with you on that legislation. the issue is important, and we will do what we can to make

sure people understand the aim of the bill and to put people's minds at ease with regards to what is covered and what is not covered. >> that would be very helpful. another important topic is the growing problem of synthetic drugs. i have been shot with the calls to poison control centers in the last six months compared to the same time a year ago. we have a young man died from tce, which is of synthetic hallucinogen, and we have had bills for bath salts. these bills were unfortunately stalled. one senator has put on hold on these skills, so maybe you could

talk a little bit about what we are seeing in terms of a new phenomenon with these designer drugs. sean: a has taken an emergency action with regard soon -- the da has taken a emergency action with regards to bath salts. young people have had negative consequences and even died. i think the legislation is needed and will work with you to get it passed. >> is a new phenomenon. we were surprised. we also have an issue with some of the house those we need to

work out. i think it is incredibly important talking with communities. one thing i realize is they keep changing the compounds. we will put those on the list, and that will be helpful, but one thing is we have been checking to see if there are changes we can make to make it simpler to explain the when you have a simple change in a compound there are three or four factors and maybe we need to look at different league, and so we will talk with attorneys and law enforcement on the issue as well. >> i think that is important, because they are made synthetically. you can change the elements of these, and it should not be the

case that we have to come back to congress to get a new statute to deal with this compound. there ought to be some efforts to recognize something is a derivative of something that has banned, ly been thera and we can take emergency action to deal with these when they come up, because we know the substances can be changed relatively quickly, and we have to have the flexibility to change as rapidly as we karen. >> i know when i was a prosecutor i did not even know about this issue, and suddenly because of people buying it easily, they think maybe is legal, it is getting to be i huge problem. i think it will make it simpler

10 -- so we can literally fix the crime. it has been too hard to get these drugs on the list. last month i introduced a bill on guardianships. so many people are doing our good job, but some of them are using their positions of power and i heardwn gamein, now dozens of stories. are you familiar with this issue? we are trying to make changes to this statute. >> i have heard about this problem, and we would be more than glad to work on this problem and what the solutions maybe. >> we are working on some

guidelines, which is always hopeful, background checks. there are a number of states fed did not even require criminal background checks, so we are looking at how can we show the best practices in some of the states so we can do a better job of oversight? we are going to do a doubling of the senior population in 2013, so we need to get ahead of the curve -- in 2030, so we need to get ahead of the curve. >> i am a member of the baby boom generation. i guess i may already be there. >> i thought of saying that. >> i am trying to show sympathy. >> i noticed in your opening statement you talk about the

efforts to expedite those in mexico responsible for the killing of americans. recently, the chicago tribune did a series relating to those criminal fugitives who fled the country. 129 criminal suspects have fled ill. according to data, and many have been charged with crimes as serious as murder and rape and molestation, and what we found over and over again is this is reflected in one case in particular. in 1996, it is alleged said pedro guns down a single mother in chicago for spurning a romantic advances and then fled. within two months, the relatives disclose his whereabouts in mexico, even

giving local detectives in the name of the street where he was staying and providing a telephone number where he could be reached. what is happening is the family of mr. rodriguez has found there has been no help in trying to locate him. in the ensuing 15 years, all of the witnesses to the crime are unavailable or incapacitated. this is repeated over and over again, and it raises questions about this agreements with local law of the apartment and a further five extradition. i would like to ask you to join us in asking to bring all levels of law enforcement together to break down this

miscommunication. >> this issue you have raised is one of concern the relationship we have with mexico is much better than it was. we are in a much better place. our marshals service has a responsibility of apprehending and s fugitives, but i think the point you make is a good one, and that the federal government can only do so much. we need to work with local counterparts to get information about these people, and we probably have to do a better job about dealing with our mexican counterparts about who these people are and trying to get them back. it is unacceptable. >> i might add as they also spoke of a fugitive in syria, which is a different situation, but i thank you in your

willingness to put in that effort. how does the department of justice view muslim americans in its efforts to keep americans safe from terrorism? >> we view that community as essential partners in the fight against terrorism. they are an essential part of our counter-terrorism fight and have proven to be reliable sources of information. a great deal of success as we have had heath came as a result we have had came as a result of members of the muslim american community. we encourage agencies to reach out to the muslim american communities, to put concerns they have about interaction with law enforcement to rise, and i have been encouraged with the response we have gotten from

the community. >> i thank you for your answer. after 9-11, i thought president bush's statements were right on in reminding people that our and the main is not those of the muslim faith of those who would corrupt it. i raise this issue because guidelines were established for profiling, and the guidelines were explicit that neither race or ethnicity should be used to any degree, and it is obvious that using racial profiling to arrest african-americans, using a snake profiling to address those who appear to be -- using as they profiling to address hispanic.appear to bee we have found that fbi agents who were given counterterrorism training were unfortunately subjected to many stereotypes of islam and muslims.

they were told that islam is a highly violent and radical religion. "mainstream muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers and the arabic mind is swayed more by ideas and fax." 1 public intelligence assessments claims that wearing muslim attire and frequent attendance of hamas or a prayer group are possible indicators sque orttendance at a mosco a prayer group are possible indicators of terrorism. can you reconcile those activities with your initial statement concerning your view on the role of muslim americans, and can you comment on how someone who is muslim in america reads these things and believes

that the actual training and surveillance under way are inconsistent with principles? >> the information you just read is wrong end is inconsistent with what we are trying to do at the apartment. those do not reflect the views of the justice department. it is regrettable that information was part of the training program. that person is not being used anymore by the fbi, and we are reviewing our training materials to make sure that kind of information is not being used, because that can undermine a substantial outreach efforts we have made it 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,

they have the same desires but we have. they want the opportunities are country offers them, and that setback -- sets back these efforts. we have the materials to make sure the mistake does not have been in the future. >> i would like to thank you very much, and thanks to the other senators. the last question i would like to ask and i know you cannot answer, but there are several states but have recently changed voting laws to restrict access to vote, limiting the early voting in the states and making it more difficult, including penalizing those engaged in the voter registration process to the point where they are not

engaging in voter registration because of the new law and the penalties associated. i know the department of justice has the authority to review state laws to determine if they would disenfranchise voters. can you tell me whether or not it will be reviewed on a timely manner? >> i cannot answer that question specifically, but i can say with regards to the voting rights act of the department of justice will be aggressive in looking at those jurisdictions that have attempted to restrict the ability of people to get to the polls. i think a fundamental question is raised. who are we as a nation? shouldn't we, of ways --

shouldn't we come up with ways to get more people to the polls to express their views and? i think for those who would consider trying to use techniques to discourage people from coming to the polls, that is inconsistent with what we say we are as a nation, and i would hope those kinds of efforts would not be engaged in. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> we will have a second round of 5 minute questions. i was mine right now. -- i will ask mine right now.

i am very concerned about the appropriations double that completely eliminates funding for programs. the program was increased by $300 million. i know prisons are over populated. i think we have to focus on the rehabilitation. at some time, they are going to come back out, and when you consider it costs $200,000 or more of a year to keep them there, the idea of spending a fraction of that to keep them from going back makes a lot of sense.

i want to make sure we have and rehabilitation programs so that when prisoners rejoin society they will stay out. it is a tiny fraction of what we spend on prisons. will you support restoration of a second chance act? >> the investment of money in that way is ultimately financial a smart -- financially smart. it will save money down the road, but there is a moral component, which means we will try as best as we can do to rehabilitate people.

i think the decision not to find that effort does not make a lot of sense. >> thank you, and the violence against women act is important. one of these tools makes it easier for law enforcement to apprehend violent criminals. law enforcement is requesting more of these than allowed under the law. i am proposing an increase for those available. >> we certainly want to look at new ways in which we can deal

with this issue, but that is one thing we ought to consider. good >> senator grassley work with congress on the fighting fraud to protect taxpayers act. it is an important activity that gives congress additional resources to fight fraud at no cost to taxpayers. the bill was stalled in the senate. it asks for an increased number of investigators and prosecutors. the department of justice could hire them if we pass the fighting fraud to protect taxpayers act. the american people benefit from that. good >> obviously, and that is something we want to work with

you on and would support about clearly to the benefit of the american people to regard quarks senator grassley and i will keep pushing on -- of the american people to regard >> senator grassley and i will keep pushing that. i have seen about $16 muffins the inspector general issued a corrected version that that report. -- of that report. we want to make it sure that what money you have spent correctly. you issued a copy of the cover letter to the correct report, pointing out that $16 muffins' is incorrect. what steps have you taken to make sure that the conference money is spent appropriately?

>> we had a good inspector general. i think that they are to be lauded for the fact that they did admit that they made an error in that calculation. the $16 mouth and in fact does not exist. we are in the process of reviewing all conference is to make sure that they adhere to the guidelines that we have set out, that they are done efficiently in a cost-effective way. i also want to point out that conferences serve a useful purpose. it is a way in which teaching occurs, in which thoughts are shared, ideas are shared, policy is developed, and 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 inappropriate way. >> thank you very much. i yield to senator grassley for his five minutes. >> [inaudible]

i have got a couple of statements i want to make before i ask a question. before the justice department produced documents on wide receiver, my staff asked for additional information on previous cases of gone walking -- gun walking. however, the department declined to provide a briefing on such cases, so i have not limited my questions to obama-air operations. it is hard to get straight answers if you do not get these briefings. now that the majority is interested in gun walking after nine months, it might help us get our questions answered. that is one reason that i do not want the inference to be left that i am only interested in overseeing democrat presidents on done region -- on gun

walking. senators schumer brought this up and i think his attacks are entirely accurate, but he referred to wide receiver, but i think he was -- well, he referred to wide receiver but all the fans -- fax are in regard to the hernandez case. this is been widely misunderstood. the general to -- the memo to general mukasey was in hernandez. so this is that testing thing from fast and furious and operation wide receiver. in which no effort was made to work with mexico and guns were clearly will. first question to you.

your justice department stood by your denial even after i sent the first set of documents that showed otherwise. a question for you, general holder -- you say that you were relying on others to correct the misstatements in the february 4 letter. yet mr. brewer himself admitted that he first knew firsthand that those misstatements were false at the time that they were made. should he then have notified either you and/or congress at that time? >> i think that is one of the things that he admitted. in a mistake in not bringing it 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 buyers of 670 guns. he was informed that the atf followed them to stash houses. he was informed that the guns ended up in mexico. you can look at the chart in his own handwriting on these things here. if you said, a recent letter to the deputy attorney general who is not told of the tactics in the operation fast and furious during that briefing. it by an acceptable tactics, he mean watching straw buyers illegally buy guns without seizing them before they get to mexico, it isn't that exactly what he was told? >> i do not know exactly what he

was told. as i understand it, he was told this in a briefing part of a monthly interaction. ken nelso -- melson was the briefer and did not know about these tactics. he also gave chairman issa the same briefing. i am not sure that i draw the conclusions that you do on the basis of what i understand about what the nature of the interaction was. one of the things that i have been told is that during the course of that briefing, the question of guns walking was not briefed the then-acting attorney general grant are -- general grindler. >> one paper expressly says that it was to allow the transfer of

firearms to continue. one person says that it is "likely to go to cause " the attorney general. you can note that no one informed him of that. >> i have understood it that he was not told of the tactics, the gun walking tactics. i have also been told that the picture you have up there is of guns that were recovered in the united states. again, there were delivered in the united stoats. it is what i have been told. i am not familiar to that interaction as you may are -- as you may be. but the fact is that the acting deputy attorney general was not told about guns walking. he got the same briefing that congressman issa got from the same person, ken melsen.

and can has indicated that at the time of the briefing he was not aware of the gun walking technique. he did not know about it, as best i can remember, is march 2011 when he talked about his stomach turning. >> thank you, senator grassley. senator leahy has gone for a vote. in his stead, i am going to begin the second round of questions. for me and then we have other senators that will ask additional questions. one of the central issues you spoke about in previous issues was aid to state and local law enforcement. one of the things of great concern to me is office -- officer safety. he spoke about how we are seeing significant reductions in crime -- you spoke about how we're seeing signet in reductions in crime overall. but there been tragic losses and a line of duty of officers. i wondered if you might comment on what sorts of programs the

department is currently funding come up that challenge is these programs face, and i am personally familiar with the officer best program. -- vest program. >> i had a summit meeting after there were a number of deaths of local law enforcement officers in shootings. as a result of that, we develop the officer said the initiative, where we are trying to channel information to our -- the officer safety initiative, where we are channeling information so they have ways to receive training in handling themselves in violent indications. we have supported a bulletproof vest program to get this information out there. we have the valor program which deals with how officers and protect themselves and the

situation. we try to make them familiar with ways in which they can protect themselves and also tried to isolate the things that tend to result in these kinds of officers shootings. one of the things that we have found, when officers tried to break into houses, that is often a time when you see shootings occurred. by sharing this kind of information, getting information from our state and local counterparts, and in sharing it with them, we hope we have an impact on a disturbing trend of officer shootings. >> we recently had the first- ever loss of life by the county to police department i was intimately connected with, by an individual reported in the local newspaper on these past assaults -- bath salts reported on previously.

how can we get legislation to proceed on these reasonably dangerous substances? >> we're willing to work with you on that regard, not the least of reasons is that police officers are at risk. these people using these substances are putting themselves at risk. we do not want a situation where we're being infected with regard to the more traditional drugs and then we have these new ones, these new synthetic drugs popping up at the same impact or the same possibility of devastating communities in a 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, the trends, we have to be flexible and responsive. one of the ways we can do that is interact with members of this committee and our state and local counterparts to get a sense of what is going on and

how we in the federal government can assist. >> our governor has already taken decisive action to deal with that and i would be happy to share those results with you. in the hernandez case, that senator grassley was just referring to, in regard to 2007, do you know if they actually lost track of weapons? >> i do not know. i have focused on fast and furious that happened while i was attorney general. i am not as familiar with the hernandez case. >> thank you very much for your testimony. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hulbert, let me -- mr. holder, let me try to tie up some loose ends. you agree that on february 4, in a letter to senator grassley,

that with the allegation that atf sanctioned or otherwise how loud the straw purchasers to transport this into mexico is false. that letter is itself false. we now know. >> what i said is that it in contains inaccurate information. >> and that is false. >> false, i do not want to quibble with you, but also implies people making a decision to deceive. that was not what was going on there. people were in good faith giving what they thought was correct information to senator grassley. we now know that information was not correct. >> if if you will not agree with me that it is not false, it is not true. >> it is not accurate. >> it is not accurate. did the person who wrote this letter on february 4, 2011 -- have they ever been held

accountable for providing false information to the united states senator? >> as i indicated, the people who wrote the letter thought that what they were sending was in fact accurate information. the people supplying the information thought it was accurate. at some point, someone in that chain didn't have -- did not give good information. that is one of the things that the inspector general will be able to determine. >> did lanny breuer no better? was he privy to either of these two memos, the july 5, 2010? by the way, what office does lanny breuer told. >> he is the assistant attorney general for the criminal division. >> why was he, knowing as he did in july -- in april 2010 about

operation fast and furious, allow a letter that went out on the department stationery, february 4, a letter that was false represent the position of the department of justice? >> first of all, briefing of him was about wide receiver. >> do you know the difference between fast and furious and wide receiver? and they are different operations. >> right. do you know what the differences, but actual difference between wide receiver and fast and furious? >> there are a number of differences in scope and time. the bush administration started wide receiver. the obama administration act is with fast and furious. >> are you winning this are you actually know? >> i know this. >> key and know that wide receiver was done with conjunction with s government of

mexico. the intention was to follow the weapons. and there was no intention of all the weapons in fast and furious, nor did the mexican government know that the in that is this government was letting guns walked into the hands of the cartels? did you knew that? >> i am not trying to equate wide receiver with the facts here. >> i was asking if you know the difference is. >> what i know about wide receiver, what you have said is in fact correct. there are memos that talk about gun walking related to wide receiver. again, i'm not trying to equate the two. >> when you got senator grassley's letter on january 30, 2011, why did you not investigate? >> i did. i asked people on my staff to look into the materials of concern raised in a letter, and the january 27 letter and the january 30 letter, which he gave me to me on the 30th of the

31st. i asked my staff to look into that and they did and they started asking questions within the department about the material contained in those letters. >> and that was just shortly after the letters -- after the well-publicized murder of brian terry. >> the letters were addressed to acting head of the atf, but he gave them -- >> who work for you. >> he gave them to me, yes. >> you told the white house that you thought your staff had made the right decision in not bringing fast and furious tactics to your attention. >> that is not correct. i said there was no indication in the materials that they reviewed that contained anything about the tactics used in fast and furious, and as a result, there was no need to bring to my attention the report. if there was in those reports

any indication of gun walking something like that, they should have brought that to my attention. but that was not contained in the report. that is what assistant attorney general bruce said when he heard about gun walking. he said that -- assistant attorney general breuer said when he heard about them walking. >> can you tell me one person that has been held accountable for this in the of the oregon department of justice? >> there is a person in the phoenix headquarters and also that at the atf. i can assure you that people will be held accountable for any mistakes made in the account -- in association with fast and furious. >> thank you. >> if thank you for coming back. senator frank and, you have any questions -- senator franken, do you have any question? >> before i begin, i wanted to

take a moment to align myself with senator kohl's comments on the antitrust to situation. it largely laid dormant under the previous administration and am pleased that the department is willing to send a message that at a trust laws are still relevant and should be applied to this competitive merger. thank you. i know you have had a long day so i have one question. as you know, there is an epidemic of bullying against gay, lesbian, transgendered, students in our schools. at third skeptical in the last month because they felt unsafe.

-- one-third have skipped school in the last month because they felt unsafe. they're going as far as committing suicide, literally being bullied to death. in addis states does not have a law that explicitly prevents discrimination on sexual orientation are gender identification and our schools. general holder, i have a bill the would fix this. it has been co-sponsored by 34 senators, including the chairman and almost all democratic members of the committee and the health committee. -- and the help committee. in fact, they even knowledge that lgbt bullying was the greatest grossed area -- greatest growth area and the

civil-rights docket. but even though the administration publicly supported other lgbt bills including respect for mayor jack, there is not yet public support of the student nondiscrimination act. general holder, does this administration support this bill or does it not? >> the operative word you use is yes. i would go back and try to see where we stand and why we're not in a place where we ought to be formally. i think you're right. as you look at the steps this administration has taken with regard to similar issues, we have been inappropriate place, and the right place. -- we have been inappropriate place, and of the right place. -- we have been in an

appropriate place, in the right place. >> i hope we can get this before we get it on the floor. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> attorney general holder. i want to thank you for being here. i know it has been a long time but everyone has had a chance to ask their questions. everything has been said. sometimes more than once. or twice, three times, but i appreciate you being here. at the beginning of my stomach, i said are you -- your part of an president's national security team and i will let you go so that you can go back to the issues that really affect us. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

the-span's look at presidential race continues in a moment. up next, former pennsylvania senator and republican presidential candidate rick santorum in new hampshire.

and then gop presidential candidate herman cain response to sexual harassment allegations at a news conference. u.s. postal service lost $8 billion last year. tomorrow, a senate committee will look at legislation that could help the agency save money and avoid bankruptcy. live coverage from the senate homeland security committee starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern. according to united nations report, more than 3500 people have died in eight months of and that-government protests in syria. officials from the state and treasury departments will talk about u.s. policy on syria live from the senate foreign relations subcommittee, beginning at 2:30 p.m. eastern. now presidential candidate rick santorum talks to the editorial board of the new hampshire

"union leader was " about his campaign. he talks about the federal debt and the u.s. economy. he also weighs in on the allegations against fellow presidential candidate herman cain. from manchester, new hampshire, this is just over an hour. >> he is from the campaign trail. this is our editorial director. i usually say that i will let the other guys ask the questions and then they know i asked half the questions. it didting down, because not have time to research. for your strong

stand on social issues. i imagine you have been speaking out about them on the campaign trail. this cycle seems to be all about the economy and jobs, jobs, jobs. >> yes. >> how does a guy who draws upon socially conservative voters address that battle? >> i think i am known for my social conservative stance, because i'm one of the few politicians that is willing to actually lead in an area where most people follow. if you look at most of the -- not all, but most of the field, you will find that most of my positions are pretty much in line with everyone else. but none of the folks out there really have taken leadership roles in advancing the cause of

life, marriage, and family, and faith in the public square. i have been very active on those fronts. the reason -- and that is the reason i'm known for that. very few politicians enter into that field. it is a hot-button area. i tend not to let politics of that -- affect my opinion on the issues. i go out and i am passionate and lead not just in that area, but also on economic issues. in time, reform -- there has -- there is no one out there, it and i have worked together on welfare reform and social security reform, and judd was one of those that was willing to go out there and do it. he represented a strong conservative state from the standpoint of spending. i was representing a state that had the second highest per

capita population of seniors in the country. i was out there as a conservative in pennsylvania, conservative on all issues across the board, and vocal on all issues across the board, being vocal on issues like social security reform, welfare reform, health care, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, etc. i'm also a strong leader on taxes. i never voted for a tax increase. i signed the pledge and kept it. i was one of the folks who help support the tax cuts that we were able to get past. i can go on a national security from. >> the original question was social issues and how you were able to make a dent with that. in your saying that you were strong on the other issues as welfare you mentioned judd gregg. he has come out and endorsed mitt romney. what you make of jim demint, who endorsed romney last time, and

this time is staying out of that and there seem to be quite a number of name republicans who are not lining up with anybody. what does that say about them and you in the field? >> i actually feel very good about that. as you know because you follow this very closely, a lot of candidates have had their moment in the sun and shine and get national attention. we have not been one of those candidates yet. when people say, where they look at the field, most people are saying that they have looked at the folks who have risen to the top and it could not get excited about them. i think our moment is coming. i feel very good about that. i think the work we have done -- i call myself the field of dreams candidate. if you build it, they will come. we're doing it the old-fashioned way, in new hampshire and iowa and in some degree in south carolina. we are putting boots on the ground in those first few states.

we're spending a lot of time in those first few states. there is a website that monitors the number of visits and we have been in iowa more than anybody else. and we are third to huntsman anne romney, but they are living here and not campaigning in iowa. i am campaigning in both places and i'm not far behind and i may be even with them this week. we're building a grassroots team. doing the volunteer phone calls. we're doing the things that are necessary when the time comes we're going to be there. and i'm confident. read between the lines of jim demint and others, they're not endorsing now. i think they're waiting for who the conservative alternative to mitt romney is going to be. how that field is going to narrow and wait and see. when i pop out of the pack, which i will do, in iowa, and will follow it up with a strong performance here in new hampshire, i think you'll see a lot of conservatives say we were waiting to see if he could do it. and i hear this all the time from folks.

we like you. you're on my list. we rae like you. -- we really like you. but you aren't doing well in the national polls and not breaking out. it's because all these people say they like me don't answer there for me when they call. instead of -- because you let the sense the national press form this election. and as you know, you've told me from the first time i walked in this door, that new hampshire voters are going to vote for who they believe is the best candidate after they've had a chance to look at them and study them whip you take very seriously. and that's the same thing is going on in iowa among the activists there. and that's why i feel very confident that when things settle out and people begin to focus, we're going to do well. i'll give you an example. last night i was in rochester and was at a 9-12 group up there. there were probably 80 to 90 people at that event. i spoke for 15, 20 minutes and took questions for an hour plus. and when that meeting was over, 90% of the people in that room signed up to help us out.

that happens not -- that was a higher number but it's usually 70% to 80% of the folks when i do a town hall meeting, i get a very high percentage of people who are willing to sign up and willing to help out. and that tells me something. that the voters who are paying attention, the folks who are watching the candidates and looking for the real conservative, when they get a chance to see the real conservative in an unfiltered environment and get a chance to kick the tires they come in hour favor. and as you know, the activists who are paying attention now are usually a pretty good indicator as were the rest of the communities going to follow when they start to pay attention to the race. >> what are you going to -- how are you going to, senator, take the faith, family and freedom, apply it? what does it mean in the real world? what's the president or nominee santorum going to do, what is the tenets of faith, family and

freedom in the real world of people here can relate to? >> yeah. as you know, way back when, i wrote a book back in 2004, 2005. which i'm still -- still have. i'm not on a book tour. i'm actually running for president. and so i'm -- i've got my book. and i put it out there. and in 2005, in response to another book that was written a few years before called "it takes a village, ks i wrote a book -- "it takes a village," i wrote a book "it takes a family." not just an agenda but an argument for -- and i say an argument, when i say agenda, i don't mean just legislative or what regulations or executive orders. but really a broad policy discussion as to how we need to move this country in terms of being more supportive of the family, of marriage, of

traditional values. of shaping children. i have a whole section of the book on education and how we have to focus our society on raising adults who are good citizens, who are moral, who are decent, who have inculcated values in them. mostly through faith. i have a whole section of the book on our culture. and how we as a culture, as -- has gone awry and how it affects the political discourse and the family, and believe it or not, when i was a united states senator, i was very involved in helping to try to shape the culture. the president of the united states can be involved in shaping the culture. not by passing bills necessarily. but by convening and talking about things and putting forth ideas and having a national discussion on things that are important to the country. the president is more than just a chief -- a commander in chief and someone who is -- who vetos bills. they're a leader in the broadest sense of the word. and so i look at it -- i have a

lot of policy prescriptions of what we can do in the tax code and what we can do to help nonprofit groups and others support marriage, support families, promote fatherhood, have an education system that allows parents to send their children to the schools where they can inculcate virtue, where they can inculcate spirituality. i ask this question every time i talk about the issue of education. i say how many people in this room are only concerned about when it comes to raising your children, are only concerned about their academic accomplishments? i've yet to get a parent to raise their hand. yet if you look at it, that's all no child left behind measures. it's all the public school system is focused on. it's focused on academic accomplishment and yet it is only one small part, and i would argue small part of the formation of a child. and yet when parents say we want -- when we want an educational system, where our children are spending half their waking life as they're growing up, we want them to

actually have an inculcate values that are consistent with the values that we want to as a family, our educational establishment says no. we're not going to do that. you're going to learn our value system. the public education value system. that's a crime in my opinion. the federal government should not be forcing their values, and it is a -- in my opinion, a secular value system, as a result of legislation in the courts who have driven morality and god and character, everything, out of the public schools, and focused on this very narrow mission. and we're seeing the consequences of it with our children. the president. united states, in my opinion, should not change that. in the sense that we should mandate that from the federal level. we should get the federal government out of the education business. and we should have a president who leads an effort around this country. working with governors, working with people at the local level, working with churches, working with folks who -- with parents, to design an education system that is focused on the customer of the education -- the

customer of the education establishment. and who's the customer? i always ask this question. about half the time i get people saying the children are the customer. which of course is not true. the customer of the education system in this country are number one the person who pays for it and that's the parents, and number two, is the person whose responsibility it is to educate children. and the responsibility to educate children lies with the parents. the government is there to help the parents educate their children. tlings not to replace the -- it is not to replace the parents. or do their job for them. so engaging parents and fundamentally changing the way the education system in this country functions, if you really want to change america, you got to look at the roots of the problems of america. it isn't our education system. it is in the family and marriage and the breakdown of the family. and so when i talk about faith, family and freedom, those are the things i'm talking about. those basic foundational structure, the economy, and the circumstancening of the economy

in my opinion is a -- and the sickening of the economy in my opinion is a -- there are things we can do in government. but the reason government is getting bigger is because we're -- we've got problems at the foundational level of our country that have not been addressed. >> senator, you seem to be a little -- all over the lot on this education business. first, you said that the public education is too narrowly focused, which i imagine is on read and writing and arithmetic and that should be broadened. then you said that the public education system is teaching secular values, apparently within that very narrow realm they're teaching secular values and they should instead be teaching the values of i don't know who, america, broadly, and then you said that they only spend half the time there, the public education system should not be teaching the values, it's the parents who should be

teaching the values. >> yeah. maybe i wasn't clear. here's what i'm saying. i didn't say parents should be teaching the values. >> yes, you did. >> said the education system should be teaching the parents' value structure and i apologize if i misspoke. what i'm talking about is obviously parents should have the ability to be able to send their children to the education -- to the education forum that is consistent with their values. >> so now we're getting to school vouch erlings. -- school vouchers. >> you can call it school vouchers. i call it having the education system work with the parents to design a -- an educational curriculum that best meets the needs of that child. it's customized education. and it may be a voucher to go to a christian school or a catholic school or to support mom and dad in home schooling or to have cyber education. there's all sorts of ways. >> or a muslim school? >> if it's consistent -- consistent with that, that yes.

muslims should be able to send their children just like catholics can send their kids to a catholic school, muslims send their kids to a muslim school, that's fine. obviously depending on what that muslim school is teaching, if it's teaching insurrection to the federal government, then that's a different story. but if it's teaching the tenets and teachings of that faith which in the moral teachings of that faith, that's america. we're -- we allow for freedom of religion in this country. so yes. those are things that are important. that we have not -- when you say, well, that i said the public schools are teaching secular values, they are by almost by definition. in the sense that god is sanitized from almost everything. and that is -- that is not teaching western civilization. that's not teaching who we are as a people. it's teaching a very in my opinion perverted view of who we are as a country and as a

civilization. and so by not teaching, you teach. it's -- there is no neutrality. there's either one world view or there's a very different world view. and so -- by having it narrow you teach secular values is my point. >> i didn't mean to interrupt. >> that's ok. i'm just wondering, this is sort of a -- a little bit more socially conservative, butness a live and let live state. -- but this is a live and let live state. we are one. few that have same sex or gay marynell, marriage e-- or gay marriage or marriage aquality law, and flfs a poll of primary voters that 47% of likely republican presidential primary voters oppose repeal, 39% support repeal. that's what people -- could you explain to me how you're going to sort of impose your view

that a traditional family is sort of the right way to go on people who really don't feel that way and feel that families can be of different shapes and sizes and makeups and still -- and at the raising of a child may have nothing to do with the gender of the parents and more of the quality of the personality of the parents. >> that's a beautiful thing about america. which is the ability for people to come into the public square, to make their claims as to what's best for society. i'm not trying to impose my views on anybody any more than anybody who feels differently is trying to impose their views. that's exactly what the public square is about. is people come with their strongly held beliefs with the facts and reason. and you bring that into the public square. and you make that. i sort of reject the whole idea that you hear this on the left all the time, oh, you're trying to impose your morality as if there's only one person trying to impose it on somebody else. no. that's exactly how the republic

is supposed to work. and so the idea that somehow or other because you have a poll that says right now at this moment, the way that question was asked, this is how the public is. the issue of marriage has been held -- a vote has been held in 32 states in this country. from maine to california. and every time it has been held, it has won. and the reason is it's because once you start having the debate, and people start seeing the consequences of what this is going to mean for society over the long term, what it's going to mean to what your children are going to be taught in school and the impact on your churches and on faith and your ability to be able to practice your faith, the impact on what is going to do to the institution of marriage, to the raising of children, to the ability to adopt children, there are far reaching consequences to changing a very basic institution of society that has been in place for a good reason. because we as a society, societies from almost time in

memoriam that the best for children is to have a father and mother in a healthy relationship raising that child. i don't think many americans would say, is that the ideal? is that what we should vote for? if that's the ideal and what we should vote for then why have laws that say that's not the ideal? why laws that say we should give children less than that and that should be sufficient? that's not what -- that's not what's best for society. so why are we setting up laws that aren't best? >> one may argue the new hampshire legislature even though they didn't campaign it and the governor was the other way that they imposed their views two years ago on the new hampshire electorate. >> after he campaigned that he wouldn't do that. >> correct. >> he's out now. so super committee. six weeks. if you were on it, what would you be doing? and what do you expect -- what do you want them to do?

what's reasonable? >> well, look, first off, i disagreed with the whole super committee concept. i thought it was putting a gun to your head and delegating what is the proper role of congress to -- a committee that frankly when i saw the composition of it was not particularly hopeful that we would see any kind of plan come out of it. >> really? who are the republicans on it? >> well, the republicans, you know, i know the senate republicans are kyl, portman and too maniey. >> and you don't have faith in them? >> well, it's for the other side. >> the democrats. >> that's a pretty strong ideological group there. and our side the same way. i mean, we have some pretty tough and strong conservatives on our side. so it was not a group that i saw as one that could come together with what i think is reasonable. and it's looking at the situation, looking at the problem that faces this

country. and you hear republicans say this all the time. which is a spending problem. and it's a revenue problem, too. but the revenue problem isn't tax rates. the revenue problem is economic growth. and we have low -- low tax collections right now. historically very low tax collections. because we aren't growing the economy. and so the objectives should be to see how we can grow the economy and reduce spending. and it seems to me that the democrats have gone in there with the idea that it's about how we can raise taxes and cut spending. and forget about growing the economy. and that's the problem that we have. and putting a committee together, you know, to try to accomplish that, it's fine. but the fallback is not fine. the fallback is a huge cut in national security spending. should never play politics with national security that way. that's -- that's the killer about this committee. is that it does -- it does do substantial -- can do substantial harm to the national security posture of our country. and that's why i'm -- i'm not

particularly optimistic that democrats who would like to see that happen see this as a big problem. they see this as something that's more reasonable for them to be able to live with than republicans. >> what -- what was your problem with secretary of defense gates? changed anything since then? >> no. he was an advocate at the time -- one of one or two people that voted against him -- >> two. >> two. ok. pretty good. i remembered. i voted against him because of his position on iran. as you may recall, i was -- i was pretty much at war with the administration back in 2006. having offered a bill called the iran freedom support act. which was a bill that would put very touch sanctions on iran and their nuclear program. and have a fund to try to fund a pro-democracy movement in iran through overt and covert activities. and the bush administration opposed me with that. when i introduce it in 2004 i

couldn't get a single co-sponsor. within 18 months i was able to get 60 co-sponsors but the administration was still insisting like this administration is insisting now that we negotiate with iran. bob gates was one of those people before he came to the administration who was a big advocate of that. that we needed to engage iran, not confront iran, not try to limit their activity. there was even a feeling at that time that iran didn't really have a viable and active nuclear program. which the intelligence that i was gathering from other sources like israel was telling me that that is simply not the case. that they are moving forward with that. so i was in a big conflict. the administration in the spring of 2006 announced that they would engage iran. both president and condi rice called me and told me, we would appreciate it if you wouldn't come out and hammer us on this. i said i'll give you one day and then i'll hammer you on this and ended up offering a piece of legislation, that legislation to the defense authorization act in june. the administration, joe biden

blocked a vote on the floor of the senate for a week. and then ultimately let it go after condi rice wrote a letter saying the administration opposed me. we lost by three votes on the floor. later that year, he puts gates up. and i voted against him. in the meantime right before the election, we actually passed that bill. and it passed unanimously. and the president signed it. after the negotiations with iran collapsed. so i think i was vindicated in the end. i got unanimous support of the house and senate for a bill that i couldn't get any sponsors for two years earlier. and yet i saw after the 2006 election with the removal of rumsfeld, which i certainly understood and supported, i saw someone going in there who had a record of being as weak on iran as anybody and that i wanted to send a message that that was a mistake. >> his record subsequently. >> i think he did -- i think he did a better job than i thought he was going to do. i still think you saw the

policy in iran continue. in both administrations. the bill that i proposed, did impose the sanctions. but they never spend any of the money to try to help develop any kind of relationship with the -- with folks insurgents on the ground in iran. they spent the -- the bush administration spent money in this country on ex-pat groups and when obama came in he cut the money out completely. and then when the green revolution came along, we had no nexus to any kind of real force there that we could have been helpful to in a variety of different ways. but we hadn't developed those ties. and as a result, they ended up withering and dying. >> and we're further down the track to a nuclearized iran. so what would you be doing? >> what i just laid out if you look at all the candidates in this race, no one has a track record like i do on this issue. i've been writing and talking about it and working on the issue of iran for seven or

eight years now. and after i left the senate, i joined a think tank and the real reason i joined is because of my concern for iran. i'll never forget in meet the press, tim russert and i, there was a debate we did on "meet the press" with my opponent in 2006, and this was right in the middle of the iraq war. we were having all these troubles if you recall during 2006 with iraq. and russert asked me what the greatest national security threat was and i said iran. and i think he said you mean iraq. and i said no, i mean iran. and here i am, running for re-election in a tough state in a bad year, the president is very unpopular, war is very unpopular and i'm talking about another threat and the american public and the people of pennsylvania said we don't want anything to do with this. it hurt me badly. to go out and talk about these things. but i felt like i needed to do it because i felt this was a serious threat. that this was -- the potential game changer for america in the region. and i think it's proven to be the case. now you have a country in iran that is -- developing a nuclear

weapon. and has -- i remind everybody, they've been holding holocaust-denying conferences for years. and there's a reason for that. the whole reason for the existence of the state of israel is because what happened at the holocaust. and so you now have a country that has convinced the majority of muss lems in the -- of muslims in the region that the holocaust did not occur. look at polls in the middle east, they did not believe the holocaust did not occur. and part of the reason because of what iran and other countries have done to deny the foundation for the existence of the state of israel. you have a country that's denied the foundation for the existence of the state of israel. has said repeatedly that they believe that is legitimately part of the uma, part of the muslim world and not part of the western world or judeo-christian world. and has -- ahmadinejad has said in many different ways that israel doesn't -- doesn't --

should not occupy that land and it's their obligation to remove israel. and one place he called it whime them off the face of the map -- whipe them off the face of the map. so we have a very clear message from this country. we have all the foundational support for why they feel that way. and now you have a nuclear weapon being developed which will do one of two things. provide them a nuclear shield so if they do support hamas and hezbollah and syria and lebanon and whoever to wipe israel out, they will be protected from being attacked, why? because they have a nuclear shield. and no nuclear power has ever been attacked. or they will use the nuclear bomb themselves. which would be even a worst case scenario. >> but to quote your good buddy ron paul, the russians and chinese have nuclear weapons and we're not going after them. so what's wrong with iran having it? >> there's a difference between the russians and the chinese. the russians and the chinese, you can use mutually assured destruction. when youren mi believes that -- your enemy believes that the

only thing in this world is this world, if your enemy believes that ahmadinejad has given many speeches, talking about the number one virtue of the islamic republic of iran. and you no what it is? >> dying and going to heaven. >> dying -- suicide -- basically killing yourself or dying for the -- >> for the cause. >> so it is a -- it is a culture and a religion and a government that is focusing on the next world, not this one. and of course if you read their theology, you read their he is ca technology -- their eschatology, troubling things about what they believe will happen when and if they have this armageddon type exchange with the state of israel and of course the assumption is the united states would be involved in that. so you have -- you have a very different government and enemy. and to suggest -- and this is unfortunately some of the

simplistic ways that some thirst look at this. -- thinkers look at this. fundamentally different groups of people, different cultures and people say these people are crazy. i can't believe what they're really saying about the 72 virgins and can't believe about the return of the 12th imam and they can't believe any of this stuff. well, just because you can't believe it doesn't mean that they can't believe it. and i think there's ample evidence to support the fact that they actually do believe that. at least some do. >> so having called the followers of ron paul simplistic, i'm gathering that you aren't trying to carve out those voters in new hampshire. >> you probably -- i know you follow politics very closely, not just in new hampshire but around the country, i don't think anyone would ever accuse me of trying to carve out niches of people for political purposes. i think i lay out exactly what i say and why i believe it and you would be surprised how many -- i got a lot of ron paul folks who like ron on a lot of

the economic issues who are conflicted with me. and who have some concerns about him. and his -- they don't -- they're more isolationists. but i think they have some real concerns about his view on iran. i think a lot of folks, even his supporters, are concerned about this as barack obama called it this tiny country that isn't going to affect us. >> inevitably then, you define the problem very well of iran, inevitably do you see any alternative to military confrontation? what happens when -- after you take the oath in january of 2013? >> if we have not had a military confrontation already, and i don't know what this report is -- there are reports coming out in the next day or two. and i don't know what it says but the leaks are not -- are ominous. and if you had a country in central america that was saying the things about america that iran is saying about israel, the united states is an

illegitimate country because we took it away from native americans and the mexican people, and that we don't -- we have no right to be here, and that we are a terrorist nation and that we oppress our people, and that it is our vision that america be wiped off the face of the map, and that country starts to develop a nuclear weapon, do you think the united states will sit on the sidelines and say oh, that's ok? we should talk to them. you can't talk to these people. i mean, there's no negotiating with these radicals. and as a result, we have to stop them from getting this capability. that's why i pushed the very tough sanctions bill. do we need to do more sanctions? yes. but it looks like we're beyond the point where sanctions can have much of an impact which means some sort of -- if all of this turns out to be the case, i've been very clear. israel has an obligation to protect their -- their country and their existence. and i don't think there's any question they made it pretty clear that a nuclear iran is an impossibility. a nuclear iran and the survival

of the state of israel are two things that will not over the long time -- long term be compatible. and so they will have to act. and the question is, whether we will work with them, whether we will stand on the sidelines, and whether we will actively oppose them? and under a santorum administration, we would work with them, side by side, and help facilitate whatever is necessary for them or us to effectively remove that threat from our ally in the region and it's not just our ally in the region. it's to the entire middle east. and to the world -- world at large. the idea that iran with a nuclear weapon will not lead to a saudi arabia with a nuclear weapon or a turkey with a nuclear weapon and maybe some others in that area, you have sunni muslims who will not sit on the sideline with a radical shiite regime that is going to have a nuclear weapon with the threat to use it and feel comfortable in that neighborhood. >> so you would commit troops, u.s. troops to work -- >> i don't think we're talking about u.s. troops. i think we're talking about strikes on their nuclear facilities.

and we certainly have the firepower in the gulf and israel has the firepower to carry out that mission. >> senator, back on the economy, which is what most people think the election is going to be about, we're dealing now with multinational companies that have plants overseas as well as plants here. and they not only go to where it's cheapest to produce the goods and not get taxed on them, but also they don't have any particular allegiance to the united states of america and the fundamental goals you've been talking about. for the last few minutes. so how do you get the economy back to anywhere where it was before when you've got such low labor costs overseas and absolute ignorance of environmental laws and regulations?

i don't think they have osha in china. so how do you do it? >> if you look at the cost differential between the united states and our nine largest trading partners, which includes china, obviously, there's a 20% differential in cost. according to the national manufacturing association. 20% differential in cost between what those nine trading partners have versus the united states. excluding labor. excluding labor. if you say, how can we eliminate that 20%? so labor becomes the only variable in cost. if it is a high labor intensive manufacturing process, america is not going to compete. in china, they are moving jobs -- losing jobs to other places that have cheapest labor costs. it is all -- if it is all about the cheapest labor jobs, we may

keep some of those jobs because there are locally owned and people are willing to web lower profit margins, -- are willing to have lower profit margins. we have to focus on the non-high labor intensive businesses. which there are a lot of. most manufacturing is not high labor intensive. the way to do that is not to have a tariff war. as mitt romney has suggested, or war on currency with china. that we go out and compete. we eliminate about 20% cost differential by regulations. i put together my 0-0-0 plan. actually four zeroth's. >> where did you get that from? >> i have got a good -- there is a good marketing guy out there. we zero out the corporate tax for processors. it is a 35% tax. the effective rate is probably half that. you're talking 17%.

that is a pretty big chunk out of the 20%. you of eliminating the corporate -- you are eliminating the corporate tax for manufacturers and processors. i 0 out every regulation the obama administration has put in place. which cost businesses over $100 million. repeal some of them completely, we write others in a way that works with the business community to make sure they -- we can comply with epa and the other regulatory bodies. and still be able to be competitive terry -- to be comparative -- to be competitive. zero out the repatriation tax that is in place right now. if you invest that money and plant the company he -- the equipment here in america. we provide extra incentive to bring that back. zero out every subsidy for energy in america.

treat every energy business like every other business. eliminate -- there are two tax credits for oil and gas. get rid of those. there is wind, solar, hydro -- get rid of them all. there is no subsidy for nuclear. we're not building a lot of hydro plants. phase those out over a 5-year period. probably tomorrow is not a good idea because people of made investments. but phase them out. let the marketplace work. open up the drilling in south dakota and alaska and other places. build pipelines.

have a regulatory environment that is conducive. if you do those four things, you will wipe out that 20% differential. you will keep stable electric prices, stable natural gas prices, which is very attractive. one of the big advantages we have, you hear this from a lot of manufacturers, its intellectual property rights. you can protect your investors by not having your technology stolen. that is one of the big problems that they have. they also have all sorts of issues with respect to transportation. there is a reason for america to have hope. we can get a lot of those jobs back. not just to have "made in america" stamped on things. but to be an economy that isn't exporting economy, much more robustly so, and send our goods around the world. -- that is an exporting economy,

much more robustly so, and send our goods around the world. >> what should we be doing about the cyber warfare that is being conducted in china? >> i worked on that issue. i put some remarks in a place -- earmarks in place for cyber security. this was back in the 1990's, when it was just a new threats. i happen to have a university in my hometown of pittsburgh, carnegie-mellon, the number one cyber the security university. they have a center there that the cyber security. i have worked on this for a long time. it is a very serious threat to our country and one that we are simply not as prepared for. it is something -- what we found is that the government role is to be and encourager of the private sector. not to try to do it themselves. we provide the kind of cutting

edge technology. it is just like apple, if you will. the cutting edge stuff is not going to come out of the government. this is such a dynamic marketplace and you have so many smart people to come up with these innovations. we need to be in a place for we can foster that activity and try to harness it. that is the system that we created out there. i just want to make sure that it is funded and the private sector has that ability to operate in that environment. >> is there no offensive action to be taken against china? >> in responding, you could make the argument that -- it is hard to trace the as things. -- it is hard to trace these things. to be able to respond -- it is hard to trace these things.

you have to be careful about how actively you engage in that activity. the principal thing is to have defensive capability, have an offensive capability if necessary, to be able to respond in kind. i am. public -- i am very public that we should develop an offensive capability and let the chinese know that we're working on that. so that they realize that there is a cost. it is just like mutually assured destruction. attacking the united states would have a retaliatory feature as opposed to just a shield against a cyber attack. >> mr. klein. >> i did not know you were down there. >> silent cal the spokesman. -- silent elder spokesman.

>> you talked a little bit about policy in the ninth circuit. what what they read santorum administration encourage -- what would direct santorum administration encourage? would you limit judgeships? would they have terms? >> i am not for term limits for judges and justices. that takes a constitutional amendment. i am not a huge fan of a constitutional amendment, as it is necessary to prevent something that would be catastrophic to our country. i do not think it is that type of issue. the answer to your question is, it a santorum administration would focus on trying to reestablish the founders' intent that every branch of government has to -- passed a right to say what is constitutional. there is nothing in the constitution that says the judiciary is the supreme branch of government.

and therefore can make determinations and the other branches of government have no ability to counter those. that is where we are with activist judges to a pentagon -- that they handed down decisions and handcuffed both the congress and the president's from doing anything differently. it is not in the constitution. it was not even in the earlier court cases that tacitly seated the of party to the courts to determine what is constitutional and what is not. there was a practice that was in place and it was overly suggested something called judicial restraint. they would not impose their values on the constitution. they should construe their opinions to decide the case among the peoples branches of government have that constitutional debate or discussion in the public square. that has changed.

one place it has changed is in the ninth circuit. they have overturned close to 90%. certainly over three-quarters of their decisions that are granted a writ by the supreme court. they have countless others that the court did not have time to hear. they're very bad decisions. if you look at the -- if you look at our founders, what is the most important branch of government? the obvious answer is the one they put to first. that is the congress. if you look at -- is a pretty long section of the constitution. and then leaves everything to the states or the people. the second most important branch, the executive branch, smaller, more defined powers. most multinational -- mostly

national security oriented. the third is a very small section, establishes one court. it doesn't give them a whole lot of power. that branch of the government to lord of the other two is a corruption of the constitution and is damaging to our republic. what i am trying to do is send a message that we will do things differently. we're going to confront the courts when we think they are wrong. it's like they did when i was in the united states senate. the supreme court struck down a bill but i was a principal author of. the partial birth abortion ban act. we were never able to get it passed. it struck down a similar bill from nebraska. when president bush came to office, i went to work with the house judiciary committee. the folks want to push back, as i did. we've been able to draft a bill that laid out the bill that nebraska was.

we made a couple of weeks. -- of tweaks. what we did was let out an argument and the first two sections of the bill what the supreme court was wrong. we will pass this bill, tell the courts they are wrong. we have an opportunity, just like you, to say what is constitutional and what is not. we're going to pass this bill and see what happens. they reversed the decision. i think it is important for congress and the president, when the supreme court gets in iran, -- gets it wrong, and they are no more perfect than any other branch of government, backed the other branches of government cannot sit on the sidelines and wait for another court case and hopefully that they change their mind. wait for us to put a new justice on the court. we have an obligation to push back on the court and tell them that we have an obligation under the constitution to do what we think is constitutional. not just what you think is constitutional. >> [inaudible] a president who does not quite agree.

all saying three different things about what is constitutional. the court having its opinion. if john marshall is wrong and the supreme court does not ultimately decide, you'll have four different opinions. >> there's a difference between ultimately deciding and imposing their values and legislating or executing from the bench. i have no problem with the court -- if the court's practice judicial restraint and says, we believe that this provision is wrong. i know a lot of cases, but the one i know the base is the whole issue on gay marriage. lawrence v. texas. the united states supreme court, prior to that decision, the court could find it unconstitutional under an equal protection grounds. i could go into the details. it applied the sodomy statutes

differently depending on who you were. who was sodomizing. they could have said, this is unconstitutional. and struck down the statute based on equal protection. if you did that, i would have no problem. at the time, i said i would not have voted for that statute. but they -- they did do that and they said while we are here, we think it is unconstitutional -- and then they went on and said -- if the statute is unconstitutional, did not go on and say, while we're here, we will change the law. we're going to create a new constitutional right. that is not what john marshall intended. that is not what thomas and jefferson signed off on. that is legislating from the bench. it is imposing your values on the rest of the country. the country should have an opportunity to fight back. and we do not. we have taken judicial supremacy to the extreme.

presidents need to exercise their constitutional right to fight back. ultimately, it is going to be decided in the courts, i agree with that. we need to keep pushing and we are not. we need to do that. we need to establish the court is not the final say when it comes to when they exceed their authority. and they have, repeatedly. >> did you win your case for the world wrestling federation on the matter of steroid use? >> i want to correct the record. it has nothing to do with steroid use. >> what does it have to do it? i am trying to give our readers to understand the background. you were a lawyer and one of your clients was the world's

wrestler. >> i was practicing law in pittsburgh and one of our clients was the world wrestling foundation because we defended a guy who beat up a flight attendant. we ended of representing the client. the clients was looking to change the statute of pennsylvania. they worked with us as a law firm. do you have anybody there? they said, we have this guy who had gone to law school in harrisburg and worked in the state senate. maybe he would be willing to do it. i was not lobbying to do anything. they said, can you do this? i said, okay, it might be fine. when i was a kid, i used to watch all that stuff. i thought it would be cool to meet all these guys. i thought it would be a fun thing to do. i took on that responsibility.

the case was that pennsylvania regulated rustling like a boxing match. you had referees that had to pay the state. you had to keep timekeepers and all of these people who were going to be there to collect the tickets. it was a throwback from when wrestling was the sport. now it is entertainment. it is like telling children there is no santa claus. i cannot believe these people do not think that. nevertheless they did not. >> you mean it is not true? >> i did not mean -- we would -- that did not mean to burst your

bubble. we would bring them back and introduce them to the wrestlers and show them what went on. these officials were just sitting around playing cards, not doing anything. they were getting in the way because they would say, we have to do things this way or that way. this is a show. it is certainly athletic. do not put me in that ring. this is dangerous stuff. it is very dangerous. but it is not a competitive sport. that is what we did. we deregulated it from the standpoint of having officials that monitored. it had nothing to do with steroids. >> one more sports question. penn state, your alma mater. should joe go? >> some friends of mine have read the indictment. i have just read the press reports and i am sick to my stomach. i am not sure i can read the indictment. i am just sickened by it. i do not know jerry sandusky, but i certainly know of him.

i was a penn stater when he was there. i certainly knew him after he left. this was a guy who was a great philanthropist, someone who helped children, was seen as one of the solid citizens of the state. all the work that he did on this second mile project. and i am sure it would not have entered anybody's mind. when someone says, jerry is messing around with somebody in the shower. it can be that. -- well, it can possibly be that. -- will let cannot possibly be that. i am sure he is just horsing around. i am sure josiah bed and thought, i will report it and have somebody -- i am sure joe said and thought, i would reported and have somebody investigated. i am sure he is as stunned as everybody else.

maybe he is not in the investigation knows that he is not. he is not indicted and they did not implicate him in any way. clearly, the people do have the responsibility and show assign -- and joke assigned the responsibility of finding out what happens did a horrible thing. i am sure they are being indicted because they lied about it. the fact that they lets down this program and allowed something like this to happen, i do not know joe's role. all i can say is that heads have rolled and probably more heads should roll. the facts and circumstances and not. i do. i know him personally. a tremendous amount. there is no better guy out there. i think it is tragic that given the one incident, given his relationship with this guy, given the fact that he was not

told the details, according to what i read, to say that his career has been sullied, that is an overreaction. i hope it is an overreaction. i do not know all the details. from what i know, it is an overreaction. this program -- the legacy has been changed. that is a devastating blow to all of us. >> i assume whoever wins the nomination -- does that go for herman cain as well? >> i do not know -- i just do not know enough about what is going on to be able to make a value judgment. i think it will have to play out for a while and we will make that determination. i do not know harman that well. -- i do not know herman cain

that well. i did not know and love for this campaign started. -- i did not know him before this campaign started. he is a great marketer and a dynamic speaker and a charismatic figure. i hope that his side of the story is exactly what happened. it is hard and these kinds of situations to find out what is the truth. he would like to think -- you would like to think that he is telling the truth and these things are baseless. >> we need to wrap it up. >> i think we are good. i think we have covered it. i will look up your program on taxes. we have not gone to tax policy at all. i know you are not a fan of the 9-9-9 plan. >> no, i am not. >> [inaudible] 20% optional flat tax? >> people said, we need a flat tax.

progressive taxes are the problem. even a flat tax, they tried to make progressive. they create all these exemptions for lower income people. as long as you have lower rates, that is the issue here. and you have to have simplification. the plan had but four were has a five exemptions and exclusions of the personal rate -- the plan i put forward has five exemptions and exclusions of the personal rate. get rid of everything else. it would make it a simpler tax system and the irs becomes a smaller organization. i am not opposed to fundamental tax reform. doing that in a time of economic recession and huge budget deficits, you do not know what you were going to get. the idea that we will have a tax plan that may result in a trillion dollars is not something that i am excited about. you have to have something that is -- you have a pretty idea at -- you have a pretty good idea

that will jump-start the economy. will create more revenue and will lower the expenditures, because we're growing the economy. the idea of having some brands newfangled idea, just because it sounds good, you can say we're getting rid of the irs, let's have that debate when i am running for reelection. i am ok with having that debate. right now, this economy is sick. we need to do something to get the economy well. the tax code should be used to do that. for example, wiping out -- what is the housing thing? the mortgage interest-rate, you wipe that out, what is going to happen to housing prices in america? they are going to go down. we subsidize them now and that one that -- that is one of the reason that housing prices are up. now you are going to drop housing prices, pick a number. now we have folks -- it was 20%

of mortgages in this country are under water. then it would be 30% or 40%. who knows? why would we do that? not that i am a huge fan of the home interest deduction, it is good cause for us to ratchet it down and only apply it to certain homes and certain amount of money. and we million dollars. -- and we do, we capet now $1 million. -- we can get now at $1 million. did -- and we talked it adds a million dollars. to do that now, it makes no sense. -- and we talked it out $8 million. to do that now, it makes no sense. for example, i am not an opponent of the fair tax. i think it is an interesting concept. that is an interesting theory and it makes a lot of sense. to go through that debate right now, and had a two-year debate on the fair tax, which need to do something now. we need to pass something now to get this economy going. having a debate on fundamental

tax form -- 9-9-9 gets you popular. i am running for president so i can put a plant together that will actually work for america. not to have fenty slogans that will when you voters. -- not to have fancy slogans that will win you voters. in the end, they do now when you votes. when people analyze the plan and sees how it affects them and the economy, they say, wait a minute, we need to look at this again. i am the candidate who is like the guy at the dance -- all the girls may pass by and see another guide that is better looking, but when it comes to marry in somebody, i am a pretty good guide to settle down with. he is pretty good across the board. he has a good track record. he is somebody that can win races. not be hunk, but he is the guy that is going to be there and

provide a good stable foundation for our country. >> can you do that at dance halls? >> not for 23 years now. we have seven children, so i have not been doing much of that. >> we thank you very much for coming in. we like to do this with our candidates so that the readers have a better picture of them. we appreciate anybody that comes to new hampshire and recognizes the primary. it is important. >> i have said this, you folks play an incredibly important role. not a candidate with her personal money or a lot of financial backing. you give the candidate, the person and his ideas, his record, the opportunity to be successful. it is ideas, it is the person face-to-face that makes a

difference in these states. people say you are not doing well in the polls but the people of new hampshire have not made their decision yet. we feel good with the work i have done, doing the town hall meetings. i really do believe in my heart that it will make a difference and new hampshire will prove itself again, as i will, to be the place where they do the job of picking the right guy for president. >> thank you for coming in. john has to go to work now. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> read the latest comments from candidates and political reporters, from social media sites and links to c-span's media partners in the early

primary and caucus states, iowa, new hampshire, and south carolina, all at c-span.org /campaign2012. >> now herman cain response to allegations of sexual harassment made against him by former employees of the national restaurant association. mr. cain spoke to reporters in scottsdale, ariz., close to phoenix. >> good afternoon. i am one of the lawyers for herman cain. i have been practicing law in georgia for over 34 years.

and i have had the opportunity in my practice of law to represent female victims of sexual harassment. serious, legitimate claims of sexual harassment are not settled for value. -- for nuisance value. i have also had the opportunity in my practice to represent the victims of sexual assault. when they have come to my law office, i did not take them out and parade them in front of the cameras in a national press conference and arrange for them to go on a campaign with the media to give one interview after another after another. they result of their claims in a -- they resolved their claims in a court of law. i have also had the privilege to represent a number of innocent victims accused by the media of serious crimes, false

accusations. where those individuals found themselves on trial in the court of public opinion. on trial in the court of public opinion where there are no rules. the rules are made up by the media. there are no procedures designed to safeguard the integrity of process, to ensure that a fiar and -- a fair and a just result is achieved. herman cain finds himself, over the course of the last several days, now on trial in the court of public opinion. falsely accused.

first by anonymous sources. and now, yesterday, by sharon bideck, who chose to come -- biedeck, who chose to come forward, for whatever reason, after 14 years when recollections have faded, witnesses cannot be located. for the first time. for the first time in 14 years. to tell her story to a third person for the first time. and now herman cain in the court of public opinion has to respond not to immiscible evidence, he -- not to admissible evidence, he has to

respond to hearsay. he has to respond to rumors and speculation. he is not affording the -- he is not the afforded the opportunity to me to cross-examine the accusers. he he is not afforded the safeguards that is part of our system of justice. he comes before you today to defend his reputation. a reputation that he has felt -- built over 40 years of being a good and decent man, and a successful business person. i asked you afford him fairness. -- i ask that you end least afford him fairness. and that you view his efforts to defend his reputation and

his good name by maintaining common sense. and remembering your own life experience to decide whether or not a story that is so inherently improbable on its face should be utilized by others with their own agendas to attack this man's reputation. it is my privilege to represent him, it is my privilege to step aside from this podium and let you hear from him, herman cain. >> good afternoon. i am herman cain, and i am running for president of the united states of america. i normally don't have notes, but in this case, i wanted to make sure that i did not miss

any points that i needed to cover today. secondly, i chose to address these accusations directly rather than try to do it through a series of continuous statements. or spokespeople. because that is the person that herman cain is. to take my message directly to the people. with respect to the most recent accusation, i have never acted inappropriately with anyone. period. i saw miss allred and her client yesterday in the news

conference for the very first time. i sat with my staff members as they got to the microphone. my first response in my mind and reaction was, i don't even know who this woman is. secondly, i did not recognize the name at all. the time that she referenced was during the time that i was the ceo and president of the national restaurant association. ins headquartered washington, d.c. where about 150 workers worked. we have about 150 people in chicago where she said she worked for the educational foundation. i tried to remember if i recognized her and i didn't. i tried to remember if i

remember that name, and i didn't. the charges and the accusations i absolutely reject. they simply didn't happen. they simply did not happen. for decades, the american people have wanted a businessman and the white house -- in the white house and not just another politician. for decades, what the kicking the can down the road, trammell little bit here and -- trim a little bit here and trim a little bit there. america's problems simply got worse. when a businessman by the name of herman cain stepped forward, here i am. i know from the american people

that i have talked with and spoken with over the last several months, we are not going to allow washington or politics to deny me the opportunity to represent this great nation. and as far as these accusations causing me to back off and maybe withdraw from this presidential primary race? ain't gonna happen. i am doing this for the american people and for the children and the grandchildren. i will not be deterred by false, anonymous, incorrect accusations. america believes that washington is broken. america believes that our system of getting elected as a broken -- is broken.

in part, it is. in another part, it's not. as long as we have decency and honesty in the electoral process, it will work. when we allow the seat and false of bridging accusations -- deceit and false accusations to rue the day and distract us, that part is broken. nine days ago, the media started to beat me up covering anonymousyesterday, another accuser came forward, identified themselves, went on tv, and made some other allegations. was it tough last week? yes. hasn't been tough the last couple of days? yes. that is one thing that herman cain that the american people know and value, just because it is tough, there is no reason for me not to do what i feel i

have to do. because what the american people have said to me during these turbulent times, we will get through this. we will get through this. the fact is, these anonymous allegations are false and another democrat machine in america has brought forth another woman to bring false accusations. statements. many exceed common sense and they certainly exceed the standards of decency and america -- in america. i have been married for 43 years to my wife. gloria,43 years i have been married to my wife. after watching that press conference yesterday, i called her and i said, sweetheart, d.c. -- did you see it?

she said yes. i said, what do you think? my wife said, and this is a direct quote. i have known you for 46 years because we were engaged for two years. that doesn't even sound like anything you would ever do to anyone. sexual harassment accusations are serious. respect for women and all people i have worked with or people that have worked for me over the years has been a top priority with respect to me. now, my family fully supports my candidacy. they know the man that i am. they have been with me all their lives, they know who i am, they know the man that i am. however, i ask that the media not to drag my family into this.

they are not running for president. some members of your profession have even stalked my family members. calling members of my family and extended family members. i asked you, as professionals, to direct your questions, your criticisms toward me. not my family. my reputation is something that i have worked over 40 years to build up. i have managed to many entities, many companies, i have managed organizations with thousands and thousands and thousands of employees. now that i am running for the highest office in the land, accusation after accusation, some anonymous, some not so anonymous, are now coming to light.

this is not a surprise. this was expected. but i will vigorously defend my reputation because i will not allow false accusations to compromise or in any way look badly on my character or integrity. this is why i have decided to address these issues directly and forthrightly. i will repeat. i have never acted inappropriately with anyone. period. and these accusations that were revealed yesterday simply did not happen. we are going to take some questions. jd gordon, my communications vice president, we will take a

few questions. >> when you ask your question, state your name and your media agency, please. >> and use the microphone. >> from cbs news, i would like ask you a two-part question. is it appropriate for a candidate's character to come under a microscope and a campaign? you are now in a he said, she said situation. they are diametrically opposing each other. as distasteful as it may be, would you be willing to do a lie detector test? >> yes, i absolutely would. but i will not do that unless i have a good reason to do that. that was one of the comments i made and i would share that with my attorney. i would be willing to do a lie

detector test and i believe the character and candidate -- of a candidate should come under a microscope. with facts. not accusations. >> reuters news agency. a poll showed 40% of a few less -- of republican new voters who view you less favorably after seeing monday's accusations from sharon bialek. how can you convince non- supporters to vote for you? got you don't need 100% of the -- >> unit need 100% of the -- you do not need at 100% of the voters, you need a 51%. it is natural that some voters will be turned off by the mere mention of the accusations. that is normal and that is expected. all you have to do is look at campaigns historically and you can identify those situations where some members of the public, some of the electorate are going to be influenced by the court of public opinion in formulating their impression.

and the good news for me and my campaign is that most of my supporters have not reacted to this in terms of belief. many of them have expressed their outpouring of support for the fact that these incidents simply did not happen. rebuilding trust on the part of some people, yes, that would be a challenge. i want to continue to represent those that support me and those that are willing to look at the facts and not heresay. >> it's robin from the "l.a. times." yesterday, you called these charges insignificant stuff. anyone who has worked in a restaurant environment knows that sexual harassment can be commonplace. q. you believe sexual harassment is real?

what did you see, how did you deal with it? >> sexual harassment is a very serious charge. in no way have i tried to minimize sexual harassment in the workplace. have i led many organizations? yes. i have seen instances where it could be interpreted as sexual harassment and if i saw it and if it were an employee or a direct report of mine, i dealt with immediately, before the other person perceived it as an infringement of their privacy. i might add, it's not just men that potentially sexual harass women. i have also seen situations where women have attempted to sexually harass men. it is very serious.

i wanted to make sure it was something that was not tolerated under any organization i was responsible for. >> abc news, mr. cain. now another woman has come forward that worked with you at the restaurant association, one of the formerly anonymous women, karen. she is a spokesperson at the treasury department and has come forward directly. what do you say to her as something that is still working in the u.s. government? are the allegations not true, is she lying? >> to the best of my recollection, since you have mentioned that name, that was the one that filed a complaint but it was found to be baseless. the accusations were made of sexual harassment. they were found baseless.

there was no legal settlement. there was an agreement between that lady and the national restaurant association. it was treated as a personnel matter because there was no basis to her accusations. those are the facts. >> [inaudible] >> when she made her accusations, they were found to be baseless and she could not find anyone to corroborate her story. the restaurant association handle the -- handled it. they went through a process. it ended up being an agreement and not a settlement. let me clarify that point. i have been criticized that i have changed my story. when the firestorm started a week ago monday, i was presented with the accusation that some settlement was made.

that means to me that there were legal implications. during that same day, i recall after all those years that there was an agreement, that is what businesses find with employees that are departing the company. they call it an agreement. settlement implies legal implications. all of the legal implications or ramifications or accusations were found to be baseless. >> wall street journal. still, mr. cain, there are four women that have accused you. how do you explain that? are they making it up? is that possible? where do you think this is coming from? >> i happen to think where it is coming from is that some people don't want to see herman cain did the republican nomination and some people don't want herman cain to become

president of the united states of america. as you know, when you run for the height in the land, there will be accusations that come out of the word work -- woodwork. they are going to come from anywhere. i have said this before. there will probably be others, not because i am aware of any, but because the machine to keep a businessman out of the white house is going to be relentless. if they continue to come, i will continue to respond. i can't answer why. those that made these anonymous accusations and to those that put their face auntie -- on tv, started a media campaign to try to slander my integrity and my character, i can't tell you what their motivation is other than to stop herman cain. i believe that the american people are saying that they are not going to let that happen.

>> fox 10 news here in phoenix. mitt romney says he finds these accusations to be disturbing. can you react to that? >> sure. sexual harassment is a very serious matter. as i have said. i find the accusation is disturbing, but false. i don't believe a of arom and areney -- governor romney was saying he thought i was guilty, but yes, they are disturbing. it distracts us from taking out a message to the american people. talking about solutions. it distracts from the republican primary process. he is right, but i don't think he was saying i was disturbing because i have been accused. i know and his integrity that he was referring to the fact that it was disturbing that

these accusations are not factually based, they are disturbing to this process. >> fox news, you made several mentions of the democratic machine. who are these people? who is involved? is it a conspiracy? >> i can't say it is a conspiracy. we don't have a f definiteactual -- don't have definitive, factual proof. we can only locate coincidence'' to suggest it. -- a look at coincidences' to suggest itwe have thoguhts -- thoughts that there might be someone behind this. we have not been able to point any fingers or placing blame at this point. when we step back and look at the fact that there are no facts, no factual evidence to back this up, we can only infer

that someone is trying to basically wreck my character. like the other gentleman alluded to, plant doubt in the mind of a lot of people. >> nbc news, i'm just curious. what role did you think sharon bialek's past financial troubles play in her allegations against you? >> she claims that her past financial situation, the number of lawsuits she has been involved in, she claims it does not play a role in her coming forward. i can't respond any further than that. that is her claim. from a common-sense standpoint, one would have to ask that it might not have been to motivation for her being subjected to this. >> cnn.

for the terms of the case that was found baseless, who found it to be baseless? why was she paid tens of thousands of dollars? >> i am not sure of the tens of thousands of dollars that you are referring to. i will not get caught in that trap. it was negotiations between -- i am only referring to the one lady that filed the charges. that is the only one i can respond to. she got an attorney and she and her attorneys who negotiated with the attorneys for the national restaurant association i cannot even remember if we got outside counsel in this case. i think that we did. it was a situation back-and- forth, coming to the conclusion that it should and with some sort of personnel separation agreement. >> [inaudible]

>> she worked at the restaurant association for a period of time. i recall that she was -- i did not have regular interaction although periodically i would see her. she reported to one of my vice presidents so she would attend the planning meetings. i would not only bring in my direct report, i would bring in the next level down. she was at that next level down. that was the interaction in terms of me seeing her on a regular basis. during that particular period of time -- today there are 14 million people working in the industry. i have spent most of my time traveling and giving speeches around the country as well as other speeches. i was not in the office a lot. i was out in the field more

than i was in the office. >> national journal. you have said today, there was a financial agreement that you did not originally remember and now you say he sha of rememberedron -- you don't remember sharon bialek. is it a possibility that you will remember details later? >> there is a possibility but it is remote. i'm not an expert on how the brain works. i do know that i sat there and went over and over and over in my mind, and do i know this lady? the answer kept coming up know. i watched her again when she appeared on fox news with their attorney doing the interview, sitting there trying to remember, do i know her? i did not recognize the face, the name, nor the boys. is that a possibility? yes, but i think it is remote.

here is why. one of the people that worked with me for years will tell you that i am pretty good remembering people, especially people that had a positive impact in my life for all my business. i am good remembering people that i have met. who i have made some sort of impression. in this particular case, i seriously doubt if they will have an -- if i will have an aha moment later. >> new york times. karen who just spoke to our newspaper within the last hour, can you tell us what she accused you of specifically, and what your interactions with her work? he came close to answering that but you stop. this is your press conference where you will level with us and tell us what happened. tell us what she accuse you of

and tell us what really happened. this is your chance. >> i can only recall one thing that i was aware of that was called sexual harassment. the one thing that i remember, that i remember during the day, when all this broke loose, is that one day in my office at the national restaurant association, i was standing next gesturedand i standing near her like this, you are the same height as my wife. because my wife comes up to my chin. that was the one gesture that i remember. the door was open. my secretary was sitting there. it was not any thing behind closed doors. i'd gestured because of her height, comparing it to my wife's height. and the store. of the things that might have been in the accusati,