2:30 p.m. eastern. c-span2, we will have live coverage of the u.s. senate considering to block a rule on net c-span3 live at 3:00 eastern with the new hampshire today radio show, focusing on the presidential campaign. guests include chris christy in new gingrich, jon huntsman, and ron paul. news international executive share james murdock testifies tomorrow for a second time before a british committee about the phone hacking investigation. his company owned and now close "news of the world." >> extremism and the defense of liberty is no vice.

let me remind you all so, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. he lost the 1964 presidential election to lyndon johnson galvanize the conservative movement. five-term senator from arizona is key feature of this week on "the contenders." republican presidential editor rick santorum says he does not have faith in the members of the work of the super committee. he made these remarks at a union leader newspaper editorial meeting in manchester, new hampshire. he also talked about the sexual allegations against herman cain. this is about an hour.

this is the third time the c- span folks have come into video tape, but forget they are there. we do. i usually say i am willing to let the other guys ask the questions, and then i asked how the questions i am cutting down this time. i did not have time to research that much. you are known for your strong stance on social issues, which i imagine you have been speaking out about on the campaign trail, but timing being everything this cycle seems to be all about the economy and jobs.

how does a guy that draws upon conservative voters address that bottle? >> i am known for my social conservative stance, because i am one of the few politicians that is willing to leave in an area where most people follow. i think if you look at most of the field, you would find my positions are pretty much in line with everyone else, but none of the folks out there really have taken leadership roles in advancing the cost of life, marriage and family, faith in the public square. i have been very active on both fronts. and very few politicians enter into that field, because as a hot-button area. i tend not to let politics

affect my positions on the issues. i go out and am passionate and lead, not just in that area, but also on economic issues, entitlement reform. there is no one who is been out there -- you can ask judge crae grey. he was willing to go out there and do it. he was representing a pretty strong conservative state from the standpoint of spending. i was representing a state of the second highest per capita population of seniors in the country. i was out there as a conservative in pennsylvania, conservative on all issues across the board being vocal on issues like sosa security reform, welfare -- foods stamps,

etc.. and i was also a very strong leader on the issue of taxes. i was one of the guys who signed the pledge and kept. i can go on the national security front, also. question theay the social issues and how you were able to make a dent with that. you are saying you are strong with the other issues as well. emintdo you make of jim demen who is staying out of it. there seem to be quite a number of named republicans were not lining up with anybody. what does that say about them and you in the field? >> i feel very good about that. a lot of candidates in this race have had their moment in the

sun, had their opportunity to shine and get national attention. we have not been one of those candidates yet. when people say we look at the field, i think most people are saying we look at the folks that are risen to the top and could not get excited about them. i think our moment is coming. i feel very good about that. i call myself the field of dreams can of it. if you build it, they will come. iowa and init did some degrees north carolina. we're spending a lot of time. there was a moderate -- webb said the monitor the number of visits. we have been in iowa more than anyone else they are living here and not campaigning in iowa. i am not far behind, maybe even with these couple of today's this week i will be even with them. i am right there with them in

the number of times i've been in new hampshire. reorganizing and during the volunteer phone calls. we are doing the things necessary to when the time comes we will be there. i think if you read between the lines, they are not endorsing now. they are waiting for the conservative alternatives for mitt romney. i think when i popped out of the pact, which i will do in iowa, and follow it up with a strong performance in new hampshire, i think you will see a lot of conservatives say we were waiting to see if you could do it. i hear this all the time from folks. i hear this all the time from folks. really like you, but you are not doing well than the national poll. i say it's because all the people who say they like me do not answer for me when they call. you are letting the national press former this election, and as you know and have told me

from the first time i walk through the door, that new hampshire voters will vote for who they believe the best candidates is after they have had a chance to look at them and study them. that is the same thing as going on in iowa among the activists there. that is why i do, but when things begin to settle out i will do well. last night i was in rochester and there were probably 80 to 90 people at that event. i spoke for 15 to 20 minutes. i took questions for an hour or more. when that meeting was over, 90% of the people signed up to help us out. it is usually 70-80% of the folks. when i do a town hall meeting, i do get a high percentage of people that are willing to sign up and help out. that tells me something. when folks get a chance to see

the real conservatives in an unfiltered environment, they come in our favor, and as you know, the activists who are paying attention now are usually a pretty good indicator. >> are you going to take the stance of faith, family, and freedom and apply it? what does it mean in the real world? what does a nominee do in the real world of people here? >> as you know way back when i wrote a book back in 2004-2005. i still have it. i am not on t a book tour, i am

running for president. i have my book and put it out there. in 2005 i wrote a book called " it takes a family." i laid out not just an agenda, but an argument -- i do not mean just legislative or regulations or executive orders, but a broad policy discussion as to how we need to move this country in terms of being more supportive of the family of marriage, traditional values, shaving children. it is how we have to focus our society on raising adults who are good citizens, moral, decent, who have values and them, mostly through faith. i have a whole section on our

culture and how we have gone awry and how it affects the political discourse and the family. when i was a united states senator, i was very involved and try to shape the culture. the presence of the united states can be very involved in the culture by convening things and putting forth ideas and having a national discussion on things that are important to the country. the president is more than just commander in chief and someone who vetoes bills. i look at as i have a lot of policy provisions for what we can do to help non-profit groups and other support marriage and promote fatherhood, have an education system that allows parents to send kids to schools where they can inculcate spirituality.

i say how many people in this room are only concerned when it comes to raising your children and only concerned about academic colleges? i have yet to have up parent raise their hand. yet if you look at it, that is all that no child left behind measures, that is all the public-school system is focused on. it is only one small part of the formation of the child. when parents say we want an educational system, we want them to have values that are consistent with the values that we want as a family. our educational establishment says no, we're not want to do that. the better government should not be forcing their values, and it

is in my opinion a secular value system as a recall -- result of secular value system that has focused on this very narrow mission, and we're seeing the consequence of it with our children. the president in the united states -- president of the united states, in my opinion, should not change that. we should get the federal government out of the education business and have a president that works with people at the local level, working with churches, parents to design an education system that is focused on the customer of the education establishment. who is the customer? is asked this question. half the time i get the answer the children. the customer of the education system is never won the parents who pays for it, and the persons

whose responsibility it is to educate children. the responsibility to educate children lies with the parents. the government is there to help children, not to replace the parents. it is not to do their job for them. so in gauging parents in fundamentally changing the way the education system and the way this -- changing the with the education system works. when i talk about faith, family, and freedom, those are the things i am talking about the economy and the sickening of the economy in my opinion is a symptom. certainly there are things we can do. the reason government is getting bigger is because we have problems at the foundational level of our country that have not been addressed. >> you seem to be all over this lot on this education business.

first, you said public education is too narrowly focused, which i imagine is on reading, writing, and arithmetic and that should be brought forward. then he said the public education system is teaching secular values, apparently within the very narrow whelm -- rome and should be teaching the values of america probably. -- brought leak appeared at the news of tadly. >> maybe i was not clear. i did not say parents should be teaching the values. i said the education system should teach with the parents' values. i apologize if i misspoke. what i am talking about is obviously parents should have the ability to send their

children to the education form that is consistent with their values. you can call it school vouchers. i call a having the education system work with the parents to design an educational curriculum that best meets the needs of that child. it may be about to go to a christian school or catholic school and support mom and dad at home school. there are all sorts of ways. >> or muslim school? >> it is consistent with that, then yes. -- if it is consistent with that, then yes. obviously, depending on what the muslims school is teaching, it is teaching insurrection to the federal government, that it's a

different story. it is teaching the moral workings of the faith, that is america. we allow for freedom of religion in this country. yes, those are things that are important. when you said that i said public school system are teaching public values, they are in the fact that god is sanitize from almost everything. that is not teaching western civilization. that is not teaching who we are as a people. that is teaching a very perverted view of who we are is a country and civilization. so by not teaching, you teach. there is no neutrality. there is either one world few or very different world view. >> i did not mean to interrupt. to go that is ok.

i am just wondering, this is [inaudible] state. we are one of the few that have same sex, gave marriage equality law just in october there was a poll of likely primary voters that shows 47% of likely presidential primary voters oppose repeal. 39% oppose it. can you explain to me how you will propose your view that a traditional family is the right way to go on people who do not really feel that way and feel that families of kin -- can be of different size, shape, and make up and the raising of the child may have nothing to do

with the gender of the parents and more with the quality and personality of parents? >> that is the beautiful thing about america. i am not trying to impose my views on anybody. that's exactly what the public square is about. people come with a strongly-held beliefs, fax, and reason and you bring that to the public square and make that. i reject the whole idea, you are trying to importers -- impose your morality. no, that is exactly how the republic is supposed to work. and so the idea that somehow or another because you have a poll that says right now at this moment the way the question was asked, this is how the public is, the issue of marriage has been held, a vote has been held in 32 states in this country. every time it took and held, it

has been won. the reason is because once you have a debate and people start seeing the consequences of what this will mean for society over the long-term, what it will mean to what your children will be taught in school, your ability to practice your faith. the impact on what it will do to the institution of marriage, to raising children, the ability to adopt children, there are far- reaching consequences to changing a very basic institution of society that has been in place for a good reason. we as a society have said that the best thing for children is to have a biological mother and a healthy relationship raise that child. i do not think very many, and there may be some, very many that would say is that the ideal? if that is the ideal and what we should shoot for, then why would we have laws that say that is not the ideal?

why should we have laws that says we should give children less than that and that should be sufficient. that is not what is best for society, so why resetting of laws that are not best? take a one might argue the new hampshire legislature, even though the did not came -- campaigned on it, that they imposed their views two years ago on the new hampshire electorate. -->> one might argue that the new hampshire legislature, even though they did not campaign on it, that they impose their views two years ago on the new hampshire electorate. what do you want them to do? what is reasonable? >> first off, it decreed with the whole super committee concept. i thought that was putting a gun to your head and delegating to a committee that frankly, when i saw the composition of it, was

not particularly hopeful that we could see any kind of plan come out of it. >> who are the republicans on it? >> i know the senate republicans are kyle portland. >> you do not have faith in them? >> it is more the other side. it is a pretty strong ideological group. our side is the same way. perhaps a pretty tough and strong conservatives on our side. it was not a group that i saw as one that could come together with what i've think is reasonable, and that is looking at the problems that face this country. it is the revenue problem, too. the revenue problem is not tax rate. we have low tax collections right now. historically very low tax collections because we're not growing the economy. the objective should be how we

can grow the economy and reduce spending. it seems to me the democrats of gone in with the idea about how we can raise taxes and cut spending and forget about growing the economy. that is the problem we have. putting a committee together to try to accomplish that is fine, but the fallback is not fine. the fallback is a huge cut in national kirk -- national security spending. you should never play politics that way. that is the killer about this committee, it does do -- it can do substantial harm to our country. that is why i am not particularly optimistic that democrats that would like to see that happen see this as a big problem. >> what was your problem with secretary of defense gates? >> he was an advocate at the

time -- one of one or two people that voted against him -- >> two. >> ok, i voted against him because of his position on iran. as you will recall, i was pretty much at war with the administration back in 2006 having been offered an iran freedom of support act. this is a bill that would put a very tough sanctions on the nuclear program and have a fund to fund the democracy movement. the bush of ministration oppose me of that. when i introduced it, i could not get a single co-sponsor. within 18 months i was able to get 60 co-sponsors, but the administration was still insisting that we negotiate. bob gates was one of those people before he came to the association that was an advocate of that, that we need to engage iran, not confront them.

there was even a feeling they did not really up a viable and active nuclear program, which the intelligence i was gathering from other sources like israel was simply that is simply not the case in moving forward with that. i wasn't a big conflict with the administration. they announced they would in gauengage iran. the president and on the lease the rice said we would appreciate if you would not hammer us on this. i ended up offering a piece of legislation in june. joe biden block the vote on the floor of the senate for a week, and ultimately led ago after, police are rice wrote the letters in the administration opposed me. we lost by three votes on the floor. in the meantime, right before the election, we actually pass

the bill. it passed unanimously. the president signed after negotiations with iran collapse. i got unanimous support for a bill i cannot get any sponsor fours for two years earlier. i saw someone going in there who had a record of being a weekwean iran. >> his record subsequently. >> i think he did a better job than i thought he was going to do. i think he still saw the policy continue. the bill i proposed did impose the sanctions, but they never spent the money to try to develop any kind of relationship with folks. they spent the bush

administration -- the bush administration spent money in this country. when he came and he cut the money out completely. when the revolution came along, we had no nexus to any kind of real force that we could have been helpful to in a variety of different ways, but we have not developed those ties. as a result, they ended up with a ring and diane. -- they ended up withering and dying. if you look at all of the candidates in this race, no one has a track record like i do on this issue. i have been working on the issue for seven or eight years now. after i left the senate, i joined a think tank and the real reason i joined is because of my concern. meet the press, there was a debate we did with my upon in 2006. this was right in the middle of the iraq war.

he asked me the greatest national-security threat, and i senaid iran. he said you mean iraq? i said no, i mean iran. the people of pennsylvania said we do not want anything to do with this. it hurt me badly. i felt like i needed to do it, because i felt like this was a serious threat, a potential game changer for america and the region. i think it has proven to be the case. now we of the country that is developing a nuclear weapon, and i remind everyone, they have been holding holocaust conferences for years, and there is a reason for that. the whole reason for the existence in the state of israel is because what happened with the holocaust. we now have a country that has now convinced the majority of

muslims that the holocaust did not occur. they believe the holocaust did not occur. part of the reason is because iran and other countries have done to deny the very foundation for the existence of the state of israel. you of a country that has denied the existence for the state of israel and has said repeatedly that they believe that is legitimate -- legitimate part of the muslim world. he has referred to it in different ways similar for that. we have a very clear message from this country. we have all of the foundational support for why they feel that way, and now you have a nuclear weapon being developed, which

will provide them and nuclear shield so if they do support to what israel all, they will be protected from being attacked because they have a nuclear shield and no nuclear power has ever been attacked. or they will use the nuclear bomb themselves. to go to " your good buddy ron paul -- >> to quote your good buddy, ron paul, what is wrong with the chinese? >> the russians and the chinese, there is a big difference. you could use nuclear destruction when your enemy believes the only thing in this world is this world. if your enemy believes that -- the president of iran has given many speeches talking about the number one virtue. it is basically killing yourself or dying for the service or the

cost. it is a culture and our religion and a government that is focusing on the next world, not this one. if you read the theology, there is some rather troubling -- troubling things about what they believe will happen when and if they have this armageddon-type exchange with the state of israel, and the assumption is the united states would be involved in that. you have a very different government. you have a very different enemy. this work here, it will work here. no, because they are fundamentally different groups of peeper -- people. people say these people are crazy, i cannot believe what they are saying about the 72 virgins. i cannot believe any of this

stuff. well, just believe you cannot believe it, does not leave -- mean they cannot believe it. >> having called the followers of ron paul simplistic, i am gathering you're not trying to carve out those voters? >> i know you follow politics very closely. i do not think anyone would ever accuse me of trying to carve out niches of people for political purposes. i lay out exactly why i say what i do and why i believe it. i have a lot of folks who like ron on a lot of the economic issues that are conflicted with me and have concerns about him. they are more isolationist, but i think they have real concerns about his view on are wrong. -- on iran. >> you define the problem very

well. inevitably the uc any alternatives to military confrontation? what happens after you take the oath in january of 2017? >> if we have not had a military confrontation already, and i do not know -- there's a report coming out in the next day or two, but certainly the leads are ominous. if you had a country in central america that was and the things about america that iran says about israel, an illegitimate country because we took away from the native americans and have no right to be here, and that we are a terrorist nation and oppress our people and that is our vision that america be wiped off the face of the map, and the country starts to develop a nuclear weapon, do you

think the united states will step aside and said that is okay? you cannot talk to these people. there is no but issued in with these radicals. as a result, we have to stop them from giving this capability. that is why i pushed a very tough sanctions bill. it looks like we are beyond the point where sanctions can have much of an impact. and it means if all of this turns out to be the case, i have been very clear. israel has an obligation to protect their country and their existence. and i do not think there is any question they made it pretty clear that a nuclear iran is an impossibility. a nuclear iran and this but -- the survival of the state of israel will not be compatible. they will have to act. the question is whether we will work with them, stand on the sidelines, or whether we will actively oppose them?

it is not just our allies in the region, it is to the entire middle east and to the world at large. the idea that iran will not lead to a saudi arabia with a nuclear weapon or turkey with a nuclear weapon or may be others -- you have muslims little not -- that will not sit on the sideline with them radical regime with a threat to use it and feel comfortable in that neighborhood. >> [inaudible] >> i do not think we're talking about u.s. troops. we're talking about strikes on nuclear facilities. we certainly have firepower in the gulf, and is clear -- israel has the firepower to carry out the mission. >> we are dealing now with multinational companies that

have plants overseas as well as here. they not only go to where it is cheapest to produce the goods and not get tax on them, but also, they do not have any particular reasons -- allegiance to the united states of america or fundamental goals you have been talking about for the past few minutes. how do you get the economy back to anywhere where it was before when you have such low labor costs overseas and absolute ignorance of environmental laws and regulations? i do not think the have ocean and china. how do you do it? >> if you look at the cost differential between the united states and our nine largest trading partners, which includes china obviously, there is a 20 percent signed differential in cost according to the national manufacturers association. 20% difference in cost about

what those nine trading partners have versus the united states. if you look at -- if you say how can we eliminate the 20 percent signed so labor becomes the only variable and you recognize it is a high labor intensive manufacturing process, then all likelihood america will not compete, and what you're finding is in china they are losing jobs to other countries that have cheaper labor now in china does. it is always about the cheaper labor costs. we may keep some of these companies because their locally owned, but the big as you mentioned, they will not stay here. what we need to do is focus on the non-high labor intensive of businesses and manufacturers, which there are a lot of. most manufacturing is not height labor-intensive. the way to do that is not as some have suggested that we have

a terrible war but a war on the currency -- a war on the currency with china, but we go out and compete. we eliminate the cost differential by labor regulations. i have put together my 0-0-0 plan. there is a marketing guy out there that i picked it up from. we have four zeros. 35% tax, theothe effective rate is probably half that. which ise talking 17%, a pretty big cost differential. i 0 out every regulation the obama administration has been in place the cost businesses over $100 million. repeal some of them in rewrite the others that works with the business to make sure we can comply with osha and comply

with regulatory bodies and still be able to be competitive. zero out the repatriation tax that is in place right now. i am reducing it to 5.25% for every dollar that comes back, which is pretty but standard. we did it in 2004, and i was one of authors of that. zero it out if you invest the money here in america. we provide an extra incentive to bring the money back to start a manufacturing facility or expand when you have here. four, zero out every subsidy for energy in america. treat every energy business -- >> including ethanol? >> eliminate the colt classification. to tax credit for oil and gas. get rid of those. -- two tax credit for oil and

gas. i know there is for wind and solar. we're not doing a lot of hydro plants. there's certainly no subsidy for nuclear. you face them out, be fair to the business. we ever rule of law here. as those out over five-year amount of time. let the marketplace work, and open up drilling in north and south dakota and alaska and other places. build the pipelines necessary to get our oil and gas where they need to go, and have a regulatory environment that is conducive. you do those things, you will wipe out the 20% differential in create stable natural gas prices, which is very attractive. one of the big advantages we have in going to china, and you hear this from a lot of

manufacturers, is intellectual property rights. you can protect your investment here by not having your technology stolen when you go over there. that is one of the big problems they have. they have issues with respect to transportation costs and the like. there is a reason for america to have hope that we can get a lot of those jobs back, not just to have made in america, but to be an economy that is exporting economy much more robustly and be able to send our goods from around the world. >> what should be doing about the cyber warfare that is being conducted in china? >> i work on that issue in the senate armed services committee. i put some earmarks and placed on the defense authorization bill to force cyber security. this was just a new threat out

there, and i happen to have a university in my hometown of pittsburgh, carnegie-mellon, which is, i would argue, the number one at cyber security university research and a center that does cyber security. and i have worked at this for a long time, and it is a very serious threat to our country, and one we are simply not as prepared for. what we found is the government's role is to be in the character of the private sector, not to try to do it themselves. we provide the kind of cutting edge technology, just like at fault if you will. this will not come out of the government. this is such a dynamic marketplace. you have so many smart people who come up for these innovations that we need to be in a place where we can foster that activity and try to harness

it for the purpose of using it in the government. that is a system which created out there. i want to make sure it is properly funded and anchorage in the private sector and has the ability to operate in that environment. -- i want to make sure it is properly funded and encouraged in the private sector and has the ability to operate in that environment. you could make the argument that when attacked, and it is hard to trace these things come up but to be able to respond, yes, you have to be careful about how actively you engage in the activity, but the principal thing is to have defensive capability. have been knocked into capability if necessary if a major attack is launched or successful to be able to respond in kind. i am very public when i was in the senate that we should

develop this and let the chinese know we're working on this so they know there is a cost that attacking the united states would have a retaliatory feature. >> mr. kline. the silent older spokesperson. >> you talk a little bit about judges, and we'll talk a little but about policy in the ninth circuit. talk a little bit more about this. would you limit judge terms? >> i am not for term limits of justice and justices.

i am not a huge fan of them unless it is absolutely necessary to prevent something that would be catastrophic for our country. i am not sure term-limit of judges would be that type of issue. the answer to your question is it would focus on trying to reestablish the founders' intent that every branch of our market has the right to say what is constitutional. there is nothing in the constitution that says the judiciary is the supreme branch of government and should be able to make determinations and the other branches of government have no ability to counter those. that is where we are with activist judges who have handed down decisions and basically handcuffed the congress and the president from doing anything differently. it is not in the constitution, and would not even be in the

earlier court cases that ceded the authority to the court to determine what is constitutional and what is not. it was a practice that was in place, and it was not just passively, but overtly suggested, which is something called judicious restraint that they would not impose their values on the constitution and say this is what the constitution says because this is what we wanted to say, but they should nearly construe the opinions to decide the case and let the peoples branches of government have the constitutional debate or discussion at in the public square. that has changed. one place that has changed most dramatically is in the ninth circuit. certainly over three-quarters of writeecisions are granted grea by the supreme court

that are overturned. if you look at the founders -- i always ask this question to folks at town hall meetings, i say what is the most important branch of government according to the founders, and obvious answer is the one the part first, the congress. -- the one they put first, the congress. the second article, second-most important branch, which is the executive branch, smaller and more defined powers commercially nationally security oriented. the third is a very small section that establishes a core. it does not give them all whole lot of powers and responsibilities. that branch of the government to hold over the other two is a corruption of the constitution and damaging to the democracy and the republic. what i am trying to do is send a

message that we are going to do things differently. we're calling to confront the court when we think they are wrong, just like i did when we were in the united states senate. the supreme court struck down a bill that i was a principal author of. it did not strike down my bill because we were never able to get it passed, but it struck down a similar bill from nebraska. when president bush went to office i went to work with the house judiciary committee. folks wanted to push back, as i did, and we were able to draft a bill that laid out almost identically the bill that nebraska was laying out. foundation we what we did was lay out an argument and said we're going to pass this bill, tell the course they are wrong -- courts they are wrong. they reversed their decision. i think it is important for

congress and the president when the supreme court it the wrong, and they are no more perfect than any other branch of government, that the other branch of government cannot sit on the sidelines and wait for another court case to come up and hope that they change their mind or wait for us to put a new justice on the court that may swing the majority one way or another. we have an obligation to say we have an obligation under the constitution to say what we think is constitutional, not just what you think is constitutional. >> [inaudible] a president who does not quite agree with this. all things very about what is constitutional in the court. isn't that a recipe for chaos? because john marshall is wrong and the supreme court does not ultimately decide -- >> there is a difference between ultimately deciding and imposing

of -- their values and legislating or executing from the bench. i have no problem if the court practices judicial restraints and says we believe that this provision is wrong for -- and i know a lot of cases come up with the one i know the best is the issue on gay marriage, for example, which was at lawrence vs. texas. the united states supreme court -- i said prior to that but the court can find it unconstitutional under equal protection grounds, and i can go into the details, but it applied to the sodomy statute differently depending on who you were. depending on who you were sodomizing. i said if you did that, i would have no problem, if i was texas legislature, i would not have been voting for that. they said while we are here, we

also think it is unconstitutional because -- and then they went on. that is not -- if the statute is unconstitutional, and nearly craft a decision to accomplish what you want to accomplish, do not go on and say what we are here we're going to change the law and create a new constitutional right. that is not what john marshall intended. that is not one thomas jefferson signed off on. that is legislating from the bench. that is imposing values on the rest of the country, in the country should have the opportunity to fight that back, and we do not. we have taken judicial supremacy to the extreme. the president's need to exercise their constitutional right to be able to fight back. ultimately it will be decided in the courts. i agree with that. but we need to keep pushing, and we are not, and we need to do that. we need to establish the court

is not the final say when it comes to exercising their authority. >> did you win your case for the world wrestling organization on the matter of steroid use? >> time out. i want to correct the record. it had nothing to do with their reduced. -- with steroid use? . >> before you were in politics, you were a lawyer. one of your clients was a world rustler. >> i was a lawyer practicing law in pittsburgh. one of our clients was the world wrestling organization, because we defended a guide to a speed up a flight attendant. we ended up representing the client. the client was looking to try to change a statute in pennsylvania, so they worked with us as a law firm.

i said to you have anyone there, and they have this guy you had gone to lost -- law school in harrisburg and to some folks there. i was not lobbying or doing anything. i said ok, and might be fun. cool. ught it would be so i thought that would be a fun thing to do. practicing as a second your associate of big law firm is not exactly glitz and glamour. so i took on that responsibility come in here was the case. the kids was pennsylvania regulated rustling like a boxing match. you had referees' you have to pay the state. you had to pay timekeepers and all these people that were going to be there to collect the tickets to make sure the purse was given out. it was a throwback from

bristling 50 years ago when it was like a competitive sport like boxing. now it is not, it is entertainment. i will never forget some of these legislators saying in talking about this, i would say it is entertainment, not sport. their jobs would drop. it is like telling kids about santa claus. -- their jaws would drop. >> you mean it's not true? >> we would bring them back and introduce them to the wrestlers and show them what went on and show them these officials were paying outrageous amount of money for were sitting around playing cards and not doing anything and getting in the way because they would say we have to do things this way or that way. this is a show, certainly athletic. this is dangerous stuff. it is very dangerous, but it is

not a competitive sporting event. we deregulated it from a point of having officials there. >> one more question. penn state. should joe go? >> some friends of mine have read the indictment. i have not. i have just read the press reports, and i am sick to my stomach in a i am not sure i can read the indictment. i do not know gerry sandusky, but i certainly know of him. this is a guy come at least in my mind, before i knew any of this, who was a guy who was a great philanthropist, someone who helped children out. was seen as a solid citizen of not just the college, but of the state for all the work he did on

the second of project. i am sure it would not have entered anyone's mind that something like this could happen. so when someone says he is messing around with a guy in the shower, you say it cannot be that. i am sure he was just horsing around, because football and the locker room. i am sure joe said i will report it to someone and have someone investigate it. is it shows dropped to investigate it? maybe it was, i do not know. i am sure he is as sick and spend about it as everyone else. maybe he is not, and maybe he knows more in new more. he is not indicted in did not implicate him in any way. clearly the people who have the responsibility -- had the responsibility did a horrible thing. i am sure they are being

indicted because they lied about it, but the fact that they lead on this program and allowed something like this to happen -- again, i do not know joe's role, but obviously heads have rolled and probably more heads should roll. i did not know the facts and circumstances. i know him personally. there's just no better guy out there. i think it is tragic that given the one incident, given his relationship with this guy, the fact that he was not told any of the details according to what i have read, to say that somehow or another his career has now been sullied. i think that is an over reaction. i hope it is an overreaction. i do not know all the details. from what i know, it is an overreaction, and certainly his program, his legacy has been changed.

that is a devastating blow to all of us. >> i am sure whoever wins the nomination, you will support if it is not you? >> yes, i said that. >> herman cain as well? >> this has to play out. i just do not know enough about what is going on to be able to make a value judgment at this point. i think it will have to play out for a while to make the determination. he certainly is a dynamic guy and dynamic speaker and great marketer and charismatic figure, and let's hope his side of the store is exactly what happened. it is hard in these types of situations to find out what really is the truth. you would like to think he is telling the truth and these

things are in fact baseless. >> we need to wrap it up. >> i think we are good. i think it was pretty much covered. i will look up your program on taxes. we have not on the tax policy. i know you are no fan of the nine-nine-nine plan. >> i am not. i look at it this way, that even a flat tax -- people say we need a flat tax and progressive taxes are the problem. well, even a flat tax they try to make progress appeared that they create exemptions for lower-income people. as long as you have lower rates, that is really the issue. you have to have simplification. the plan i put forward has five exemptions and exclusions from the personal rate, which is charities, healthcare, int

children, and everything else we make it a simpler tax system with irs becomes a smaller organization. i am not opposed to fundamental tax reform, to really change the entire system. and i think doing that in a time of economic recession and huge budget deficits, you do not know what you're going to get. the idea we're went to have a tax plan that may result in a trillion dollars less revenue at this time when you're 1.4 trillion in debt is not something i am particularly excited about. i think i think you have to have something that will create more revenue than all of our expenditures, because we are growing the economy. the idea of that being a brand- new, newfangled idea, and you can say we are getting rid of the irs -- let's have that debate when i'm running for

reelection. right now this economy is sick. we need to do something to make the economy well. for example, wiping out the -- what is the housing thing -- digit interest rate deduction. you wipe that out and have a flat tax, what is going to happen to the housing crisis in america? they will go down. we subsidize them, and thethat s why they will go up. now we have folks -- 1% of mortgages in this country -- 20% of mortgages in this country are under water. maybe 30, 40, 50 -- who knows? not that i am a huge fan of the common interest deduction -- there is good cause to ratchet it down and it only apply to certain homes in certain amounts of money.

do that now, given the state of the economy, i just think makes no sense. we have to go with something that is not as flashy but is solid and will work and can pass and can actually get this economy moving. for example, the fair tax -- i am not an opponent of the fair tax. the idea of having a consumption-based tax as opposed to income tax rate is an interesting theory and it makes a lot of sense, but to go through that debate now have the two-year debate on the fairfax -- we have to pass something now. to have a big debate on fundamental tax reform -- is is not -- 9-9-9 gets you popular -- i am running for president because i want to put plants together that are actually going to work for america, not to have a fancy slogans that are going to win you votes. in the end, they don't win the

votes, because once everybody analyzes the plan, they say, " with a minute, we need to think about this again at." i always say i am the candidate that is like the guy at the dance that all the girls may pass by and see other guys that are better looking, has more bling in his outfit, but when it comes to carrying somebody, i'm a pretty good guy to settle down with, a pretty solid, as a good track record of doing that, can actually win races. not the hunk, but he is the guy that we know is going to be there and provide good, stable foundation for our country. >> you do that dance halls? -- that at dance halls? >> well, no, not for 22 years now. >> senator, we thank you very

much for coming in. we try to do this with candidates to let our readers have a better picture of them. we appreciate anybody who comes to new hampshire and recognizes the primary. it is important. saidll, it is, and i've this in new hampshire, you guys play an incredibly important role did not the candidate with personal money or a lot of financial backing behind them, you really do give the candidate, the person, his ideas and record, the opportunity to be successful, because it is ideas, it is the person, it is the face-to-face, that really makes a difference in these states. you say you are not doing well in the polls. well, the people of new hampshire have not made a decision yet. all the days i've been here and the town hall meetings are going to make a difference, and i really believe in my heart that

it will make a difference and new hampshire will prove itself again, as iowa will, where they do the job of picking the guy for president. >> thanks for coming in. john has to go to work now. >> where do you go? >> just hanging out -- >> you around thursday night? to to see -- get to see your good buddy biden. >> see more videos of the candidates at c-span's website for campaign in 2012. from recent events to the earliest parts of their campaigns, read at the latest comments from candidates and political reporters, social media sites, and a link to c-

span's media partners in the early primary and caucus states, all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> president obama signed an executive order that aims to promote more efficient spending in the government. overall, spending will be reduced by 20%. this is about five minutes. >> from the day i took office, one of the commitments i made it to the american people is that we would do a better job in washington in rooting out wasteful spending. at a time when families have cut back and made tough decisions about getting rid of things they don't need in order to make investments that they do, we thought it was entirely appropriate for our government to root out waste, large and small, in a systematic way.

obviously, it is more important given the deficits that we have inherited and that have grown as a consequence of this recession. this makes these efforts even more imperative. this doesn't mean making t -- does mean making tough choices. if it means cutting programs that i think are worthy but we may not be able to afford now. i know the joint committee on -- trying to reduce our deficits engage in very difficult conversation now, and we want to encourage them to complete their work. in the meantime, we don't want to wait for congress to do something about wasteful spending. cutting waste makes government more efficient and is something that leaders in both bodies work on, from senator tom coburn, republican, democrat claire

mccaskill. we have not seen as much action out of congress as we would like, and that is why we launched our own initiative, the campaign to cut waste. not just to cut spending, but to make government work better for the american people. we have identified a thousands of government buildings that we don't need. we are getting rid of those properties. that is going to save at the american people billions of dollars. as part of this campaign, i've also asked a federal employees to share their ideas for making government more efficient and effective. two of them are here today. roger works at the department of commerce. raise your hand, roger. he found a way to save the department almost $2 million a year, and i am sure there are consumers who would like to talk to him and find out what the bank can save on their cell phone bills. [laughter]

celeste, raise your hand. celeste works at the department of homeland security, and she is saving taxpayers millions of dollars by changing the way we get services. i just completed a video conference with the four finals of our annual save award. 20,000 submissions on how we can preduce waste and eliminate redundancy. tremendous idea is -- putting books we order ever your online instead of a continuing to incur the shipping costs, to have a tool library at nasa said that instead of buying specialized tools over and over again for different projects, we keep an inventory of those

tools. in addition to soliciting ideas from federal employees, i have also tasked vice-president biden to work with the secretaries of our agencies to identify systemic areas of potential improvement -- travel, transportation, i.t. services, all of which could save us billions of dollars. in september, joe convened the cabinet, and pushed them hard. today i am signing an executive order that build on their good work. it directs agencies to slash spending in each of these areas -- travel, printing, i.t. -- because we believe we can get better results for less using technology. overall, spending in the areas covered by the executive order

will shrink by 20%. members of my cabinet will keep reporting on the progress to joe biden and ultimately to me. we will hold them accountable for meeting this 20% reduction goal. these are important steps that will save taxpayers billions of dollars over the next several years. it doesn't replace the importance of the work that congress needs to do in coming up with a balanced and old plan to reduce our deficit. but it indicates once again that there are things that we can do right now that will actually deliver better government, more efficiently, more consumer- friendly, for less money. we will keep on finding every possible way we can do that, even if congress does not act. with that, i am going to sign the bill. i want to thank all the officials behind me here today for taking this project so seriously.

there you go. thank you very much. >> here is a quick look at our live programming for the rest of the day across the c-span and networks. we will be live in about 15 minutes on c-span as the senate foreign relations subcommittee looks at the u.s. policy toward syria. treasury as the datand state det officials testified. c-span2 has live coverage of the senate. senators are considering whether to block an fcc robinette neutrality. c-span at3 will be live -- cspan3 will be live with their radio show, with the guests chris christie, newt gingrich, jon huntsman, and ron paul. >> i want you all to know, those

who you wanted me to run so badly, those of you who were terribly disappointed, that i am doing the right thing. >> i believe that 1984 shows the united states in the strongest position in years, to is published a constructive and realistic working relationship with the soviet union. >> with every program since 1987, the c-span video library is the definitive source for online public affairs. now there is a new way to access our programming to download and listen to mp3 audio for every c- span program. listen to what you want, when you want, where you want. >> up next, a look at the latest in the race for president from today's "washington journal."

guest: it has been a week of relentless attacks and things that trickle out, and that is a problem in politics, when you have a story that won't go away and everything feeds the beast. the problem with herman cain is that despite the fact that he held a press conference, another allegation -- not another allegation, but someone who was previously anonymous came forward. this person seems to be credible. that is much more concerning to cain than anything he said in the conference. this is someone who was a 10- year public servant, someone who seems to be very credible right now. she has not been fully vetted by the press or anything like that, but i think that once you start to associate a real person, a real face, as opposed to the anonymous accusations, it becomes much more troubling for

cain. host: talk about the setting. guest: right. interesting choice for herman cain. i'm still trying to decide if it was a smart move or not. a lot of times when a politician does a press conference, it is to announce a resignation or admission of guilt. it is a public ceremony of thing that for some reason the public wants to hold people and punish them publicly. a lot of times, when politicians want to dismiss or something, they pick one reporter, may be "60 minutes" or "20/20" or whatever it is. herman cain chose the press conference. i don't know if it necessarily hurt him to i think a press conference is largely irrelevant. the real problem is that these things continue to trickle out. host: one thing he did address squarely is the topic of sharon bialek and, at least in his opening statement, he talked

about his reaction. we will listen to it and get your reaction. >> we are not going to allow washington or politics to deny me the opportunity to represent this great nation. and as far as these accusations causing me to back off and maybe withdraw from this presidential primary race, ain't gonna happen. because i am doing this for the american people, and for the children and grandchildren. and i will not be deterred by false, anonymous, incorrect accusations. host: matt lewis? guest: he sort of tone it down a little bit what i found interesting is that early in the

day, the campaign issued a press release attacking the credibility of ms. bialek, talking about paternity suits, the fact that she was a defendant in several lawsuits, that she fought for bankruptcy. it really a sort of character assassination. the question is whether or not that is relevant. clearly, the cain campaign decided to go after her credibility to undermine it. it is every possibility that she could be -- is very possible that to be a statue person and yet be a victim in this period is a risky strategy. the other problem is that it's sort of reminds people of bill clinton. this the third instance where people have associated cain with clinton. we had at the moment where he was sort of parsing what "is" is, and then you have to james carville, his famous line about

dragging it $100 bill for a trailer park. yesterday, during a press conference, herman cain talks about a democrat machine, which reminds people of hillary clinton, "ask right-wing conspiracy." -- "vast right-wing conspiracy." clearly he is taking a page from the clintons. host: you said a risky strategy. what goes off in your mind when he talks about a lie-detector test? guest: first he said he would take it, and then he sort of walk it back. i think the public generally, if someone says they are willing to take a lie-detector test, that may be reassures them.

we still have and he said, she said the situation here. there is no proof, as far as anyone knows, whether or not cain is guilty. what we can do is judge what do we like him as though, do we trust the accuser -- do we like in this bill, do we trust the accuser? it is still a gut thing right now. this isn't a legal question anymore. this is a political question. facts matter less than the one in a legal. herman cain's credibility has never been based on experience, it has never been based on -- some politicians build a foundation on authenticity, experience, expertise herman cain has always been about likability. people like him, and that is the reason this is so concerning. if people cease to like him, the entire rationale for his campaign goes down the drain.

we could be dangerously close to that. host: matt lewis is a senior contributor to the daily caller. guest: go to it now. i highly recommend it. it is a website started by tucker carlson. many remember him from his days at cnn and msnbc. it is center-right. is a very fun place to work i am happy to be there. host: alicia, you are on with matt lewis. caller: good morning. at first i thought maybe herman cain was guilty. now i have my doubts, because i heard that the one woman coming out works for the obama administration. well, why are all of these women waiting until herman cain is up there on the plateau as the big

banana, as you can say? why now? why are all these women coming out now? could you answer that, sir? not only that -- host: why don't we leave it there, and let our guests respond? guest: i think she is referring to carry crushed our -- to karen. i believe she also worked in the bush administration as well. i don't think it is fair to read into that that she is a liberal partisan. i believe she is a registered republican, although she did donate $250 to the democratic party. she seems -- again, this is still new, she has to be vetted by the press, and if the press cannot do their job, the cain campaign will -- but she seems to be someone who did not seek

out the spotlight. she seems to be somebody who was drawn into it. she was outed by "the daily." why is this coming out now? it is because herman cain could be the president of the united states. he is a front-runner, if not is the front-runner, for the republican nomination. if you care about the direction of the country, it is important to vet all the candidates. i don't dismiss the notion that herman cain's republican opponent for pushing this story and helping us get out as well. host: short amount of time -- guest: happens in politics, and we are a few months until iowa guest: when i can it becomes more prominent and likely to win, these things come out of -- when a candidate becomes more prominent and likely to win, but these things come out of the woodwork. host: queens, new york.

caller: basically, i believe cain mess himself up by denying through acquisition. you can understand that when a person makes one mistake you can deny two, but to deny all three of them, that kind of puts him in the guilty line. guest: sort of what he speaks to us here is whether or not you are denying three. the fact that three allegations exist becomes problematic. the public could dismissed that maybe one or two of these were disgruntled employees, but when you get numerous people coming forward, the public starts to say wait a minute. it is not just one person who had a chip on her shoulder or may be misinterpreted something, but we are seeing a pattern and a trend. the other problem is just the fact that these things trickle out one day at a time. it is an awkward metaphor, or analogy, but political strategists use it to teach this

principle. when you have a puppy dog and you cut its tail off, you can do it in one is sick or you can do it one piece at the time. -- in one snip or do it one piece at a tight if you are the puppy dog, you want one snip. unfortunately, herman cain's tale is being cut off bit by bit every day. that is not what you want. herman cain could probably have done a much better job had he early in the campaign, rather than allowing the allegations to come forward by "politico," he could approach another reporter, maybe somebody in the conservative journalistic community, and brought this forward, time did, it shows in his outlook, and framed the debate. instead, he is playing defense. host: with so much attention on mr. cain, and the candidates in

a debate, what are we expecting on policy issues? debate, is is cnbc's believe the solely focused on the economy. may not even ask him about this. this is his chance to move on, because it gives the press something else to talk about. the way that herman cain sort of moves on is out of his hands. the horse is out and he is trying to shut the barn door. the way the story goes away is for another, bigger story to come along. until that happens, the press will keep talking about this story. host: california -- mike, independent line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. it strikes me that the national

press does an excellent job on stories like the herman cain story -- that is, 10-year-old story about his hanky panky. it does a less credible job in covering stories about economics. it strikes me that the national press our keynesians, and they believe that if the government increases spending, that stimulates the economy, reduces unemployment, despite the fact that it has never worked. it came to light for me when ron paul was interviewed on "meet the press," windy david gregory -- when david gregory -- when dr. paul explained that in the wake of world war ii, president truman its last federal spending -- slashed federal spending and cut taxes, in the face of 10 million gi's joining the

economy, and that led to a boom in the economy, a reduction of unemployment, and within a year or so, the federal budget was actually in surplus -- host: your question to our guests, sir? caller: would you explain why there is apparent such ignorance about economics and recent american history in the context of actually asking intelligent questions of the presidential candidates? guest: well, tonight i do expect there to be some more intelligent questions about the economy. cnbc, of course, hosting this debate, focused on the economy. i think sex sells, so there is an incentive for the press to talk about these scandals because they get ratings and clicks. in the case of the herman cain instance, there is another reason this is important. it goes back to my argument about likability. herman cain presented his 9-9-9 plan. a lot of conservatives did not

like it, said it introduces a national sales tax. herman cain goes up in the polls. herman cain and then flip flopped on abortion, does not seem to know whether or not he is pro-life or pro-choice. conservatives cried foul, herman cain goes up in the polls. why? i think it is because his credibility was never based on being philosophically 100%, never based on being a culture warrior, never based on being detail-oriented and in terms of being a fiscal expert. it was always based on likability. that is why this story, i think, has legs and is damaging to him. i think it is my his republican opponents want to push this story, because it goes to the heart. in politics, people think you attack somebody's weakness. it doesn't work. what you is that you attack somebody's strength. that is what is happening now. herman cain's strength is his

likability, and they are going after that. >> you can see the rest of the discussion on our website, c- span.org. we are live on capitol hill this afternoon as the senate formulations subcommittee on middl near eastern affairs is holding a hearing. syrian president bashar al- assad is remaining in power despite calls from the international community, including the u.s., for him to step down.

>> hearing will come to order. i want to thank everyone for being here today. i will have an opening statement, and then we will go to the statement from our witnesses, and then go to questions. i want to thank everyone for being here today. the senate foreign relations committee meets today, and our subcommittee on near eastern and south and central asian affairs subcommittee meets to examine u.s. policy towards syria . we know that syrian men, women, and children have courageously, and that is an understatement, engaged in demonstrations for more than six months in their country. they see it democratic reforms and protections for human rights, but the assad regime has responded with terrible, unspeakable violence. the united nations estimates that more than 3500 people have been killed since the unrest

began in march of this year. over the past week, syriana's the third largest city of homs has been engulfed in perhaps the worst violence we have seen in syria this year. in just a week, more than 100 people have reportedly been killed. all this is coming during the muslim holiday, all this coming after months and months of repression and violence. perhaps most important of all, this comes one week after the assad regime agreed to an arab league deal for reform. in direct violation of this agreement, assad's forces have not removed tanks and armored vehicles from streets and towns across the country violence aimed at demonstrators has not stopped or even slowed. political prisoners, and there

are reportedly tens of thousands of them, have not been released -- neither international journalists and toward human rights monitors have been admitted into syria. assad made it clear to the world that he has no interest in or no intention to pursue democratic reform. in fact, he has proven to the world of democratic reform is now not possible while he remains in power. for months, i and others have spoken about this great the situation in syria. i shared accounts of a regime whose brutality at affects 22 million syrians, as well as my constituents in pennsylvania. i told the story before of a syrian-american who lives in suburban philadelphia. he was visited by his brother earlier this year. he is also a doctor and was not

engaged in politics of any kind. upon his return to syria, after visiting his brother, he was tortured and killed by assad's forces just for having visited the united states of america. the press has reported accounts of schoolchildren are arrested, parents and community members murdered, disappearances and mutilations all across the country of syria. in an august "washington post" op-ed, i wrote that mr. assad should step down from power. they have responsibility to bear witness to the truth and work against it. ambassador robert ford has taken on this critical task and represented the united states with honor and distinction. i would also add with remarkable courage. i applaud the work of his

ambassador -- the work of the ambassador and his top notch staff. we are grateful for their sacrifice and service. but we must continue to take specific and visible actions to support democratic reform. first, we need to make it clear to regime's supporters that their behavior will not be tolerated, and athey will be held accountable, just as the regime will be held accountable. the administration, working with european allies, should sanction more individuals within the regime who are complicit in the repression of protests. to date, the 17 individuals and 18 entities -- to date, 17 individuals and 18 entities have been sanctioned. the world needs to know their names, and they need to decide whether they, those who are and listen, will continue to aid and abet a regime that has killed thousands. this week i will send a letter

to the treasury department to urge the administration to expand the list of individuals to be sanctioned by the united states. the administration can do this by executive order and should do so as soon as possible. that is first. second, the u.s. must play a constructive role in isolated, or i should say continuing to isolate, the assad regime. i called for the establishment of eight friends of the syrian people contact group. this group can serve as the main point of international engagement for the democratic opposition and the syrian people. the arab league, the gulf cooperation council countries, and others could form the core of such a group. it would send a clear message of international solidarity and support of democratic change in syria. i hope that this suggestion would be seriously considered by

the arab league when it meets to discuss syria at this saturday. the u.s. should continue to fully support these regional efforts to pressure the regime. in its agreement with the assad government, the arab league continues to send international monitors to see firsthand the situation in syria. those monitors are needed now, not days or weeks from now, but now. the arab league should send them today. if assad blocks the deployment of these monitors, the arab league should suspend syria's membership in the organization. the united states should also pursue a resolution condemning the assad regime at the united nations. strong international opposition and committed to a isolating the bashar al-assad -- the assad regime is key to bringing about democratic reform. the united states senate as well

to support these efforts to isolate the regime . through our regular interaction with embassies in washington, individual senators can express concern about the ongoing violence and show support for democratic change in syria. third, the courageous syrian political opposition must work to communicate a unified vision for the future of the syria. this opposition faces many disadvantages that other protesters from across the region did not face. syria did not have a tahrir square in which two other members. they do not have open borders to find safe haven. they do not have the full attention of the international media, which have been barred from the country. despite these challenges, i believe that the syrian opposition will be involved directly in the country's

future. it is imperative that the syrian national council answer questions about its composition and its intent. who are the members of the syrian national council? where does it stand on the role of the international community in stopping the violence and supporting democratic reform? most importantly, how will minorities be treated in a post- assad syria? we have yet to hear a clear message from the opposition on the essential issues. the syrian national council must be committed to protecting all, the, of ethnic groups g syrian national council must speak with one voice and make it clear that they will advocate minority rights in the new government in hopes to create. the syrian people deserve answers to these key questions, which will in large part determine the degree of support the opposition has inside and outside the country. secretary of state hillary

clinton said in a speech on monday that assad "cannot deny his people's legitimate demands indefinitely. he must step down, and until he does, america and the international community will continue to increase pressure on him and his brutal regime." so said secretary clinton. my questions today will center primarily on how we can and will increase the pressure on this regime. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses on a number of key issues. first, what can regional powers, including the arab league and turkey, due to play a more constructive role in supporting the democratic reform process in syria? second, what is the impact of current u.s. sanctions on the assad regime? third, how is the united states working unilaterally and with the european union to strengthen the sanctions on syria? another question is how does the

u.s. assess the current state of the syrian national council? what are the criteria by which to this movement should be judged in order to gain international legitimacy? finally, what are the assessment of our witnesses are growing sectarianism in syria and whether it could lead to a civil war? we are fortunate to date to have with us two witnesses who can speak about u.s. policy in syria. the hon. jeffrey feltman, assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs at the department of state -- mr. feltman, we are grateful you are here. and luke bronin, deputy assistant secretary for terrorist financing and financial crimes at the treasury department, we are grateful you like your as well. these witnesses have extensive experience in the region. we are grateful for their

witness here today, their testimony today, and grateful for their service. i would say in conclusion, before turning to sender ri -- sen. risch, if he has opening comments, this is a matter of basic justice for the people that syria. a long time ago, st. augustine without justice, what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers?" the syrian people have been robbed of a lot of things. robbed of their dignity, robert sometimes of their life and their freedoms, -- robbed at some times of their life and their freedoms. we have to speak out with one voice on matters of basic justice for this country. i know there are a lot of americans that are deeply concerned about this issue. we are grateful that we have so many people here to listen to this testimony and to listen to the questions of our witnesses brought i am grateful for our colleagues being here.

ranking member risch, if he has any opening comments. >> thank you very much, senator casey. welcome to all of you. we have any issues that are important under the purview of this committee that deals with the near east and north africa. the questions and issues surrounding syria certainly are at the top of that list. all of us have watched -- not only us in this committee -- all americans, the world has watched as things have unfolded in the middle east and the arab world this spring. we have watched them play out, and now everything seems to be focused on syria. that seems to be where the un resolved, the current unresolve issues, are. there is a difference between

syria and what happened in libya. the opposition in syria is essentially unarmed, and as a result, they do not have the ability that the libyans had, the libyan people had come to do what they believed needed to be done. we need -- we is the united states -- need a policy that is clear, that we will do everything we can to cut off the sources of assad's finances, and the flow weapons, and do everything we can to isolate this regime. mr. ford, i agree with senator casey that mr. ford is the right person. i disagree with appointed him ambassador because assad had been so brutal with his people. having said that, i agree with the president that mr. ford is the right person for the job gues i think it is in the intert of every american, and indeed in the interest of the civilized

world, to isolate this regime as much as possible. this is a bipartisan issue. it is an american issue. i am anxious to hear the suggestions we get from the panel and hear about the efforts we are making in that regard, and all of us can communica -- can commit to move forward to do our best to isolate the regime, which will hopefully to the results all of us want to see. >> we will start with the opening statements and then we will go to questions. i spoke to both of our witnesses, and they agreed to keep within five minutes if they can. both of your fallston this will be made part of the record for this hearing. -- both of your full statements will be made part of the record for this hearing. >> chairman casey, ranking member risch, thank you for inviting us here to discuss our goals with regard to this year in a strategy -- the syrian strategy.

bashar al-assad is destroying syria and destabilizing the region. as secretary clinton said, the greatest source of instability in the region is not the people's legitimate demand for change, it is the refusal to change. an orderly democratic transition that m -- is clearly in the united states' interests, as it is in the interest of the syrian people. it will contribute to stability in the region and undermine iran's influence. our message to president assad can be summed up briefly -- step aside and allow people to begin a transition to democracy. we would like to see this transition proceed as quickly as possible, but we should be prepared for the process, unfortunately, it to be long and difficult. much has already changed since the unrest began eight months ago. internally, a large and growing number of the syrians have concluded that assad must go.

protests started in the remote village of dara and now take place in every city and village and town in the country. for the regime to maintain power, the syrian army has had to occupy its own country. the regime's overwhelming use of force has not been able to suppress syriana's courageous street protesters demanding the universal rights. internationally, syria is increasingly isolated as the international community loses brutalityith assad's and broken promises. nearly all of that syria's neighbors recognize that assad is dangerously at fomenting instability, and that is why we find it is unusual arab league and leadership on a country that is considered very important politically and strategically in the arab world. the arabs want assad to stop destroying syria. the gulf cooperation council described the regime as "a killing machine."

after years of strengthening ties with syria, turkish president erdogan said, "goes to suppress their people will not survive. the rule of the people is coming." the coverage has destroyed assad's standing in the street. he has become a pariah in the arab world. almost all of the arab leaders i talked to say the same thing -- coming to anis end. is inevitable. some of these arabs have even begun to offer a safe haven to encourage him to leave quickly. we welcome the efforts of the arab league to stop the violence, but the regime must be judged by its actions, not by its words. the killing, as you said, mr. chairman, has continued unabated. we urge our arab partners to assume a greater role in exerting international pressure, including at the u.n.

economically, sanctions and financial mismanagement by the syrian regime are changing the countless of syria pasta business elite. oil revenue is now almost nonexistent. the regime's access in the unites states and european banks has been frozen. syria is cut off from most of the international financial system. as cash starts to dry up, more syrians see that the regime is not sustainable. a problem and our international efforts, ambassador ford, as both of you mentioned, and his team are doing courageous work. thank you, committee, for confirming him. he is currently on leave and will return to the post soon. overall, we are following a deliberate course that takes into account unique circumstances. the best way forward is to continue support for the non- violent opposition while working with international partners to further isolate, further

pressured the regime. this creates an environment in which the syrians to take control of their own future. you mentioned at the syrian national council. we welcome the establishment of the syrian national council, a broad coalition of opposition groups from inside and outside syria. when you consider that of the past 40 years, syrians have been prevented from engaging in any political activity, what the opposition has already achieved is truly remarkable. we in the united states have not endorsed any particular opposition group. the syrian people alone will decide who can legitimately represent them. the opposition must continue to expand and consolidate its base within syria by convincing more syrians of the legitimacy of its vision and transition plan, which demonstrates that there is a better alternative to assad. we understand that the syrian people need to protect themselves. a violent resistance is counterproductive. it will play into the regime's

hands, it will divide the opposition, it will undermine international consensus. to create better protection for civilians in the near term, we are pressing for access to human rights monitors and journalists. we will relentlessly pursue our strategy of supporting the opposition, and diplomatic and financially pressured the regime until assadis gone, and until the syrians are able to complete the democratic transition. assad made for his brutality be able to delay or impede this -- may through his brutality be able to delay or impede this transition, but he cannot stop it. >> thanks very much. mr. bronin? >> chairman casey, ranking member risch, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i am pleased to join assistant secretary of state feltman. we have a great relationship

with the state department and the state department's syria at team. i would like to review the role of financial sanctions in our strategy. since the syrian uprising began in march 2011, president obama has issued a three executive orders. the first, and april, targets of those responsible for human rights abuses in syria. the second, in may, it directly sanctions president assad and senior members of his regime. the third, signed in august, imposes a full government blocking program providing all transactions with the government of syria, freezing regime assets, banning the export of services to and investment in syria, and banning dealings in assyrian oil or petroleum. each executive order delegates to the treasury the authority to designate additional entities, and we have made full use of that authority to target insiders and to deny the regime the resources it needs to

sustain its continued repression. since the uprising began, we have designated more than three dozen individuals and entities. our actions have targeted insiders and officials, such an assad advisor, a foreign minister, and a prominent businessman and frontman for crop officials. -- corrupt officials. we have imposed sanctions on the largest mobile phone operator in syria, owned by an assad crony. we have designated intelligence, syrian air force intelligence, all deeply complicit in the brutal use of violence against peaceful protesters. demonstrating the full range of the syria's illicit conduct, we used the existing authority to target the commercial bank of the syria for providing financial services to syrian and north korean entities that facilitate weapons of mass destruction proliferation.

and we have used our authority to highlight the role of iran, designating the head and deputy head of the islamic revolutionary quds force and iran's law enforcement forces for assisting the regime's brutality. iran claims solidarity with the popular movement sweeping the arab world today, but iran's real policy is plain -- to export to syria the same repressive tactics employed by the iranian government against its own people. has been steadily increase the pressure on the assad regime, we have done so in close coordination with our allies around the world. like the u.s., the eu as is needed numerous officials and insiders, are prohibited investment in this year in energy sector, frozen the assets of the commercial bank of syria, and if implemented a ban on the importation of the syrian oil and gas to europe. the back of these coordinated,

multilateral measures has been profound. today, the government of syria finds itself increasing -- finds it increasingly difficult to access the international financial system. its ability to conduct trade in dollars has been severely constrained, and it has been deprived of its most significant source of revenue. the eu previously accounted for more than 90% of syria's crude exports. as a result of the eu's dan, that market has effectively been eliminated, and despite their efforts to find new buyer -- is, find new markets, there at the present seem to be fueling the fires. iran it's always under pressure from wide-ranging -- iran itself is under pressure from wide- ranging international sanctions. working in concert with our allies, we have used our tools to sanction assad and sent his regime is clear message -- your reprehensible actions have

consequences. continued repression of popular dissent will only increase your isolation. we will continue to identify individuals and entities that are complicit in the assad regime's abuses. we will expose, target, disrupt the regime's sources of revenue and support, and will continue to engage our partners around the world, urging them to block this. 's access to alternative oil markets, -- to block it syria's access to alternate oil markets. i look forward to begin doing our work with this committee, i am happy to answer questions -- to continue our work with this committee, and i'm happy to answer questions you have. >> mr. feltman, first of all, i want to ask you about the region, and in particular, maybe we can review a couple of countries in the region that can, should, and will play a role in this. let me start with turkey.

in your statement, in your full statement, you mentioned some of the parts of the statements that prime minister erdogan has made. you said in your statement that he believes the opposition will be successfu and -- successful in "their glorious resistance to the crackdown." certainly is helpful when you have any burris saying that. -- you have a neighbor saying that. i guess i would ask you a couple -- a broad question, and then more specifically -- number one, on this idea of the contact group, how do you assess that, and is there any effort to be undertaken by the state department or the administration to move that ford, a contact group?

that is in the broad question. the second, more specific question, is what about the role that turkey has played and can continue to play, and what can we do to move them from being somewhat constructed so far to being more healthful to put pressure on the regime and help in the region? does that make sense? i know this second question is not as specific as you may want it. >> we welcome your proposal for a contact group for the friends of the syrian people. in fact, we are running with it this idea. we are talking with others about it. i have a very senior colleague who is working on coordination with our european allies pretty much full time. i am in touch with the arabs. what we would like to do is try to get the arabs themselves to play a leadership role in this. propaganda tools

is, oh, this is just an outside plot. he needs to see that his brother arabs are participating with the contact group. we are exploring and we take the idea as a positive one. >> i think the fact that the arab league has now made an attempt that he seems to be kind of thumbing his nose at, for lack of a better description, there might add a sequencing problem, but the arab league has taken some action. i would hope that would set the table for what could be a broader effort. that is just an opinion i'm interjecting. >> we agree with you, senator casey. the committee, the arab league's committee that is dealing with this serious issue, headed by the qatari prime minister, includes several arab states. they our meeting on friday. the committee on friday will be discussing a number of options

to present to the ministers on saturday. we are encouraging them to look at the issues such as the contact group. we would very much hope that, given assad's clear rejection of their proposal, that they would help us with the security council on things like that. we agree with you that the arab league is playing an important role, and now is the time for the arab league to take some action. on a turkey, you raise an important issue. in its -- and is worth remembering that one of the assad family's foreign policy successes come in their own view, is that first of a father and then the sun were able to have with -- the son were able to have with turkey. they were close friends. they develop economic ties, political ties, diplomatic ties. it was a very positive

relationship from this year in perspective. that is in tatters at this point. when you have statements from the prime minister of turkey such as what i just described, you can see what has happened. they have provided basically a safe haven on turkish soil or syrian refugees. turkey is a posting somewhere between 70 508,000 refugees on turkish soil, protecting them from the assad regime that they fled separately, they are providing space for the opposition. there is little ability for these courageous activists inside syria to get together, because state and clearly have no rights for peaceful protest protest more freedom of speech. turkey is providing some space for the organization, for the opposition forces to meet to lay

out a vision. and turkey has, in essence, put on a defacto arms embargo to make sure that arms and not flowing through turkey thathat que to usee clic against their own people. there is a lot of trade between the 2 countries. there are turkish traders. that is all dried up because of the instability in syria. but we are in close contact with turkey on all of these matters. >> what would you hope that they could do in the next couple of weeks to be constructive?

given the fact that the economic trade between the countries is dropping, which would allow them to join the european union and us and japan and canada. >> that is very helpful. >> in your comments, at least the hand was that we need to will buckle up and get ready for the long haul. is that the results of the assessment that the people will have a difficult time, the they are essentially on armed in their attempt to overthrow the government? -- essentially unarmed in their attempt to overthrow the government? >> part of this is based on my

own awareness, predictions of what will happen in the arab world do not always pan out. there is the question of the unarmed protests. it is incredibly courageous what these syrian opposition figures, these protesters are doing every day. they are facing incredible brutality from a government that is basically a family-led mafia that has hijacked the state. if they come out every day, day in and day out. they're more demonstrations now than in the beginning of this. they are in every town, every city across syria. but what assad is trying to do is turn this peaceful movement into an insurgency. what confounds him is this

phenomenon of protesters yelling "peaceful" and shopkeepers closing their shops in solidarity with the protesters. despite the tremendous obstacles they're facing, the key to the principles that they subscribe. -- they keep to the principles that they subscribe to. we think it would frighten the minority if it becomes a large movement. it would lead them to believe that the chaos after assad would come true. none of us question the desire by the syrians to exercise in

self defense against the kind of retaliation they are facing. but right now, their strength is in the peaceful protest. -- they deny sure mushar. he is facing people who are demanding their legitimate right to great courage. >> how long can they hold up? >> i do not know. it is one of the reasons why i think that the arab leaders have started taking such an active role because they do not want them to see him destroy syria. he cannot last when you have the kind of isolation that was described. when you see the pariah he has become. but he can certainly cause more deaths and cause a lot more damage. the best thing for him to do would be to exit the scene and that is what we're trying to

find a way to do. >> how would you compare the sanctions we have in place on syria to the sanctions we have in place on iran on a scale of one to 10 so we can get a feel of how they match each other? >> in both cases, we have imposed comprehensive, broad measures to isolate the regime. i would say there comparable. >> how about comparing those to what we did in libya when the chaos started there. is it comparable to what we did there? >> also comparable period in libya, an important distinction is that the -- also comparable. the action in libya was accompanied by action globally, which magnified the impact in libya greatly.

in syria and iran, we're trying to create a broad and comprehensive coalition. >> i am not asking for anything classified, but what can you tell us about your expectations? year after year, we have all seen sanctions on iran, for instance. the regime seems to be able to withstand a whole lot of pain in order to hang onto power. how do you assess where we are headed in syria as far as the regime's ability to survive just as iran is? >> i would hesitate to speculate on a specific time line, but i would say that there are clear indications that their financial resources are strained. they are in dire straits. their revenues have been dramatically -- not only because

of the action against their energy sector, but the impact of tourism industry in syria as a result of the violence. they have seen a dramatic drop in revenue. it is clear that they're having to draw down their foreign- exchange reserves much more rapidly than they would like. >> thank you. >> senator boxer. >> thank you. thank you for holding this important hearing. it really is a moment in time that we need to be heard. i hope that some of our voices will still be heard by the people of syria who are risking their lives every single day to just keep on keeping non, this battle that they are in. in a show of its two colors, president assad has responded with a vicious force rather than respecting the voices of the

syrian people. the un estimates that more than 3500 people have already lost their lives and thousands more injured and imprisoned and forced to flee. the syrian government has ordered syrian troops to fire on their own communities, orchestrated the torture of prisoners, some only children. in august, president obama rightfully said that, for the sake of the syrian people, the time has come for president decides to step aside. -- president assad to step aside. i had teamed up with senator demint to call for these sanctions, preventing all transactions between america and the government to syria and banning the importation of syrian petroleum. then the eu band the import of

petroleum. since they buy 90% of all syrian oil, that is a big deal. unfortunately, other members of the international community have failed to stand up against abuses.nt dassad's it is my understanding that despite vigorous measures, there have been unable -- according to the news reports, russia led the opposition. susan rice found -- i guess my question is did you speak to russia's opposition to any condemnation of the assad

regime? is it that they want to sell weapons? is there something more we can do? what is your take on it? >> thank you for the question. i will have to defer to my european -- the bureau of european affairs. what i can say, talking about serious, what the russians say is that they want a peaceful solution. fine. we want a peaceful solution. the russians said that they want the rest -- the violence to stop. fine, we wanted to stop. i would say that, for the purpose of this argument, let's take the russians at their word, but they are sincere. therefore, they should join us in allowing monitors, allowing media into the country. if they still pretend to believe assad's lies of that he is fighting bandits and terrorists,

let the monitors in. the monitors can report that and tell the world what is actually happening if they are bandits and terrorists, the media will show that. i do not believe the russians will be able to sustain their opposition to the syrian people indefinitely. >> i hear you. let me just say -- this is key. i would hope that we could all work together to craft some kind of message to the russians. this is critical. they are taking the lead on blocking any type of resolution. i have the second point i want to make. according to an amnesty international report, the syrian authorities "have turned hospitals and medical staff into instruments of repression in the course of their efforts to crush the unprecedented mass protests and demonstrations. people wounded in protests or other incidents related to the uprising have been verbally

abuse, physically assaulted in a state run hospitals. including by medical staff and in some cases denied medical care. the report cites expenses from a number of wounded protesters, including one shooting victim who said that a doctor at a state-run hospital told him, "i will not clean your wound. i am waiting for your foot to rot so we can cut it off." that is supposedly a quote from a doctor. this is what it doctor said to a young protester. "i remember hearing shrieks of pain," said the doctor, "so i walked to the voice and i saw a nurse soaring at a boy and his entry as she poured antiseptic on the injury that was intended

to add additional pain." what can you tell us about the denial of care to the injured protesters? in light of this, why have we not been able to use this to turn around the policies of russia and china? >> senator, it is mixed. because the media is not allowed, because there are restrictions on diplomats, we get a lot of information, but it could be very detailed in one area and very sketchy and other details. it is a very mixed picture. but it does provide enough of a

vision of what is happening in syria to confirm some of these terrific stories that you describe. i am sure that amnesty was able to get eyewitness reports. the information is getting out, despite the syrian best efforts to operate in doctors' -- operate in darkness, to operate in the shadows. how affective they are able to be in the medical sides, i do not know. they work very quietly and that is thinner goal. how is it that the syrians can be so courageous? day after day, they go out and protests appeared in a white family, friends, neighbors who have faced this kind of retaliation and they do not want to face it anymore. they are facing a regime that has hijacked the country with the sole purpose of just protecting the elite of that regime.

>> thank you very much. again, i will not ask you to answer the last point, but i hope we will take this to the russians and the chinese. >> thank you. senator lugar. >> i would like to focus on some of the comments you made on the international aspects of this, specifically with the international aspects with the neighbors. turkey now harbors a group of resistants. but the lebanese appeared to be very worried about an upset of their domestic situation spilling over. they fear the coming of a suny regime -- a sunni regime if the likes of syria cannot hang on.

the problem that is faced by israel, the israelis have expressed that they feel that syria was never a friend, but it was stable, a stable antagonist that was not bound to bring about attack. in the midst of all this, the united states, understandably, is concentrating upon the human rights dilemmas of individuals who want their rights in the country. it has been noted by some of our staff members in the largest

cities that there have been very few demonstrations. but in the hustings, there has been. this leads once again to feelings about sectarianism. mr. maliki worried that somehow, if the sunnis come out on top in this situation, it would be difficult for iraq. that would compound the situation as we withdraw. as you try to formulate policy, surely all of these things are on your mind. on the one hand, you have each of us wanting to do something to say people who are in the streets, indicating they would liked to have civil rights.

on the other hand, it could very well be that, as we demand the , we tip the assad an scales on this sunni business. given the air of spring and the current volatile situation and all sorts of other implications, under those circumstances, what is the policy we should adopt that tries to bring a degree of stability to the situation, even as we promote human rights, continued to espouse those things that we believe our most important? or will we be a tipping force of demanding action by the un or demanding action by sanctions of various sorts? already, the economy of syria

appears to have -- not drying up, but lost its oil. we have already had an effect. how much of an effect do we want to have? what happens to all of the surrounding territories if assad left? >> you are right that these play into all our thinking in syria policy all the time. a couple of basic assumptions we have is that -- what worries the lebanese is instability next door and how it will spill over. what worries the iraqis is the same thing. what worries the israelis is a variation of the same thing. the president has been clear, as the chairman was earlier, that is time for bushar to step

aside. he is causing the instability that worries the neighbors. he has gone past the tipping point, past the point of no return. the neighbors no longer look at him as the devil you know. they are recognizing with increasing vehemence that he is the cause of the instability of the most -- worries -- the cause of the instability that most worries them. and the opposition in syria is still divided. we think that what more unites them than divides them is the talk about the need for assad to go and the need for a more secular future where serious have equal rights under the law. but there is still a big organizational divisions. it is one of the things --

in our discussions, we meet with figures with the international council and talking about having to be able to articulate a credible plan, a credible vision that is practical, that shows people who are worried about what happens afterward, that you have a plan that is practical and and lamentable -- that is implementable. and is with the consent of those covered. in starting to do this, there has been some division tapirs put out, certain speeches given, but there is still a long way to go. >> during this long way to go, life goes on in syria as well as around. what i am interested in is the potential for chaos, the lack of people who have not formulated the new plans and have not come together at this point. >> you are right to be concerned, senator.

right now, the impending chaos is happening because of what' bushar is doing to his own people. there needs to be an end to the violence and an opposition that is inclusive, that is able to articulate a positive plan going forward. >> thank you. aheen.ator shekhin >> thank you for holding this hearing. i wanted to begin by commenting on your points about ambassador ford and the great work he has done in syria and commend him for that. i know all of us very much appreciate his courage and his working with the opposition. we certainly hope he will be back there very soon. >> thank you. >> can you talk about the

current relationship between iran and syria and how iran is playing into what is going on there right now? are they supporting assad? and to what extent? has about -- how does violence affect their view of what is going on? >> it is a very interesting topic. the short answer is yes. iran is certainly helping bushar. they are providing expertise, technical assistance to do bad things. they are providing equipment by which they can monitor opposition activity on the internet and stuff like that. as my colleague mentioned, the irgc sanctioned one of the executive orders this year, but

at the same time iran embarrassed. uc iranian leaders talking about the need to end violence in syria, the need for reform. this is completely cynical on their part because they do just as bad things to their own people. but it suggests to us that the iranian leadership recognizes that they want credibility across the arab world because of their support for this brutal dictator and that he might not survive and they have to start positioning themselves for the day after bushar. iran is in an interesting bond right now. they want to support him without losing their credibility in the arab world also tried to signal to the syrian people that, while we know he will lots of drive and we know that -- he will not survive and we know that he shouldn't be doing this to you. >> do we know about --

>> i am not really sure. i have not seen polling on that. but i will use your question the pullout something else that is interesting, error of polling. the has been enough over the years -- arab polling. there has been enough over the years to see. they were asked who is the arab leader outside your own country who you most admire? bushar had overwhelmingly come out on top. now that poll comes out and his numbers are rock-bottom. in morocco, 15% think he might survive. in egypt, it is 14%.

everywhere else, it is single digits. this is insolence the arab leadership. they have woken up to having to temper their public opinion. they are playing a much stronger role on syria than they would have a year ago. >> that does make sense. given the arab league effort to try to reduce the violence in syria, is there any belief that, if the violence continues that the arab league will take any action? will they sanction assad and the regime? is there any further effort that they think they might undertake? >> i mentioned this in my opening statement.

syria is considered to be an important part in the arab world for political reasons and historic reasons. it is a heavyweight in the arab world. arab leaders are trying to show that they can deal with a problem in their own backyard. they can deal with this rather than have to turn to the outside world to solve everything. it would be an embarrassment for them to do something to protect the syrian people at this point. when i spoke with the arab foreign ministers, there are a lot of ideas pig we're talking about perhaps they could asked -- a lot of ideas. they are talking about perhaps they could ask the united nations. perhaps the leader of syria has lied to them. his days are numbered. i look at the contrast to a year ago where he was lent an airplane to fly around the world and now cotter is heading

of the committee that is trying to find ways to take action in refusal toushar's commiserate with the arab -- the arab league has a lot of divisions inside it. i do not know what they can produce. in n.m. -- in a very important way, their own population is now on the line. >> to follow along with respect to turkey, in about 40 seconds that i have left, turkey obviously has made some strong statements condemning assad and the actions and violence in syria. are they prepared to undertake

any sanctions against assad? economic or others? >> i think it is hard to overstate turkeys break with syria. with syria.break we have seen remarks suggesting that they are considering additional measures, possibly including financial sanctions. we would welcome any such measures. also, we will engage with them to encourage them to do so. >> are we already engaging with turkey to encourage them? >> yes. >> thank you. >> senator rubio. >> clearly, their ambitions in the region are known and they are counter to our international interests and the

safety of the world. i do not think that stevens needs to be made any further. but you can elaborate a little bit more on how strategically since it is to iran, economically and to their military aspirations and the land bridge to the region. >> syria is essential to the extremely negative role that iran has been able to play in the region. take hezbollah. the transit routes for hezbollah is via syria. they use it to undermine the state of lebanon and destabilize the region. it comes via syria. syria is basically iran's only friend.

iran is syria's best friend. in fact, it is one of serious -- it is serious only remaining friend. i do nothing -- it is syria's only remaining friend. there attended be a few misguided lebanese politicians. what is happening on the ground in syria is important. our embassy reports that demonstrations on syria have, among other demands, an anti- hezbollah and anti-iran flavor to them. they know who is providing the assistance to their government to kill them, arrest them, and

torture them. they know that it is from iran and hezbollah. that means that a change that comes about with the consent of the people will not be the asset for iran that syria is today. it is not in their strategic interest to see that this change takes quickly. there has been mixed press reports for what the iraqis think and what is happening in syria and they are concerned by the instability. but iraq suffered grievously from what this regime did to them. the syrian regime facilitated, allowed syrian territory and airport for terrorists to get into iraq and blowup thousands of iraqis and our servicemen.

it would help iraq to have a difference syria next door. >> the goal of limiting and containing an defeating iranian ambitions for the region in the world, the loss of the assad regime would be a devastating blow. would that be accurate? >> yes. people talk about there could be another sort of assad in a palace coup inside. the government that comes in with the consent of the people would not be a friend to iran. >> is the regime were to fall, they would be left with another form of radical government or

religious minorities -- is their concern about that? what progress, whether it is the syrian national council or others, what is the potential for that to be lessened? >> it is a concern of everyone, including the opposition themselves. syria is one people. they're trying to show in practice that they recognize that the syrian national identity is composed of many diverse ethnic groups, etc. you do see al whites -- aloites, christians, muslims. the country is still heavily sunni.

but it needs to continue to articulate why is that bushar' s predictions of what happens after he leaves is wrong. they will have a proper role to play. the burden is on the syrian opposition. based on our own conversations with the minority groups, i do not think there are any illusions about bushar. they have seen him as a source of stability and they now believe that he is driving the country to ruin. >> i read the many sections we have placed around the world.

i have been aware for some time but there has been a flight from damascus to damascus -- to caracas that happens from time to time. is there any assistance to evading any of these sanctions? >> i cannot speak to any specific examples of financial support. assad regime issid looking for alternatives around the world. they have not found much success to date. >> as of now, we have not found any willing open participants in efforts to undermine our efforts for the nation's efforts to aid them in circumventing this other than iran. >> i cannot speak directly to any specific forms of financial

support. with respect to finding markets that might replace what they lost when they lost the european oil market, that is correct. they have not found anything that would even begin to replace what they have lost. >> thank you. >> senator durbin to request that you for allowing me to attend this subcommittee. -- senator durbin. >> thank you for allowing me to attend this subcommittee. i had a meeting with a large group of muslim americans in chicago of syrian descent. naturally, they're following this very closely and are very concerned about it. they asked several questions that i will ask. they want to know whether or not the sanctions we imposed have gone far enough? several things that they asked about and i said i would follow through is, one of which is whether we are targeting lebanese banks involved in syria and whether or not we have expanded our sanctions regime

where we are currently targeting oil exports to include other elements of the oil and energy sector of the expiration, production, and transport? >> to the question of lebanese financial sector, we have designated one lebanese financial institution. it is a city -- it is a subsidiary of the syrian commercial bank. we're really engaged with our counterparts in lebanon to stress the importance of remaining vigilant and not allowing their financial system to be exploited by the regime or the regime insiders. after an action that we took over this year, making a 311 finding against a canadialebanee

canadian banking group, we continue to engage barry regularly with lebanese counterpart. >> what about expanding the sanctions pursuant to the suggestion to go beyond oil exports into other aspects of the oil energy sector? >> our sections currently already do prohibit any new -- any investment in the syrian oil sector. they prohibit all transactions between u.s. persons and the government of syria and the europeans have taken a similar action as well. >> that is good to know. why are we not pursuing that the -- at the un security council for the referral of assad to the international criminal court? >> ambassador rice and her team

in new yorker actively looking to see how we can use the un system in the best way to first of all raise attention to what is actually happening in syria and try to find ways to stop the violence. we are looking for support with russia and china to see if we can get a security council resolution on syria. we're also working with european and other partners to call for the types of human rights monitors that would give some protection to the syrian people. there have been special sessions where we have helped the u.n. human rights council. we are looking at all the ways that the un system could help us achieve that goal of stopping violence and moving toward a

democratic transition. >> i applaud what the administration has done through ambassador rice. the vote in october at least forced nations to stand up and vote. the question i am asking, since the arab league has intervened and that effort ahas clearly sailed, why are we not following up again with the un security council, directly with the efforts of the international criminal court toward mr. assad. >> since we are not members, i would look to the lead of others. but this is an option we're pursuing. we are looking for the right time. we hope that something will come out of the arab league on saturday with those on the security council who did not let the security -- but the resolution passed the last time. this is a matter that the u.n.

security council should be dealing with. we would hope that russia and china, in looking at how the assad clique has refused all attempts of mediation for mothers would now realize that it is time for the security council to act >> i follow through a little bit on this effort -- on the question of the u.s. security council. one can certainly come up with a rationale for the russians that may have something to do with arms sales, a rationale for the chinese position which is fairly consistent with their foreign policy. but i really struggled with brazil, india, and south africa. i asked the ambassador to come in my office and talk about the indian position on this. and she said to me when i think others have said and i would like to comment on it. she believes there is evidence,

which she told me that there is evidence, that the opposition in syria is armed and violent. i have not heard that, not from any credible source. have you? >> there are increasing incidence of the opposition using arms, purely as self- defense as anyone can understand. but the large portion of the movement is still peaceful. but the push a forssa -- but the push for assad is to have the protesters seen as highly violence so he can justify himself to the rest of the world. thank you for meeting with the indian ambassador. what the arab league is trying to do, what the u.n. human rights council is trying to do is to get monitors in the country. if there are terrorists in the country, they will either stop

attacking so they do not reveal their actions or they will be revealed by these monitors. we think it would also put a check on the brutality of the assad and click on his own people. if they truly believe what she told you, if she truly believes that, she should not be frightened to have monitors their. >> i think that is a constructive suggestion. i hope that my colleagues on the committee can join me in inviting the investors from these countries that are stymieing the efforts of the national sick -- the international security council. they are hysterically friends. it would seem to me to be valuable to note that we see their opposition and would like .ome explanation than thank you. >> we will go for a second

round. i want to raise at least two or three more points. i wanted to raise with you the question about an article in "the wall street journal" dated october 29 of this year. the title of the article is " u.s. firm enologist syria -- "u.s. firm acknowledges syria using -- a u.s. company making blocking gear recognizes syria using something there. it >> down on its citizens and solaces there online -- it cracks down on its citizens and

silences their online activity. they sent their product to do by thinking that it was on the way to a partner of the iraqi government. the way it can block websites or records of people visit them made its way to syria, a country subject to strict u.s. trade embargoes. bluecoat told "the wall street journal" but there were transmitting messages back to the company. it does not monitor where such "are p" messages -- "heartbeat" messages derive from. i am putting you on the spot, but if you have an answer, we would like to hear today. has this company, bluecoat

systems inc., violated the u.s. trade embargo? that is the first question. >> our export control regime is administered by the commerce department. i would have to refer you to the commerce department for specifics in this particular instance. quirks i do not know if you haven't -- >> i do not know if you have an answer or a comment. >> the department of commerce is looking into this very specific case. since the export controls were put in place in 2004, any such items like this that would be exported to syria would required a case-by-case examination. there was no license issued for this. the department of commerce is investigating it. i would refer to them on the state of the investigation.

>> for the record, just so we're clear, i would suggest the administration to make sure that an answer is forthcoming, whether it comes from the commerce department or other agency the answer would emanate. it is not to point fingers at other countries and impose sanctions that are far away. we need to make sure that our government, our companies are doing the right thing in terms of syria. i want to ask a broader question that has been referred to a number of us. i know that both of you have spoken to the issue of sanctions. in fact, there is a recent crs

report that outlines -- i am looking at a report that is rather recent. but the last two pages of this report -- they put forth a table for the listed all of the sanctions and the individual sanctions. how would you assess the success or impact of sanctions to date, both u.s. and others? what, if anything, can you tell us is forthcoming by way of sanctions? i have some ideas of who should be sanctioned, but i first want to hear your current assessment of where we are and where we could be headed with additional sanctions. that is for both of our witnesses. >> first, with respect to the

impact of sanctions, syria has for a long time been among the more sanctioned countries. the ties between the syrian and the u.s. financial system were limited. our actions have been comprehensive and aggressive, but there is only so much can do unilaterally. the significance of what has been done is that we are in concert with the europeans in particular. and the european actions have been dramatic. the impact has been profound >> was particularly oil? >> message because of oil. i do not want to diminish the importance of the symbolic nature of the actions as well. by highlighting the activity of those complicity in the human rights abuses and by highlighting the syrian business community who supports the assad regime, we send an

important message to the protesters on the streets of syria that we stand by them and we also send an important message to the business community, an important constituency, the there are severe costs when a seceding to closely with assad. >> i am getting this from a couple places, including your testimony. you say in your testimony that the assad regime generated one- third of its revenue from the oil sector and that that has been effectively eliminated. >> that is correct. >> it is worth noting the contrast between today and not too far in the past. only recently, europe was looking at an association agreement with syria. it was in an advanced stage of

agreements, with trade and all sorts of other things. today, they have sanctioned .yria could the they have sanctioned syrian banks. the syrians have not been able to find other customers. with the other subjects we have talked about, it is worth remembering where we were not very long ago and where we are today, which helps to give us a sense of inevitability that basically bushar is finished. >> this is a tough one to answer. sanctions as it relates to turkey, why do you think they have not taken that step? can they? will they? >> i do not know. all of us have been caught in discussions with the turkish officials, as have our bosses, a

cabinet level in the white house with the turks. they have played an important role. they have played an essential role. the embargo they put in place has had an impact on the regime's ability. in practice, much of the economic ties between the two countries has already dried up, just as a matter of course. we would like to see them take additional steps of action, putting in some legal sanctions that parallel the sanctions that the eu, the united states, japan, and canada have done. >> i do not know if any of our colleagues have more questions. i just have one comment. i was asking your staff not too long ago, when you consider the number people slaughtered here, by one estimate now more than 3500, a to do the math, in terms of population proportionally, it is the equivalent of 43,000

americans being killed by our government. i know it is a different world. but it is hard to comprehend that that kind of a slaughter is taking place and does not get near enough attention in this town. so we will keep at it. unless you have any other questions -- senator lugar? >> i would like to ask about the fu situation in syria. in the agricultural committee, we get reports about the changes in exports or imports in egypt and tunisia and libya after arabs bring. -- arab spring.

the expense of importing grains that are part of the diets of those countries has increased largely in worldwide prices. beyond the capacity to pay for it. given the problems in the banking system have created a situation in which, in these countries, there may be as much as 40% decline in the amount of food being consumed by the people of these countries. that is a very large change. some have pointed out that leaders in these countries retain their power through so- called food subsidies. if people were very unhappy in the hustings, somehow there were pacified by money coming out that they use for food. i'm not sure about syria.

i have not heard about the nutrition and food supply coming out of sanctions or out of the problem of loss of export money or exchange or whether there has been an impact there. >> in terms of sanctions, food and medicine are exempt from sanctions. we do not have reports of sanctions themselves having an impact directly on the food supply. and fact, the reports we have had a shortage of food in syria are places that are under siege, where it has been hard to get food in because the army is occupying the outskirts. we have not have reports of widespread malnutrition or widespread food shortages in syria. but you touch on the very important point, which is the subsidy question. country was highly subsidized, mismanaged, at the

same time that bushar and his clique are trying to maintain some semblance of control through the food subsidy program. you see signs of a little bit of panic among the upper echelon of this elite system. they put a ban on the import of luxury goods into syria and ordered to try it -- in order to safeguard currency. uc >> in the system -- you see cracks in the system. >> many feel that it came down to this.

there are young people in tahrir square demanding their rights, but there were 80 million people. and those who were used to getting subsidies from the mubarak government for not getting their subsidies. there was a whole pattern there in terms of countrywide revolt which was not a hidden factor, but may be a major factor anin finally changing the government. >> i do not have much to add to what secretary feldman said. the ban on imports at the end of september was significant. i think it was imposed in large part to protect their foreign exchange reserves, which is a demonstration that actions taken together have had an -- had a significant impact good the ban was imposed and subsequently

revote in this one of many examples of erratic policy making by the syrian regime. let me say for the record, the record will be kept open for one week for members of the committee. secondly, we have received testimony on the record from the following organizations. number one, the foundation for the defense of democracy. no. 2, the washington institute for middle east policy. number three, human rights watch. those will remain for the record as well. if there is nothing further, we are adjourned. we want to thank our witnesses. this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> thank you for being here.

>> every day in this week before veterans day, "washington journal," is looking at military issues. tomorrow, charles schulz will look at the role of the coast guard and budget issues facing the service. coverage provided at 9:00 eastern. and james murdock testifies tomorrow for a second time before a british committee about the phone hacking commission. his company owned in close "news of the world."

s c live coverage tomorrow morning on c-span 2. -- c. live coverage tomorrow morning on c-span 2. -- see live coverage tomorrow morning on c-span 2. >> let me remind you, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no burden. >> he lost from 1964 presidential election to lyndon johnson. the candor and ideas of barry goldwater galvanized the conservative movement. he is featured this week on the c-span series, "of the contenders." live, friday, 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> the that -- the jet -- the delaware attorney general was on this morning's edition of "washington journal."

thought -- filed in the rear in the report in delaware, challenging the fact that mrrs -- i will pull this out of my year for a second -- mrs is the entity -- mrrs is the entity that provides for mortgage- backed securities. we have advised that it is a deceptive practice.

that the system that they created back in 1995, the banks, fannie and freddie, we decided that they would create a system that essentially privatized the old recreation systems in the united states of america. they did so because of their ability to sell mortgages and it was too cumbersome from their perspective. they decided that they would bypass local beads offices. -- deeds offices. by the time that your mortgage winds up in the pocket of an investor, it has been sliced and diced 10 times.

in creating this organization, they were able to avoid literally the millions upon millions of recreational usages, every time it has to be used and recorded, you have to pay a fee. they've decided that it was too expensive. they decided to keep track of it themselves. the problem is that they lost track of what they were keeping track of. it became a completely opaque system and unreliable. so unreliable that they are not even following their own rules about how they keep track of the 37% in the state, 60% in the united states under the name of mrrs. in our investigation thus far, which is ongoing, we determined

that 22% of the proposals we look at just -- thus far, it was not the entity that they said it owned the property. in one case, they initiated foreclosure proceedings on behalf of an entity that no longer existed. with that, i will put my answer back on to make sure -- had set back on so that we can hear ourselves talk. there we go. host: 50 other attorney general's have launched their own investigations into mortgage practices. what is the difference between what you are looking at and what you too are looking at? >> backup one step. we are a part of a multi-state investigation service fraud. we are on executive committees,

still part of the multi-state effort. my colleagues have been a part of the investigation for over one year, led by tom miller. that investigation is limited to service fraud and misconduct. anytime that you have 50 attorneys general, half of them being democratic, half of the republican, agreeing on something in this day and age, you know that something has really gone wrong. dorobo-signing scandal that some of your listeners may have listened to over the past year has been about filing false affidavits in the wall.

they call it one of the greatest fraud of the court by an american history. looking at the service in fraud perspective, we call it a dual track. banks are talking out of both sides of the mouth. after that they ask for some form of modification of their mortgage because their wife got cancer, the economy has given them a squeeze, they can afford $300 breaks and have asked for a reprieve from their banks. tacking on the term of the note, three more years, you will be made whole. if they can have that discussion, banks are saying do that for three months, and if we do that, we will perk -- permit the modify your mortgage.

sometimes they do that, but the problem is that on the 100th day, they get a phone call from the same banks saying that we are foreclosing on you. i just had a discussion. but who? jane? i do not know that is. host: our topic is the mortgage finance industry. you can call our guest this morning. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for republicans, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. delaware residents, 202-628- 0184. the lead editorial talked about the attorney general and their concern over a potential settlement with the mortgage industry. there had line is a concern. >> i agree, very much, with the

editorial in "the new york times." look, the piecemeal approach that has been initiated is the wrong way to go after this. we will continue to investigate the service i outlined. but this needs to be done in a much more local fashion. origination is servicing, which is securitization. the problem is that many of the folks, far worse, citizens, middle-class americans of all stripes -- borrowers, citizens, middle-class americans of all stripes, they're forced to learn greek when it comes to these banking terms. from my perspective, need to do this in a global fashion. there are a number of things

wrong with that the current state, from my perspective. number one, fannie and freddie are incredibly important players in resolving everything that has gone wrong in this industry. that is number one. no. 2, there simply need to be, and they are not contemplated right now, one of the biggest problems we face in america right now, the biggest growth in america is most of the people in between. they see no accountability. no one is being held accountable for anything. the collateralized debt obligation world, the housing market of more street, this is a man-made disaster.

the settlement forces no person or no entity to make any admission of wrongdoing at all. this is too little, too late. it might seem like a big number, but from what i read in the press, it sounded like a lot of money. but it is not a lot of money when you look at the profits they make on a quarter of the basis. only about $5 billion to $7 billion is money that the banks would have to pay.

a lot is made over the new servicing standards, they should not be rewarded for doing what they should be doing anyway. you should not have to settle with someone in a released claim to make them do what they should have done from the outset. host: we have people lined up with, waiting to talk to you. the first is a twitter message. guest: can you repeat that question? host: joseph ramirez said -- guest: if i am hearing that

correctly, if there is no scanned in the game from the investor, what happened was 20 years ago, 30 years ago, you would get a mortgage and because of the economy or some tragedy, you could go to the bank and your local bank had a vested interest in talking to you. for them to work close, they do not want to be in the business of owning or property. that is not what bankers do. you had a meaningful discussion with someone who figured out ways -- bottom line, there were people 25 years ago or tomorrow that did not honor their end of the deal. today the people that own the mortgage have no stake in having

a discussion with you. the reality is, to make the larger point, there is someone between the borrower and the investor. in between is what is called a servicing bank. the place where you send your money and the people that foreclose upon you, all they are under contract to do is get money from the bar were to the investor. at some point, when the bar work stops paying, or they think that they forgot -- let's say that they did not pay for four months at a time. the principal interest owed to the investor, the servicer is on the hook. so, at some point, that servicing bank, who has no scanned in the game, at some point they said that this is not worth it. fee-for-service is not worth it. they have an incentive to foreclose.

at the heart and soul of foreclosure in my state and many others. servicing banks have no scanned in the game. all that they care about is making sure that they recoup the investment that they made to the investor. that is why you have such a rapid rate of foreclosure and an economy that will not be able to get let out in a housing market, typically the way that recessions are overcome, by the housing market leading you out. >> -- host: one more twitter message -- guest: looked, fannie and freddie, they have a lot of exposure. we have looked into a lot of their practices. whether or not congress oversaw

fannie and freddie is a good question. holding them accountable, those who i have a jurisdiction over. banks, i have certain jurisdictions over. if they have exposure, there are a lot of people with this possibility. for a caller to make a tweak -- point that this is congress's problem, that is ludicrous. host: spring, texas. go ahead. caller: let me get this out of

the way. i supported obama in the run-up to the election. eric holder took an oath. every damn bank, all of the ones that have been investigated by the fcc, ftc, whatever it is, they have these little fines. they make hundreds of billions of dollars for the last 15 years. away ceo's have walked with $1 billion parachutes, whenever you want to call it. this was a racket started by jamie diamond. i do not know how much clinton had to do with it. there were treasury secretaries.

every one of his attorney general's. host: mr. biden? caller: eric holder is the finest attorney general i have worked with. number two, your larger point is valid. the reality is that no one has been held accountable. that is why the frustration that i hear in your voice is, i think, very legitimate. people show up and talk about very much exactly the same thing that you talk about. no person or entity has been held accountable for this man- made disaster. what is incredibly important for the people in the real world to understand -- i am frustrated that some of my colleagues are not as focused on that. there needs to be

accountability. by am less interested in getting a major monetary settlement or fine. i am much more interested, to your point, sir, i am holding someone or some entity accountable. that is why one of the fundamental problems i have this -- is that there are no prescriptions of wrongdoing. look, the rules need to be followed. rules were not followed. that is why i am continuing my investigation. that is why eric schneiderman is continuing his investigation. look, as you recall, the car -- caller will know this, in a crisis that pales in comparison to the crisis we are in today, over 1000 people went to jail in the s&l crisis.

where are the people who have been held accountable behind bars in this? host: is that the end point of your investigation? guest: i will not prejudge my investigation. in a crisis that parallels the s&l crisis of the 1980's, over 1000 people went to jail. no one has been held accountable in any criminal context, let alone a civil context. what this caller is frustrated about is that some of our investigative partners, they investigate and then they settled for what is on paper looking like a big dollar amounts.

they do not make any admission of liability in any fashion. what happens is that the system is based on accountability. what you hear in the frustration of the man that just called is that it is too easy to write a check and move on. some people call that the cost of doing business. i do not. that is why you hear this incredible frustration across the country. host: east michigan, democratic line. caller: by online mortgages with bank of america. in the last eight months i have been a little bit late with it. bank of america's drive me

crazy. i have filled out the same paper work three times. i am not kidding. i am getting letters from texas. i give the lady in michigan the papers, they do not know where they are. i'd like to get myself back on track. i have had this house for 12 years. i was a hair dresser making $80,000 per year. now i make $27,000 per year. now when i called bank of america, they do not even know what is going on. i have done a disease over this distress. -- i have gotten a liver disease over this distress. bank of america is really not doing anything.

host: mr. biden, go ahead. guest: unfortunately, you are not alone. your story is not a story, it is your life. you are one among many people facing exactly the same dilemma. you are able to get someone on the phone, they force you to recreate paperwork that they cannot keep track of and then they force you to restart conversations, time and again, from a different employees of the banks are scattered all over the country.

is he to be part of a much more to global settlement. we need to have one contact person for whom you are able to deal with on a day-to-day basis, to see if there is something that you can do to work out the short of foreclosure to keep your home. in your case, it sounds like you are able to pay your mortgage and tacked on to the back end. modify the terms of the note, the interest rate. there are a number of ways to do that you can discuss with your bank. the problem is that they cannot keep track of our discussions in their own bank. getting transferred to someone else, you have to recreate the

entire discussion in the terms negotiated. in nevada they are suing bank of america for the practices your talking about. you are not alone. that may not make you feel any better, but there are folks like me at their wartime to do things about moving as quickly as we would like. if i can digress further, we changed the law in delaware in june. going into effect in january. the courtney the mandatory mediation one of the lender

shows up with a person, what we have found about the state of delaware, citizens, bar worse, middle-class americans cannot get bankers on the phone for real and meaningful discussions. it is unacceptable. you see people incredibly angry. i have never seen this level of anger at institutions. there are a bunch of institutions that people are angry at entice you why. host: delaware, good morning. -- people are angry at and i see why. host: delaware, good morning. caller: is anything being done -- and i like that what you are talking about -- but is anything

being done for my grandson? myself, i rented a home. i did not know that the owner was in foreclosure. i had to find a place to live for me and my family. it was hard to know what to do in that situation. guest: contact my fraud division and we will put you in touch with the appropriate people. there are folks there the can assist you on landlord tenant law. caller: my question was answered part about a man from texas.

when you investigate corporations and people, what your looking at in terms of derivatives and so forth, we need to know who has done this and how you plan to handle that aspect of it. that function exposes the fact of those who are responsible. guest: that is what the attorney general and i are very focused on. in terms of the mortgage electronic regulation system, it was created by the largest bank lenders in 1995, it was designed

to help to facilitate the securitization of mortgage- backed securities. making sure that we hold individuals and entities as responsible as we can under the wall. host: even in your op-ed, you said you would not release -- release claims that you were investigating securitization. why not put that out there? guest: in my op-ed, what the banks have on the outset -- this is me speaking, i am only one of 50 attorneys general -- this is how i heard it. you know you have got us on road-signing and servicing,

which is why we stopped doing it on our own. we know that you sold gutter's that did not work and something else to build live will lady that she did not need. we will settle with you if you do not look at the wiring. we will settle with you on the gutter's if you do not book that anything else. i would never do that with a home improvement scheme. certainly not within the context of something that has led to the biggest recession in my lifetime. at the core of this recession is the explosion of a housing bubble. people were slicing and dicing

properties. all to make a buck on wall street. only impacting the bar were at the end of the dead. caller: i know the good work you are doing. i am a bankruptcy attorney. i wanted to say that the bankruptcy attorneys across the country, one of the issues they're dealing with is loan modification and the housing and affordable modification program. as part of the bailout, banks

were required to deal in a modification program. bankruptcy attorneys around the country are trying to help people get modifications and of the 25 belvedere's, one of them got approved. probably a good representation across the country. the conjecture is that banks are making more money on the foreclosures than the modifications. they are not interested in practice betting in the modifications. host: please wrap up your thoughts. we're running short on time. caller: is anyone discussing

that? is that part of our thought process? guest: you are dead on. republican, democrat, it is relevant. i have heard from a number of professionals time again. the voluntary program at hand, it is responding to the upper -- up for. yes, the incentives are toward foreclosure. no scanned in the game, servicing with the money off the top of the foreclosure.

based on my investigation, i appreciate how you put it. host: when it comes to banks, scott wagner ask -- why are so many located in delaware? guest: those are mostly credit card banks. delaware is a corporate capital. it is something we are very proud of. banks and corporations, over half a in america, are incorporated in that state because we have the finest for a in a land to do with business dispute, in my opinion. it is at the core of why so

much of corporate america does located there. i am suing this corporation that has 50 employees in virginia, charged with keeping track of 60% of the mortgages in the country. that is how screwed up this has become. host: one more call, ohio. donald, democratic line. caller: one man was on from bank of america, someone asked him a question and he got mad. in ohio they just tested wall about people planting two

grapevines and calling themselves a farm. is that what is happening with the banks? out there doing all this other business? guest: bank of america, along with a number of other banks, we are investigating. my issue is with some of the practices at the highest levels of this bank. how they go about making it difficult for their customers to have discussions with them. that is what i am focused on. look, i have a lot of views on whether or not, and i have tried to articulate them, how the

folks on wall street's, as well as fannie and freddie, need to be part of a global resolution that seems to be a part of a very complicated issue. when you dig down into it, it is not as complex as it is made to sound. we need to hold people and entities accountable for the wrongdoing that occurs that i am on covering every single day. whether it be some of the larger servicing banks, or some other entities here, we need to get to the bottom of what happened. increasingly, our complaint only seeks monetary damages as an aside. we seek equitable remedies. we seek the court to force a

change of conduct. that is what mers seeks to do. it is a bank owned entity. wiring the house, securitization on the roof, the foundation -- not just the service. we are going a long way to getting the relief that the market needs. most importantly, what the american people need and are not getting. host: at the local question, your father, the vice president, there has been discussion in the media on whether he would be on the 2012 ticket. has he said anything to you about it? guest: the vice president will be on the ticket. host: are you considering another run for the senate? guest: i have never run for the senate. i was just reelected as the attorney -- and attorney-general

of the state of delaware. i am happy, proud, and honored to be such. host: beau biden, thank you. guest: thank you for having me on. i appreciated it. caller: -- >> tomorrow morning, our series on military issues continues tomorrow morning. there will be a discussion on the role of the coast guard and budget issues facing service. news international executive chairman, james murdoch, testifying tomorrow for a second time about the phone hacking investigation. his company owns the now closed "news of the world." and you can see that hearing tomorrow morning on c-span 2. an investigation from the senate

armed services committee shows 18 cases. parts that were used to build helicopters and cargo jets, sent to the u.k. and canada. committee questions represented some of the makers of military equipment for the government, bringing up general patrick o'reilly. this is two hours, 25 minutes. >> we have three panels of witnesses today. i suspect that the hearing may

continue into the afternoon. i also suspect that we will break for lunch. this will all be determined by how long these panels take. we have a vote scheduled at 12:15, which could affect that decision. i would like to thank senator mccain for his efforts in this investigation. i would like to thank investigative staff for their very, very hard work. the system that we rely on former national security depends on the performance and reliability of small, highly sophisticated electronic components. fighter pilots rely on my vision systems to identify targets. troops depend on radios and gps devices. micro-electronics that make them work.

threats may be just around the next corner. one simple electronic part failure could leave a soldier exposed. the flux has made it harder to have confidence. in some industries, the term counterfeit suggest unauthorized fate. a knockoff of an original product. the definition of counterfeit as it relates to electronic parts includes both fate and previously used parts that are made to look new and are sold as new. this year we announced an armed services committee as part of the supply chain. during the investigation,

virtually everyone of the people we spoke with, from defense contractors, semiconductor manufacturers, and electronic components, every one of them has pointed to china. specifically one city as the primary source for counterfeit electronic parts. while this hearing is mainly focused on the national security implications of those parts, the rampant theft of u.s. intellectual property by chinese counterfeiters also severely impact our economic security. according to the semiconductor industry association, the u.s. semiconductor manufacturers employing nearly 200,000 american workers. counterfeiting put those jobs at risk.

yet they are created. in counterfeiting costs, there are $7.5 billion per year in lost equity with 11,000 jobs. this spring we attempted to send arms -- armed services staff to china. i wrote to the chinese ambassador in united states. shortly after my letter, the embassy told the committee staff that if the results of the investigation were not positive, it could be open " damaging close " to the u.s.-china relationship. that is exactly backwards. what is damaging against brave encounter -- counterfeiting, but

staff again sought entry into mainland china. with appeals on our behalf to our most senior diplomat in hong kong and beijing, our staff was refused entry. refusing to highlight their global lack of transparency from those produced in china swamping the market. looking at the slightest to identify cases in which they had found expected covering a total of 1 million individual parts. those 1800 cases, of them we selected 100 to track backwards

through the supply chain. the overwhelming majority went to china. with few exceptions, the rest came from known resell points for parts that came from china. counterfeit parts from china to often wind up in critical of u.s. defense systems. china must shut down the operators in their country with impunity. all parts from china must be treated as a suspect or counterfeit if they will not comply. it would mean inspection of all chinese alike, parts at our ports to make sure that they are legitimate.

i want to describe how these counterfeit to made. much of the material used is an electronic waste. it is shipped from the united states sometimes washed and dirty river water. once they are washed, certain parts may be sanded down to remove the existing part number. excuse me. state of the art printing equipment is used to put markings on the parts, showing

them to be new or of higher quality. faster speed, able to withstand more extreme temperatures. when the process is complete, the parts are made to look brand new to the naked eye. one could have shipped and you will want it shipped to other and the witness has described it to the committee "whole factories are set up in china just for counterfeit.

the gao, about just how pervasive the presence of china is the gao results, stunning, not only point directly to china as the source of the problem, it shows just how far counterfeiters are willing to go for the money. investigators went out to buy electronic parts for defensive systems. not only did the company's supply counterfeit parts and the gao sold to them apart, suppliers also sold yet -- gao investigators, acting undercover, parts that had

nonexistent part numbers. part numbers made up from whole cloth by committee staff. all of those sellers that sent those parts had nonexistent numbers. i will go through a presentation about how those counterfeit parts made its way through the stream. deployed on navy cruisers, it has a forward looking infrared system that provides night vision visibility. it also contains a laser used for targeting. september 8, 2011, the company

sent a letter to supply command they warned that parts suspected to be counterfeit had been installed on three units delivered. they only became aware of the suspect counterfeit after being alerted by committee investigation. the failure of an electromagnetic interference filter could not conduct surface warfare missions without reliable and functioning flares. one of them was sent in the pacific fleet. how did it end up in a night

vision targeting system intended for a navy telepathic in the pacific fleet. these filters were sold by a company called texas spectra electronics. we are showing you the path of these counterfeit parts. those three fleer is contained transistor's from a spectrum bought in 2010 from a company called technology conservation group. t c g, it turns out, is both an electronics for cycling company and electronics distributor mixed in a month the 72 pounds of miscellaneous excess inventory that a massachusetts company called thompson's broadcast suspended as escrap.

the parts arrived in what appeared to be the original packaging. sold as new and unused part. they were bought from a company called e-warehouse, who purchased them from pivotal electronics. the answer about where they bought them was china. 27 j is a military aircraft used for tactical support to support combat operations. the air force delivered 28, 11 of which have been delivered.

are currently deployed in afghanistan. designed to provide the pilot with information on the health of the airplane. display units are manufactured by the systems that are a division of aeronautics. another division of belfry communications, and in november 2010, after the parts failed, and memory chips used on its display had already installed at

the parts on more than 500 of its units, including those intended for the c 27 j, as well as other aircraft. failure of the chip showed at a graded image or could even possibly go blank altogether. affected by the part until september 2011, the year after it had been discovered. where did these counterfeit chips come from? the supply chain is shorter in this case. but it starts in the same place.

they purchased the chips in china. that is not the end of it. at least 14,000 of those parts have been identified as counterfeit. neither of them though. the company has night yet identified the military systems that might be. a sudden is a boeing airplane, modified to incorporate an anti- submarine service warfare capabilities. three flight test aircraft are currently in testing by a

maryland. intending to purchase 108 of the aircraft from boeing. august 17, a message was sent, marked priority critical. the message said that the detection module stalled on one of the aircraft, containing parts that should not have been put on their plane in originally. the parts at issue were critical to the functioning. boeing first identified a problem in december of 2009, and an ice protection module failed on the company's flight line. in that case, the part had literally fallen out of its stock at an was found gravel --