soldiers was anonymous video clip which showed the soldiers doing that. and what happened was we still don't know what the source of that video was. but the job of the professional journalist became just to verify that that video was genuine, it had not been doctored or stage inside any matter, who were the generals shown in that video. so without that moment of citizen journalist when someone used a cell phone or video camera and put it online, we would not be able to take about ap incident like that. you don't critique the pakistan army if you want to stay aa live. >> take me through the process of the due diligence. did you, literally, do facial recognition on these generalsesome. >> i'm an editor with the dawn group as well, so i was not a reporter on this piece, i was working with reporters. they tried their best to actually identify -- well, the first piece was to try and figure out where the video came through. you get all sorts of hackers or

and sleuths working for you to try and find ip addresses to locate the source of the video. we sort of played a name game, who showed the video, who posted it, we tried to track back to see where the first piece came out from, came pretty close which helped us get a sense of location. and from there -- and several news organizations were work on the story at the same time as were international news organizations, so it becomes almost a collective intelligence piece where everyone's trying to figure out where did the video come from. ..

>> bob, you make the argument there is really no substitute for shoe leather. and for personal contact. huma demonstrated a sample where there's plenty of shoe leather. >> right. some courageous general or major or somebody who had access to that video put it out. and it was a human being who did that. it wasn't technology. that wasn't an accident. that it was put out, right? >> technologies are certainly the stools people can use. you need to have the eyes of the story if you're a citizen journalist or you need to want to have that piece of information circulate. this becomes convenient. i don't think technology has any determination. >> but in this case it's obvious

he was important. but my thought and listen to both of these accounts is how much more guts it takes are used people to work in your countries when you know when you are leaving to an interview, when you are getting into this area where they don't want you to touch, that you're going to be killed. when i left the generals house in the case i'm talking about, i knew that i could go get in my car. i didn't have to run. i didn't have to hide. we have the luxury of a genuine free press. and if they killed a reporter in this country, the mob has done this a couple of times and so forth, and there was talk during the nixon era of assassinating jack anderson who was the colonists. but they didn't. so it is with a lot of gratitude and a lot of admiration that i salute you operating in your

country to what we do is a cakewalk. >> absolutely. [applause] >> abderrahim, as you look at al-jazeera, particularly during the egyptian uprising, there came a moment when al-jazeera was shut down. you're broadcasting license, you're right to broadcast from egypt was revoked and you essentially for me to go dark. what kind of challenges did that does? how did you get around them? >> i mean, they pose the obvious channel that we are covering, our audience principally before we were covering it for the rest of the world, the major story that was going to have serious ramifications, not just for egypt but for the entire region. and, therefore, to stop dead in their tracks while covering that story, because you've been kicked out of the country by the government or because they have

destroyed your infrastructure, whatever kind of shape that infrastructure may be, to do that you obviously are not only giving up your right to report on that story but you're putting the credibility of this station on the line when people would say they abandoned the story right in the middle of it. but luckily for us, in a place like egypt, we have invested for over a decade in egypt in terms of the infrastructure report, in terms of understand the country, in terms of understanding the political regime and its instincts year so when the decision came to start first harassing al-jazeera and others, it wasn't just algebra, their other news outlets, we have a system in place, and somehow we managed to dodge the secret police and keep some of our

reporters there in hiding, but you know, they kept doing the job. we kept getting the voice. we kept getting the picture of one kind or another. but ultimately we relied on egyptians, ordinary egyptians in alexandria and other cities in egypt. not only to provide the background come information that sometimes to provide image, the picture. it was the picture ultimately that carried the day. u2 played a huge part in bringing the story for us out of egypt. and as bob said you could have at al-jazeera on the one hand and you could have had youtube and facebook not connected together but maybe things would not happen the way they did. but the fact that we were able to marry conventional television with social media on that scale and a place like egypt was obviously fundamental and bring that story to the outside world. >> and what do you say to those

who glibly referred to what happened in egypt as the facebook revolution? >> i actually find that outrageous. i really do. because it really demeans the sacrifices that people in egypt, and throughout the region, had been making for decades. i mean, in the case of egypt there were people who were in prison, who were tortured, who died in detention. they were later movements who harass, given a hard time. they are all sorts of different players who played out in the revolution eventually in egypt. and, therefore, to say this is the facebook revolution or this is the twitter revolution, i think that's rather a flippant, silly description. not to take away from the role that social media played in the up evils in the middle east, but

i think pending it down to facebook and say it's the facebook revolution, what about -- the man who set himself on fire in tunisia. what about the egyptian guy who was killed by the police? no apparent reason at all. there were so many different factors that actually contributed to this. there was a general atmosphere in the region, the region was just strive to see what has been happening in the last few weeks happen. i would even add one more thing. which not a lot of people in the middle these at least agree with, and it is the role of the u.s. administration. because bush went to iraq in 2003, and in the eyes of a lot of people 2003 in iraq was a total fiasco. obama took over and he seemed to have renounced the freedom agenda of the bush administration, at least in

public. but we all know that the obama administration continue to work with civil society that bob referred to earlier. and it's that contact with civil society that provided one of the engines of what had happened in the middle east civil society has played a very important role, not just islam. >> bob? >> i think that's true. here's the question. what's the next bounce of what's going on in north africa, in the middle east? there was this expectation, well, now everything is free in egypt, that there is this wave of revolution that's unstoppable. and i remember, i hate to go back so far, about 30 years ago in, this was 1981, being invited by the journalists association in poland which was under the thumb of the soviet union at that time, and going there and

it took me around to factories and you could just feel the solidarity movement. and they took the movie of watergate coverage that carl bernstein and i did come all the presidents men, and they showed in downtown warsaw. april were hanging from the balconies. this was a subversive act. and i came back and drafted an article saying a freedom has come to poland, and you know, here we are in a very wise editor said, well, let's wait and see. six weeks later the general clampdown with martial law and it was six to eight years before poland became really free there and i remember the editor coming around after finally the fall of

what happened in eastern europe in the soviet union and said, well, that piece was actually. it was just eight or nine years to early. [laughter] >> remarkably an editor could remember. >> i remembered, and i took him to lunch because he kept me from publishing this story that would've been premature. and the problem here in all of these countries, where does it go? >> i mean, the outset to where do they goat takes me to the second component that i want to take issue with, the facebook revolution. because it seems to me that revolution in its broader sense, let's take the french revolution for example. it wasn't just about changing a political regime. it was about reassembling a whole mentality, a whole culture. and it went to ups and downs, trials and tribulations for at least 10 years. that's how we got this wonderful thing that people in the middle east are fighting for now, respect for human rights, for

example. and so when you see revolution in the middle east, i would like to use a metaphor from the kitchen, not because i'm hungry but because i feel it does the trick. you have a microwave and you have an oven. and you throw food into the microwave and it cooks quickly. you throw turmoil in the middle east through facebook and youtube and whatever, and something quick happens that the president of tunisia goes in 23 days or 18 days. mubarak goes in 18 days, or the other way around. when you're talking a revolution your talk about much more protracted than that. you are talking a cooking by of them. and i think the middle east is only now beginning to see think about in places like tunisia and egypt, because libya is still in -- it's not even in the microwave yet, nor is syria.

many places like tunisia and egypt, people are beginning to think about okay, now we've changed the political regime, what next? how do we go about that, affecting that total transformation of society and culture and economy? and how do we rethink our relationship with the international monetary system and political system. >> just a reminder, we really do want to have your question. if we did ask you to wait downstairs, the microphone is right here. will be delighted to hear from me. thank you very much. [inaudible] >> come over here to the microphone. >> please come and ask you to tell us who your. >> my name is heidi. i have a research foundation. i have figured out -- if you just google wisdom on google

you'll see i have 4000 pages of it. [laughter] >> i have two books, but my main question to everybody here is, can you teach big table manners? so i want to ask you, -- >> what's the question? >> i think this is a metaphorical question. >> metaphorical. can you teach a pig table mayor? >> i think for the purposes -- >> let me ask another question. >> suppose you have breast, can you expect gold qualities from browse? >> what you're saying is, the question you're asking is it depends on the basic material you begin with. what can you make? >> yes. the main thing is, corruption, freedom of the press, anything. if a person's mind, i qualify the mine by the way. minus one, plus two n. plus one. if they mind is minus two, can you expect it to behave plus to?

it can't be done. the only solution is emotional, intelligence, education on the subject. >> thank you. i think the question is a legitimate question. the question is about the quality of information. and about knowing what it is you're dealing with. and in a situation where you have a lot of sources, you may be operating blind. we talked about one example where that is true. huma, how -- and you talked also about al-jazeera's need to sift through huge amounts of the celtic referred other examples during the course of discussions today. how do you find that gold and all of that stuff that is out there? how do know that you're not being led down a pass by some of whose delivery seeking to manipulate? we've heard stories about governments are spending

millions on cyber cyclops for another term how do you know when you're at al-jazeera or anyplace else, operating a distance that what you got is the real thing? >> well, the rule of thumb is initial you don't. we were talking about this before the panel started. you have a live broadcast. you get somebody calling you and saying that they are a member of the opposition to the government in that country, for example, that they're calling for a particular area of the country. let's say that is under the authority of the rebel. let's make it libya, for example. you have absolutely no way of verifying that what the caller is saying is true. but in the case of, let's say, the case that you mention, pakistan, you get this video year you put it on the, you

don't know if the video has been doctored or not. the rule of thumb is that if you play it and you can get somebody from the government to comment on it, they will comment on. if you can't get somebody from the government to comment on it because the government is boycotting you, you get somebody who is close to the government come in the middle east. there's a whole plethora of persons and news people who are willing to vouch for the government of that country. but ultimately there's quite a reasonable percentage that the video that you could go wrong with the video. and outlets have gone wrong with the video that they received on youtube. but you do ultimately generate the debate, live on television, with that particular piece of video. in the case of egypt, i wasn't being flippant before the panel when i said that ultimately you know that you got it wrong when

mubarak steps down. obviously, the assumption is -- that you got it right, i'm sorry. when mubarak steps down. one or the other. >> if he was still their -- >> the assumption is, the assumption is that you have, while getting it to safety, getting the story to safety, the assumption is you have made many mistakes. but hopefully because you got into safety you haven't put your credibility on the line, and you haven't botched the story more important. >> the answer to this is multiple sources, can you call other people, talk to other people, validating it. but this goes to the central issue which we wrestled with in our business all the time, how good is our product. and i would argue, our product is only as good as the depth and

comprehensiveness of our reporting. and that you have to, as you know, so often, it's not that you gamble in journalism, but you have to let instinct directly to a certain extent. you have to say that sounds right, and the reporting you people did in egypt, it smelled right. it felt right. that wasn't proof, and you kept going, and then there was more and more evidence, and then as you point out, the president step down, which is a monumental event. almost inconceivable event. but i remember talking to al gore, the vice president, for clinton once and asking how much do we know about what goes on of consequence or interest, and this was after clinton left office, and he said we only know

1% or and my thought was, i must confess, is it 1%, is it possible there are that many women in the clinton white house we didn't know about? [laughter] >> let's take another question please. >> i work in washington. i wanted to ask the journalism pakistan and also all the rest of the panel is, you mentioned before the criticizing or saying anything negative about the military or any other government officials can be dangerous for you. my question will be how do you know how far you can go when most of the time reporting something, and play something negative? how has social media really helped journalists do that? a lot of time, bloggers in some cases bearing more, they can be willing to go farther but they

might not have the oddest the media has. and do you think maybe in countries where democracy are a more typical conditions of social media might be more helpful. then it will be here, might be harder to discard in those countries that would be here? thank you. >> thank you for that question. just to clarify, you can't say anything about the pakistan army as much as -- but you can accuse politicians as much as you want. i think you hit the nail on head. one of the advantages of having citizen journalism, social media is a professional journalist can start testing the bounds. the way we test it is we don't do the reporting. we talk about something we read online. we talk about something that someone tweeted. that way we can't be responsible for the content for bring it into the public sphere. and anonymous blogger or someone with a twitter feed who has a nickname or something, becomes the subject of some of that

scrutiny. but because places like pakistan, the government hasn't figured it out, packing, tracking, ip address skills just yet. we can talk later about how they are trying very hard to do that. so it has definitely open to the public sphere and the realm that we can have in the mainstream media about several issues. i quickly have another example. many people remember there was a moment in 2009 when an extremist organization had taken over part of pakistan imposing islamic law. no one really knew civil society was a mobilizing, the government sort of bow down to this extremist group. the requirement. and again, a video was released that showed them flogging a young girl from some alleged misconduct. and it was again and anonymous source casted on a mobile phone, distributed and then picked up in the mainstream press.

journalists would not be able to go in that area because it was unsafe. but once the video came out we could start the conversation. if this is what's happening in there, we are not going to take the time to verify it just yet but let's start talking about what we can do about this. so it has definitely allowed us to figure out what it could be for us inspectors before turn to bob, the question you raise that the risk of bloggers are taking, elena, we were talking about this. that bloggers, you worked in an environment where it is clearly a dangerous environment where professional journalists are killed. >> this allows people to kill, not just euros. and those who try to tell the truth, to criticize their sources, to find the information which is not really convenient. >> do you see bloggers taking risk speaker is it's not typical

for russia, but what kind of problem you have with the piece of russia which is actually our russian consideration. but at the same time, idly by its own laws, the leader, can't allow things that nobody else in russia. i was talking about blogger who was doing some stuff which the government didn't like. this blogger was put on trial and moscow actually. user moscow. and then he was brought to chechnya and put on trial again. and now, nobody knows what happened within. >> he disappeared?

>> yeah. but more usual way to deal with people who trying to work as civil journalist, and now actual civil journalist, it's, we have a special law which allows authorities to grant people and put them in prison. and what our sources considered any criticism against them. >> if we had that law in the united states, after politicians would be in jail. [laughter] >> it happened in russia, and we're trying right now probably internet would be the first in russia. actually, i would say some words about russian internet. you talking a lot those things about facebook and twitter. does not the case in russia actually. because -- >> do you have a cloudless?

>> yeah, but social nets like russian, social network, facebook is getting more popular in russia. twitter also. but what we have is less. that's why when i am talking about civil journalist, i am calling them of bloggers because those people have their own blog on livejournal platform. and those things to come clearly powerful in russia, because for last two years president of russia actually never pay attention to what the major newspapers told or famous journalist, professional journalist said in the articles on tv. but he paid several times attention and showed reaction, very strong reaction to what the bloggers actually wrote in the

internet. and this is amazing because it happened in russia me for the last 10 years, thanks to president putin, who actually killed the media in russia, free media. internet now takes role of this. and as i understand, for several independent media sources, is the only way to supply the russian people is to join with the internet, russian internet. and we have results. and this is amazing. but about investigation, the journalists who actually trying these things, very interesting thing. you never, actually when you do

it, you never know when to stop because you want to go to the end, to find out what happened. to find the adverse. there is a risk, and professional journalism understands it. those who try to investigate on himself, they don't know it. and its dangers in those countries like russia or pakistan or any other not free countries. >> bob, the question to you was a question about whether social meeting might have greater utility or a more useful in place of work press freedoms are less developed. >> they both answered that. >> thank you. >> my name is samuel. how do you maintain a working relation with high government officials? bob woodward has written a lot of books. do you take them for lunch or do

you just -- [laughter] >> how do you maintain such accident relations with high government officials and especially write things that are so critical. >> so, how do you maintain those authoritarian government, and one last question. when she we expect to have full story about mohammed? thank you. spent i just have the luxury of time so i just talked to avoid to get documentation, contemporaneous notes, then go back and sift through it. and the goal, probably never met, is neutral inquiry. i'm not carrying water for one party or one group of people. and they may not like somebody coming in doing, you know, discussing obama's wars or bush's wars, or whatever. but you get to a certain point

where you've got so much information. and i think the power here is the information, the details on last wednesday, you met and had this discussion so-and-so said, you know, let's launch the operation poppy take over the invasion of mexico. that's only hypothetical by the way. [laughter] >> thank you. you heard it here first. >> and the detail and specificity, and then just convincing people, look, i want to describe what happened, and that with, you know, 18 months or two years to work on one of these projects, one of these books, makes all the difference in the world. >> just before i turned to huma and elena, let me ask you, the reportage of watergate took

place over a period of many, many months. >> two years. >> do you think in today's digital age where the is a demand to put every bit of information, every bit of breaking news out on the net on your front page on the net, as soon as you possibly can, do you think the kind of reporting that uses then would become a, a possible now, rb, have the same impact? >> what drives the media in this country, two things, temptation and speed. all im is patience and i am really slow. [laughter] >> and you just have to accept that and say, you know, we have a saying at the "washington post," all good work is done in the science of management. [laughter] >> and that you recognize that your organization, any organization, not just in news

media, you need to not break the law or break the rules, but it is pushing from below. this is what we need to cover. this is getting a little thread on the sock, which is what that video was, what happened in egypt, what happens in russia. and just pulling on it and continuing. so, utah to journalism classes as i've done and people say, watergate, well, deep throat would be on the internet. no, he would not. not a chance. the confidential sources that you can develop our personal. you establish a relationship of trust, hopefully, and it's not available to anyone. in fact, you are the only one who has it. and so you have to keep, keep those relationships going. so, what i was stumbling towards

saying, you know, the new digital media, everything that is going on, obviously has created a convulsion in the countries and in the news business. but the old picnic still applies. it's just like when television came out, people said, oh, that's the end of movies. guess what? it's not. its supplemental. it adds to it in a very significant way. and you all educated me, specifically about in your countries, how, i mean, i love the idea that anyone can say anything on an anonymous blog, then that gives you license to talk about it. you ever go yourself and send in the question? [laughter] >> are you after an ugly posting things that you'd like speak as i personally do not but i do sometimes wonder whether my colleagues are playing these tricks, they set up a blog,

start a conversation that you really want to run. if they are not doing it they probably should. [laughter] >> but turned to the question of sources. we touched on it a little bit. the question of developing the source, taking time. do you have the time? in the work that you do? do you have the luxury of time? >> well, actually i am on the side with bob. when he says, and that any sort of company, not the big story, but any story, there would be research from the top to the bottom. and the journalists, i can take any time to get to the bottom of a story. the thing is, not all the story from every store it takes a lot of time. but the stories i was coming in my life, the something which is still going on because i am

trying to sue the russian federation and a higher court of human rights. about this national trend which the way we call this tragedy back in august 2000. >> do you worry they will try to kill you? >> no, no, no. >> why not? >> are there other things? >> the most interesting that i'm writing about is chechnya, because the leading journalists wrote a lot about chechnya war in chechnya was killed in october 2006, and this began the whole list of journalists who were killed. many of them were killed for chechnya. sad story. what i want to tell dredging up

this thing, this journalism which not -- we also practice in russia. i should say that the government all around the world needs this journalism which doesn't care about what happened yesterday. >> in other words, we need to have some sort of a collective amnesia. we move on. >> yes. be more even. it doesn't give us a chance to stop to think what happened actually. what was the real reason, who is guilty, why we do not say anything about the thing that happen, about the terrorist attack that happened and russia. we forget about them next day. we go on with our lives without trying to understand what happened. and that is what killed not the

professional journalism, a killed even media journalism we're talking about. because we can't, yesterday friends, parents, children and life is going on. it just doesn't work. because first of all, we have to be responsible your we as journalists, and we need to bring our audience back to what happened and tell them what actually happened. >> that raises an interesting point. this question of does digital media, not only the volume of information, but the pace of information. we talked a little bit about whether or not the demands might've been made on you reporting watergate, to put everything out there, the instant you had one little tiny thing. the question i guess is whether

or not this is like essentially like a cruising shark can never really sleep, but also doesn't really give us time to grasp what goes on. >> well, but often what happens, i mean, back in watergate when we get a piece of information, quite frankly no one believed it. and the editors were skeptical. and it's the job of the editor to be very skeptical. and it was that skepticism where ben bradlee was better and would say, you know, you don't have it yet. and it wasn't, when the going to ever publish this story. it was get more sources, get more information, take your time. but this was in, you know, almost 40 years ago when there were three networks and a few newspapers, and -- >> telephone books. remember telephone book? >> i do. [laughter]

>> to your member things called typewriters? [laughter] >> and telephones that had cords attached to them. >> let me add one more thing. i think the luxury in this particular instance, somebody like bob has come is that he, first of all, he was an investigative journalism. and secondly he worked in print. we work for a different beast. we have to keep on feeding the beast. it's a 24 hour news cycle. and you know, television obviously does very useful purposes. we've seen in egypt, tunisia and elsewhere. but i do have moments where i feel that the biggest menace to the truth is the 24 hour news cycle, because you do not have time to accommodate any of these sources i was talking about. that's number one. number two, in the u.s., i believe in another country which

has people in many other countries is an absolute luxury, and that is stringent libel laws in this country, in the united kingdom. so many countries, especially countries in the region that i come from, obviously there came a time when governments were under so much pressure to reform and liberalize. and, therefore, you started seeing new publications emerging like there's no tomorrow. in an environment where there's actually very little known about libel laws so people are writing whatever they want to write, which is the example that a blogger can write whatever they want to write. and that becomes a problem, not just to the government, but also for the writers because the writers end up in jail, they end up being tortured by their own governments and so on and so forth. and, finally, quick final point, i'd tell you the congress, the debate was all about is a good for us to be embedded with

armies. as a foreign journalist reporting out of d.c., i feel that i am embedded with the u.s. government, whether i like it or not. because i have to cultivate, i have to cultivate good contact. i cannot be seen to be seen the u.s. government as the enemy. and the u.s. government is well aware of the fact that it cannot be seen by foreign journalists stationed in washington to be viewing them as the enemy. so we are in bed with each other. it's a relationship that we have to work on. it does on stevie the truth. but when it does, it pays off. a very good example 2005, got a tip that u.s. was going to withdraw its ambassador from damascus, from somebody who had initially refused to work with me, not just because i was a foreign journalist, but because i was a foreign journalist working with al-jazeera. >> question please.

[inaudible] my question is for elena. elena, there are many wonderful pieces of investigative journalism in russia. and they are published by, for example, your newspaper. but then nothing happens. no consequences for the subject of these investigative pieces, and something is broken in society. what is broken and why do you think it never works and russia? and what can be done? thank you. >> thank you for the question. when mr. putin became the president we were the first paper writing about some occasions where he was hero. i mean, yes. but now, 11 years later we have so many bloggers and so many

people who consider the civil journalists who write about the corruption on high level russian authorities. and in some way right now when we don't feel ourselves are -- a civil society becomes to join around those bloggers and it's the amount of information, how -- how reach our government actually, i begin to feel the impact. for example, there is a very famous russian website, it's called -- it's about corruption in government, human process

it documents about -- what kind of money it pays for cars, tables, chairs and so on. and this website began to be very popular. actually, the first time for russian internet at this collect for several days, $30,000. it's a lot for russian, internet. and the person who does this, alexander, begin to be a very popular person, a very popular pop -- politician actually. he managed to invoke a lot of russian people who really -- reading his blog. >> do they ever fix anything i

think she was asking? does the government is out of embarrassment or fear prosecution? >> they manage to push our government, to close some tenders. and they save about like 335 million rubles in this project. money which government was going to pay for, or something like that. >> so there is some time when a tree falls in the forest? >> right. when they said the two independence, professional media, joint our internet, we begin to feel that in some way we can influence, we can influence. and, of course, there is a difference between president putin who doesn't know the word twitter and internet. and the president actually tweets a lot of things.

and what people write in their blogs, and actually even ask the general office to use this information, to react on this information. and i know and we have so many small stories whether people who begin to write, they blog on the web. they were efficient to achieve something. so -- >> one quick question from our virtual audience. wikileaks and the law from the u.s. asks, to you, bob, what is mr. woodward opinion of prosecuting wikileaks, and how will it affect you? >> what will the government, can do what they always do,

investigate and try to stop the dissemination and mounds of information. i think they are entitled to that. but it's the journalist's job to protect our sources. and at least at this point they are not going after journalists or news organizations that are publishing this information. i think that's very wise. if you think about it, pull back, it's very hard, i don't think wikileaks goes down in history books like the pentagon papers goes down in the history books. >> what's the difference do you think? >> the difference is, the pentagon papers, they were top secret documents that showed that the government had systematically lied about the vietnam war, and the supreme court in a landmark decision held that you cannot restrain

the press, go to court. government cannot go to court and say don't you dare publish that. we can publish what we want, and that is a very good thing. and if the government then wants to come after us, they are entitled to do that. but what the pentagon papers decision did,, and i've seen this for decades, is it opened the avenue to go to the government and say, i have these secrets, or these secret documents, what is going to happen, what's going to be the impact if i publish it? if you think it shouldn't be published, make your arguments. and they make their arguments readily. and sometimes the press agrees, sometimes the press does not. at the result is we get so much more information in the system. when i was doing obama's wars, there was one thing the government said, if you

published this, chaos will reign in a certain way, and they made very convincing rational arguments about why it should not be published. and very important, interesting newsworthy detail, that is not in the book for the reason they gave. so i think there is a way to be aggressive. they never liked all the stuff that is published, but it never seems to me gone to the point where they said oh, we are going to prosecute you've. >> do you think this government will attempt to prosecute wikileaks? >> well, you know, we will see. they say they have found the source, this private. you know, it's like any government assertion. i would put a question mark behind it and let's see if they have the right person and whether there is some violation of law.

but, you know, he always have to ask the question in any of these countries, where is the madness. and the man this is getting somebody like this private access to hundreds of thousands of classified documents that can be of no possible use to him in his job. but this wasn't the idea of we're going to share all the information. so in a sense, they are being hoisted by their own policy. >> police. >> my name is courtney, from the freedom house. and working on turning my dissertation on iraq, is him and egypt into a book. my question is, what is the definition of journalism these days and does the debate between our bloggers, journalists and our journalist bloggers et cetera even make sense these days? i mean, in my position with talk to governments around the world, talk to journalists or they don't get paid. unit, they suffer from lack of

professionalism. on the other hand, gesture was that are not building sources on every journalist right stories based on stories. so i wonder, you know, al-jazeera, you guys just start a new show using social media as your source information. so i guess my question is, how do you define journalism these days? bloggers are doing things that look like journalism, sourcing, fact checking, eyewitness accounts. so how do you define that? are we missing the point i debating what the difference between blogging and journalism is? >> and maybe this is the digitally important environment where journalists have thought anyone force, certain legal protections. i guess part of the question would be, if everyone can be a journalist or if the definition of the journalist is so broad to include someone who post a video to the web, pictures to the web, writes a blog.

are they entitled to protections or do those protections fall by the wayside? >> i mean, the honest answer is i don't know the answer to any of the questions that she asked. it seems to me that to us as journalists, we are not like policeman where the states can say only people who wear this particular uniform will be considered policeman in the eyes of the law. >> does a candidate essentially that in iraq, for example? they are asking journalists to sign a -- >> but that is precisely the kind of thing that we as journalists in the conventional sense of journalism, but also others who are not journalists in the conventional sense are trying not to have, they are trying to resist having governments to designate who is a journalist and who is not. in my own eyes i am a journalist. if someone is a blogger comes to me and they say, i am also it a

journalist, even if i didn't except that i don't have the legal argument upon which to reject that designation that that person had chosen. but when it comes to actual story making, especially after egypt, there are very few people who would contest that the two now have to work together. whether we both call ourselves, whether need, a television shows and a blogger, whether both of of us call a journalist, whether we agree, i have no other choice but to work with a blogger or the guy who send me information on youtube or facebook or whatever. verifying the story is not even always possible for me. as she said, when they turned out information is not always based on their sources, i have to work with it. i don't have a choice whether i agree to call them a journalist

or not. what mechanism do we have for a green on who is a journalist or not, i can't answer that question. >> huma stickers i would have to agree. when it comes to matter is citizens as journalists do need protection, where they do need to be able to participate in unions and benefits and -- it does come down to legal protections and protocols in terms of who can get a press pass, who's allowed to attend an official briefing, things like the. i think the distinctions no longer remain in the journalistic community where we of all decided it must be a symbiotic relationship. but it does continue to exist in terms of protocol, and the law. and you increasingly see mainstream news organizations, for example, in a place like pakistan developing bloggers or photojournalists. not contractual understanding

that if you get into trouble we have your back. and i see, and it's because we see the various mutual benefit, and we can't ask them to go out on a line and not bring them into this loop of protection and community that journalists have. >> while we may be sent as a mutual benefit, maybe we're doing the same job but different ways of getting ourselves different names, the courts in different countries are having this discussion and sometimes are reaching different decisions. and where they are not choosing to extend protection to journalists, the bloggers as an example because they are not getting into a technical definition of what a journalist is. should it be changed? >> i think we will have to change it. i think it might come down to the actual practice sort of going back to the basics of what constitutes a journalistic act. i'm not a lawyer so i'd like you, i don't have an answer to this question. but it is evolving and i think the actual profession and practices have outstripped the law in many cases.

>> but the word journalist is not in the u.s. constitution. the first amendment applies to everyone. congress will make no law to restrict freedom of the press. and i think it applies across the board. and i think these are labeled somebody is a journalist, summer is a blogger, and i'm not sure significant, the question is is there information accurate, can it be verified? and does have meaning in the lives of others. >> significant in at least one instance i can think of that a significant. when journalists go to report on a story somewhere and they are detained by a particular government, let me to a commercial for al-jazeera to. we had one of our reporters killed in libya. one is still being held. if you belonged to a formal conventional news organizations,

that can take that organization can kick a thug to get your release but if you're just a blogger that might not always work. >> if you work for general electric or general motors or something like that, maybe there been cases where businesses really fuss when the people have been held up and so forth. but, i mean, you're right. look, always got to think about the quality of their product. is it really -- haply penetrated, have to explain what's really going on? and i sense you people are operating by the seat of your pants in many cases where you are not, it's not clear what to do and you have to take something and go with it. and i save from afar, bless you. >> we have time for one quick question. thank you. >> i am from argentina. this is a question for

mr. woodward. what do you do when they have good information but you need documentation to back it up? for example, in argentina a public official only talk to from the media or the state-owned media. >> well, you can attempt to get other human sources to verify it. and sometimes you have to go with a story. and it involves instinct. it involves experience. but a journalism is not risk-free, and anyone who thinks it is risk-free should go do something else. because, in fact, i think if you see particularly in your case, and all of your cases, you embrace risk. you want to be on the cutting edge, and you are suspicious about what these concentrations of power are doing,

particularly, and your right to be suspicious. and you know, but you are living in a world of risk as ben bradlee used to say when you have a good story, you go home with a lump in your stomach because, and part of that pride, part of that is doubt. >> thank you very much. thank you to our panel is. thank you very much to the audience. thank you for having us. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, that was excelle excellent. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> on this tuesday the u.s.a. is about to me. senators will be spending much of the day on general speeches. senate democratic leader harry reid may bring up a resolution commending u.s. forces and intelligence community for the killing of osama bin laden. centers will recess at 12:30 eastern for the weekly party needs. they will be back at 2:15 for general speeches. a judicial nomination, votes expected tomorrow. now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. .almighty and eternal god, we desire to honor your holy name. .thank you

for blessing us to see the sunlight of a new day. today, lift the minds of our lawmakers above the things that distract them from doing your will. may their hearts be fully focused on fulfilling your purposes, as they strive to live for your glory. lord, give them the wisdom to use all their powers to serve you, seeking your approval for each critical decision they make. .let your favor delight them and your presence sustain them in every

season of life. .we pray in your great name. amen. join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., may 3, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorablejeanne shaheen, a senator from the state of new hampshire, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. reid: following any leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. this evening. the republicans will control the first 30 minutes. the majority will control the next 30 minutes. the senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15. we expect a vote on the adoption of a resolution commending the armed forces and intelligence community regarding the death of bin laden. senators will be notified when that vote is scheduled. additionally, there is a senators-only briefing today. it's classified on the operation that killed osama bin laden. it will be at 5:00 p.m. today in the visitors' center. the c.i.a. director fan -- c.i.a. director panetta will be there. last night i filed cloture on

the small business jobs bill, s. 493. senators should expect a cloture vote to occur tomorrow morning. i ask consent that the filing deadline for all first-degree amendments be at 2:30 p.m. today for s. 493. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i filed cloture on the nomination of john mcconnell of rhode island to be district judge for the district of rhode island. this vote may also occur tomorrow morning. mr. president, the bill before this body today, small business innovation bill, is the latest in a series of bills we've written to help small businesses grow. it's important for a research and development program. the small business research and development program has helped tens of thousands of small businesses create jobs to shape the future. this bill is an adaptation of the bill that president reagan

created 30 years ago. it's a continuation of that program. it's been proven that these investments work. they help get great new ideas off the ground. for example, madam president, the electric toothbrush was invented with a small business grant. the satellite antenna to help our first responders, the technologies that keep our food safe and military tanks from overheating in the desert, these are all the result of what this legislation has done over the years. there are success stories in virtually every state and nearly every industry. before the recess, we spent days working on an agreement to have votes on three amendments on this bill so we can move forward and finally pass it. we have voted on many amendments. this legislation started on march 10. it's now the first part of may. now we've had some breaks and time because of our going back to our states, but there's no

excuse for not completing this important legislation. every time we get one problem taken care of, another republican raises their head. the latest is senator snowe. of all people, she should understand the importance of small business, the senator from maine who was at wha* one time -- who was at one time chairman of the small business kph-fplt yet, she has been unmoving and wanting a vote on a piece of legislation that hasn't had a hearing. the chairman of the small business committee said she's happy to work with senator snowe. senator landrieu said she will work with her on whatever is appropriate. this is unfair we have not been able to move forward on this bill. we've spent days before the recess working on an agreement to have votes on amendments to move this bill forward. included in this agreement were senator cornyn's amendment which

would establish a commission on government waste, an amendment on health reform litigation. this agreement was objected to by senator snowe. everyone else in the senate signed off on it. during the course of many weeks tk-bls -- debating this bill. we even had a vote on, as indicated, on an amendment offered by senator snowe, as well as many other republican amendments. nearly every one of which have nothing to do with the underlying legislation. they weren't relevant. they weren't germane. in light of our accommodation of extraneous amendments, it's difficult for me to understand why we can't finish debate on this bill. we've been more than fair. we should be able to reach agreement on considering remaining amendments and voting on final passage. i would hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle would recognize how unfair it is that one senator would hold up

this legislation. there are amendments pending -- i repeat -- that aren't germane or relevant to this piece of legislation. we're willing to take votes on those. it would seem to me that senators like cornyn and hutchison, who have worked hard to get votes, should vote with us on our ability to move forward on this legislation. we should be able to get this done. it's the right thing for the country. it appears that we're not going to be able to do that. so i have no choice but to file cloture in order to bring this debate to a close. that's what i did last night. if this job-producing legislation is not passed, there's only one problem with it, and that's been the republicans on this side of the aisle. it's unfair, madam president, that we've worked so hard to get this important piece of legislation done, and because of one senator it's not going to happen. i hope that's wrong. i hope my prediction is wrong. this has been on the floor for if a too long.

we need to resolve it so we can move to other matters. would the chair announce morning business, please. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leader 5:00 p.m. for debate only with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each with the first hour equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the next 30 minutes.

is en madam president? the presiding officer: -- mr. alexander: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i rise to talk about a piece of legislation which will be both a bill that senator graham and senator demint and i will introduce

tomorrow, and an amendment that i filed to the small business bill on behalf of the three of us. we're calling it the right to work protection act, and it's ourtl have a right to work law and have an ability to enforce it. this is in direct response to an action that the national labor relations board has taken against the boeing company and the plant that they are building in south carolina. the national labor relations board has moved to stop boeing from building airplanes at a nonunion plant in south carolina, suggesting that a unionized american company cannot expand its operations into one of 22 states with the right to work laws. these laws protect a worker's right to join or not to join a

union. in fact, new hampshire's legislature has just approved it's becoming the 23rd such state. this reminds me -- this incident by the national labor relations board reminds me -- of a white house dinner in february 1979 when i was governor of tennessee. the occupant of the chair has been to those dinners. the president has them every year. the only ones invited are the governors, themselves and their spouse, and for me it was always one of the highlights of the year. so my first such dinner was with president carter in 1979. as a new governor, i was paying close attention to what the president of the united states had to say. and this is what he said: he said governors, go to japan, persuade them to make here what they sell here.

i had walked a thousand miles across tennessee to be governor the year before, and i don't suspect one single tennesseean to me said to me the first thing you do when you get in office is go to japan. that was not on our minds, but it was tough economic times. not many people were investing anywhere in the united states at that time. and i thought, well, if the president of the united states says governors go to japan, persuade them to make sure what they sell here, that i should do that. make sure what they sell here was then the union battle cry, was part of an effort to slow the tide of japanese cars and trucks entering the u.s. market. at that time americans were very worried about japan. there were books about japan being number one. and the fear was that japan would overwhelm us economically. and the cars and trucks from japan were fuel-efficient, they

were attractive, they were selling, and manufacturers and the united auto workers here were concerned that we'd lose a lot of jobs. and so the cry was to the japanese, if you're going to sell it in the united states, you need to make it in the united states. so off i went to tokyo to meet with the nissan executives who were then deciding where to put their first united states manufacturing plant. at that time japan had very few manufacturing plants in the united states. they made there what they sold here. i carried with me on this trip a photograph taken at night from a satellite showing the country with all of its lights on. try to visualize that. because what you see, if you look at a photograph of the united states at night, are a lot of lights east of the mississippi river, but it's pretty dark almost until you get to california and there are a

lot of lights down around texas. so i was trying to make a point and the japanese executives who didn't know very much about tennessee and i didn't know very much about japan would say to me, where is tennessee? and i would point to our state and say we are right in the middle of the lights. my argument, of course, was that locating a a a plant in the population -- a plant in the population center in the united states would reduce the cost of transporting cars to customers. that population center 70 years or 80 years ago was in the midwest where the american automobile was literally invented. and it made a lot of sense to build almost all the plants there because transportation costs were less when you send these heavy cars and trucks to the customers. so you locate your plant near the population center. but gradually that population center migrated south from the midwest where most u.s. plants have been to kentucky and

tennessee. then the japanese, to whom i was talking, examined a second decision. tennessee had a right-to-work law and kentucky did not. that meant that in kentucky workers would have to join the united autoworkers union. workers in tennessee had a choice. in 1980 nissan chose tennessee, a state then with almost no auto jobs. today auto assembly plants and suppliers supply one-third of our state's manufacturing jobs. tennessee's home for the production of the leaf, nissan's all-electric vehicle and the batteries that power it. i'm happy to report it works well. i bought one. parked in the garage of the apartment where i live here. recently nissan announced that 85% of the cars and trucks it sells in the united states will be made in the united states making it one of the largest so-called american auto

companies in nearly -- and nearly fulfilling mr. carter's request of 30 years ago. but now unions want to make it illegal for a company that has experienced repeated strikes to move production to a state with a right-to-work law. what would this mean for the future of american auto jobs? jobs would flee overseas as manufacturers look for a competitive environment in which to make and sell cars around the world. it's happened before. david halpestand, 196 book, "the reckoning" tells the story. he quotes american motors president george remove any who criticized the shared monopoly -- quote -- "consisting of the big three detroit auto manufacturers and united autoworkers." remove any warned -- quote -- "there is nothing more vulnerable than entrenched success." detroit ignored si sawn who in

the 1960's began selling funny little cars to american customers. we all know what happened to the employment in the big three companies much even when troit saw greener pastures in a right to work state, its partnership with united autoworkers could not compete. they located their plant in springfield, tennessee, hoping side-by-side competition would help the americans beat the japanese. after 25 years nonunion nissan operated the most efficient plant in north america, the saturn u.a.w. partnership never made a partnership. last year g.m. closed saturn. g.m. success is one reason that they located -- kia, mercedes-benz, hyandui and hundreds of suppliers have chosen eastern right to work

states. under right to work laws, they may join yiewns. three times they rejected organizing themselves like saturn employees a few miles away. our goal should be to make it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs in this country. giving workers the right to join or not to join a union helps to create a competitive environment in which more manufacturers like nissan can make here 85% of what they sell here. madam president, i would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record the bill and the amendment that i and senator graham and senator demint will be introducing as a bill tomorrow and which we filed as amendment today. i would like to -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you. and i'd like to add i saw today a -- a a representative -- a representative of the whirlpool

company which has 2,500 employees in tennessee. he said that whirlpool makes 82% of what they sell in the united states here in the united states, but that they have a choice. they have plants in mexico as well. one more example of why allowing states to have a right-to-work law keeps jobs in our -- in our country. now, madam president, i see on the floor senator demint whose state is directly affected by this nlrb decision. he and i are working together on this legislation and -- and i'm sure that he has comments on the legislation and on the decision of the nlrb. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. demint demint thank you, madam president -- mr. demint: i want to associate myself with the senator from tennessee. i appreciate him bringing this up. it is important to us here in the senate and as well as

everyone around the country to understand what this administration is doing to hurt jobs in america. this has been a good week for america. we worked together building on one of the common principles of our country of a strong defense and robust intelligence system to track down an enemy of freedom and to render justice as we had promised this was done over two administrations and many congressmen and senators. so this was a good day for america. and i think we need to take this time to maybe think about how we can apply the principles that work in america to our challenges back home. -- back home with our economy and our jobs and our culture. because it really is a bigger issue that we're dealing with in the con ex-of this -- context of this decision by the national labor relations board. we need to use the principles that work. but it appears that this administration, my colleagues on the other side, are afraid to

let these principles work. they seem to be afraid of freedom itself. we see in their record over the last two years of being afraid of -- for americans to make their own decisions about their children's education, about their health care. they're afraid to death of letting senior citizens manage their own retirement funds and health care plans. they're certainly afraid to let states manage their own energy resources or decide what roads and bridges to build and where to build them. they clearly don't want businesses to make their own decisions about hiring and firing. they won't even let community banks make their own decisions about who to lend money to even though these small banks had nothing to do with the financial collapse. and, clearly from this decision, this administration and the democrat party is afraid to give

employees, workers, the freedom not to join a union. it's really amazing what this labor relations board that's been stacked with union -- union folks by the administration is doing to jobs in our state. -- and all across the country. 22 states have right to work laws. in the last few months, my state, along with several others, have passed a constitutional amendment that would protect the freedom of workers to have a secret ballot when union bosses are trying to organize their workplace. a secret ballot is so fundamental to the american principles and the principles of freedom, but the afl-cio is suing our state and others to stop us from protecting that freedom of workers. in the last few weeks a truly extraordinary thing has happened as this national labor relation board has actually filed suit

against boeing, who is located -- who has located a a new facility in south carolina, claiming its retribution for a a strike in washington. -- for a strike in washington. boeing added 2,000 jobs in washington since they decided to build this new production line in south carolina. but this administration, and i'm afraid the majority here in the senate is so afraid that companies will have the freedom to locate new facilities, new businesses in states where their workers are not required to join a union. and let's put this in a different context. a few weeks ago a delegation from california went to texas to try to figure out why hundreds of businesses are moving from california, taking tax revenue and jobs with them to texas and other states. they didn't really need to make the trip. it was pretty obvious that the

business environment that has been created in california by the unions and the politicians has made it very difficult for world-class companies to be competitive. what takes a few weeks in texas could take two years as far as getting a permit to open a new business. now, this is just a small look at what's happening to our country. because we need to look at why so many companies are moving from our -- our country to other countries to do business. and it's because of decisions like this and decisions by this administration over the last couple of years that have made america a place that is very difficult to do business in. i appreciate what the senator from tennessee is doing. because this is not just about one employer or one state. 22 states are right to work states. 22 states have decided that they're going to provide the freedom of their workers not to

have to join a a union. so much of this -- a a union. so much of this is political and retribution not just against boeing to put a sight in a right to work state but it's political retribution. and the administration, i believe, is acting like thugs that you might see in a third world country trying to bully and intimidate employers who are trying to get out from under this cloud of union control. it's a political deal of this administration trying to expand unionization an union -- and union benefits because the union gives the contributions to the democrat party and get out the vote for the democrats. this is crazy. in an environment in this administration and all of us here are saying we're trying to create jobs, there's no question that what they're doing in south carolina and around this country by trying to force unionization is hurting our business climate in america. it's hurting employment. and it's administeringishing our future as -- diminishing our

future as a country. it's amazing to see that the unions have such a control over this administration even in passing the stimulus bill. with it went requirements that a lot of the contractors who use this money had to follow union rules or be unionized. we saw in the health care plan that unions were the big proponent of it. but as soon as it passed, they're the ones asking for waivers so they don't have to live by it. what this administration is doing to one company is a threat to every company, every employer and every workerrer in this country -- worker in this country. and it goes back to their fear of freedom. the command and control paranoia that we see in this administration is antithetical to everything that we understand about freedom in our country, of individual responsibility and

individual freedom and free markets and free enterprise. they're attacking it on every front. and this decision by the national labor relation board cannot stand. we must challenge it here in the congress. employers need to challenge it. states are already challenging it because it's clearly outside of the authority of this federal government to be threatening and bullying and trying to intimidate companies like boeing who should have the freedom to locate their plants anywhere they want. and this is intimidation. many of boeing's contracts are military contracts and -- and we know that's being held over their head. this is not the way that we should do business in america. this is not the way that our government should operate. we need to get back to those first principles that made us great. and, clearly, what this administration is doing in this case an many others is way -- and many others is way outside the realm of what we should expect of a good an decent government and we're not getting

it here. with that, madam president, i see that the other senator from south carolina is here and i'll yield to him. mr. graham: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: one, i'd like to thank any colleague from south carolina, who has been terrific trying to bring reason to this issue. senator demint has been a very strong voice for free enterprise and this is really what this is all about. to senator alexander from tennessee, thank you for listening to what is going on in south carolina and understanding this is not just about our state. it is about the nation as a whole. the right to work protection act i think is a very solid piece of legislation that is going to serve the country as a whole. when a state chooses to be a right to work state, what does that mean? that means no one can be forced to join a union. the union can ask for your vote. if you say "no," that's your decision to make.

if the group says "yes" you don't have to join. in a lot of states that's not true. if 60% of the workforce says we're going to go union and everybody else is drafted whether they want to be or not. the concept of right to work is really at stake here. i do appreciate this legislation because it would preserve the ability of a state to go down that road without suffering at the federal level. it would prohibit federal government contracts, federal government action from punishing a state that chose to adopt right-to-work laws. that's why senator alexander's legislation is so important. we're not making anyone become a right-to-work state. we're saying if you choose to do that, federal government and other organizations within the federal government cannot use that against you in protecting that status. i think that is the balanced approach to the dilemma we face. what is this dilemma?

boeing is one of the great companies in the world. they have a history of producing terrific airplanes. they have been located in washington for decades. as a south carolinian who is very happy boeing has come to south carolina, i want to acknowledge the washington workforce as one of the best in the world, and we hope to build great airplanes in south carolina. but the first thing i want to do is acknowledge that my complaint or concerns are not with the people of washington, not with the workforce of washington. it is the actions of the nlrb and the complaint filed by the machinist union. i hope to be in concert with colleagues from the state of washington, in the senate and house to produce good policies that will not only be good for boeing but for the country as a whole. and south carolina is going to enjoy the status of being a teammate with the people of washington when it comes to trying to help boeing and manufacturing in general. but what happened, madam president, is that in

october of 2009, boeing decided to create a second assembly plant in south carolina. this is a new assembly plant because the orders for the 787 were so large, it necessitated building a second line. and boeing, under the contract with the machinists union, reserved in that contract the right to locate new business wherever they thought it would be best for boeing. they negotiated with the people in seattle about producing this second line in seattle, and they went all over the country looking for other locations to create a second line. they came to south carolina. and i can assure you, after a lot of negotiations, the reason they chose south carolina because it was the best business deal for boeing. they negotiated in washington. they negotiated everywhere in the country really that they

thought they could do good business, and south carolina won out. there's criticism back home that the package we gave boeing is too generous. so i can assure you this was a legitimate business deal. and the idea that moving to south carolina somehow was retaliation that violated the national labor relations act section 883 is legally absurd. under that act, a company cannot retaliate against a group of employees or a location that decides to unionize. and you would have to prove in a retaliation complaint that the people suffered. well, in this case not one person in puget sound or in the state of washington lost their job because of the additional business being generated in south carolina, 2,000 people have been hired in the state of washington. not one benefit was cut from the workforce in washington. nobody's pay was cut, nobody's benefits were reduced because

they moved to south carolina. so this complaint is just frivolous. it is motivated by all the wrong reasons. and let's just for a moment assume that it's the new business model. it would mean basically that if you decide to do work in a union plant, you're locked in to that location forever. you can never move. that's crazy. that's not what the law is all about. the law prevents retaliation. and that's the specific concept in the law. and none of the factors that would toledo that conclusion -- that would lead to that conclusion exist in this case. there is new work. no one's lost their job. it is a new line of business. we're arguing about the right of a company to be able to make a business decision when it comes to new production. that's why this complaint, if it ever gets to federal court, will fail. it's just sad that boeing may

have to spend millions of dollars defending themselves against what i think is a very frivolous complaint. but let me tell you a little bit about, to my colleagues if you're wondering about this. here's something i want to put on the table for you to consider. one of the members of the boeing board at the time they chose to come to south carolina after a lot of negotiations in different places, including washington and south carolina, one of the board members who approved the second assembly line in south carolina was bill daley, the chief of staff of the president of the united states. at the time he wasn't chief of staff. he was a member of the boeing board. and they voted unanimously to move the second -- not move but to create a second assembly plant in the state of south carolina. i would argue that mr. daley, when he cast that vote, understood it was best for boeing to make this decision to

locate new business, and he did not believe he was violating the law or retaliating against unions. one thing you can say about the daley family, it's not in their d.n.a. to retaliate against unions. so this was in 2009. in march of 2010, the machinist unions files this complaint with the nlrb. now, the general counsel -- the person hold that go title -- holding that title a few weeks ago submitted that complaint to the board. but the story is even more interesting. in march of 2010 the complaint is filed by the machinists union. the vote to come to south carolina was in ofbgt 2009. in -- in october of 2009. in january of 2011, mr. daley was chosen to be president obama's chief of staff. a decision that i supported and thought was a good decision for the administration and the country as a whole because mr. daley is a democrat but he is a very well-respected member

of the business community, someone who has a lot of skill and talent, and the president chose wisely. i would assume that in the vetting process they looked at mr. daley's record of involvement in business and other matters. i'm assuming that the vetting team knew that the complaint had been filed by the machinists union in march of 2010 and that mr. daley voted along with the rest of the members of the board to come to south carolina, and they must have conclude that had this complaint was frivolous. i assume that because if they didn't know about the complaint, that was one of the worst vetting jobs in the history of the world. if they thought he did engage in illegal activity, that made no sense to hire him. to my colleagues, i want to you consider the fact that mr. daley, the current chief of staff, voted to come to south

carolina. and after he voted a year and a half later, he was chosen to be the chief of staff of the president of the united states. the boeing c.e.o., jim mctpher ni was chosen by president obama to create the export council by looking at export opportunities. i would argue president obama would not have selected mr. mcnerney if he thought he was going to retaliate against washington unions. this complaint is frivolous. it is taking time and money from people in the state of washington. to senator alexander, you found the right way for the congress to address this. we're not forcing anybody to be a member of a union. we're just saying if a state like south carolina and tennessee chooses to be a right-to-work state that cannot be held against them. this legislation would say to the country and the business community as a whole, when you look at where to locate, you can't consider a right-to-work state without violating the law.

that is an important concept. and i can assure that you boeing came to south carolina because it was the best business deal, that they had a lot of choices. they chose south carolina not to retaliate but to create a second line. and here's the logic of it. would you put everything you own in one location in today's world? so the idea they expanded the second plant in a different state, in a different location makes perfect sense. the fact that south carolina is a low-cost right-to-work state i'm sure they considered. but under the law, no one in washington lost one benefit they had. no one in washington lost a job they already had with boeing. the goal of this decision by boeing is to grow their company. if we do well in south carolina, boeing does well in washington. this complaint is dangerous. this complaint is a dangerous road to go down. this complaint is politics at its worst. the law is designed to protect us, and it is being abused, in

my view. politics is about 50 plus 1. the law is something that should protect us all. and this complaint filed by the general counsel at the nlrb sets a dangerous precedent and the congress should speak, the administration should speak out and say this is frivolous. they are an independent agency. nobody can tell them what to do, but we have an independent duty to speak out in a constructive way. senator alexander's legislation is the appropriate way to address this issue, and i want to thank him on behalf of the people of south carolina and the country as a whole, and i look forward to working with him to have this passed. and to my colleagues on the other side, what's going on in this complaint is dangerous for us all, not just south carolina. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i rise and will be

joined in a few moments by senator harkin, who is the chair of the health, education, labor, pension committee; senator murray, chair of the veterans' committee; and senator tpwhraoupl that you will, a new member -- and senator blumenthal, a new member of the senate. each of them, especially senator harkin, devoted their careers to worker rights, worker safety, decent benefits, pensions, creating -- in short, in creating a middle class. their efforts have been legion, all four of them -- all three of them in doing that. i rise today to commemorate workers memorial day. last thursday, april 28, our nation observed workers memorial day. we should pause for americans who have lost their jobs -- who lost their lives while on the job. i wear on my lapel a pin given to me at a workers memorial day rally in lorain, ohio, a city

west of cleveland on lake erie, a steel town people like to call us. this lapel pin i wear is a depiction of a canary in a bird cage. the mine workers 100 years ago took a canary down in the mine. if the bird died due to toxic gas, the workers got out of the mine. he had to depend on himself. he had no union strong enough or a government which cared enough to protect him in those days. as we celebrate workers memorial day, we look back at the progress we made as a country. this year is the 100th anniversary of the triangle shirt ways factory fire in new york. that tragedy claimed the lives of 146 workers, 123 women, 23 men while they labored in sweatshop conditions in this textile plant in new york city. they were mostly young immigrants who came to this country in pursuit of a better life. instead they were killed because

of the workplace in an incredibly unsafe conditions in that workplace. that tragedy marked a significant turning point in the struggle of advanced worker rights and safety in the country. the day after the fire, 15,000 shirt way workers walked off the job. a 52-hour week they were demanding. nearly 20 years later in 1930 ohio experienced its deadliest mine explosion in our history in athens county. methane gases were ignited by a short circuit between a trolley wire and rail killing more than 80 men. in 1984 thousands of workers stood up to the electric auto light company in toledo, ohio, workers recognized they were underpaid and undervalued. they went on strike, clashed with members of the ohio national guard. the so-called battle of toledo resulted in two deaths and 200 injuries. the strike brought together

union brothers and sisters across the city fighting for middle-class fights. similar fights generated a new momentum across our country. ultimately we know what happened. it's why we have a 40-hour workweek. it's why we have a minimum wage. it's why we have collective bargaining rights. congress passed the national labor relations act, the wagner act in 1935 which guaranteed workers the right to form a union and bargain collectively. the labor standards act passed in 1938. it established a minimum wage, guaranteed overtime pay for certain jobs, established record keeping standards, created child labor protections. we know in osha, signed by a republican president in those days, republicans worked with democrats to increase worker safety standards and actually to help workers join the middle class. the osha established 41 years

ago, in that year in 197038 workers died on the job in this country every day. we have cut that worker death rate by two-thirds. not just because of osha, but certainly in large part because of osha. but the deaths in the workplace continue not with the frequency of 100 years ago or even 50 years ago prior to osha, but they do continue. last week a mine accident claimed the life of a man who was killed while working in a mine in eastern ohio in salem. this past year i received a letter from crystal of adams county who lost her husband terry in a construction accident. he was a father of five. he was killed due to a lack of safety lighting during his night-time shift. his widow said in her letter the circumstances of his death were completely preventible. there is no lighting where my husband lost his job.

you never realize how important those things are until it happens to you. the case of garment workers it was fire safety. in the case of mine workers like jason it was the unsafe conditions too often found in mines. in the case of terry and other construction workers, it was basic safety lighting. we ask our workers to build our roads, to make our cars, to produce our energy to serve as the backbone of our nation's economic competitiveness. we should to more to protect them while they do so. mr. president -- madam president, last month i had a roundtable meeting with a group of -- of workers in columbus, the state house square in episcopal churchill right off the square. we were talking about workers right. i had a police officer, a firefighter, nurse, these were public employees, but they have seen the same assault on their rights as we're seeing all too

often in this body an assault on union rights and an assault on nonunion workers right far too many times. we must stop these blatant efforts to strip teachers, sanitation workers and firefighters the right to collectively bargain. it's been a right in this country for 75 years since the wagner act in the 1938 labor act. it's been a right for workers that has created a middle class, that has brought up living standards not just for living workers who do organize and bargain collectively, but it has brought up the living standards for white collar workers an blue collar workers, for management and labor throughout this society it has created a much more prosperous society. "the new york times" had an article written last week by someone who said when we fail at war in a battle, we don't turn around and blame the soldiers.

we give the soldiers better equipment to do their jobs. so why when -- when our public education system sometimes fails, it's not what we want it to, why do we blame the teachers? why don't we instead give the teachers a better ability to do their jobs? better tools to do their jobs? why don't we do the same with firefighters, police officers and others instead of blaming these workers and public employees. in my state the governor signed legislation just a month or so ago that stripped these public workers of collective bargaining rights. and i think in this society with this kind of pressure on -- on the middle class the last thing we should do is strip anybody of their rights that enable them to make a decent living to put food on their table to have a decent pension, a decent health care especially in their retirement. madam president, it makes no sense to me as we honor workers and workers memorial day that

was last -- that was commemorated last week that we would ever move in the wrong direction when it comes to workers' rights, when it comes to -- to building a prosperous middle class. madam president, i -- i yield the floor. mr. harkin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: madam president, i just want to join with my good friend, the senator from ohio, senator brown, in commemorating the workers memorial day which actually was last week. but since we weren't in session, we wanted to take the time today to commemorate the workers memorial day. and i -- i'm always greatly appreciative of my friends wearing the k canery pin on his

lapel. my father was a coal miner for over 20 years. a lot of people still don't know that we had coal mines in iowa. at one time iowa was the third largest coal producing state in the nation. my father worked over 20 years in the coal mines a long time before there were any safety laws or anything like that. most of the time he worked in those mines was even before i was born. but -- but i can remember later on him telling stories about the mines and how many people would get injured and killed and -- and it was just sort of an accepted thing that every day, every week, month people would just die and cave-ins would happen. of course almost everyone in his generation that worked in those coal mines eventually got miner's cough, as they called it then, we know it as black lung disease now. almost virtually all of them had that later on in their lives. so i just want to appreciate my friend from ohio in

commemorating workers memorial day. madam president, i'd ask unanimous consent that blake tyse, emily taylor be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: madam president, more than 20 years ago family members of workers killed on the job joined with safety advocates to launch workers memorial day, a day of remembrance and advocacy to honor the safety and health administration, osha. april 28 was chosen as workers memorial day. this year that day took on special significance because it marked the 40th anniversary of the creation of the occupational safety and health administration. the passage of the occupational safety and health act -- safety act which created osha was one of the monumental legislative achievements of the 20th century. it reflects the values that all americans share that workers shouldn't have to risk their lives to earn their lively hood.

that workers, employers, and the government must all work together to keep people safe and healthy on the job. signed in law by president nixon this bipartisan legislation has been a tremendous success in saving the lives and health of hundreds of thousands of american workers. here's the facts: immediately prior to the creation of osha in 1970, an average of 14,000 workers died annually from occupational injuries. in 2009, despite a workforce that is twice as large as the workforce in 1970, 4,340 workers were killed on the job. before osha, about 11 workers were killed for every 100,000 people working. now roughly 3.3 workers are killed per 100,000 people working. now, again, these figures are still too large and we

absolutely can and should do much better. but we should take a moment to reflect on how many tragedies have been prevented and how many lives have been saved because of osha. i fear that this simple truth that workplace safety regulations has been a phenomenal success is being ignored in washington these days. nowadays some people would have us believe that workplace safety regulation is something bad. they claim that osha standards are -- quote -- "job killers." but just because some special interest groups with highly paid lobbyists keep repeating this absurd upon tra, that -- montra, that doesn't mean it's true. in fact, just the opposite is true. smart regulations, smart safety regulations administered by active unbias regulators improve an stablize our economy. they save workers' lives, prevent catastrophic accidents, reduce health care costs, and

ensure that industries are responsible for their actions instead of just dumping the cost of their mistakes on workers and taxpayers. in addition to the more than 4 workers killed on the job every year, which i just mentioned, almost 50,000 americans die every year from occupational illnesses. let me repeat that. almost 50,000 americans die every year from occupational illnesses. and more than 4.1 million workers are injured every year. the cost of these injuries an illnesses is -- and illnesses is enormous. estimated at somewhere between 160 billion to 318 billion a year for the direct and the indirect cost of disabling injuries. additional safeguards to prevent these injuries an illnesses, along with stronger enforcement of existing laws, would save thousands of lives, save thousands of injuries from

happening and save the taxpayers billions of dollars. to accomplish this, it's clear that our safety laws need to be updated. they need to be updated. we've learned much in the 40 years since the occupational safety and health act was passed and it's past time to use this knowledge for meaningful reform. for example, we know that whistle-blowers -- whistle-blowers are critical to bringing safety problems to light. but these whistle-blowers won't come forward unless the law contains stronger protections against retaliation. right now we have stronger protections for financial whistle-blowers under the sarbanes-oxley law than we do for workers blowing the whistle trying to save lives. let me repeat that. we have stronger whistle-blower

protections for financial whistle-blowers under existing sarbanes-oxley financial reform law than we do for workers who are trying to save lives by blowing the whistle. that's not right. that should be corrected. we also know that while most responsible companies make worker safety a top priority, there are some unscrupulous employers who cut corners on safety to save costs. unfortunately, as a past health education labor and pension committee report demonstrated, when the negligence of these companies results in workers being killed on the job, these irresponsible companies walk away with just a slap on the wrist. osha penalties are pitfully low. the average fine for a worker being killed on the job is just $5,000. let me repeat that. the average fine for irresponsible company, they have

to be found that they were not acting prudently, that they were skipping on their safety regulations, they were not adhering to well-defined safety regulations, someone gets killed, the average fine, $5,000. $5,000. well, what we need is real penalties to ensure that all employers have real incentives to comply with safety and health laws. these and other changes in the law are desperately overdue which is why i have consistently sponsored and supported the protecting america's workers act. this bill makes commonsense reforms to bring our workplace safety laws into the 21st century with minimal -- minimal burden on the vast majority of employers that comply with the law. in this congress, once again, i try to do everything possible to fight for this important legislation. in addition to these much-needed

updates to the occupational safety and health act, we also must recognize the key role that vigilant enforcement place in keeping -- place in keeping workers safe. safety laws don't work unless there's an legitimate -- a legitimate expectation that they will actually be enforced. in recent years we made real progress in ensuring adequate funding for our workplace safety agencies. for example, increases in funding for the mine safety and health administration in recent years have enabled it to meet mandated safety and health inspections for three years in a row. imsha, mine safety health administration and the department of labor have funds to attack a backlog of appeals filed by mine operators. these appeals have helped some operators avoid heightened enforcement actions. osha has received funds to restore the number of inspectors it had over a decade ago.

a decade ago. however, we here in the senate have recently had to fend off efforts to roll back this progress. h.r. 1, the republican fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill cut the occupational and safety health administration by 18%. 1. this would have paralyzed the agency and allowed unscrupulous employers to ignore worker safety and health protections. this bill would have allowed the backlog of mine safety and health citations to increase. it would have prevented msha from moving forward on improvements it has initiated in mine emergency response and other areas. thankfully senate democrats and the president are standing firm and refusing to cut workplace safety funding to finance tax breaks for millionaires and

billionaires. as we continue the budget debates, we should keep in mind that the budget reflects moral choices about the kind of country and society we want to be. firstly, i'm committed to upholding the bipartisan values we tphrebgted in the passage -- reflected in the passage of the occupational safety and health act. all americans have the right to a safe workplace. while we have made tremendous progress in the last 40 years under osha, there's much more work to be done. over 4,000 lives lost each year is still unacceptably high. we owe the 4,340 workers we lost just last year our best efforts to ensure that such tragic losses are dramatically reduced, and we should not rest until all of our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, our friends, our families can go to work each day knowing they will come home safely again each night.

so once again, madam president, april 28, we commemorate workers memorial day and we renew our commitment to making sure that workers all across america have the protections of the occupational safety and health act that we provide the funding for these agencies to make sure that the laws are enforced and to make sure that we reassure every worker in america that they have a right -- they have a right -- to a safe workplace. madam president, with that, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: madam president and members of the senate, i have the privilege of, over most

of my tenure in the united states senate, serving on the senate finance committee and working with a good senate leader like senator baucus. i now have the privilege of serving on there but not as ranking member or chairman, but just as a member. but i compliment senator baucus for his leadership on this whole business of tax reform and holding hearings that he's hearing, having held, and today a very important one is being held on the question of is the distribution of tax burden and benefits equitable. the topic of today's hearing is very appropriate, whether the distribution of tax benefits and burdens is equitable is a very important topic. however, i would argue that there is a more important

question that we should be debating and we should be answering this question: what is the purpose of the federal income tax? we can't talk about whether taxpayers are paying their fair share if we don't know why we want them paying taxes in the first place. we're in a situation now where people are talking about increasing taxes on higher-income people because, supposedly, they can afford it. and probably they can afford it. but i get sick and tired of the demagoguery that goes on in washington, not just by members of congress, but by too many people, that higher income people ought to be paying more taxes. according to the joint committee taxation's latest analysis, 49%

of the households are paying 100% of the taxes coming into the federal government while 51% are not paying any income tax whatsoever. now, how high do taxes have to go to satisfy the appetite of people in this congress to spend money? and particularly how high do marginal tax rates have to go to satisfy those clamoring for higher taxes from the wealthiest? how high to satisfy you, and you know who you are. there's an article by investor business daily that i want to refer to that according to this article even if the government confiscated -- we're not talking about taxation of a certain

amount of income, but if it confiscated all of the income of people earning $250,000 a a year or more, the money confiscated would fund the federal government today for a a mere -- for a mere 140 days. and you know what you would have? you wouldn't have those people trying to maximize their income because why would you maximize it if the government's going to confiscate it? so that's a very basic question to how high do taxes have to go to satisfy the appetite of people in this congress to pend money? funding the government should be one of, if not the, primary goal of income tax laws. and, of course, that leaves out this whole business of whether the federal government's purpose is for the purpose of redistributing income.

note here that i am specifically focufolking on the income tax. this is because payroll taxes are not used to fund the government. social security and medicare taxes are, in fact, insurance programs. and because they're insurance programs, the taxes they pay are insurance premiums because individuals who pay them expect a benefit when they reach a certain age. it is clear that some believe that the tax code should be used to reduce the growing income disparity between the lowest and highest income. this assumes a key objective through the federal income tax laws should be to ensure that income is distributed equally throughout our citizenry. in other words, these folks actually believe that the

federal government is the best judge of how income should be spent. that is not what our founding fathers or original authors of the tax laws intended. in addition to considering the purpose of tax revenue, in fact, we ought to have some principles of taxation that we abide by. these principles of taxation would be a much stronger foundation than the day-to-day decisions about whether or not we ought to raise taxes on a certain number of people. so i abide by the principle that's been a fact of our tax laws for 50 years that an average of 18.2% of the q.d.p. of -- g.d.p. of this country is good enough for what the government needs to spend. and i say that because a 50-year

average that hasn't been harmful to the economy, as we've seen this country just expand and expand economically over that period of time, and, quite frankly, it ought to be clear that 18.2% of the g.d.p. of this country coming in for us to spend is not at a level of expenditures that taxpayers have revolted against. so we take in that 18.2% for 535 of us decide how to spend. the other 82% is in the pockets of the taxpayers for them to decide how to spend or to save and, quite frankly, how much to spend and how much to save. because if the 18.2% of us or any amount more comes to 535

members of congress that decide how to divide up the resources of this country, we would not have the economic growth that we have of our economy when 137 million taxpayers deciding how to spend or how to save and how much of each decide how -- how to do it, the economic growth of this country in -- is enhanced tremendously because of the dynamics of the free market system. and if we were going to go the greater route of increasing that 18% very dramatically, we would be moving increasingly towards the europeanizing of our economy, and i think that would be very bad. in evaluating whether people are paying their fair share, experts frequently look at whether a proposal improves the taxes. critics of lower tax rates

continue to attempt to use distribution tables to show that tax relief proposals disproportionately benefit the upper income. we keep hearing that the rich are getting rich while the poor are getting poorer. this is not an intellectually honest statement as it implies that those who were poor stay poor throughout their lifetime rap those who -- and those those who are -- those who are rich stay rich throughout their lifetime. and that is just not the case. i want to point about this to a 2007 report entitled income moability which are in the u.s. from 1996 to 2005. i quote the key findings. there was considerable income mobility of individuals in the u.s. economy during 1996 through 2005 period as over half of the

taxpayers move to a different income over this period. next, roughly half of the taxpayers who began in the bottom income in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005. next, among those with a very highest incomes in 1996, the top .001% only a small group remained in that group in 2005. moreover, the medium real income of these taxpayers declined over this period. next, the mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade, meaning the prior study by the treasury

department. and that period of time was 1987 through 1996. lastly, economic growth resulted in rising income for most taxpayers for the period of 1996 to 2005. medium income of all taxpayers increased by 24% after adjusting for inflation. and the real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. in addition the medium incomes of those initially in the lower-income groups increased more than the medium incomes of those initially in the higher income groups. end of quote. therefore, whoever is saying -- and we hear it every day on the floor of the senate -- that once rich, americans stay rich, and once poor, they stay poor is

purely mistaken. and internal revenue service data supports this analysis. the report on the 400 tax returns with the highest incomes reported over 14 years shows that in any given year on average about 40% of the returns were filed by taxpayers that are not in any of the other 14 years. in other words, 40% of those people that are in highest brackets are not in the highest brackets ever in that 14-year period of time. so once rich, not always rich. i welcome this data on this important matter for one simple reason, it sheds light on what america really is all about, past opportunities and income

mobility. but built by immigrants from all over the world our country truly provides unique opportunities for everyone. these opportunities include better education, health care services, land financial security, but most importantly, our country provides people with the freedom to obtain necessary skills to climb the economic ladder and live better lives. we are a free nation. we are a mobile nation. we are a nation of hard-working innovative, skilled and resilient people who like to take risks when necessary in order to succeed. bottom line, we have an obligation as lawmakers to incorporate these fundamental principles into our tax system instead of just talking about, are the rich paying enough? i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i'd ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i thank the chair. madam president, i -- i rise to speak on a nomination that's pending for the senate and i do so with some degree of trepidation much because as someone who has been a member of the legal profession about 30-plus years, i really believe that it's imperative that i voice my strong concerns and, indeed, my objections to the nomination of jack mcconnell to become a united states district judge, a vote we'll have tomorrow morning on a cloture vote.

the reason i was attracted, like so many others, to law school and the legal profession was because of the majesty of the notion of the law, the responsibilities that lawyers owed not just to themselves to enrich themselves, but to their client the fiduciary duty that a lawyer has to represent a cliefnlt and then, of -- a client. and then the ethical standards which some might scoff at that work actually pretty well that keep lawyers, for the most part, accountable to the high ethical standards imposed by the legal profession. but, unfortunately, and i -- i'm sorry to have to say this, that -- but the hard truth is mr. mcconnell's record which i will describe here in a moment of one of not upholding the rule of law, but perverting the rule

of law, ignoring the sponties that he had to -- responsibilities that he had to his client and manipulating those ethical standards in order to enrich himself and his law partners. but, first, let me just say that mr. mcconnell when he came before the senate judiciary committee intentionally misled the committee during the confirmation process. i don't know how i can say it any more gently, the fact is, he lied to the senate judiciary committee during his confirmation process. and regardless of who nominates an individual, party affiliation aside, i don't think the senate as an institution should tolerate a nominee that intentionally misrepresents the facts in the context of a confirmation process. this involved his -- his participation in -- or involvement with a set of stolen

confidential documents that his law firm obtained during a lawsuit of the sherwin williams company. mr. mcconnell told members said -- quote -- "i was not familiar with the documents in any fashion." close quote. only a few months later in september of 2010, this same nominee gave a deposition in an ohio court where he testified that he was the first attorney at his firm to review the documents in question. that he had drafted a newspaper editorial citing information that had come from those documents and that portions of those documents were incorporated in a brief filed under his signature. despite this obvious contradiction and given an opportunity to correct his misleading statement, mr. mcconnell is unequivocally stood by his original statement

to committee members. i would reiterate, madam president, this body should not approve or confirm a lifetime appointment for someone who wants to serve as a judge in particular, but anyone who would lie to or at best intentionally mislead the senate by downplaying his role in a serious controversy involving, in this case, stolen confidential documents. during the time i practiced law and served on the state court bench in my state in texas, i've come to respect lawyers who handle all sorts of cases, lawyers that prosecute criminal cases, lawyers that defend criminal cases, lawyers that defend citizens, including companies sued for money damages, and those who bring those lawsuits. constrained again by the rule of law, duty to the client and high ethical standards. but based on his long career as a lawyer, mr. mcconnell has

advocated, it's clear from the evidence, a results-oriented view of the law and manipulated it for his personal gain. these theories that he's advanced ostensibly on behalf of his client have been rejected not just by people like me, but by a very broad range of opinion in the legal community. for example, mr. mcconnell and his firm sued paint manufacturers based on an unprecedented theory of public nuisance that allowed them to circumvent long-standing legal doctrine and receive a huge jury award in a sympathetic judge's courtroom. ultimately the rhode island supreme court rejected unanimously this theory, declaring it at odds with centuries of american law and antithetical to the common law, to quote the court. as one iowa attorney general who happens to be a democrat said, mr. mcconnell's lead paint

litigation was -- quote -- "a lawsuit in search of a legal theory." close quote. mr. mcconnell's lead paint litigation scheme required the complicity. and i'm going to speak on more in a movement mr. mcconnell's decision showed his lack of judicial temperament. it showed not only does he still adamantly believe in these add ral -- radical unprecedented theories rejected by the high court of rhode island but he lacks the temperament to serve on the federal bench. instead of respecting the decision made by the highest court in the state, mr. mcconnell wrote an op-ed piece condemning the court and saying he believed their decisions let the wrongdoers off the hook. in other words, mr. mcconnell

made clear that he believes the law should be manipulateed to serve his agenda, not to uphold the rule of law, in order to respect the very bodies under our system for interpreting the law and rendering judgment. mr. mcconnell's outburst was not particularly surprising given his public admission previously that he is -- quote -- "an emotional person about injustice at any level, personal, societal or global," as he put it. close quote. this lack of temperament and novel view of the law is indicative of the type of judge jack mcconnell would be. i'm sorry to say biased against a certain class of people and untethered to the rule of law. mr. mcconnell's practices are also, exist under an ethical cloud throughout his career. he and his law firm made billions of dollars and a name for themselves through their pioneering practice of

soliciting no-bid contingent fee contracts from state officials. for example, mr. mcconnell and his firm played a central role in litigating lawsuits brought by state attorney generals first against tobacco companies and then lead-based paint manufacturers. of course i'm not saying that tobacco companies and other companies shouldn't be held accountable for harmful products, but the purpose of the law should be to compensate those people who have been aggrieved and to deter others from acting in the same fashion in the future. and the litigation that he constructed and devised, the scheme he literally created did none of that. the question is ultimately: where did the money go? under these contracts, mr. mcconnell and his partners have repeatedly sued american businesses, pocketing billions of dollars for themselves in attorneys' fees while leaving taxpayers on the hook for the resulting costs. in the word of one respected

legal commentator, mr. mcconnell and lawyers like him have -- quote -- "perverted the legal system for personal and political gain at the expense of everyone else. " close quote. in several lawsuits mr. mcconnell and his partners received contingent fee contracts from state officials to whom they later contributed tens of thousands of dollars. now i think there's a lot of very important public policy reasons why state officials should not be able to outsource their responsibilities to private lawyers based on a contingency fee where their only incentive is one of a profit motive, untethered by the sorts of checks and balances that elected or other appointed government officials would ordinarily have. our system of justice relies on financially disinterested officials who are, who take an oath to uphold the law and not those whose sole motive is not

to uphold the law but to twist it and to manipulate it in order to maximize our economic gain. some of these lawyers, including mr. mcconnell's firm, pocketed what amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour -- per hour -- for their work in lawsuits against tobacco companies. mr. mcconnell and lawyers like him are the big winners in these lawsuits, taking home large sums of money that rightfully belong to the taxpayer, the client that i mentioned at the outset. imagine if these billions of dollars were spent on cancer research or improving public health instead of lining the pockets of a few well-connected, politically well-connected lawyers. more importantly, however, the outsourcing of suits to create private trial lawyers -- to private trial lawyers on a contingency fee basis creates both the appearance and

opportunity for corruption by allowing state officials to reward their friends and campaign contributors. now one reason, mr. president, that i've taken such a strong personal interest in this issue is because of my service as attorney general of texas following that of dan morales, my predecessor. mr. morales served over three years in the federal penitentiary for attempting to illegally channel millions of dollars in a tobacco settlement that was due to the state of texas, but he steered it to a lawyer friend of his by trying to back date a contract to make it appear to be something it was not. the actions of mr. mcconnell and his partners by funneling tens of thousands of dollars into campaign accounts of state officials who hired them raises concerns about pay-to-play dealings. in the state of washington, for example, mr. mcconnell and members of his small south

carolina-based law firm contributed $23,200 to the reelection of the attorney general in the state of washington. by the way, that was the very same lawyer who hired them on a contingency fee basis to represent the state. in north dakota, mr. mcconnell and his wife contributed $30,000 to the gubernatorial campaign of the attorney general who appointed him as special assistant attorney general for purposes of representing that state in tobacco litigation. mr. mcconnell and his law firm contributed an additional $73,000 to that same attorney general's state political party during the campaign cycle, making them the number-four campaign contributor to that organization. now, there's nothing wrong with people contributing money to political candidates or parties or causes that they believe in, but it's another matter when these contributions are made in connection with no-bid contracts

0 or apparent political favors. it's no small matter that mr. mcconnell has a lucrative ongoing financial arrangement as a product of his previous work as a trial lawyer. in fact, he will receive $2.5 million to $3.1 million a year through 2024 as part of his payoff for his work in the tobacco litigation i mentioned a moment ago. $2.5 million to $3.1 million a year through 2024. for anyone that would praise mr. mcconnell for giving up a successful legal career in order to serve as a federal judge, remember that he would be reaping huge windfalls at the expense of taxpayers long into his teen neuro as a federal -- long into his tenure as a federal judge. some senators will say whatever his past, mr. mcconnell deserves the benefit of the doubt and that he would be an impartial judge if confirmed by the senate to this lifetime

appointment. mr. president, i cannot agree and neither does, by the way, the united states chamber of commerce. they have taken an unprecedented step of opposing this nomination. and, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that that letter be made part of the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: the multiple controversies surrounding mr. mcconnell are so extraordinary that the chamber has taken the step of opposing his nomination and declaring him -- quote -- "unfit to serve." close quote. this is the first time in its 99-year history that they opposed a district court nominee. my colleagues have asked me whether i believe that texas businesses and business people would get a fair shake in jack mcconnell's courtroom, and i absolutely do not believe they could. to my colleagues who may doubt what i'm saying or look for some proof, i would just say read the record. i'm convinced that you would have trouble looking your

constituents in the eye and telling them that you believe that mr. mcconnell would be fair to all litigants in his courtroom, and in this case especially business who is may be sued for money damages as he did throughout his legal career. in fact, mr. mcconnell during the judiciary committee deliberations described his legal philosophy as saying -- quote -- "there are wrongs that need to be righted, and that's how i see the law." close quote. well, that doesn't cite any applicable legal standard, doesn't take into account law as we know it. but just wrongs that he believes need to be righted. similarly, mr. mcconnell has said that based upon his experience, he has absolutely no confidence that certain industries will ever do the right thing and that they will only do the right thing when they are sued and forced to by a jury trial. now given his tendency to view lawsuits against businesses as a

movement against societal injustice, it's difficult to see how mr. mcconnell could put those personal views aside and to give all litigants in his courtroom a fair trial, a right to which they are guaranteed under our constitution and laws. and i believe a vote to allow mr. mcconnell's nomination is a vote to create yet another court where trial lawyers to repeatedly prevail in frivolous litigation against american businesses and that is something we should not a hroufplt mr. mcconnell's behavior during his career demonstrates a lack of ethics and temperament necessary to serve as a federal judge. i would hope a president would never appoint someone like jack mcconnell, but apparently everyone makes mistakes, including this nomination by this president. instead of stubbornly digging in his haoerblgs usually the president -- heels, usually the

president agrees to withdraw nominations that stem controversy. but the president has forced me and others to stand our ground in appointing mr. mcconnell to the federal bench. based on his deeply troubling ethical record and the fact that he intentionally misled if not lied to the judiciary committee during his confirmation process, i believe we must fight this nomination with every tool at our disposal. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, as senators know last night

majority leader reid was forced to file another cloture petition on a federal judicial nominee. that's the fifth required to be filed during president obama's term in office. in this case it's on jack mcconnell who's nominated to a vacancy in the united states district court for the district of rhode island. i'm concerned that we have to file cloture on judgeships that should simply have and you or down vote. i would hope we're not going back to the situation we had when president clinton was here and my friends on the republican side of the aisle pocket filibustered 61 of his nominees. tried to change that in the 17

months i was chairman during the first two years of president bush's term, and notwithstanding the president we had of nominees being blocked by the other side for president clinton, in that 17 months i moved 100 of president bush's nominees through the -- through the senate. the remaining 2 1/2 years i think the republicans in charge, they moved another 101. so we tried to change what had been an unfortunate procedure. i hope we're not going back into that. in this case, mr. mcconnell has the strong support of his home state senator, bipartisan from those in his home state. and his nomination has been reported favorably by a bipartisan majority of the senate judiciary committee, not

just once, but several times. and, of course, it's been stranded on the senate's executive calendar for months followed by objections -- republican objections to proceeding to debate and vote. vote yes or vote no when you try to block a vote you're actually voting maybe. people in our state didn't send us here to vote maybe. they expect us to have the courage to vote yes or no. in fact, it's interesting, mr. president, a few years ago republican senators argue that filibusters of visua judicial ns were unconstitutional, that every nominee was entitled to an up or down vote. gave great, strong moving speeches to that effect and

then, of course, as soon as president obama got elected, they filibustered his very first judicial nominee. unsuccessfully, i might say, but they stalled many others. with these filibusters the senate's republican leadership seemed determined to set a new standard for obstruction of judicial nominations. i can't recall a single incident in which a president judicial nomination to a federal trial court, the federal district court, was blocked by a filibuster. not for republican presidents or democratic presidents. i came here -- when i came here, the president of the united states was gerald ford, whose statue we just unveiled in the rotunda. we didn't filibuster any of his federal district courts. we didn't filibuster any of

president jimmy carter's district courts. we didn't filibuster any of ronald reagan's federal district courts. we didn't filibuster any of president george h.w. bush's district courts. we didn't filibuster any of -- on the floor anyway, we did in committee, of president clinton's or any of president george w. bush's. somehow the rules have changed for president obama. it is troubling, as chairman of the judiciary committee, but also troubling to the federal judiciary nationwide why this one president gets singled out for this kind of treatment. i did a little research. i went back -- as i said i've been here 37 years.

but i went back over the last six decades. i found only three district court nominations, three in over 60 years, in which cloture was even filed. two of those the cloture petition was withdrawn after procedural issues were resolved. for a single one the senate vote on cloture and incidentally all three of those nominations were confirmed. i would hope that nomination of jack mcconnell also be confirmed. and said for some reason, i talked about the presidents i have been here with, president ford, president carter, president reagan, president george h.w. bush, president clinton, president george w.

bush, but for some reason the rules seem to have changed for president obama. republican senators have applied a heightened and unfair standard to president obama's district court nominees. senate republicans have chosen to depart dramatically from the long deference for home state senators both republicans and democrats who know the needs of their state the best. an unprecedented number of president obama's highly qualified district court nominees have been targeted for opposition and obstruction. democrats never applied the standard to president bush's district court nominees whether in the majority or the minority. certainly there were nominees in the district court put forth by that administration that were considered idealogues and never would have been nominated by a democratic president. all told in eight years the

judiciary committee reported only a single bush district court nomination by a party line vote. we democrats opposed judge holmes' nomination strongly, but we did not block it from consideration of the senate. we said we'll vote up or down. it wasn't -- he wasn't filibustered, he was confirmed without the need for a cloture vote. again, suddenly with this president they're applying standards never applied to a president before. somehow president obama's being treated different than any president, democrat or republican, before him. regrettably senate republicans intend on continuing the practices they began when president obama first took office gauging narrow partisan

attacks on judicial nominations. they started, as i said before, with the first judicial nomination, david hamilton of indiana, a 15-year veteran of the federal bench. president obama nominated judge hamilton in march 2009 after consultation with the most senior and longest serving republican in the senate, senator dick lugar, of indiana who then strongly supported the nomination. the president went and nominated somebody supported by a republican senator. in fact, the most senior republican senator here. and rather than welcoming this nomination as an intent by president obama to step away from the ideological battles of the past, senate republicans ignored senator lugar's