: we are looking for behavioral cues and they are subtleties. wants those are known i have every confidence that our leadership will know how to deal with that.

my interpretation of that was we were talking about education and that is why we need a program that >>reporter: -- reaches out to people. >> if i am hearing you write with regard to what both of you said in your statement that your answers to your questions we did a great job responding at fort hood. our men and women were courageous and heroic and did good job but with the events leading up to the incident we had some major deficiencies. in fact, you alluded to this evolve in threat were your exact words that you said earlier, are your -- are there any preventative measures in place to detect an individual who is one of those folks i would categorize as an evolving threat

who might simply join a branch of the military with the intention of duplicating what happened at fort hood? what do we have in place now? what do we need to do to ensure we don't have somebody who spent the last six months with the idea of ultimately coming back and going in to duplicate this event. or who even spent a bunch of years or months in the wilds of our country become radicalized in a different way with different pressures. the question is the same. there was no failing by those at fort hood in their response. if there were gaps it was in us as we tried to prepare for identifying those -- this person is going to be a problem. >> i agree completely with what

the secretary said. now we are talking the thrust of your question getting us to this issue of the identification question that i raised too. the identification question raises things about the manner in which we do checks and what is involved and i think it would be smart to not in 4-man enemy in a public way about my particular impressions that we talk about in closed session. but a firm in your comments, this is part of the challenge. should we not expect that they will use every technique and scheme? >> yes. we have to get it in the hands

of people filling out those forms or making recommendations. >> mr. chairman, since you made the last point, get rid of the bearings inside or outside the department. the barriers to information. >> could i have one more thought? here's another problem with your questions and admiral fox's response. the reason we have numbers and records underrepresentation of our forces is because they self identify. they say this is my religion. i am episcopal alien or what have you. what about those who formulate a reason to hide their purposes?

don't disclose everything. don't disclose anything that will cause us to try to -- it is not a profile. it is the behavior accuse that we have to rely on. they are our only way of getting this organized and aggressive. >> so that you know the alleged perpetrator in the army as an enlisted person and came in the first time he professed to be of the islamic faith. he did not declare. i have all the statistics to talk about every brand of religion we know about. the reality is declaring what

they choose not to declare. it is not immediately apparent which is why this is the challenge. and really focusing on the behavior's. that is what we want to put the spotlight on. the guidance and instruction to the commanders and all people in the field will go by this document and this document doesn't have sufficient guidance. >> thank you for your dedication in putting together a well organized and insightful report. so far we haven't talked about the evaluation process and connecting the dots regard capabilities to be able to tell

us anything in determining behavior is if you don't have all the background to establish that. violence in the workplace is not unique to the military. it is part of everyday life. that kind of violence isn't necessarily the result of self radicalization in the work force. i am wondering in connecting the dots as you look for not only solve radicalization but other indicators in the report. and the areas identified in addition because self radicalization is a subset of an overall problem when we talk about work-force violence. the military is more unique and is unique and it is not just about domestic but we also face

it on our military posts around the world. connecting the dots we understand that not all radicals will be engaging in violence with a different idea. what are the things you looked at in performance evaluations that will help us detect potential violence not just from self radicalization but others as well? >> it is a really great question and drives back -- as i review the guidance today, find that there are good indicators in a lot of areas and i mentioned a number of these. the two that you talked about, our view is that the whole workplace -- we tend to focus on the kind of violence that takes

place away from the workplace. that is a criticism. let's talk about the domestic peace. earlier we talked about the requirement of balance. we have been dealing with this for years. we learned a long time ago that if the balance is incorrect we are going to have difficulty because the domestic violence situation always has a she says he says scenario on going. so we know how to do these things when we identify the behavior's. you are correct that we have -- >> this is why we are suggesting that perhaps we want to consider the establishment of an organization that does this for a living because you or i cannot

define a solution set today and have everything be perfect for the next three years. is going to change. our suggestion is we need to understand the eve solving world we are facing. let us not get sidetracked on just one little piece of this. the secretary's goal is to make the workplace a safe environment. when the alleged perpetrator was an officer in the military, he was a field grade officers. this implies trust. he is somebody a person would confide in. we can't have these kinds of people turning on our people and destroying the fabric of the institution of what we are all

about so we are convinced that this calls for the kind of investment that will ensure that we are staying up with the adaptation problem. this is a challenge. i am pleased the secretary of defense addressed this on friday and said we need a more adaptable system. >> in terms of your question, what are some of the things that are indicators? we have a whole list of recommendations for purposes of being helpful. will list all the recommendations and something about them so it is easy for you to find them. at 2.6 and all the way through that, a list of things that address what you said.

what about medical? we know that medical indications and medical records are protected and they should be but we raise the question of whether we review whether there are ways to make that -- is specially when it pertains to abuse and the like available on a more regular basis to those who need to have these indicators. >> thank you very much, senator nelson. >> i wanted to express my appreciation for all your service to this country and being called back into service for your extraordinary work in regard to this incident and i want to take this opportunity to express my condolences to those

who lost family members and loved ones in this horrific event in our nation's history and the fact that it happened in fort hood where more people have deployed to fight against terrorism than any other place is really heartbreaking and our appreciation goes to those first responders who once informed of the situation, showed tremendous professional dedication to dubee n save the lot of lives. i want to ask about a couple findings in your report. one is finding 3.8 of your review which states the department of defense does not have a policy governing privately-owned weapons. your recommendation states that need to review the need for such a policy and my question is can you explain what you mean by a

private weapons policy. >> they exist for example let fort hood, which among other things is a popular place for hunting. we need some control over guns and carefully balanced secured approach. the way that works it often works in other installations, first of all, everyone in the united states military to its personnel, if we are enlisted or would have, they are secured and on the day of the event of the only armed person on the scene for those who were part of the security force was the perpetrator. the policy works this way. if you live in the barracks,

your privately-owned weapon must be owned by state and federal law and also leads to be registered with the family so they know what is there. if you live in the barracks it is also secured. if you live in personal borders, probably -- keep them in your phone. if you live off the base the only requirement is they be registered in accordance with state and federal law. if you bring them on to the base previously there was no way to know where that happened. if you were a card-carrying member of the armed forces there is going to be a requirement and there always was -- bringing weapons onto the base. right there at the cape.

what doesn't exist is any way of bringing them on and concealing them if you wear a prudential member of the armed forces. we really don't have the answer to how to deal with that. we do know that it is a gap and the protection that was accorded that day. the policy from coast-to-coast liege -- give some thought as to whether you wish to have a policy with the use of private reference on a public fund approach in the u.s. military. >> what you just described as a policy at fort hood --

>> the suggestion to adopt uniform -- without getting into details of that. it brings me to another question because you describe the timing of the news reports that indicated it lasted ten minutes and 2 minute and 40 seconds after the initial call the installation first responders arrived and said that it was incapacitated which accounts for 4 minutes and 10 seconds of the timeline which is almost superhuman. it is really remarkable land great credit to those who responded. can we assume there was a time period before they got there -- >> we are not so sure.

just the best estimate. >> still a significant amount of time. it is a follow-up to the previous question but if they were allowed to carry small firearms, could more lives have been saved? >> might as well give my answer. they are soldiers. if they were carrying weapons around it would have been different. what would the time line have been? of course it would have been different. >> this is a natural weed -- admiral clark -- going into it with some detail but the answer to your question is the

difference is security personnel trained to take down similar circumstances differently. and in two ways. in the past, clear out all the innocents, those who are unarmed, those who are being assailed and then take down the shooter. the law enforcement agencies -- the response to the computer program which is more and more becoming the response which is train your people, your security people, with firearms and go in and as your first priority take down the shooter before he or she can do more damage. that is why the emphasis is on training and the fbi and pittsburgh have cautioned you really need a carefully selected and well-trained force to do

that. >> they performed extremely well. may i add another point? my response was brief. let me just add it would have made a difference. if i was a commander would that be the first thing i did is arm all the people on the base? that is not what i would do. would it make a difference if some portion of them were armed? of course. but i would not summarily arm everybody because it would change the environment and that is not the immediate solution. >> in response to that, if there is going to be some consideration given to a departmentwide policy with regard to firearms i hope it would not be more restrictive because these are soldiers.

these are people who are trained. if anybody would be prepared, probably not trained exactly in emergency response but people who would be trained and prepared to effectively used a firearm to save other lives, someone in the united states military. that is my observation. thank you all very much. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman may i go on record and object to the comments in oklahoma in reference to profiling? i also recommend two distinguished public servants, one of home is known to be at the university and to see him commit all of this to america is what i anticipate when i saw him

as a freshman when i was in law school. and graduated also. a tremendous job. we are very grateful. >> your own lifelong record is quite distinguished and i consider that much more valuable. >> i appreciate your service as well. >> i see to see how we get at the major problem we are tasked to do. i have other questions but the hearing provoked another thought. mr. secretary, you mentioned the fact that when you take the oath of office in the military i am

wondering if there is a different standard on the cost of life after you have taken the oath of office or something i may have been missing in the military. there are different standards, the free-speech article, can you comment on that? >> the views of someone who was commanded -- those serving under him. years ago i was the helm council and we tried to make it for obvious reasons. the basic rule is as stated, servicemembers, whether they are

office or enlisted to pay for these services parcel citizens of the united states. they did not give up their basic constitutional rights and protections. they are not in uniform. they get to associates under the same circumstances. they are on active duty to a trial with a number of constitutional protections but not all because i think admiral kirk observed when they take the oath of office to put some things on the shelf. when their uniform they can't just say anything they please. there are lots of things you can add, qualifications and when they are in uniform they can't just go anywhere at any time.

they are enlisted to respond as they are directed to carry out their orders full. i said that too broadly. it gives an overlay. they never stop being citizens or lose their constitutional protections and lawful military authority. >> like the true veteran he is, it was absolutely perfect. i would just add let's say we are having a political season and people are running for office. the armed forces is not allowed to show up in uniform. if they choose to do so and i will choose my words carefully they would be council to be

sure. they would be part of a short but exciting conversation the way i might put it. and there are other areas. when we are overseas the first thing we tell our sailors is remember you are ambassadors of the united states of america and we put limits on the kinds of things we expected them to do and things we expected them not to do. as secretary west said so correctly, constitutional rights are never in question. >> another general question going through my mind. in this short period of time, did you have other acts taking place on military bases on

america's disloyal or military bases in iraq, supposedly still snapped and killed service person's. did you look into any of that? >> we went into great detail on policies across the board and reviewed 30,000 pages of policies. it was an unbelievable task they had. they use that as of reverence for these special cases, are their weaknesses here? the secretary of defense asked us to look for weaknesses in programs and procedures and gaps so we looked at those and this instruction in front of me has

extensive detail about the questions you can or cannot do. the prohibited activities are outlined here. our team used those particular cases as a springboard and the policies, and what we are reporting is -- let me inject this thought. we know you can't legislate perfect behavior. that is not possible. are the policies fundamentally found? the areas we focused on was this internal threat where it is the greatest need. >> i just wonder in your report, we are trying to get through

procedures that is a impossible to present. is similar to a suicide bomber. all of the policies and procedures and all of the corrections and if you were to have a procedure to go on base with private arms on base, what happens if the commanding officer were to have a similar problem? will they search for his own private weapon and determine whether or not that is on base is determined to make a violent statement? i bring it up as a result of our attempt to get procedures that are going to be in place that

will seek to prevent someone from doing such a violent act. >> that is exactly on point. that is why we have emphasized our report. we can't rely solely on stopping someone. we have to have looked for the signs for the 100 yard stair for examples of tensions or difficulties even in a personal life. we can do this if we use government facilities for the communications with extremist persons or organizations on a repeated basis. we can look for the signs of drug abuse. there is some literature our teams found. team one has this report in chapter 2.

those signs say the abuse that is corrected is often linked to violence. we need to look at what had row clarke discussed in his opening statement as the behavioral queues and indicators and we must do that over the course of the turtle's service to find them early enough so it doesn't get to the point that he brings his weapon to some crazed effort. ..

>> i want to extend my thoughts and prayers to the families of the fort hood soldiers that were killed. i think we all agree, and your report says this was a failure on the front end. we commend the first responders for their fantastic work. this was a failure. i don't want to belabor that. i think it's been talked about. there's a houston chronical article of yesterday. that i asked be submitted for the record. which i think details a lot of the failures in monitoring major hasan along the way. something should be done to prevent this. >> it'll be made a part of the record. >> thank you, sir. what i want to talk about is three things. there are questions for you. the first one is to follow up on what senator thune was talking about, soldiers on the base

carrying weapons. this instruct me as well because i recently this past week when went to four military bases in florida from pensacola to tindell to herlburg air force. going to a military base is that the soldiers and the airmen and sailors aren't carrying wells. you see half of the serviceman and women carrying this weapons. i don't think this would have happened for two reasons. one is there would have been a huge deter rant to major hasan if he knew the other soldiers were carrying weapons. if it would have happened to follow up on senator thune's point, the four minutes of time when there was no first responder there, one of our service members, i'm sure would

have picked up their weapon and fired back. and i hope that you will in your continuing work stress this to the secretary of defense. because while i understand the admiral's point about order on the base, there is probably a sweet spot here where some of the folks on a base even in the united states of america should be carrying weapons. maybe where there's going to be large groups gathering. i don't know if you have any further comments on that. you already answered senator thune's question. but i want to make that comment the. >> i have a comment. and that this: it has happened overseas where people have been carrying weapons. we've had incident in which a soldier has gone bizerk and started shooting. let's say they were able to

carry weapons at fort hood, it wouldn't have been necessary to smuggle them in and use then. thirdly, i guess, well, no, i think firstly and secondly is enough. if the admiral wants to add a thirdly, i'll let him. >> i don't argue with your fundamental point. i would just say that as a commander, i realize that i was responsibility for the creation of the environment. and so the environment -- deployed environment is always different than the environment at home. and so i think there are a lot of things that i could figure out how to do before i decided to arm every single human being on the base. i don't discount at all your point about the degree of difficulty for a shooter. so i -- but i believe secretary

west has accurately responded. we have cases to be sure. and we have been very careful not to define specific single point-dot solutions for these cases because for starters, remember, we did this in an extraordinary short period of time. if we were going to then look at all of the possible courses of alternative solutions for every one of the recommendations we made, we would have needed at least six months not to shorten up. >> i understand that. i'm saying there's a general point. i use the term sweet spot for a reason. not that you would put a gun on every serviceman or women on the side. but there be some thought. knowing that someone is baring arms is a deter rant. maybe it hasn't always. but it can be a deter rant. it certainly might have saved 13 people. we don't know. but it might have saved some of them.

the second thing is in terms of -- i want to -- senator collins is going to speak in a minute in the homeland security committee has talked about the need for training for all service members and identifying signs of islamic extremism. i wonder we don't only need to encourage our service members to look for the signs and report them, but that we need to do more than that and require it. and i think about something that, you know, universities do. i didn't attend the university of virginia. i understand they have a sir gent honor code. the honor code can be broken, and the second is failing to report that someone else violated. i wonder for your consideration is whether or not we should make a suggestion like that. that you have ab obligation as the member of the united states military that if you see something that is out of line to report it. there if i feel like in any service record i'm going reprimanded for not reporting something who none of us like to tell on our colleagues.

it's human nature. but i also commend that to you. i don't know if you consider and want to comment the on that. i appreciate that as well. >> i think this is the kind of questions and all of the pursuit of potential solutions that the secretary would with be think is going on without suggesting one is the right solution or not. phase two is to do the drill wound. they wouldn't do the drill down and hold the things that we looked at. 30 plus thousand pages of directions and policies and all of that. our job was to put the spotlight on the key things they could go do in a hurry. it's my understanding that's his expectations for phase two. >> the third and final point i have is we've heard this phrase connect the dots. and i heard it yet when we had a commerce committee hearing with secretary napolitano and lightener about the christmas day bombing attempt.

that's the great struggle is connecting the dots. you mention have some division of people that would try to do that. that seems to be smart to me that you have someone who is going to look through all of the information, not be tasked with maybe other jobs, but be tasked with trying to, i don't know if it's an internal appears function or if it's just a function to make sure that someone is out there looking at these reports that are filled out on different serviceman. i know there's a lot of people in the united states military. but we have really good technology in this country. technology that's being used by the private sector. i don't know if these reports are scanned. i don't know if they are entered on a computer. i don't know if someone can use cloud computing and some of these new technique to do searches. we failed again on the almost terrible tragedy on christmas day. because of a misspelling of a name and other things that failed in our intelligence and the way we process, gather, and

evaluate intelligence. one thing i might commend to you and your further discussions with the secretary, if you do establish one the universities is talking to the people in the private sector who developmented the wonderful technology and see if it might be an aide to help keep our serviceman and women safe? >> may i comment? so we say in the report that we've been having those discussions long enough. it's time to move on. without defining what that solution is, i don't know how a commander can possibly connect the dots if he doesn't have all of the dots in his dot kit. or dot kit maybe the right term. but also i bring attention to

this point. we told the secretary this isn't just interagency. this is inside the department as well. challenge the assumptions on who has all of the pieces of information. the commanders will be better equipped, we now how brilliant they are when they are given the tools. >> actually, i think the organization that you may be thinking about that we recommended is designed to collect all of the indicators, keep them cataloged, update them regularly and make them available to commanders and those who have to make decisions. you're idea has, i think, to do with connecting dots on specific individuals. whether those things come up. that's an interesting concept. and it's not one that we necessary focused on. thank you for that. >> okay. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator lemieux,

senator lieberman. >> thanks, mr. chairman. thanks very much to secretary west and admiral clark for the service that you've given. obviously in doing this report, of course flout your lives, the attack of november 5th was a tragedy. and we're very grateful for the efforts that you've made, along with the department of defense personnel working with you in this review to ensure that such a tragedy doesn't happen again. the homeland security committee, senator collins and i are here has been investigating the fort hood shootings to assess the information the government had prior to the shootings and the actions it took in response to that information. i can tell you even at this early stage, it's become apparent to us that the department of defense's approach to the threat of service members who adopt a alent islamic

extremist ideology needs to be revised. senator collins and i sent a letter last week along the lines to secretary gates. i know there's sensitivity on this about the other muslim-americans who are serving honorably in our military. i think an each approach on islamic extremism will protect the great majority, overwhelming majority of muslim american serving in the military, who's serving honorably and will maintain the bonds of trust that are so necessary in a military context among service members of all religions. it seems to me in the fort hood case that there was many indicators that nidal hasan was motivated to commit these crimes. but i must say respectfully,

your report only mentions that particular threat. in con at last, your review recommends the direct identifies indicators. i understand again the department of defense's need to be sensitive to the religious beliefs of all it's service members and employees up. but i think it's also critically important, and i don't see it in your record as much as i admire so many of the recommendation that you made, that we recognize the specific threats paused by violent islamic extremism to our military. so i wanted to ask you first how you think the department and the services should address the specific threat of violent islamic extremism and if you want to respond to my concern

generally. i will add, i remember being disappointed, troubled after the fort hood murders when the first response to describe the incident as a force protection failure. which i suppose in one sense it was, but it was also a terrorist attack in my opinion. to the certain extent, the title of your report protecting the force will continue that emphasis as opposed to a focused emphasis on the problem we are facing. just as we focused earlier on the very real problem explicitly of white supremacist extremism. i welcome your response generally and particularly. >> i was the secretary of the army at the time of the fort bragg incident, senator. and because i was given a little more leeway, i was the one who ordered the review that occur first-degree. and we operated under the same

constraints that the folks we pointed operated under the same concerns that we operated under now. that is they had an ongoing military justice investigation. and in fact because the victims were civilians and the academied occurred off post in fayetteville, still to this day, one is struck. i mean, the service members require two civilians to kneel and shot them execution style. and so there were several multiple investigations. and so that task force that we appointed would not get into what might have been criminal aspects on anything that would have been imperilled the trials. we operate under the same constraint. >> okay. so that's the reason you felt you wouldn't be more explicit about islamic extremism. >> well, what we had to say, a lot of it is in the restricted

annex. but no. i think the second to your point, second point we had is respectfully, yes, it was, and yes, it is a force protection issue. that is the way in which it was handed to us. that is the way to which we approach it. every kind of opportunity for violent that we are going to have this one shot. admiral clark and i to make recommendation to the department of defense have to be sure to cover. so yes, we went for indicators, for cues, and the like. but we did not exclude any source of violence. and we specifically did not include the source that coming from radical thoughts. admiral clark, i know he wants

to talk about it -- i know we talked about it more than once. that's my brief oversight of how we approach it. >> just follow up while i'm thinking about it. after those heinous murders at fort bragg, the army as general keene received, the pamphlet of materials and specifically detailed some of the key indicators to look for in white supremacist. which i thought was exactly the right thing to do. the question now is do you think the service should issue a similar type of pamphlet to address the violent extremism. that's the reality. of course, okay. do you want to respond to that or? >> only that i think you make a good point. >> okay. thank you.

admiral, please. >> good to see you again, senator. in my opening statement, i talked about violence. and i made the point that some have indicated that we did not address the kind of violence that you're speaking to radical islamic fundamentalism. and the behavioral that goes with that. and the point that i made is, yes, we did. we just -- because secretary gates wrote us a -- a terms of reference that talked about violence in the workplace and the people, including people hurting himself, we decided to go after it in that way. but we used the term radicalization and self-radicalization dozens of times in the report. which we intended to make clear.

we're talking about every kind of violent behavior, including this. then we go on to then specify in our recommendations, and i made the point about here's the department of defense directives that talked about prohibited activities. and our point is this document is inadequate to the task when dealing with self-radicalized individuals. so that's what we're talking about. i could not agree with you more completely that we need the outreach program. outreach, i mean we have to reach out and let people know what the positions are and where the red lines are in behaviors. and then with that goes all of the training that you talked to. so i made that a matter of my prior testimony, i'm in complete alignment with that view. >> okay. i appreciate that clarification. in my opinion, because this --

of course there's a concern about force protection generally. but because this is a unique new threat we're facing, i think the more explicit we are about it, the clearer it's going to be, and the better off we're going to be. because somebody said, some the regulations earlier had to do with cold war scenarios. then the obviously response to the white supremacist killings. now we've had akbar in kuwait, and hasan, and we'll probably have some more. for the protection of the force, we have to be explicit about what the threat is. my time is up. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator lieberman. senator collins. >> thank you, it's good to see you both. senator lieberman, the chairman of our homeland security has asked exactly the questions that

i planned to ask. which is not a surprise, because we've been working together on the whole issue of homegrown terrorism, and the threat of islamist extremism. i do want to follow up a bit on the point that senator lieberman just made. because i was struck when i read the public part of your report. but the decision to omit the term islamist extremism from the public report. and it troubled me, it troubled me because it appeared to contrast sharply when the approach that d.o.d. has taken in the past. your report recommends that the army focus on a broad range of motivations from violence, rather than focus in on specific

causes. but that's not what the department and the army did after the racially motivated murdered associated with fort bragg back in 1995. the 1996 guidance is striking because it's squarely faces the problem. and i believe that's why it was so effective. it sent a clear message that white supremacist had no place among our troops. and i believe we need to send similarly clear message and indeed in 1996 in response to the fort bragg incident and obviously mr. secretary, your more familiar with it than i since you were involved in correcting the problem at time. but in response, commanders were

specifically advised to be aware of quote indicators of possible extremist views, behaviors, or affiliations. they were told to look for specific signs such as reading materials, or the use of a personal computer to visit extremist sights. these signs were geared toward identifying white supremacist within the ranks. what senator lieberman and i have suggested in our letter to the secretary gates is that same kind of focus squarely admitting what the problem is. so my worry is that the perception of your report for those who only get to read the public part will be that we're not facing the problem squarely,

the way we did in the mid 1990s. and it worked. the guidance was excellent. it involved training, our commanders are enlisted trooped. and it appeared to have been very successful. so without presuming to speak to my colleague senator lieberman, we are trying to face the threat to our troops. so i would end what i realize has been more of a comment than a question, but urge you to more explicitly address this specific threat. it doesn't ignore the fact that there are other sources of violence. but, in fact, family violence, suicide prevention, sexual assault, all extremely important priorities for united states. but they are different in their

nature than the threat from islamic extremism. so i'd ask you to comment in particularly on whether we should have specific training to recognize the signs of radicalization in this area. mr. secretary, then admiral clark. >> well, it's almost impossible to have a comment, senator. that was a very powerful statement along with senator lieberman's statement. and of course, you put me a little bit under the gun about pointing out that's what we did in the army when that occurred. i won't even spent time on the distinctions. i think there's some clearly ones. i mean being white supremacist carries no overtones of constitutional protections or any sort where as religious is always -- i know i'm going to be accused of being a pc here, but so what. there's always an area where we

have to go carefully. for example, religious extremism, violent aggressive religious extremism is a source of threat to our soldiers, sailors, marines, airman, coast guard personnel, whatever the religious source. and we need to be careful, and we try to be careful when we did this to make sure that we turn the military's attention inward, since the person that was quoted earlier is having talked about the cold war. that was secretary gates. and what he was pointing out is something we said. which is we have been focused on the external threat. now we have to look at the internal threat, from within, from one of our own. as i said before, this is our one shot at it. we want to make sure that we look at the indicators and the religious extremism, whatever it's source, is an indicator. and there are a whole bunch of

things to look at. i think the prescription is right. the fact that as you both make it islamic religious extremism, i think it's a point worth making. i think the secretary and everyone will hear it and react accordingly. that becomes part of the history of the discussion. >> admiral clark, it's so nice to see you senator. it's been a privilege for me to be engaged working on the task when the secretary of defense asked me to do this, i did so because i believed it was so important. let me say that, within five minutes of it going public that i was going to so chair this task force with secretary west and my very good friend general jack keene was calling on the phone and telling me in great details. i was driving down the road and he was explaining to me how they did it. he happen to have been the command down in fort bragg. we were friends and worked together down there then.

i've been mindful of his comments and i was in complete aa linement to build upon my response to senator lieberman. i'm just doing to give overnice view here. we talked about this a lot. how do we shape this. if we shape this as -- and the report was full of reference to activity and behavior. some people would have read that it was going to be all about that. the secretary of defense gave us a task. he gave us to deal with violence and the workplace across the board. because he did, we made the decision that we were going to handle it the way we were have

presented it. but when questioned about it, we frankly, senator, didn't know how people were going to read the references to self-radicalization. we thought that was going to be pretty clear. but maybe it wasn't clear enough. our focus is the guidance on the behaviors is inadequate. and the way you make it adequate is you decide what the red lines are going to be. you inform your people. you do everything that you know how to do. that's called training to ensure that our people now how to respond. that's what those of us who had the privilege to command are charged to do. and we talk about officership in the report and so forth. that what leaders do. that is what is required. >> thank you. thank you very much, senator

collins. i was listening to senator lieberman and senator collins with the suggestion that there be -- we address a specific threat since it obviously is a specific threat. it is appropriate that our leaders be directed as to how to address that threat. just the way they were, i guess in the '90s with the white supremacist. but to make it clear, and to make it certain that it's not viewed as an anti-muslim effort, but rather than an effort to address violence -- violent extremism, it would be essential and do me wise on the people

preparing that instruction include muslims. because obviously that would be important in terms of knowledge, of the threat. but also important in terms of making it clear this is not anti-muslims. 99% of general muslims are not people that engage in this kind of activities. to make it clear, this is a legitimate effort that they talk about. that is a legitimate effort to make it clear that it is not aimed at muslims, but aimed at violent, islamic, radical extremism. it's important that muslims be significantly involved in that direction. mr. chairman, i think that's an excellent suggestion. and in some ways were you've

given voice to us. but it would be a real omission if muslims weren't involved. i suppose we feel like we have to talk explicit to one another about the threat to have in the wall muslim americans, obviously senator said 99.99% are not extremist or terrorists. i look at hasan's case that part of the reason that commanders and others who after the attacks at fort hood were spewing out the medias the signs that looked back and said he showed he was turning in a very extremist anti-american direction.

people didn't voice them because the political correctness, even more than, the sensitivity that we all have religious. the truth is the best thing that can happen and it's a great place to begin in the military is to have a real open discussion. before it tour real, it has to include muslims. muslim americans. so i think your suggestion -- i don't know what the affect about this, i think they would have been alarmed. >> mr. chairman, if i could just respond as well. i too think your suggestion is

an excellent one with what senator lieberman and i have indicated on the homeland security. in the letter to secretary gates where we suggest more training, we point out that updating the approach would help to protect from the position the thousands of muslim americans who are serving honorably in the military and help of all religions and enhance understanding. so the steps that we have recommended would clearly benefit from the inclusion and active involvement of muslim americans. that's what we intended. but i also think it has benefits

for muslim-americans serving so that other service members have a better understanding of islam. and so i'm in complete accord with what you suggest and i think that is along the lines of what we were proposing as well. i would ask that we share with our two distinguished witnesses today the recommendations that senator lieberman and i have made in our january 13th letter to secretary gates. because as you go forward with your work, it may be a value to you as well. we hope. >> thank you, and one other thing that it seems to me would be appropriate and you -- i don't know if you address this, it's sort of along this line, that our policies also should be very clear about why it is

unacceptable and unallowed to have taunting or harassment of people because of their religious views. as according to the public record occurred in the hasan case. i don't know if that's true. and i can't comment on your annex. but it seems to me this is part in partial religious tolerance does not mean tolerance for violence. and extremism. it doesn't mean that. as i pointed out when i -- a few -- may maybe an honor ago. that's not what we're tolerant of. what we are tolerant of and proud of it is other people's religious views. and as part of that, it has got to be importantly pointed out in the military that means we do not accept taunts, gray --

graffiti about rag heading or whatever. but it's important. >> let me address it, it's very well covered in the prohibited behaviors. >> you mean currently? >> currently. it's very well spelled out. i'm spoken only to what's not in this dock yum. this document, what's in the document is 100% right. and it is the what we have said is that this document does not have the piece in it regarding self-radicalized behavior. mr. chairman, i want to appreciate the that fact that you have collectively recognized the effective and local service of thousands of muslims. somebody accuse me of being politically correct. i don't care. the way you said it is exactly

way, and i appreciate it. >> one thing to make it even more complex, we talk about correcting the dots and we have to do a far better job of connecting the dots. i believe this is the greatest failures in this and other various committees p. there are counterindicating dots that complicate the work, including with major hasan. it's not just those dots which in my view would have made folks suspicious. but there's dots in the other direction. what his patients thought of him, which was very high. you got to throw those dots into the mix too for people who are going to be judges him. you got a record here of a number of his assessments.

they were not just negative that should have been included in the record, but the way, i happen to agree with you totally. there's also some highly positive, not politically correct but for that reason, but positive assessments of this capability. i just think it's important that since we're trying to take a general view of this that while it's important, critically important to do a far better of job of collecting dots that we also recognize in terms of the task in front of us that there are some dots that are going to be in that mix which make it very unclear as to what you do with that dots which seem to point in one direction. because there's some dots that point in the other direction even with him. they are not been focused on, obviously. but there are some counterindicators here which are fairly clear as well. finally, admiral, you talk about

reducing, eliminating with i think, is your word, the barriers. get rid of the barriers to information flow. and i think generally, you are right. there's barriers here which clearly should not be there. so i agree with your premise. are there any barriers that you'd want to maintain even privacy, for instance, you talked about the prior drug problem or addiction problem which has been overcome. some of that has not passed along now. and if it's been overcome, i think there's some instinct in commanders that maybe we just should let certain things not be passed along which would unfairly perhaps hurt somebody's career path if they've overcome a problem. are there any barriers that you might want to keep? >> there may be. if i was responsible for the policy review, i would then look al at all of the potential courses of action and make that

kind of determination. but let me give you an example of the manner in which i might decide to handle the case you've just suggested. because as you correctly pointed out, by regulation, there are some -- this is some documentation that is not allowed to proceed from command to command. we could figure out how to compartmentalize the information. the briefer comes into the room with the material that's in the pouch that only certain people get to see that information. it'll be very possible to have information that might be vital to connecting the dots. that is currently not passed in a way that's compartmented so that a select group of people had access to the information. i believe that that's inherent in achieving the correct balance. and nothing -- secretary west or

i would not want anything that's said here to imfly in any way that the balance between these issues isn't so. it's very, very important. you have addressed it correctly. there is a challenge. one of the hallmarks of the united states military is we grow and develop people. i mean i've had dozens of these interviews with people. okay. we're getting a new job. there is turning over a new leaf. this is a time to go get it. we've seen people turn their lives around. this is one the great things about the institution. so clearly, these are issues that the policymakers have to come to grips with. our ask of the put the spotlight on policies, weaknesses, gaps, that's what we have tried to do. i do believe there are places where barriers should be

retained in some way. >> maybe for some purpose. maybe in a promotion. whether it's a security issue. >> exactly. but what i'm suggesting is that people who are responsible for these policy decisions know what the vital dots look like. know where they come from, and as i -- the report says, and i said in the earlier testimony the time is passed to be having. >> this is a major challenge for the important for the executive branch. do you want to add anything? we thank you for all of the work that you are doing not just here but on the homeland security, that committee is doing critically important work. we're now going to move to a closed session of the committee that's going to meet in room 222

in russell. our committee room. in accordance with restrictions, it will be limited to senators and committee professional staff. we again thank our witnesses not just for their might, in this record for the lifelong work. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, joe. a year ago this month, president obama signed the economic stimulus funding into law. making $787 billion available. since then, the federal government has committed more than $333 billion for states to stimulus projects. more than $179 billion has been paid out for the projects.

for more about the economic stimulus, go online where you'll find events with president obama, congressional hearings and debate plus links to government who are tracking stimulus spending. that's at c-span.org/stimulus. tune in c-span2s booktv. beginning saturday.

>> it's the only collection of american presidents painted by one artist, by renowned painter chaz fagan. see it online, american presidents.org. >> just ahead, senator mccain, lieberman, and evan bayh. live coverage from the capital when it starts at half past the hour. earlier, chuck schumer previewed legislation on the recent ruling on campaign spending. in citizens united, the court

rule that is operation and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money for or against the political candidates. we'll show you as much as we can until the iran briefing begins. well to the dry and nonodorous senate studio. so we're here together. and i want to thank chris for his partnership and his very hard work and invaluable contributions to the legislation. as you know, last month the supreme court shattered nearly a century of u.s. law designed to

curb the influence in our election process. today we're beginning to pick up the pieces. truth be told, chris and i have been braces for an unfavorable decisions. ever since they decided to rehear the case this fall. but the courses have passed the fears. with the stroke of the pen, they decided to overrule a decade old and override the will of millions of americans in voices heard. at a time when americans are so worried about special interest having much too much influence in washington, the court inexplicably opened up the flood gates to influence than we have ever seen before. the decision was corrosive to our democracy, hard to understand, and frankly, if you

love the way this country has been built up as a democratic nation, it was infearuating decision. in my view, it was one of the most wrong headed decisions in court history and it's most political decision certainly since bush versus gore. and it'll go down in a decision like that. not a proud moment for the court. the american people apparently agree. according to bipartisan poll released this monday, americans oppose the supreme court's ruling by a better 2-1 margin. 64% disagreed with the decision compared to 27% who did. it's rare that a court decision has so many people taking the position so soon. especially one that's somewhere complicated like this. but again, i think the american people's view that special interest should not be encouraged as the court decision did prevail. by the way, in the poll, the majority of republican voters

rejected the courts rulings. 51% of them thought it was improper. and to say the least, the high court in the land is at odds with public opinion. it's also at odds with the constitution which labors strenuously to keep all citizens equal. we are not going to let the decision go unknowledged. so today congressman and i are announcing the frame work for comprehensive legislation we intent to introduce the week after recess. and unlike most that are introduced in congress, this bill has a deadline to action. if we don't act quickly, the courts ruling will have an immediate and disastrous impact on the 2010 elections. so our goal is to advance the legislation quickly, otherwise the supreme court will have predetermined the winners of next november's election. it won't be remembers, it won't

be in thes, it'll be corporate america. i know they have encouraged us to move the legislation to assemble this legislation quickly. the need to act quickly is in part what motivated the decision not to go the constitutional amendment. others in the house and senate are preparing plans to pursue that path. but we believe we have to press ahead immediately. so in the weeks since the 5-4 decision came down. chris and i together with our colleagues and with the white house has finalized a legislative approach we think represents congress' best remedy to this act of political overreach by the court. our bill takes five steps, we ban foreign corporations from influencing our elections, foreign leaderring like hugo chavez should not undercut our

democracy. second, we stop bailout recipients of government contracts from spending unlimited amounts, because taxpayers money should not be with used to promote a company's political interest. third, we impose new disclosure requirements and fourth, we impose new disclaimers on tv ads. both of them as you see will drill down deep so that the real person who put forward the money is disclosed and has to disclaim. finally, we require candidate that is have responsible access if corporations are going to make them the target of political expenditures. i'm going to discuss the last three, chris will discuss the first two in some details with abdomen then we'll answer your questions. so let me talk about disclaimer, disclosure. our bill will follow the money.

our legislation imposes a series of requirements that will track the activities not only of corporations, but all types of organizations that it previously operated in the shadows. under our bill for the first time, all corporations, all labor unions, as well as 527 would be required to register accounts designated for political broadcast advertising with the federal commission. if you are going to put the ads on tv, there's going to be a separate track for the money that you are required to disclose. every dollar that goes into that account and the name and organization must be reported. every dollar that gets spent out of the account and the nature of the activity it's paying for must also get reported. furthermore, this is really important, any transfer of dollars from these accounts to

other accounts would also need to be documented and recorded to the fec. we will drill down so that the ultimate funder of the expend sures is disclose. p we will not let corporations or anyone else hide behind groups called citizens for a better america or whatever. if there's a real name for that one, i didn't mean that in particular. this way, any funneling of resources by a particular company to the chamber of commerce or any other professional organization cannot escape detection. these require wants won't ban political activity, but the level of transparency will at the very least make corporations realize everything they do in the nature of political advocacy will be public. that will make them think twice before spending unlimited sums to influence elections, the deterrent effect should not be underestimated. in the realm of disclosure, our bill would require corporations

to disclose their expenditures on their web site within 24 hours. to their shareholders on a quarterly basis, and in their filings with the sec. second, in addition to increased disclosure, we impose new tough disclaimer requirements for political ads. everyone is familiar with the rules that have politicians appear on camera. at the end of their ads and declare i'm so and so and i approve this message. well, for any corporation that decides to buy air time, we're going to impose the same stand-by-your-ad requirement on the company ceo. even if the money pools it's resources, our bill would still require for them to be identified in any ad they put the on the air. again, we will drill down until the ultimate funder of the expend sure is disclosed. the ceo who will go on the air

will be the one who has put in the most money. not some shell group. in instances where more than one company poors money into a shell group, we require the top five corporate funders to be identified by company name on the screen, and the corporation that gives the most would have it's ceo appear on camera to give the standby your ad disclaimer. this is how the state of washington handled the ads. we've had a blueprint. and it's been effective. if more than one company is given an equal amount, a coin flip determines which ceo appears on the camera. third, our bill is going to include the lowest unit rate requirement. if a corporation buys air time to run ads on broadcast cable or satellite television that support or attack the candidate, that candidate and the political party is given a fair chance to respond by receiving the lowest ad rate for the media market.

we have found this to be very, very effective in the terms of the so-called millionaires amendment. and we're applying the same type of rules here. this is constitutional. overall, the supreme court's decision opened up a -- sorry, overall the supreme court's decision opened the flood gate to a torrent of corporation money. that's the bad news. the good news there are solutions that can help repatch the damn. congressman van hollen and i will be working diligently and quickly to match those holes as quickly as possible. chris? >> well, thank you, senator schumer. i want to thank my friend chuck for all of his leadership on this issue and for moving together so quickly to respond to what was wither radical supreme court rescission that does open the flood gates to big

corporate special interest money being pumped directly into elections in unrestricted manner. we do need to move very quickly on the impact the decision will have on our democracy. so i want to thank senator schumer for his leadership, and thank the speech speaker of the house nancy pelosi for putting together a task force in the house. i want to thank the members of that task force and others who have participated. because we have taken the ideas of the task force in addition to ideas for many bills that you've probably seen and have been introduced in the house and incorporated many of them within this frame work. i want to thank briefly about the two provisions dealing with preventing foreign interest from dumping millions of dollars into u.s. elections. :

if the foreign ownership is 20% or more that constitutes a corporation controlled by a foreign interest, or if the majority of their board of directors is made up of foreign

principals that also constitutes a foreign-controlled interest. and then there is finally an objective, a test in those cases where you have ownership below 20%, but where it is clear the decision making is made by foreign interests. so those are the components that will be considered in this legislation for determining where the ban will apply. secondly with respect to what we call pay to play transactions i think every american would agree that we don't want federal contractors that are getting taxpayer dollars to be able to then turn around and he essentially use the taxpayer dollars to fund campaigns to support or oppose a candid. federal contractors have been treated differently in other

parts of the campaign finance law. we believe it is important to extend that treatment with respect to the expenditures that we are talking about here. we would say that if you are a federal contractor and by definition you are therefore receiving taxpayer dollars you can't spend money to donate. >> we're going to leave this briefing and take you to the senators john mccain and joe lieberman expected to be calling for sanctions on iran in response to alleged human-rights violations in that country. live coverage on c-span2. >> for most iranians the islamic republic is the only government they have known, and unfortunately it is a record that many would rather forget. thirty-one years of economic potential loss and the resources

of a great and proud nation stolen by a corrupt ruling elite. thirty-one years of a regime that puts its own selfish interests and those of foreign terrorist groups ahead of the needs of the iranian people. thirty-one years of justice denied, freedom curtailed, and dignity trampled. in recent months the world has watched in all as hundreds of thousands of iranians have said, enough. they have demanded better for themselves. they have taken to the streets and the internet, risking the violent reprisal of a regime without conscience in order to insist on there universal human rights. as i speak the iranians are demonstrating peacefully again today for freedom and justice. they are being beaten in the streets, unlawfully detained, tortured, and worse. these iranians must know that the free world and america most of all favors their just cause.

i have long maintained that the day the young woman bled to death in the streets of tehran in the eyes of millions and millions of people around the world was the beginning of the end of this tyrannical regime. we americans have an obligation to assist morally and materially that effort for freedom and democracy. today joined by my friend senator lieberman, senator kyle, and others we are introducing legislation to further that cause. basically the bill has two parts. first, it will require the president to compile a public list of individuals in iran since starting with the president's election last june our complicity in human rights violations against iranian citizens and their families no matter where in the world those abuses occur. i want to stress this would be a public list posted for the world to see by the web sites of the

state and treasury department. we will shine a light on the names of iran's human rights abusers, and we will make them famous for their crimes. second, this bill would ban the iranian individuals from receiving u.s. visas and impose on them the full battery of sanctions and to the international emergency economic powers act. that means freezing any assets and blocking any property they hold under u.s. jurisdiction, ending all their financial transactions with u.s. banks and other entities. and if passed into law this would be the first time that the u.s. government has ever imposed punitive measures against persons in iran because of their human rights violations. in short, under this bill iranian human rights abuses would be completely cut off from global reach of the u.s. financial system, and it would send a powerful signal to every country, company, and bank in

the world that they should think twice about doing business with the oppressors of the iranian people. it should now be clear that the rulers of iran have no desire to meet their international responsibilities and every desire to use all the tools of violence and repression at their disposal to crush the peaceful aspirations of non-citizens. faced with this disturbing reality the united states must lead an international effort to support the human rights of the iranian people and to put that effort at the center of our policy toward iran. this is not about picking winners in a new internal iranian matter. it is about standing up for the universal values we hold dear and championed the cause of all who seek to secure those values for themselves. human rights act is an important start of this effort. i encourage my colleagues in congress to move quickly and pass it into law.

>> thanks very much, john. senator mccain is, of course, absolutely right. this is a very significant day in the iran, but i hope we will also look back at what we are dg here today as a significant turning point within the united states government. as senator mccain has said, this is the first time if this law, this bill that we are introducing today is enacted into law the united states government will apply sanctions on people within iran for abusing the rights of the people of iran. and as you know, we have been focused, understandably and correctly, on the allocation of sanctions to stop iran's nuclear weapon development program or earlier to stop its support of terrorism. now those are external threats

that they run represents to the region and the world. now we turn inward. it is quite appropriate because a government that so brutally suppresses the rights of its own people, as the iranian government has, a government that lies to its own people in the world about what they are doing within a run, a government that claims to be the most democratic in the region and then is the country where more journalists are in jail than any other country in the world, that government cannot really be trusted in international relations. so i think this is a very significant piece of legislation. i am proud to be a co-sponsor with senator mccain. the abuses of the iranian government against their own people hired not just rumors, but in the extraordinary power

of modern telecommunications we see them with our own eyes. we see them today in the youtube postings and internet text messages that we are getting from people on the streets of tehran. people, as the human rights movement has grown within the country the government, just like every totalitarian regime before has increased its suppression or attempts to suppress its own people, but i think senator mccain said it right. the day that iranian woman was allowed to bleed to death on the streets of iran at the hands of a representative of the iranian government was the beginning of the end for this fanatical, destructive, repressive, dangerous regime in tehran.

i know it is difficult for people who are involved in this struggle within iran. i hope that this legislation not only sends a message to their abusers, but sends a message to the protesters, to the members of the green movement. the fact is that this legislation has already won broad bipartisan support. we have an initial group of ten co-sponsors of the legislation. but republicans, democrats, independents. conservatives, liberals, moderates. i think by the time we move this along we are going to be supported by almost every, maybe every senator in the senate of the united states. i especially want the banks senator mccain for the that he has given to this cause. the fact is that john has been of fighter for freedom and a

freedom agenda at the center of our foreign policy throughout his career in public service. throughout his career in uniform before. we hope this does is the abusers in iran, and we hope this legislation says to the protesters, your struggle is difficult, but as has been the case with those throughout history ultimately because of freedom and justice will prevail, and you, the freedom fighters, the people of iran, we will prevail. >> one of the things we are learning from iranian dissidents and others is that when the sanctions are tied to human rights abuses in iran they were much uch more likely succeed. the reason is because, as you know, there is a debate of a debate about whether sanctions imposed on the economy of iran

which affect all of the people in the country will be effective in supporting our position which is that the iranian government should stop proceeding toward nuclear development or will cause the people of iran to have a bad reaction toward the west and the united states specifically for making life more difficult for them. what we have heard and what we are learning is that it is this kind of sanction which is toward the human rights abuses which would gain the support of the people of iran and therefore most likely enable the sanctions that we impose to be effective. that is part of the theory behind this. it's one of the important reason why it is being announced on this day. at just move back to soviet dissidents when he was imprisoned in the soviet union. he said he knew that the day would come when he would be free when ronald reagan declared the soviet union the evil empire. freedom did come to him and to

millions more. the same thing would be done with the support that america can demonstrate through this kind of demonstration and our support for those who are demonstrating on this dreary, very ery important day. >> one of the reasons the american people are angry about washington, d.c., is their perception that we can't agree on anything. today's announcement stands in stark contrast to that. we have democrats and republicans and independents working together. some of the most conservative members of the united states senate and some of the most liberal members have chosen to co-sponsor this important legislation. it is very timely announcement and the ways that the 301st anniversary of the iranian nation. people are being beaten in the streets as we speak. their president announced today that they, perhaps, have taken major steps forward to becoming a nuclear power. it is in the national security interest of the united states of america to foster the peaceful

evolution of that government so that the nation of iran can join the community of nations as a responsible government rather than the minister that that it h to its own people, its neighbors, and the rest of the world. that is what today's announcement is about. our country is at its strongest and its best when we ally ourselves with freedom. currently if you are a journalist in iran you risk being imprisoned and tortured. if you speak out against the regime you risk being beaten and killed. we have to stand in solidarity with the people of iran against that kind of terni and despotism. the final thing i would say, one of the profound questions that we face is what is the antidote to radical islam and global terror? i believe the antidote is for us to stand on the side of freedom in all of its manifestations, the freedom to speak your own mind, enjoy the fruits of your

own labor, worship god as you see fit, and the elected government of your own choosing. we stand on the side of freedom we send a beacon of hope to those across the world and a message to radicalized islamic youth that there is a better way that all the retains its grip on power by imprisoning, beating, and killing its own civilians. [inaudible question] >> i think actions taken, i believe, yesterday by the administration by imposing some sanctions is very helpful. i think that the administration

is now much more interested in the present, much more interested than, perhaps, it was a year ago. it is pretty obvious that the iranians are not going to a incurrence their fist. also a couple of additional points. wind, the three of us, senator lieberman, senator kyl and i i along with other senators and members of congress who were meeting over the weekend, the speaker on friday night was the foreign minister of iran. it would have been amusing if it had not have been so tragic in its consequences for the iranian people. he basically denied that there were any human rights abuses going on. there was no problem whatsoever. their human rights record was stellar along with his denial that they were trying to acquire nuclear weapons. just one additional comment. when we helped the people and

the workers, what we did was we provided among other things what was primarily a printing press said that they could get information out to the people of poland and particularly the workers. but we are trying to do with other parts of this legislation this helped the iranian dissidents, people who are struggling for freedom, get the information out, helping them free of the internet, helping them with the modern means of communications that we have today with the iranian government is so strenuously trying to restrain. i hope that the administration will now understand that this unclenching the festa hasn't worked. has been over a year's delay. the iranians, meanwhile, have proceeded inexorably toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons. [inaudible question]

>> i just told some folks downstairs that those of you who have been walking around the senate for a long time know that most of the business of the senate is conducted by unanimous consent or in a bipartisan way. a lot of that is under the surface. it is everyday stuff. maybe regional, more than partisan. we do a lot of business that way. what you are seeing in the two items in the agenda are just other examples of that, as is this announcement today by this bipartisan group they represent both spectrums of both political parties. i think there has been a lot of emphasis because of a couple of major, high-profile issue like the health care debate that suggests that members don't work together. the reality is on a lot of things we do work together, and we do get things done.

there are a few very high profile things, and on those matters we have an obligation to represent our constituents as best we see it. [inaudible question] >> i thought i made it clear that for a long time, at least as i have been in the senate that would save much, if not most of, what we do is done on a bipartisan working together basis. there are occasionally very high profile issues that create a very strong views on both sides. that is the nature of the senate and our political system. far too much is made of it. >> a just want to add real

briefly. i hope there we will take this broad bipartisan sponsorship of this nature as really an expression of the broad refueling of the american people that we stand with the green movement in iran against the repressive government. [inaudible question] >> as you know, dare i say, legislation, which all of us have been involved in, which imposes a broad set of sanctions as well, financial institutions and a number of petroleum, refined petroleum. pardon me. and i don't think -- i'll ask joe to comment on this, but i

think there is, i know that senator kerry has been supportive on the foreign relations committee. this bill, i don't quite understand why. we go through senator dodd's committee. senator dodd has been very supportive. i think the administration has gotten on board. i think we could see passage of this legislation fairly soon. >> i will just add real briefly, it happened quickly in an effort unanimously. about ten days ago the senate passed this broad, tough iran sanctions bill unanimously, as they said. it is on its way to a conference with the house. a very similar bill. i want to mention that senator mccain and i introduced this proposal as an amendment to that bill. for procedural reasons senator mccain graciously agreed to let the main bill go forward. i feel optimistic, and i have talked to the chairman in the

house about this. we have cut a real good possibility to have this proposal of hours be adopted by the conference committee as part of the broader iran sanctions bill in that that bill will come out to both chambers fairly soon. and i think that after they announcement today that they have gone to 20 percent enrichment really builds the case here, and i hope that the united nations for moving with a real sense of urgency to tough economic sanctions against iran based on there nuclear development program. [inaudible question] >> i think we know. they blocked the internet.

they have now said that google will no longer be allowed in iran. i would be very interested to see the replacement. the announcement will be forthcoming. i am sure it will be incredible competition for google. they are taking every measure to shut down the modern ways we use of communicating with each other. they are aware of what happened on facebook. they are aware of the rallying capability that this new means of communications has. and so they are trying to take every measure they can. i don't think they are succeeding so far. and our job, i think, is to help them technologically as well as morally and other ways to see if we can find ways around their attempts to block this vital means of communications. >> can i just add something? we talked about something on returning from the trip to germany. the support that the united

states government gives to radio free europe and radio liberty. a tremendous asset of the cause of liberty because the broadcast real lives into a wrong in ways that the iranian people can appreciate the fact that there is a different point of view than that of their government and support that. is it publicly have to act as to give you give you an illustration, the day that we were returning we got word from our representative, american representative running radio free europe that several people who he and his staff had interviewed over the course of several months in different locations around the world to come on board, all iranians. and all of them have been offered a position for that

purpose or arrested and detained in iran just the day or the day before. clearly the iranian government is trying to do everything it can to repress the information that has been discussed here, which is why what senator mccai said in the beginning was so important. everything the united states government can do to help the people will help build the case for liberty and enable them to succeed in the end. and we can do that, as i said, is through our support for radio free europe. [inaudible question] >> just enough to speak for senator mcconnell. i know he felt strongly about cooperating whenever we can. it's not always possible. the second stimulus or jobs bill, whatever you call it, is part of that.

it contains elements that are important to all the people in the senate. i don't agree with some parts of it. it will bring together a group of people that a large consensus can be developed around and get it passed. you saw what was put out today as a draft of them on legislation. it would be senator mcconnell's view, i'm sure, that as soon as we return from the present day break the senate will take that legislation up and i've already said publicly i assume within fairly short order it will be adopted. such jobs are clearly a very big issue. the reason i guess i don't put that in the highest profile is that i think we're going to see a series of smaller job stimulation packages. this is just one of them. it's not the same size as the original stimulus package.

[inaudible question] >> it will. that agreement is not yet been reached. it's part of the agreements that will be necessary to move this bipartisan legislation forward week after next. there will also be a unanimous consent agreement that will set up the way forward for the taking up, considering, and voting on the state tax reforms, at a minimum those that senator lincoln and i have proposed. >> i'm concerned about how it's paid for, concerned about loading it up with other extremist revisions which seems to be the habit we have gotten into. so i would hold judgment until i get the chance to see how much extraneous stuff is added on to

it, and how much does it increase the deficit again. yes. [inaudible question] >> well, i'd have to look at it and see what the deputy has in mind. this was a constitutional ruling by the united states in court. i strongly disagreed with it. i would certainly have to look at it before i would want to the sign-on to provisions that, for example, went to corporations. [inaudible question]

test test. >> first of all, the reason why we passed the military commissions act at the end of 2006 was to put a stop to that. it was wrong, in my view, of the bush administration to do what they did. but i must say there is some deference to the bush administration. one, they interrogate the guy for 20 minutes and got all the information we see need and then give him his miranda rights. the second is that no one who works for the president of the united states. basically we are assisting al

qaeda. that is an insult. that is really far beyond any boundary that i ever saw in the bush administration. the fact is this individual should be in a military tribunal. we are working on legislation that illustrates that once the individual is deemed an enemy combatant that person should be tried only in military court. should never be given brander rights. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> earlier today the iranian president spoke about the 31st anniversary of the islamic revolution. you can see that on the c-span network's letter today and c-span.org. more live coverage shortly with senate majority leader harry reid after a meeting with democrats. that is an about 15 minutes from now at 2:15 eastern time here on c-span2, and then live coverage of the senate at 2:30.

now maryland governor martin o'malley with the annual state of the state address mostly on the budget. entering final year of his first term in office. from the state capitol this is about a half-hour. >> thank you, mr. president. lt. governor brown. treasurer, comptroller, attorney general, and city and county government, men and women of the maryland and the general assembly, former governors, members of the cabinet, congressman. o'malley. [applauding] my fellow citizens, i'd like to ask that all of must observe a moment of silence in honor of

the brave marylanders who we have lost of the course of this last year fighting for our country abroad in iraq and in afghanistan and also for the people of haiti who are recovering from the devastating earthquake. thank you. we have said goodbye to a number of great people of the course of this past year. just last week we said goodbye to pat hughes, a woman of grace and class and strength. and earlier this more i attended the funeral of the great matt mathias, a man who appeared 30 years of service epitomized not only what it means to be a united states senator, but also epitomized what it means to be a citizen. it is that true honor to join you hear once again on this historic day, the oldest capital in the united states of america. people have come together year after year to renew our

democracy and to move our state forward. in this place of the people's will we express our differences of opinion. mindful of the fact that all of us get it here to serve. act on behalf of maryland, and there is only one maryland. we are here because we cared about people. and to safeguard our children's future we are committed to the work of justice, security, job creation, environmental sustainability and fiscal responsibility, understanding that progress for one requires progress for all. in times of great adversity we don't make excuses. we make progress. we set aside partisanship and embrace the power of citizenship / the values that unite us. our belief in the dignity of

every individual. our belief in the sensibility to advance the common good. and our understanding that there is a spirit. one person can make a difference. each of us must strive. today i would like to talk with you about how we can help our businesses, large and small, to create jobs, save jobs, and expand opportunity. i would like to talk with you about the choices we must continue to make together and about the importance of being fiscally responsible so that we can protect home ownership and defend the hard want progress of the hard-working maryland families we serve. the choices we have made together, the choices we have made together as one maryland of these past three years have allowed as to whether this severe economic storm better than most states.

we have used the pressure of shrinking revenues to create higher performance, stronger connections, smarter interventions, and more intelligence standards of care. the ongoing financial crisis has called upon us to re-imagine what a government can do well and to redesign better ways to serve and protect the people of maryland as we move forward. families and businesses have seen their incomes decline. so too have state revenues. it has been the steepest decline across the 50 states in modern history. every year this administration has submitted, and you have passed, a state budget that has not only been balanced, but a budget that has been introduced at the outset as within the limits of spending affordability guidelines. for the first time in more than 40 years the budget i proposed

to you this year calls for lower general fund spending than four years ago, and it will bring total spending cuts and reductions this term to $5.6 billion. yes, we have chosen to be fiscally responsible. indeed, fiscal -- progress is only possible with fiscal responsibility. that is why maryland is one of only seven states in america that continues to retain a aaa-bond rating, a seal of fiscal responsibility certified by all three major rating agencies. [applauding] as a result of the choices that we had made, the choices that we have made together in the face of adversity, the state of our state is stronger than most. in areas like public education it is stronger than every state in the union. [applauding]

but this national economic downturn, the worst since the great depression, has built crushing blows to a joblessness, home foreclosures, and displacement to tens of thousands of american families. although fourth-quarter economic growth has been the strongest our country has seen in six years the storm is not over. wall street has been stabilized. main street still suffers. every family has been hit in some way. neighbors who still can't find work. fellow citizens tossing and turning all night worrying about how they will afford this month's heating bill or last month's mortgage or rent. family-owned businesses and family farms struggling just to survive, children who go to bed hungry, who wake up hungry, who

go to school hungry. i want to share with you a brief excerpt from a letter not unlike the letters you are receiving yourselves, this one from a woman like martha who writes, "times are hard and things are tight. i'm living on the edge. my rent for my apartment is one month behind. my phone and internet service is scheduled to be shut off. i've been trying to find employment, and i'm 53 years old. i never thought that i would be going through this at this point in my life." in every part of our state i need to get people who have worked hard all their lives only to watch their piece of the american dream slipping away due to forces seemingly beyond their control who want only the opportunity to work and the freedom to build a better life for themselves and for the children. it has been said that the most powerful place in the world is the family home. well, over these last difficult

years far too much of that power has been taken from us. when just one marylander has to let their child in the eyes and tell them that the mortgage company told them that we have to move it affects almost. when a house is boarded up and left vacant it impacts entire neighborhoods, entire communities, entire towns, entire counties, entire states. because of your work and also because of the persevere some of counselors, non-profit counselors, pro bono lawyers, many homes in maryland have been saved. many more have been lost. they have been lost in the relentless grinding, of destroying machinery of national mortgage companies. if they can pickup the phone and put a family into a home, shouldn't they be able to pick up the phone before throwing a family out of the home? [applauding]

i need your help. the hard-working people of maryland need your help. families of maryland need your help. i need you to stand up for homeowners and put them on an equal footing with these faceless giants. i need you to pass legislation this year that forces mortgage companies to come to a settlement table before they can throw another family out on the street. [applauding] but, of course, it's not enough to defend. we must also advance. there is no government program that is as important or as empowering as the job. therefore progress requires that we focus the energies of this session on three primary

actions: creating jobs, saving jobs, and protecting jobs. [applauding] last week president obama rightly said the true engine of job creation in this country will always be america's businesses, but government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and to hire more workers. to rebuild and to restore our economy we must help our businesses create and save jobs, jobs from innovation and science, security, and discovery, jobs of noble and valuable service, jobs that create and rebuild our vital connections of travel and trade and business, jobs that revitalize and restore our environment, jobs in teaching, jobs in manufacturing, jobs in healing. they all matter. this month we concluded a

nation-leading public-private partnership at the port of baltimore that will create 5,700 new jobs in construction and port operations. [applauding] and just last week general motors announced that it will build its new generation of electric hybrid engines here in maryland in baltimore county creating new manufacturing jobs. [applauding] now, these new green manufacturing jobs and new opportunities were only possible because of the investments of the much maligned, but critically important american recovery and reinvestment act along with strong actions of your state and the strong

actions of baltimore county and the leadership of jim smith and business and labor all working together. and together -- [applauding] back test and together we can and we must do more. that is why this year i'm asking for your help to create a $3,000 tax credit for every person hired off of maryland's unemployment roles, and because small businesses create two out of three jobs i'm also asking you to pass emergency the legislation to provide $83 million of relief from rapidly escalating unemployment insurance premiums. and what's more because small-business lending has virtually dried up in the course of this national economic downturn and asking for your support to create a new layered loand small-business guarantee program as we simplify the

application progress, so that we can create and improve the conditions necessary to allow small businesses to actually borrow the dollars they need for expansion, to create and save jobs. here in maryland thanks to president obama's and maryland's effectiveness the american recovery and reinvestment act has helped us not only protect public safety, public education, and public health, but it has also allowed us to create or save 19,000 jobs here in maryland. [applauding] and in the year ahead recovery act reinvestment projects will continue to create and save thousands of greatly needed construction jobs here in our state rebuilding our state. working with private businesses in our construction trade i am asking you to create jobs through the major investments that we can make this year

because of our aaa-bond rating and our proposed capital budget rebuilding schools, rebuilding roads, water infrastructure, rebuilding community colleges, science labs, important work. work that will support over 20,000 construction jobs in maryland next year. and i'm also asking you to advance growth through better mass transit with important long-term investments like the purple line and the red line which also will create jobs. [applauding] and working with imaginative redevelopers and green developers i'm asking you to revitalize our historic downtowns and main streets along with new green neighborhoods by passing a new sustainable communities tax credit. building on the success of the heritage tax credits we know

that we can leverage tens of millions of dollars in private investment to create hundreds of jobs now and thousands moving forward. thanks to the lieutenant governor brown's leadership from the very first days, i might add of this administration and the advocacy of the senators, and our entire congressional delegation, 60,000, 60,000 additional jobs are coming to our state through the base realignment and closure process. [applauding] now, we need to leverage the enormous job-creating potential of more than 50 federal facilities in maryland which along with our business institutions and institutions in science, discovery, and higher learning, and healing are the

backbone, the backbone of maryland's innovation economy. life sciences, biotech, high-tech, clean-tech, green-tech, cyber security, our work is to leverage these innovation assets to create more jobs and more opportunities for more maryland families. with the enormous potential of maryland's innovation economy we are also seeking to reinvigorate science, technology, engineering, and math education in every part of our state to re-engage our students with environmental and financial literacy and to create in our work forces the skills to compete through a coordinated state-wide strategy of promoting skills training, apprenticeship, and post-secondary education. and because maryland's greatest economic asset is our highly-educated and highly-skilled workforce i am asking you to invest, once

again, in the children of maryland with a record level of funding for k-12 education. [applauding] progress does not happen by itself. progress does not happen by itself. it is the product of choices. think about it. it is not by chance, but by choice that we now do more than most every other state in the union to support our maryland veterans upon their return home from service in iraq or afghanistan. it is not by chance, but by choice that for the second year in a row we have created the number one best-ranked public school system in the united states of america. [applauding]

it is not by chance, but by choice that alone among the 50 states we together have made college more affordable for more maryland families by going four years in a row without a penny increase in college tuition for maryland residents. [applauding] >> it is not by chance, but by choice that together with courageous police officers t hrough law-enforcement we have been able to drive violent crime in maryland down to its slowest levels, including the steepest three-year reduction in homicide since the 1970's and a 46% reduction in juvenile homicides over the same period of time.

[applauding] it is not by chance, but by choice that the port of baltimore, once a laughingstock of failed homeland security efforts, now receives near perfect security reviews from the united states coast guard. is not by chance, but by choice that 146,000 more marylanders today have health insurance, and 65,000 of them are children. [applauding] it is not by chance, but by choice that we have increased opportunities for women and minority-owned businesses to record levels in our state. it is not by chance, but by choice that four rivers of the chesapeake bay are now actually getting little healthier every

year, instead of getting sicker. we have preserved five-and-a-half times of open space than we did before. the blue crab population is actually rebound in, or we're finally embracing the power of the new aquaculture industry to bring back the native oyster. as we move maryland forward out of this recession and into better times we are going to need to continue to make the sometimes tough, but critically important choices necessary to expand an opportunity and strengthen families. the choice is to grow our middle-class and allow us to make progress together. the choice is to give all of our children the education that they need in order to compete and to win in a global economy. the choice is to make us safer and more secure every day. the choice is to strengthen our laws against child predators. the choices to make it possible for maryland to

eradicate child hunger. the choice is to make as a leader in energy conservation and renewable energy, what we build our cities, towns, and beltway neighborhoods in a maryland that is smart, green, and growing. the choice is that to restore the american dream and allow us to make genuine progress. the choice is to protect maryland. the choice that makes maryland safer for our children's and our children's children. in order to move forward there is another kind of work that we must do. it is not the work of our hands or of our heads, but of our hearts. for there is a dark thing that has penetrated deep into our collective soul, a thing that has to be recognized, seen for what it is, and rejected by all

of us. it is the debilitating and un-american idea that our children will not enjoy a better quality of life than we have. somehow we are now destined to decline, to backslide, to fail. with every fiber of my being i reject this notion. i find it utterly unacceptable, and so do the generations ahead of ours. this recession will end. our journey is not over, and our best days are still in front of us if we make it so. [applauding] [applauding] ironically -- [applauding]

test ironically -- ironically, ironically it is the very immensity of the problems that we face with respect to climate change or resource scarcity, security or health that has actually drove innovation in every sphere of education, technology, and life sciences common endeavors that all of us are able to rightly count among maryland's greatest competitive economic jobs and generating schools, laboratories, companies are emerging with discoveries that will remake our world. we are not at the edge of some cliff. we are at the threshold of brilliant science, innovative technology, and remarkable discoveries that will transform for the better the way we feed, fuel, and heal this world of ours. we have 100 years of creative

work ahead of us, brilliant, sustaining, innovative service. connecting maryland's journey to its resources, creativity, and dreams is our great worker. to the cynicals who say that government is not the answer, i ask what then is the question? the question is how to create jobs, how to get our economy going again, how to re-imagine what it means to be a marylander in these challenging times, and how to create greater freedom, opportunity, and justice for all. and a working and effective government is an indispensable and an essential part of the answer. but only part. for government cannot be a

substitute for citizenship. it can never replace the power of individual creativity, the power of the individual, the power of individual choices responsibly and courageously made. each of us is needed. all of us must act. the truth is, every person has an important story to tell, an important story to live. together over time the people of maryland have written a narrative that endures and grows. it is not a story of failure or a fear. it is a story of genius, a story of courage. the threads of our being stitched to an uncertain future wherein we act with courage, respect, and conscience to make a better life for children. maryland is not simply an isolated political entity or label out there somewhere. it is something we share with

one another and with the generations that will follow ours. the children born in our city centers are just as much our heritage and gift as are the tidewaters of the eastern shore or the mountains of western maryland. there is no resting point where we finally know that we have secured a safe and prosperous future. the principles that inform our deeds and actions demand constant work, vigilance, reaffirmation, and reawakening. we are blessed, blessed to have inherited the backbone of the generations past. the river's shores of this extraordinary state are ever our allies. >> leaving this now to go live to the capitol to hear from senate majority leader harry reid. >> is it true 45 years? >> it is true.

>> everybody, david o'connell worked for wlp for 45 years this month. [applauding] we're going to move this afternoon to a smaller package and then was talked about in the press. we're going to do a bill that has four things in it. a build american bond which has been so dramatically successful. we are going to do the highway bill extension for one year which will save 1 million jobs. her we're going to do though section 179 small business tax program which, in effect, allows people to break off their expenses very, very quickly. we are going to do the hatch-schumer job-creating measure. that is going to be in one package. and then when we finish that we

will move on to the tax extenders and all the other stuff. we feel the american people need a message. the message they need is that we're doing something about jobs. we don't have a jobs bill. we have a jobs agenda. we are going to move forward on the jobs agenda. the first phase of that is going to be this afternoon. the message is so watered down with people wanting other things in it. this big package that we're going to have to come back and finish that. [inaudible question] >> i'm going to move forward with the legislation. [inaudible question] >> no. technically there could be a roll-call. we are not having folks. we have people that can't leave and can't get here. a difficult situation. the roads are still treacherous. many offices in the senate are still closed. it has been very difficult for the staff to get here.

some people who live on some of the main arteries, it's fine, but there are places the subway is not running and many many places the buses aren't running. we have massive numbers of staff who could not get here. [inaudible question] >> the question my change in the bill, i made the decision before i came to the caucus. [inaudible question] >> the republicans are going to have to make a choice. we have a bipartisan bill that will create jobs according to the cbo immediately, not when the design is done, not when the planning is done, not when they hire people. the three provisions create jobs.

the provision dealing with highways saved a million jobs. the republicans, i don't know in logic what they could send to oppose this, but in -- we have seen since obama was elected they have opposed everything as a party of no. i think it speaks volumes that on nominations alone in the first four months of the obama administration there were many times that they blocked votes. [inaudible question] >> i had several conversations during the last few days as we were snowed in with senator dodd. i feel comfortable that we're going to be able to do a really good financial regulation bill. i hope we can get to work on

that. [inaudible question] >> one week. yeah, we are going to pay for our stuff. yeah. [inaudible question] >> the question is should the senate house be out next week, people have schedules. when people leave washington who are members of congress it is not to head for the beach and sip tea. >> majority leader ried seeking speaking at the capitol. the senate is coming in now for morning business. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., february 11, 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. thpresing officer: the minority leader. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. i believe the majority leader may be onis way. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, one of the most gratifying things about spending a good

deal of time in the senate as i have is the optimism that comes from seeing talent renew itself year after year. i've had the good fortune of having many talented staffers over the years, and the staff i have now is an incredible group. but every one of them will tell you that when kyle simmons gets up from his tidy desk and walks out of his office this friday, the office they return to on monday will be a very different place. it's been said no one is indispensable, and that may be true. but few of us can imagine s. 229 without kyle simmons in it. so it will take some adjusting, and part of that adjustment involves doing something this

week that kyle never did. we're going to speak well of him. we're going to talk about his many virtues. we're going to make him a little uncomfortable, because every single person on my staff knows what it's like to be singled out for a good piece of work or for going above and beyond the call of duty -- everybody, that is, except our chief of staff. now it's our turn. the first thing to say about kyle is that he's humble, and that's really saying something in this town. most people in washington look in the mirror in the morning and think they see a future president. not kyle. if he looks in the mirror at all in the morning, i would imagine that what he sees is the son of a baptist minister who was

blessed with a privilege he didn't seek and who has tried to earn that privilege every single day regardless of how well he did the day before. as he used to tell his father, "dad, i'm always just one mistake away from looking for a job." he had a modest upbringing, but he excelled at everything. one day when kyle was about ten years old, he made his way over to tate's creek public golf course and picked up a club. soon enough he was a better golfer than his dad. it was a sign of things to come, a sign that for him, as for so many others in this country before and since, success would come not from who he knew or where he came from, but from hard work and the determination to succeed. when kyle showed up in washington, he didn't have any

connections. he didn't have an ivy league degree, he didn't even have a job. all he had was some furniture he had gotten from his grandfather and a lot of talent. he got evicted from the first place he rented because the owner of the building wanting to tear the building down. as his old friend and roommate at the time put it, "we were just two country bumpkins in a crowd. we just wanted to pay our electric bills." there were times i'm sure when back home didn't look so bad, and after a series of jobs outside government and a brush with politics during the 1992 presidential campaign, kyle decided he'd been in washington long enough. and so he moved back to kentucky, but this time with enough experience under his belt to run a corporate communications shop in louisville, and that's just what he was doing when i met him on an elevator at the seal backhoe

tell. i just lost my press secretary, and we struck up a polite conversation. the second thing you notice about kyle is that he's unfailingly polite. and then we pulled a cheney on him. we asked him if he wouldn't mind coming waup list of candidates -- up with a list of candidates for us which he did with diligence. when he had gone through the list, we asked him if maybe he'd be interested in the job. soon after that he was sitting in a desk in the russell senate office building. he was a quick study, not even a year had passed before i knew that kyle was the guy i wanted to manage my tphuft campaign. i -- my next campaign. i sent him down to the office i always use in louisville and he did a flawless job. in a year when bill clinton got reelected and carried kentucky for the second time, kyle got me reelected by 12 points. it was a landslide, a truly

remarkable feat. after that he went from success to success. after returning from kentucky, i put him in charge of my office. it was one of the best decisions i ever made. nothing rattled him, and he was always, always thinking of the one thing that no one else had thought of. whether it was taking a part of what i thought to be a terrific idea and patiently explaining to me why it wasn't such a good idea or mapping out a legislative or political strategy when everyone else was ready to take a break, he became the calm navigator in the middle of the storm. the one person in the office who never took his eye off the destination we had set. and when it came to smoking out some unforeseen problem or vetting some proposal for potential pitfalls, he was and is, quite simply, the best i had

ever seen. it was a skill i always thought i was pretty good at, but kyle was far better. and it is impossible to overstate the value of that kind of mind in politics. now many of the people who might be listening to me right now are probably asking themselves why they never heard of this guy. that's no accident. kyle was never in it for himself. i know as well as i know the the sun's coming up tomorrow that through three senate elections, two whip races, two leader races, and countless legislative efforts in between, that he never, never put his own interests ahead of mine. he was as loyal as he was effective. he's made me look better than i am for 15 years. and nearly everything i've accomplished over that time, i

owe in part to him. he always disliked attention. and if he was suspicious of anything it was the glory seekers and people who like to talk about themselves. it's something he never did. he kept his own counsel and he kept to himself. as his mother used to say, kyle could keep silent in 30 different languages. but if you ever do get kyle to talk about his accomplishments, he'll probably tell you that his proudest professional achievement was finding a

talented group of people in washington, d.c. who had the same attitude about the limelight and about the empty praise that he does. he'll tell you the thing he's the proudest of is the staff he put together and that he'll soon leave behind. but he was always the one who set the example. on any given day over the past few years, any visitors to our office could be excused for wondering who the tall guy out in the reception room asking one of our young staff assistance whether she'd found an apartment yet and whether it was a safe neighborhood. i'd never be able to look parents in the eye if anything ever happened to you, he'd say. and anyone who

had the privilege of sitting in one of our morning staff meetings could be excused for wondering who the guy was at the end of the table who seemed to know absolutely everything. from the legislative details to the fact that some of the legislative pages would be graduating later that day and that one of his was from kentucky and that his dad had just died and that our number-one priority in the office that day was to make that young man feel like a million bucks. any visitor to our office could be excused for being astonished at seeing that same tall gentleman walk away from a roo roomful of c.e.o.'s to focus staff issues or seeing him sneak out before an important vote so he could get home just a little while to see his little girl before she went to bed. and anyone would be amazed at how he could manage such a high-pressure environment with such efficiency, focus and vision without ever losing his

sense of humor. he inspired confidence in the staff and he inspired loyalty. everything i ever asked him to do he did well, especially when he had every excuse not to. i asked him to manage a campaign even though he'd never managed a campaign before. i asked him to run my office even though he'd never run an office before. i asked him to put together a leadership staff even though he'd never done that before.

he had never done any of these things but he excelled at every one. and he never needed the praise. i assure you that kind of person is in very short supply here in washington. someone once said that the best business in the world would be to buy someone for what they're worth and to sell them for what they think they're worth. it was never that way with kyle. he was always worth more than he thought he was and that's why he will succeed at whatever he chooses to do. in the meantime, he leaves a legacy. i can't tell you how many senators have come up to me over the past week to tell me how

much they'll miss his counsel, his advice, and his steady hand. he's left a lot of himself in this place and it's better for it. above all, though, kyle leaves his example, the example of someone who showed you could be committed to winning and gracious at the same time; that you can be intensely focused without losing sight of the human beings around you. and it's just that combination of aggressiveness and caution, political savvy and humanity that anyone who's worked with kyle has come to admire and will miss. and now that he's leaving, i'm

just as confident that our office will carry on just as it always has because he leaves a fantastic team behind. that's because kyle's solution to everything was to throw the smartest people in the room at the problem, to find the best talent, but not just any talent. he only wanted people who'd rather be on a team than on the style pages of the "washington post." in other words, people like him: honest, intelligent, kind, straightforward people with humility, a deep commitment to excellence, and always a sense of humor. you tonight get those qualities -- you don't get those qualities in washington, you bring them here. and in kyle's case, that means he brought them from a quiet street in lexington, kentucky,

and more specifically from the home of bill and barbie simmons. now, anyone who ever spent any time at the cal vary baptist church where kyle's father served as pastor could tell you there was always one thing bill simmons could always count on when he climbed into the bull pit. whether he was presiding over a sunday service, a funeral, a wedding -- you name it -- mrs. simmons would always be out there, always sitting in the same spot. she was always there as a point of reverence, as a point of comfort for her husband. and when i think of what kyle... when i think of what kyl spe has

meant to me ovehas -- kyle has r the past 15 years, i can't help but think that's exactly what he's been to me. he's been that steady presence in the midst of it all. as long as he was there, the team was confident things would turn out well, and they always did. to me, he's been more than a staffer. he's been a colleague, a confidant, and a dear friend. kyle once summed up his approach to the job, and i'd like to

share it because every senator should be so fortunate as to have a chief of staff who would write such a thing. it's from a letter that he left on the chair of my other chief of staff, billy piper the day billly took kyle's job in the personal office seven years ago. after a brief introduction, here's what kyle wrote. "billy, why you sit here, you are no longer simply billy piper, you will billy piper, senator mitch mcconnell's chief of staff. carry the exprifs responsibilities just as you have throughout your outstanding career with humility and with honor." he said, "it's a constant struggle while balancing the demands of your time to remember your audience: the people of kentucky, the staff who look to you for leadership, and senator mcconnell. we're only here for a short period of time and few of us have made it to where you now sit. do us proud.

he was honored to serve the senate and his country and yet at the end of that service, he knew he had a more important job still. it was the job of husband and father and that's why, to parafray "macbeth," nothing became kyle's service to the senate more than the leaving of it. his first love was and is his dear wife, kerri, and their beautiful daughter ava, and the senate couldn't compete with that. as much as it tried to, especially these last few months. so he has made the right decision, as he usually does, but that doesn't change the fact that he leaves behind an office and a boss that will miss him terribly. kyle, thank you so very much. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the leader. mr. reid: there's nothing that i can say to assuage the anguish

that my friend, the republican leader, mitch mcconnell, now feels. it's a unique relationship that come with our staff members, especially someone that has been with us as many years as kyle has been with leader mcconnell. these people become part of us. as we can see kyle simmons has become part of mitch mcconnell. my dealings with kyle simmons are meetings that are held in my office or in senator mcconnell's office, and if there were a way to describe my dealings with kyle simmons, it would be to go to the dictionary and go to -- under the h's and go to "humility," and there would be kyle simmons. he is just as mitch mcconnell described him. he's a man who has loads of

humility. he doesn't talk very often, but whenever he talks, we listen. so i wish you the very best, kyle, in the things you do, and i recognize that your boss, mitch mcconnell, was speaking for the entire senate in our relationships with our staff. but, of course, even though there are many relationships with our staff, i think the relationship between senator mcconnell and kyle simmons, as we can see, is very unique. best of luck to you, kyle. mr. president, following the remarks of senator mcconnell and me, we'll proceed to a period of monk business, senators -- morning business, senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. we're going to lay down our jobs bill today so that we can begin this consideration when we return after the recess. there's no question that the snow has interfered with our work here. it would be nice if we could say, okay, then we're just going

to move on next week and pretend that next week was this week, but, as i told somebody outside before i came in here, mr. president, when we leave washington, we don't go home, relax and take it easy. we have constituencies. the state of minnesota, state of the kentucky, the state of illinois, the state of nevada. we have to take care of it. we have appointments and things that we have to do and we've scheduled them long ahead of time. so we're going to come back after the president's day recess energized and make up for this snow day, snow week, do the very best we can. the jobs bill we're moving forward on is not as big as the one in different elements of the legislation but one that's extremely important. it's going to deal with jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs -- four times -- because all four elements of our jobs will deal with jobs creating jobs immediately, as the

congressional budget office said, creating jobs immediately. mr. president, i do want to comment about the health care debate. one republican senator said during this debate, what we need is to just get out of the way and allow the market to work. well, we've had an example of it working pretty well for the insurance industry a couple of days ago. in fact, a large insurance company in california, insuring almost a million people, individuals, decided they would raise their rates this year 39%. one year. i think that's fair to say it's a little above inflation. well, when someone talks about get out of the way and let the market work, they're talking about doing nothing. that's what it means, allowing the market to work is code word for letting greedy insurance

companies, companies that care more about profits than people. they get richer while people who can already barely afford their coverage lose their coverage altogether. cover this, mr. president, with the fact that these insurance companies and this insurance company, they're not subject to any antitrust laws. the only business in america not subject to antitrust laws other than major league baseball is the insurance industry. so raising its rates by 39%, that's many, many times more than the rate of inflation. and, too, it's reserving the right to raise them again whenever they feel like it. instead of just once a year, they can raise it more than once a year if they want to. they can do whatever they want, and do pretty much whatever they want. what does this mean it means that people won't be able to afford cofferrage at all in -- coverage at all in many instances. it means people will be living one injury, one accident, or one

pink slip away from losing everything. it goes without saying, mr. president, in the year 2008, 750,000 bankruptcies were filed in america. 80% of those bankruptcies because of health care costs. almost 70% of those people that filed because of health care costs had health insurance. a lot of companies are hurting in this economy, but this california health company isn't one of them. last year, its parent company raked in eight times what it made in the same quarter a year before. what is this all about? it's not the first time we have seen this happen. just two months ago, another exceedingly profitable insurance company raised its rates with the full knowledge that it will mean 650,000 people wouldn't be able to afford the coverage.

that's the -- that's as many people as are in some of our states, entire states. that's what happens when we allow the health insurance market to work the way it does. that's what happens when we sit back and wait for insurance company executives to act out of the goodness of their hearts instead of admitting or acting in the interests of their wallets. that's why we need health reform like the bills already passed in the house and the senate that will rein in insurance company abuses and make coverage more affordable for millions of americans and provide coverage for some 30 million americans who have no health insurance. health care costs make up a larger slice of our economy than ever before, and it's not slowing down. in less than a decade, it's going to be one out of every five dollars we spend. in less than a decade, half of the family's income will be spent on health premiums. it doesn't have to be that way. californians don't have to be priced out of a healthy life.

we don't have to let greedy health insurance executives drag down our future, but that's what they have done and are doing. i once again encourage republicans to work with us in good faith to fix our broken system. the president has reached out. come on down. tell us what plans you have. i encourage them -- those republicans to listen to the american people, two-thirds of whom said last week they want congress to finish the job that we started on health care reform. i encourage every senator to condemn this insurance company's greed. fer not willing to do so, perhaps they would be willing to call the californians who can no longer afford coverage and explain why corporate profits are more important than their health. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will now be a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each.

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i would like to make a unanimous consent request that on the democratic side that the sequence be senator kaufman of delaware, senator harkin of iowa, and then that i be third in line, and if there are any republicans who come to the floor seeking recognition in morning business, that they be taken in sequence so that there will be a democrat speaker followed by a republican speaker. the presiding officer: without objection. i'm sorry. the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: reserving the right to object, if i might ask from my friend from illinois that the order be changed to allow senator kaufman to go first and if the senator from illinois could go second and i would be glad to go third, if that would be okay with the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: sure. the presiding officer: well, without objection, so ordered. the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: mr. president, i am going to speak today once more in my -- on my weekly great federal employees, but before i begin, i was quite moved by the

republican leader's speech today about kyle simmons. i don't know kyle simmons, but i must say the 19 years i was chief of staff, the over a year i have been a senator, i recognize kyle simmons in so many good chiefs of staff i have known over the years. the way the republican leader described kyle simmons just brought back so many memories of great people in the senate but especially chiefs of staff who do everything in the office from open the door in the morning to close it at night to worry about everything from the interns to the c.e.o.'s of corporations in their home states and labor leaders. so i just want to add my voice to say that i'm just so proud of folks who have worked in the senate and especially through personal experience those who have been chiefs of staff. i cannot seek of a better letter than the one that was written from kyle simmons to billy piper

to explain what it is to be a great senate staffer and a great chief of staff. now i would like to speak about another great federal employee. across the country, americans receiving their w-2 forms and taking stock of their finances in advance of april's tax deadline. for families, the ritual of filing income taxes repeats itself each year and admittedly it isn't very much fun. taxes have been an emotional and thorny subject in american history ever since colonial patriots rallied around the cry "no taxation without representation." indeed, the federal tax rates for personal income are low compared to most other developed countries, complaining about paying taxes remains one of our truly national past times. this is understandable. it is linked to the strong national attitude in our country that taxpayers' money should never go to waste. when americans grumble about taxes, i bet it's not because -- and i know it's not because they oppose them in general. rather, because they want to make sure their money is spent

wisely and fairly and without unnecessary waste. one of the chief complaints about taxes in years past was the filing of a time-consuming and a confusing process. i think all of us can remember those days sitting in front of a pile of forms and receipts, punching away the calculator, pencil in hand and a 1040 form covered in eraser marks. thankfully because of this week's honoree, most americans, more than 95 million filers avoided this headache last year by filing their taxes electronically. terrance lutes was awarded the 2005 service to american medal for citizen service for leading the development of the internal revenue service's e-file program. terry, who spent near 30 years working at the i.r.s., served as associate chief information officer for i.t. services before retiring five years ago. e-file not only makes it easy for taxpayers to file online and receive a refund in as little as ten days, it also cuts

processing costs by 90% compared to paper filing. this benefits the taxpayers twofold. they save time and energy individually and also reduce the amount of their own money spent collecting taxes. terry, who holds degrees from eastern kentucky university and the university of colorado, first became involved with electronic filing in 1996. as head of the i.r.s.'s electronic tax administration, he became the government's evangelist for online tax filing. e-file has been available for years, but it was costly for the i.r.s. to operate and difficult for taxpayers to navigate. while redesigning the e-file system, terry and his team focused on creating innovative public-private partnerships to reduce and eventually eliminate the direct costs to the taxpayers of filing online. he oversaw a work force of over 6,500 employees and carefully managed a budget of of $1.5 billion. terry cultivated relationships

with software companies and tax preparation businesses, and the results have paid off for all of us. in 2005, when terry retired after a long and distinguished career in public service, more than half of all tack returns were filed online for the first time. today, this number continues to rise. for most americans, what used to be a stressful experience is now fast, simple, and less expensive. thanks to terry, the way americans pay their taxes is forever changed. oliver wendell holmes jr., one of the great supreme court justices of the early 20th century once said the taxes are the price we pay for civil identify society. i'm glad to know that great federal employees like terrance lutes at the i.r.s. continue to work hard every day, ensuring that our tax collection system is as efficient and responsive as possible. if i go online to find my own -- to file my own tax return this year, i will be thinking of the outstanding public servants of the i.r.s. and all who work for the federal government.

mr. president, i rise today to support the goals and ideals of national engineers week which we celebrate next week from february 14-february 20. as one of the only practicing serving senators who has worked as an engineer, i'm proud to sponsor a resolution acknowledging the essential role engineers play and the important work that they do. i would also like to thank senators collins, bingaman and gillibrand for joining me in introducing this resolution. just as importantly, i would like to acknowledge the leadership of congressman lipinski of illinois who for many years has been introducing this resolution in the house of representatives. i know he plans to do the same thing again this year when our local weather permits it. launched in 1951 by the national science of professional -- society of professional engineers, it began as a way to call attention to the immense contributions engineers make to society. it is also a time to emphasize

the importance of learning science, mathematics and engineering skills, something that i have spoken about many times on this floor. since its inception, the support for engineers week has grown significantly. this year, nearly 100 professional societies, major corporations and government agencies, are working together with the national engineers week foundation to bring attention to this important program. if we hope to encourage more young people to pursue engineering, and we should, to help us tackle the issues of health, safety, and energy, it's absolutely critical that we teach them what engineering is all about. national engineers week brings 50,000 engineering volunteers into the classrooms to teach students that engineering can be fun, that engineers make a difference, and that anyone can become an engineer. it's especially important that we get the message out to girls and women and many minorities who are underrepresented in the engineering categories. we will all benefit from greater

diversity in stem fields. i believe that encouraging a new generation of engineers is vital to continuing our economic recovery. engineers have always been our country's problem solvers and it's fitting that we celebrate national engineers week in conjunction with the birthday of president george washington, one of our nation's first engineers. i want to thank my colleagues for joining me and supporting this important week. mr. president, today i rise to express support for the people whose voices have been silenced by the government of iran. for eight months, violence has been waged against peaceful protesters, free speech, free expression, and a free press have been suppressed and access to information and news has been limited through the jamming of international broadcasting and restrictions on the internet. according to a joint statement released by the united states and the e.u. on monday, since the flawed iranian election in june, there have been large-scale detentions and mass trials of peaceful demonstrators, threatened

executions of protesters, intimidation of family members of those detained, and the continued denial of peaceful expression contrary to universal norms for human rights. this statement is issued in advance of today's protests in iran, marking the 35th anniversary of the islamic revolution. in anticipation of widespread violent additional unrests which are occurring as we speak. these and other events in iran represent blatant violations of international standards of human rights. this is why i have come to the floor today, to condemn the oppression of the iranian people and to call on the government of iran to bring its unconscionable behavior to an end. mr. president, on december 23, the senate unanimously passed a resolution condemning the government of iran for ongoing human rights abuses and for suppressing freedom of speech, assembly, expression, and press. this resolution which i have introduced along with senators lieberman and mccain and others, reiterated the concern that we also conveyed in the victims of iranian censorship or

the voice act which authorized funding for the development of technology to circumvent online censorship in iran by the iranian government. despite these and other international expenses of solidarity with the american people, the government of iran has become even more brutal in recent weeks. in a statement released on january 24, human rights watch called the situation in iran a human rights disaster, and it truly is. protesters are not the only group which have been targeted. iranian authorities also launched an aggressive campaign against the press. on monday, iranian state media reported the arrest of seven individuals charged with espionage for alleged ties to the u.s.-funded farsi language radio station. these allegations and arrests coincide with the large-scale crackdown on the independent media that intensified in the past week. in the leadup to today's

demonstrations, the radio stations have been jammed and there have been widespread disruptions to the internet and other tech message services. these have impeded the free flow of information, news, and the basic means of communication. this is why i join senator casey and others in introducing another resolution denouncing the atmosphere and impunity in iran for those who ploy intimidation. i'm also proud to cosponsor legislation introduced today by senators mccain, lieberman, casey, bayh, gillibrand, collins, graham, and brownback which gives the president the ability to impose at his discretion sanctions against the iranians who have committed acts of violence against civilians engaged in peaceful political activity. unfortunately, the grave and deteriorating human rights situation is not the only concern of the international community with regard to iran. in a speech earlier today, the iranian president declared iran

a nuclear state, but to this the international community has already spoken in one voice on three separate occasions, repudiating iran's ongoing enrichment of nuclear material in violation of its international obligations. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. kaufman: could i ask for another minute? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: as the u.n. considers a fourth round of sanctions against iran, the u.s. -- just yesterday, the treasury announced sanctions targeting the islamic of the rrtc for its involvement involving iran's nuclear missile programs. as they continue to consolidate control of the iranian economy including the telecommunications sector, it is crucial to ensure that the government of iran is held to account for its ongoing violations of international law and activities which have made it a growing threat to global security. the people taking the streets of iran are the most courageous in the world and congress will continue to reiterate their right. we will not sit by as the government of iran continues to deny its people essential

freedoms of human rights and we put iran or any government which aims to silence its people on notice that its behavior is unacceptable to the united states. as president obama stated in his nobel peace prize acceptance speech -- quote -- "we will bear witness to the hundreds of thousands who march silently through the streets of iran, it is telling that the leaders of these government fear the aspirations of its own people more than the power of any other nation and it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side." thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, first i'd like so to* say to the the senator from from delaware, thank you for your strong statement. thank you for your longtime advocacy of human rights. i and others are pleased to have the opportunity to work with you in a common cause of human rights and democracy, and i thank the senator from delaware.

mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to have colloquy with the senator from connecticut, senator lieberman. and i'm aware of the time constraints of the -- of being in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, today is the 31st anniversary of the islamic republic. and, unfortunately, it's a record that many would rather forget, 31 years of economic potential loss stolen by a corrupt elite. we know what's gone on over the last 31 years. right now as we speak, if anyone watching wants to turn on cable news, turn on fox news, and you will see videos coming out of tehran of innocent young people, young and old, being beaten and tortured and taken away to prison where unspeakable things are done to them. as the people of iran are

standing up and demonstrating again their commitment, their courage, their sacrifice to have a free and open democracy and society. we're watching as iranian men and women, many not more than young boys and girls, rounded up in their homes and dormitories hauled away unlawfulfully to face torture and other abuses in the darkest corners of the country where the eyes of the international community struggle to see. this is an unacceptable, unspeakable crimes that are being committed on the iranian people, and we and the world must stand up against it. i appreciate being part of an effort, along with my friend from connecticut, both sides, a bipartisan effort to bring about, to take action on the part of these people in iran. as i say, turn on fox news, my friends. you'll see the videos coming out

of tehran of the brutality that's being inflicted on innocent iranians who are trying to just have the god-given right to freedom and democracy. so i want to thank my friend from connecticut and just mention that this bill that we introduce today has two parts. it would require the president to compile a public list of individuals in iran who, starting with the presidential election last june, are complicit in human rights violations against iranian citizens and their families, no matter where in the world these abuses occur, i want to stress this would be a public list. you will know their names, you will know their faces, you will know what they've done. and we will make them famous. they are war criminals. they should be taken to the hague for trial. the bill would ban these iranian individuals from receiving u.s. visas, impose on them the full battery of sanctions under the international emergency economic powers act. that means freezing assets,

blocking property they hold in u.s. jurisdictions, et cetera. this nation has always stood for the human rights of people throughout the world. we stood up for the people behind the iron car tan. we -- curtain. we provided lech walesa with a printing press. we need to help the iranian people with the means to use the internet to communicate, to resist. many people talk here back and forth, the iranian people are without a leader. they have leaders. they have thousands and thousands of leaders that are in the streets right now demonstrating for freedom and putting their very lives at risk. i want to thank my colleague from connecticut and ask him if he has additional comments on this disturbing reality that is unfolding before our eyes as we stand here on the floor of the senate and speak about it. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i thank my friend from arizona, senator mccain, first, for his leadership on this, which is

consistent with a lifetime of support for america's freedom agenda, for the principles that are enshrined in our declaration of independence and have always been at the center of our foreign policy when it's been at its best. and this is a day of history. it's a day of history on the streets of tehran and other cities in iran, on this 31st anniversary of the iranian revolution. i heard a report today and it encapsulates what's happened to that revolution. today apparently the granddaughter of ayatollah hoe may knee was arrested as a -- khomeini was arrested as a street protester. when they realized who she was, they let her go. mr. mccain: the wife of one of the opposition leaders was beaten in the street today.

did the senator hear that? hraoeb i say to my friend -- mr. lieberman: i say i did. that was the wife of mr. musavi, whose wife was beaten on the streets of iran, on tehran today. this is a day of history in tehran, and i hope we can make it a day of history here in the united states congress because if this legislation, which senator mccain and i and a broad bipartisan group of other senators is adopted, it will be the first time we impose economic sanctions on iranian leaders for the human rights abuses of their own people. we've come full circle here. we've obviously been concerned about iran's sponsorship of terrorism, still the number-one state sponsor of terrorism in the world, according to the state department. second, its nuclear weapons program menaces its neighbors and the world. but as so often happens with

countries that threaten their neighbors and the world that have no regard for human life, ultimately we come back to their core. and the core of the iranian regime is rotten. it's rotten because it treats its own people not just with disrespect, but with brutality, as my friend from arizona has said. look at the television. look at youtube. raoet the internet -- read the internet, the text messages about what's happening on the streets of iran as we speak today. remarkable demonstrations of courage by the people coming out to protest, to simply ask for their freedom, and unbelievable brutality against them for doing nothing more than asking for their universal human rights. mr. mccain: i ask my friend: i believe that last year an

attempt was made to establish some kind of relationship and dialogue with the iranian government. in other words, to have an unclenched fist. could my friend comment on what the success of that has been? mr. lieberman: yes, indeed. i thank the senator from arizona. president obama adopted a policy of reaching out to the iranian regime. personally, i thought he did the right thing. and what he got in return for his outstretched hand was a clenched fist. i think the only thing constructive that's come out of this attempt to engage the iranians to begin a new chapter, to give them a peaceful way to avoid conflict with the rest of the world, the only really constructive result of it is that we see that the problem in the relations between the u.s. and iran is not the united states. it's the oppressive extremist regime in tehran. i think that it's clear that

president obama has not only been disappointed but grows impatient. i will say from what i perceive, angered by what's happened. and that explains the increasing move, including just in the last day or two, imposition of new sanctions on companies related to the iranian revolution, the guard corps and individuals. this regime will not stop its nuclear weapons program, in my opinion, will not stop its support of terrorist killers, will not stop suppressing the human rights of its people unless it feels pain, unless it feels that perhaps its regime is in jeopardy. and we can only do that now with tough sanctions such as those that are proposed in the legislation we introduce today. mr. mccain: i say to my friend from connecticut, isn't it also

true that there are certain elements that say don't do these things because you'll only hurt the iranian people? the sanctions and the action that we're trying to take. isn't it true that the demonstrators in the streets of tehran were chanting "obama, obama: are you with us or are you with them?" and what would be the effect of the american people -- obt eye rain -- on the iranian people if we impose these sank stphupbs mr. president, i ask for two additional minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: the senator from arizona, it's very clear that these sanctions directed against the thugs in the iranian government who brutally suppress the rights of their own people will be very popular with the people of iran. in my opinion, the economic sanctions that would be imposed in the legislation that passed the senate unanimously about ten days ago, those sanctions are tough. but if we have any hope of

achieving the end of the iranian nuclear weapons program through diplomacy, it has to be coupled with tough economic sanctions or else we will be left with no alternative but military action. so, look, there's a difference between the regime in iran and the people of iran. the people of iran want to change in their regime. it's clear. there's no -- there's nothing inherently at odds between the american people and the people of iran. as a matter of fact, we have all sorts of history and values and goals in common. the problem is the extremists, brutal, aggressive regime in tehran, and the sooner it goes, the better. and i hope the people of iran hear this legislation that we introduce today, under your leadership, senator mccain, as an expression of unanimity across party lines and ideological lines on behalf of the people of iran -- excuse me, the people of america.

we stand with the people of iran against the government of iran as it attempts to suppress the people. mr. mccain: i'd like to ask my friend, we were together in munich over the weekend. the foreign minister of iran came and spoke. i wish everyone in the world could have seen that peformance. one complete denial that they're on the path of acquisition of nuclear weapons. and perhaps as important, a complete denial that any human rights abuses were taking place anywhere in that country. a remarkable display of hypocrisy and outright lying. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i was with senator mccain. it was so, such a bald-faced lie, and a lie because we see the foreign minister of iran gets up and says iran is the most democratic regime in the entire middle east region and beyond, and says that in regard to our complaints and the

europeans' complaints there about the suppression of the rights of the iranian people, the execution of political demonstrators, the jailing of thousands of peaceful political protesters, that that's the law. and if they violated the criminal law, they will be punished for it. when somebody is so detached from the truth as we know it from what we see with our own eyes, it's hard to trust them otherwise. i want to add a word, my friend from az, if we adopt -- my friend from arizona, if we adopt this proposal, as i believe we can and will when the general iran sanctions bill comes back from conference, we will have taken a significant first step in the direction of penalties on the iranian regime for human rights abuses of its own people. i want to use this, and i ask my friend: do you agree that the impact of this legislation would be magnified many times over if

our allied governments around the world, particularly in europe, which has a tradition of support for human rights, also joined us in adopting laws that impose targeted sanctions against human rights abusers in iran? this doesn't have to happen -- doesn't require previous u.n. security council action. there's nothing stopping our congress or the e.u. from imposing targeted human rights sanctions as quickly as possible. i ask my friend if that would not make the power of what we hope to do here in congress many times more effective against the the tyrants in tehran? mr. mccain: i know we're running out of time. i'd like to say to my friend that history does repeat itself. there was a time during the cold where where president reagan spoke out and mentioned natan

sharansky's name and people said shouldn't have done it. when ronald reagan said take down this wall, people said that was prosrabg taf of the soviet union. you know what sharansky said? he said those words gave hope for democracy and freedom. that is the same message we are sending to the iranian people with this legislation. i hope we'll enact it soon and we will not slack nor will we give up until the iranian people have their god-given rights restored to them. mr. president, i yield the balance of our time. mr. lieberman: i thank my friend from arizona. first, i'd ask unanimous consent that my full statement in support of the legislation be entered in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. and, secondly, this is a piece of legislation that has significance if it's adopted and effect, we hope, but really this

is also our way, the ten of us who have sponsored this legislation -- and i would guess every member of the senate when it comes to a vote will vote for it -- to say to two groups of people, first of government in iran, we see what you're doing, we know what you're doing, it's intolerable, it's unacceptable and -- and you will be punished for it. secondly, to say to the people of iran, who have the courage to be in the streets protesting, asking for the rights that their government is supposed to give them according to international treaties that iran itself has signed, we are with you. the struggle for freedom and justice against tyranny is often a long one. it's always a hard one. but history tells us that in the end, freedom and justice prevail and that means the people of iran will prevail over the

totalitarian government that now brutally rules them i. thank the chair. -- that rules them. i thank the chair, i thank the senator from arizona for his leadership, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: first, mr. president, let me identify and agree with the remarks from both the senators concerning iran and consider myself a part of that program. and i believe it's already the order, but in the event it's not, i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized for up to 25 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, today i want to highlight several recent media reports uncovering very serious errors and possible fraud by the united nations intergovernmental panel on climate change. let me, first of all, define what we're talking about here because it's been around for a long time but people have a lot -- a lot of them have forgotten. way back in 1988, the united nations formed the ipcc, the

intergovernmental panel on climate change. the whole idea was that -- to try to determine whether or not manmade gases, anthropogenic gases, co2, methane caused global warming and if, in fact, global warming is taking place. it's kind of hard on a day like today and the last few days to be talking about global warming. i often say, where is it when you need it? but nontheless, for right now you need to know just three things about the ipcc. number one, the obama administration calls it the gold standard of climate change science. number two, some say its reports on climate change represent the so-called consensus of scientific opinion about global warming. and, three, the ipcc and al gore were awarded the nobel prize in 2007 for their -- quote -- their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about manmade climate change." put simply, what this means is

that in elite circles, the ipcc is a big deal. so when abc news, the "economist, "time" magazine and "the times" of london, among many others, report that the ipcc's research contains embarrassing flaws and that the ipcc chairman and scientists knew of the flaws but published them anyway, well, you have the makings of a major scientific scandal. in fact, the -- when the climategate first came out and it was discovered that they had been cooking the science at the ipcc, the u.k. "telegraph" said this is the -- this is very likely the greatest scientific scandal of our generation. so where to begin? well, how about with the ipcc's claim that the himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035? it's not true. that's right, it's simply false. yet it was put into the ipcc's

fourth assessment report. now, these assessment reports, every year they come out with these assessments. that's what the media normally get. they're -- they're not scientific reports, they are assessments that are made for policy-makers. and here's what we know. according to the "sunday times," the claim about the limb leahs -- the himalayas was based on -- now, keep in mind we're talking about their statement that by 2035, the glaciers would melt -- according to the "sunday times," that claim was based on a 1999 story in the news magazine which, in turn, was based on a short telephone interview with someone named ciad hasan, a very little-known, not very well-known indian scientist. next, in 2005, the activist group "worldwildlif wildlife fu" started the story in one of its climate change reports yet

despite the fact that the world wildlife fund report was not peer reviewed, was not scientifically peer reviewed, it was still referenced by the ipcc, it's still in their report. and, third, according to the "times" the himalayan glaciers are so thick and at such high altitude that most glaishologists -- glaciologists believe it would take several hundred years to melt at the rate and many say it's showing no or little signs of change. and, lastly, when finally published, the "sunday times" wrote -- quote -- "the ipcc report did give its source as the wild -- as the world wildlife fund study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was very high. the ipcc, by the way, defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%. so there you have that, but

there's more. according to the "times," the chairman, pachari -- now, he's the chairman of the ipcc, the lead scientist of the climate change watch-dog -- was informed that claims about melting himalayan glaciers were false before the copenhagen summit. we all remember the copenhagen summit. it was in the middle of december. i was there for two hours. many were there for two weeks. but he was -- he was told, informed that the information on these glaciers was false prior to that summit and yet the -- that the intergovernmental panel on climate change assessment, that the glaciers would disappear by 2035, was wrong but he waited two months to correct it. he failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists. so why was the himalayan error included? we know now from the very ipcc scientists who edited the reports -- the report's session

on asia that it was done for political purposes. it was inserted to include -- to induce china, india and other countries -- this was at copenhagen -- to take action on global warming. according to the u.k.'s "sunday mail," the lahl, who's the scientist in charge of the ipcc's chapter on asia, said this -- quote -- "we thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action." in other words, that's the motive that she did it for. in other words, the -- the "sunday mail" wrote lahl -- quote -- "admitted the glacier alarmism was indeed purely to put political procedure world leaders and this is what we have suspected and has been documented in the recent climategate scandal. but there's still more. the glaciologists, dr. hasnan,

who originally made the alarmist's 2035 claim, who worked for dr. pachari at his think-tank in india, according to abc news -- and i'm quoting abc news now -- quote -- " "9glaciologist now works at the energy and resources institute? new delhi whose director is none other than pachari," the same person that we've been talking b. could this plain why he suppressed the error on the himalaya passage in the ipcc report for so long? specifically, after the -- the meeting in copenhagen? so what has the ipcc done to correct this fiasco? i went into the ipcc report to see if a correction had been made. well, the 2035 claim is still there, still there now. it's been denied but it's still there. of course, now there's a note attached. it says the following -- quote -- "it has, however, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page

working group contribution to the underlying assessment refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of him layian glacier -- himalayan glaciers. in drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence required by the ipcc procedures were not applied properly." mr. president, i had to read this twice to really understand what it said. the ipcc says the glacier alarmism came about because of poorly substantiated estimates. well, that's one way of putting it. to me, from what we know now, the leadership of the ipcc lied about the him lay as, they -- the himalayas, they few it was false but for political purposes, they kept it in. now, i could go on and on but let me just cite a few more examples. the u.k. "telegraph" that's the one who said this is probably the greatest scientific scandal of our generation, "the telegraph" recently uncovered more problems.

the ipcc's report from 2007 found observed reductions in mountain ice in the andes, alps and africa all caused by, of course, global warming. in an article entitled "u.n. climate change panel base claims on student dissertation in magazine article," "the telegraph reported," one of the sources -- i'm quoting now -- "one of the sources quoted from a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers" -- mountain climbers -- "which was biased an hanecdotal evidence from mown mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountains around them. the dissertation was written by a geography student studying for the equivalent of a master's degree at the university of byrne in switzerland that quoted swer views with mountain -- interviews with mountain guides in the alps." so that's the source that they had. the article further reveals that the ipcc report made use of 16

non-peer-reviewed w.w.f. reports, one claim which stated that coral reefs near mangrove forests contained up to 25 times more fish numbers than those without mangroves nearby quoted a feature article on the w.w.f. web site. in fact, the data contained within the w.w.f. article originated from a paper published in 2004 in respect -- in the respect journal "nature." and another example the w.w.f. paper on forest fires was used to illustrate the impact of reduced rainfall in the amazon rain forest but the data was from another nature paper published in 1999. on top of this, we find that the ipcc was exaggerating claims about the amazon. the report said that 40% of the amazon rain forest was endangered by global warming.

but, again, as we've seen, this was taken from, yeah, a study by the w.w.f., the world wildlife federation, and one that had nothing to do with global warming. even worse, it was written by green activists. now, that's the statement they had made. 40% of the amazon rain forest was endangered. so again, we have the gold standard of climate research. here we have a body that was awarded the nobel prize in 2007. how can the world's preeminent climate body fall victim to such inaccuracy unless we said outright fraud. i'm sure for many in this body is information that's shocking, but for me, i'm not at all surprised. five years ago i sent a letter to dr. pachari specifically raising the many weaknesses in the ipcc's peer-reviewed process. but dr. pachari dismissed my concerns. here's how reuters reported his response -- quote -- "in the

one-page letter, pachari denies the ipcc has an alarmist bias and says, 'i have deep commitment to the integrity and objectivity of the ipcc proces process.' pachari's main argument is that the ipcc compromises both scientists and more than 130 governments who approve ipcc reports line by line:that helps ensure fairness, he says." is here's dr. pachari defending it. given the significance of the reports, dr. pachari should come clean and respond directly to the numerous charges made against himself and the ipcc. and given that dr. pachari has testified before congress, including the senate committee on environment and public work works -- that's the committee on which i happen to be the ranking member -- we should hear directly from him as soon as possible as to how he can salvage the ipcc's vanishing credibility. how did we get to this

point? i have been documenting deceit of this kind for several years now. let me say that a great turning point occurred just a few months ago when thousands of emails from the university of east anglias climate research unit or c.r.u. were leaked to the media. the c.r.u. is one of the world's most prestigious or perhaps the most prestigious climate research centers. the emails appear to show some of the world's pre-eminent climate scientists manipulating data, violating information disclosure laws and by deleting emails and blocking publication of research contrary. in other words, they would take only and publish only the research that would verify their positions in terms of global warming. this revelation sparked several investigations, including one by the u.k.'s information commissioner's office, the office recently concluded that the c.r.u. -- that's what we were just talking about, the climate research unit -- broke the u.k.'s freedom of

information act. however, as the "times" of london reported, and i quote, "the information commissioner's office decided that the university of east anglias failed in its duties under the act and said it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late. the i.c.o. is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after the breach." a little bit late but nonetheless it's a good thank to make. the "times" further reports on the details, noting, quote -- "in one email, professor jones, former director of the c.r.u. c.r.u." -- who has now stepped down because he is being investigated, because of the scandal, that this guy, professor jones, asked a colleague to delete emails relating to the 2007 report by the intergovernmental panel on climate change. he also told a colleague that he had persuaded the university authorities to ignore

information requests under the act from people linked to a website run by climate skeptics. now, climate skeptics, so you understand the terminology that's used here, those are people like me who have looked at this and realized that the science is cooked, and i think most people agree with that now. mr. president, as you know, climategate is just the beginning. "time" magazine reported -- let's keep in mind. this "time" magazine, the same magazine about a year ago that had a picture of the last polar bear standing on the last ice cube saying it's coming and you ought to be real worried about it. "time" magazine reported that glaciergate is a black eye -- quote -- "a black eye for the ipcc and for the climate science community as a whole. -- whole." in the article posted online from thursday, january 21, 2010, himalayan melting, how a climate panel got it wrong, "time" reports." the mistake is a black eye for the ipcc and the climate science

community as a whole." i'm quoting now from the "times." "climate scientists are still dealing with climategate controversy which involved hacked emails from a major british climatology center that pass doubt on the solidity of evidence for global warming. "the" economist "which had accepted the ipcc climate consensus essentially claimed that it had been duped by the ipcc. here is what "the economist" said now. i'm quoting now -- "the idea that the himalaya could lose its glaciers by 2035, flaishiers -- glaciers which feed rivers across south and east asia is a dramatic and apocalyptic one after the intergovernmental panel on climate change said such an outcome was very likely in the assessment of the state of climate science that it made in 2007. onlookers, including this

newspaper, repeated the claim with alarm. in fact, there is no reason to believe it to be true. this is good news within limits for the indian farmers and bad news for the ipcc." the "economist" finds that -- "this gives the ipcc's critics a lot to work with." seth borenstein with the associated press, a reporting whose objectivity i have questioned at various times, asked the ipcc to respond to glaciergate. borenstein reported in his january 20, 2010 article entitled "u.n. climate report riddled with errors on glaciers," he said -- quote" the credibility of the ipcc depends on the thoroughness with which its procedures are adhered to. the head of the u.n. framework convention on climate change told the associated press in an email quote -- "the procedures have been violated in this case.

that must not be allowed to happen again because of credibility for climate change policy can only be based on credible science." borenstein also quoted roger pilkey jr.'s concerns with the significance of the errors in writing. this is a quote by dr. pilkey. he said -- "however, colorado university environmental science and policy professor roger pilkes said the errors point to a systematic breakdown in ipcc procedures. that means there could be more mistakes." unquote. further troubling is the revelation of several instances in which the ipcc relies on nonpeer review work mainly from left wing pressure groups. as "the wall street journal" reports in an article from january 18 entitledded climate change claim on glaciers under fire. the citation of an environmental

advocacy group as a source within the ipcc report appears to be a rare but not unique occurrence. that same chapter on asian climate impacts also cited work from the world resource institute which describes itself as an environmental think tank. most of the thousands of citations supported the rest of the voluminous ipcc report were from scientific journals. now, let me add also that professor bob watson -- bob watson was the predecessor of pachauri. he said it is concerning that these mistakes have appeared in the ipcc report, and he further goes on to say that dr. pachauri must take full responsibility of that. i think it's kind of interesting, those of us who have been stuck here in washington now for the last three days because of the weather, it's a record. we have not had anything like this, the snowfall and the temperatures in the history,

recorded history of washington, d.c. that they are now talking about starting a new agency under noaa -- that's the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. that's all we need is one more bureaucracies to -- one more bureaucracy to talk about global warming. today there was supposed to be an e.p.w. hearing on global warming but it was canceled because of the blizzard. so a lot of things have been happening recently, and i just think it's very important that people understand how serious this matter is. when it became evident that the people in -- by the way, i have to add one thing since i think i have six minutes left here, that my daughter molly. my wife and i have been married 50 years. we have 20 kids and grandkids i say to my friend in the chair, and six of those were up here because a little adopted ethiopian girl that is my granddaughter and her brothers were making an igloo. they were stuck here with nothing else to do. if you want to see it, it's down

at third and independence. someone took the sign off, but the sign said "al gore's new home" on the igloo. let me say one last thing in winding up how serious this is. it became evident that the votes to pass a very expensive cap-and-trade bill -- that would be the largest tax increase in the history of america. somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. it would cost every tax-paying family in my state of oklahoma some $300,000 a year. the fact that the boats are not there, not even close. they may be up to 20 votes right now but it takes 60 to pass it. we know that. when this happened, president obama said all right, fine, if congress isn't going to pass this thing, i am going to do it administratively through an endangerment finding of the clean air act. the clean air act was passed many years ago. it talks about mercury. if we could have an endangerment finding saying that co2 could be

considered to be a pollutant like that, we could regulate it and do it through regulation. i think the problem with that is we asked and i personally asked in a public hearing live on tv, lisa jackson, the administrator of the e.p.a., i said if you do an endanger many finding -- which they have now done, but this is before then -- is it accurate to say that's based on the science of the ipcc? she said yes. so now we have an endangerment finding that's based on science that has been totally discredited on the ipcc, and i have no doubt in my mind that once march gets here and lawsuits start getting filed that the court is going to look at this and say wait a minute, an endangerment finding that is going to totally change the united states of america is based on science that has been refuted in -- in the last few months. so this is a very serious thing. it's something that could be very expensive for america. i would invite all of my colleagues in here, democrats and republicans, to look and see what climategate is all about,

what amazongate is all about, what glaciergate is all about. and the cooked science has come up to the conclusion that we are now experiencing global warming and it's due to anthomogenic gases. with that i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. harkin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i ask the proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. harkin: this past weekend, columnist gail collins noted that washington was immobilized by snow on sunday. this is highly unusual. usually washington is immobilized by senators. unquote. sadly. gail collins is right. the same week washington saw a snowstorm that closed the federal government, we saw unprecedented action of a minority blocking confirmation of of every single executive branch nominee. last week we saw republicans require the senate to -- quote -- "debate for 30 hours one department of labor nominee in lieu of conducting other business. and i use the term "debate" generously since during an entire time only one member came down to speak in opposition to her nomination. i was managing the floor at the time and i kept noting that here we are, the lights are on, the electricity is running, and the

staff are here and we're doing nothing because of the 30 hours under postcloture rule. so anyway, only one person came to speak in 30 hours. this congress, we've seen the minority require the senate clerk to read lengthy bills outlied for long periods of time. most significantly the minority used the filibuster to an unheard level in the history of this senate. madam president, the united states senate cannot continue to function this way. that is why today, along with senator from new hampshire, senator shaheen, i'm introducing a bill to reform the cloture procedure in the united states senate. now, again, i'm introducing this bill as a member of the majority party in the senate. i am, however, coming to this body with clean hands, because this is a bill that's identical to the one i first introduced in 1959 when i was a member of the minority party here in the senate. so this legislation is not about one party or the other gaining

an advantage. it's about the senate as an institution operating more fairly, effectively and democratically, and it's about stopping a dangerous, dangerous trend line that has been happening over the last 20 years with the use of the filibuster here in the senate. i'll explain the details of my proposal shortly but first historical background. in 1995 for the first time in eight years, i found myself a member of the minority party of the senate. i first came here in 1985 when the republicans were in the majority. a few years later the democrats took over for a few years, and then in 1994 the republicans took over in 1995, so i was in the minority. at the beginning of that congress, although republicans outnumbered democrats 53-47, i introduced legislation to change the senate rules regarding the filibuster. my plan would have ensured ample debate and deliberation, the

original purpose of the filibuster, but it would have allowed a bill over time to be passed by a simple majority vote. unfortunately my proposal didn't pass at that time. in the intervening years it's become even more apparent for the government to function properly we must reform and curb the use of the filibuster. i readily acknowledge that changing the senate rules is a tall order. my goal is not to change the rules halfway through the 111th congress, this congress. instead it's to lay down a marker and to focus attention on the unprecedented level of obstruction that occurs in the senate today. hopefully this will become a debate during the campaigns and elections of this year. hopefully there will be enough pressure by the public put on this congress to change these rules when we come back for a new congress next january. the sad reality is that today, because of the unlimited use of the the filibuster, the ability of our government to legislate and to address problems is severely jeopardized.

the filibuster was once a tool used in the rarest of instances. when many people think of the filibuster, they think of the climax of the classic film in 1939, "mr. smith goes to washington." when jimmy stewart's character uses a filibuster to stop a corrupt piece of legislation favored by the special interests. well, the reality is that in 1939, the year that "mr. smith goes to washington" was filmed, there were zero filibusters in the united states senate. in the 1950's there was an average of just one filibuster per congress. over the last half century the use of this device has grown exponentially. the concerns i raise today are not new, but they have been become far, far more serious. in 1982, my good friend and colleague, senator dale bumpers of arkansas, said this about procedures like the filibuster -- quote -- "unless we recognize that things are out of control and procedures have to be

changed, we'll never be an effective legislative body again." well, during the two years of that congress that senator bumpers was talking about, there were 31 filibusters in the 97th congress, right here. there were 31 filibusters. and senator bumpers was saying we're not going to be effective again unless we get ahold on that. in 1985, former senator thomas eagleton of missouri remarked -- quote -- "the senate is now in a state of incipient anarchy. the filibuster once used by and large as an occasional exercise in civil rights matters, has now become a routine frolic in almost all matters, whereas our rules were devised to guarantee full and free debate, they now guarantee unbridled chaos." that was senator eagleton during the 99th congress right here when there were 40 filibusters. in 1994, former senator charles

mathias, a republican of maryland, said -- quote -- "today filibusters are far less visible but far more frequent. the filibuster has become an epidemic. an epidemic used whenever a coalition can find 41 votes to oppose legislation. the distinction between voting against legislation and blocking a vote between opposing and obstruction has nearly disappeared." during that congress, the 103rd, right here, there were 80 filibusters when senator mathias spoke. remarkably, from 1995 through 2008, the number of filibusters in congress has increased 75%. in the last congress, 110th, there were an astonishing 139 filibusters. in the current, 111th congress, now at its midpoint

right now, there have been 74. last year alone, in one year, in 2009, there were 67 filibusters. 67 filibusters in 2009. but from 1950 to 1969, over a 20-year period of time, there were 20 filibusters. in 20 years. last year, 67 in one year alone. so i think this graphically illustrates how perilous this has become for the united states senate. 20 filibusters over 20 years. 67 last year alone. i'd also like to point out that according to a study by ucla professor barbara sinclaire, in the the 1960's just 8% of bills were subject to a filibuster in the 1960's. in the last congress, 70% of bills were subject to a

filibuster. it's gotten out of hand. the simple fact is that today rather than an unusual event, the filibuster or threat of a filibuster has become a routine occurrence. let me repeat these figures. in the 1950's, an average of one filibuster per congress. in the 104th congress when democrats were in the minority, there were 82 filibusters. in the last congress, 139 bills were filibustered. in the current, halfway through, 74. so we're on schedule to even break the 110th congress. as i pointed out, the 104th was when democrats were in the minority, and they did 82 filibusters. so what was once a procedure used very rarely judicially has become almost a daily procedure used routinely and often recklessly. a quarter century ago faced with 40 filibusters in the face of

one congress, senator eagleton said the senate was in a situation of -- quote -- "unbridled chaos." 16 years ago senator mathias, a republican, faced with 80 filibusters in one congress said the senate was facing -- quote -- "an epidemic. " in this congress we're on pace to far surpass those numbers. at the current pace we'll face approximately 140 filibusters in this congress. itnorm orenstein wrote an artice in 2008 entitled our broken senate. the newark star ledger called the filibuster -- quote -- "a rule that cripples our democracy." the san jose mercury news said the senate's abuse of filibuster rule threatens democracy. the sacramento bee wrote it's

time to bust up the filibuster. the extraordinary number of filibusters by republicans are not just statistics. behind each filibuster, an attempt by republicans to block the majority from passing legislation and kweurpblg nominees -- and confirming nominees to help everyday working americans and their families. in the 71 years since hollywood filmed "mr. smith goes to washington," the aim of the filibuster has turned completely upside down. jimmy stuart -- senator smith, of course in, that sphaou have i -- in that movie -- was the little guy standing here in a filibuster to protect the little guys from the special interests of the big guys. today it's the special interests that are using the filibuster to kill legislation that would help the little guy. what is particularly striking moreover is not just the sheer number of filibusters today, it is the fact that this once rare tactic which was once a dramatic challenge to majority rule only

used in extraordinary circumstances is now used to threaten to be used on virtually every major and nominees. to quote norm ornstein again -- quote -- "the senate has taken the term deliberative to a new level, slowing not just contentious legislation but bills that have overwhelming support." the occupant of the chair just pointed this out a little while ago. last year the republicans filibustered a motion to proceed to the defense appropriations bill. after a filibuster delay, the bill passed 88-10. the republicans filibustered a motion to proceed to a bill to extend unemployment compensation for a month, during which, as the senator from new hampshire pointed out, over 100,000 people lost their unemployment benefits. lost their unemployment benefits. after that month delay, it passed 97-1.

why was it filibustered? similarly, the republicans filibustered the agriculture appropriations bill. again, the bill passed, the bill passed 80 -- well, i don't have it. that bill passed 83-11. they filibustered the credit cardholders bill of rights. that bill passed 92-2. the fraud enforcement and recovery act -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. harkin: madam president, i was told earlier that i had asked for an extension of time and that was granted. the presiding officer: apparently the senator had not made the request to the appropriate place. mr. harkin: i thought senator durbin asked for that request earlier. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. bond: if my distinguished neighbor wants a couple more minutes, i would be -- i thought

i was going to speak in four, but i don't want to rush him. can he -- four minutes. if we make it the unanimous consent that he be permitted to speak for four additional minutes, i appreciate that. thank you. mr. harkin: i thank my neighbor to the south. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i thank my neighbor to the south; a good guy. we see these bills were filibustered but then they passed overwhelmingly. so what was the point? there was absolutely no purpose to filibuster some of these motions except delay and obstruction. if someone doesn't like a bill, they should have ample opportunity to amend it on the floor and debate it. but this says you can't even bring it to the floor. so, again, what we have now is almost an accepted practice, you have to have 60 votes to get anything done around here. 60 votes. i think most people thought you

had to have 51%. not 60%. it's gotten so accepted that now people are saying, well, you've got to have 60 votes to do anything here in the senate. well, that's not the way it's supposed to be. now, madam president, here's the constitution of the united states. i see a lot of groups out there waving the constitution these days. please show me in the constitution anywhere that it says the senate has to have more than 51% of the votes to pass a bill. you won't find it. in fact, the constitution spells out five specific instances in which you have to have a supermajority. no more than that. five. to have a treaty, override a president's veto; that type of thing. to go to war. james madison specifically rejected the idea that more than a majority would be needed for decisions. responding to antifederalist arguments that the constitution

should require more than a majority, madison argued that such rules would lead to minority rule, something inconsistent with fundamental republican presidents. read federalist paper number 58, when he talks about this. if you don't have this 51%, it was no longer the majority that would rule. the power would be transferred to the minority. federalist paper number 58. he would be appalled. madison would be appalled by the current abuse by minorities in the senate. there's nowhere in the constitution that provides for a filibuster. alexander hamilton noted also in the "federalist papers" the fundamental maxim of republican government requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. the sense of the majority. well, 15 months ago a sizable majority of voters sent democrats to bring change both

to the senate and the white house. but largely because of filibusters. their hopes for change have been frustrated and instead the public sees nothing but gridlock. so, madam president, i would just sum it up this way. i've been talking about republican minority and republican filibusters. the same could have been said about democrats when we were in the minority and then we could have said about the republicans when they were and you go back and forth. it's gotten to this tip-for-ta -- this tit-for-tat. i said to a republican friend of mine a couple of weeks ago about their hold on our nominees. and he said to me, well, you did the same thing to us when you were in the minority. you held up and you kept a person from going here and a person from going there. and i thought to myself, that's what it's come down to, tit-for-tat, we did this to you so we're doing it to you? does this mean that the number of filibusters are going to continue to go up? because surely, democrats will be in the minority again. six times it's changed hands

isn't i've been here many 1985. so does that mean now that we'll do to the republicans like they did to us, only more? and then when they become the minority again, they'll do it even more? finally the senate no longer adheres to majority rule, in complete -- in complete contradiction to what james madison wrote in "federalist paper" 58, what alexander hamilton said in "the federalist papers" and really what the intent of the intent of the constitution of the united states really was. the last chart i would just show. this is a quote by senate majority leader bill frist in 2004. he said, "this filibuster is nothing less tha than a formular tyranny by the minority." and he was saying that about us. i didn't agree with bill frist on a lot of things -- nice guy, a friend, i liked him -- he's absolutely right. he's absolutely right. it's a formula for tyranny by the minority. and that's what james madison said also. so again, madam president, i hope that senators will look at this bill.

i ask for cosponsors and i ask consent to have the resolution printed in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: will the senator from iowa yield for a question? mr. harkin: i don't have much time yet but i'll yield. mr. durbin: i would just like to be added as cosponsor on his bill, i ask unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bond: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. bond: i thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. i believe that there is a a u.c. that the assistant majority leader would like to make. mr. durbin: madam president, i've spoken to the senators from missouri and alabama, i would ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the senator from missouri, i be recognized for ten minutes and then following me, senator sessions be recognized for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from missouri. mr. bond: i thank the chair and all my friends for giving necessity opportunity to speak.

for americans, the world changed on september 11, 2001. we learned that the cost of thousands of innocent lives that treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter won't keep americans safe. my real concern is that this administration doesn't understand that every day now is like september 12. we cannot afford to revert back to a 9/11 mentality. instead, we need to treat the terrorists as what they are: not common criminals but h enemy combatants in a war. i rise today to speak about my concerns with the current terror fighting policies of this administration and the vital importance of congressional oversight. protecting this nation from terrorist attack is our highest duty in government. and our great democracy -- in our great democracy, oversight plays a critical role in ensuring that our government protects citizens from terrorist

attacks. unfortunately, some in the white house don't agree. just this morning, a white house spokesperson on msnbc said that politicians in congress should keep their opinions to themselves when it comes to one of our most vital national security issues, counter terrorism. i noticed in the previous administration, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were quite free to speak about their views on the policies. mr. brennan, the homeland security advisor, wrote an editorial in "usa today" critical of the congressional criticism of the administration's counterterrorism policies and called them fearmongering that serve the goals of al qaeda. i welcome comments of substance from the administration or the other side on the criticism and the points i make, but you're not going to be able to silence the legislative branch. to do so is unworthy of a democracy we defend. one might believe some were trying to shift attention away

from the decisions that were made in recent years. the bottom line is, my real belief is not with the white house spokespeople, always it's disappointing when the national security advisor claims that i have not told the truth about what he said, but with the dangerous policies of the administration. clearly, my complaints are not directed at the men and women of the intelligence community, and that was -- that was an insinuation by the white house spokesperson. because i believe the men and women of the intelligence community are doing a very best job under, at best, difficult circumstances. what i'm concerned about is major broader policies over which they have no control have been changed in a way to make their job more difficult, and we should not be making their job more difficult. one of the dangerous cases of

ready-fire-aim at national security policies was the president's pledge to close a terrorist detention facility at guantanamo bay, without a backup plan for the deadly terrorists housed there or how to handle them or how to treat them. there has been a temporary suspension of transfers of gitmo detainees to yemen and saudi arabia, but we understand the larger effort to transfer and release other dangerous gitmo detainees continues. well, let me be clear. the previous administration released terrorists, sent them back to their homeland, some for rehabilitation, 20% of them, one out of five, have returned to the battlefield and a couple of them apparently were coaching and training the underpants bomber. that was a big mistake -- stop making the mits stakes. we can -- stop making the mistakes. we can learn from the mistakes we've made in the past. we send more back, they'll be attempting to kill more americans. we shouldn't compromise our security here at home and the

lives of our soldiers overseas just to carry out a campaign promise. the campaign promise doesn't square with national security. i humbly suggest that national security should prevail. there's another case, the administration's decision to end -- or to bypass military commissions for detainees who are ready for plead guilty, as khalid sheikh mohammed was, to move him to new york city for a show trial. i'll address that more later. but while the administration prepares to try detainees in u.s. article 3 criminal courts rather than the military commissions that congress designed for these difficult and complicated places to be used in the courtroom that we constructed at gitmo. history has shown that civil-criminal trials of terrorists unnecessarily

hemorrhage sensitive classified information. the east africa embassy bombing trials made osama bin laden aware of cell phone intercepts and, surprisingly, al qaeda and osama bin laden started using different methods of communications. the trial of the first world trade center bomber, ramsi yousef, tipped off terrorists to another communications link that provided enormousl enormously ve information. well, the use of that link that was compromised they were able to shut down because we learned about it. similarly, the trial of the blind sheikh, rahman, provided intelligence to osama bin laden. the trial of zacarias moussaoui resulted in the inadvertent disclosure of sensitive material. that's why the former attorney general, michael mukasey, who tried some of these cases, said that you cannot prevent a defense attorney from getting classified, highly confidential information in the course of an article 3 criminal trial.

we know for a fact these civilian trials have aided the terrorists by giving them information on our intelligence community. the military commission system which we passed the measure to regulate, was signed into law in 2009, was designed to protect our sensitive intelligence sources and methods and comply with the laws of war. why abandon it? it will come as no surprise to my colleagues that i also disagree with the administration's ready-fire-aim strategy of handling the christmas day bomber. on december 25, when abdullah mutoullab landed on our shores, rather than the intimidation, he was after 50 minutes of brief questioning, measure ran died and offered a lawyer. not surprisingly, he clammed up for five weeks. intelligence is perishable.

and that five weeks was time that our intelligence system should have been operating on questions he -- he only five weeks answered. i don't know what purpose there was in mirandizing him. that's an exclusionary rule. the only reason to offer miranda rights is so you can use the words of the suspect against him. there's plenty evidence of this guy who had strapped chemical explosives to his leg, set them off, burned himself in front of 200 witnesses. it doesn't matter what he says. you can convict him. why weren't our intelligence agencies consulted on the important decision of whether to mirandize him? at least the f.b.i. agents questioning should have had the benefit of the intelligence that other agencies knew. who's running the war on terrorism? i'm afraid it's the justice

department or the white house. why did the white house not only announce what the few of us who were notified of his cooperati cooperation, warned not to disclose, not only disclose that information the day after we were advised, they disclosed the fact that abdullah mutoullab's family came here to pressure him. why on earth would you do that? what message does that send? unfortunately, to the family, they are now -- they now have targets on their back because the terrorists know that they have convinced a member of their family to talk. and what does it say to future sources who are going to be concerned if they provide information that our intelligence agencies ask for, that they will be identified by the white house and put at great risk? well, this -- the handling of the christmas day bomber also

showed something else. when the administration, when the president took away the powers of the -- of the c.i.a. to question terror suspects, he said we'll handle it in the white house. we found out on december 25, 11 months after he announced it, that there was no high-value detainee interrogation operation set up. they had no plans on how to do it. these people are supposed to be interrogating high-value detainees and for a year they didn't set up -- set it up until after the attack. now, our intelligence chiefs testified earlier this month in open hearing that there will be attempts by terrorists to attack again. yet the administration waited until after the attack to begin the process of setting it up. these are all important policy questions to raise. if the white house had its way,

i wouldn't be asking them. but i am asking them because i am very fearful that our security has been lessened and that this is a subject this body must address. article of the constitution created -- article 1 of the constitution created the legislative branch to ensure that no one in government is above oversight and being held accountable. i as a united states senator have a right and a responsibility and as a member of this body and as the representative of my state to shine a light on policies that i think need to be changed, and i will continue to do so regardless of what is said about me. i'm concerned with these policies. the administration has moved us back to a pre-9/11 mentality and that failed in the past, it will again. in terms of a debate, my colleagues from california and vermont have raised questions in a letter. they said we ought to try these terrorists in an article 3 court because the rule of law must prevail. well, i agree, but we've got a

law. it's called the military commissions law that was passed and signed into law last year by the president. that carries out the law of the war. those are places which are much safer in terms of handling the terrorists, in terms of handling classified information. and, finally, they say that -- that we should not -- they strongly believe we ought to bring all these people to article 3 courts and the prosecutors and everybody can handle those. it's -- it's not the prosecutors or the intelligence community we're worried about. number one, it's the cost, because a terrorist trial is going to bring undesirables here and the city of new york figures it's going to have to spend over over $2 million a year. they don't want it. nobody else wants it. but i tell you even more corn when khalid sheikh muhammad was appear helpedded, he said my lawyer and i will see you in new

york. he wants to come here to new york or washington or some place he can get a high amount of media attention. believe me, were he to be tried here, he would get a lot of media attention, because he wants to be able to spread his message to others who might be vulnerable but they need to join him in the jihad. and i have also pointed out that disclosure of sensitive information has and will be released if you try him in an article 3 court because any defense attorney bound to provide the best defense for their clients will have to get into what the intelligence community knew, how they knew it about him, and that is a disaster. that's why i welcome the discussion and i urge a change in policy. i thank the chair and i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, it is such an interesting thing to notice the change of approach. when president bush was in office and we were fighting terrorism, democrats would come to the floor and question interrogation, prosecution, and

be reminded over and over again by the republican side of the aisle that we were literally interfering with national security and the authority of the commander in chief. well, i took those criticisms lightly because we do have a responsibility in congress to speak out as a separate branch of government if we disagree with the executive. but now to hear the other side, they have completely switched their position, and now they believe that it's fair game to question the decisions that are being made on a daily basis by this president of the united states relative to our national security. what my friend from missouri who has every right to come to the floor and speak his mind representing his state has failed to mention is one basic fact. since 9/11, 195 terrorists have been convicted in article 3 courts in the united states of america. decisions were made by republican president george w. bush to prosecute suspected terrorists in article 3 courts,

and, yes, that would involve miranda warnings because they believed that was the most effective place to try them. there was another alternative. so-called law of war approach to use military commissions. well, how many of these suspected terrorists were actually tried before military commissions since 9/11? three. three have been convicted before military commissions. 195 in the courts of our land. now come the republicans and say we want to stop any conviction in any criminal court in america. we believe that people should only be convicted by military commission. i take a different view. i believe this president, this attorney general, and all of the people involved in national security should have the options before them. use the best forum available to bring out the fact and to result in a conviction. do i fear our court system will be used by these alleged

terrorists? they may try. they haven't had much luck. when zacarias moussaoui, the so-called 19th 9/11 terrorist was tried over here in virginia, i don't think it changed america one bit. i don't think it changed the way we live or the security we have. and incidentally, he was convicted and is serving a life sentence in a super max prison, one of our federal penitentiaries. so those who argue that we should never consider that ignore the obvious. look at the list of the terrorists who have been convicted in federal courts aside from zacarias moussaoui. ramsi yousef, mastermind of the 1993 world trade center becoming. the so-called blind sheik. al qaeda sleeper agent almauri. ted kaczynski, the unabomber, terry nichols, the oklahoma city coconspirator. our courts work. why would we choose to tie the hands of this administration to choose the most effective place

to try a terrorist? and this notion, too, about keeping guantanamo open, that it was just president obama's idea. no. it happened to be senator mccain's idea as well, his opponent in the presidential election. he called for the closing of guantanamo as well as general colin powell who was head of not only our state department but head of the national security under president -- former presidents. it's an indication to me that this on a bipartisan basis is something that should be done and done in a careful way, i would agree with that, but let's be honest about this. there has been a bipartisan consensus that this is a good thing to do to make america safer. the last point i would like to make on this, madam president, is that we have a responsibility to tell the world that those who are accused of terrorism will be tried in our courts before our military commissions in a way that respects due process so that at the end of the day we do not have an outcome where people

question whether we applied the principles and values to these trials as we apply them to other trials involving americans. for those who argue that they should basically be given the bacteria of the hand, ignored, no warnings, no due process. at the end of the day, we won't be stronger for that. at the end of the day, if we follow that counsel and that advice, regardless of the outcome, afraid america's intentions will be questioned. i want us to be strong in this world, not fearful and shuddering and quivering before these alleged terrorists. we need to stand up strong, be safe as a nation, gather the information. and this so-called christmas day bomber who was found on this plane, whether he should have been mir an -- mirandizeed or not, the fact is that after a short period of time, his family was brought to where he was being held in a federal penitentiary, i might add, in michigan, and after meeting with them, he gave even more information. so to argue that he has not been helpful, not forthcoming i think states something that the record does not reflect.

madam president, i would like to say a word as well about one or two other issues. one that is just related to this town of washington, d.c. i first came here as a student in 1963. it's a great city. went to college here, law school here. i have lived a big part of my life, at least part time, in washington, d.c. but i never could get over the way people in this town react to snow. i'm convinced that infants born in washington, d.c., are taken from the arms of their loving mothers right when they are born into a room where someone shows a film of a snowstorm with shreiking and screaming so that those children come to believe that snow is a mortal enemy, like a nuclear attack, because i've seen over 40 years other people in this town go into a full-scale panic at the thought of a snowfall. and we joke about it. those of us from parts of the country where we get some snow and know how to live with it can't get over how crazy the

reaction is many times. but in fairness, this has been a heck of a snowstorm. it's the largest on record in washington, d.c. and i just want to say a record on behalf of the people of the district of columbia and all of the surrounding suburbs, but especially for those who work on capitol hill. the capitol police as well as those in the architect's office who have literally been working night and day to make sure that visitors who still come to this capitol in the middle of a blizzard -- i saw them yesterday coming up to take pictures of our capitol dome -- can come here safely. they have done an exceptional job, and today is no exception. many of the members of our staff here in the senate and folks who work here came trudging through the snow, and it wasn't easy, to get here. i just want to say a word of thanks to all of them for the special sacrifice that they have made and to say to the folks in washington, d.c., this was a heck of a snowstorm. you had every right to be concerned. some of the other ones, maybe not, but this one was the real

deal. madam president, how much time do i have remaining of my ten minutes? the presiding officer: three minutes. mr. durbin: i want to say one last word here, and it's on an issue which affects my state but many others, too. we just received news today that the foreclosures of houses in illinois have increased dramatically over last year. 25% increase in foreclosures in illinois over last year. and the same thing is true in many other states. the states hit the hardest are november, arizona, california, florida, utah, idaho, michigan, illinois, oregon, and georgia. we have got to do more. the current system we have to deal with foreclosures is not working well. i met this morning with treasury secretary geithner and gave him some ideas, and i hope that my colleagues will join me in coming up with approaches that will try to save people from this terrible outcome of foreclosure. many people have lost their jobs and can't pay their mortgages.

understandable. maybe we can help them stay in the house as renters or in some other circumstance. some have seen the values of their homes start to decline to the point where the value of the home is less than the outstanding mortgage and there is no incentive to continue to sacrifice and make a mortgage payment for a home that's worth a fraction of its original value. those are realities, but the reality of foreclosure is also obvious. i was with congressman jan schakowsky at evanston, illinois, just a few days ago and we went down gray street and saw homes that had been good, solid, middle-class homes now boarded up for literally years that have become a blight on that neighborhood, dragging down the value of every other home and threatening the safety of the neighborhood as they become drug and crime havens. we're also seeing a phenomena in places like marquette park in chicago where the depopulation of neighborhoods is leading to commercial flight. food deserts in the city of chicago brought about by foreclosures. these banks have not done

enough, period. they have not stepped up to their responsibility here. i tried to change the bankruptcy code to give us a fighting chance for a bankruptcy judge to rewrite a mortgage, to avoid foreclosure, and i was defeated by the banks. they are a powerful lobby on capitol hill, even to this day, despite what we have gone through in our economy. but this situation has gone from bad to worse on foreclosures. i don't believe america can truly recover economically until we address this in a forthright manner. i look forward to working with the treasury secretary and the administration to do that when we return from the president's day recess, and i yield the floor.r. psident? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i'd like to share a few thoughts on the -- on a matter of concern, and that is our national security and a procedure by which we are handling people, we arrest that are attacking this country. it will be a bit of a follow on.

i think that what senator bond of missouri has said and would disagree with my distinguished colleague, senator durbin, assistant democratic leader in the senate. he is a member of the judiciary committee, but i think he's wrong about that. i serve on the judiciary committee, too, and i'd like to share a few thoughts. first, there has been a full-scale attempt to assert that president bush tried most of the terrorists or terrorism-related cases that developed over the years as -- in the normal civilian courts, and that is true to some degree. i notice senator durbin counted in the 195 cases he said were tried in the federal courts that

the unabomber and terry nichols, the one that blew up oklahoma city. well, there is a big distinction there. the unabomber, not officially at war with the united states, had not declared war on the united states as al qaeda had, and the united states hadn't declared war on him or on terry nichols, who was unknown, i suppose, to anybody at the time that he committed that crime. and was tried. and a lot of the other cases deal with such things as aiding a terrorist by providing money to some terrorist organization that support terrorism, violating various complex federal laws, and they are tried in federal courts, they are american citizens, and they are tried here. that's the reason some of these cases that they have been citing are tried in federal court. another reason of significant

import that cases were tried in federal court rather than in military comigz was not because president bush and his staff desired it, but because we ended up with full-scale challenges of the military commissions as they were set up originally after 9/11. took some time to get them set up. they were challenged, and the united states supreme court concluded that a number of the procedures conducted in the military comigz did not meet constitutional muster, did not comply with the required international agreements that the united states was a party to, and -- and said you have to stop. so the military revamped what they were doing. the congress passed the detainee act, we called it, the -- an act that congress passed to legitimatize the military commission trials and make sure

he complied with the supreme court so we could get on with it, and we had some 500, 700 people in guantanamo, and it was never the plan of the bush administration ever to try those people in civilian courts. in fact, congress appropriated the money. we built courtrooms down there with video cameras and security at the guantanamo base and prison and had it set up so trials could be conducted, press people could come and see the trials subject to national security questions that may arise and do those trials in that fashion. but after president obama got elected, he directed that attorney general holder evaluate whether we should do that anymore or not. first he stopped them. he issued an order to stop it,

and then he asked that a review be conducted. mr. holder conducted a review, and he decided, and that report was, that it would be presumed that the people being held in guantanamo, many of whom, most of whom captured on the battlefield in iraq and afghanistan and other places in that area of the world, would be tried in civilian courts. this was an absolute reversal of that. now, last year i offered legislation that was passed by both houses of congress, signed by the president that said that if you are part of al qaeda, you are presumed to be at war with the united states, and it's not necessary in a military commission trial to put on all kinds of testimony, weeks, to prove that we're at war with al qaeda. simply that's already a fact. we've declared war.

we've issued, congress has authorized the use of military force against al qaeda, and they're attacking us. that's what war is. the president's deputy national security advisor john brennan, which apparently in this administration is a pretty big position -- i guess these kind of personal presidential staff people are what you make of them, has been very public. he's made a series of statements which demonstrate that this administration has learned no lessons from their mishandling of the christmas day bomber abdulmutallab aoupl -- abdulmutallab who was captured on christmas day attempt to go blow up the plane. not only had mr. abdulmutallab had recent intimate knowledge of the terror operations in yemen, but in fact he came directly

from yemen, having been provided a bomb by al qaeda as they claim credit -- and apparently he has acknowledged -- he was an operative of al qaeda. he had no legal claims to the protection of the american criminal justice system, in any case. even if he had been a citizen of the united states, which he was not a citizen; had no right to be tried in a civilian court in the united states because he was an agent and an operative, an unlawful combatant directly connected with al qaeda. so this is a big deal. this is a matter that's got to be analyzed and thought through. i'm concerned that the administration is not listening. the combination of these factors about his background made his

capture a unique intelligence opportunity. one of the most important opportunities since 9/11, because al qaeda had moved a large part of its operation to yemen, using it as a training base. we did not know enough about it. it's very important we learn everything we can about how they were operating in yemen, who the leaders were and how they could be attacked and neutralized. so, the decision to treat him as a civilian was very wrong. the department of justice immediately began to treat him as a common criminal being investigated by the f.b.i. they gave him his rights after 50 minutes. and in truth, colleagues, as a prosecutor myself, really he

should have been given his rights probably, normally you would expect them immediately. there may be some exceptions that could have allowed this not to occur immediately. but normally when a civilian is arrested and you ask him a single question, that individual who is in custody is entitled to miranda rights then. and miranda rights are not just "you have a right to remain silent." miranda rights are "you have a right to remain silent, and we'll appoint you a lawyer. you have a right to have one and we'll appoint you one if you don't have the money." and people tend to clam up when they're told that. they offered him an attorney and did not treat him as the rare intelligence asset he was. that decision, it is indies paoutable, i truly -- indies --

in disputable, jeopardized the intelligence that saves lives and prevents further attacks on the homeland of our country. mr. brennan says one of the reasons the administration classified abdulmutallab as a civilian was because he was captured on u.s. soil. this comment is truly startling and makes no sense. as a national security advisor to the president, mr. brennan ought to be aware that because abdulmutallab is an al qaeda operative, he is an unprivileged enemy belligerent in our common current definition of the term, and, thus, he's automatically eligible for military trial. indeed, the amendment that i offered last year to the military commissions act would permit this administration to do this without even having to

reestablish the object kwrus, that al qaeda is -- the obvious, that al qaeda is at war with the united states. so, for the president, mr. holder, or mr. brennan to persist in arguing that the law or past precedent somehow justified the treatment of abdulmutallab as an ordinary criminal is wrong. but, mr. brennan has gone further than simply confusing the law. he's confused reality. in his recent op-ed in "usa today," he defiantly declares that the administration made the right call on abdulmutallab and that providing captured terrorists with civilian due process, civilian lawyers, the right to remain silent has no negative impact on our ability to gather intelligence. now, i dispute that.

that is totally illogical. i don't know how many cases that mr. brennan has prosecuted. not many. i prosecuted thousands. supervised them and tried them myself. there is no doubt that you lose intelligence when you appoint a person a lawyer and tell them they have a right to remain silent. we were virtually the only country in the world that does this. it's not considered as a constitutional right. it's something the court thought would be a good idea to keep people from being abused by police. and so they set up this rule. and, it's not part of due process, fundamental due process. it wasn't a rule until 50 years ago. we never did that. canada doesn't do it. france doesn't. germany, italy. we don't have to give them it. this is what mr. brennan says:

"there is little difference between military and civilian custody." close quote. not so. he argues -- quote -- "other than an interrogator with a uniform. the suspects get access to a lawyer, and the interrogation rules are nearly identical." close quote. that is absolutely false. and i've been disappointed at the response the attorney general has given to members of our committee. but when the national security advisor says something like that -- and i confronted him with it in a hearing earlier, and he persists in making that kind of statement? mr. brennan has also said previously that -- quote -- "there are no down sides or up sides in particular cases."

and that because we are a nation of laws, criminal courts are the preferred venue, not so. at least that we are -- this is the preferred venue. we are a nation of laws, and our laws allow for, and international law allows for the trial for unlawful combatants in military commissions. attorney general holder admitted that in a hearing in testimony to questions that i asked him. so i said, "mr. holder, the decision to try these people in civilian court rather than military commissions is a policy decision." he said, "yes." it's not required under our law. i can tell you, and not speculation, not a theory, but a fact that criminal defendants

will routinely stop talking and stop providing information when you give them miranda and appoint them a lawyer. and the first thing a lawyer is going to do, even in a case like this, is to advise his client not to make any more statements if he's made any. and if he says he wants a lawyer, the questioning must stop until one is produced. that's what it means to try a person in civilian court. it's different. you better believe that the terrorists who are trained to exploit our system will do everything in their power to use that system against us if we let them. when khalid sheikh mohammed, a mastermind of the 9/11 attack, that so horrible day, was captured, he immediately asked for a lawyer. he already knew. but he wasn't given one. instead, he was interrogated at length over a period of time by, as a military combatant.

and these interrogations revealed critically important information that helped foil other attacks that could have been levied against the united states. when mr. abdulmutallab was captured, he was questioned for only 50 minutes before given a lawyer, and then he stopped talking. we are told that weeks later he started talking again. don't worry, jeff. quit complaining. five weeks later, now he started talking. we got his daddy to come in. maybe we can do a plea bargain with him or something, and he'll talk. well, you can do that if they're in military custody. this is not only done in civilian custody, number one. number two, what did they have to promise him to get him to provide information? did they promise him leniency? did his lawyer demand it? did his lawyer demand a written

plea agreement before he allowed him to speak? that's what will happen in most cases. i don't know what will happen in this one. but we're not talking about just this case. we're talking about the policy of whether it's better to treat somebody as an unlawful combatant if they come from al qaeda or in a civilian trial in america. fresh, immediate intelligence is awfully valuable many times, and it can grow stale very quickly. although other intelligence can be extremely important, even if the person you've captured waits six months to give it to you. you just never know. but the truth is the more intelligence, the sooner obtained enhances our national security. things that are not required by law, that delay the obtaining of intelligence and delay the amount of it that you get is

damaging to our national security. so that's the policy question here we're dealing with. and this decision put the vital and timely intelligence at great jeopardy. nevertheless, mr. brennan insists that military interrogations are the same as those provided to civilians. but when a civilian asked that the interrogation stop, it must stop at that moment. this is not true in the military situation. well, let me just back up a little bit. a military -- a person apprehended on the battlefield, a prisoner of war who is a lawful combatant, wearing a uniform, fighting against the the united states in a lawful manner according to the laws