Skip to main content

tv   U.S. Senate  CSPAN  September 14, 2011 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT

5:00 pm
5:01 pm
5:02 pm
5:03 pm
5:04 pm
5:05 pm
5:06 pm
5:07 pm
5:08 pm
5:09 pm
5:10 pm
5:11 pm
5:12 pm
5:13 pm
5:14 pm
5:15 pm
5:16 pm
5:17 pm
5:18 pm
5:19 pm
5:20 pm
5:21 pm
5:22 pm
5:23 pm
5:24 pm
5:25 pm
5:26 pm
5:27 pm
5:28 pm
5:29 pm
5:30 pm
5:31 pm
5:32 pm
5:33 pm
5:34 pm
5:35 pm
5:36 pm
5:37 pm
mr. coburn: i'd like to spend a few minutes discussing some things in general and making a couple of points. today i was referred to by one of our colleagues as a dictator. and i'm not offended at that. i understand the frustration of what's going on. i think there's a, there's some significant points that the american people ought to hear about where we are and what we're doing. quite frankly, if you look at our financial situation, you look at the history of the world, no country's ever recovered from the situation that we find ourselves in in terms of our debt, the g.d.p. ratio and our debt to our export ratio. we, in august before we left
5:38 pm
here, passed a piece of legislation that goes a small amount towards fixing the very real problems that are in front of our country in terms of spending money that we don't have on things that we don't absolutely need. but we have before us and coming before us two different pieces of legislation. one is a shell piece of legislation with which the assumption is the majority leader will utilize it to fund supplementation for disaster relief for the manyaries in our country -- for the many areas in our country that need that funding. there's not a dispute that we shouldn't be doing that. there's a dispute about how much that should be. but the greatest dispute is when we're running $1.3 trillion and $1.4 trillion deficits and we know we have significant waste,
5:39 pm
duplication and fraud in the federal government, whether we ought to spend another $6 billion or $7 billion by borrowing or we ought to actually reduce spending somewhere else to pay for a very much more important and proper need that the federal government has a role in. and that's the real debate. i think we've worked a way to have appropriate amendments to try to pay for that, and we should probably go forward. there are, however, two other agencies, two other programs that are precarious in their funding. one is f.a.a. and we have coming to us the 22nd temporary reauthorization and the transportation bill, which is, i believe its sixth temporary reauthorization. there are some real questions the american people ought to be
5:40 pm
asking why it's 22 times we temporarily reauthorized a short period of time the f.a.a. and why now we're on our sixth temporary, or fifth -- i may be wrong on one of those numbers, but close -- temporary reauthorization. and that is because we're not prioritizing what is important for the country in terms of our legislative agenda. we don't control that. but there are some things that the american people are interested in that we do control. the highway trust fund has received a supplementation over the last four years of $35 billion from the american taxpayer outside of the taxes they collect for that trust fund. and out of that amount of money, billions of dollars have been spent on things other than
5:41 pm
highways and bridges. and we now have 146,000 deficient bridges in our country, some in every state in the country. we have more now after the floods up in the northeast. we have significant problems. and we have a limited amount of money. and what is in front of us is another short-term extension of six months for the transportation funding which continues to spend money on things that are low priority. i'm not saying you couldn't spend the money on it. but when we're short of money and we're borrowing money to put money into the trust fund and our number-one priority ought to
5:42 pm
be safety and quality roads and bridges, to take significant funds and say we're going to spend them on things that are not a priority now, not when we're head over heels in debt, not when the trust fund is precarious, then we ought to not force states to spend money that they don't want to spend. and yet, in this bill is 10% of the surface transportation moneys have to be spent on enhancement. so that tells oklahoma or any other state that if you have an excess number of bridges, it doesn't matter that that's a safety problem for your citizens. we're still going to make you spend this 10% money over here that doesn't have anything to do with safety or true transportation. but we're going to require because we can. except the problem is the people in your state pay the taxes in the first place for their highways and their bridges, not
5:43 pm
for the museums, not for all the hundreds of other things that are spent that are low priority. so i thought i might give us a little flavor of what some of those things are. and i'm not -- if we were at a different time where we had an excess of funds, i'm not saying they're necessarily bad. but when we have bridges falling down in this country and concrete, like last summer before last in oklahoma falling out of an interstate highway bridge, injuring somebody, falling into their car as they drive under it, i would think we would want to repair this 146,000 bridges rather than spend money redecorating a sign. so let me just go -- i won't go through all of them. i'll put them all into the record. but let me go through a few of them just to see if the american people actually believe we
5:44 pm
should not fix bridges or roads and we ought to spend this money, i'm fine. if the senate believes that we ought to not fix bridges, we ought to not concentrate on safety, we ought not concentrate on the quality of our roads and bridges and they vote it down, i'm fine too. but the fact is we ought not to be spending money when we have the large hundreds of thousands of bridges that are dangerous to people in this country. and all we're saying is if your state wants to continue to spend money on something other than safety and bridges and roads, fine. you can. but don't make those of us that already have a big problem with safety have to spend money on something that doesn't protect our citizens, doesn't enhance their highways by spending money on something that's called an enhancement but doesn't enhance their safety or their ability to commute. so what are some oñ
5:45 pm
of them? lincoln highway hundred mile roadside museum, pennsylvania. it received $300,000 to commemorate the historic highway along the hundred-mile route. interpretive signage, colorful vintage gas pumps, engaging murals, refurbishing a large coffee pot. notably, pennsylvania ranks number one in the country in terms of bridge deficiency levels, 46% of the bridges in pennsylvania are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. well, $300,000 would have fixed to of then. we chose not to fix two but spend the money elsewhere. different time? sure. or if pennsylvania wants to spend it, let them.
5:46 pm
but don't force them to spend money on something that doesn't protect the quality of transportation for their citizens. how about chinatown gateaway, $250,000 enhancement to supplement the construction of the twin dragons gateaway to the chinatown area. california has over 7,000 bridges that are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. one out of every three bridges in develop is in trouble. -- in california is in trouble. and we're doing sphet sthettics instead of fixing bridges. how about the tennessee, in gibson county, the home of the albino squirrels. they received $111,000 to construct a white squirrel sanctuary, walking trails,
5:47 pm
footbridge and a parking lot. 7,700 bridges that are structurally dishes in the state of tennessee. -- deficient in the state of tennessee. they didn't necessarily want to do this. they didn't have a choice. they had to spend 10% of their surface transportation money on things like this. or? sheffield, alabama, $104,000 to investigate the landing's architectural features. only problem, 23% of alabama's bridges are structurally deficient. that could have fixed to two of them. or how about the national corvette museum simulator theater in warren county, kentucky. $200 -- $200,000 to built a theater. 31% of the bridges they cross in kentucky are structurally deficient. or the pennsylvania trolley museum, $400,000 to construct a
5:48 pm
museum. great idea if we're in the black and we're in good cash flow. but when pennsylvania leads the nation in deficient bridges, and dangerous bridges, why would we spend that money, why would we force them to spend that money? and i can go on and i will add to the record multiple other examples all the way up to 40 separate examples of where we're spending money but we're not fixing bridges, we're not pouring asphalt, we're not laying concrete, we're not decreasing congestion, we're not increasing safety. what we're doing is we're following the rules of washington when we have greater needs. you know, we're in trouble as a nation because congress doesn't set priorities. and when they do set priorities, there is no
5:49 pm
connection to the reality of our financial situation. so we have some options on how to go forward. one of the options would be to take the f.a.a. bill, split it out, approve it and send it back to the house, the f.a.a. is taken care of. the second option would be to pass the highway extension for six months with the elimination of enhancements and send it back to the house. but i will not give a unanimous consent as my right as a senator to the united states for us to continue to spend billions of dollars on things that are not a priority when this country's struggling to survive, its very survival depends on us changing the way we do business. and if that means that the highway transportation bill does not get approved, so be it. but there has to be a point in s
5:50 pm
country when we change direction and we start meeting the obligations that are put before us. and the number-one obligation is to start spending money where it does the most good. and quit spending money that we don't have on things that we don't absolutely need. and with a 35% deficit -- and we're going to run another $1.3 trillion deficit next year -- which will cost a significant amount of funds for our kids and our grandkids just to repay what we're going to waste next year. there ought to be a time at which we say enough's enough. and i know there will be several, including my own senior senator would oh will be unhappy with my position but i believe it's time to draw a line in the sand for the american people, for our future. it's not popular. it's certainly not expedient. but it's absolutely the right thing to do.
5:51 pm
so if the senate wants to solve the problem with these two bills, we can split them up or we can keep them together but we need to end the enhancements right now until we get the highway trust fund healthy again, one, and number two, until we get our country healthy again. and when we do, i'll be happy to defer. and remember, we're not saying you can't do it. we're just saying you ought to have the option to not do it. with that i yield the floor.
5:52 pm
a senator: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
5:53 pm
5:54 pm
5:55 pm
5:56 pm
5:57 pm
5:58 pm
5:59 pm
6:00 pm
quorum call:
6:01 pm
6:02 pm
6:03 pm
6:04 pm
6:05 pm
senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, i would ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: mr. president, it's with a great deal of sadness that i have to tell you that senator malcolm wallop, the 18th senator for the state of wyoming, passed away this afternoon. he's been ill for sometime, but
6:06 pm
has had a very active life and made a great deal of difference in this body. we were very fortunate to have malcolm wallop represent us in the senate for 18 years, and for all of his three terms he was a powerful and effective presence in the congress that ensured people of wyoming that they were heard and that their concerns were being addressed. although there are many accomplishments that i could mention -- and tomorrow i will probably mention quite a few more -- i want to mention two of them today. because they were very significant efforts. the first was the establishment of the republican steering committee. he and two other senators considered themselves to be the conservatives of the senate and formed a special caucus that today has grown to include almost all of the republicans. it was for smaller government
6:07 pm
and constitutional principles and spending constraints. and he stuck through those through his entire senate career. his other accomplishment -- and i can think of none that would make him more proud than the mention that he started the congressional awards program. this is a program for young americans, where they can do service for their community and receive an award from congress. congress puts no dollars into this, which would be part of the philosophy of malcolm wallop, but he has helped to provide for a number of people through the years to be able to come to washington and receive the gold award. it's set up so that when you do 100 hours of community service, you can get a bronze medal. when you do another 100 hours of service, you can get a silver medal. and 200 more hours of service and you get a gold medal. and he helped to promote the community spirit and this
6:08 pm
community service that's made a huge difference to wyoming and has spread across the nation. but of course we're always very proud in wyoming that more kids from wyoming have gotten the gold medal than from any other state. it partly has to do with his founding of it and the time and effort that he put into it and succeeding senators have. over the years it's served to inspire countless young americans to believe in themselves and their ability to change the world, beginning in their own backyard. start some good habits. thanks to his initiative, the young people of our nation will continue to dare to do the great things in the service of their neighbors and their communities. and i can't think of a better way to have senator malcolm wallop be remembered. i'd yield the floor to the other senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president, i join my colleague from wyoming,
6:09 pm
because today wyoming and america lost an extraordinary man. u.s. senator malcolm wallop was a dedicated public servant and a great legislator. he leaves a proud legacy of a wyoming senator who solved problems and initiated great solutions. this native son set a high bar for public service and all of wyoming is grateful. whether he was serving in the army, in the wyoming legislature, or in the united states senate, malcolm wallop always stood for freedom. for decades, he worked to strengthen america's national security and to protect states' rights. his common sense and his commitment helped break down washington's barriers to american energy development. our nation continues to benefit from his leadership today. there will be much more to say
6:10 pm
about malcolm in these coming days and in the weeks ahead as we seek to honor his legacy. i will miss malcolm's friendship and his support. my wife bobbie and i sent our very heartfelt condolences to his family and to his friends throughout this great country. we will continue to keep the entire wallop family in our thoughts and in our prayers. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
6:11 pm
6:12 pm
6:13 pm
6:14 pm
6:15 pm
quorum call:
6:16 pm
6:17 pm
6:18 pm
6:19 pm
6:20 pm
6:21 pm
6:22 pm
6:23 pm
6:24 pm
6:25 pm
6:26 pm
6:27 pm
6:28 pm
6:29 pm
6:30 pm
quorum call:
6:31 pm
6:32 pm
6:33 pm
6:34 pm
6:35 pm
6:36 pm
6:37 pm
6:38 pm
6:39 pm
6:40 pm
6:41 pm
6:42 pm
6:43 pm
6:44 pm
6:45 pm
quorum call:
6:46 pm
6:47 pm
6:48 pm
6:49 pm
6:50 pm
6:51 pm
6:52 pm
6:53 pm
6:54 pm
6:55 pm
6:56 pm
6:57 pm
6:58 pm
6:59 pm
mr. reid: i ask that the call. quorumming be termed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that the remaining time postcloture be yielded back adds the senate road to consideration of h.j. res. 66. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 154, h.j. res. 66, approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the burmese freedom and democracy act of 2003. mr. reid: i have a substitute amendment that's at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 602. mr. reid: on that amendment, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a first-degree amendment which
7:00 pm
actually is a perfecting amendment defnlgt. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment number 603 to amendment number 602. mr. reid: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment which is also at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes amendment numbered 604 to amendment numbered 603. mr. reid: i have an amendment at the desk that's to the language that is proposed to be stricken. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes amendment numbered 605 to the language proposed to be stricken by amendment numbered 602. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an
7:01 pm
amendment numbered 606 to amendment numbered 605. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion on the substitute amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the reid substitute amendment numbered 602 to 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 as follows -- reid of nevada -- mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion on the underlying joint resolution which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on h.j. res. 66, a joint resolution
7:02 pm
approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the burmese freedom and democracy act of 2003, signed by 17 senators as follows -- pp. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i have a motion to commit the joint resolution with instructions that is also at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, moves to commit h.j. res. 66 to the finance committee with instructions to report back with the following amendment numbered 607. mr. reid: on that, mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have an amendment to the instructions at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes amendment numbered 608 to the instructions on the motion to commit h.j. res. 66. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.
7:03 pm
the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes amendment numbered 609 to amendment numbered 608. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived for the two cloture motions just filed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, sadly, in just two days, about 80,000 people will be out of work because of the obstructionism of one man. this senator, the junior senator from oklahoma, is putting his own petty priorities ahead of the needs of thousands of safety inspectors, construction workers and contractors who are about to lose their health care and their livelihoods for the second time in just the last few months. these workers will be furloughed or laid off on friday if we
7:04 pm
don't reauthorize the federal aviation administration legislation. the same senator is holding up emergency funding for thousands of americans, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, actually, whose homes have been destroyed by tornadoes, floods and wildfires. now, mr. president, keep in mind what i just said. we have a bill that came from the house of representatives, funded for four months the federal aviation administration. we have a bill that's come from the house, they put them together, to fund the highway bill for six months. those two bills together, almost two million jobs would be eliminated if we don't pass the highway bill by the end of the month but fema by friday. now, the senator from oklahoma that i just referred to doesn't like the provision in the highway bill.
7:05 pm
but stopping that is one thing, but now he's stopping us doing something about the people who are in need of desperate help who have been hit hard by tires. in texas alone, we have had 2,000 homes burned to the ground. so he's holding up emergency aid for americans whose homes have been destroyed by tornadoes, floods, wildfires, farmland, millions of acres under water, and he's jeopardizing almost two million jobs by blocking the highway bill. but how he gets these two together is something i can't logically understand. he is stopping us from doing something on the highway in the f.a.a. bill but also fema. on friday, as i said, it's going
7:06 pm
to cause 80,000 workers, thousand of whom are responsible for keeping millions of u.s. air travelers safe every day. we have just been through this, mr. president. a short time ago we had the same issue. we had the safety inspectors paying for their own lunches when they go out to inspect an airplane, buying their own plane tickets, buying their own hotel and motel rooms, their own, not being reimbursed. and it's interesting to note this same senator voted for the highway bill in 2005. we do a major highway bill about every five years. he voted for that bill when his party held the white house. although the bill included the same issue he objects to today. i have been told that his big concern is over bike trails, bike paths. but the interesting part, he can have a vote on this. he wants to vote to get rid of
7:07 pm
bike paths. he's willing to do that. in fact, we have given the same vote on the amendment before. in 2009, the senate voted down the very same amendment. he has had this vote before and it's failed before, but he's not willing to even take the vote anymore. i mean, this is how far afield this is. he doesn't want to vote. he wants to put whatever he thinks is the right thing for the world and the country as it relates to highways in this bill. just do it. i'm a dictator. i will put in this -- it in this bill or you're not going to do anything around here. we're willing to vote on this again. we can't get to vote on his amendment because he's blocking us from doing so. so one senator out of 100 is holding up the important work of this body, demanding that we make this amendment law or else put 80,000 people out of work. this kind of obstruction should end. this is not logical, it's not
7:08 pm
rational. my friend has strong feelings about this part of the highway bill, but this is a bill that has billions of dollars in it. about1.7 million or 1.8 million jobs. these will be eliminated if we don't get this thing passed. so i would urge my republican colleague to reconsider how this gridlock harms real people in this country. it's hard for me to explain. we -- in las vegas, we have a new tower that's being built for the air traffic controllers. it's needed very, very much. air traffic in las vegas is heavy. about 16 million a year people come in there, and we need a new tower. we started construction on it a
7:09 pm
few months ago. it was held up once because of this problem we had with the bill before. now it's going to be held up again. but this isn't just a nevada issue. it's all over the country. about 75,000 construction workers are working on essential parts of our airports. jobs are badly needed, and it's just the wrong thing for my friend to do, and i hope he will allow us to move forward on fema, allow us to move forward on the federal aviation administration legislation. and of course the highway bill, we'll give him his vote. if he wants another vote, we'll give him another vote if there is another part of the bill he doesn't like, but it's something we need to get done as quickly as possible. like in the next 24 hours. i ask consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business, the senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. are we on morning business now? the presiding officer: we were not. we will be. without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent --
7:10 pm
unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session and that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration of presidential nomination 828, mary derosa be -- franklin lloyd be an alternate representative of the united nations, presidential nomination 3, be a representative of the nominations. that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, that the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table. there be no further action in debate, any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, that the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 267. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 267, recognizing hispanic heritage month and celebrating the heritage and culture of loopts
7:11 pm
in loopts -- latinos in the united states and the immense contribution of latinos to the united states. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and that any statements related to this matter be placed in the record as if made. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business tonight, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, thursday, september 15. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, morning hour be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business for up to one hour with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each during that time with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half, that following morning business, the senate resume consideration of h.j. res. 66. the presiding officer: without
7:12 pm
objection. mr. reid: i also, mr. president, ask that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn as a further mark of respect in memory of the late senator malcolm wallop of wyoming. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: we're now considering the burma sanctions and fema legislation. as a reminder, i have filed a cloture on the substitute amendment and that joint resolution today. if no agreement is reached, a cloture vote on the substitute amendment will occur friday morning. the filing deadline for all first-degree amendments to h.j. res. 66 and a substitute amendment is 1:00 p.m. tomorrow. however, we hope to reach an agreement to complete consideration of h.j. res. 66, f.a.a. and the highway extension during tomorrow's session. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. as things now stand, we're going to have a series of votes on friday. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that we adjourn under the previous order as a mark of respect to the memory of the late senator malcolm wallop of
7:13 pm
wyoming. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, and does so as a further mark of respect to the memory of former senator malcolm
7:14 pm
emory of former senator malcolm >> un c-span tonight house energy subcommittee on energy department -- a solar panel manufacturing company that filed for bankruptcy last week. the head of the energy department program said that if the u.s. government withdraws support for domestic clean energy ventures it would be impossible to keep up with foreign competitors. >> we are competing with countries around the world to see this as one of the largest industrial sectors and opportunities of the next generation and if we walk off of the feels there is no way that we can succeed because these industries are different than the software industry. you need platform companies here in order to be able to succeed as a pointed out earlier in my testimony. five largest companies are in china. seven are in asia. the eighth is in europe and only two here.
7:15 pm
>> more from this hearing tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. here is a look at our prime time schedule on c-span2. starting tonight at 8:00 eastern remarks from republican presidential candidate rick perry on his religious beliefs and why his face is important to him. >> best-selling author of a beautiful line sylvia nasser talk about her latest book on economics and the intellectual pursuit that helps people worldwide. she is interviewed by financial times editor julien cat on afterwards. is one of the many nonfiction authors this weekend on c-span2's booktv.
7:16 pm
we will continue our college series interview as we talk to professors from george washington university about her latest book on voter suppression. the ability intervention and modern afghanistan. and author, filmmaker and political activist michael more recounts his life from starting his own newspaper in the fourth grade to winning the academy award. michael more will be our guest next month on in-depth taking your phone calls october 2nd. get the complete weekend schedule at booktv.org. >> in an election marred by a moral scandal and political corruption james blaine lost in 1884 but he changed political history. he is one of the 14 men featured in c-span's weekly series the contenders live from the blaine house and agusta, main at 8:00 eastern. learn more about the series and upcoming programs at
7:17 pm
c-span.org/the contenders. >> a conversation now about counterterrorism efforts and fbi informants from this morning's washington journal. this is 45 minutes. >> host: every wednesday in the last hour of washington journal we look at recent magazine spotlight on magazines and recent cover stories. today is the mother jones magazine on the use of fbi informants to present a low wolf attack. several road to peace joins us with what is on your screen from florida this morning and let me begin with this part of your story. counterterrorism is the fbi's top priority consuming the lion's share of his budget and much of the attention of case agents and a network of some 50,000 informants. why so many informants? hardy being used and why? >> guest: today the fbi doesn't
7:18 pm
believe coordinated spectacular attacks like 9/11 is possible. what they fear is a lone wolf. someone who is in a community somewhere in the united states and becomes inspired to commit an act of terrorism on their own. the fbi believes its primary way of finding these people and identifying them before they attack is through the use of informantss who can go into mosques and community centers and talk to people and figure out who these people would be and when they identify them offer them the means and opportunity to move forward with their terrorist plots. for the fbi to use it only way of getting them off the street which is criminal prosecution. >> host: who are these informants? what do they look like? >> it could be your neighbors. could be a store clerk. what we found is they run the gamut throughout the community. different types of people. it is important to realize in some cases they are criminals. they became involved with the
7:19 pm
fbi because they were caught doing a crime and are working off of that crime by serving as an informant for the fbi but in other cases they are not criminals that all. in some cases they may be emigrants who have a technical violation on their immigration status and the fbi use that as a leverage to get them to cooperate and in other cases they want to bring their family from overseas and the fbi is using that as a form of leverage to get some to cooperate in federal investigation. >> host: and network of 15,000 informants. how does the fbi figure out or determine where they want to put these informants across the country? >> guest: they use the program within the fbi called main management. what is forced to allocate resources according to threats. as they explained it to me, what it does is it allows the fbi to basically create demographic maps of the country and divide the country through the use of
7:20 pm
commercially available data, immigration data so they are able to say we believe the muslim community in the united states pose the greatest threat for international terrorism or terrorism within the united states and so where do muslims live? and figure that out and identify case agents and informants accordingly in those communities and find the people who seem most willing to commit some sort of act of terrorism. >> host: give examples of what these informants might do. >> guest: in the case of the man in illinois there was a man the fbi identified who for some reason the fbi began to realize he was interested in committing an act of terrorism. the fbi sent another informant to him who offered him a place to live. he didn't have any money. his car was broken down. so he lives with the informant and over the course of a period
7:21 pm
of weeks they talk about committing some act of terrorism there that he wanted to assassinated judge and attack a shopping mall but he didn't have a car. he had no means of doing any of that so the informant introduced an arms dealer to provide him with the means to commit this act of terrorism. he didn't have any money and so the arms dealer agreed to exchange in trade the speakers derek had to commit this act of terrorism to provide terror in exchange for the stereo speakers. they were able to prosecute him and he received 35 years for that terrorism conspiracy. are always question in a case like that, many of the cases we looked at as part of this investigation is whether he could have committed that crime were it not for the fbi providing him the means and opportunity to do that. to commit that crime. >> host: that the question you posed at the beginning of your peace. a massive network of spies to prevent another domestic attack
7:22 pm
but are they busting terrorist plots or leading them? why do you ask if they are leading them? >> guest: as part of this investigation we look at 500 defendantss in terrorism prosecutions since 9/11 and what we found was half of those prosecutions involve informants. in some cases the informant was used in a way you would suspect. he provided information or a tip the fbi was able to act upon and start an investigation. in the case of 49 defendantss we found the informant acted in a larger role. he acted -- where he provided the means and opportunity for the target of the investigation to move forward in a terrorist plot that the otherwise would have no means to do. in some cases for example the informant provided the actual target, plan and the dummy bombs to be used. in these 49 cases according to our review these were people that the evidence did not suggest that any capacity to
7:23 pm
commit these crimes were it not for the fbi informant or undercover agent providing the means to do so. >> host: what was the outcome of those court cases? >> guest: entrapment was used in a number of trials and so far have been unsuccessful. most recently the case the media dubbed the new bird four outside new york city. these four men were economically depressed, living outside new york city. an informant came to them. offered them according to the informant transcript at one point, offered two $50,000, offered the main defendant to buy him a barber shop and for about the case in choosing these people to commit this crime. nevertheless the jury did not find entrapment in that case and they were convicted and received 35 years in prison. defense attorneys i talked to as part of the story to defend terrorism defendants explain meeting the bar of entrapment is
7:24 pm
incredibly difficult in federal court and what you and i might consider an drebin based on the effects of the reading of the case is different from what the federal courts view as entrapment and so far in these cases and drebin has not been determined. >> host: i want to show the viewers how 508 cases you looked at were prosecuted. 240 of those were charged with terrorism. 268 were charged with other crimes. can you explain this a little more? what does that say about our national security laws? >> the 500 cases we are identified we identified according to how the doj defines terrorism. they define terrorism cases according to two types. the first type is what you would imagine. someone trying to hijack an airplane, someone trying to use a weapon of mass destruction. that is type 1. type ii is when the fbi or the department of justice are able to charge someone with a crime that isn't related to terrorism
7:25 pm
such as money laundering or immigration violation. but that defendant in the fbi view has a link to international terrorism and so in some cases the department of justice isn't able to prove that the terrorism case so it settles for lesser charge such as money laundering. when we look at the 500 cases the actual number of cases that pose significant threats to property to people's lives were very few. the couple that come to mind are the one who came close to bombing the subway system and faisal shahzad who was unable to explode his car bomb in times square but those types of cases are by far the minority of terrorism cases that the federal government ultimately prosecute. when we say we look at 500 cases these were not 500 cases that in our view were threats to your life or national security. actually very few of these were threats to national security or
7:26 pm
people's lives. >> host: you have a mat in your story showing sterile -- federal terrorism cases in 36 states and washington d.c. so viewers can get an idea where these cases are being filed. the majority of them along the east coast. the use of informantss by the fbi is nothing new. what is the story here? how did the fbi respond to what you found? >> the use of informantss is nothing new. is useful to understand the explosion of informants we have seen since 9/11. in the mid 70s after the counterintelligence people associate with the informants there were 1500 informants. today there are 15,000. tenfold increase and much of that due to a presidential mandate from george w. bush in 2004 where he ordered the fbi to increase its confidential human sources which is the fbi term for informant.
7:27 pm
what the fbi said is the use of informantss is absolutely necessary to find people who are planning or willing to do some violent act within the united states. the truth is informants, difficult to deal with are highly effective. the average fbi agent can't go into a community and build a relationship and gather information the same way that someone from that community can. so as a result the fbi relied on informants to gather this information and what the fbi says is this is critical to our safety. it is critical to can underterrorism efforts to use these informants to gather this information. >> host: how much these informants being paid? >> guest: in some cases substantial amounts. an informant who worked the case outside new york city, the case i mentioned earlier was paid $100,000 for that case. some of the best informeds move from case to case and do very well.
7:28 pm
in other cases the informants are motivated by things other than money. i mentioned sometimes immigration violations are reason people cooperate. in the case -- he is motivated not only by money but immigration violation. the fbi has dual leverage over him. to this day he continues to work as an fbi informant. >> host: before we get to phone calls did you talk to any of these informants? what did they tell you about their role? >> guest: in some cases they don't want to talk. another informant named elliot sawed chose not to. another informant in orange county two years ago. the whistle on an operation in orange county where he alleged -- he was to spy on the community as well as gather information on other would be informeds. what he alleges is these were
7:29 pm
widespread constitutional visas and abusing first amendment rights of religion and nevertheless sending informants into mosques and community centers without a clear reason to believe these people were up to some kind of collective the. .. our first phone call from tacoma, washington. caller: i want to discuss the current technological landscape in a slightly different light. i want to argue that the benefits outweigh the cost in this current landscape. there is the convenience factor alone. you want to an up-to-date market report, keep tabs on stocks, sign up for paypal. not just convenience alone. i think this is disruptive.
7:30 pm
digital facebook was developed in a dorm by to make checks -- in a dorm room by two naked chicks? caller: it appears to me that your guest is proposing is that those who wish to protect us in this country should be denied the very access to those people who are trying to do us harm. these people who are angry or frustrated in life, these are the ones who are being sought out by those who wish to do us harm. i think it's a good thing to be able to identify these weak spots. guest: that is true that people
7:31 pm
caught in these are disgruntled and have their own problems. that was a theme in the sting operations. these people tend to be poor and desperate and in many cases there were recent converts to islam. to move them along, to see that something is in the careekoran. i'm not proposing that the fbi investigate terrorism and not the best to get muslim communities when a police they are harboring a terrorists -- when they believe they are harboring a terrorist. the people involved would have had the capacity to commit the crimes were not for the fbi providing the means to do so.
7:32 pm
somebody can be angry to say they bought a building but few people have the means to do so. the fbi found people who said they were angry but lacked those means of the fbi provided those made to commit the crime. host: who else worked on the peace? -- piece? guest: "mother jones" and the university at berkeley. caller: we get the legal aspects and get this people on the page to try to stay legal and everything like that. we got enough democrats and republicans. the surprise to courts --
7:33 pm
they're all corrupt. we got to give back to the basics and make people start abiding by the law. host: let me ask you about the court system and what you found when these sting operations took place. how much time are some of these folks servant who were lured into action by an fbi informant? guest: the average tends to be about 35 years in a sting operation. in some cases the fbi spends a year or more with the target and moves them along through the plot. we also found that oftentimes missing.ople go some things are not recorded and so no one knows what was said.
7:34 pm
that is a critical period for defense attorneys to try to prove entrapment. no one knows what was said during the early investigations. these informants are not the most credible of people. host: what did you find out? guest: in some cases the fbi says they cannot record because it is not safe to. when an informant is going through a committee looking for targets, it doesn't make a lot of sense to record every single conversation. at some point it becomes clear that this person is a target and still recordings are not made. that raises a significant question of why the fbi chooses not to record these conversations. in many cases this is a matter of convenience for the fbi.
7:35 pm
it makes the job easier not to record the conversations. there was one case in baltimore where a man was involved in a sting operation where he was plotting with an fbi informant to bomb a military recruiting station. there was another sting operation going on in portland, oregon. that made national news for some reason. it was a well-publicized case. the man in baltimore hears about this case and things he is in a sting operation, too, and begins to back out of the plot. the informant ranges a meeting to bring him back into the plot . in that case, the meeting was
7:36 pm
not recorded due to a recording malfunction. as a res turned a recording malfunctions plot and has been indicted with using a weapon of mass destruction. caller: greta -- host: john, are you there? kim is a democrat in new york. caller: i think this program is nothing more than a replacement for the cointelpro programs that were in place in the 1970's. you'll find there are thousands of law-abiding americans that are being surveiled by the fbi. people who love committed no crimes -- who have committed no
7:37 pm
crimes, committing no crimes at all. host: trevor aaronson. guest: that is true. there have been abuses that have been documented. a year ago, the inspector general's office cannot with a reported showed the fbi was targeting political activists on the left that it did not reason to believe were involved in criminal activity. host: the caller mentioned a term of entrapment. she broad up cointelpro -- she brought up cointelpro. host: how has it changed since
7:38 pm
then? guest: the significant difference between cointelpro an will we see today is this is less of a counter intelligence program. cointelpro was involved in disruption of organizations. at the time of the communist party in the united states, 80% of its membership. the fbi was supporting the communist party as a way of getting into the communist party and disrupting it from inside. a host of organizations on both sides of the political spectrum. what the fbi says they are trying to prevent the next terrorist attack. they are less interested in disrupting organizations and more interested in disrupting
7:39 pm
significant threats to our safety. someone willing to use it weapon of mass destruction of some sort. this is basically the rules the fbi uses for its undercover operations. it is currently going through a revision, which has been criticized by a group from the left. it allows for the fbi to go through your trash to look for information on you. they could find some embarrassing information on you and use that against you, to the to cooperate as an informant. that is not to say that that hasn't happened in the past. it gives a set of rules for how the fbi can behave and how we can handle informants and the ways in which it can't recruit informants.
7:40 pm
we have never seen the full version. it has been redacted. host: bill from fort lauderdale. caller: i wanted to ask you if you are familiar with are familiar"shock doctrine," and how that relates with what she is mentioned in her books in the bigger picture. guest: i have not read that book. if you could explain her theory to me. host: are you still there? caller: she is creating brushstrokes about interrogation and going back to milton friedman's economic picture that we kind of protected around the world.
7:41 pm
i'm in the early parts of the book, relating to 9/11. 973 was the coup in chile and how the cia was involved in that -- 1973. i just was wondering -- she has written quite a bit about -- host: what are some of the ethical situations that the fbi informants, and come into? trevor? guest: as far as the legal use of informants, there isn't a problem with illegal use. whether theoning tactics that the fbi is using it are properly or ethical.
7:42 pm
the recruitment of informants within the muslim community is difficult for the fbi. there are many people who choose to spy on their communities. the fbi is using tactics that are legal but questionable. the idea of using immigration against someone is very new as a means of recruiting informants. other means they use are finding someone who has some sort of extramarital affair. the fbi can go to them and say we know you're going through an extramarital affair. corporate with us and will not tell your wife -- quapaw right with us and we will not tell your wife. host: do you think it'll be higher? guest: absolutely.
7:43 pm
informants are a critical part on how the fbi operates. we looked at these 500 cases. the number of sting operations -- we've seen an increase since obama took office. the has been an increase in informant-led sting operations. i think it is fair to say the use of informants will continue and increase. the fbi has made a number of measures to accommodate this. they have a program that assigns agents to help maintain the credibility of informants. the have invested millions of dollars in a computer system that tracks informants. they may need an informant
7:44 pm
that speaks is certain language. these are all investors that the fbi has made. ost: you say that agents' annual performance are based in part on their recruiting efforts. guest: that is right. agents for effective at recruiting are assigned to that task full time or will go into communities and recruit informants. the get them registered and it will then bill the not too informants working drug cases or counter terrorism case or white- collar cases. host: mary is a republican in california. caller: good morning.
7:45 pm
i have a question for trevor. it seems to me that when informants are looking in the community for people that have a propensity for committing a crime, if an informant with a passed on that individual -- to see if he can develop the tendency -- what he assumed that later on, a year, five years, the gentleman or the woman would improve and he would -- i find it somewhat childish that just because he is calling it entrapment that people whether a propensity for this -- [inaudible]
7:46 pm
someone who would want to protect this country would be trying to do to seek out people who would do us harm. little suspect.suspec i don't know much about "mother jones." motivation for bringing this article. is "mother jones" doing harm to this country with informants that are helping us. strongarm -- 15,000 -- host: i think we got your point . guest: the fbi says when someone
7:47 pm
says i would like to blow up a building or lay grenades in a shopping mall, will we do have us do -- what would you have us do? i think that is something we can empathize with. if you come across someone who says he wants to commit this crime, you do not want to say this guy does not have the capacity and will mature so let's ignore him and you find six months later he did commit this crime. nobody wants to be that fbi agent. we're asking that in these cases, even though someone says they want to commit a crime, you need the capacity and the means to commit that crime. the fbi is providing the means. they can provide the means for the person to commit the crime
7:48 pm
and then prosecute them with the theory that in a couple of years, maybe someone would have provided them with a bomb. whenever found an example of that, were some was willing to commit this type of crime and the fbi passed on him and then somehow summoned connected to al qaeda or international terror provided him with the means to do that. i don't think it is easy for people to get access to these types of weapons. as far as whether we're doing any sort of danger, one of the purposes of journalism is to look at how the government behaves and questioned that. we're using interviews with fbi agents and available court records. every informant with identified in this investigation was named in a court record or named in an
7:49 pm
affidavit. we're not releasing any confidential material. whether we're doing any harm, i don't think so. host: did you receive any requests from the fbi for clarification? guest: no. we tried to articulate their view. i interviewed dozens of fbi agents as part of this investigation. some are quoted throughout the paiece. what the policies are behind the sting operations and that was incredibly important to us. host: brine from chicago -- brian from chicago. caller: you said the contract
7:50 pm
that defense has not been successful in most of these cases. i wonder if you could say something about the liberty city 7, one of the first of these cases several years ago, where a young man living in a housing project in miami was set up in a sting operation in an individual posing as a representative of al qaeda who administered in al qaeda oath of allegiance to him. these were young men who had a steady group. they had a security patrol in the project. my understanding is that all but one of those seven were exonerated. host: trevor aaronson?
7:51 pm
guest: these are people who lived in a poor section of miami and a fault a religion blended elements of christianity and judaism. they have a committee control the was like the guardian angels. there were seven people indicted. they drop the charges against one person. they get three trials before they gained convictions on five of the six. five are currently in prison. that was an example of the use of the day informant with a checkered past. he had lied on a polygraph test, which should have excluded him. he was then assigned to enter into this group posing as an al qaeda operative. the primary evidence was he had
7:52 pm
a camera to case the office of the fbi as part of a plot to bomb that office. they had a recording of him administering to al qaeda at the members of this group, and that was enough to convict them. these are men who trouble getting up in the morning let alone commit some act of terrorism. the fbi through this informant with the means to move forward with this plot that involved bombing the sears tower in chicago and the miami office of the fbi. they were able to get convictions on five of the seven. the seventh one was deported to haiti based on evidence from the
7:53 pm
case. host: our informants ever trained -- are informants ever trained? guest: they go through role- playing and they're standing policies and manuals and the law to make sure they're not violent constitutional rights. in informs, there's not any kind of informants school where they send them to. they basically instruct them. e, gosay, here's your wir talk to them. they're supposed to have specific instructions as to what they are supposed to do in the undercover operation as lost record the meetings and record as many of the meetings as possible. but there's no training for
7:54 pm
this. that is why there is a lot of questions about whether these people are being entrapped or whether the actions of the informants are overly aggressive. host: "mother jones" encourages you to dig deeper. go to motherjones.com. you can watch surveillance video. second-guess the feds. decide how much of a threat. c which cases were tried in your state -- see which cases were tried your state. host: motherjones.com for more.
7:55 pm
lou is next. good morning. what is your question or comments? caller: the judgment uses the term wmd quite loosely. we invaded by iraq and wmd refer to as nukes. do you define wmd. guest: i agree the definition is very loose. this can be something like use of a car bomb. the fbi has provided the target with a van or a car that they have lead the target to believe has explosives in it.
7:56 pm
in one case, a man drove the van in the crotch of a downtown skyscraper and walked away, across the street, and dialed a soulful that he believed would activate the bomb and destroy the building. for purposes of federal prosecution, the definition is not limited to what you might think like a chemical bomb or a chemical weapon or some kind of nuclear material. it can be something as simple as a car bomb. caller: good morning. i have three things i would like to comment on. this project is well needed. to defend the fbi, there was a caller earlier who said they were wrongfully arresting an
7:57 pm
accusing people. the ku klux klan and mlk and things like that. the fbi has grown along with the country. when i was in college, by will then go it into the stages and going to the trials and tribulations. the fbi represents the problems we have today. back then it represented those problems. it wasn't always justice. there were racial issues. we have grown since then. i would like to know how these would-be terrorists are prosecuted when they are found to be a would-be terrorist. are they 20 years, 30 years?
7:58 pm
a life sentence? guest: they have statutory minimums for sentencing. in many of these cases, 35 years is the statutory minimum. if the person was found guilty, the judge has to send them to at least 35 years. in most of these cases, the judges are sentencing to the minimum. in one case, the judge said she was skeptical of the case and believe the definition of terrorism has been extended to an enormous and extenextent. the target said he wanted to bomb a synagogue. the fbi informant made that
7:59 pm
possible. yearsfinding that 35 tends to be the sentence. host: 240 were charged with terrorism. 192 of those cases was providing material support to terrorists. 36 were charged with funding terrorists. an independent caller from texas. caller: good morning. i am a jamaican student and the states. the, you made about the challenges and using entrapment as a defense in court piqued my interest. i remember one case. he was tried in the u.s. he was tried in the u.s.

103 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on