ieve it's possibly that we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we spend. we're spending $3.7 trillion this fiscal year ending september 30. we'll take in $2.2 trillion, give or take a few hundred billion. and this is not acceptable. we cannot continue. how did it happen? how is it possible that we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that goes out of the door increasing the permanent debt of the united states? well one way it's happening is what's happening now before us on the bill that's being moved today by majority leader reid. it would add $6.9 billion to the fema account for emergencies. we just saw the legislation

about less than an hour ago maybe 30 minutes ago. has anybody given any serious thought to that $7 billion? the state of alabama's general fund budget is $2 billion. $7 billion is a lot of money. and we have not looked at it, we have not thought about it. it's above the budget, i guess above our budget numbers. we don't have a budget. senator reid said earlier this year it would be foolish to have a budget, foolish to have a budget. we're now well over 860 days in this senate without having passed a budget. is that another reason we're spending the country into bankruptcy? well i just don't think this is an appropriate thing. i strongly oppose adding another emergency debt spending bill

that we haven't carefully examined every penny of it to make sure it's all necessary and appropriate. no one has seen those numbers and the analysis that would justify. i come from a state that was hammered with the worst series of tornadoes we have ever suffered in alabama. i have been to those communities in towns and seen those families that have lost all they have, lost lives of loved ones and injured people. i know that we are going to need to have an emergency spending for those programs. you have got fires in texas and we have got flooding. we know that. we have certain moneys set aside for emergencies already. how much more do we need to spend? i don't know yet. i'd like to have some very carefully done expert analysis

before we announce another another $7 billion. and just forgive me if i'm frustrated. i think the american people are frustrated. we went through a continual battle for weeks months really, over the debt ceiling and i know -- i didn't like the way this bill was written. i know we had to face up to it and do some things, so we finally reached a -- an agreement. i didn't vote for it in the end. but it was supposed to save save $2.1 trillion to to $2.5 trillion. over ten years. next year, fiscal year beginning october 1, it would reduce the spending for next year by

by $7 billion. the very same amount now the majority leader wants us to throw in on top of that as an emergency spending, not within our spending limits, not controlled by our spending limits wiping out that entire saving for next year. add on top of that, the president has now announced he wants to spend $450 billion more. and don't worry, it will be paid for, he told us in the speech thursday night. how would it be paid for? well we'll just have this debt committee, i will just send them a note and say you cut another another $450 billion. over ten years just promise that you will cut another another $450 billion over ten years, and i will spend spend $450 billion now. that's the way we are heading

down the road to uncontrollable debt. so now i understand the president has announced that he just wanted to raise taxes on businesses and all by by $450 billion. we may get a proposal on how to do that today. i don't know. we'll see how it turns out. i expect to read it. i would expect the president if he is serious would tell us precisely what taxes he intends to increase and how much they will bring in. got to pass it now we're told, but we haven't seen the legislation to my knowledge yet. they promised it today. this is not in my humble opinion

sound management. the president of the united states has an office of management and budget, 400 500 people work there. he is the superintendent of every cabinet department in our country. they all work at his pleasure. the sub cabinet people work for him. he has got the entire agencies that he can call on to help produce proposals the commerce department, the treasury department on what taxes to raise and what taxes not to, how much it should be brought in. we have opportunities -- we have the staff he does, to send us a detailed proposal about what kind of emergency spending we ought to be undertaking. i don't know if support reid just conjured this up among his staff or whether he got a detailed proposal from the house, from the president. just suffice it to say i hope my colleagues will not move forward

to a bill that contains contains $7 billion in new spending above our limits, statutory limits that were passed in this debt ceiling. why? basically, to object have obviate the need of having a budget. so we don't -- we need not to be moving to legislation and rushing through that kind of new spending program because that is precisely how it is that day after day week after week, we have increased spending in this country to the point that can cannot be sustained. every witness before the budget committee has told us we are on an unsustainable path. i just had occasion to go over the food stamp numbers.

i had been hearing -- i knew the food stamp numbers had gone up. when president bush left office, we were spending $31 billion, i believe it was on food stamps. this year, this year, we'll spend $79 billion. president obama will have doubled spending on food stamps, doubled it in three years not four. his first year in office, food stamp spending increased 46%. we need to look under the hood of the engine of this program. we want to be sure that poor people have food. we're willing to do that. everybody is. but at a time of fiscal challenge for our nation, time of the largest debt we have ever seen, we have to examine all of our programs. can we justify those kind of

increases? can we justify emergency spending that's unthought out and not carefully accounted for? i don't think so. i think we should not go to legislation that seeks to do that and i would oppose cloture on this bill if that's what's happening, as i believe it is. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed is. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i ask unanimous consent when the business completes its business, following the prayer of pledge the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning business be deemed expired and the time reserved for use later in the day. mr. conrad: following any leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each with the time equally

divided and controlled by the leader or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. and following morning business, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.j.ings resolution 66 regarding burma sanctions and the prospective legislative vehicle for additional fema funds. further that the senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. finally if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed on h.j. resolution 66, all time count postcloture and if cloture is not invoked a motion to reconsider a motion be considered entered. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: if there is no further business brf the senate i ask that it adjourn following the cloture motion to read on

h.j. res. 66. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in

accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 154, h.j. res. 66, a joint resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the burmese freedom and democracy act of 2003, signed by 17 senators. by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed on house joint resolution 666 an act apriewflg the renewal of import restrictions contained in the burmese freedom and democracy act of 2003, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory you understand $under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 53. the nays are 33. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative the motion is agreed to. is not agreed to. under the previous order a motion to reconsider is entered. under the previous order the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.

that proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you. mr. president, president obama is about to rule out another jobs -- roll out another jobs plan. he talked about it last week. this is two and a half years after the first stimulus bill whh w familiarity for configured off the of advisers have conformed uncommon approach to a single concept who and as our republican leader noted i lastthere wereefore week there are fewer jobs in america according to the bureau this of labor statistics the and before the president's firstte stimulusr in bill. so the question obviously ise whether this theory is better in here the and it is in practice,o in and i wanted to talk todaynomic little bit about the two different basic theories ofe

economic growth and what we do in the economic downturn like we g have today, how shall we be looking and the stimulation of and job creation in the two competing theories of course are the keynesian theory that in t mentioned and what some have called supply-side economics. there is no question that the the keynesian theory has been onerogram. that the president's economic advisers generallyther adhere to.n it was used to justify the 2,009e were stimulus would. paent gov but there were other transfermporary t payment programs, temporary tax credits and others but in theere -- and theory and the cash for walkers f or is a good example is at the timeexample if the government spends moneynt s and gives it to people so that they canca spend it he that will therefore stimulate consumption consuon. the business will respond by

increasing production and that will create jobs and recentlyvilsac said for example agriculture secretary tom vilsack said that because of in of the theoretical model multiplier effect under this model, food stamps, government to money taken from taxpayers given to peoplear who are entitled or eligible for food stamps that the they would actually stimulate facto of the economy by the factor ofds 1.84 or in other words that a dollar of food stamps would actually generate a dollar 84 in economic activities. there are a lot of problems with fir is th that theory. the first is the multiplierd as not effect itself has beenthat in discredited as not something that in fact actually happens. a harvard economist by the name of robert brooch has explained this and let me quote from one of the things he said. theorizing aside the keynesian

solution such as the additionalpoliticsuch as stimulus geared to the money should transfers should come down to the empirical evidence, and there is zero evidence that a deficit financed transfers raiseor gdp and informant, not to mention evidence for a multiplier of two if secretary vilsack's plan were valid this result would be true andeviden miraculously. the administration found the evidence it wanted multipliers around to by converting largeodels scale models which substitute assumptions for the item at the quote. kitchen, end of quote, in other the mul words economists can prove thee multiplier in theory with these mod b models, but there's no empirical evidence that there if it hasr ever occurred. it's a bit like trees the moneysomewher has to come from somewhere and of course it comes out of the pocketser of taxpayers or the

government borders of india and chile has to be repaid with taxpayer tax dollars. the second problem is that to is tha the extent that the problem is americans are too broken to spend the question then is how can the government make that up for us?gove allrn of the people the government? doesn't the government and its of money from the people? in the form of taxes or if it to pay bac borrows people's taxes have to pay back money otherwise we haveay to pay it back later.o third people tend to changehen their spending habits when they know they will have greater i e consistent income over time like when they receive a raise at work. if you just give people a tt onetime payment the evidence has that shown that they either save thatption or they shift future consumption forward in other words they may buy something now that they were that going to buy a liter.

that's where the cash forailed. clunkers program failed but it doesn't permanently increase the course work effort or incentive to invest which of course is j exactly what is needed to jump-start the economic growth.s like the job creators themselves they're they tend to hire her when they think they will have permanent just w tax relief for regulatoryeceive relief not just from they oneor time payment for something and it it's only for as good as it nsiste lasts but itnt doesn't provide thexamp le consistent long-term prospectthey need order for the income for example the need to take the step of hiringtson the person committing to be that person over time.nment h fourth keynesian theory as soon as the government has the obam foresight to determine or as ecoc president obama's accounts willlus, chief larry summers said of the target, stimulus to target which the program spending programs would best create economic growth but thatpens.

th rarely happens. with the obvious problem with this assumption is the congressey doesn't spend the taxpayers' aga money wisely.ow a we see time and time again howoaded the well-intentioned piece of legislation gets loaded up with special projects frequently which are costly to the questions that and that is one of the thingstimulus the was wrong with the stimuluset itself. paper that there is in on the opening setth of papers that reveals the truth about this the scholars daniel jones and rothschild took a look in the study among other things whether the congress did a goodid a job of targeting the stimulus funds that the unemployedmplo workers and the weak sectors ofrs of the the economy hundreds of firms fir that receive stimulus funding and gather more than a thousand voluntary anonymous responses from employees and managers to help shed more light on what happened in the organizationsd here's that receive the stimulus funds and here is what they wrote. no

our survey finds no evidence in such a targeting occurring at least not successfully and of quote. for example once they were given eve n $4 million to improve energyget efficiency even though a budget lay shortfall forced it to lay off 185 public workers.or in another case study ahase more e contractor was instructed to a purchase more extensive titles than he needed for the project. the theory was the government would claim the money was stimus money was getting out the door faster. this isn't the way to spurven economic growth, and i think even most kenyans believe it matters what the government k actually spends its money on. on. moreover, the study that i s referred to tualso found less than half of those hired with with stimulus funds were unemployedimplyoving about 42.1%. place jobs were simply moving from onehe place to another and the authors a of the study road hiring is not thes same thing as the net job hard

it creation.is for this suggests just how hard it cre is for the kinsey and job creators in the modern expertise based economy end of quote and why an employer might steer them fromht an employer that's not the same thing as creating a new job. so there's a misconception that c on there is consumption fueled by actuall government spending actuallytt creates jobs. it turns out that it doesn't it just inefficiently moves the borrowed money around i think that it's also important to remember f the economic growth stemsro from combining three inputs, labor and capital and technology these o three factors of production result in output we can then the consume and this is the t beginning of thehe differenceophy and the between the keynesian philosophy ph and the supply-side philosophy which focuses on productivity

and what is required for ther, society to be more productive labor, technology and properly applied when these three aspects c of the economy are well alignedgrow js the economy can grow jobs can will be produced people will consumee but they will be consuming things that have been produced c by the businesses of the capital country.gy, there without leave for capital and consumpt technology there can be no consumption.s that's obvious.stimco focussing on the policies that stimulate thethe wrong consumption targets the wrong side of the eco equation. in order to get the economy going you need to focus on the inputs and there's an incident or problem here stimulating the consumption also raises prices which is exactly what we don't need when we stimulate in putoduc and productivity and produce more of its quality goods peoplef want and the prices of the products are down if there is enough productivity but when youo

try to stimulate production fords obv aio fixed number of goodse goods g obviously the price goes up. in there's the fear of inflation in this society today and that is precisely what this kind of keynesian stimulus will produce and the matter of focusing onwhere t and put as i said is where the second philosophy of economic growth comes in. supply-side economics, which focuses on productivity. the fundamental principal of thek supply-side economics is that people work harder and they take for more risks when there are more opportunities for the economic gain unless the government enomic intrusion. translating this economicolicy philosophy and the policy means several things. first of all, reducing the government consumption by reso cutting spending thus leaving the resources to private sector. spend when the government spends money -- i ask unanimous consent to continue to speak for the time i y.

may consume. >> without objection. >> when the government can only can spend money i mentioned foodmps stamps before the government can only give money to a food stamp recipient by taxing that money from someone else or from the borrowing of the money and owed eventually that borrowed moneyd needs to be paid back. how is it payback? it's payback by taxpayers payingh can money to the government, whichts can then repay its debt. entuall in either event, eventually the government money that the government spends the e to stimulate the economy has to from come from somewhere and the onlyro place it can come from is thee american taxpayer. so the bottom line is with theplus keynesian stimulus spending there is no free lunch.e is no fre the money doesn't just lu materialize ouncth. of nowhere. it is not free for the into government t to inject this money to the economy by giving at the favored groups or to our s

redistributeoc with people within our society so people can spend it and that's why this factor some people talk about it is long into ways. first as i pointed out before there is no empirical evidencee that that ever happened andcondly eve secondnt eventually the money has to be repaid or if it was taxpayer b money to begin withollar that is a dollar less ofmoney that taxpayer money but that taxpayer c has to invest or consume or iferson it's a business person to hire someone in the private business. the bottom line is the government money isn't free and so the whole premise of the g keynesian economics that we get somepce a free dollars some place and that produces benefits by peoplet than spending it is wrong about lea leaving it in the pocket of the person that wants to spend it in the first place.to spe it in

chances are that person can make are a more intelligent decision about what he or she needs than and the united states government. and second, as i said here, we are talking about incentives in the marketplace which are based by every economic study onta long-term policies comes, long-term tax policies, long-term regulatory policies and individual small businessmen for example want to know what all will be two, three, fourr years out before they decide to hire a new employee they have to pay taxes for or provide aa health potentially health benefit fora certainly a salary and if they don't think the government policy over the long term isle him going to enable hi tm to continue not going to complete he's not going to in t hire and in the first place. another thing that theplysid e supply-side economics what is is

the worst thing you can do is economi especially in economic downturns is to raise taxes certainly notto on the very employers what count on to hire more workers to hire b out of recession its ng small-business so they are to asking to hire more americans to who would put them back to work for the people who would be impacted by the taxpayers to be cut taxes the president talked about thequote -- other night, he's talking about taxing wealthier americans.at does what does that mean? peopl it means people who make incomes are above $200,000. and if that happens to be the bulk of group that represents the bulk of the small business entrepreneur is an america. 50% of all small business income two ince is paid in the top to income tax rse brackets that the president would raise taxes on so the very people we want to hire more more taxes

workers are going to impose moreect the taxes on and we are going to expect them to hire more to reduce unemployment so that wegreate eco canno have greater economic growth work tha it simply doesn't work that way. and the final point us to the regulations. more and more the presidentt seems to be acknowledging that the runaway regulation of the harm administration is actually job beginning to hire harm business and job creation and this is why he has announced his effort to streamline the regulations and get rid of any that don't work. pro po why he withdrew the proposed the regulation from therecently environmental protection agency a recently that would have had aactn very negative impact on businessnize is beginning to recognize that his administration is a big wet blanket over businesses theseses these days be cause of the burden of yo regulations you cannot stimulate the the economy or job growth withegulatio

the government impose more andess every more costly regulation of the predent set american business every u day. the president said the proposed choice in his speech the other night to do away with these jobsno killing regulations but i will regulat io not do away with the regulations which protect the american nam people from and then he named a litany of test to protect the american people from and ther unsafe food or unsafe products lik e. for little babies or the light we are not talking about that. t we are talking about the issuepages of thousands and thousands ofnth pages of new regulations every a month by this administration.eric and an extraordinary cost of american business w bith very little regard for the cost cost benefit in other words society cos benefits versus the cost of thet regulations imposed on the business. and by the way, when i see thehe cost imposed on business, who p

pays business are the people in andhe the business and consumers and up paying the cost of there regulations which obviously are s again passed on so this is again on the ameri another indirect tax on the b american on a tax in a time like this whether direct or indirect is a good idea because of thee of all of negative impact it has on the job creations of the bottom line of all of thi sth merr.e president is there are two basic theories.s the one theory basically says you can get something for nothing forget where it gets itt and when it gives it to people they will spend and when they spend spend i it whatever they spend it o on the producer has to producehey wil more of those things city have to hire somebody to make more of t them with that's exactly backwards it doesn't work that way way. the supply-side theory first ofoney didt all come to the government free taken had to be taken out of the secr.

private sector they even had to attack somebody said they have a dollar less to spend or it gives an audio deutsch means thataxpayers hav to eventually the taxpayers have to t pay the taxes to repay. n out in either case that is a dollar taken out ofit's the economy. it's a dollar not there in thereneur t private sector for aneone entrepreneur to hire someone something . with or to produce something and say so the supply side economics says let's look at the other side of the equation rather than focusing on the consumption of its focus on productivity, technology, labor and capital can produce more and make active, society more productive more wealthy where more people can have work and have better paying at they jobs or produce a greater value and people are willing to buy it as the result of which they putore more money back into the economyre money b and that is the cycle thatces w produces wealth and that is theeconom growth cycle because economic growth and job creation and wealthcountry now generation in this country forth the

over 200 years that the job growth starts in the private sector and the government doesn't create jobs that money starts with the people, the and taxpayers they generate the pie income and the government gets a piece of that and we have tax belongs t the revenue but the money belongs to the the people, the government and there's no magic when the government somehow gets a dollar in order to redistribute with somebody can buy something withbe it you have to remember where the dollar came from it didn't thin materialize out of thin air it harworkin g started with a hard-working taxpayer that earned the dollar and either pay the to the government in taxes or is paying it in taxes to repay the debt the that the government encourages more to borrow money for the stimulus package. as we think about the proposed stimulus third or fourth i hope stimulus, however you count iteep these now i hope we can keep these economic theories in mind.

there is no free lunch, there istually, e taxpa no free money. and eventually the tax payers or who creates the wealth and joband i creators create the jobs and ifin min we keep those principles in mind i think that we will look a little bit more skeptical on the we notion that we can somehowation target job creation with yet another stimulus bill and that's going to get us out of our economic woes now. if my colleagues will keep the principles in mind i think we mind, i will make wise decisions andecisions prevent the country from goingm g even deeper into debt and try tond try focus on the long term so the that business can actually make decisions based on the long term rather thinking rather than based upon the ephemeral effect of the short term stimulus

iding ofcer: w it the speeches are about 25resident minutes. >> mr. president, last month dhaka your i economic news is the call to urgent action to get american working again. pduced in august the nation produced no

net new jobs. productivity fell home sales fell, construction spending fell. the manufacturing and debt declined. unemployment is stagnant at 9.1%, and consumer confidence is crea a plummeting. the nation's job creators in deed are getting a lasting been sayin economic growthg have been sayingt for some time that the lack off jobs is largely due to the climate of uncertainty no notably the uncertainty and the costed created by new federal regulations.

could provide job readers with a sensible breeder from these burdensome new regulations. to g this wouetld give businesses time ft, to get back on their feet, to create the jobs that americans desperately need and enhance the global competitiveness of mak american workers let me make clear we also need to reform the fo process for issuing the regulations i proposed the kerb at with clearing unnecessary act regulatory voting. the kerb at would require to nefits of examine benefits of the proposedm rules prohibit them from

attempting to set rules for the document circumventing the public notice comment period andf to provide f businesses withrk relief from first-time paperwork h ar violations when senators barrasso and roberts entered using those bills.sure indeed, mr. president, as i am sure you are aware many of our ne colleagues have recognized the regul need to reform the regulatory process and have introduced their own proposal.airs the homeland security and the governmental affairs committeehr ee have already held free hearings year, on the regulatory reform this issue wi year, and i expect this issue will be a priority for us this

fall. mr. president, the fact is our economy cannot wait for congress to complete an overhaul of the w regulatory process. j if we want to create more jobs, we must act now. we must send a clear signal to the job creators that we have why heard them.ve that is why i believe we must have a timeout from anyave significant new regulation that impac would have an adverse impact on o jobs the economy or ourl compet international competitiveness. under my bill no significant final rule that would have an haven adverse impact could go into one-

ye effect during a one-year moratorium. rules this time out cover major rules 00 mil costing more than $100 million per year and other rules that had been considered as execu significant under the executive orders going back to president clinton and followed byt george w. president george w. bush and p president obama. an exa mr. president, let me give you be an example of a rule that would t be by the moratorium i amy proposing to read a rule thatefinitio would be covered by thisn t definition as the epa's boiler will. i'm sure that the presidinge. officer is familiar with this role.one r this oneeg regulation if it werely fully implemented could costf

employers in maine alone hundreds of millions of dollars. f inac fact as "the wall street reporte journal" has recently reported, a job study just released showse mack that the bill along with otherack pending regulation could cost 36 36 paper mills around the country to actually close putting more o w than 20000 americans out of work. that is 18% of the industry's s ho work force. that shows you the terrible can impact that excessive regulation can have on the job preservation and job creation and that's just for starters.

once these mills close, thed also businesses that supply them would also be forced to lay off workers. estimates that nearly 90,000 americans would lose their jobs wages would drop by $4 billion and government at all levels would see the revenues declined by a staggering 1.3 billion. alon that's why, mr. president, alana but senator ron wyden i've introduced a bill that 24 of ourh sides ofhe colleagues on both sides of theo- all have already co-sponsored. been our bill has been endured by 292dividual impleader organizations and individualusinesses. businesses.

292 businesses and organizations representing the employers. how that shows you just how worriedut our job creators are about the impact about their roles.of their letters sums up the impact of the role played and it says these rules place at risk tens of thousands of high-payingn cnot manufacturing jobs that our nation cannot afford to lose. i ask unanimous consent thatseme thisnt l endorsement letter and "thelighti wall street journal" articlenghe highlighting the job study be the printed in the record at the the conclusion of my remarks.em ..the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president the boiler regulation are exactly the kind of significant rules

that my regulatory time-out act is intended to reach. the moratorium applies to rules issued by independent regulatory agencies such as the national labor relations board, as well as executive branch departments. the impact of the regulatory burden under president obama can be the impact of the regulatory burden under president obama can colag be seen in the pages of ther federal register. as my colleagues know, the federal register is the publication for all federal regulations. last year alone, the federal 82,6 register expanded by nearly und 82,600 pages a level higher

than any year under president bush. the worse yet, the obamast administration has 144 rules in the pipeline that would each cost to the economy at least tt $100 million. this is nearly twice as high as the number of such rules that were in the pipeline each year m of the bush administration. now, mr. president, let me clarify that the legislation i am at proposing exempts those rules that are needed in emergencies such as the eminent threats to public health or safety as well as rules that are necessary to enforce ourn criminal laws and with respect to military or foreign affairs so i think it is important that

i put that on the record. itor also accepts rules that would reduce theec regulatory burden inity order to help the private sector create jobs and boost the ability of american workers to compete. unfortunately, those rules that actually reduceew regulatory burdens and promote jobs are few and far between. finally mr. president my bill requires that within 10 days of passage o agencies and departments must submit to congress and to the office of management and budget the list of rules that they believe are m exempt from the one yearbe moratorium. that is important to make surehe that the intent of the law would be followed and that congress

and the administration can exercise appropriate oversight. mr. president, the intent of mycert bill is to lift the cloud of uncertainty that is causing employers to be cautious and to refrain from creating jobs. jobs that our economy desperately needs.he mr. president, during the august recess, i asked employers throughout the great state of maine, what it would take to encourage them to add jobs? to a person, no matter what line of business these employers were in noce matter what the size ofeplied their workforce each one of them replied that washington needed to stop imposing crushing

new regulations that these job creators needed stable progrowth economic policies, that they needed an end to the uncertainty that was hampering their decision-making.ndor i am pleased that the regulatory timeout act has been endorsed by by the nation's nations largest small-businessma advocacy group, and by the small business and the b entrepreneurship council.d, my bill is also been welcomed by the u.s. chamber of commerce, which has stated quote, american businesses need immediate relief, and a timeout would allow for regulators and the regulated to take abe deepnd

breath and ensure that regulations are not destroying jobs and economic growth. mr. president, i agree completely. i would ask that the letters from the nfib and the fdic and the statement by the chamber c of commerce all be printed in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. >> without objection. >> mr. president, i am honored to have the following colleagues asregu co-sponsors of this one-year regulatory moratorium. senators alexander grosso boozman chambliss, coats coburn, cornyn copeland, hutchison, isakson, kyl, moran and then.lleahe

mr. president, i urge all of our colleagues to support theegulor regulatory timeout act which is are a critical step towards easing the regulatory uncertainty andns costs that are keeping our job creators from getting americans back to work. thank you mr. president.eard >> mr. president, we all hope h heard thisis president's speech from the joint sessions of was congress last week about his proposal to bring forward a jobs bill that was released this an morning and the president indicated that he wanted to take his case to the people. and i'm glad he is doing so. i hope that as he travels abouthe the country, i think he will be hearing what many of us heard during the august recess when welked t were back at home. as they travel across the state of indiana and talk to people from all different categories of

work engagement small to medium to large businesses, homeowners, other constituents one thing came through loud and clear, ando that was i needed to listen to i them more than they needed to listen to me. what was on their mind i hope isobs what the president will beecau hearing as he travels across the country to talk about his jobsthe plan because j clearly on the lack minds of the american people was the jobs and the lack of jobs for many who werene struggling through a very very difficult time of unemployment. that students are graduating from college with noro place to pe go.la o people in -- were being laid off or terminated. unable to find new work. clearly we have a jobs crisis in this country. it has lasted now for some time.

we have been in a deept. recession hopefully pulling out of that but the latest indicators are that things are pretty stagnant and in factin thet is t latest facet -- facts that cameur forward in the august report was that our job growth growt is zero and our economy growth is here this year andd s therefore grow -- job l growth is zero so we have got some work to do. so we need to look carefully at the proposal the resident brought forth but again getting back to the central.i'm trying to make what he will hear i believe from the american people, at liesyl he that if he stops in indiana is that there is a great cloud of uncertainty hanging over the future and because of that, people are holding backnd and spending, businesses are holding back onri hiring.denc and, there certainly is not the a confidence and we have seen that confidence indicator drop and drop and drop. confidence in the future that we can have our act together and we are pulling out of this recession,wille that we can look forward to a

brighter tomorrow because the economy will be growing and will be adding morety r people. that uncertaintyac results from a number of factors.but clearly, we have been in a downturn and we are trying to climb out of that clearly also there is uncertainty about what policies will be coming out offfect washington that will affect thecoem job creators and will affect consumers and will affect others as they contemplate decisionsoduc regarding how to go forward whether it is spending or whether it is producing. one of those key indicators is the uncertainty over what tax inc code will bring regarding the taxing of profits or income or indna revenue that comes intoit america's companies. and i would like to highlight one of those because it is important for the state of

indiana but i think it also essti makes the larger.. there are industries that can beovidg very much an essential part of our future that can and are providing for essential good employment at higher than average wages at goodlo skill levels, that holds a lot of potential for our exporting successfully overseas as well as providing necessary product our here. one of those industries is st centrally located in indiana. in fact one of our topry industries and particularly in the industry with significant growth over the last ius decade or so or more, that is the medical device industry. and yet the medical device industry because of its success car was targeted during thehis formation of the health care plan that was proposed by the president and pass by this congress in the last session.ustr that will impose a tax increase on the medicalatio device industry,

even though they did not have a direct relationship to what was trying to be accomplished in the obamacare medical plan. here is an industry that is a indu world leader for the united united states as a world leader in the industry that brings in substantial revenue, has seen a significant increase in growth and holds great potential forors the future, and yet because there was a looking for pay-fors for the health care plan, they so looked at the administration atas an industry and basically said we can draw some taxes and provide some revenues. their proposal was to achieve thr $40 billion over a period ofgh time all of which would go to help pay for the health care plan. now that was reduced through an amendment, through negotiations,it was t to $20 billion. nevertheless it should have neverhe been put put on the plate

in the first place. it was there for a revenue raiser didn't have anything to do withying a particular plan thatorld's was trying to provide revenues to implement the health care plan. now in indiana, we have one of the world's leaders in development of medicalweave technologies that enhances and saves the lives of hoosiers in patients around the world. wemanufact have more than 300 fda 28, registered medical device manufacturers employing 20,000 indiana hoosiers rackley and another 28,000 indirect way. es theree are more than 400,000 workers employed nationwide by this industry. these are jobs that pay on i average 41% higher wages than the state wage rate in indiana. medical device managing has been a thriving and i might just list some of those. states such as californiaylvani

florida, illinois,nd ilu massachusetts, minnesota, new jersey, new york ohiohi pennsylvania texas wisconsin and including my states i of indiana could suffer more job losses if come this tax is allowed to go into effect. in by fact a study that has come efft out produced byof the advanced medical technology association analyzedax the potential effect of the health care laws onesult employment in the medical device industry and i quote from that report. 4 under reasonable assumptions, a the attacksnd could result in job i losses in excess of 43,000 workers and employment compensation losses in excess of $3.5 billion. that would be a devastating blow. to the industry and of course to many many local economies. beyond that i have met with these device o manufacturers on

numerous occasions, andiana essentially what they have said to me is we like working hereaxed in indiana. we like the productivity that we are getting but if we continue to be taxed and regulated to the'r point where we are no longere competitive at selling our product worldwide, we are going to have to take a serious look at moving our production overseas.ut they said we don't want to do this.erstd we want to stay here. we want -- but we need to be competitive because you have to to understand a lot of our revenue comes from exporting overseas and of course this is what wee want to encourage.t a trade balance has always been a deficit in the more we can export the more we have cutting-edge industries that can export enhanced products to overseas customers the better our own own economic situation will be here at home. and so at a time when 14 million americans are looking for work, a

and at a time when our country has suffered through 31 consecutive months of unemployment above 8% i think we need to take a close look at the job creators in our countryhem and determine whether or not taxation or regulation that is beingo imposed on them as havinger a dramatic impact and our ability to utilize these industries to provide more jobshang for more employment or whether it is just having the opposite effect and the people i have talked tonato have said it is having the opposite effect.al whe senator hatch has introduced a bill to repealit this tax. it is controversial when it was first brought forward and i think the congress ought to take a look at this. if we want to provide some job creating opportunities in america, we need to look at the taxes and regulations that are stifling this growth, this ability to hire more people. so i have been proud to sponsor senator hatch's legislation to

repeal that excise tax. it will as they said, benefitrage many states and provide many jobs and prevent jobs fromtion leaving her go so i encourage my colleagues to join his commonsense legislation and repeal the tax on medical devices.armf if we want to spur economic stiflin growth, it is time we take a is closer look at the harmful impacts of the policies which are stifling growth and this is one industry and i hope to highlight more in the future but one industry that clearly is being penalized for being job successful and it is hurting our economy and it is hurting ournt ability to provide job growth.ric i wish the president well and i hope he listened intently. i hope he hears the same rhetoric that i have o heard as iou have traveled around the state of indiana and other parts ofha the country. i believe that the conclusion is inevitable and that is taxation and

regulation and policies coming out of washington ring uncertainty to the marketplace and uncertainty in the marketplace affects consumer confidence and it affects the confidence and those job t creators and employers who are frozen in m time waiting to see w how all thisha is going to turn payr out fearful of hiring more people because they don't know what the impact is going to be tt on their payroll and on their a expenses waiting for the next regulation to come down that might impact their business in athe next negative way.on weth need certainty coming out of washington, not uncertainty.e i'mla hoping mr. president over the next two or three months here as congress works to o come together with a sensible plan to deal with our deficit, we can enact in that plan and communicate to the american people that we have good plans for the future in terms of howomy bk toon deal with our deficit and that we can bring some certainty

to the future and get our economy back on the right track. with that mr. president, i will yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

>> to discuss border security since the september 11 attacks. si theye talked about the 9/11 commission's recommendations and what else needs to be done. from the woodrow wilson center this is an hour. >> good morning from the woodrow wilson center in washington d.c..orning f i am robert litwak the vice president for probe grams and we welcome those in attendance here today as well as those watching on c-span. the wilson center was established th by c-span. the wilson center was established by congress belief that an informed open and civil dialogue will lead to better

and every kind to address the major challenges in the united states and have their views tested in a rich program of events open to the public. today, as the nation marks the 10th anniversary this september 11 2001 terrorist attacks on new york and washington will address the vital challenges of border security since 9/11 and three conversation with three commissioners of u.s. customs and border protection. i did my note our neighbors here in the ronald reagan building. we will examine the consolidated border security into one cbp in 2003 and out the rest of the nation's homeland have evolved over the last decade. in sponsoring today's event, the woodrow wilson center is delighted to be partnering with the history programs that documents the history and work at cbp and educate the public direct submissions, publications and programs such as today's

event. let me introduce our distinguished panel. robert bonner was confirmed as commissioner of u.s. customs service one week after the attacks on 9/11. surely thereafter as part of the homeland security of your organization, he was appointed the first commissioner of u.s. customs and border protection, the unified order agency within the department of homeland security. mr. bonner, who is second on my left leftist former head of the drug enforcement administration is a federal district judge in los angeles. ralph basham became commissioner in 2006, after a long career in law enforcement, including serving as head of the secret service and his chief of staff for the transportation security administration where he designed and implemented the federal government takeover of security operations in airports nationwide. on my far left alan bersin was committed customs border

protection by president of him in 2010 and a served as assistant secretary for international affairs and border affairs at the department of homeland security as well as california secretary of education. leading today's conversation is one of the countries preeminent specialists on terrorism, bruce hoffman, professor at georgetown university's school of foreign service and director of the university center for peace and security studies. he's a former vice president of the rand corporation come as a resident for counterterrorism at the central intelligence agency and is author of the now classic book, incite terrorism. he is also my dad a scholar at the woodrow wilson center where he cochairs are ongoing terrorism and homeland security for an eared professor hoffman will initiate today's conversation with commissioners and after 25 minutes or so, we'll open it up to questions from the floor. with that brief introduction, an attorney for two bruce hoffman to my immediate left. thank you bruce.

>> thank you rod. what an extraordinary privilege to distribute these gentlemen today and to have the honor of engaging in discussion. i think we all know security and especially counterterrorism is an evolutionary process and of course were thankful to have the three commissioners of cpb here today to also underscore how it is also an injury process. i thought we might begin this discussion by asking them in sequence that they served what were the gaps in our security, on our borders, and immigration that they had to address immediately upon assuming office and how they address and in what turned the main challenges and office were. if i can start with you mr. bonner. >> is pointed out, is literally reported for duty so to speak and washington on september 10, 2001. have i been burned yet. it is essentially serving as a consultant to the secretary of

the treasury, when the attacks -- the terrorist attacks occurred in washington. and one of the very first things that i approved has been the acting commissioner was to go to the highest level security alert at our nation's ports of entry that our borders. and i think if nothing else, it became apparent there were huge gaps. first of all the first recognition i had and it was on the morning of 9/11 was that we had to essentially traumatically change the priority mission of the united states customs service says one of the principal border agencies of our country. we had to change it from the interdiction of contraband in the regulation of trade to a national security mission. that was a priority mission to preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the united states. so that much of a century before

the morning and there, it occurred to me as it did to probably everybody else at the u.s. customs service that we have to change our priority mission. the results of going to level one alert was sent over the next day or two i found out that it probably was the second commissioner of customs to have actually shut down our nation's borders because there are too virtually 100% inspection of all people in vehicles and trucks and cargo containers coming into the united states. and the reality was that the wait times at the canadian border, for example, the major ports of entry at detroit and buffalo and so forth the wait times went from an average of 10 minutes to get a tractor-trailer truck for somebody driving a passenger vehicle across the border to 12 hours literally overnight. so that's when the second realization came to me sometime on the second or third or fourth

day after 9/11. and that is of course needed to ratchet up security given the threats of global terrorism to the united states. but we have to do it in a way without choking off the trade and travel. we have to do it without shutting down our country's economy. so essentially that meant developing what i very often called the twin goals. and the twin goals are to provide a level of security that makes it extraordinarily difficult for terrorists or terrorist weapons to get into the united states but do that without stanching the flow of legitimate trade and travel. and what we found out and working with some really extraordinary people at the u.s. customs service and the customs and border protection is that those things are not mutually exclusive. if you put into place the right programs and initiatives which returned, not immediately, but

took some time to do this that you could actually provide a dramatic -- dramatic increase in security terms of both people and goods moving into the united states. but at the same time do it in some cases faster and more efficiently than we were before 9/11. that meant putting into place partnerships at the trade customs trade partnership being a prime example, putting into place partnerships with other countries around the world the security initiative where we stationed officers and risk managed targeted high risk cargo containers at foreign seaports before they moved to the u.s. seaports we put that into place partnerships of other countries. we mandated advance information on every person and every cargo shipment, whether cargo containers, tracks, real and so forth in advance so we would be able to essentially evaluate the

very small fragment represented a potential risk and make sure we are giving scrutiny and protection to does. on the other hand most of those which didn't present a risk will be able to facilitate and move them through more quickly across our ports of entry into our borders. we also obviously put into place a heck of a letter to allergy. talk about gaps, customs did have large-scale nii nonintrusive inspection technology large scale x-ray for tractor-trailer trucks. every single one of those is at the southern border with exit code and essentially because of the drug issue had nothing at the northern border. everything had to be physically inspected. leaving aside my enemy with nothing in our nation's seaports, so we expanded the use of type knowledge he to all of our ports of entry so that when we decided that they needed to be looked at when something

needed to be infected because they pose particularly terrorist risk, they were able to do it faster and more efficiently than actually taking a look and physically inspect in a container. we also established radiation portal at every entry in the united states. it's amazing by the way and a real tribute to a lot of people in this room and some who weren't were able to roll that out so that now every car truck cargo container, every single one goes through radiation portal monitors in terms of potentially detecting against the worst kind of terrorist weapon, which is a weapon of mass destruction. so there are lots of issues to deal with, i can assure you. but we did put into place i would say five key initiatives that are interrelated that allowed us to be able to risk manage this process in a way by

the way that other agencies were unable to. this is an important point. we were able to do this without congressional mandates. in other words, we were able to ask a question, how do we do this? what is the smartest way to do this and terms of partaking against a terrorist threat without shutting off trade and travel into the united states? i think we came up with some very sound solutions that my successors here have built upon no doubt about it. we put into place the important building blocks to secure our country, to secure it against further potential terrorist acts and potential asymmetrical attacks on the united states, the cia and the military actually went on the attack overseas. >> well, mr. basham commute took over in 2608 threads had involved seriously, what were

the challenges you face? >> thank you. i'm going to give my time to commissioner trent drape. [laughter] >> as always. last night's >> actually, i have to say when i was approached to be considered to be the commissioner here at cbp, i was the director of the secret service and somewhat of a daunting responsibility. .. when i arrived i had already had a foundation to work from, tremendous staff. i can tell you, can't imagine

doing it without the people in this room, and their efforts. but blood and building on what mr. bonner had done i looked at what i thought needed attention, and the very first thing that ias recognized was we had to build a confident, capable intelligence of the process. way to not concentrate our incredible resources on the 99.9% of the people and of the things they were coming into the country. so creating -- we have to be an intelligence driven organization. we just couldn't get it done in my opinion any other way so one of my first efforts was to create and build a more robust intelligence process. and secondly, my concern, and i

know commissioner boehner's concern before me coming in by sure commissioner person after of one of my biggest concerns was an inside threat to read all of the incredible efforts that had been put into place by this agency following 9/11 could be brought down by the efforts of one person who decided to not perform their functions or mission and whether it's drugs or illegal aliens or just someone coming here to find a job or a terrorist we could not allow that threat to bring us down and so we created and built a more and robust internal affairs office which mr. tom check in the room has done a fantastic job not that we didn't

have our issues but then a third, building upon the commissioners's efforts upon this partnership i knew from my years in the secret service that you can't get this job done alone i don't care how big you are, how well funded it takes working together and not just with our foreign partners but even with the departure of homeland security, building upon the incredible efforts that were going on around the department i thought we needed to work more closely with our partners here as well as overseas so that's what i tried to focus on and in my time here and i can just tell you what i see out there today, you know, in comparison to what it was on september 10th, 2001 is just awesome and the

foundation that you laid that i believe we are a much safer, not save that much safer nation today, and i was very happy to turn this job over to commissioner bersin when i left so you were in good hands as allstate would say. estimate your problem or challenges today go beyond just terrorism but the violence that is now escalated across the border to see things in the united states and i wonder if he can discuss what your challenges are, what you have addressed and what your plans are for your priorities. >> this is a terrific opportunity in the presence of much of the family. [inaudible] sounds like a family. [laughter] to acknowledge colleagues who

are now trusted friends to acknowledge the efforts of -- is this mine who? [inaudible] [laughter] >> to acknowledge their efforts in leading the people inside this room and outside the room and building an institution that is charged with border protection. extraordinary to think that in the ten years since 9/11 eight years since the dhs was stood up that we are the border management agency that has ever been created and actually close to the world history that takes the traditional functions clearance immigration admissibility agricultural

inspection and created a joint management under the rubric of the national security and it was a massive alteration and the every entrance to govern the border they were written history and in the real political dynamics that could not have been reversed absent the kind of cataclysmic change the was created in the week of 9/11. since this base of the ten years we've created and cbp is at the forefront of this the whole notion of the homeland. americans were never comfortable with the notion or the concept of the homeland. we were as the commissioner reminded us in the sidebar we were protected by the two

massive motions with the neighbors there were friendly to the north and canada to the south and mexico. we haven't fought the war with our neighbors in the case of canada since the 18th century and with mexico since the middle of the 19th century. so we had no concept of homeland security. our borders were relatively open. we didn't think in terms of borders and suddenly particularly since the violation, 9/11 among other things was a genuine violation and an invasion of the country and in violation of our borders. so we needed to think about border protection as a doctor, homeland security as an enterprise and we started to do that. and what i see our job the leadership of the cbp today

building on this foundation that the commissioners have fled before and we start to think of them in terms of not only the lines on the map that defied one country from another but we see the borders as actually beginning where the cargo is deleted in the port of shanghai when a passenger gets on the plane on the way to the united states that's where the borders began and the challenges that we face in terms of securing the flow of goods and people toward the homeland developing a doctrine of homeland security as a species of national security has involved this concept of advanced information which has been analyzed and risk assessed and then we attempt to segment the traffic so that we can use

hour scarce resources of the last line of defense, which is actually the physical port of entry the 330 land ports around the country but our work must begin far in advance. i think what i would say in terms of the gaps that we are exposed in the work that we've done is we learn both with the abdulmutallab case in christmas 09 and in the cargo plot from yemen in october 10 that we really did need to do much more of our work we needed to enlist time and space as allies in ways the we hadn't been able to do before because after all yes cbp officers have identified abdulmutallab as someone who would have been referred to secondary and perhaps

admissibility of upon and a rival in detroit and yes the cargo would have been identified for inspection coming from yemen pursuant to various search engines that we have in operation, but in both cases that would have been too late. the northwest airlines flight would have blown up over detroit, and the ups and fedex plane would have blown up over chicago had the terrorists had their way. so this idea of securing the flow away and using the tools that the predecessors provided but taking them to the next level has been a major focus. in the actual physical wine and yes has been a major element from the beginning of cdp with an accent in the leadership of the commissioner the notion

that the border needed to be brought under the control actually the border with mexico is in the project of the 20 year effort beginning in the early 1990's, and i think what will become apparent over the next year, professor hoffman is that the last chapter in the first phase is about to end in arizona, though to we can secure the border, not see licht, not shut it down but secured it is underway as a result of the magnificent effort and the 10% of cdp. 6,000 people are in arizona serving at the ports of entry in the air and on the ground between the ports of entry and the progress is remarkable and known to those who watch it closely but seem to be known by the american people.

we will then enter a new phase on the land border but one that will likely involve the same tools and information collection, intelligence gathering analysis and risk-management applied to both the land borders as well as the securing of the goods and people coming to us. >> going back to sort of one of the biggest impact of 9/11 on border security was the creation of a unified or a single border agency for the first time in the history of the country, and as allen said the first time in the history of the world we brought together in the customs and the border protection this new agency. we brought together the men and women from the different agencies of the government is then attached to the three different cabinet departments

into one unified border agency and consolidated and merged the people and the functions and the legal authorities that the agencies brought to bear so that we get a comprehensive and effective effort particularly against the priority mission of preventing the terrorist weapons from entering the united states but that was an extraordinarily important change and i would submit that the unified border agency, customs and border protection is probably the best idea that came out of the homeland security reorganization because it has made us more effective and actually more efficient as well in terms of how we manage the border. before 9/11, he went to a port of entry. there were free port directors. one was in charge of immigration, one was in charge of customs and agriculture inspections with people working under them but were e.

essentially doing the same kinds of functions which is inspecting people and goods coming into the united states and so so this idea of creating a unified border agency which we have done is indeed a good government idea but also has made us more effective against the priority counterterrorism mission that we have had. i just know how i look at the time that there were seven independent studies conducted the nixon administration that had recommended the unification merger of the border agencies and unfortunately it took the worst terrorist attack in the history of the world to make it happen but it has happened and it has made our country safer and has made the management more efficient in the ability to do things like pushed the border of words essentially set up the border isn't the first one in defense. >> we need to move very soon to

open the floor to questions so let me ask one more question to all three of you. i'm going to ask into parts. first the 9/11 commission a number of recommendations were improving the security of the united states to prevent another tragedy like 9/11 and of course one of their aspects was on improving border security. i wonder if you could describe what you think as being the most important initiative taken by the cbp to both fulfill the 9/11 mandate on the recommendations and then finally before we open up the floor to questions you can say something about what concerns you the most looking as the terrorist threat continues to evolves that we will face in the future. >> probably the most important things and these are consistent with recommendations to the 9/11 commission, one was the ability to easily get advanced electronic information for every

person and every cargo shipment moving towards the united states. it was building the national targeting center which we did and using an automated targeting system with strategic intelligence and analysis to identify those people and the cargo shipments that might pose a potential risk and then using the resources and ability to question people and powers and authorities to deny admission and essentially by the way denied the ability of the cargo container in singapore to the united states if we are concerned about but also able to inspect it overseas. the last two things the were very important is and i can't stress enough is the partnering with the trade which is the private sector which owns and operates the supply chain through the customs trade

partnership on terrorism to get essentially the private sector to improve which they dramatically have done the security of the supply chain literally from a foreign loading docks all the way to the united states to meet the standards cbp as part of the program and in the partnership with other nations that have been diluted to which canada and mexico but also other nations in terms of essentially getting their cooperation and assistance and inspecting not only containers but we have also people oversees international airports that we can intervene before people actually board airplanes for the united states if we have serious security concerns about them. but i think those are consistent with the recommendation of the 9/11 commission we've put a lot of this in place before the 9/11 commission but i think they endorsed what we've done a thing

to be concerned about now actually deferred to the commissioner bersin with the current level of concerns that include at least according to the public reporting in "washington post" today for some specific information against a potential terrorist attack in new york or washington so i will defer to mr. bersin on that question to the estimate in terms of the 9/11 commission recommendations, of course we were a part of that, we were all of that initiatives but in terms of the mandate to secure the borders that in my mind sort of got out of proportion. if you recall some time around the time that i became the

commissioner there was a huge focus on immigration reform integrated immigration reform but because they were not able to succeed in that the focus became we have to seal our borders and cdp, we want you to go down and build the 2,000 miles of the census. you can't just pick up the phone and call and have them come out. [laughter] which we all knew that that wasn't the answer, that wasn't the solution. it was more than just technical infrastructure, it was a level of staffing on the ground. i remember i had a trip with the speaker of the time i forget

exactly where but he kept insisting to me that the only way to secure the border is to build a sense and i insisted that wasn't the answer and secretary napolitano told me if you build a 10-foot fence been hit and the latter which is absolutely correct so we were down on the border driving along one day and saw this penitentiary there in arizona and had a chain-link fence barbwire and he said that's what we need right there across the entire border. i said with all due respect no. so we spent three days on the border, visited the border patrol, the ports of entry visited the incredibly difficult terrain and at the end of the three days having gotten briefings from these marvelous people come he stood up in front of a camera and a press conference and said what we need

down here is a three-pronged approach. we need technology and capital and infrastructure and a direct level of people and was the most destructive thing for us at that time and challenge the congress for making decisions never understanding with the challenges were to read and we were chasing our tail of literally trying to keep up with these mandates that somehow we accomplish it. we build 670 miles of the defense and hire thousands of border patrol agents and the great efforts of these folks i will pass the buck over to the current commissioner. the adversaries are focused and fascinated by the aviation but we have a challenge out there on the maritime of the general

aviation the we don't yet have and we need to get better control of that. imagine the uss coley event in the port of los angeles. that is why i was very happy to turn this responsibility over to the commissioner bersin [laughter] is a mumbai-style attack. >> but the simplicity of pulling something like that off and the consequences are absolutely devastating to the economy and the country. how many ships were backed up? >> 45% of the containers that come to the united states annually come to the point of

long beach which is one part so it would be massively destructive but i also worry about a mumbai attack but we now have the commissioner bersin. [laughter] >> i don't know that this would be the royte study for me to share exactly what keeps me a bad night. [laughter] we actually need to be concerned with not fighting less war but the classic state that is made in history that we should attempt to avoid and i really want, we do have vulnerabilities and there are gaps of the small boats and we've made enormous gains in terms of general aviation and the security of that process. but there are other areas when he of the protection of the threats where we will continue to improve.

as we have unfolded the doctrine of homeland security and border protection the 9/11 commission was extraordinary in terms of its analysis of the problem and then the congress in the way in which our system of government operates the congress has legislated and as the commissioner indicated and not disrespectfully the congress operates with a very broad and lo and i think what we've learned of cbp and dhs generally advice to take the initiative to anticipate these problems and to take action and the exhibit offer for the proposition is something that is ongoing now and will become more and more featured in the homeland security efforts which is partnership with as the commissioner indicated a new level in the private sector.

we cannot actually accomplish this goal without being in partnership with private sector and given their involvement the private supply chain travel after the mccardle plot of 2010 we started to address it in a way we hadn't before which is from day one we broke the private sector into the discussion and rather than designing and mandating an approach to security we actually coke created it in the case of the express carriers to deal with and the best way in which to build and share information sweden protect against the use of the express carrier network for the terrorist purposes. i believe that would become the model in which we do this and it's basically through that mechanism that we would overcome

a dichotomy that we need to overcome in the next decade. we always recognized within those outside baseball and inside cbp have recognized it because i think we need to make this much more a stable knowledge of the part of the american people which is the security are not mutually exclusive not only are the exclusive and enough ethical to one another without we at cbp increasingly believe that they are the same process that in fact we cannot increase our security profile unless we expect a 99.5% of the trade and travel that is legitimate so that we can focus our resources on the dangerous people and the dangerous things with a high risk cargo and high-risk persons

and we can have both economic security and competitiveness can a physical national security is a very important idea that we are leaving at cbp in the building on a very distinguished foundation. >> following on that point, if you think about, and commissioner boehner mengin beverley iran it was taking 12 hours to get a container across the borders did not care how we attack us but it is flying planes in the buildings are blowing up subways or destroying the economy. they force us to not strike the balance of of security and facilitation of legitimate trade and travel they have one and we just cannot tolerate that. >> we have about 20 minutes for questions so if you could please

stand up and keep your questions brief and identify yourself and your institutional affiliation if any. yes, sir. >> i'm with of the national defence magazine. for the commissioner can we talk about the future you mentioned scarce resources, the prognosis is they are going to get scarce. what are you planning as far as i guess the current divesting some of the things put in place in the last ten years? are you looking at reducing the number of border patrol agents and man .. thank you. >> having created the first joint border management agency that has ever existed i would say that over the last eight years the corporate merger dimensions of that enterprise and accomplished in terms of

bringing together the four agencies of the department's and they did the mission integration and there are agencies we can reinvest in the trade security and border security and securing a flow of goods and functions that we serve on the mission sense, yes, we will be not doubling in size but i believe that we have reached a sworn force just under 46,000 men and women at the front line of the ports and between the ports and the consequence of the delivery systems that we now employed i think we will be able to increase without significant

additional growth. that growth is not restored budget wise but i don't think it means we will be able to make important investments in our people and in our technology and re-engineering of the way we do business. >> i am the representative to the united american states. thank you wilson center for the discussion and to all the panelists to remember a date that is not only for your country but for the whole world. my question first for the concept of the multi dimensional security not only the traditional threats like the war and terrorism but when you develop your strategy of the border protection do you think it is a consideration problem that is no longer in the terms of the problems like the

universal problems of the gang activity and the national trafficking persons of miners and that type of challenge to security because the border country has enjoyed with [inaudible] >> one of the things of the priority was the terrorist threat that all of these systems and process these that we put into place in partnerships apply and can apply to any kind of threat whether that is the movement of illegal drugs and and the i.t. staff issues, and i believe that as we have moved forward in time cbp has made and is making good progress in terms of using this risk management

essentially system to better identify and reduce the haystack with respect to other issues that are more traditional burba of customs and immigration control. >> if you observed cbp as a single threat organization that wouldn't really be a fair representation. as the commissioner said you know, this is all threats. the men and women on the border have no idea what is coming at them. so they've got to be prepared. they have to have evidence to information. the ports of entry, someone driving a car can represent any type of threat. we want to change this one from terrorism and check this one from drugs and human trafficking that's just not the way for

word and so the information, the processing of the information, the actual intelligence that comes out of information that is what a screen to help us succeed in this mission. cdp is responsible for all threats of the border, and it should be seamless and recognized. >> terrorism is a species of the transnational crime and when you see all of this in the context of the trends nationalism you begin to understand why you have to see these interrelated problems and it focuses on the fact we need to build a partnership and gather the intelligence and is using the multi dimensional risk and threat what we think that cbp

and the reason we adopt the strategy is yes our primary obligations since 9/11 is to stop the terrorist weapons from coming into the nation. these are flow probably catastrophic consequence events we have to avoid and we believe that by developing our capacity to intercept all kinds of transnational criminal the activity and we put ourselves into the position to the will to do with a low probability, the catastrophic consequences we treat dangerous people and dangerous things away from the american public. >> to of the dumbest things i was presented with one eye was the commissioner was to build a 2,000-mile cents and second was to inspect every maritime container coming into the country before it left the point

of origin which would totally shut down the world trade. yet the commissioner here is still under that mandate. [inaudible] [laughter] >> i'm not pointing. [laughter] >> commissioner boehner referred to expanding the security envelope of the united states beyond our own borders to whatever distance possible abroad. i would like to hear commissioner bersin's comments on how we're doing that specifically with regards to

mexico at this time. >> it is authentically historic and for the first time in the history of the bilateral relationship we actually view the problems that we face of the border as the common problems we point fingers of the mexicans for not being able to employ their people or for harboring organized criminal gangs that bring drugs across the border. mexicans pointed up the guns were out of control in this country and that the drugs were being consumed at rates that were beyond anything seen in human history that we were

responsible for the bombs of the border. what's happened in the last decade but increasingly in the last two or three years in particular is we recognize the flow of the people coming north and the cash going out are actually part of one single vicious cycle of criminology and that's provided us with the ability of the political space for the president obama and called around to actually take a genuinely coordinated and collaborative effort to deal with the problems of organized crime in mexico. seeing that crime is being a national security threat not only to mexico but to the united states as well and the cooperative activity respected sovereignty as it should be respected has gone beyond anything that would have been contemplated a decade ago so

that we see ourselves as very much involved in this but in a way that respects the mexican sovereignty and remarkably the mexican people appreciate that involvement with the distance between them maintained in the respect in the process of the collaboration pure kucinich yes sir second row in the end. >> my question as did with the southwest border. everything i read is in the mexican side of the southwest border and it's never been more insecure and violent and on the u.s. side of the southwest border along the border we've never been safer and more secure

commendable goal law enforcement in the southwest also confirmed that. however, there are certain politicians we spoke about and a product of this institution and claim that all of these facts are not fact they are wrong and not secure on the southwest border on our side what are the facts that show? >> that's ambassador jones i work with in the various capacities to read jim, as you know the notion that there has been a spillover violence from mexico into the u.s. is greatly exaggerated. there's been practically virtually no spillover violence from what is going on in mexico into the united states as witness to the fact killed casseaux and san diego are among the safest cities in terms of crime in the united states. nevertheless, of course there's a very difficult battle going on

in mexico that is being courageously faced by president calderon and in the institutional reforms that he has put into place to to be able to easily defeat and eliminate the powerful drug cartels of mexico, and i know that the commissioner bersin and cdp as well as other agencies to the united states government are playing a collaborative role in supporting the mexican government to achieve that objective and in fact much better progress has been made by the calderon government against the they're beginning to have serious impact in destabilizing and eroding the power and the influence and the grip of the cartel's over the legitimate institutions of the mexican government in my opinion. islamic i would like to say we can't lose sight of the fact the the border patrol is fighting a vicious battle down there as

witnessed recently with the death of the agent. there is still a tremendous risk out there to the men and women both between the ports and at the ports of entry, and i believe we have to continue to find the resources and the tools to provide these men and women with the ability to not only protect the country, but to protect themselves and the cowardly assassination of the agents down there on the border is unacceptable. the rest of the issues allen can talk to but i just hope we don't lose sight of the fact that we have got to give them the right tools. >> so, part of the question that the ambassador to raise this is how do we have this disconnect this dissidents between the facts on the ground and the

facts as they proceed by most media outlets in the united states? i think it is a function of those who were on the border know the crimes, the crime statistics from the fbi reflect which is that we haven't had a safer set of border communities from brownsville to san diego in the last 30 years when we do now at the same time we have violence in northern mexico in part because of the heroic decision by president calderon and the mexican people to come from the mafia of their country and i point of parenthetically that it took us 30 years in this country to beat as i put it to turn them into the sopranos and it will take time, it will take

time in mexico but that process as the commissioner indicates is actually well under way. but what is the exploitation of the violence in northern mexico and i should say that to deny the spillover violence is taking place is not to deny that we have the incidence of the violence caused by organized criminal the activities based in mexico, we do the killing of brian carry to the contrary, the shooting of the rancher robert krenz. all of these events are elements of violence but if we held chicago with detroit and philadelphia or phoenix to the standard of one criminal even to meaning the city was out of control we would hardly have a city that was sent out of control in the united states, so

the question is why exploit how can this be exploited and i think this is part of the aftermath of 9/11 is this notion that the borders, the former devotees we felt that day were brought to borders are taken advantage of by those who would exploit fear and for that i would offer some bits of wisdom for the history. the first is to quote mark twain again as first let's get the facts straight and then you can distort them as much as you would like and the second as the reminder to us the only thing the american people have to fear is fear itself. >> let me turn it back over. >> couldn't have a better sort of dialogue for the session than the last words of the commissioner. this is an illuminating

conversation we've heard what the steps taken to implement to call deterrence by denial making a much harder target even as we mark the tenth anniversary and the takedown of osama bin laden and is a kind of cathartic point inflection for the country when they imagine what would be like if we purchase the tenth anniversary and we're still kind of at large but we have heard today what has been done to secure the homeland. we thank the commissioners for appearing today. bruce hoffman for serving as the moderator, thank you. i would also like to thank david, chief historian at the u.s. customs border protection for his help and organizing today's session. for those attending and watching, i will alert you to a meeting here another in the wilson center's knute conversations series on monday come september 12th from noon to 1:30 p.m. in this auditorium but

we would look ahead to the next decade. the panel will be chaired by "the washington post" david ignatius and include michael lighter the former director of the national counter terrorism center in representative mike rogers on intelligence and jim zogby of the american arab american institute and bruce hoffman will return to the stage not as the moderator but as a panelist will look forward to that session and check for details on the wilson center website www.wilsoncenter.org as it will be webcast. thank you for those attending

[inaudible conversations]

before tonight's cnn tea party express republican presidential debate democratic national committee chair condra auslin debbie wasserman shorts a floor of the talked to reporters about the republican candidate's

views on social security, this is ten minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm debbie wasserman schultz a representative in south florida and i also share the democratic national committee. joining me today are two local florida residence peggy goodell and norm. peggy is a lifelong floridian and is in the state for more than 60 years. before retiring in 2006 she worked as a licensing specialists responsible for monitoring and licensing child care and child placement agencies. having just turned 61 this past weekend -- i am not sure what you're telling the age. she's looking forward to enrolling in medicare and social

security in a few years. norma and joins today from the national committee to preserve social security and medicare and is a st. petersburg residents who recently retired from the social security administration after more than three decades of service. thank you where he worked to ensure the nation's seniors received the benefits that the firm throughout their career. i asked them both to join me today because they know how important it is to have a president who will make sure vital programs like social security and medicare are there for working middle class americans who've paid into it for their entire life and after my remarks we will have more and then peggy speak. so good afternoon. tonight i think we're likely to hear the candidates continue to worship at the altar of the tea party. throughout the primary campaign, we haven't heard a single new idea from the republican

candidates and tonight you shouldn't expect that to change. it's given half a chance they would bring the same trickle-down policies that got us in this mess in the first place back field policies that left an economy shedding more than 750,000 jobs each month when president obama came into office. and what is their message to middle class american families? they would advocate for policies that set us up for the next big bubble repealing the protections in place to prevent another financial crisis and giving more tax breaks the special interest and tax cuts for the wealthiest and most fortunate americans. struggling as a result of the financial crisis the mortgage crisis or just having trouble finding a job you won't find a candidate onstage tonight with a plan to do anything but return to the policies that we are all familiar with and that got us in this mess in the first place. and for seniors and anyone looking forward to aging with dignity what is worse is that if you can expect to see the leading republican candidate for

calling changes would do great harm to social security if not dismantle it entirely social security like medicare is something americans have earned. we've paid for it we are counting on it but republicans are breaking a decade long contact with the american people. at least rick perry was honest about his hostility towards social security calling it a ponzi scheme in last week's debate in california. mitt romney wasn't so straightforward about his support for privatizing social security. a scheme that would be dangerous for the future of the program as rick perry's attitude and rhetoric. mitt romney but have you believe otherwise. he's been running around attacking rick perry on the issue and the hypocrisy is beyond calling. he would gamble with our social security in the stock market would domestic debate could devastate social security and leave seniors twisting in the wind and he has said so publicly numerous times. the truth is republicans like mitt romney, rick perry and george will you bush before them

have had their sights set on dismantling social security and the american people have repeatedly and emphatically said no. these candidates have come to my home state of florida and florida seniors don't want either repairing or mitt romney and they've already expressed opposition to these candidates support for the republican plan to end medicare as we know it. in the medicare and dismantling social security are curious positions for candidates campaigning here in the sunshine state. florida seniors need to know that. each of the republican candidates in this race is desperate to appease the tea party. the rubber stamp and ideologically driven agenda that will end medicare as we know it he rode social security, week in the middle class security and eliminate millions of jobs. meanwhile president obama and democrats are building an america that is the success in

the future. on thursday the president offered a bill would create more jobs right now because the american people demand immediate action. as soon as congress passes it businesses would be able to hire more workers and middle class families would be able to keep more of what they burned. there's no reason for the delay and if the president said there is nothing in this bill that's controversial if the goal is to create jobs of the middle class family. this is a matter of value. the idea hard work pays off and the responsibilities reworded the president's bill respect the values. the american job act creates jobs and grows the economy now. helping america's small businesses high year and grow by cutting their payroll taxes by 50%. it puts more money in the pockets of working and middle class americans lowering their taxes. the average family will get to keep $1,500 more from their paycheck each year. it would put more people back to work in jobs to keep us safe

today and strength in the future including teachers come first responders, veterans and construction workers and while the bill will create american jobs it will get a dime to the deficit. the bill is sound policy that will ensure middle class families are protected and rewarded for their hard work. the republican candidates have opposed this common sense plan because they aren't interested in solutions. they would rather see the middle class families continue to struggle than give up their effort to give more tax breaks to the special-interest and the wealthy and most fortunate. this isn't a question of partisanship is a question of values and these republican candidates are making a pretty clear statement of who they value. they care about one job president obama. democrats care about american jobs. tonight you'll hear a lot of talk about the president, but you won't hear any plan to create jobs now or to protect social security without privatizing or strengthen medicare without transforming it into a voucher program that

benefits the insurance company and increases health care costs for seniors. republicans have no plan for middle class families because they are working for the special interest. the plan to de regulate wall street is tax breaks to insurance companies and big oil and extend tax cuts for millionaires won't create jobs or make things any easier on middle class families. floridians need to know that democrats are on their side and the republican message you are on your own. at this debate for the entirety of the campaign we will make sure that the voters know it. thank you very much.