review in this area. the current system can often impede cooperation, interoperability and technology sharing with allies and partners. at the same time, it does not always provide adequate enforcement mechanisms for violations. as the security systems reform, this is an inherently interagency problem and one that will require close partnership with congress to fix. and finally, let me highlight climate change and environment. this is the first qdr to address climate and energy issues which are both significant factors in the future security environment. climate change could increase demand for u.s. forces and humanitarian response creating a new operating environment in the arctic and requiring -- [inaudible] in our own facilities and systems. dod's enormous dependence on energy makes its operations vulnerable to energy flows and to price fluctuations.

.. they provide a strategic framework that sets clear priorities for the department and provides clear policy and program guidance for the fy11 budget. in short, we believe this qdr connects the dots between our defense strategy and in our budget. and in doing so it advances our efforts to rebuild the armed forces to meet the complex challenges of today and tomorrow.

and let me stop and take your questions. >> encountering weapons of mass destruction, walk us through what you're talking about. the qdr talks about monitor agents and materials, and where relevant defeating the agents themselves. are we looking at those special forces teams that would have capabilities to do this kind of thing? just walk us through it. >> the encountering wmd area was really a focus in the qdr and we tried to take a sort of systems approach, if you will, to the analysis. how do we try to stop proliferation in the first place? should weapons -- or materials become loose, how do we actually identify them, interdict them? eliminate them, deal with them and so forth. so we looked at this across the range of possible scenarios and contingencies. and we made substantial

investments in a number of areas. including isr and intelligence. including in some of our special operations capabilities. the jtf elimination that was mentioned. that is a headquarters that would -- that would play a coordinating function in a contingency involving loose or proliferating wmd. so there are also investments in things like nuclear forensics and bioterrorism threat reduction and so forth. so it's a very broad range that's laid out. and sort of a soup to nuts approach. i don't know if you want to add anything to that. >> i think that's pretty much it. there's pretty much a large r & d investment that will develop these types of capabilities but that's it. >> one of the other things that jumped out here you say enhanced domestic counter ied capabilities. do you think it's possible or likely we'll start seeing roadside bombs in the united states? >> i think our investment in

counter-ied capabilities was driven primarily by the threats we are seeing overseas. yes. >> i'll go. >> no, right here. >> ma'am, i'm curious -- i'll ask you the question i asked secretary gates a while ago. what is the status of the space posture review? there have been some talk that the nsc was unhappy with what was sent over from the pentagon. i'm not sure if that's true or if you have any comment on that. and when do you expect a final report to go over to congress? what were the issues that were holding up the report? >> the space posture review, which is a departmental effort, was being conducted in parallel with a presidential review of our national space policy. and as we got into that interagency review, we really came to believe it's very important to set the parameters of that first before firming up our own conclusions in the space posture review.

and so we decided to speak with them a little bit more and to allow the interagency review to have time to be completed. in the meantime, we'll offer congress an interim report on the space posture review that details our current posture and programs. but then we'll aim to turn in our new space posture review following on the president's strategy in the june time frame. >> terry gates mentioned new emphasis on congressional level strike. and i'm wondering how that fits into your overall strategy? what threat you're really looking at grappling with, with the conventional strike and in what basic modes you're looking at ultimately fielding something? >> so how does it fit in. what it fits into is the prevent and deter section of the quadrennial defense review. and it's principally about

determs and our architecture is laid out one of tenets is set out is prompt global strike, nuclear weapons play a role still. our ability to defeat the ballistic missile defense capabilities of the department play a role in deterrence. so all of those things taken together give us a posture that we can deter an adversary. so that's the idea. >> in what basic modes? >> in what basic modes? >> basic modes will beñ land-based and we are considering whether or not submarine-based conventional strike would be appropriate. >> is there a time frame on that at all? >> i asked secretary gates a while ago about that joint task force headquarters for eliminating weapons of mass destruction. and he said oh, that's just a recommendation. so the question is -- i'm left uncertain as to everything in the qdr is a recommendation or a

musing-upon threats and capabilities? >> there's a couple of things. the joint task force hears actually -- the seat of that already exists and that is endorsed in the qdr. and there's money in the budget for that headquarters. to continue to reach full operational capabilities as i understand it. there are some follow-on discussions to be had about what additional capabilities to stand up in support. and this is something you're going to see, frankly -- we took one bite at this apple in this year's review. this is going to be something that continues to be a priority in the coming years over the years and you'll see growth in the counter-wmd over time. >> cyberspace has an issue in this and secretary gates talked about the importance.

but do you see a disconnect sort of between concrete institutions being set up cybercommand and all of that and still the world of cyberspace -- there's a complete lack of definition. what's an attack, inability to determine where it's coming from. what is being done specifically to bridge this gap so that cyber isn't shadow boxing and billions of dollars are being spent on it? >> well, i'll take the strategy question. you might want to take the command question. you know, i think that this is an issue -- the challenges we face in cyberspace is something we're grappling on an interagency basis. there is not a dod mission. there are many aspects of this that are really led, frankly, by other departments. that said, there's some very concrete threats and challenges that we are experiencing even today. and we have to better organize ourselves to deal with that.

and so, you know, whether it is exploitation? whether it is offense? whether it is defense. we are working through those issues conceptually but in the meantime we got to better organize ourselves to deal with some of the challenges that are on our doorstep. >> and so i would add the first step in getting to that organizational structure is decide who's in charge. and that's what cybercommand does. we will then take the direction from that commander through the combatant commander to the strategic command to define the way ahead. as secretary flournoy has already discussed, there's a lot of ongoing activities. we're establishing defenses. we are involved in exploitation activities. and we're positioning ourselves in order to be able to conduct attack. so all of those different areas are ongoing. the cybercommand focuses it and establishes the structure of what we will use in the future. >> yes. right here.

>> you mentioned it elevates the all-volunteer forces and can you explain how that translates that into the new budget and later on in the planning section you mentioned in having resized and shaped forces to operate in other threats other than the two -- again, what does that mean for this budget and for the future of less of something, or more of something else. what's the reality of those suggestions. >> i think bob hale will give you a lot of the budgetary detail -- or that undergirds the taking care of people priority. but it does include substantial initiatives in the area of wounded warrior care, healthcare at large, family support. and efforts to reduce operational and deployment tempo over time. but i'll let him put the meat on those bones during his budget brief. yes, in the back. with the red tie.

yes, that's you. >> secretary, i wanted to know where the way forward is the striker force which is the next generation -- [inaudible] >> how does that capability differ from the last time it was articulated? what does it look like now going forward. there's only $1.7 billion in the budget over the program. what's it look like? >> i'll let admiral stanley speak to the programmic issues. but one of the insights that came out of this qdr was that we needed to take a much more in depth look at the full range of capabilities for long-range isr and precision strike and the whole question of a follow-on strategic bomber. and so one of the things we decided in the qdr is that we weren't ready to make definitive

long-term programmic decisions. that we wanted to make some investments that would keep technological opportunities going but we wanted to take some time to get this right. and to study it in a much more depth. so you will see that study ongoing this coming year with the aim of putting real dollars into the program starting in '12. >> and this is where policy leads program. that's exactly what we've done. i mean, the policy -- we have to define the policy. we have to evaluate the threat. decide what capabilities are reasonably achievable and then have -- it's a portfolio-like approach to execute those capabilities is what we're envisions right now. so that study will be going on next year. >> yes, ma'am. >> i wanted to ask you about your reference to missile defense and getting russia and china involved. you talked often the -- the administration has talked often about trying to get russia more involved. where are you on that?

and what's your idea about how to get china involved. and how does the backlash on the taiwan arms sale affect -- [inaudible] >> with regard to russia, we -- after the european approach division was made, we did brief them on the change of plans and what the program would look like. we invited them to begin a dialog with us about shared early warning. russia has a number of radar systems. other isr systems that would be very helpful in a more cooperative approach to the defense of that region. and so we've invited them to have that discussion. we're hopeful that they'll take us up on that invitation. with regard to china, it's been more an invitation to have more strategic dialog. that covers not only missile

defenses but nuclear forces, sort of how we see the security environment. and our response to it. it's really trying to inject greater transparency with regard to its military capabilities. yes. >> madam secretary, you talked about the employment tempo and this has been a topic of discussion for the last several years. defense leaders constantly get up to try to have a better dwell time for service members. now we actually have end dates in sight. in iraq. and at least a drawdown -- the beginning of a drawdown in afghanistan. when can service members both active and reserve choose to see these 2 to 1, 5 to 1 deployment ratios actually -- high value, high value skills notwithstanding actually take less? >> the real answer is you ought to discuss that with the army and the marine corps.

what we think is the responsible drawdown happens and the timing down to about 50,000 by the end of august. and out of iraq by december of '11. we think as that becomes real, in about two years time, the deployed -- the forces that -- i said that incorrectly, the forces that will have returned from deployment will start a two-year dwell period. so that's about -- [inaudible] >> say again. >> the reserve component? >> again, i recommend you talk to army and marine corps on that. >> yes, this second row, the gentleman on the right. >> the question on the space posture review. one of the sticking points was over the possibility of emerging the gps system and the european galileo system. can you comment on that possibility? >> i would be surprised if it was a sticking point because i don't think we're quite there. that far along yet.

we're really, as i said, you know, this is the -- the delay was not so much that there were disagreements we couldn't solve as much as wanting to make sure that the posture review was really driven by national -- a new national space strategy which hadn't been revised in many, many years. right here? >> the qdr calls for a wholly new concepts of operations. what missions are we talking about here? and what do you see ahead? what kinds of concepts do you need to come up with? >> i'm sure you will want to join in on this one. but the challenge is that as the secretary loves to say, you know, when was the last time we really were very good at predicting the next war? you know, the truth is we see an extremely complex environment with a multiplicity of challenges and we can't afford to ignore any of them. and so as we do our concept

development work, we've broken out of the conventional wars and challenge not only to look at across the spectrum at individual types of operations but how do they challenge us when they're in different impositions? and that's really the analytic work that began in this qdr and will continue afterwards. >> and again, i would give you two examples. one is the enhanced recognition of our special operating forces. and the second thing would be the idea that our ground forces need to be out there engaged just as we've come to expect of our maritime and aviation forces over the years, building partnership capacities, working together. so both the special operating forces and the ground forces is thrust to be forward recognizing that's to be an enduring part of what we need from our department of defense capabilities is an important priority in this qdr. >> okay. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> now a discussion on the federal government's role on education. the national conference of state legislatures releases the findings of a new report on the subject.

looking at the impact of federal spending on education over a number of years. from the national press club in washington, this is about 40 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. and welcome to the release of the national conference of state legislatures task force report on federal education policy. my name is david. i'm the federal affairs council for the state legislatures and i work exclusively on education issues. i'm here today to talk -- and we're here today to seahawk about the activities of the task force on federal education policy. our task force is a successor to a task force we had on no child left behind which issued a report in february of 2005, which really changed the

landscape of the public response to the no child left behind law. this in some ways is a follow-up of that task force although it's made up of a somewhat different group of folks. there's some overlap what you'll hear in a second. today with me are the two legislator cochairs of the task force on federal education policy. to my right is senator steve solan from new york. he has been in the -- he spent 10 years in the assembly in new york state. 20 years in the senate. he's been very active with the national conference of state legislators and served as president. and had served as the task force cochair of both the first task force on nclb and this current task force on federal policy o-policy to his right is senator bob from plymale of west virginia. he has eight years as senate ed chair and pension chair and six

years as vice chair of senate education. bob is also very active in the national conference of state legislators and has served on no child left behind as well as this current task force. he's also a member of the executive committee of the southern regional education board. and a member of the executive committee of the national conference of state legislators. between the two of these gentlemen, we have a tremendous breadth and range and depth of experience in public policy, particularly, in education issues. and you'll hear that the rest of the members of the task force have equally broad and deep knowledge of the education policy process as well. so without delay, let me just give you a very brief background on the task force. and then senator plymale will give you a little bit more in depth background. as i said, the first task force at ncsl put together on no child

left behind issued its report in 2005. the response was overwhelming. it was such a response to close down our website for a day. we had 100-plus media hits across the country primarily because we articulated a lot of the concerns that people had about the no child left behind law. the task force itself was made up of 15 members, 14 legislator members and one staff member, the general counsel to the speaker of north carolina. and again their experiences and their breadth of knowledge was pretty considerable and i'll let senator plymale take it from here and explain that to you and give you an introduction to what we're going to do here today. >> thank you, david. and that does give us a good overview of where we have been and now where we are with this task force and this report. it is safe to say that over half of the members of the task force were members of the no child left behind task force.

that continuity, i think, is important as we move forward in looking at the complexity of reauthorization, esea and many things that relate to no child left behind. it is also very important to know that the broad, deep and diverse experience of the members, not only have they been in for a number of years in their legislative bodies and serving in capacities of -- either as an education chair or as an appropriation chair, these members have -- over five of them have either been a teacher in the classroom as well as administrators including one that was a superintendent. so the knowledge that comes to this task force is great. the other thing that i will say

the way that we went about interviewing and looking and having people do testimony -- we have nearly two dozen experts throughout the country at various places -- we've held in atlanta. we were in tucson -- we were in a number of areas that we brought these people in and heard their expert testimony that helped shape the task force report. and it is important to say the continuity of having someone like senator saland and robin johnson who were cochairs as well of the previous task force with only the addition of myself as the other cochair. the continuity from the last task force to this one made it a lot easier to be able to really focus in on the issues that we really need to look at. >> thank you.

i am senator steve saland. i thought we would start out by talking perhaps in a historical vein. in our 200-plus years of our nation's history, the federal involvement of education certainly is a relatively new aspect of education policy starting perhaps some 30 to 40 years ago. the role that the federal government played certainly initially whether it was through esca, elementary secretary education act or the individuals and disability education act -- in the case of i.d.a. was a

compliance role that was intended to deal with access and tended to deal with equity and the ability with those with disabilities and those who were disadvantaged to be able, in fact, it off avail themselves of educational opportunity. these programs were the basic template until most recently no child left behind and in the interim during the clinton administration there was some effort to take a more hands-on role. but really the effort to elevate the federal role in an area that had been traditionally state and local, whether it be implicitly through the constitution or through the the legislation that

created the federal department of education clearly as i always emphasize the primacy of state and local school districts as nclb terms them to be the place where education policy was driven. the simple fact of the matter is that the effort to use the same compliance model -- process and compliance model superimposing this policy through nclb was something that usurped the efforts of many states. in fact, perverted the very states' systems which were primarily i believe maryland, north carolina and texas upon which nclb was based. it really was the ultimate in terms of a one size fits all cookie-cutter approach.

trying to impose its top-down view of education policy on some 50 diverse states. and the results -- i think it's safe to say were anything but good and perhaps could even be termed disastrous. they threw out the number of successful assessment systems. imposed a punishment base system, looking more for failure than rewarding success. the critical thing for which certainly they must -- they being the federal government, congress and the executive at that time certainly are entitled to much credit for was the recognition of the achievement gap and the need to disaggregate data so that we could focus on those students with needs, those students that were poorly performing, that they not be melded into a more giant pot and

not be able to deal with the issues that require the extra special attention that we would then be able to accomplish again through our state resources. >> also the new administration has signaled its commitment to the compliance model by applying it to regulatory actions concerning the federal stimulus. many of you all know the race to the top that's out before and accepting the first initial set of things from the state. so the applications from the states at this point in time. what we feel like they've done is taking the federally endorsed reforms that were more from standards, testing and punishment to a mix of just four new ones.

and those four new ones are tying teacher evaluations to student assessments. interventions by failing schools by opening up the charter laws. and a commitment to a national voluntary standards and assessments. and the enhanced data systems. and in at least 3 out of these 4 there is really no research that ties that to say that that is really affects student achievement. we do feel like student achievement is important. but at the best there's nothing that ties that back into it. also when you turn the federal attention, emphasis and limited resource to a complex and unproven system, the traditional federal focus, the defined role

of focusing on the disadvantaged and sponsoring useful and nonpartisan research has diminished. we think that is very, very important to note considering what is going on today in terms of looking at reauthorization. >> and we do know and anybody who follows education policy certainly is well aware that the reauthorization of the sea/nclb is overdue by a good couple of years. and we believe that it really provides a backdrop for a refocusing and repositioning of the role of federal education policy and its direction with local policy. currently if you were to look at the model, the model is one really where the tail is wagging the dog. the amount of money spent on

k-12 in our nation at this time is approximately $550 billion. of every one of those dollars, the federal government provides a little over 7 cents. a little over 7%. so this disproportionate influence is being dominated by the player that has the least stake financially in the outcome. and this top-down approach by the party that is almost putting pocket change or petty cash into the system somehow or other flies in the face of anything that you would think would be logical. now, again, historically, the constitution to the tenth amendment implicitly recognizes that education is a

responsibility of states, when the federal education department was created during the carter administration, the language clearly circumscribed the reach of the federal education department. took great pains to say that they were not to tread on the states. took great pains to say that they were not to be involved in program and curricula. there's a host of provisions that were intended to make it clear that primacy, delivery of education policy was clearly that of states and local districts. now, we made a number of recommendations. and among those recommendations -- and i'll present a couple of them and senator plymale will present a couple of them. as i said at the onset, the

focus of the federal funding on disadvantaged and disabled and those among our student population that were the neediest, we believe that that is an appropriate role for the federal government. that, however, whatever it is that they're going to do to deal with those populations should be based on research. research-based formulas that emphasize the neediest of students instead of attempting a leverage of statewide of 7% on a $550 billion system. that's sort of like an inch wide and a mile deep. it just doesn't provide anything that's particularly effective. we also believe that the federal government should fulfill the promise of 40% funding for idea. that would immediately free up

about $16 billion locally throughout the country. if you look -- without even accounting for inflation, if you go back 35 years, the federal government has shortchanged state and local property taxpayers particularly local property taxpayers in excess of $260 billion. in excess of $260 billion. and that is not adjusted for inflation. those are actual dollars that have been merely delivered on their promise to provide 40% funding. which right now is at a level of 17% and is varied at anywhere between 8 and 17% since its inspection. -- inception. >> also, we think that it's important that the changes related to the tax credit provisions of bonding laws, the qualified zone academy bonds,

those are important. with the stress on state budgets many times in a number of states you cannot do the buildings that you need to do. we think this is a very good way that the federal government can intervene and has intervened in the past that makes -- that makes a lot of sense. in supporting the infrastructure needs in the states. particularly, as it relates to renovating and repairs. also, revitalizing the federal focus on research and reporting on what works and why without picking or mandating how and when for winning strategies. we think that it is important to really look at the research side of this and the research focus that the federal government has had in the past and getting back to that to make sure that we know from the states this is a good thing. and you could apply it in your states. so it leaves it up to the states. also, the use of the remaining

funding to reward and encourage true innovation, not conformity to -- or compliance. we think that that is important as we move forward. and giving a checklist of reforms and a checklist that states have had to adhere to under no child left behind is very bad from a state perspective. we think that it is important to look at that. >> what we're all concerned with and rightfully so is student achievement. what is in the best interest of assisting our children, our grandchildren as they progress through our educational system. and again, going back to the initial role of the federal government, aeons after the founding of our nation, when

they put their seal on education it was about access and equity. esea and idea. that's when this minimalist contribution that the federal government provides -- what they are attempting to do. they have not to date certainly been successful. the idea of 100% proficiency certainly has been -- i don't want to say ridiculed but certainly has been subjected to questions. i know even the secretary referred to it as being utopian. the idea that somehow or other we can manage out of washington

all roads leading to washington. education in nearly 100,000 public schools and charter schools throughout this country defies reality, defies rationality. and really i think people have heard so much about reform they are really experiencing reform fatigue. you know, talk about going back to basics. well, the states and the locals really have been in the process before the feds imposed nclb of trying just to accomplish that. if we continue down this road, of this 7% stakeholder dictating the terms and conditions of how our schools will function, one of two things will happen. either the local school districts and states in effect

will become wholly owned subsidiaries of the federal government with little or no say other than ministerial responsibilities. or the feds will step up to the plate and plop down $500 billion and take over the system. well, we know neither of those are realistic. we know the feds don't have the money. unlikely to have the money. and are not about to do that and certainly there would be a public uproar. and i merely point to certainly the controversies surrounding healthcare reform to the idea of the feds taking over and managing our local school systems from washington. as we note in our report, to permit that to happen would be to drag the entire system into

the rabbit hole world where compliance with federal dictums masquerade as reform. our children deserve better. they deserve an educational system or resources, whatever ground-up in compliance and procedural issues. we should be collaborating and doing what we each do best. and certainly there are things the federal government can add to the mix in education policy that certainly would be more along the lines as defined with the creation of the federal department of education. >> thank you, senators. that's the end of our formal remarks. we have some time for questions if anyone has them. please identify yourself and i'll try to repeat and direct the question to the appropriate person. yes. >> good morning. i'm leslie maxwell with education week. i'm interested in hearing you talk a little more -- elaborate a little bit more with your concerns of the current administration's educational policies, particularly, maybe as

it relates to race to the top. if you feel like those policies are going to be as prescriptive as no child left behind has been? >> senator plymale? >> i can start and say if you look at the applications in the four areas that you have to -- you have to either go in and change state laws drastically to adhere to that. and you have to do that up front without any idea that there's any funding coming down. also, when you look at a state that is rural in nature such as west virginia where i come from, is the fact that when you look at a charter school law, where we don't even recognize it because how can you start when you have one high school in a rural geographic area and you're starting a charter school -- how are you going to be able to pay

for that in a system? i think that's really tough to try to determine. i think that it's also highlighting four areas that are now picked out as these are the four main areas of reform du jour. and those areas are what you have to do in a state to meet compliance from a federal level. >> if i just might add, it's a one-shot -- it's certainly nothing that indicates that it's going to be sustained. we saw with nclb the ebb and flow of monies at times it was cut. so it's an effort during the period of time which some are referring to as the great recession to try and entice and some might use the word "coerce" states to accept or participate

in, in this program. states that are cash-strapped and desperate for money. >> another question? or does that -- let me ask, does that first answer your question? >> it does. you point out that race to the top is a voluntary thing. the states do not have to apply. i mean, 40 states and the district of columbia did apply in the first round of funding. i mean, that is a distinction obviously from no child. but i think the administration has sort of laid out the priorities in race to the top and they're very likely to be the priorities in the esea reauthorization. >> has your understanding been a soup kitchen line looking desperately for substinence and

on a desperation on behalf of those -- >> i think there's a little bit more to that than when they tell -- when the federal government on the race to the top says you have to adopt the common core of standards, from a statewide perspective the cost of that in some states is pretty substantial so there is a cost related to that from the states' standpoint so the enticement of the money -- it is voluntary but most states are trying to do that because one foundation said that they would pay for many of the states' applications as it relates to that. >> the race requirements are not different than the requirements of no child left behind. in no child left behind the

federal government picked out standards reform and standard assessments for poor performing schools and said you have to do these things and if you did these things the assumption was implicit in that statement it would lead to a rebirth and reform and a thousand flowers blooming. the difference to the race of the top they picked four different areas of reform that are promising the same thing. if you adopt these four things it will lead you to enhanced student performance. and i think as senator plymale indicated, of those four reform elements, at least three of them have no relationship to student achievement. i mean, for example, it's not to have a good data system but data doesn't teach kids. data just tracks how well they're doing or how poorly they're doing. so i think from the perspective of the task force, there's really not that much difference in the approach between the federal government with no child left behind and the approach to race to the top. federal government is picking the winning strategies and

saying you should do this. and you should do this and you should do this. not saying do whatever you want to do as long as you decrease the dropout rate or close the achievement gap. and that's an important distinction. one is process and compliance. and one is the focus on outcomes. and we're still unfortunately in the process of compliance mode. >> given from the things you seem to report as tim scores and show some of the disparity in scores, what would be a viable way to approach this? i mean, there clearly -- there clearly to seem to be differences in student outcomes even among states. even in massachusetts there's a wide gap between high achieving and low achieving students. if not this approach, what approach? >> i can tell you that in west virginia, once again this has been a state-driven, we have

been looking at our standards and think that we need to raise them. we haven't really relied on, you know, washington telling us to raise those standards. we are on the frowned. -- frowned. -- ground. those are international benchmark standards. i think we have to do that. but once again i think that's led by a state level from that end. we see that. we think it's right. where i think the federal government can help us in that respect is telling us these are the research mechanisms that we've seen. and this proves to be good. why don't you look at this? i think that there's -- there are many states, texas as an example, where they had house bill and senate bill 1 that really laid out the texas plan for how they were going to do it. and we can utilize efforts from -- that have been generated by states with a great amount of

research and great amount of work related to that. >> it certainly is not an easy task and one that's going to be resolved expediently. it really requires the ability to work within your system. i'm from new york. nobody would dispute that the standards that were driven by the new york state regents do not meet or exceed whatever the expectations were by federal policymakers with nclb. nonetheless, we have been a woeful graduation wait. -- rate. we can do better. there's nothing that can happen that's going to be sent to us from washington that's going to make us do better. we have to get there. we have to focus on the disadvantaged students. the achievement gap is real.

the need to advance the education of children at risk and children with special needs is very real. the federal government certainly were they to go back to the role where that was their focus and the charge of the federal education department in effect was to research and share best practices, incentivize -- if something -- if something is being done well in massachusetts or pennsylvania or california or west virginia, let the -- let the federal education department herald that and say, this is a practice that is worth following. we will offer you assistance to get there.

and again, that is what the model was. and that model has not been changed. that's still statutorily the way it's supposed to work. it's simply being ignored. >> this is almost a devil advocacy's question. had it not been for nclb, had it not be for race to the top, would we be having this type of conversation? >> personally i think there are things that washington does that reflects a sense of the politics of the day. so, for example, for those of you who may remember back, i believe, in -- some in the late 1980s, there was a carjacking here in maryland. and some poor soul was dragged to her death. immediately washington reacted with the carjacking statute.

and the matter was readily handled and dealing with the frustration of education and getting results brought washington to the issue. i mean, who in their right mind could be against no child left behind despite the fact that probably not one member of the 535 read the 1100-page bill. but you could be against no child being left behind. so as i said in my remarks, the emphasis they placed on dealing with the achievement gap and the emphasis they place on disaggregating data -- and disaggregation of data i'll say was even more important than the achievement gap. because states on the whole were in the process of doing that when nclb was enacted. there were some laggers and they

were used probably for the justification of nclb but the vast majority of states were already doing what nclb philosophically was telling us to do. >> one thing that i'll say is i really feel like that having been on the no child left behind task force and this task force really brought this to of a heightened -- for me heightened the sense of how we have to get involved that get away from the procedure and compliance to where we can really get and delve down into how do we improve student achievement? how do we make sure that its access to all. the one thing that i will tell you that no child left behind did do was the student data information was very, very good. that is one very positive aspect of no child left behind.

however, how that is applied is something that each state has to do individually. >> and i might add that certainly the -- there is a history and an evolution of the federal role in education. but what we're saying in this report is that role has gotten the federal government to the point where its reach exceeds its grasp. and they're doing to do things with the limited amount of money and limited resources and limited staff that they're really just incapable of pulling off. and i think one of the discussions we had in the task force discussions centered around the idea that they were fighting the last war. they're using tools and strategies and weapons from the last go-around of federal action to fight a war against the achievement gap and against the dropout rate that is, i think, we would say is substantially different than the war that we were fighting before when we were talking about access

inequity and disabled kids and disadvantaged kids. and what we're saying is, we need to look about what kinds of tools and weapons and strategies do we need to fight the current war, not the last one? more questions. >> there's a line in your report under findings about the federal role in reform that piqued my interest and i would be curious to hear you elaborate on the pressure of national philanthropy groups and searchers and advocacy groups and the role that that has played in your view of broadening the reach of the federal government and education policy. >> as i remember the line is basically indicating that there are national -- reasons why national groups would rather see a highly centralized system. >> it basically boils down to one stop shopping. that's why many people look to washington now instead of the states. you know, if i can't get what i want in state a or b or c,

perhaps i can get the whole enchilada. if anything to washington and circumvent the states or preempt them. >> and then again if i can't get it as law, i can do it by rule or by taking and setting some money aside and saying we're going to move these things to change you. and there's really -- we'll write the rules as we go. >> and just one last comment in that vein -- i mean, there's nobody who doesn't recognize the arbitrary manner in which regulations and rulings were made under nclb even the inspector general found inappropriate activity in some of their decision-making processes. and very similar in any federal model that you're going to have there's going to be favorites and those who are going to benefit and those who are going to be disadvantaged.

it's just -- unless the federal government wants to just move in, lock stock and barrel and in effect make vassles out of local school districts and the state education department, they can do no more than to attempt to manage from far from unlimited resources and the approach when you look at nclb has been punitive and whether it masquerades as a carrot when in reality it's a stick or being more coercive by the lure of dollars -- i'm not sure as many states that have applications in today where this several years ago when they were with money would have bothered to make these applications. but states are desperate for money. >> and just as an example, i'm sure you've all seen that the estimate in texas was that in

order to comply with the provisions of race to the top, they were going to have to spend $3 billion. and the possible return that they were going to get for the maximum return they could get for a race to the top grant would be $750 million. anybody can do that calculus and figure out that there's a cost benefit analysis. and there's a point with which you say it doesn't make sense to chase additional money if we're going to spend more money than we're actually going to be getting in the forms of these grants. any other questions? we're about ready to wrap up. well, thank you, senator plymale. thank you senator saland. and thank you members of the press for being here. we think that there's a lot of room for food for thought in this product that we've come up with over the last year and a half. and there's a lot of information and a lot of expertise that we drew upon, both the members and the presenters to this and we hope this opens a discussion --

an open discussion that the department of ed and the congress as they look at the reauthorization of the esea.gsv and as they think about that reauthorization, what we're saying is you need to take a broader perspective, excuse me -- you need to take broader view and what is the appropriate role for the players and the governance of our k-12 system and not only what is appropriate and statutorily correct but also what is the most effective use of the relationship to get the effective -- the biggest bang for the buck for our kids and our future. so again thanks very much. and we'll be around to take informal questions when we're finished. >> the u.s. senate is coming in next.

on the agenda today the nomination of patricia smith as labor department solicitor. the third ranking post in that agency. a final vote has not been scheduled but could be today. another nominee martha johnson comes up for senate consideration this week to fill the general services administration's top spot. the house is working on nine bills today. they come in at 12:30 and 2:00 pm for legislative work. one bill would extend the pilot program for volunteer groups to obtain criminal history background checks. also this week the house takes up cybersecurity research and development and increasing the national debt limit. and all across capitol hill budget hearings continue. senate finance committee hearing from treasury secretary geithner right about now. that's live on c-span. and defense briefing -- defense budget on c-span3 at this hour. now the u.s. senate here on c-span2. kwlooir kwlooir the chaplain: let us pray.

gracious lord, we acknowledge your ownership of all the earth and everything and everyone in it. thank you for the evidences of your favor in the past and for your hand that has made and preserved us as a nation. may the knowledge of our rights and privileges keep us conscious of our duties and obligations. guide our lawmakers with your spirit. keep them from stumbling, as they seek to do your will. empower them in their work with a strength that is not their

own, infusing them with serenity to meet the challenges of an agitated world. light up the candles of their hearts and help them shine with your peace and goodwill. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., february 2, 2010.

to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable al franken, a senator from the state of minnesota, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the leader. mr. reid: following remarks of the leaders the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the first half-hour will be controlled by the democrats. the second by the republicans. following morning business, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume post cloture debate on the tphopbgs of -- nomination of patricia smith to be solicitor for the department of labor. this is another one of the endless delays we've had to go through here. we're in a post cloture, 30 hours of doing nothing. we've had so many 30 hours of doing nothing that it's hard to comprehend the wasted time of all the staff, senators' time

could be better put to use, people could be drafting legislation. on and on with contemplating what could be done but for this end hr-ts stalling we've seen -- endless stalling we've seen. the senate will recess for the weekly caucus meetings. following the smith nomination the senate will proceed to vote on martha johnson on the general services administration. it's difficult to comprehend but that has been without a leader because of what's going on in the stalls that have taken place. so we have filed cloture on this. we'll notify senators when they -- when votes are scheduled. we are going to finish -- i would like to finish patricia smith at a reasonable hour today. that's immediately following a simple majority for her. and then there is a 60-vote margin on cloture on the future

administrator of the general services administration. and then there's 30 hours after that, mr. president. so we will, tomorrow as we did for the republicans when they had their retreat last wednesday, we were not in session. we don't wish to be in session tomorrow. we have the president coming to our retreat and a number of other special guests. but if we have to come in tomorrow either before or after the retreat, we're going to have to do that to meet the burdens of this endless stalling that's taking place here in the senate. mr. president, when a young nigerian terrorist boarded an airplane bound for america on christmas day there was no permanent boss at the t.s.a., the agency responsible for the safety of our airports. this agency was created after 9/11 specifically to keep air travel safe. when he tried to blow up that plane, the top positions of both intelligence agencies within the state department and the department of homeland security were empty.

why? because republican senators refuse to let this body hold a vote on these highly capable people the president has asked to serve in these roles. we all know republicans have dedicated themselves to grinding government to a halt. they do so openly and proudly and boast about their aversion to compromise. that's why they have time and time again exploited the rules of the senate and abused this body's procedural traditions. it's why they've wasted countless hours and shattered remarkable records for stubbornness. it's why when we've faced questions on national security we've answered with politics. republicans have repeatedly asked fearful families to put keynes on -- put concerns on hold while they score political points by plague partisan games. mr. president, this is not a game. an embarrassingly high number of officials remain unable to go to work. for political reasons a handful of republican senators are standing between these experts

and their offices. that means they are also standing between the american people and the american people's security. too many of the president's nominees for critical national security jobs await the senate confirmation. today i want to talk about four of those positions republicans refuse to fill. one, the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness which is the number-three job at the pentagon. we have secretary gates, we have one other individual, and then we have this under secretary of defense who is not filled. two, this -- the assistant secry of state for intelligence. when secretary clinton is called to go to pakistan, afghanistan or anyplace in the world, her arm, the intelligence arm of the security department must be able to give her information on what's going on, what has gone on and what's going on in the future. not with this state department. the republicans won't let this

person be chosen. third, under secretary of homeland security, again for intelligence. this person is head of the department of homeland security's intelligence arm, just like there's no one today at state department, there's no one at the department of homeland security dealing with intelligence. hard to comprehend but that's true. finally the u.s. representative for the conference on disarmament, whose job is to work with other nations to keep our own people safe from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. the president has chosen exceptionally qualified men and women for these jobs but without a senate vote confirming them as our constitution requires, they can't do those jobs. let's talk about the pentagon. the first job i mentioned, the number-three job at the pentagon, the president's nominated general clifford stanley. for 33 years dr. stanley,

general stanley served our country in the marine corps in the communities where he and his family have lived. after serving bravely as a marine infantry officer, he went on to become quite an academic, served as a white house fellow. he was head of the nation's largest nonprofit private-sector scholarship organization. he was asked to come back. he is not a controversial nominee. the senate armed services committee approved him unanimously right here on the senate floor. no, not general stanley. he would not only be a pivotal part of the pentagon's senior leadership, he would also be in charge of making sure service members are prepared for war. at a time we're waging two of them and as we plan to send 30,000 more troops to afghanistan, a surge i know my republican colleagues support. our military leaders have told me that his absence is having a negative impact on the pentagon's operations. i received phone calls, senator

reid, what are you going to do to get this person approved? i tell them, i'm doing my best. now we wasted all week on two nominees, one to be the solicitor for the labor department. the other to be head of the general services administration. if people are serious about giving our troops the tools they need to succeed in battle and at home -- and i'm confident the republicans must think that -- we should be, and they should be just as committed giving our military leaders who will go to work every day to make sure that happens. let's talk about intelligence. these agencies that try to find out what the enemy is doing. second and third position i mentioned earlier are the top intelligence roles at the department of state and homeland security, as i mentioned. for the state department position, president obama has nominated ambassador phil goldberg. like general stanley, ambassador goldberg is not a controversial

or partisan nominee. in fact, mr. president, it was president bush who tkpwaeufr him the title -- gave him the title ambassador when he made him the top diplomat in bolivia. i traveled to bolivia, the first senate congressional delegation i can ever remember going to bolivia. goldberg was there. so impressive. pwapls tkor goldberg -- ambassador goldberg has led nonproliferation efforts in kosovo and north korea. he is head of the state department's intelligence branch, he would work with ambassadors around the world and be secretary of state's top intelligence advisor. but he's going to have to wait. this intelligence aspect of the department of state can wait. the assistant leader, my friend, senator durbin, was at the state department today learning from the secretary of state about some of the issues facing our

country, meeting with secretary clinton. it is just a shame that ambassador goldberg can't go to work, but he can't. for the homeland security position the president nominated karen wagner. she too is highly qualified, having held a number of senior positions in the house permanent select committee on intelligence, the office of the director of national intelligence and the the national intelligence program. as homeland security top intelligence official wagner would be responsible for ensuring the department's partners at the state, local and tribal levels and in the private sector have the information they need to keep us safe from the bad folks around the world. as far as disarmament, the fourth nominee is ambassador laura kennedy. president obama, he asked her to serve as our nation's representative on the conference on disarmament. this group is responsible for

negotiating multilateral arms control tk*eus disarmament agreements such as the biological weapons convention, chemical weapons convention, big, big issues, mr. president. ambassador kennedy is a member of the seniors foreign service, has worked at the state department, bureau of european and asian affairs, united nations, the national war college. and as president bush's ambassador to turkmenistan. of all the countries with nuclear weapons, the united states, our great country, is the only one that doesn't have a representative at the conference of disarmaments at the negotiating table. why? because the republicans are stalling everything. that's just unacceptable. we need to confirm her. we need to confirm her a long time. it's not just those cases, mr. president. it's many, many others. it's clear these positions are critical to our national

security that i just talked about and equally evident that these nominees are well qualified, nonpartisan public servants. why isn't it clear -- i'm sorry. what isn't clear, mr. president, is why our republican colleagues refuse to bring them up for a vote. senate republicans are simply so opposed to everything, absolutely everything, that they even oppose putting people in some of the most important positions in our government. people that were originally appointed by president bush to positions of high standing. these are not isolated cases. they are part of an endless and reckless pattern. as with candidates for the president's cabinet, other top administration post, numerous federal judges, republicans have decided the president does not deserve to have his nominees reviewed by the senate as the constitution clearly states. just ignore them is what they say. this obstruction could not come

at a more dangerous time. i was coming to work and i was in an elevator. i looked and there was an extremely impressive woman. it was cold and she had a coat. she had a uniform on. she said i'm dr. benjamin, surgeon general of the united states. i heard and read so much about this alabama physician who dedicated her life to taking care of poor people. i was so happy to meet her, and then i remembered how long we had to wait to get her confirmed. now, the obstruction could not come at a more dangerous time for what's going on in the country. republicans blocked a vote on our surgeon general, dr. benjamin, even after the president declared h1n1 a national emergency. they blocked a vote on the top homeland security official responsible for science and technology. that was even as the nation braced for both flu pandemic and

bioterror threats. the list seems endless. while our sons and daughters are fighting in iraq and rebuilding that nation, last year republicans delayed the confirmation of america's ambassador to iraq. while our troops serve bravely the republicans delayed the the confirmation of general stanley mcchrystal. this clearly is not the way the senate is supposed to work. it's not even wait it typically works. as i pointed out before, it took only four months for president obama to face as many filibusters of his nominees as president bush faced in his entire first four years. this republican caucus over here proudly says, "we blocked as many of president obama's nominees in four months that you over here on this side of the aisle took four years to block."

democrats have no interest in playing these games, and that's why we didn't do what they're doing. no other -- no other minority has ever done anything like this before. this is, this is one of a kind. it would be one thing if republicans were unified and voted against these vital nominees. it would be one thing if f. they reviewed these nominees, dispieded they weren't fit to serve. but that's not what's happening. instead, simply to waste time republicans are refusing to let the senate vote at all. when these nominees do finally come before this body, you'd be surprised. many of them pass unanimously, after they've stalled this for days and days. shouldn't be surprised, but it

is enough to make you feel uneasy in the stomach that these people who are concerned with the scute of our nation are being -- with the security of our nation are being stopped from being able to go to work by virtue of the republican party of "no." these senators are ignoring their responsibility to confirm or reject the men and women or commander in chief has chosen to help lead this nation safely. they're abdicating their responsibility to the american people to keep us safe. they're certainly not putting country safe, as advertised. here's the bottom line: , our republican colleagues are basings their judgment on the party of the person being nominated. it endangers our national security. i have no doubt our friends realize when we keep empty a critical office in the pentagon, state department, office of homeland security we're not keeping the men people safe. they new england what they're

doing and they know what they're doing ask dangerous. if they don't, they certainly should. that makes these partisan games all the more disgraceful. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will be a period of morning business with -- for one hour with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, last week with the state of the union address, president obama laid out the challenges facing america. there are many. and he called on us to rise above partisanship and to try to

find good solutions for america. i think most americans agree with that. oh, there are some yellow dog democrats, hard-shell republicans who say, "never compromise, never." but they do represent the majority of america. the majority of american people could care less about democrats and republicans. they worry about this nation and its future. they worry about their families, their neighborhoods, their schools, and they wonder why we squabble so much here and spend so much time tied up in knots over arguments that don't make any sense. i just heard the majority leader describe four individuals, four individuals who stepped up when the president asked them to and said, we will serve. and you know what it means when you say we will serve? it means that the f.b.i. that looks through every aspect of your life, you fill out lengthy questionnaires, you prepare yourself to go before a committee and be asked questions

about every aspect of your life, personal and public, you submit your name to the press to let them look through as well, and then you bring your name of course to the floor of the senate -- in this case -- for final scrutiny. is it any wonder that a lot of people say, thanks, but no thanks, i'm not interested in doing that. i love my country, but yo, you know, i value my privacy and i don't want doge through that hassle. but some have the courage to step up and say, i'll do t if my country needs me, i will contribute in any way i can. let me give an example of one of them here. his name is clifford stanley, 33-year career in the united states marine corps. he retired in 2002 with the rank of major general. he comes from a family devoted to military service. his father and his brother served in the army. his daughter is an officer in the navy. he has a niece in the air force.

dr. clifford stanley was the first -- the first -- african-american regimented officer? the history of the united states marine corps. the president nominated him in october to serve as under secretary for defense for personnel and readiness. the armed services committee held a hearing in november and reported his nomination to the full senate on december 2. he came out of the committee without controversy. is it any wonder? 33 years in the marine corps, the first african-american regimental commander in its history, a man who has served his country so well and risked his life for this great nation, reported by the armed services committee to the full senate floor in december. we're now in february. this is a critical post that he's been appointed to by the president. he's in charge of basically

managing the readiness of the u.s. armed forces. dr. stanley would have the responsibility to oversee the national guard and reserve. that's 143,000 americans who are serving in that capacity. he's responsible for the health of the men and women in uniform. the budget that the president submitted yesterday includes $30.9 billion for health care for the members of the military family who are covered by tricare. that would be one of dr. stan liszt responsibilities. finally, he has -- he is a senior policy advisor on retirement, career development, pay and benefits. it's a critically important role for our military and our families that really support these military, and dr. stanley is clearly qualified to do it, has gone through the process of scrutiny and investigation, and yesterday on the floor of the senate when the majority leader asked for permission so that he could go forward and serve our

country again in the department of defense, the senator from alabama, senator shelby, objected. i'd like to hear why. what is it about this man that he objects to? is there something we don't know about dr. stanley? is there something he knows about his 33 years of service in the marine corps? i'll bet there isn't. i'll bet there's another reason for it. i don't know if we'll ever know that. the fact is, he was objected to. but he wasn't the only one. laura deny dilawyer kennedy is-- --laura ken did i. it is a way we meet with other nations to try to reduce the advance of nuclear arms and the threat of nuclear war. her nomination is based on the fact that she's an experienced diplomat with talent and skills that are desperately needed in

this very involved, difficult, and important negotiation. she has already served with with distinction in several position. she was ambassador to turkmenistan, deputy commandant at the national war college. she was reported out of the senate foreign relations committee two months ago. what is holding her up? yesterday the majority leader asked that laura kennedy, the nominee to the conference on disarmament be approved by the senate and the senator from alabama, senator shelby, said "i object." well, i think senator shelby owes it to all of us to come and tell us why. what is it that he objects to about laura kennedy? does he feel she's not qualified? if he does, let's hear why. and then let's bring it to a vote of the senate. isn't that only fair? karen wagner, a nominee for under secretary for intelligence and analysis in the department

of homeland security. do we need someone to deal with intelligence in a time of the threat of terrorism? do we need someone like that at the department of homeland security? we need them yesterday. we don't need them tomorrow. the under secretary for intelligence and analysis is considered the chief intelligence officer at the department of homeland security. the under secretary has to bring together all these different agencies and brarchls of government to make sure -- and branches of government to make sure that he coordinate their effort. we know what happened last christmas. there wasn't enough done and it wasn't done in a timely way to deal with this man who threatened the lives of those who were on that airplane destined for detroit. karen wagner is highly qualified to meet the manne the demands os position. she's an instructor at the intelligence and security academy. she retired from the house permanent select committee on intelligence in october of 2008

where she served as budget director and cybersecurity coordinator. before that she served as assistant deputy director of national intelligence. her experience also serve serves including serve as a warfare officer? the united states army. that's a pretty strong resume, isn't it? it is person you'd would not in this this job immediately. why in the world would we risk an tashing on the united states by withholding critical personnel and critical leadership when it comes to gathering intelligence in the department of homeland security? yesterday the majority leader asked for the consent of the senate to move her nomination forward. the senator from alabama, senator shelby, objected. i would like to ask the senator, what does he know about karen wagner that would lead him to object to her serving in th thed states of america and trying to keep us safe?

if he knows something, the next half-hour of the floor of the senate is available to the republicans or to him. i invite him to come forward and say, what is wrong with this nominee? why are you holding up this nominee? and then there's phillip goldberg, deputy for intelligence and research. this man has served as our ambassador to bol live yarks chief of mission in co kosovo. he is a coordinator of the u.n. security council resolution monitoring the implementation of resolutions on north korea. and he would be head of the bureau of intelligence and research at the department o def state. a big part of their responsibility is to make sure our foreign pals is based -- foreign policy is based on good intelligence gathered around the world to keep america safe and secure. for over 60 years this branch of our government has led the state department's review of sensitive counterintelligence and law enforcement activities.

in 2004 the senate select committee on intelligence restleeld this agency was one of the -- revealed that this agency was one of the feud dissenting voices earlier when the c.i.a. and other intel p generals shops overstated the threat of saddam hussein in iraq. this agency got it right. although its primary customer is the state department this agency serves many other branches of government. the confirmation of phillip goldberg would provide essential leadership and so yesterday the majority leader came to the floor and for phillip goldberg to serve at the department of state to gather this intelligence to keep america safe, he ask consent that we move to his nomination, a nomination with no controversy, and the senator from alabama, senator shelby, objected. please, i ask my colleagues on the republican side of the aisle, come to the floor and explain to us what's wrong with phillip goldberg. what disqualifies him for this position in this administration? make your best case, if you have one, against him or any of these

nominees and then out of a sense of fairness and at least a sense of giving this country and this president the people he needs on the team needs to keep us safe, let us come to a vote immediately on these four nominees. i don't hold out a lot of hope that any republican will come to the floor with objections against any one of these people because, you see, these objections are sometimes based on some grudge, some project, something else. i don't assign that to the senator from alabama. i have no idea why he objected. but if he has a substantive objection to any or all of these four people, he should come forward and tell us. he owes it to the senate. he owes it to the american people. and in fairness, he owes it to these four people who served our country well and want to continue to do so. they shouldn't be lift in this limbo, in this uncertainty. i might also say, mr. president, that when i leave the floor i'll

be headed to the senate rules committee where i'll serve for a hearing to discuss the supreme court case that was decided a few days back that really is going to make a dramatic difference in the way political campaigns are waged in america. for 100 years, since the days of teddy roosevelt, we have agreed to keep major businesses, big corporations out of our american political scene. oh, they get involved; make no mistake. we saw that on the health care reform. the major forces for it and against it in the private sector bought ads. but when it comes to the candidates, the actual people running for federal office, we have basically said no corporate contributions to these candidates. individuals, yes, who work for the corporations. but not the corporations themselves that have millions of dollars they could channel and funnel in to campaigns. that was the law. that was the standard for 100 years. then this supreme court took up

this case, and as a result of this case it's all going to change. when i saw the final decision, i noticed that chief justice roberts and justice alito had joined with justice kennedy and justice thomas and justice scalia for the five-vote majority on the court. i couldn't help but remember not that think ago when -- that long ago when chief justice roberts appeared before the senate judiciary committee and was asked what is your role going to be as chief justice? he said i'm just there to call the balls and the strikes. i'm not there to make up the rules of the game. that's for somebody else. i want to tell you something. for 100 years, it was pretty clear that when major corporations wanted to participate in supporting directly the candidacies of federal candidates, the ball went right down the middle and it was clearly strike and we said "you're out." but not this supreme court. not under this chief justice.

this is clear judicial activism. i challenge any of mr. roberts -- justice roberts' supporters on the other side of the aisle who preach to us over and over again about their loathing for judicial activism to explain what happened in this case when this supreme court overturned that prohibition against corporations directly involved in candidates' campaigns. most people who haven't been in this world are probably scratching their head and saying what difference does it make? you folks spend millions of dollars anyway. what's a couple million more on one side or the other going to do? i'll tell you what it will do. what it basically means is that when corporation "x" comes to the office of a senator and says we've got an important tax matter coming up here, and for our corporation, we would really appreciate it if you would vote against this new tax on our business. well, now senators can take a look at it and say, well, i may

vote for it, i may vote against it. i know that perhaps the officers of that corporation, maybe it is employees may be upset if i vote for the tax. i have to make up my mind. because of the supreme court decision corporation x can say we'd appreciate it if you vote against that tax and you know in the back of your mind they can literallily spend $1 million to defeat you, thanks to the activist supreme court. how do we fix this? this morning in the rules committee we'll talk about disclosure, making sure that corporations are well known when thee buy these ads so at least the american people know who's paying for them, and some other aspects to regulate the supreme court decision within the bound of what the supreme court said we can do. but i think it goes to a larger question. some of my colleagues in the senate have said all along that what i'm about to describe to you is too far in the future, not within our grasp.

but i think it's time for us to seriously, seriously consider public financing in campaigns. i think we ought to start drawing a bright line between those who will accept public financing and limited contributions from individuals and those who are red dill to go out into -- ready to go out into this wild west of corporate politics, special interest politics, big-money politics. i introduced this bill a few years back, fair elections now bill. as a matter of fact, the current president of the united states, when he was then senator obama, was a cosponsor of this legislation. and what we're basically trying to do is to follow the lead of major states which have voted for campaign finance reform. when states like arizona took this issue to the voters of that state and said do you want to clean up elections? do you want to have fair elections, public financed elections? the voters said, yes, get the lobbyists and special interests out of this mess. let's try to make this directly candidates to the voters and take the special interest groups

out. this bill would do that. what it basically says is that to qualify for public financing, you go out and raise small contributions, $100 maximum contributions and put those together in a sufficient amount to show that you are a viable candidate, and then you qualify for public financing in the primary and then again in the general based on the population of your state. well, you have -- will you have as much money as a big corporation? no. but here's my theory: if a candidate goes for public financing they will have enough money to get out their message, introduce themselves to the voters, make the issue and clarify if some major corporation is going to come in and try to steam roll. that, i think, is the best we can hope for, but it may be all we need. my state of illinois, with one possible exception, is notoriously suspect of big-money candidates who come in to spend millions to get elected. they don't make it in my state. they waste a lost personal

wealth and they don't win, with one possible exception. i think there is a skepticism to big money, and i think this public financing is a way to clean up our political campaigns. we have candidates in the constituent business rather than the campaign financing business. i can't tell you, if you could sit down with members of the senate and say a few words to them, they'll know instantly what you're talking about. power hour, dialing for dollars, weekends on the road. we all know what it's about. it's about the incessant money chase that's necessary to raise money to finance our campaigns under the current system. it's time away from our states. it's time away from our families. it's time away from meeting just voters who don't happen to be rich, who deserve representation and a voice in this process. that's unfortunate and it should change. and so what we're trying to do now is to bring in public financing with this fair elections now. how do we pay for it? we'd impose a tax -- t-a-x -- on

corporations doing business with the federal government. it would be enough to fund public financing of all campaigns in the house and the senate. i don't think that's unreasonable. we'd also provide discounts on time that candidates would buy on television and radio so that they wouldn't have to pay as much as the most expensive time that is sold. what do people think of this idea? well, it turns out that it's one of the few things that people agree on bipartisan -- on a bipartisan basis. 69% of democrats, 72% of republicans, and 60% of independents support this proposal when we describe it to them. it's supported by a lot of good government groups, a lot of former members of congress, some business leaders and even some lobbyists. recently a letter was sent to the united states senate, just a general letter, from corporations, major corporations across america saying please leave us alone. we're sick and tired of being asked to find excuses to give

you money. do it some other way. clean up this mess in washington. the fair elections now bill that i've introduced will do that. i encourage my colleagues to take a look at it and to try to imagine a world where we didn't have to go scrambling looking for money. imagine a world where you walk down the streets of your hometown and when you're in an election cycle people don't rush to the other side of the street for fear that you're going to ask them for another check. think about what life would be like if we were talking about small contributions creating the base of grass roots support for candidates, both challengers and incumbents. i think that's the reality of our future if we have the courage to step up and do it. this decision by the supreme court should be the reason -- should be our catalyst for making this reform decision now. i urge my colleagues to consider skporpship of fair e-- cosponsorship of fair elections now. we hope that it can be moved in

this session of the united states senate. mr. president, how much time is remaining in morning time on our side? the presiding officer: 9 minutes, 45 seconds. mr. durbin: i'm going to reserve the balance of my time and yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call being dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: and ask that i be allowed to speak for as much time as i may consume in morning business. the presiding officer: the senator veked to speak o.a.s. if in morning business. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, chairman schumer started this morning hearings in the rules committee on the supreme court decision, citizens united v. the f.e.c. this supreme court decision completely changes the campaign finance landscape. 50 years ago when my father, stewart udall, and my uncle mo, were in office, money had minimal imajt on the electtorial and political system. it was about connecting with people and the marketplace of ideas.

right now it's just as much about the biggest checkbooks, if not more so, than it is about the best ideas. unfortunately, we are about to see a lot more big checkbooks in the election process. last month's supreme court decision in citizens new united. f.e.c. was a victory for the special interests at the expense of the average american. we've seen firsthand the impact special interests like big oil and big banks and health insurance companies have had on the legislative process. now, with this decision, already-power corporations and labor unions, this might be off-limits, but i don't understand why we can't go after these corporations and go after all of the powerful interests that are trying to do this.

members of both chambers and the administration are working on legislation to address the citizens united decision. i commend their efforts, but i believe that a comprehensive overhaul of the campaign finance system is necessary in order to restore public faith in our elections. what we're seeing here today is large special interests sup planting the voices of everyday americans in the political process. the supreme court has shown its willingness to rule broadly and ignore long-standing precedent when it is reviewing the constutionality of campaign finance laws. the best long-term solution is a constitutional amendment that will prevent the court from overturning sensible campaign finance regulations. i would welcome the opportunity to join my colleagues in introducing such an amendment. while i believe that a constitutional amendment is the

ideal solution, i also think that comprehensive reform legislation is a step in the right direction. as a member in the house for ten years, i joined representative dave obey as an original cosponsor of the "let the people decide clean campaign act," a bill that will fundamentally change how house elections are conducted. mr. obey reintroduced this bill in this congress, and i intend to introduce a companion bill in the senate in the coming weeks. the act does not attempt to fine-tune the existing congressional campaign finance system or tweak around the edges. rather, it makes fundamental wholesale changes to fund-raising by candidates, regulations of outside groups and the role of political parties. it contains a finding that america's faith in the election system has been fundamentally corrupted by big money from outside interests. it establishes a system of

voluntary contributions to provide public financing of campaigns for house candidates in general elections. it provides more funds that the current system for the vast majority of challengers to mount their campaigns. and it empowers voters with the knowledge that their vote affects the outcome of the current election and also affects the amount of funds distributed to nominees in future elections. it bans all independent expenditures so that only the candidate is responsible for his or her message. it provides for expedited consideration of a constitutional amendment allowing these changes if the supreme court rejects the plan. and it provides a process by which third-party candidates can also participate in the system. money can have a corrosive effect on the political process. we've seen evidence of that in campaigns at all levels of

government. we have long needed substantive campaign finance reform, and it's my hope that the high courts' disappointing decision will provide the push we need to put elections back in the hands of average americans and not the special interests who can use their unlimited bank accounts to railroad the process to their preferred conclusion. with that, mr. president, i yield back. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. harkin: i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. harkin: mr. president, we are now, if i'm not mistaken -- i can ask the parliamentarian what is the business before the senate at this time. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of labor. m. patricia smith of new york to be solicitor for the department of labor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. harkin: mr. president, thank you. so for the benefit of those who are tuned in on c-span in their

offices, we're now in what we call postcloture on the nomination of patricia smith to serve as solicitor of labor. this is a nominee that came before our committee almost a year ago, in april. it's been held up and held up and held up. and yesterday the senate voted cloture because it was being filibustered -- yet again another filibuster by our republican friends. and so we had a vote last night, and the cloture was invoked by 60 votes. and so now we're in the period of what they call postcloture of 30 hours after postcloture. and then we will have a final vote up or down on patricia smith to be the solicitor of labor. and it's obvious that if she got 60 votes last night on cloture, it's obvious she certainly has more than 51 votes to take the position as solicitor of labor.

so that's where we are. we're in this 30 hours. again, it raises a question in my mind why are we chewing up 30 hours? we know the votes are there. we voted on cloture last night. and yet, our colleagues on the republican side are insisting that we just chew up time. for what purpose? we've got the lights going, the heat's on, all our staffs are here, and no one else is on the floor. so why do we run these 30 hours and waste taxpayers' money and waste all this time when we know what the vote's going to be? we've been through all this. patricia smith has had her hearings. i thought we had a pretty good debate yesterday. the republicans laid out their side. we laid out our side. we had the vote. and now it's time to move ahead and have the final vote and get this person to work down at the

department of labor. so, again, i just say for the benefit of those watching here, we are again in another one of those filibusters. well, we stopped the filibuster. now we're in this 30 hours afterwards, which we don't really need. everything that's beenically been said about patricia smith -- that's basically been said about patricia smith has been said. she's appeared before the committee, she's answered questions. the record is there. there's nothing you can do that's going to come out. everything is there. and all of our senators know that. but the rules are the rules, and the republicans have the right to invoke the rules. and so evidently they've invoked the rule to chew up 30 hours. well, it's just a shame that we have to waste our time like this. mr. president, as long as we're chewing up the time and republicans are insisting that we keep the lights on and heat on and keep everybody around for 30 hours, then i would like to

make some more remarks on behalf of patricia smith and where we find ourselves. as i said, i'm very grateful to our colleagues for the vote last night to end debate, to invoke cloture. we've devoted very ample time to our deliberations on patricia smith. it's now time to act. there's no question when you look at the record and the facts, the facts and the record that patricia smith is abundantly qualified to serve as solicitor of labor. she has an impressive background in labor law and a demonstrated record of achievement in the state of new york. more importantly, she clearly has a deep and passionate record for helping american workers. i can think of no better qualification for this position. there's also no question that commissioner smith -- and i use the word commissioner smith

because she is commissioner of labor for the state of new york. there is no question commissioner smith has been through a thorough vetting process. the matter has been before us since last april. she's testified in committee hearing, answered more than 50 written questions and met with any senator that wanted to meet with her. her nomination was debated extensively in our committee, quite frankly. it's now being debated on the senate floor, a step that in previous congresses was offered for judges who get lifetime appointments, not for someone who is going to be solicitor of labor at the department of labor. it is time to bring discussions to an end and let commissioner smith start doing her job. i listened very carefully to the arguments raised by my colleagues yesterday against commissioner smith's nomination. while i think we can spend quite

awhile debating about which e-mails she was copied, which staffers should have kept her in the loop and all that, i can't help but conclude that this debate fundamentally, fundamentally comes down to a disagreement about whether this wage watch program that was instituted by the new york department of labor as a pilot program, whether or not it was a good idea or not. it kind of comes down to that. i'll have more to say about what i think it comes down to in a minute. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle -- and i read the record -- have used some pretty scary words to describe this pilot program. they called it -- quote -- "entrapment, sreupblg lan ism -- vigilantism." they say it deputizes activist

groups to intrude on small business. they say it is like the minute men who try to patrol our borders with guns. request there -- if there is eve scintilla of evidence that is what this program is about, i would be alarmed too. but it's not. again, let's look at the documents. let's get the facts out. the agreement that participating groups signed to join this wage watch, i think is a good description of what wage watch volunteers did. and here's the agreement that groups who agreed to get involved in that agreed to. 1 -- conduct outreach to the public about labor laws, handing out brochures, et cetera. in formal and informal settings, for example, at organized festivals, neighborhood or group meet, other organized events. ... bus and subway stops,

libraries, supermarkets or similar locations. requests "2, provides seminars or informational sessions to the public. third, set up and staff tables at events for the purpose of providing information to the public and answering questions regarding the labor law. next, obtain information regarding potential labor law violations from parties familiar with the violations. and last, fill out basic complaint forms regarding potential labor law violations and pass them on to the department. nothing illegal, nothing unethical, informational, and certainly don't we want peernlings especially those who are at the lowest end of the economic ladder -- and this is what we're talking about here more than anything; these are people that are working at minimum-wage jobs, barely maybe above minimum wage; they're sort

of the workforce you go by bh you go by the door of a restaurant or they are beak in the kitchen or -- or they're back in the kitchen or they're perhaps in a retail industry doing her thirntion the janitors you don't see at night who are cleaning up your business places, a number of people like that that just, again, that are at minimum wage, they probably don't belong to any organized labor union, and many of them have limited language skills, and they're just trying to get by and raise their families. and so we are etrying to get information to them about what their rights are. my republican colleagues feel that that's wrong to inform people about what their rights are under the law? and, surely, they don't want to say that if you find violations of laws that have to do with safety or even health or wages, that people who are being

skimmed on their minimum wage aren't being paid the minimum wage, who are working overtime and not being paid overtime, are they saying no one should report that, that we should just keep hands off? surely, that's not what my republican colleagues are saying, is it? well, again, these are not radical actions that we're talking about. it's educational outreach designed to empower workers, protect their rights, give them information. everything that's on this chart can be done by any private citizen any day of the week. now, staff on the department of labor in their e-mails that we e saw, meaf called this an enforcers' -- may have called this an enforcers' program when they were brain-storing about the project. but that's not what it was. they were in the conducting investigations. they had no enforcement authority. they couldn't demand to see a

business books or access private property. and commissioner smith that i had this very clear in her own descriptions of the program. there's been a lot of talk about e-mails and stuff. i saw some of the charts that were put up by my friend from wyoming yesterday. all those were from people other than commissioner smith. but let's look and see what submissiocommissioner smith tod. on january 15, 2009, look at her words, not somebody else's. here's whahere's what said. "the wage watch groups will conduct activities which promote labor law compliance. ... including handing out leaflets about labor laws to workers at community events or srp supermarkets; giving "know your rights training" to workers at community events. talking to workers at restaurants and other businesses

open to the public. please note that the groups and individual whose participate at wage watchers will not be agents employees or official representatives of the labor department. er in not replacing stavment. they are not going to be conduct investigations of any kind. their role is limited to doing outreach and community education and to reporting any violations they encounter to the division. now that's from commissioner smith. but i didn't see anybody on the other side put up that chart yesterday. and charts from other people. but not from the commissioner smith. again, when it comes down to it, these wage watch people, all they could do was talk to people who were willing to talk to them, hand out fliers. is this vij l.a.n. tism run amok? hardly. it is simply volunteers who are willing to take time out of their day -- and i repeat, volunteers -- because they care

about low-wage workers and they want to help them. i can't imagine how this harmless, generous form of outreach could possibly be objectionable. unfortunately, my colleagues on the republican side have used this program to try to tarnish commissioner smith's impressive and impeccable reputation. they claim she's antibusiness. they claim she's trying to close companies and put workers out of a job. well, these charges are totally unfounded. there is no basis for those charges at all, not a scintilla of evidence about those charges. in fact, they're exactly the opposite of what a record at the new york department of labor shows. patricia smith has dedicated last several years of her life to helping workers find jobs and keep jobs. since taking over as commissioner, smith as spearheaded a $4.25 million initiative to prepare new yorkers for jobs in emerging and

green technologies. she's revamped the state's unemployment rhee training programs to allow more workers to get approved for training dollars at the same time they're collecting unemployment benefits. she's promoted the state's shared training program which gives businesses an alternative to layoffs as they face a temporary deklain in business. increase the number of businesses participating to 1,620 in 2009. these just a few of her many impressive accomplishments in the area of job training and workforce development. but where commissioner smith really gained her reputation as one of the finist labor lawyers in the country is in the area of enforcement. she is committed to protecting workers' rights. in 2008, the new york department of labor collected $24.6 million in back wages for 17,000 workers

across the state. this was a 37% increase in collections from previous years and significantly increased the compliance rate among employers. now, would someone on the other side say she shouldn't have done that? that we should have allowed these people to be cheated out of $24.6 million in back wages, just sort of wash our hands of it and move on? that's not only unfair to the workers; it is unfair to the thousands of businesses in the state of new york that comply with the law. that pay fair wages, that pay overtime pay. there's more of them than the others. the vast majority of businesses comply with the law. there's always a few trying to skim it, cut corners, figure out

they'll never be caught. usually, as i said, it aeffects our lowest-wage workers. it is unfair to the legitimate businesses in new york. that's why so many business groups support patricia smith. we got letters of recommendation from business groups in new york talking about how she listens, how she works with them, how fair she is in enforcing the laws. so when someone over there says, well, maybe she shouldn't have been doing that, is that what they're saying, that she shouldn't be that aggressive in going after back wages? well, i don't think the legitimate businesses would say that this was unfair. they would say, yes, go after those people that are giving us a bad name and, quite frankly, unfairly competing against us. so those are impressive achievements. maybe that's the reason some of our colleagues are afraid of her

being solicitor. there's no question that she will be a solicitor who will enforce the law. but she'll do it fairly and reasonably. but also make sure there are real penalties for taking money oust workers' pockets or putting workers' lives at risk. and i guess that really is what it comes down to. do we want a solicit theirs willing to go the extra mile, try new approaches, try new ideas if it'll help protect workers' rights? well, i believe we do. that's what we need in these tough economic timings. i've looked at this wage watch pilot program. quite frankly, i don't know what the results -- since it was a pilot program that's now being assessed -- but, quite frankly, i would be an energetic supporter of that kind of an approach. for people in the community who

speak the same language, live in the same neighborhood, goes to the same churches, whose families interconnect, but who are on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder -- i would be in favor of giving them information about what their rights are when they go to work every day. about what it means to work overtime and how much they should be paid for overtime and what the minimum wage is and how they should be paid the minimum wage. yes, and also what safety is. i mean, are they work around hazardous materials and they're not being adequately protected? is their health being endangered? they ought to know those things. and so many people don't. again, as i said yesterday, we're not talking about people working on wall street on hedge funds. we are enot talking about c.p.a.'s and accountants and lawyers and investment bankers.

we're into the talking about 0 -- we're not talking about senators and our staffs and people like that that have all this knowledge. we're talking about people that don't understand what their rights are. they're just happy to be here. they're happy to have a minimum-wage job. they're happy to keep their families together and hope and dream that their kids will have a better life than what they've had. so, again, this wage watch, to me, i hope -- i don't know -- i hope that it proved out that it was successful. quite frankly, i think this is something that we should emula emulate. my colleagues on the republican side seem to want to denigrate it, say this is vigilantism and minutemen. someone dpaird to the neighborhood watch. but the neighborhood watch

program, people can't go into people's homes. well, none of these people that were on the wage watch could go into a private business, unless they were allowed to. they couldn't ask for books to see what the ledgers are like or anything like that. they could go into a store that was open to the public. they could go into a wal-mart or supermarket or places like that where the general public could go. they couldn't go into a private business where they were -- people were working if the general public wasn't allowed to go in there. so, again, all the kind of compare son, the -- the comparison, the vigitantism from the other side, these are words that are intended to put fear into people. let's be frank about it, fear. fear. make them afraid. well, if they could just show an example of that, maybe we could look at it. there are examples of it

anywhere. well, my friends on the other side also raised questions about certain misrepresentations. they say that commissioner smith gave to the committee. i will never minimize that. i think when people testify before committees, they should do so honestly and openly. but i also know that human beings make mistakes. i can't tell you how many times i've been at a committee hearing when i heard a question and the person that was being questioned heard it differently than i heard it. we don't always hear things the same. and so what you do is you're able to correct the record. and guess what? we do theafer day here, don't we? i'm standing here speak. the reporter is take it down. he's doing a great job, aim a sure of that. but