aware of and i do not remember. that one i remembered because that is the one that might general counsel can to be in said, the one that she was most upset about was that. i cannot tell you more because i do not recall any more. that is the only one i remember. she did not react at that time, absolutely did not react to that thank you for us having an opportunity to share my perspective on this. this nation faces tremendous crisis. i would hope that we could get back to sharing with the american people solutions to the problems that we face. we're not going to allow ourselves to continuously be distracted by these sorts of incidents. i will respond to them but we cannot slow this campaign down

when we need to be dealing with our economic crisis. our spending crisis. our energy crisis. our foreign policy crisis. illegal immigration crisis and a crisis of leadership in the white house in washington, d.c. that's what i'm going to continue to focus on on behalf of the american people, not for me, but for the grandkids. thank you all very much for your attendance. [applause] >> on tomorrow owes -- tomorrow's washington journal we'll have matt lewis of "the daily caller". beau biden will talk about how states are investigating misconduct of financial

institutions and kathrin con donn and patrick hallinan, the superintendents of arlington national cemetery. later in the day on c-span 3, more about the presidential campaign when we join the radio program "new hampshire today." that gets underway at 3:00 p.m. eastern. >> a hearing on capitol hill, attorney generic holder today acknowledged mistakes in a weapons trafficking program that allowed guns to leak into the mexican black market. that hearing is next on c-span. then republican presidential candidate rick santorum meets with the staff of a new hampshire newspaper. later, deficit reduction and

spending cuts. >> on afterwards, the reactionry mind author discuss the history of -- and condoleeza rice discusses her years in the bush administration and former president bill clinton's thoughts on the current state of the economy. look for the complete tv schedule at book tv.org. sign up for an alert, weekend schedules in your in box. >> attorney generic holder testified about the government's fast and furious operations meant to track guns brought into the u.s. and smuggled into mexico. two of the guns were found in a shootout that left a u.s. border patrol agent dead. attorney general holder is also asked about cybersecurity, the

proposed at&t t mobile merger and voting rights. the chairman is patrick leahy and the hearing is just under three hours. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> i understand we have a lot in attendance this morning so i will probably run the clock a little bit more diligently than usual, including for myself. i'm glad to have the attorney general holder back with us so we can continue our important focus on oversight. the attorney general was here in may, details were just emerging about the successful military's intelligence operation that killed osama bin laden. we provided major justice and closure for americans resulting

from the horrific attacks on september 11. that was not an isolated success. during the last few years, the obama administration has successfully reinvigorated, retooled, refocused our national security efforts. the attorney general, as he is in any administration, is a key member of that national security team. under his leadership, the justice department last month foiled an assassination attempt in united states of the saudi ambassador in the united states and prevented a major act of terrorism on u.s. soil. a terrorism plot was arrested planning to use guns, bombs and the toxic poison ricin to kill federal and state officials. earlier this year, the christmas

day bomber was convicted in federal court, pled guilty and faced a possible life especially sentence. we need to do all we can to bring alleged terrorists to justice. in my view, and a view i know is shared by the director of national intelligence and the attorney general -- to hamstring those efforts. as we proceed, between september 11 2001 and the on the other hand 2010, 438 suspects were successfully prosecuted by the bush administration and the obama administration. 438. now, at the same time, five or six have been convicted in

military commissions. only six. fife of those were from plea bargains. now 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 risen, which is contrary to normal experience during such difficult economic times. so as we proceed, each one of us is going to have questions about matters that concern us. but we should not lose sight of the big picture and the fact that what the justice department is doing to keep us safe and secure. this morning there will be more questions about the bureau of tobacco and firearms. attorney general holder -- long standing department of justice policy prohibits the transfer of firearms to known criminals to

-- and administration officials have testified at 17 congressional hearings about these matters including six for this committee. engage in important oversight. prosecutors to do their jobs, address the threat of violence posed by these brutal drug cartels. i don't think anyone wants to hamper efforts by the drug enforcement agents. including the prosecution related to the tragic murder of agent brian carey. i thank attorney general for returning to the committee for his testimony and i have kept

within my time as i will fully expect everybody else to. senator grassly? >> this is a very important hearing, mr. president, there is a lot of issues to bring up. however, over the kindness of the attorney general last year, i concentrated my oversight on operation fast and furious, just over nine months ago attorney general holder sat in my office. i handed him two letters i handed to acting director kenneth nelson of a.t.f. i mentioned the death of border patrol agent terry and the sale of hundreds of assault weapons and two of those weapons have been found at the scene of agent terry's death and the allegations that the whistle blower who provided this information was already facing retaliation from the agency. just four days later, the reply

from the department stated that the whistleblower allegations were false and claims that a.t.f. makes every effort to interdict republic weapons that have been purchased illegally. in the nine months since then, the evidence has put the -- to that claim. documents contradicting the denies came to life. six agents testified powerfully at duel oversight hearings and confirmed that gun walking occurred in operation fast and furious. just last week, assistant attorney general lanny brewer admitted in this room that the department's letters to me in february was absolutely false. but it gets worse. he admitted he knew all along it was false. he could not recall whether he helped edit it,hour he knew it was false because he was aware

of previous gun walking operations called wide receiver. yet, he remained silent for nine months. he was aware that congress had been misled. much has been said recently about guns being walked in operation wide receiver. during the bush era. it doesn't matter for me when it happened. we need answers. bush era prosecutors refused to bring the case, however under mr. brewer's leadership, headquarters revived it, despite the gun walking issues. it was mr. brewer's responsibility to communicate that gun walking was unacceptable and to institute oversight and safeguards to ensure that it did not happen again. he did not do that. mr. brewer admitted before this committee last week that one of his deputies enform him of gun walking in wide receiver april 2010 and he also admitted that

the same deputy approved at least one of the wiretap operations in operation fast and furious. in order to justify tapping the phone of a private citizen, the law requires an agent show they have tried everything else first. but the very same facts that would show the need to obtain the buyer tap would also show that the department knew these individuals were trafficking in weapons. the government should have stopped the flow of guns to these criminals? any one reviewing the wiretap afts would probably know that was not happening. i would also add that this tragedy should not be used to call for new gun control. the straw buyers were already breaking the law. they should have been arrested a year earlier than they were. statistics cited by some about u.s. guns in mexico including weapons solet to foreign militaries that were transferred

into mexico years ago, guns for fast and furious, stolen weapons and many other sources. as we learn more about the other failure to enforce our existing gun flaws fast and furious, i'm 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, but let me be clear. the bottom line is that it doesn't matter how many laws we pass if 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 and attorney general holder, would you please stand and raise your right hand? do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> go ahead.

>> i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. over the last three years, i have been privileged to address this committee on numerous occasions to to partner with many of you in the goals and priority that we share. i'm praud of the historic achievements over the last two years. despite the significant financial constraints we have confronted a range of public safety challenges. especially pleased to report our efforts to combat tism have never been stronger. in may, just three days after the decade-long hunt for osama bin laden came to a successful end, the department has achieved several additional milestones. for example, last month, we got muck role.

we worked closely with our domestic and international partners to thwart a plot involving element s of the iranian government to assassinate the saudi arabian ambassador on american soil. we also interrupted numerous alleged plots, including one targeting a military recruiting center in washington state and another targeting u.s. soldiers in texas. one of the most complex operations in history, we brought down a ring involving 10 russian spies and just last week a jury in manhattan convicted victor booth for his efforts to sell billions of dollars worth of weapons including surface to air missiles and 30,000 ak-47's for use in killing americans. the department has made extraordinary progress in protecting civil rights, combating financial fraud,

safeguarding our environment and advancing our fight against violent crime. we have filed a record number of criminal, civil rights cases. in the past year, our civil rights voting section opened more investigations, participated in more indications and resolved more matters than in any other similar time period in the last dozen years. reviewing over 5500 submissions turned voting rights act including redistricting plans and changes that would impact the access that some americans would have to the ballot box and worked to ensure states do not institute a patch work of immigration laws. not only would these laws divert critical resources from the most

serious public safety threats, they can lead to discriminatory practices and undermine the local trust of the local jurisdictions and the communities they serve. the department has also focused its efforts on the fight against financial flawed by heading the financial flawed task force and successfully executing the largest financial and health care fraud takedowns in history. we secured a conviction in the biggest bet fraud prosecution taking down a nearly $3 billion fraud scheme and through our aggressive enforcement to have false claims act, strengthened by the actions of this committee, we have procured record setting recovery since january 2009. i am proud of these and many other achievements and i am committed to building on this progress. although i hope to spend much of our time together discussing the work ongoing throughout the department, i would like to take

a moment to address the public safety crisis of guns flowing across our border into mexico and the local law enforcement operation known as fast and furious that has brought renewed public attention to this shared national security threat. i want to be very clear. in the instance of so-called gun walking, it is simply unacceptable. regrettably this tactic was used as part of fast and furious launched to combat gun trafficking and violence on our southwest border. this operation was flawed in its concept and execution. unfortunately, we will feel effects for years to come. as guns that were lost during this operation continue to show up at crime scenes here and in mexico. this should never have happened. and it must never happen again. to ensure that it will not, and after learning about the allegations raised by a.t.f.

agents involved with fast and furious, i took action. i asked the department's inspector general to investigate this matter and i ordered that a directive be sent to the law enforcement agents and prosecutors stating that such tactics violate department policy and will not be tolerated. more recently, the new leadership at a.t.f. has implemented reforms to prevent such tactics from being used in the future. now today, i would like to correct some of the inaccurate and irresponsible accusations surrounding fast and furious. some of the overheated rhetoric might lead you to believe that local arizona-based operation was somehow the cost of academic gun violence in mexico. it was a response to and not the cause of the flow of illegal guns from the united states into mexico. as you all know, trafficking of

firearms across our southwest border has long been a serious problem, one that has contributed to the approximately 40,000 deaths in mexico in the last five years. senator feinstein highlighted 90,000 guns that have been traced to 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. the mistiverbings operation fast and furious, -- mistakes of operation fast and furious should not deter our mission to disrupt the flow of firearms along our southwest border. our work has yielded significant successes. we have built crime fighting capacity on both sides of the border by procedures using evidence gathered in mexico to

prosecute gun trafficers in u.s. courts. by training mexican prosecutors and investigators. by fighting to enhance sentencing guidelines for trafficers. multidistrict investigations of gun trafficking ring. we have led successful investigations into the murder of u.s. citizens in mexico. created prosecutorial units. now this work has undoubtbly saved and improved lives in the united states as well as in mexico and am personally committed to combating gun trafficking and reducing the alarming rate of violence along the southwest border by using effective and appropriate tools. i want to know why and how the firearms that should have been under surveillance could wind up in the hands of the mexican drug cartels but beyond identifying

what error has occurred and ensuring they never occur again, we must be careful not no to lose sight of the critical problem this investigation has highlighted. we are losing the battle to stop the flow of illegal guns to mexico. this means i believe that we have a responsibility to act and we can start by listening to the agents. the very agent who is serve on the frontlines who have this battle and have testified here in congress. not only did they bring the inappropriate and misguided tactics of fast and furious to light, they also sounded the alarm to congress that they need our help. a.t.f. agents who testified before a committee this summer explained that the ability to stem the flow of guns from the united states to mexico suffers from the lack of proper enforcement tools. they should provide a.t. fwmbings the resources and tools it needs to be effective. another would be to fund our

request for agents to fight gun trafficking. unfortunately earlier this year, the house of representatives actually voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase multiple semiautomatic rifles and shotguns in southwest border gun shops, providing wlaufert the tools to detect -- law enforcement with the tools is inconsistent with the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and critical to addressing the public safety crisis along the southwest border. as someone who has seen the consequence s of gun violence first hand and who has promised far too many grieving families that i would do everything in my power to seek justice on behalf of their loved ones but to prevent other families from experiencing similar tragedied, i'm determined that fast and furious leads to more than headline grabbing washington

gotcha games political point scoring. we have problems to address and sacred responsibilities to fulfill. we must not lose sight of what is at stake here. lives, futures, families and communities. when it comes to protecting our fellow citizens and stopping illegal gun traffic across the southwest border, i hope we can engage in a dialogue and work toward common solutions and i hope that we can begin that discussion today. >> we'll begin the discussion on a number of issues besides, i want to -- i agree with you that we're going to stop that flow of guns into mexico and i -- the mexican authorities, we're going to take some steps here in this country. we can't expect it all to be done across the border.

i join with senator feinstein and some other members of this committee and the intelligence committee to ask the majority leader from bring certain provisions in the defense authorization legislation before the senate significantly improved. i know the administration expressed serious concerns with the military tension, intervention provisions as reported by armed services. the way it is reported would significantly reduce the options for investigating terrorist threats. that's all terrorists know which options are off the table, including those that have been most successful in bringing about convictions. even the heritage foundations argue that they would deny the president the needed flexibility. would you agree we need to keep our options open in countering terrorists and not take options

off the table. >> i totally georgia. we need to -- i totally agree. we need to use all measure s of military power. military commissions, maximum amounts of flexibility and we also have to be practical when it comes to the measures that congress asks us in the executive branch to follow. >> and the vast majority of our -- almost by 100-1, and by 90-1 convictions have been in our courts. is that correct? >> that is correct. there is no question that if one looks at disparchment, our article 3 system of courts has shown they are fully capable of handling any measure brought before them. >> that was both in the bush administration and the obama administration? >> that is correct. >> the -- alwaki was killed in a

operation. the department of justice authorized the targeting killing -- without going into the facts of the particular operation, i had written to you last month asking for a copy of the memorandum. is there any problem with providing this committee with a copy of that memorandum? >> i first want to indicate that i cannot address whether or not there is an opinion in this area but i understand mr. chairman your interest in this subject and we are committed to working with you to answer your questions in an appropriate setting and to the extent that we can. >> in february, you notified congress and the department of justice -- legal circumstances in two cases.

i agreed with you and i join senator feinstein when she introduced the respect for marriage act. to allow all lawful marriages providing the marriage was lawful in the state where it occurred. in july, the support. this will be considered by the committee. do you support the respect for marriage act? which would repeal doma? >> the administration does. it is consistent with the stance the government has taken. the position we took in court. in the first circuit. the administration does support >> the vaults against women act -- the violence against women act. it helped transform our society.

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 -- was chair 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? dating 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. before turning it to senator grassley, who has already indicated that he wants to ask you about fast and furious. 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. as you know, there has been a lot about fast and furious. critics tend to not put the question in there along with your answer. you say that you're not been precise.

there was an investigation. you are basically giving your recollection. by february 20, u.s. for an investigation into fast and furious. the testified in the -- you testified in the appropriation committee. more precise. when did you first learn about fast and furious and what to do about it? >> i first learned about the 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. at the end of january. i believe january 31.

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 across the southwest border. >> thank you. senator grassley. those letters. that you just referred to that i gave you on january 31. you have introduced my questions. when we met that day, tuesday know that the guns connected to at the terry murder scene? >> i didn't.

>> your debit was informed that -- less than 24 hours later, your deputy was informed about 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 in december or january 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 -- he did not share 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. was there anything said to you about the agent's death and the operation? >> the conversations that they had were about a variety of things. the possibility of talking about engaging in a press conference, other matters. the tactics that are of concern with fast and furious. information about former u.s. attorney burke. >> lanney brewer talk about gun running in operation at wide receiver. he said he deeply regretted the failure. 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 -- you refuse to provide

grafs about -- 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. but i think the facts showed thatpeople responsible for the

drafting of the letter did not know the information in that letter was inaccurate. as i said, that is something that i 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? for allowing a letter to congress with a statement that many people knew was false? >> i have to dispute, with to respect -- with due respect. the assertion is that the people knew it was false. the information provided to them was thought to be inaccurate.

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. along with talking points in an attempt to smear a whistle- blower who testified before the house. 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. but the name of the criminal suspect was. this looks like a violation of the privacy act. as well as a whistle-blower retaliation. in a phone conversation, you told me in a private conversation that summit has by your staff refused to provide my staff with any details. who was accountable? and halprin>> it almost pains me

-- we had a private conversation. you sent me a hand written note. that i took very seriously. you and i have worked very closely. 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. in a different time, i'm not sure what you said it would have been shared with everyone here. so be it. it is a different time, i suppose. >> i told you on the phone conversation that if you wanted me not to ask this question, i said to have your staff inform my staff and i work very closely

with 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 went one hour and 40 minutes. >> i finished my question. >> you ask the question. >> you can answer his question. even though his time was up. >> 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. >> senator? >> before i turn to my question, i like to thank you for working with us.

in 2008, congress passed the law choose only 21 award recipients from so many qualified nominees across the country. two weeks ago, 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. attorney general holder, my office has been informed of an fbi proposal to close some satellite offices. of wisconsin and there will have to work with fewer agents. i have concern about the ability of the remaining two offices. our chief law enforcement in the western district opposes

these quotas. -- closures. people in rural wisconsin have a right that the fbi will be able to investigate crime in their communities. a multimillion-dollarbank fraud in wausau is at least as important as a million-dollar bank fraud in milwaukee or chicago. according to the agency, these closures will lead to way more effective police presence in wisconsin. huckabee possible what agents -- how can this be possible when agents will be located four hours away by car? i understand decisions will be made soon, sowill you commit to working with me right now to address these concerns and modify the proposal 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. i mean, we are dealing with tough budgetary times. 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 regard. >> thank you. >> the just department announced plans to close four of seven regional offices -- the justice department. including dallas and philadelphia. they said it will save $8 million annually. mainly by saving the cost of office leases. we are aware that some staff in these offices are opposed to these closures. they argued thatthey collect hundreds of millions of dollars in fines of violations. this are outweighs the savings from the office closures.

on october 19, "the washington post" reported there was a fine against a cartel. $500 million. the philadelphia office obtained a fine. $134 million. a career attorney said his atlanta office collected $20 million in fines annually on a budget of just $2 million. as i indicated, i'm interested in response to these reports. are you sure these office closures will be cost effective? and will the department have sufficient resources to process antitrust cases in regions now fully served by the opposite that you plan to close? -- by the offices that you plan to close? >> 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 work with other offices and other parts of the country, andwe 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. >> sure. >> 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. in an already highly

concentrated industry. millions of people will likely face higher cell phone bills and fewer choices. there is concern that the justice department might not be in this for the long haul. and agree to a settlement that would allow the merger to proceed. i do not believe that to be true, but can you reassure us? i understand that you have recused yourself in this case. can you confirm that doj is committed to following this lawsuits? if necessary? >> james cole is the person who is in charge of this. i did recuse from this. i'm sure that jim and people in the antitrust division are committed to see this through. the justice to part does not -- the justice department 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 -- i know about this just from what i have heard. there is a trial team that is in place and they are ready and eager to go to court. >> good. as chair of the committee on aging, i held a hearing early this year on elder abuse. we heard stories of physical and emotional and sexual and financial abuse. of elders. according to a report, 14% of seniors have been injured or mistreated by someone on whom they depend for care and protection. sadly, elder abuse often goes unreported. indicating the true number of victims is much higher. in addition to other abused and causing harm, financial exploitation of seniors cost the nation an estimated $2.5 billion a year. despite the terrible harm in causes, there is a lack of leadership when it comes to stopping elder abuse. that is why i introduced the elder abuse victims act.

senator leahy, senator bloom and fall, and another. we would coordinate federal, state, and local agencies. can we 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. very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator hatch. >> two years ago you made a controversial decision to reopen criminal investigations.

cia interrogations that took place following the september 11 attack. you and did you not raid the -- you did this when you said you had not read 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. and just one last question. what message do you have for those cia employees whose lives have been in limbo for the past two years? because of that failure to look at those. >> i think the decision that made to order the investigation

was inappropriate and one. -- was an appropriate 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 very experienced 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 -- to the end of the worked -- work that he has been asked to do. 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 really 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. -- should not have been done. having these people in limbo was the wrong thing, too. 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. not only offensive, but i think 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 is something that really, i have to say, it bothers me. it has bothered a lot of people on both sides of the aisle. i'm not necessarily blaming you. but i am saying -- >> well, it clearly bothered me. >> if we had that kind of prosecution is going on in this country -- i know you share my view on this. to a large degree. if we have prosecutors were running wild, 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. >> if i can just say one thing. >> sure, go ahead. happened there. >> you had to be. >> 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. >> will be shared that with us? >> -- will you share that with us? >> 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. in the u.s. military tribunal. remember, this terrorist was captured on the battlefield and was responsible for the execution of five american soldiers. now, 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 even impossible? and my only question is this. if you prepare to the fallout and bring him to the u.s. 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. aid decision will be made as to

where the trial can occur where we can most effectively have the trial. we will see where he can most effectively be tried, but that is something that is still being discussed. >> laws protecting children. and laws dealing with obscenity. it is very important to me. he received a letter in april -- you received a letter in april from me 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. are you going to get us an answer on that? i hope we receive that soon. >> 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. i am the first to admit it. i appreciate that. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. i, too, feel there was some

serious misconduct on part of the prosecutors in this matter. the stevens matter. >> you are right, mr. chairman. i have to say, i have looked at that pretty carefully. 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 would hope that as much of that could be made public as possible. i hope this might preclude future wrongs. now, i mention this so you don't think this is a partisan thing. >> it is not partisan. >> senator stevens was a republican. i stated a number of times i thought that was badly handled. i want you to know that both of

us agree on this. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your comments. >> 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 that this is very important that whatever happened to be made fully public can never happen again. mr. chairman, if i may, how like to put it into the record the official firearms traced data from the times. >> without objection. >> thank you very much. mr. attorney general, welcome. you mentioned that you became aware of fast and furious in

2011. you spoke to us about the grassley letters at the end of january and february. you asked the inspector general to investigate in april. >> in february. >> i beg your -- thank you. february. this practice of letting what -- guns what first occurred in 2006 as part of operation wide receiver, and again the next year as part of the hernandez investigation. as you review the records of this, as i am sure you would, did the attorney general's at that time, i believe that there were two of them in 2007, know about this practice? and about it been? done about itas then? >> i don't know about the

knowledge of the attorneys general had. it signed a memo was sent to bouquets see -- i do not know what action was took. i do know when i saw it, indications that guns had 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 -- was not appropriate, 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 -- operation 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 -- obama justice department 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, meaning two or more, 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. -- 2007. put that into the record. senator gramm -- graham, you have been waiting patiently. you're next, and so that people know the order. after senator graham, 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 against a very vicious enemy, 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. -- president bush. 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 -- we think it would be inappropriate thing to do for a -- an appropriate 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. we do not need to blame each other. 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 confine 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 -- war on terror captures. -- 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. funded and supported by congress. >> 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. he was training constantia

militias and was charged with killing five americans -- he was training where we put in? -- shia militias and was charged with killing five americans. where do we put him? >> 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 iii courts. not for somebody like him. 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 him go. it is a huge mistake. he is charged --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. -- high are up a ladder. >> 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. my questions are somewhat related to that. 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 -- i tenths at this controlled -- attempts 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 -- atf'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. even before or after the meeting with the tenor general. given that, as well as the fact of the meeting was with general mukasey's of the part of mexico -- counterparts in mexico, i think we can and for he is -- i

think we can conclude debt 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 -- i did not want to about four -- vouch 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 -- get us information 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. -- that information. 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, for its progenitor 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 -- all the 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. so i assume that you do. 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 -- on may 3, you 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. -- i am not sure i understand that question. >> let me go on to something else. do you still contend this is a local law enforcement operation?

>> it is a federal -- do not misinterpret that. as of federal law. >> 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. would you agree with that? >> 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 still been accounted for. >> correct, a number of the guns have not been accounted for. that is why it is incumbent on us and why i have taken the steps i have taken to try to ensure the state -- the mistakes that happen are not repeated. >> to this is the organization

chart for of the department of justice. you would agree that the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives is an agency. the department of justice of which you are the head, correct? >> that is correct. >> this is your signature attesting to this organizational chart. april 30, 2010. 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 ndic 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. ag holder 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? >> are you saying you did not read them quality and -- read them? >> 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? >> i have not. >> 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? -- united states law enforcement agent? >> the 40 answer, it would have >> before you answer, it will half 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 -- -- up to show, especially under the circumstances that occurred. it is not fair to assume, however, that the mistakes that happen in fast and furious directly led to the death of agent terry's. again, my feelings of sympathy and regret go out to his family. i hope the steps that we have put in place, the measures i have called for, will prevent other federal agencies, local stations from being the subject of this kind of violence as well as civilians, who both in the united states and mexico. >> and i would put into the record a letter from the fraternal order of police praising attorney general holder for his commitment to law enforcement, rank-and-file officers, especially on the question of the safety of

officers and the work he has done with them with a spike in attack on police officers around this country. senator winehouse. >> welcome, attorney-general holder. i spent quite sure years -- 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 that there was -- i guess you would call it -- a kind of convention in the department of justice that a lot of people got to write memos that were nominally designated to the attorney general. and there was some value in that, because it made you feel

good to be writing a memo to the attorney general of the united states, and it was farley what -- fairly widely accepted that that was a common practice. that was my recollection, anyway. and that the filtration of that flood of e-mailed memorandum nominally designated for the attorney general was filtered by the deputy attorney general in that office. and then what what actually went through to the attorney general was on what the deputy perceive to be a need to know basis for the then-attorney general reno. is my recollection correct? does that remain the convention within the department, that there is a large number of e- mails that are nominally directed toward the attorney general, but as a matter of standard department practice,

the attorney general never cease? >> that is correct. there are a number of a filter so that we can respond in a timely fashion to things that are raised to the attention -- nominally to the attention of the attorney general purview of assistant attorney generals who have responsibilities in areas for you have a deputy attorney general. we have an assistant attorney general for legislative affairs to respond to memos from the hill. there are a whole variety of ways that neither of us would ultimately save. >> even though it appears to have created some misunderstanding in this particular matter, i would urge you not to depart from that. my recollection is that the senior staff worked very hard in the feeling when you are preparing this document that it

is going to the attorney general of the united states is important. if that got shot out, it may all have to be sent to more junior officials in the department, other than the confusion that this has created, i think it is a good name for the attorney scott -- the attorneys general said think that this is going to the attorney general. a cause of a higher level of performance and public spiritedness. i urge you to leave that employs. >> and let me make clear, my staff as well as the staff and the deputy attorney general's office review a large volume of this material, and some of the things that say to the attorney general get some brought to my attention that they make a determination that it is something that needs to be brought to my attention, as opposed to something that is more routine or can be handled at a lower level. i get a fair amount of information that i have to look out. i have to stay at midnight to

keep up with that. those things and senator cornyn 's chart were not brought to my attention. >> and that is consistent with longstanding practice. let me switch topics to the vulnerability that our country faces to a cyber attack. a lot of the committees of congress have done a lot of work on the subject. bills are out of committee and ready to go. there was a long pause of the administration did its work -- while the administration did its work on the interagency process which is now concluded. many of his belief that it is time for -- many of us believe

that it is time for congress to move forward in a bipartisan fashion with meaningful cyber security legislation. in that vein, i like to ask you to -- i would like to ask you to make a recommendation to us today as to how quickly and with what urgency you believe we should be going forward to pass cyber security legislation. that will be part one of the question. part two of the question is that sometimes we pass legislation around here and it is not clear whether or when it will have an effect ping the prime area -- an effect. the prime area of risk is the privately-owned, nationally --

national critical infrastructure. you have any information about how quickly, once we pass the legislation, the critical infrastructure in private hands in this country can have its cyber security level dramatically increased, so that the risk to our country to that critical infrastructure is commensurately reduced? >> i think you're right to focus on this whole question of cyber security. it is something that i think frankly we have waited novelty long -- too long to act on. it has infrastructure implications. it has intelligence gathering capability applications. it obviously has criminal fraud that can result from our lack of focus on this issue. with regard to that first question, it has to be a priority. there are a variety of things that this committee has to

consider, but as we in the executive branch focus on those things that are most -- are of most concern to us, we spend a huge amount of time focusing on the cyber issue. i hope we can work with this committee and members of congress to come up with the necessary legislation to deal with a real and present danger to the station. >> and the effect of getting it done? >> the effect will be seen -- it is interesting. when you pass bills, you do not see the results of those bills for years sometimes. a huge number of months. but with regard to the civilian infrastructure, other things that we have talked about in the first part of my answer, i think that you would say the ability to protect -- you would see the ability to protect it infrastructure in a relatively short periodic time. one of the unique things about the cyber area is that the

protection that can be raised can be done relatively quickly because you are dealing with switches and electronic stuff that i do not totally understand, but can be changed relatively quickly. so the positive impact of this legislation would be something that we would feel relatively soon. >> thank you. >> this from senator grassley, so senator late. -- senator lee. and then senator koontz. -- coons. >> i am understand the house has issued a request this past friday for documents and witness interviews related to justice kagan's involvement in the health-care legislation and related litigation during her service as solicitor general. will the department of justice

comply with that request? >> i am not familiar with that request. i would have to look at it. i am just not familiar with the request that has been made or what materials have been sought in that regard. >> i believe the intent of the request is to get any documents or other indications that justice kagan, while serving as a list for general, may have participated in discussions related to actual or contemplated anticipated litigation regarding the constitutionality of the affordable care at. >> one of the things we did do was to a solicitor general was to physically move her out of the room whenever conversation, about the -- whenever conversation came up about the health care law. i can remember one time that we talk about that topic, we asked her to leave and she did. and so there should not be a problem to comply with this request. >> i do not know what the nature

of the quest is. i can certainly look at a. >> one letter was sent on friday from the senate of the house judiciary committee. you have acknowledged today that mistakes were made within the department of justice related to a fast and furious program. but without specifying who made those mistakes. i would be curious what mistakes have you made that you can identify, things that you wish you had done differently? any mistakes that you have personally made? >> i think that as i look at the information as it was brought to me, i think i acted in a responsible way by ordering the diskette -- the inspector general investigation, if by issuing a directive to the field. we have an inspector general report that will look at this matter. i think that we will glean from the report a better sense of what people did, who should be

held accountable, and i want to make clear that on the basis of the report and any other information brought to my attention, those people who did make mistakes will be held accountable. >> you never reiterated several times that people within the department of justice -- you have reiterated several times that people within the department of justice believe that the statements were accurate. obviously there were some people and not all people. because clearly some people knew. >> exactly. >> what can be done to break this gap to make sure that the sum communicate with the others, particularly those at the top? >> one thing i hope that as a result as the directive that i issued, this whole issue of gun walking, that people understand that that is simply not a exceptional. but the inspector general brought up a good point. it will ultimately answer questions that i do not know the answers to. who actually thought this was a good thing to do and why didn't

people discover sooner than they did that in fact what we thought was occurring in fact was not? that will be the result of the inspector general report. >> i have been curious about statements made recently by lanny breuer, the head of the criminal division. they are indicative of a broader concerns and also in some ways likely to implicate some questions related to fast and furious. mr. breuer said that although they approve some applications for a fast and furious, as required under federal lockup -- as required under federal law, justice has only one role in reviewing this efficiency of wiretap activity, "to ensure

that there is legal sufficiency to make an application to interrupt communications, " but that is to make sure that the federal petition to the judge is in his words, a credible request. he went on to explain that it is the responsibility of the district office carrying out the investigation did you do determined that the tactics used are appropriate and not to second-guess them. i find it interesting in the sense that here the requirement outlined in section 2518 of title xviii requires hamp analysis at the department of justice level, of you or your debt to d or e -- of you or your deputy attorney general or one of those officials. and one of the things they have to do there is rather than simply regurgitate back out the

same fact and say, yes, it looks like a site to write statute. they have today undertaken assessment as to such issues as have other investigatory tactics proved inadequate? why not -- why a wiretap? it is an invasive investigative tool barrett that is why congress is understandably requiring that the department of justice at the top levels required -- approve these. he approved multiple wiretaps applications. one of two things is happening. either they are not complying with their duty to assess each one independently to make sure that there was this representation made, that the apartment establish the case for wiretap application, or that they -- he was doing his job and was made aware with what was going on with fast and furious, but did not disclose that.

or when he sought initial denials by the department of justice about fast and furious, failed to raise the flag is said, yes, this is a concern. which is it? >> lanny breuer would not have a personally approve this request -- and what it had been one of his deputies -- would not have personally approve this request. >> it would of been one of his deputies? >> given the volume of these things and a conversation about those kind of things, the only one that the assistant attorney general has to approve personally our roving wiretaps. >> given that the report directly to him, would they not have been a position to see that the department justice and its good name was online, and to say, that the part of justice did know about this program, in fact, we had approved a

significant series of wiretap application from the point? >> i do not think the wiretap application -- i have not seen them. i have not seen any indication that they had anything in them to talk about the tactics that have made this such a bone of contention in have legitimately raise the concerns of members of congress as well as those of us and the justice department. i would be surprised at the tactics themselves of gun walking were contained in those applications. i have not seen them but i would be surprised if that were the case. >> i will note that the utah attorney general and republican and the attorney general of arizona, a democrat, [unintelligible] the conclude that it would be tragic -- that they caused fast

and furious cost our country to abandon mexico to the cartels for the cartels are our enemy, not the department of justice. we need to provide the people who are fighting this battle with the tools that they need. >> how like to thank attorney general holder for being here today. the oversight function of this committee is one of the most important roles that we have. at a fee-for-service and europe are a testimony here today. -- i think you for your service and for your thorough testimony here today. i am keenly concerned about the real and emerging threats of a cyber criminals. to meet this threat, we need to use all of our resources at our disposal. delaware happens that have a promising national guard unit and i sent you a letter asking for your position on whether the national guard might in the

future provide a pathway for that department of justice to make some use of their sophisticated cyber defense resources as you expand your law enforcement resources. i want to thank you in advance for your consideration of that and i look forward to the department's response. on the topic and industrial risk -- industrial espionage, there was an alarming report accusing china and russia of aggressive incapable collections of sensitive u.s. economic information and technologies through cyberspace. frequently software and developers know about exploitable bugs in their software. do you have the right incentives in place to encourage the private sector to respond to emerging securities rather than defend themselves to promote our national security of the i.t.

infrastructure? >> the issue have highlighted is one that is of great concern to you us. i took a trip to china last year to have a very frank conversation with them about the concerns he had about the theft of intellectual property, the stealing of industrial secrets. we will have to compete with them in the 21st century on a level playing field. so that as a big concern -- that is a big concern that we have and one we have expressed to the chinese. >> 1 follow-on question is about the resources for the department. the economic espionage act was passed 15 years ago, and as of october, there have been only eight cases tried in to this. the last time that you testified before us, you thought that the

department of justice needed additional resources to more successfully criminally prosecute those whose silk -- steel sensitive i.t.. since we're losing vast amounts of national treasure, are you ramping up your efforts to enforce this act? and you see a need for more substantial statutory or financial resources? >> it is a priority for the apartment. but even in these tough economic times, and given the nature of the threat and what is at stake, both for the safety of this nation and for its economic well-being, that this is an area we have to focus on. this is an area that will require -- as i deal with limited number of people -- some decisions have to be made by me and others in the department, hopefully with the sport of members of congress, to ramp up our ability to deal with these issues.

it is not too much to say, it is not an overstatement to say that the future of this nation is really dependent on in part how we does -- resolve the issues that you're raising. >> on a related point, the customs and border patrol in my view has interpreted the trade ct to are sharing of seized goods that could be counted. there is a committee services hearing today on a grave threat prose or service men and women by counterfeiting microchips made their way into the united states weapons systems. there is significant quantities. many of the counterfeits maybe examined by them but they're not consulting with sources. i think economic possible for them to more rapidly determine whether what is being intercepted as counterfeiter not. do you think you ever prosecute

a customs and border patrol agent for sharing information with the intention to simply certify whether something is or is not counted? >> we have prosecutorial discretion and i cannot imagine we would bring such a case. but to the extent that that impediment exist with the sharing of that information's and given the need for a public/private partnership to deal with this information, that might be a legislative fix that perhaps we could discuss and somehow deal with. we will only be successful in this if we have the public sector working with the government, working with the private sector to deal with these issues. he cannot do it alone. we cannot do it alone in the government and the private sector cannot do it alone. to the extent that there are barriers to information sharing, we need to knock us down. >> i would be happy to work with your office on finding a legislative fix. i think that we are hamstrung in

border enforcement around these vital issues. as part of the continuing resolution to fund the government, many programs that fairly deep cuts, especially hard hit in my view were those designed to support state and local law enforcement. there were cut by more than four to $30 million for the cops technology program. -- $430 million for the cops technology program. from my home state, or previously supervised accounted the police department, less reason for information sharing, for use in criminal diversion programs, less money for officer protection and protective equipment. in your view, how are these cuts affecting your ability to provide cost-effective support that has a multiplier factor state and local law enforcement? and what would the impact be if the house 2012 appropriations bill that zeros out the entire

cost protection program were to be enacted? >> those cuts are unacceptable and place this nation at risk. we are enjoying historically low crime rates and we have 30,000 vacant law enforcement positions in this country. we of loss 12,000 officers over the course of the last year. we put at risk that these historically low rates will not remain there forever. there have been high rates of shootings of police officers, although the rates have been coming down generally in terms of crime. the amount of violence directed at the lunch -- yet police officers has come down. the number of deaths is outpacing that which we saw last year. the notion that somehow, someway we would come at a time when we're trying to create jobs, take people who are sworn to protect the lives of the american people off of the line is to me illogical and unacceptable and dangerous. >> thank you, mr. attorney

general. i look forward to work, if you to sustain the these programs. >> thank you very much. senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. attorney general for being here today. i have listened to all of the questions and all of your answers. i want to thank you for effectively addressing many of the questions surrounding a fast and furious and dispelling any doubt that you are determined to uncover all of the facts surrounding some of the very regrettable circumstances here. just so we understand, a lot of names have been mentioned here. attorney general mukasey, and others in the department. there is no evidence before us here that they knew or participated in any wrongdoing, is there? >> yes, i held my testimony was clear. >> and it has been. thank you.

also an ongoing investigation that will eventually disclose whether or not and who knew about what was going on. i want to thank you for being so candid and straight forward on that point. i want to join my colleagues in expressing my determination that there should be more assistance insufficient support for our police on the streets of connecticut, in our neighborhoods as well as the firefighters and other personnel that i would regard as law morecement, which aren't sense, the cops on the beat the protect his day in and get out. -- that protect us day in and day out. they did the bulk of law enforcement for our nation and i appreciate them and thank you for your support. i think perhaps for me, one of the most important aspects of your testimony today is really

the vigor and intensity that the department of justice is the voting now to stopping gun trafficking and drug dealing and gang violence on our borders and throughout the country, but most particularly in connection with the mexican gangs that pose such a threat to americans as well as mexicans. .

senator orrin hatch will be joining us to make remarks on what he thinks the super committee will do. we may need under rupp when he arrives. we will ask each group to briefly present their recommendations and then we will begin our presentation. for those watching on tv, you can find these proposals online at our website or on the website of each of the organizations. our first panelist is phil kerpen, vice president for policy at americans for

prosperity, and the author of a new book, democracy denied, which i'm sure is also available on-line. >> wherever fine books are sold. >> michael linden is the director for tax and budget policy at the center for american progress. michael has co-authored numerous reports on our fiscal challenges including the important report. andrew moylan is vice president of government affairs for the national taxpayers union, where he lobbies on federal and state issues and assists in educational efforts. gary kalman directs u.s. public research groups in washington, d.c., and in 2009, he was a founding member of americans for financial reform. steve ellis is vice-president of taxpayers for common sense, where research is a legislative liaison and media spokesperson. steve formerly served as the united states coast guard

officer. finally, david kendall, a senior fellow solve -- senior fellow for health and fiscal policy at third way. i note that mr. kendall served on president clinton pall's healthcare task force in 1993. with that, phil, i turn this over to you. >> thank you, brian. i like to begin by thanking in congratulating you and your chairman. stephen and you're very involved as well in the fight against earmarks. it is remarkable to have all washington organization actually accomplish your goal as thoroughly as you did yours. i can only hope that the new name of your organization will have the success on this crucial effort to set -- to end excessive government spending here in washington. i was just on any budgetary outlook, the problem is a spending problem, not a revenue

problem. we have historic revenue levels without any legislated increases in taxes. i think if we do include tax increases, revenue increases, coercive in nature, that force people to pay more, that will cause themselves to fail. i don't think a product with tax increases will pass because it does not address the problem. if we are trying to cut spending, giving politicians more money to spend is at cross purposes with that goal. that is my practice to get into some of the specifics we would like to say. if you look at the report in your packet, we broke in the two sections. there is the specific dramatic cuts that we're recommending the super committee adopt immediately, and then where we recommend some big department closures. it will put an ideological marker down to remind people that there are very big

elements in the federal government that we could probably do without. we are under no illusion that that type of movement will move in the current environment or the super committee. so we go into much more politically attainable cuts that we think can and should be considered in the context of a separate committee. they are guided by three principles. those are laid out on page 3 of the document. first, washington should tighten its belt and make do with less. for too long, they have gone to taxpayers for more and more money to continue their overspending ways. the country has been in tough economic times. washington needs to tighten its belt. the focus needs to be on the spending side. second, government should not pick winners and losers. it is not beneficial to the economy or to individual americans for the government to have programs to intercede in the marketplace and it causes

scandal in dislocation and inefficient allocation of resources. and finally, we want to empower individuals and states. we fundamentally believe that the best decision making comes from individuals. we want to maximize individual freedom and liberty. government governs best when it is closest to the individual spirit we want to see programs return to states or localities to the greatest extent possible. i think it is critical to repeal the so-called patient protection and affordable care act. i do not think at this present time, it is not with the super committee mandate. the class act being the most recent to fall on the claim that it provided deficit reduction has largely evaporated. we will see that this is a major contributor to deficits going forward just as every major

entitlement program has been. it is impossible to dig deeper by adding a new major entitlement program. second, consolidation of programs which comes directly out of the gao report earlier this year that we should be able to agree on. it will save $100 billion in eliminating duplicative programs. i suspect everyone should be able to agree on this. this should be a starting point and i hope it is included. next is selling federal access. however draw a distinction between revenues that make government smaller and revenues that make government bigger. tax increases give government more money to spend. but the extent that we a short of historical averages in revenues because the recovery has not happened, we need to make government smaller. selling federal assets is a way to do that. there is no reason for those financial assets to remain on

the balance sheet of the united states treasury prevent tarp assets alone, that would raise about $166 billion. we recommend red doors -- reforming and reducing the america -- the federal work force through attrition. all sorts of examples. you cannot have the people pulling the wagon making significantly less and all the people riding in the wagon making more. we would like to see a significant reduction in the rate of growth in the defense budget. are left wing colleagues on the stage can probably agree with that. it's important that the super committee not fall into the trap that the trigger mechanism is a doomsday. defense spending increases every year under the sequester mechanism. we cannot meet our national security priorities without larger increases of -- so we need to rethink those priorities

as a matter of economic reality. in a second area, the government picking winners and losers, we would like to see a wind down of fannie mae and freddie mac. there were the center of the housing crisis. republican members are moving far too slowly on this. the first thing is to reject the increase in loan limits. we cannot subsidizing $700,000 homes are more common i do not know what we can do. this is a potential part of the government that is an on limited line of credit. it can run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. we think you have to take on agricultural subsidies. we should not have americans of all backgrounds subsidizing farmers. that is unnecessary and wasteful and misallocated resources. i'm amazed to the extent to which otherwise conservative

members on everything else say they have to be for agricultural subsidies. one very conservative member told me that he is 9% conservative than 1% -- 99% conservative and 1% socialists when it comes to farm subsidies. we need to dramatically cut them and we would urge the super committee to do so. energy subsidies and r&d, most of the subsidies of fossil fuels in the form of research and development, and renewables aren't refundable tax credits. we would eliminate all of those. the current scandal over solyndra and other cellular companies which can be tied to campaign contributors shows the considerable saving from that. we rescind the balances from the small business lending fund. and we would empower individuals and states -- and i think that block granting is a proven way to limit growth in some federal

spending while increasing the freedom of states and get better policy outcomes, it is overwhelmingly successful when we did it for the depended children. it should be the model for all federal welfare programs, including medicaid. eventually i like to double that taxing authority by capping those programs to generate significant savings while better serving those populations in this program. that is an overview. to sum up, if they cannot do it on the spending side, it would be better to have them fail and get the real savings of a sequester mechanism and had some disastrous deal that just raises taxpayers -- their raises taxes. that is our view. >> michael, i saw you nodding your head. so we are adjourn?

please go ahead. >> i am michael linden, and not surprisingly, phil and i may disagree on a couple things. one hour to minor things. let me start with the big one, which you hear a lot, which is that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. that is just false. it is true in the long run, in the very long run, and after the next 10 years, it is actually true that the major drivers of the federal deficit are an aging population which means higher costs is also security, medicare, and medicaid, and rising health costs generally for everybody, and the federal government is the major purchaser of health care with the medicare and medicaid programs. so there will be a big impact on those programs as well. definitely in the long run we have to do about those -- have to do something about those spending programs. i agree that we have to have

some really serious conversations about how to get those things under control. but in the next 10 years, the major problem is revenue. look at the congressional budget office dateline -- baseline. the official projections of what will happen. letting the bush tax cuts expire in all sorts of things, but deficit would be reduced 1% of gdp by the end of the decade. the reason no one thinks that is true or we have doubt about the deficits is because no one believes that is going to happen. the current policy projection, what happens with the deficit and debt if we continue doing what we have been doing, our massive deficits and massive debt. what is the big difference between the current projections and the current policy projections? it is not spending. do you want to jump in?

the sdr is about -- yes, the sdr, a little bit, and that is a sustainable growth rate formula for medicare, but the major problem is revenue. if we just followed current law and congress did nothing, i am not saying that they are not going to, but if we just followed that current law baseline, the medium-term deficit problem goes away. so it is absolutely a revenue problem as well as a spending problem. we are in extremely low taxing country, despite what he will say. they collect at its lowest amount of taxes as a share of our gdp among developed countries. the only one that collects less and career.mexico we are at very low end. if we collected the same amount of revenue as canada does, not sweden, not france, canada, we would still in the bottom third

and we would balance the budget. so we absolutely could do this all on revenue but we are now proposing we do that. there is an imbalance here. we have groups like american for prosperity same to do this all on spending. they're definitely influential among one political party. but we do not hear anyone say let's do it all on revenue. no one is suggesting that. the center for american progress is not suggesting that. we think there is a balance and that revenue is definitely doable. catch rates rental lowest levels they have been that for years. the very wealthiest among us have increased their share of income dramatically over the past 30 years. at the same time, their rates have gone down. it seems like an easy place to go to get more revenue and i am sure that someone will say that will be economically disastrous, but i would point out of the last few years, we conducted a

natural experiment. we raise taxes on the wealthy in 1993 and the economy boomed. we cut taxes especially on the wealthy in 2001 and 2003 and we saw what happened after that. it does not mean that raising taxes will cause an economic boom, but it gives the lie to the notion that raising taxes on the wealthy will be bad for the economy. all that aside, let us get to what the center for american progress thinks that the super committee should do. it should absolutely hit its $ 1.5 trillion target. it should be careful about going bigger than that because of the frankly -- the major divisions between the political parties right now. imagine if you tried to implement the proposal that phil has laid out here, you would basically alienate an entire segment of the population to the degree that they work dramatically for the next few years to undo it. that does not help us. we need to take a positive step of ford for the last time we

balance the budget in 1998, it took us several legislative attempts. some were successful, some less so. we do not he did do it all in one bite -- we do not need to do it all in one bite. you will never balance the budget with 9% unemployment. they will never happen. the last time we balance the budget, we did it with the help of a significant economic growth. anything we can do now to get back to normal economic footing will help us reduce the budget deficit as well. as i mentioned, we think that entitlements are the major driver of a long-term budget deficit, which means we need to get a handle on those. but in the next 10 years, it is not quite is true. we do not need to leave them entirely alone, but fundamental changes, turning medicare into a voucher for example, that would be unfair and politically unwise. we should probably try of the

savings on ways that do not shift the cost simply from the federal government on the families. the last thing i will mention is on the discretionary side. the budget control act already implemented $1 trillion in discretionary cuts. that is just below what the simpson-bowles commission recommended. it is in line with what the domenici-rivlin commission recommended. there may mean more cuts that we could do, although interesting ly, i will be the least excited about this on this panel. we of party cut $350 billion in we could do more. a lot more would be a little bit dicey. i did not want to go into the specifics of the proposal because you concerned look at

that in your packet. but those of the broad contours of what the center for american progress think that we should do in the super committee. >> thank you very much, michael. next we have cantor moylan, and in an interesting experience that an shura and gary will talk about, your two groups wrote a joint plan. i'll turn it over to you two and you can divide your time however you like and talk about how you develop your plan. >> allocate at all. i'm andrew moylan, vice president of government affairs for the national taxpayers union. we are grassroots taxpayer organization and i always kick these things off with a joke. our budget tells us what we cannot afford but it does not keep us from buying it. that has been the mantra of the federal government for par to long from our perspective. there two quick things i want to point out. and the president's recent budget estimate, the lowest single year deficit is $607 billion, a number higher of

every annual deficit in our nation's first 220 years. it is roughly equal in the inflation-adjusted terms to the war spending of 1944. that is a problem from our perspective. a lot people attributed to the response to the recession. the recent increases in spending. we have had deficits and 45 of the last 50 years, but even die- seyians should find problematic. this started years ago when we started working and transparency issues. the contours of this report start of last year when the president's fiscal commission was meeting. we join together to make about 30 recommendations for $600 billion worth of deficit reduction that we submitted to the fiscal commission. about 20 of those recommendations made it into the

fiscal commission's final report, and the illustrious cuts that they put together. the purpose of this proposal was to find out what kinds of spending reductions can we get a group that is locally on the right and the other colloquially on the left to agree upon. that is the challenge with a super committee, is it not? trying to figure out who can get someone from the other side to agree to the proposal they are putting together. we came together this year and put together a plan with over $1 trillion a specific spending reductions. you could look through the entire list and find a link to all the of permission. we're not reinventing the wheel but abrogating sources, like cbo options, numbers from gao, if other authoritative sources like that, that figure out where we could find spending reductions that would not dramatically undermined if what we like to see the federal government doing on a regular basis. a couple of results from that --

we outlined $215 billion worth of wasteful subsidies. that means agricultural subsidies, direct payments, $50 billion of direct payments for commodity crops that the market access program, which probably every group of here with support getting rid of, if essentially corporate welfare, a program that helps underpin are insane system of sugar subsidies in this country, $370 billion. we also included $429 billion of specific reductions in low priority military programs. we believe in a strong national defense but we also believe that unfortunately there is a tremendous amount of waste in the defense budget. we outlined a couple of specifics -- $35 billion of excess spare parts orders. we are ordering as many as 50% to many spare parts for the armed services.

one upgrade the status $15 billion and be offset by other capacities of that prevent us from losing any real operational abilities. we laid out $232 billion of improvements to government operations, eliminating unneeded programs like the essential air service, a system of subsidies for rural airports. one of my favorites, the national drug intelligence center located in the heart of america's drug war in johnstown, pennsylvania. you can thank john murtha for that one. another of my favorite, the state's awareness program, were people involved in spaceflight put together all wards and spend $60 million for no apparent purpose. and finally, $132 billion worth of reforms to entitlements. mostly efficiency changes, not big, flashy, raising eligibility age is or anything like that. he can save more than $47

billion by reforming repayment rates in high-cost areas. even when you account for differences in costs and providing care in man hadn't as opposed to kansas, when your account for those differences, we have huge disparities in some cases in payment rates. or removing the ceiling for collecting overpayments in the ssi program. we are reducing our ability to recover callbacks. and the reason that we got into this was to show that from our perspective, cutting wasteful spending is not an issue of ryder left but an issue of right or wrong. these aren't that -- right or left an issue of right or wrong. for most of these, we do not believe it is the federal government's role to be performing many of these things. it is incumbent upon us at anytime but especially right now to go attack of those things affirmatively to try to root out that waste.

we think that this demonstrates that there is an ability to agree across ideological lines, over $1 trillion, $4 at $5 that the super committee needs to meet its at $1.22 trillion target. we think it is a significant leg up, without getting into more contentious debates that we've heard about what revenue. our associate myself with all the commons that kill curtain had made, -- i would associate myself with all the comments that feel curtain -- phil kerpen had made. but that, i will turn it over to gary and he can talk about why it is that they ventured over to the dark side with us and put together this program and their motivations. >> gary. >> thank you. i am gary kalman, and i direct the office when u.s. public

interest research group. we were very pleased to renew our partnership with the national taxpayers union appeared we of work with them with transparency issues -- the national taxpayers union. we have worked with them on transparency issues. we got into it because we think that how the government spends its money is probably the most critical decision that legislators may, and i did a fine public priorities and make sure that we can afford those is something we obviously spent a lot of our time working on, are higher read program, food safety issues, etc.. we need to solve the deficit as a real problem. we felt that it was important to start having a voice in making our voice heard about the good cops and the dangerous cuts we think they're not helpful -- a

good cuts and the dangers cuts we think are not helpful. we were happy to go after what we thought was some of the waste. the second thing which is important about the report, you hear a lot about folks today talking about we need to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, and the media has caught on thinking that we should not talk generically but name names and actually site things that we should get rid of rather than waiting your hands. because somebody -- we can also waste, fraud, and abuse, and to some people they are thinking one thing, and others are thinking another. they all nod, but when they sit down to make the cuts, they do not happen. there are a few things that -- a few principles we came to the table with. i like to share those because we think they are good principles as legislators are making decisions about specific programs, targeting programs to cut.

one is that we want to approach subsidies that provide incentives to companies that do more harm than good. people talk about agricultural subsidies like a big hand at the corporate interests. we would argue that some of these actually are destructive, large-scale agricultural production of a crop used for biomass and accelerating problems with deforestation and raise food prices globally. there is actually harm being done by the subsidies we are offering to the public. so that's a problem. the sec it is opposing subsidies to ensure proper global industries to do things that they do not need to do. we'll include in this category some of the funding which supports the change the market extra cheese pizza, and they have the incentive and resources

to develop their own products. the third is that we would support reforms to make government more efficient. there are any number of ways in which that contracting process can be made efficient. also things like calling the defense department to buy their prescription drugs jointly in wit -- jointly with the veterans administration. a lot a savings to be found by reforming how things like that. and finally, when it ventured into areas like defense, we do not claim to know exactly the national security needs of the country. but we do oppose funding where there is authoritative consensus to do so, that is, if you have credible and reliable agreement across the political spectrum that something is wasteful. at the agency that is supposed to be receiving that dollars, if they are saying we do not need it, so with secretary gates

recommendation, including the expeditionary fighting vehicle as an example. the secretary of the navel and the commandant of the marines both agree with that then- secretary of defense is proposal. those of the recommendations that we wanted to support. a couple of quick things i would add. one is, as you might imagine, we are very nervous about across- the-board cuts that would replace valuable programs with wasteful spending -- equate viable programs with call wasteful spending. so we're going to cut pell grants as well as agricultural subsidies. we do not think that it makes sense. we need that actually cut the things that are wasteful. lastly, one things that are not in those words to talk about revenues, one thing we have not taken a closer look in advocating, which we do think

there might be some common ground with some folks on both sides of the aisle, the notion of corporate tax loopholes. the issue has gotten a lot of attention to the issue of made here infits the united states, it could raise as much as $100 billion a year. they're plenty of accounting gimmicks are shifting profits as a legal but it would not be right. we would encourage congress to take a look at that. there may be some efforts and ability to bring in some of the revenue loss of making correct public policy. >> thank you very much. and now we're joined by the senior senator for utah, senator hatch. would you please join us up here? it is an honor to have senator hatch year. as you can see, we're doing this in the viewing room. we wish the entire super committee were listening to the six chairman. now like to hear from you. he has been a leader in this

fight against spending. we both agree that if the senate had passed the balanced budget amendment years ago, we would not be in the shade. we hope that you will present your ideas for what the super committee should do. senator. >> sorry to interrupt you, but am very honored to be with all of you here today. i thought i would bring up from what i considered to be important aspects. i want to thank you all for coming today and what you're trying to do. this could not be more timely. in another two weeks, the joint select committee will hopefully report its come -- its recommendations to the full congress. now let nearly $15 trillion, almost there, admiral mike mullen, the former chairman of the joint chiefs is that, has called this the greatest threat to our national security. and i concur. spending more than we've taken is not only a clear and present threat to economic growth and the families of entrepreneurs and job creators.

it is a necessary means for addressing this threat. i'm glad to see so many groups and concerned citizens you represent working to address our deficits and debt, but now one in the long term. -- both now and then the long term. i like to extend special this thanks to ending spending. you might know them by their original name, taxpayers against earmarked for their only mistake was in choosing a name that would become obsolete. they are against air marks along with many of you. they managed secure and earmarked ban. this was a real achievement for the morning after their big victory, they have to start thinking about a name change. i think they settled on a good one. all we need to reduce spending significantly, i do not think we will be ending spending any time soon.

brian, i think it's safe to print your new business cards. at the beginning of this year, it was not a foregone conclusion that we would have and make rational debate about the impact of our national debt. yet throughout the spring and summer, culminating in the debate to increase statutory debt limits, congress and the president considered ways to address our debt. unfortunately, we have a way to go. you would think from the editorializing that spending had been cut to the bund, yet just recently the congressional budget office concluded that the federal government cost budget deficit for fiscal year 2011 was $1.3 trillion, almost the identical to the budget deficit in 2011, or 2010, excuse me. this was the third highest deficit as a share of gdp since 1945. at some point, these accumulated

deficits will create a debt that is past the point of no return. if we keep going this way, and we are quickly appointing -- approaching that point. at the end of the fiscal year 2008, as the bush administration was winding down, that debt held by the public reached 40% of gdp. currently, federal debt by the public = of modern record of 69% of gdp. cbo reports that current tax and spending loss takes that figure to 76% over the next 10 years. according to cbo, if we continue current tax policy, do not raise taxes, fix the amt, provide state tax relief, policy support by a clear americans -- by a clear in a dirty of americans, debt will reach 97% of gdp. even in these extreme but charges, they may be understating the fiscal

consequences of our current spending policies. if our current historically low interest rates go up even slightly, we could see massive increases in federal debt even without any policy changes. as the crisis in the eurozone demonstrates, it is critical that we get our debt under control now. waiting until late truman of crisis will further undermine the economy -- until late true moment of crisis will further undermine the economy appeared there needs to be bipartisan consensus to address the debt, and as we craft remedies to deal with this crisis, it is critical to get the diagnosis correct at that outset. to me, it seems clear that we must begin by recognizing that we have a spending problem. a revenue problem. our debt is large, it is growing larger, not primarily because of any tax cuts, but because of

spending that is well above historic averages and is going higher. we have annual deficits and skyrocketing debt out because government taxes too little, but because our government spends too much. it would be a mistake to view this is an opportunity to raise taxes. passeriform that addresses tax expenditures is long past due. -- tax reform that addresses tax expenditures is long past due. taxes are already high and the tax burden is heavily skewed toward the upper income brackets. " according to cbo, june 2011, from 1971 to 2010, taxes of -- have averaged 80% of gdp. if no changes in the law made, revenues will go up to 20.8% of gdp by 2021, and 23.2% by 2035. even if all the bush era tax

rates were permanently extended, taxes would still be roughly equivalent to the recent historical average. additional progressivity would be a challenge. according to the tax foundation for calendar year 2008, the top 1% of our population in terms of income already paid 38% of all federal income taxes. the top 5% paid 58.7% of all income taxes. meanwhile, the joint committee on taxation estimates that approximately 51% of all households, which includes filers and non-filers, had either a 0% or-tax liabilities for tax year 2009. that is 51% of all households. as someone committed to limited government and the belief that you're really on the frigate euro labor, i think they're

raising taxes beyond historical levels goes against our defense constitutional values. as economic policy, i think it is counterproductive. first, it is not clear that the anticipated revenue from tax increases would actually emerge. this is how the non-partisan joint committee on taxation put it. "we anticipate that taxpayers would respond to the increased marginal rate by utilizing tax planning and tax avoidance strategies that would decrease the amount of income subject to taxation." furthermore, 34% of income would be subject to the surtax for this is harmful to small businesses. the vast majority of which are organized as it to deuce. as the instrument of debt reduction, it misses the mark. an article from the tax policy center shows that our debt problem cannot realistically be

sold under revenue side. in an article entitled desperately seeking revenue, the authors detail of what types of tax increases would be necessary absence pending changes. to reduce federal deficits to 2% of gdp for the 2015-2019 period, its authors concluded that tax increase is consistent with the president's campaign pledge not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 for families making less than $250,000, would require the top 2% tax rates to go from to 87% and 91.1% of eliminating our deficit and bringing down the debt to a manageable level by looking primarily a revenues would require significant increases in taxes, not just on the so-

called rich, but on the middle class and probably the working poor as well. actress solution to our debt crisis is going to require pro- root tax policy and serious spending reforms. -- actual solutions to our deficit crisis is going to require pro-growth tax policy in serious spending reforms. tax reform is critical. our current tax code, i think everybody basically agrees, it is unfair and inefficient. 6 billion hours are spent each year complying with the tax code at the cost of $160 billion. attached for that is revenue neutral against the currents policy baseline with incurred fairness, simplicity, and economic growth. by reducing and eliminating tax expenditures, we could broaden the base and lower rates. we could also minimized the

current preferences in the tax code for spending over saving and investment. under our proposal, the top individual and corporate rates would be 25%. as for the spending side cover recent levels of spending levels are unsustainable. according to a report by the congressional budget office released just yesterday, federal spending was 24.1% of gdp in 2011. that is slightly lower than the 25.2% recorded in 2009, and about the same share in 2010. but well above the 40-year average of 20.8%. the federal government spends about 25% of our entire year's output in the national economy but that is far too high. we need to come to grips with the fact that our debt crisis is in large part the health care spending crisis.

it is significantly impacted by at demographic problem. when medicare was created in 1965, life expectancy was 70. today is 79. we need to address the eligibility age for medicare. our problems are not only demographic, but some levels this structure and design of these health care programs must be reformed. creating choices for seniors and encouraging plan competition much like the federal employees benefit program would have a positive impact on access -- access for care for seniors and the cost of medicare for taxpayers. as for medicaid, which currently consumes 22% of state budgets, and will consume $4.2 trillion in federal spending over the next 10 years, congress could see -- should consider giving

each state defined benefits to help with their vulnerable populations. as for the president's health care law, it must be repealed. there's no getting around the fact that it is expense and medicated new entitlements to premium subsidies are ticking time bombs for both federal and state budgets. according to the house budget committee, the true cost of the hca, or the affordable air act, stands at $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years, if we're lucky, once fully implemented. it also reveals that the law will increase the deficit by $71 billion in continue to add to our nation's growing debt. in addition, there is little doubt that the healthcare law is hindering economic recovery and a robust economic growth necessary if we are to dig ourselves out of debt. the law imposes over $1 trillion in new taxes and penalties on

individuals and employers for the director of the congressional budget office are testified before the house budget office -- budget committee this year that the real fault would result in a reduction of 800,000 new jobs in the future due to the increase in marginal tax rates. in my view, there should be greater consensus on these tax and spending reforms. liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats, have a shared interests and successfully bringing our debt to heal. cbo projects that the cost of simply paying the interest on all of this debt will rise to $792 billion, or 3.3% of gdp, in 2021. when you are nearing one trillion dollars in interest payments alone, the day is coming when the national government will not have the resources to accomplish even limited objectives. i am confident that the joint committee will succeed in taking

another step toward restoring our nation's fiscal integrity. a long-term fix, however, it is going to require additional actions. we are going to need you to continue to keep the pressure on with respect to spending and pro-root tax policy. ultimately, we're going to need of send of balanced budget amendment to the american people for ratification. after 35 years in this body, i have to say i think that is what we simply have to do. it is possible to get our economy back on track. as a ranking member on the finance committee, i am working hard to put this nation back on the project sound fiscal footing. and with committed individuals like you working on these issues, i know that we can get there. let's just understand, this is still the greatest country in the world. i notice a lot of young people here for your future is really

at stake here and we can no longer can continued at like there is an unlimited supply of money coming in the week and spend in unlimited ways. we have to get real on spending. that's why i love this organization and what it is trying to do. i want to commend all of you for being part of it. god bless all of you and thanks so much. >> thank you very much, senator. senator, we really appreciate your time and thank you so much for joining us. we will continue with the panel. as we are a bipartisan panel, i noted that we invited several of the college from the other side of the outcome of the senator hatch was kind enough to join us today. our next presenter is steve ellis. i think your organization wins the award for best title for your recommendation. why don't you pick up with super cuts? >> i am steve ellis, vice president of taxpayers for common sense.

we are a watchdog and we did come up with super cuts for the super committee. you can follow along in your package. if you want extra comments -- copies, i brought them along. for you watching on c-span, it is available at our website. i am really glad to be here and share the table with these folks. what did you like the plans are not, at least everyone here has come out -- whether you like the planes or not, at least everyone here has come out with one. congratulations to you as well. for 16 years, we have highlighted wasteful spending, exposing, naming, and killing the bridge to nowhere or going after wasteful spending in the tax code like the duplicative ethanol tax credit, we have been doing this for a long time and building on our earlier work, which was a submission to the

sense and bowls committee, the work that we have done, -- simpson bowles committee and, the work of we have done and other independent entities, but it is the government accountability office, the congressional budget office, or others, put it all together here. that said, it is no means -- is by no means exhaustive. we continue to see overhauls in entitlement programs like social security and medicare, the savings that we supported are not reflected here. we support that change at cbi, incremental increase in the retirement age, -- the chain the cbi, incremental increases in their retirement age, the overall reduction in their rates and expanding the base. and we did not include things like setting dollars in reducing

net interest free from our perspective, that will happen if we did the other cuts. so they put in $200 billion, we felt that would skew the numbers or serve to inflated. and lastly, we did not include a gimmick that we're critical lot. net interest is the true savings, but a lot of people talked about counting the savings from reduced troop levels in afghanistan and iraq. say 89 years out. that is an accounting gimmick. -- eight or nine years out. that is an accounting gimmick. extending the baseline, saying that we would maintain lulls at 2010 or 200011, it is poppycock. it is a way to gain savings on the books without really helping our debt. now know what we did not do. what did we do?

we have more than $1.1 trillion of cuts. we think that that is a lot. what we tried to do is capture a score will savings. rather than looking at things that would expire, like the ethanol tax credit, that is scheduled to expire december 31. of course it was scheduled to expire last december 31, so it could extend, but considering the senate voted to eliminate it, we did not think to -- we did not include that in old $1.2 edge trillion. there is a section in the document called other common- sense cuts, recapture the other things we think the conduct into, whether something like this, or the super committee can do something, or in some cases it is authorization for projects, subject of future appropriations. we would like to strike those of the book of we will not count those toward our savings.

-- off the books, but we will not count those toward our savings. we think that achieving budget savings is not and cannot be of popularity contest. we go after mandatory spending, discretionary spending in infrastructure and energy, and yes, national security. we go after tax expenditures from small to big, like reforming the tax inch -- mortgage interest tax break. agriculture -- a lot of talk about that already on the panel. all not going to detail on that. there are certainly things like direct payment, payments to producers that emanated from the 1996 farm bill that was supposed be transition from a couple payments, paying people not to grow. like many things in congress, president reagan observed that there is no better example of eternal life on earth than a federal program. they did not go away. they add layers back in, many of

the same countercyclical programs that go along with direct payment. they are indefensible. most people think that is the case. agriculture is interesting because the next thing we talk about is reform to crop insurance. we did i really subsidize crop insurance but revenue guarantees. -- ken we do not release subsidize crop insurance but revenue guarantees. what we're saying is that the agricultural committees are trying to actually expand their subsidies in the super committee process. several other groups here the table with us have signed a letter and we have worked with the broad bipartisan coalition to look at trying to stop to agriculture committee from actually putting a five-year farm bill, hundreds of pages of legislation, on the super committee project. it is not only getting savings

but it also is preventing future subsidies. they're concerned about some of the future revenue guarantees, up to 90% of revenue guarantee by the federal taxpayer, something that would be not seen is reasonable. the market access program was mentioned earlier that we are in favor of getting rid of. in energy, we target old and new energy subsidies. we oppose new energy subsidies. and rolling back all subsidies and a letter of this year signed by about 30 groups. and going after mature industries, the oldest energy tax breaks on the books are nearly a century old, to help the oil industry gets started.

i think that that has already happened. we should be looking at things like a percentage of allowance. these things that we should be targeting as individual tax expenditures. everyone talks about kneecapping the tax and how we have the $350 billion in savings that were mandated by the budget control act. if you start peeling back the onion and looking a defense, we had a dramatic increase in the last decade. even if you exclude war funding, emergency war funding, we spent $1.5 trillion on service contractors over the last -- since 2001. since 2000. we worked with projects and government oversight to come up with broader reforms and summer reflected here. if you just reduced our service contractor's expense, you would save hundreds of billions of dollars. those have been increasing every

year. it has not even been linear. it has been a magnification and increase. that third rail of defense spending -- as bryan indicated, i served in the coast guard. my father is a career navy, retired after 23 years in service. he went back to school and got a master's and went to work for fortune 500 company. will we find is -- secretary gates talked about this -- there are many of working age retirees in the military. i obviously have great respect for my father in everyone who served. my classmates in the coast guard are eligible to retire this year, which is odd to me. i feel really on -- young. anyway, that try care premiums have not gone up since the 1980's. my father could have gotten health care through his fortune 500 company or pay a higher

premium, because he was making a very good way to the time, and yet we allow this sort of bifurcation. these are not retirees and the working says. their retirees in the military sense. there are areas where we do is possible changes. i ran this by my dad and he was fine with that. if he is fine with that, then i think a lot of our men and women in uniform in that category working on retirement, that they could look get an increase in their tri-care premiums. not taking away any ways -- taking away any once medicare premiums. we need to look at personnel. one of the things as secretary gates told now-secretary panetta when he took over, the health care budget for the defense department is larger than the entire cia budget. this is where we have to look at these areas. or it will consume all of our other military spending.

operation and maintenance and procurement. we also look at withdrawing troops from europe. we still have a cold war posture in those areas. we could draw down those troops and removed things there. we look at space, weapon system, new nuclear weapons infrastructure. running toward the end, tax expenditures. these are breaks and loopholes and special interest purveyances rigid provisions inserted into the code over the years. modifying the mortgage interest deduction, a perfect example of something that had a good intentions which was to make home ownership more affordable. it has not done that very few have canada and the u.k. with similar rates as the united states that do not have the subsidies. it increase the price of home so that your -- your savings are baked into the private -- price of the home.

it is not so good for the average price olmert homeowner. -- it is not so good for the average homeowner. we do not want to stop the home market right at this time because there are issues that are eminently clear about sales. looking at things like last and, first out accounting. you can assume that that barrel of oil that you have in the oil industry is the big beneficiary it is still the one in your inventory so when you are accounting, you take out the more expensive barrel of oil. it is something that by international accounting standards, it is not allowed. it would be a onetime savings but could have a significant impact phased in. and the last thing on taxes, a couple of years ago, we allow state and local sales tax to be deductible.

this is something in the 1960 act -- 1986 act that we carry them. it is another tax expenditure that we let back in. other states where there is no income tax, this is something that was a new subsidy that came about, that is necessarily -- it is not necessary or justified. is -- i liken it to a forest where we'd have the buildup in the forest. we need to reduce the rate and expand the base. lastly, i would mention infrastructure. we have talked about the trust fund, the highway trust fund. we knew that when we passed the highway bill, that we had -- we were not going to get enough revenue in the gas tax to pay for everything we promised to pay for. and yet we went ahead with that bill. bill. it was