that did, and i don't mean literally, i don't think you can ever have a true understanding. so for me, i don't like shows when i listen to a bunch of academics debating policy because usually i don't think they know what they're talking about most of the time. and, um, you know, i think there's a lot to be said for reporters who spend time on the ground. and i think there have been some great reporting. i've worked shoulder to shoulder with incredible, really great journalists -- >> like who? >> like dexter fill cens from "the new york times", richard apple from "the new york times." this is not a new york times program, i just happen to think of people that i respect. you know, richard engel's done some great work. i don't always agree with his analysis, but i think he's done incredible work out there. there are other journalists from foreign networks, and we've got our own cbs people who have spent a lot of people out there and dope great stuff. ..

>> i would blow my brains out. it would drive me nuts. [laughter] >> yes. i stand by that. [laughter] >> takes one step back and go from comments about the media to comments about policy. the invasion of iraq of 2003, a

bad idea? >> terrible. one of the worst ideas in history. it was based on lies, first and foremost. and we never went into iraq to help the iraqi people. let's just be frank about that, up front. and more than that, because it was never sent to achieve anything good. you could argue if you were a shiite, who now is in power, and he never had a chance even of a decent life, that something good came from a. but i'm talking from an american perspective. when i say an american perspective i mean from a western perspective, because the world has been quick to divide this fight into american and non-american. i don't believe in that division. i think the division is between western and non-western but i don't want to put some religious name on a. is for people who believe in a way of life we believe in. what i call a very dark time.

and i don't, and i think that it's been an abject failure. i think the true depth of the failure of the iraq invasion has never been honestly and openly talked about. and i think that -- >> what do you think is missing? >> we would like to pretend that jenna patrice came in with the surge and suddenly save the day. and what he did was he stop the bloodletting. but not because of his search. he made an agreement with the sunnis that was on the table from the first day of the invasion. >> it wasn't until there was so much blood on the sunnis hands that could be supported politically that we finally had the political will to make that kind of agreement. what the search did was present although sunnis from being massacred by the iraqi government and the iranians because they wanted them dead. every single last one of them. it was really, and i went on rants like this, it was a sunni who was hand-in-hand with al qaeda say here's the weapon,

this is a guy you want to shut down. that's the stop the bloodletting. but in terms of strategy, in terms of national security come in terms of strategic interest the invasion of iraq was an abject failure. it empowered iran. did nothing to serve american interests. not to mention, i don't want to get into what the effect on iraqi people because it is a which side of wind came from an iraq. many iraqis benefited from the invasion of iraq. >> let me ask you about afghanistan, since you've been so blunt about your views on iraq. i recently, my daughter did a book, about the effect of the vietnam war on presidential policymaking. and when we talk to people of the u.s. embassy in kabul, and they told us american policy right now, could be defined as good enough, if they could come up with some kind of formula

that is politically acceptable to the american people. that's good enough. and what i'm wondering about is if, did you the same kind of thing from embassy people? and do you feel that good enough at this stage of the war is good enough to? >> i think that's an indictment on the u.s. embassy. i expect nothing more from politicians, quite frankly and from that embassy in particular. it was headed by paul eikenberry. he almost destroyed u.s. policy when he was general and commander. and the fact, what is good enough? what's good enough for the afghan people? what's good enough for the american soldier that is out there? has anyone seen what the debris of this war, the human debris actually looks like? i was shocked the first time in winter. i'm used to be on the battlefield with robust soldiers but i'm used to seeing them wounded, and leading and the medevac chopper. as long as you they will make you sort of breathe a sigh of

relief and think it's okay. it's not even close to okay. for me, i don't think that is a policy that is good enough for anybody that is involved in this. if you're not in it to fight, if you don't believe it can be one, when i say one, people say what does that mean? now we don't think it can be one. >> what does it mean in afghanistan? >> what it means, what were your original aims? go back to your original aims when you invade. it wasn't an invasion. the afghans are quick to point out they were the ones that toppled the taliban with u.s. help. there were less than several hundred u.s. personnel on the ground at the time. but the original aim was to defeat al qaeda and the taliban, and to ensure that they were never able to threaten the national security interests of the united states ever again. that clearly is not the case. when you're sitting down and you're uploading the hypocrisy of not putting the taliban on the terror list because you want to reserve the right to sit down

and negotiate with them and they'll bring it every academic in washington they can find who would to every insurgency in history has been won through negotiation and settlement, you don't win on the battlefield. tell that to them. i think they just want their insurgency on the battlefield. people think i'm advocating for war. i am not advocating for war. i think if you're going to go to war, you better go to war and you better win. but if you're not, if you're just going to lloyd on the battlefield and mess around with one disastrous political strategy after another, then get the hell out because you have no right to ask people to go and fight in your name if you're lying to them. the best analogy i can give you what you're doing to u.s. troops on the ground, line up all 100,000 or so of those troops, handcuffed and behind the backs and give them a shot straight to the taliban guns. that's in effect what you're doing. the enemy is not afghanistan. the expendable people are in afghanistan. the real enemy is across the

border in pakistan but i'm not advocating the war in pakistan but there are a thousand things you could do to address that. as long as you're not going after the khamenei control, we have the information to do that, we have not because of our foreign policy towards pakistan, then you have no business being in a fight. when people say it is not a strategic partner, so 30, 40 guys will strap on suicide bombs and go and blow themselves up because they are pissed off the government is corrupt? give me a break. this is not about corruption. this is not whether karzai is a reliable strategic partner. that is an excuse. >> cut it to the chase. what you think is really at the heart of the american effort now in afghanistan? >> get the hell out. that's all we care about. it's costing too much. we don't want to pay for. we don't think the afghans are worth the fight. it is their problem and we want to get out of here.

>> and at this particular point, if the u.s. were to work out a way of getting, without having accomplished its original purpose, and it sounds to me you think it is a waste. >> it has been a waste. you have the locations. the cards run the afghan war. >> to go in there -- >> you don't have to go into. there's plenty of ways, if you have their phone numbers as i know we have had for years, you don't need to cross the border. >> what do you do? >> you take them out the same we take up a al-awlaki at all the others that have been killed that way. >> well -- >> and you do it, you target not just the coda sure, -- you take 24-40 hours out of your day where you target all the people and you send a message to the pakistanis that putting american bodies in arlington cemetery is not an acceptable form of foreign policy. >> let's take a brief moment of

what i think is called -- [applause] >> station identification. tell our radio, television and webcast viewers and audiences that this is "the kalb report," i'm talking with lara logan, cbs news chief foreign affairs correspondent. lara, let me raise was probably a difficult subject for your. early on in the egyptian revolution in tahrir square, you're sexually assaulted and beaten aforetime you couldn't do your job. you're now back full-time. and i'm wondering whether that experience has affected you as a journalist? and they have in mind a comment that you may discuss, with "60 minutes," you said quote, i have a fear now in the that i've never had before. i don't want to let it stop me but it's going to be difficult. explained that. >> i think that all of us, you know, you have this, you carry with you this idea that it's not

going to be me. i know this could happen but you don't believe it will be you. then one day it is you, and you can't lie to yourself anymore i guess is the best way to describe it. so, you know, i'm afraid of things i wasn't afraid of before. i think about things i wasn't afraid of before. i have lived with afghan soldiers on their front line for three months with nobody need -- with nobody with me. just ask if he didn't speak english. so what i do that again? no. but i think the thing, and it remind you of the price of the people you love have to pay for what you do. i could do this for me if it was just me. you know, i would have come back to libya. i would be testing myself and finding my limit. but it's not just me, and when you come that close to dying, you know, that doesn't really describe it because as i said i was in the process of dying. i was already half dead before

it stopped, and i somehow was able to live. and so i look at my children out and i look at my husband, and i think how could i do that to them? so the journalism is the same. you believe in the same things. i believe in the work as much as i ever have. but unconscious about how selfish that decision is an unconscious of the price the people of the. and that makes you afraid. and i don't know if being afraid it enables you to do the things that i have done. i mean, i just went back to afghanistan so it's not like i have change the disc. >> of course. i was puzzled though because a couple of days before you actually went back and faced that awful experience, i believe a few days before you were on the charlie rose program. one of the things you told charlie was that you felt that you and your crew were targeted, and you didn't feel that we were not safe.

>> that was when i was arrested in each of the week before spent my point here is feeling that you were targeted, having been arrested, but you still went back. so what is it about lara logan that convey something that is obvious and says hey, lara, slow down, but you went back anyway? >> because, i mean, journalists are anarchists at target we don't like to be told what to do, even if it is by the egyptian government. if they're going to tell you into prison and intimidate you. my producer, he looks like he works for the state department every day. he drives us all crazy. we can be in darfur and he still looks like he just rolled out of washington. but he said we're sitting in this room in this secret, you know, not really secret but intelligence prison in egypt, and i was on a trip because i've been very, very sick.

i started vomiting before the interrogation begin. i think there used to making people vomit and not starting out the interrogation with that kind of behavior. but, and eventually they put a trip. they jus just a commute and my m and threw it back on the table and left me in a filthy, filthy river when i woke up finally, my producer and my cameraman were with me. mike cameron and was ready to get out of there. his grandmother was jewish and had worked out and they made him sign a confession. my producer was like, screw these guys. right? i'm not going to the airport. who are they to tell me what to do? that kind of feeling. you don't want to be stupid about it. this was a major story. we are talking about one of the most fundamental shifts in the strategic map of the worst we've ever seen seen in our lifetimes. and so, there's a part of you that as a journalist that think you need to be there to witness it.

my husband and i talked about and we took that decision together. i didn't make that decision, on and i had to say and i had to mean it, if you tell me now, if you ask me not to go i won't. and he didn't. >> you have spoken openly about that experience now in quite a few times. i don't want to belabor the point, but i have a larger question in mind which is sort of more than lara logan. it's that women reporters have, i've been told him many times suffered many different forms of sexual violence. and yet they don't want to talk about it. so why don't they want to talk about it? explained that to me. >> the media is a big boy's club, just to start. women always are conscious of that. that frames the environment in which you are working. women aren't good for a bit of fluff as anchors and women fulfill a particular role. but it's taken a very long time

for women to be taken seriously on the same playing field like, for example, in more. spin but i have to tell you, many, many young women as you know very well are now covering the wars. >> now, but not 10 years ago. that when i was starting out. not what i was coming up to the ranks. and if he did you expected to be kind of manly. you want allowed to wear makeup or the feminine. you have to fill a certain image of what a female war correspondent looked like. i didn't know how to be that. that was never, that was never in my dna to try to be something else, forcibly. so i never tried it. and i was told repeatedly that i would never make it and someone with my hair, i thought about cutting my hair for about three seconds. it's not just hard for women to think about it. it's harder for them to speak about it and it is for women to speak about it because it's not just women who are raped in

horrible prisons around the world. it is men, too. i've had men write to me since egypt happen. i think women live with a degree of sexual harassment. it's not just in your personal life. so part of you just thinks it comes with the territory of being a woman. and part of he thinks, i mean, if i came out of the afghan war and told you that i'm -- the afghan soldiers were taking kabul, the guys i've been living with stop to take a photograph and one of them, somebody came out of the crowd and grabbed my breast. they hunted this guy down and brought him to my feet and put a gun to his head and said just say yes. that would have overshadowed everything i ever did. that's all people would have talked about. so i didn't hide it, you know? but the first time i talked about it, big headlines in the newspaper and i thought oh, boy. that's not what i want to be remembered for.

there's a lot of things that you take with the territory. i don't come back whining about every risk i took or about how close it was or about how high i was. you shut up and you take it and you do your job. in afghanistan everyone was complaining about what a terrible war that was to cover. compared to an go and mozambique, that was fairly luxurious. >> well, so, you're not saying that it's more difficult for a woman to cover a war, are you? >> oh, no, i'm not. i think there are certain risks that women face. you know, when "the new york times" were arrested in libya, there were things that happened to the men that were never talked about. of a sexual nature. so men are just at risk as women. >> when we were preparing for this interview i read a lot about, a lot of things you said and what people have said about you. i come away with the impression that a lot of people seem more

fascinated by your personal life. what kind of person is lara logan, than about your professional accomplishments, which are so obvious. so why do you think that is the case? >> i don't know. i think they think of lara logan as selling newspaper. so, you know, i don't really have a good answer to that question. one thing that i will say though, i had no idea into egypt happened that there was so many of my colleagues that were interested in the work that ado, and respected it. because you get so used to covering your back into space and waiting for them next night that you forget about that aspect of it. my mother-in-law said people don't usually say those nice things about you until you are dead. [laughter] she said your kind of lucky. really? funny. not feeling so lucky right now. >> but you did something, do you think the industry now is loaded up with people to go to your

back who want to do you harm? do you live in that kind of environment? >> not more so than a lot of journalists. i think that's part of the nature of the industry. he felt that brought out the best in them. i think there's lots of people who have objected to a. i am not unique. >> let's talk about foreign reporting for a few minutes. i had the impression lately that in terms of foreign reporting on networks, that aside from reporters who are living somewhere covering that environment, big shot journalists will fly in, to a couple of interviews, spend a week and then leave, go back home. and i'm wondering since your career is very, very much -- that you'll find yourself almost inevitably in a situation where

you're going to go in soon, your best instincts, you will want to stay somewhere and soak it up and they will say you've got to be back on friday because of sunday, you're going on the air. and so, what do you think about the inevitability of lara logan moving into a time where she will have to do what producers tell her to do, because she is a big shot now and she's going to be on television and draw many more eyes to the network? how are you going to deal with that, lara logan? free spirit? >> i think sometimes i might get in and in other times i am really going to piss people all. and to be honest with you, i am more inclined to come back to see my babies and and because somebody wants me on errands on sunday but it wouldn't be the first time i have disappeared. you know, when i covered ramada, no one would say me when i was living in baghdad and we would get press releases but i somehow missed soldiers were dying and

we couldn't, contrary to what the bush white house people that you want people to believe. it was to just physically couldn't most of the time because it was so dangerous. cbs didn't have any interest in sending me so i called up one of my producers at "60 minutes" as a don't ask any question, just get on the plane. i told cbs news i've got to succeed 60 this to 60 mins i was going for cbs news. and affluent. we just disappeared for three weeks. i remember coming back, coming to a base at one point at ramadi with a said to be, there's someone from new york that has been trying to reach you. [laughter] so every journalist knows, we are adept at disappearing when we need to. there is something very uncomfortable about that reality that really bothers me. i think that so much, truly good reporting comes from you got. if you haven't had time on the ground, you haven't had time to really, you know, to grow that

in a sense of what something is. i know afghan people because i have spent so much time with them. so when somebody tells them something in washington that doesn't fit, i know it doesn't fit. i don't need to read some report. i don't need to refer to anybody else. i know here that it doesn't fit. and so i don't want to become one of those people that parachute into parachutes out. i think there are ways around that. i don't think there is a post way around that because nothing can substitute for the five years i spent living in baghdad. over the years i spent in afghanistan, in kabul. but i think that's one of the things i will have to do with as it comes, you know, and there is, when i go to afghanistan i don't go for three days. i just spent two and half weeks. and that's nothing compared to the year and the months spent on trips. but it's not three days. you know, hopefully i'm going to find a way around that.

>> i keep wondering how that's going to happen actually, and i don't see it. >> i'm not driven by my hours and minutes on air. i'm really not. that's never been the motivation for me. of course, if you do a story he wanted to be out there and you want people to be watching you pay attention. but if it means i do a few less pieces a year, or that i not estimate as i could be, i don't really care. >> and "60 minutes" doesn't bother you if you do fewer pieces than they would like you did to? >> "60 minutes" is run by journalists. >> right. >> is not run by corporate executives or business people. is run by journalists. jeff understands, he knows what's important if i say to i've got to spend three weeks in afghanistan because it's really important, and he says fine, make it work. he doesn't say okay, sure, we will make it work for you. you know? he says make it work. that's the decision you're going to make, make it work. then god help you.

you better make a work or you ain't going to have a job. >> how do you prepare for a story for "60 minutes"? >> you know, and it depends but it really depends but i realized the reason i spent my entire academic career crashing for exams was preparation for my career at "60 minutes." because an end to of i'll be on an airplane with a book like this. i have a good short-term memory because i literally made my academic career to remembering everything that i ever studied. and i use the same thing at 60 mins but i will sit down and do a two, three, four, sometimes even five our interview and never look at a piece of paper. i did a story which is one any for best interview. we never had a single written question for that peace. for all the interview. i never even thought about it into my producers said to me, not bad for not having a single written question. we do a lot of research. we try not to just rely on what's out there, you know, of

course read everything that moves. but you also try to go, try to go beyond that to the people who are experts in their field. you really have to master an extraordinary amount of detail. you have to know much more than ever comes out in the story. and it's tough. i did three, "60 minutes" pieces in three days and had to be a medical expert one day. i had to be a politics for another day, and had to be an economic and imf expert on another day. and i still have to be mom spent but you're the one who kept on talking not wanting to be an expert. you want to soak up everything. >> i do. i do want to soak it up but i think there's a difference there between, when you really immerse yourself in the level of detail that you need to do a strong "60 minutes" interview, that's kind of different to popping up on a 24 hour channel all over the world and being the instant expert. you really are reading a to limewire and have no idea if it is correct or not.

>> so tell me, lara, when you run out of wars to cover, what are you going to be doing? >> well, i just am a profile with aerosmith at columbia and i was up in canada doing a profile on tasha my last piece on "60 minutes" was the best free climate in the world. i know more about public than i ever care to know. so "60 minutes" is a magazine program. it's about the richness of life. it's not just about wore. i always love, i smile to myself because i very condescends i get this thing about oh, boy, she could do something other than war. for god's sake, of course i can do something about war. what do you think, i never read a book? i've never been anything and admired a beautiful painting? i never went to the movies? come on. if you can sit down and interview a president and minister of defense and street kid to sleep on the streets of

angola with street kids, you can do those things. you just come here to give of yourself as much, that's what people, they want to know what are you made up. because that's what "60 minutes" is. mike wallace, ed bradley, why do people love to watch them? because they can see what you're made of. they didn't hide. they were good people. i mean, as was some of the greats. i'm still trying to walk in those shoes. >> and they are big shoes. they are big shoes. but you're also the foreign affairs correspondent for cbs, so you seem to be spending, am i wrong, correct, most of your time doing "60 minutes" these to? >> i'm spending most of my time doing "60 minutes," yes. >> you find yourself, when do you find yourself having time to do something for the evening is? >> sometimes i would do something. i will have a meeting with a good conduct or source and i will find something critical and pass it onto the evening news that leads to something -- >> what i'm getting at, it is

not a day-to-day sense of responsibility. >> no. scarpelli understands what it takes to do 12, 50, "60 minutes" a year. he doesn't put pressure on me. and my boss understand that because people think it's easy. every one of these is like giving birth to triplets. and sometimes that is pleasant in comparison. you rewrite everything a thousand, million times, you fight with each other. you hate each other. you love each other. you go without sleep. i remember when asked eight and half months pregnant working on a two-part piece, and a young 22 your producer stack into the office and saying, i would complain about how tired i am but she's eight months pregnant. that's what everyone of them is like. you are a real team. you work through those hard nights together. and it's tough but it's rewarding. >> you mentioned a moment ago about reading books, and i don't want to put you on the spot, but

what are the kinds of books you enjoy reading? are you a mystery reader type or a history we're? >> i do like mystery, but most of my nights is occupied helping me do a better job. i'm reading a book now, every patient tells the story but it's about a fastening medical story i'm working on. i always said famously i hate medical stories. this is one of the best stories ever done. it's about undiagnosed diseases and what it's like. one of the people i interviewed for this, boy, she took my breath away. a beautiful woman singer tell me how for the last 26 years of her life she had been tortured by her muscles and no one can give her an answer. so most of the time i am reading for my work. peter thomson, if anyone hasn't read it has written a book like this about all the worst of afghanistan which is fascinating. i'm reading ghost wars, our people out there -- dexter said

his book. usually it's books like that. i don't like trashy novels just because i feel like i don't have the time to spend on them. but i just read another book by journalist that i got in chicago when i was there for something and it was all about his mother who was a holocaust survivor and how he discovered after his father died, he had to discover his mother's past. >> not much fiction? >> no. i love fiction though. i grew up with a great love. >> don't have the time. >> i just don't have the time for it. but there's nothing greater than being transported by a novel. nothing greater. i think that's one of the greatest pleasures of my life. i was inspired by phone and when he read as i lay dying. my dream as a young girl was to write a book like that that you could read over and over again. and never have the same understanding twice. is the shortest, shortest chapter written in letter history was my mother was a fish.

[laughter] which was a fascinating line about how this boy's mother had just died and this child was fishing at the time, and that was how he related is how, my mother was a fish. i was his attempt to grasp with the concept of death. that book was written to the eyes, every chapter was written through the eyes of someone else. i had to read the first 40 pages about 16 times before i knew where i was. and i thought how great to write a novel like that. so that's something i still want to do. i hope -- >> can you imagine being finished with working on television to? >> yes, i can. >> and what sort of life do you see yourself in? >> hopefully my husband and i don't hate each other. we have a life to share. i think, for me, i've always had a restless soul and i don't have any, i don't pretend to know the meaning of life. or have any grand ideas about

the universe or at the television and where it's going. i just thought that when, when my husband and i had children and had a family, this he stopped moving and shipping all the time. was the first time i had that piece in the and i found the meaning of my life. so that's much more important to me than television. as long as i can do work that means something to me, whether written work or in television or anything else, that's all that i care about. you know, you have to feel when you go to bed at the end of the day like he did something that meant something. because otherwise what's the point? >> is that something that you feel every day, once a week, once a month? what would satisfy you? >> i think i feel that every day. because i am to to myself. >> you really feel if you make -- what is it, that you've learned something new in the course of a day that you have helped someone in the course of the day that you are disappointed people in the course of the day? what is it that carries you

forward? >> i think what really carries me for it is i am always trying to do better. the thing about journalism is that i could work, and i very frankly did work from 7 a.m. until two, three, four, five in the morning. day after day after day, christmas, easter, birthdays, whatever it was, and i didn't do it for the promotion. i didn't do it for the company. i didn't do it for anyone but myself. because the greatest experience you could ever have it in that job with ascii to experience everything about life. and then to try to communicate something that means something. and it's the same, you know, with my children. if i can get to the end of the day and feel like i was the best mom i could be and i did everything that is expected of me that day, then i don't care if i'm staggering to bed at 11:00 and i should've been asleep hours ago. i know my son has gone to bed with a feeling of absolute love,

and those moments we had before he closed his eyes. there's nothing to compare with that. >> there are many young journalists in the audience, and we've got just a couple of minutes left. and i'm wondering, what kind of advice would you give them? because they face the journalism of the enormous uncertainty right now, it seems to be fighting a way forward rather difficult because of technological pressures, many pressures. what would you tell them? >> i would say that i have to believe that the one thing that will endure about journalism is that people demand to know the truth, that whatever people think about the journalism profession, however skating they are about media, that at the end of the day how society functions on the flow of information. so if you believe in that, if you believe in the first amendment come if you believe in what you're doing, then i wouldn't worry too much about where it is going. find your and each and give

everything -- find your niche. don't expect somebody to do it for you. don't say i'm not going to do this or not going to do that. he have to be prepared to do everything but i did sound, i did can work, i drove cars, i did sadly, i did editing. i did everything. that's what i have this certainly. i know what i believe in but i know who i am. i didn't get that from the three letters of the corporation. there's no greater honor in my life and be able to work at "60 minutes" of that "60 minutes" doesn't define my work. i try to live up to a standard of journalism. but it doesn't make me who i am. i'm going to be who i am with or without whatever job it is that i have. and i think that's very important it don't take yourself too serious and. don't stop thinking of the moment i start thinking i'm as important as "60 minutes," come on, come on. the worst journalists are the ones who think they matter more than the store or that they are somehow -- i have no illusion about my place in the world.

no illusions whatsoever. for me was an achievement if if it's a woman in the middle of the bush in africa and have told her story and nobody watches it, you know, of course what have i really changed and affected? but there's a record of history that now exist and that's what i'm doing it for. don't take no for an edge. don't listen to people that you've got to do this with or that what were you can't do it this way. you can only do it on your own merits. the harder you work and the more you understand about what you are doing, people can't take that away from you. they can't, they can't make me insecure when they write stories about oh, she discarded because of her looks or whatever else when they see that kind of thing. public we are behind your back. they can't make it insecure because i know it didn't come from there. i know no one did anything as. i know you want to be under their wing and said let me make this easy for you. i don't have any aversion to sluggy my guts out.

even now. we all do. "60 minutes" would make air if we all didn't slug our guts out for every story. so people told me that i didn't have the right color skin to be hired by newspaper in south africa so i went to television because they needed more people there. my boss was a cameraman who couldn't make it. he couldn't write a sentence so i wrote it for him. i worked for nothing. i worked for what they were prepared to pay for me. i interviewed for jobs i've done for two years by that time. i ate humble pie. i never did it for anybody but myself. and you know, one of the president of cbs told me once the hottest thing you have, the biggest problem you face in this job is staying true to yourself. and i smiled because i thought that's not going to be my hardest problem. my hardest problem will be to keep my mouth shut. [laughter] being who i am is going to be the easy part because i don't know any of the way to be. and that's because i know what i believe in.

i am prepared to stand up for that and i don't want people to think that's an easy thing. when i say that, my mother was a for god's sake, chuck and if you have to choose the hard road every single time? statues -- >> the hard road. i could never to shut up and say yes, i will drive carefully and i'm not going to speaker i was the one who said oh, no, i'm going to put my foot down and head towards the first ball i ever see. of course, i'm going to drive carefully. you think i'm that kind of person? for me it was an injustice that she would think i would do anything other than drive carefully because that was what was expected of me. i tried to do what's expected of me and i try to do the right thing. and that's not always popular. before there were a lot of people who didn't like what i said about coverage of the iraq war. there were a lot of people who didn't like what i said about stanley mcchrystal. this isn't about me. i don't want opinion to overshadow the work because the work is really what matters.

and i just think that people who want to be on television, if you want to be on tv, don't be a journalist. don't be a journalist. that's not the right job for you. because you're never going to be the journalist that you think you want to be. >> lara, i am really sorry that our time is up but it is. i want to thank a wonderful audience for sitting here and enjoying this. [applause] and, of course, i want to thank lara logan for sharing your thoughts and your experiences with us, and for keeping alive the flame of free and vigorous press, as being the best guarantor of a free and vigorous society. but our time is a. i'm marvin kalb. as others use to say, goodnight and good good luck. [applause] thank you, martin. -- marvin.

>> we do have two microphones, one pair and one pair. and you can get to the microphone and ask a question. i'm going to insist by the way that it is a question and not a speech. i would probably cut you off if it is a speech, or if i sense it is that we. why don't we start right here. identify yourself spent my name is jeff jacobson from the george washington university. i go to school of media and public affairs. you offered some pointed criticisms of our role in iraq and afghanistan. i'm just curious how you feel about our involvement in libya? >> well, libya is interesting because let's face it, the only reason we went after gadhafi is because everybody hates him and we knew we could get away with it politically. it doesn't mean what gadhafi was doing wasn't wrong. the real question from is want

of a doing a series of? because we have a different relationship with syria. and serious kind -- so of course there was a degree of hypocrisy in libya. not surprising. i mean, the world has been waiting for a chance to get rid of gadhafi. but i think the real tragedy of the middle east right now is the fact that so many people are dying in syria and so little has been done about it. you know, if i didn't have my situation, i guess that's what i would be trying to be, on the border in lebanon. i would be breaking, we are still trying to find ways, their inroads into that society, you can try to access from the outside. but i guess that what i would say. i would urge people not just to focus on libya but to look at libya in the context of syria and maybe that would be the story i would be pushing every day if i was doing daily news.

>> would you imagine the u.s. involving itself military a passion militarily and transcend? >> because of series relationship with iran, it's obviously very different but i think it shows no indication they have any intention of doing that. so i think it's extremely unlikely. but can you ever rule anything out? you can't rule it out. >> yes, please. >> as it happens, and neither an acquaintance of lara. congratulations. >> thank you. >> january 2007 was pretty heavy for you on a number of levels. a lot of people might not know the stories that you unpack and review a little or a lot of what you learned? >> what i learned was really quite interesting because it was an area of central baghdad where al qaeda had been very, very entrenched. and the u.s. military kept announcing major campaigns to clean up and all that really was

the iraqi government making a deal with al qaeda and sunni leaders to attack elsewhere. so the files would appear to go down. they would appear to have cleaned out haifa street. none of those deals ever held. violence would come up and go down, come up and go down. in what happened in january 2007 was that there was a major, major push to go back into haifa street and the iraqi army unit that was stationed on haifa street systematically raped and tortured and murdered the people there. to punish them for having al qaeda in the midst. and al qaeda and the sunnis in return slaughtered as many of the iraqi army. and we were living on haifa street. we could hear the battled the in and day out. and i was contacted once by, i don't know how it came to me, but an iraqi physician who had met, gone to the white house and met with george bush.

was a very lovely man, and his family who were prisoners in the midst of the fighting. begging for help. and i was time to get the u.s. military to help them. had actually found out from a friend of the u.s. ambassador was meeting with the iraqi president's i reached for interview with iraqi president about the the same time. i asked him in front of the president if he would help me with his family. because i knew once he publicly gave his word like that he would be screwed. [laughter] and so we did. we ended up going down on haifa street with an iraqi unit and edwin kept asking me what the apartment was and his family were. i have absolutely no idea because i had never met him and i've never been there. i just knew that there was a family, they were eating dog food. their pets dog food and the living in the shower with her children and everything. it was a horrific situation to be an. so i did what i could i use the

leverage that ahead and went with a unit that haifa street and actually they rescued him. and i still in contact with them. i also, you're probably referring to the report that it did which had very graphic images showing both sides of the violence. i had so many people on haifa street that were talking to me about how the rape and the tortures and everything that was going on. and i had managed to access video, and cbs news at the time didn't want to air the report because they thought it was too graphic. so i, and my wonderful, naïve fashion, e-mailed everybody i knew and said, first i e-mailed the web, and they said yes, they would put it on to the making of anybody i knew and asked them to look at the report. whatever they felt about it, to let cbs know. that was used by the left wing media first, to show what a terrible place cbs news was, sentient and coverage of the war for their own agenda, for a

right wing agenda. and then for some reason the right wing decided they hated me, too. they use this, i was used as a political pulpit for half of the less was trying to do the image of the war. and all of that was nonsense but it had nothing to do with any of that. i really resented being used as a political football by everybody but it goes to character. i was not trying to say that cbs was censoring the war. it was a personal decision by the editors who thought those images were too graphic. and i felt strongly that they should be seen, but that's my job as a reporter. i'm not the editor of the cbs evening news and i never will be. the big picture is not my strength. i'm a reporter on the ground fighting for my story and i want it out there. but cbs has been extremely good to me, and they have let me go to the furthest places in the world and say what actually think about it. time and time again. there's no evil man, doctor evil sitting there saying we are

going to take cbs policy in this direction or another. it's a place of real journalism. that was one of those battles that didn't go my way. i'm never going to send a mass e-mail again, i don't think. [laughter] >> i'm linda, a senior studying journalism. thank you lara for being here. my question is as an embattled journalist and someone who tries to constantly soak up your if i'm at where you are, how difficult is it cannot get emotionally invested in the story or a person you're covering? >> i get emotionally involved in everything. doesn't matter whether you're embedded are not embedded i lived in baghdad for nearly five years. i was very invested in the. i think it's important to be invested. i had a veteran journalist once tell me in the midst of a flood in mozambique, and we're doing a story and there were 20 or 30 children who had been separate

from the parents, and i remember coming out of the building and crying. i had tears rolling down my cheeks and he said oh, forgot say, you think that's bad? you will never make in this business if you'll be crying all the time, kind of thing. and i thought, beep beep at you. because that's the person i am. people say to me all the time how do you cope with everything you have been through? you cope with it by confronting it, not denying it. i care very much about what i do. i think i owe the people i talk to you. honestly i owe them. i owe them a fair hearing. there's a huge responsibility and i had explained this to american soldiers. i am not here to wave the flag on your behalf but i have a responsibility to you, that i have responsibility if we're in iraq to the iraqi people whose lives are affected. i have responsibility to a whole lot of different people when i do my work. i think it's important to be invested in a.

i'm very invested emotionally and i don't try to hide that. i don't try to hold back on the. i give everything to this. and sometimes the old enough to give someone is of yourself. give them respect. give them understanding. you give them a chance to tell it to you in their words, in their way. people think i'm a big talker, not a big blister. one of the biggest mistakes you can make. i'm a very, very, very good listener. much better listener actually. i rarely pay attention. when i sit down with you, you have everything that i have. you have all of me. and ed bradley used to say that. i think he was right. i'm going to stay removed from this so i can be an objective third party. nonsense but how can you not be moved by someone who suffered something incredible difficult. difficult. you have to be moved by it to understand everything. >> thank you. >> yes, please.

>> edward from sunshine press. thank you for your presence and your example. you spoke about the experts and academics have just talked to someone in the white house from the pentagon and come on the air. and i wonder if you could tell us as listeners and viewers more about how to identify the phony expert? it used to be that the good looking blondes were easy to spot, and then you and leslie stahl and such came along. how do we spot these folks who are perhaps credentialed, but don't know anything in their reports or whatever? >> i think it is tough. one important thing to say is not every expert is phony. bruce riedel is one of the best voices on afghanistan. he has incredible depth of experience there and he is somebody that i turn to. and so, there are some very

real, there are some people who know a lot and have years and years, decades of experience. and i think that if you're a conscientious person he was always reading, over time you have to pay attention to the name and the institute. look, does this institution sit on the left or do they sit on the right? what's their motivation? you should evaluate, you evaluate somebody's motivation for why, why would they be saying that? why would they think that? if you don't have experience, firsthand experience and knowledge it's very hard to know when someone is slipping into academia and history, and it's easy to be intimidated by that because they often know a lot more about something that you have no idea about and you are impressed by that. so i don't have an easy answer for you. i think, you know, come on. journalists, you're right, over and over and over again. but you keep spotting a guy on cnn that a noise the holy crap

out of you, there's probably a good reason for it. so when you listen and watch over time and you see what somebody predicted and see what somebody said about iraq and in the truth emerges eventually because usually it does come out even though it takes time, if you're paying attention you remember that. i just think take it with a grain of salt half the time. and actually a lot of these institutions are very clearly aligned with different administrations and things like that. you just have to be aware, but it is tough. i do think it's an easy thing that's why you don't get away with it. >> i'm a freshman at the gw school. you described graphic images that you saw in iraq. in the case of gadhafi or the death of bin laden, do you think specifically in the case of bin laden, do you think the public should see the individual pictures as graphic as they are of someone's dead body? do you think that is important? >> yes and no.

i think it's laughable to be with us and we didn't see the body, therefore it didn't happen. come on. i know that the government, this administration made that decision because they were afraid it would inspire lone wolf attacks, that people who are sitting on the fence, prevent someone who would be motivated to go out and opened up with a machine gun in times square. i think that's a decision that is made out of weakness and fear, if that's your basis for it. so i'm not really sure. i'm not an expert. i'm not a catechism expert but i'm not really sure that is a strongest base of which to make a decision like that. does the world need to see a picture of bin laden's body? i don't know. one of his wife's was 14 years old when he married her and no one is calling him a pedophile. that's what everybody is focused on, whether or not you can see bin laden's body? that's what the most important thing to come out of the? all the ammunition they want to say this didn't really happen,

what does it serve to see bin laden's body? there is an argument to be said, do you need to dance on his grave? that's what seeing the body means, right? i'm not really sure whether the world, do you have any right to see bin laden's body? does it serve a greater purpose? you do ask yourself those questions when you're doing this work. what is the greatest -- greater purpose. am i making a name for myself by having the only person to have this story that will live and die and be gone? i think that's a consideration comes into your work. that's important i don't have a good answer for you on that but i did meet tasha i didn't need to see his body. just knowing it was there was enough spent our last question. >> jonathan heldman. i am gw grad and presently with cnn. war reporting this entry, i things edward r. murrow the

first to bring us -- bring it was like at the last 20 years we've seen technology advanced so fast where everything is so instantaneous. with 24 hour news cycle, the internet, twitter, facebook are all these different technologies. you can see how it may assist what you do. have you found it to be a hindrance in any way? do you think it becomes harder for people to really connect with your story when there's so much information at any given point? >> you know, cnn doesn't play to my strength. being an instant expert rushing here and everywhere was in a place that i was very accountable. i followed northern ireland, for example. i knew what happened there, but northern ireland is a minefield when you say, you call summary with one name enemies something on one side of the board and something else. it has huge implications excited and feel comfortable on reporting on something like that. and just reading off the wires

the moment something hit. i think that there's, there's a huge downside to the technology in the sense that it doesn't give you, even a day disappears very fast and you're on a deadline for the evening news. but at the same time, there's something great about what the technology is, that instant news has changed the world. it's change politics. it's changed national security policies. it's changed the strategic relationships. it's change everything about how we live. the power of it is undeniable. you can't go backwards. i'm not much -- this event is sponsored by the ethics and standards. where are they for the bloggers, by the way? where are they for twitter? where are they for facebook? they don't exist. that's something i think is very egregious. that's very cities. you can start a blog and put any rumor you like out there, and people think that the mainstream media is so evil and so controlled and so regulated, and all the rest of it.

that has not been my experience and i think, i know without a doubt that there are standards and ethics that we try and adhere to and try to live up to. i don't know if you can ever see that in the blogosphere, but it needs to be there. this idea that special interest was served on in the mainstream media. who is paying for half of those blogs? special interest, come on. the worst part is they put themselves out there and say we are the true guardians of free speech. we are the ones to give you the truth, not those evil lying bastards in the mainstream media who are pushing one agenda after another. so i think there's undeniable upside to this technology, what a fast exciting fashion and place it made the world. how they connected the world. in a way that has never been seen before. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. so you have to live with it, but there's no doubt, there's a downside to. there's a downside to the 24 hour news cycle. there's a blurring of opinion and analysis and all these talk

shows that spring up they give people what they want to hear and don't worry about the facts and don't worry about real reporting and real journalism. that part of it is depressing to me. that part is really depressing. so i don't listen to it and i don't read it, and they just kind of shut it out. i don't have the time to really try to keep my job. >> lara, you are a very special reporter. >> thank you. >> it's been a pleasure having you on "the kalb report." i will let you go only if you promise to return. >> i promise. >> it's ideal. thank you all very much. [applause] [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us. >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays.

>> the u.s. senate is about the gavel in to begin their day. they will start with general speeches for about an hour or so before beginning legislative work at 11 a.m. eastern. more work at that point on a bill repealing a 3% withholding tax from certain federal contractors. the senate will shift focus at noon eastern and consider judicial nomination. they will vote at about 12:15 future. lawmakers will break from weekly party caucus lunches. now the senate it on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. sovereign god, and ultimate

ruler of this nation, as our lawmakers remember their accountability to you, use them to protect the blessing of continue to provide encouragement and support to the members of their staffs, who help provide for the security and well being of the citizens of this land. lord, cover us all with your protection and providence, and may your gracious benediction give us peace this day and evermore. keep our thoughts clear, our words wise, and our hearts pure. we pray in your great name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., november 8, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeanne shaheen, a senator from the state of new hampshire, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour. the majority will control the first half.

following morning business we will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 674. at noon the senate will be in executive session to consider the nomination of evan wallach to be united states circuit judge for the federal circuit. at 2:15 p.m. the united states will -- i'm sorry. i was behind myself a little bit. sorry about that. at 12:15 the senate will vote on the confirmation of the wallach nomination. following that vote the senate will be in recess until 2:15. expect to be in consideration of h.r. 674 today. senators will be notified when additional votes are scheduled. madam president, there are two bills at the desk. they're both due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bills for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 2930, an act to amend the securities laws to provide for registration exemptions for certain

crowd-funded securities and for other purposes. h.r. 2940, an act to direct the securities and exchange commission to eliminate a prohibition against general solicitation as a requirement for a certain exemption under regulation "d." mr. reid: i object to any further proceedings with respect to these two bills. the presiding officer: objections having been heard, the bills will be placed on the calendar calendar under rule 14. mr. reid: madam president, yesterday my friend the republican leader ticked off a list of bills he believes republicans and democrats can agree. i couldn't help but notice that the vow to hire heroes legislation that would give tax cuts to companies that hire out work to disabled veterans wasn't on that list he ticked off. the bill i just referred to, the vow to hire heroes, ought to be free of even a whiff of controversy. house republicans already voted for the major component of that bill, a plan to give older

americans access to job training so they can keep up with the rapidly changing workplace to help young veterans transition from active-duty service to the civilian workplace. the bill wouldn't add a dime to the deficit so there should be no objection there. it's paid for with a nonconference extension of existing fee on fee-back mortgages. it is a version of the same one house republicans already voted. republicans supported tax credits for companies that hire out-of-work and disabled veterans in the past, so that can't be the holdup. we'll pass this important legislation as an amendment to the bill, to withhold 3% withholding provision from government contractors. republicans have been chomping at the bit to pass this measure so the vow to hire heroes is not a source of the silence. there are no procedural or philosophical hurdles to pass on this bill. don't take my word for it, madam president. jeff miller, the republican

chairman of the house committee on veterans' affairs, set about this bipartisan legislation yesterday -- quote -- "today we're putting aside politics and putting veterans first. this is how the process should work. the vow act should pass the house with overwhelming bipartisan support provides the legislation to get through the employment problems our veterans face." end of quote. with nearly a quarter million iraq and afghanistan veterans unemployed, this legislation can't come a moment too soon. yet senate republicans remain curiously silent on this legislation. it's inconceivable that my republican colleagues believe this legislation to be unnecessary, but it also seems unthinkable republicans would unanimously oppose legislation to create hundreds of thousands of jobs for teachers, police officers, firefighters and construction workers. here's what's at stake. the number of unemployed post-9/11 veterans have gone up by 30,000 in the last year

alone. nearly 250,000 men and women who volunteered to fight overseas for the flag and the freedoms and privileges it represents can't find a job here at home. that number will only grow as the two wars draw to a close. one in five young veterans, veterans under age 25, they're unemployed. on any given night at least 75,000 veterans, including 2,500 in nevada, sleep on the streets. they're homeless. we should all be able to agree that even one night is too many for our nation's heroes to pass without a roof over their heads. young veterans are four times as likely to live in poverty. during tough economic times, when some young people join the military for a way to escape the cycle of poverty, this statistic is shocking and disheartening. so i call on the minority leader and the rest of my republican colleagues to break the silence. where do they stand on the vow to hire heroes act?

i ask my republican colleagues, do you believe we should lend a helping hand to those who defend our freedom? of course. do you think this nation's responsibility to its veterans ends the day they take off that uniform? andrew carnegie once said that the older goat, the less mind -- he older he got, the less mind he paid attention to what they say. i watch what they do. i remind my republican friends the men and women of the united states armed forces, those who wear the uniforms today and those who wore it once are watching what our republican colleagues do.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: it's been two months since the president came before congress and outlined his plan for tackling the jobs crisis, a plan that can be best described as a rehash of the same failed policies of the past few years disguised as a bipartisan overture. a political strategy masquerading as a serious legislative proposal. the president put this plan together knowing republicans would oppose it. in other words, it was actually designed to fail, as the white house aides have readily admited to reporters for weeks. this was not -- i repeat -- a serious effort to do something about jobs and the economy. it was a serious effort to help the president's reelection campaign by making republicans in congress look intransigent. so what i've been saying for the

past few weeks is let's put the political games aside. we'll have time for that next year in the election. the american people want us to do something about jobs right now. it appears the message may finally be breaking through. i was just list tock my friend -- listening to my friend the majority leader talking about the measure before us, something we support and look forward to passion. it's been championed by senator scott brown of massachusetts. it would help contractors who do business with the government. and i was also glad to see that the veterans bill which contains many provisions supported by republicans will be the first amendment. so maybe we're making some progress here. this is just the kind of thing we've been calling for, just the kind of thing we should be doing a lot more of around here. there's a lot we can agree on when it comes to jobs legislation, and that's where the focus should actually be. while the president's been out on bus tours, republicans in the

house have been debating and passing bipartisan legislation aimed at making it easier for companies across the country to grow and create jobs. over the past two weeks i've highlighted some of their good work. yesterday i mentioned in particular a bill the house passed just last week called the small-company capital formation act, h.r. 1070, a bill that received 421 votes, including 183 democratic votes. only one person in the entire 435-member house of representatives voted against the bill. just one. and president obama endorsed the idea contained in this bill in his jobs speech a couple of months ago. the question is: why in the world would be the the democratic majority take it up -- why in the world wouldn't the democratic majority pass it here in the senate? if democrats are interested in passing legislation that helps put americans back to work than they are in raising taxes, they should at least work with us to pass the bill the president

himself has endorsed. so this morning i want to say again how pleased i am that we'll be taking up senator brown's 3% withholding bill to help ease the burden on government contractors and we'll have a vote on and hopefully debate the veterans bill. and i'd like to call on the democratic majority in the senate to keep it up by taking up h.r. 1070 or its bipartisan senate companion bill, s. 1544, sponsored by senator toomey and tester. take up this legislation that's already passed the house with the support of almost everybody over there, and show the american people that you care more about creating jobs than in creating campaign slogans. let's not make the bills we'll be voting on today the exception but the rule around here. why don't we just keep it up? right now small-growing businesses aren't expanding their businesses through public offering because they can't

afford the high cost of government paperwork they're required to manage. instead of going out there and raising money to grow and hire, they're holding back. they're not expanding. and if they're not expanding, they're not hiring. this bill would remove some of that burden from smaller businesses and help them gain access to new capital that they can invest in their businesses and their employees. yesterday i mentioned the c.e.o. of a pharmaceutical company in pennsylvania who says he's got -- the c.e.o. of a pharmaceutical company in pennsylvania who says he's got a promising new drug for treating chronic kidney disease, actually in the pipeline but that he can't take it to the next level because of all the regulatory costs that his company is too small to afford right now. we should be removing barriers for smaller companies like his. nearly 200 house democrats agree

with that, and so does president obama. as i said yesterday, this bill is about as bipartisan as it gets. the only thing standing in the way of passing it in the senate are the democrats who schedule legislation around here. and the only reason they could not block it is because it steps on the campaign strategy. i think americans can see republicans in the house passing all these bipartisan bills aimed at spurring job creation and wonder why senate democrats won't take them up. this should be easy. they have already done the hard work of finding jobs bills that we know can pass both chambers and that the president would probably sign. let's take up senator toomey and senator tester's bipartisan companion bill to house bill s. -- to the house bill. their bill is s. 1544. and let's pass it and then let's send it to the president for signature so it can become law. if you're creating jobs, shushed

be for this bill. as the a.p. put it last month, companies use the cash they raise to grow. that means hiring people. at a time when 14 million americans are looking for work and the unemployment rate has been stuck near 9% for two years, the last thing the economy needs is for one engine of hiring to stall. a recent report by nasdaq of companies that went public from 2001 to 2009 found that those companies increased their collective workforce by 70% after maying the initial public offering. 70% increase in employment after making an initial public offering. what this bill does is enable more companies to take that leap and start hiring once they have. this is just the kind of thing we should be doing more of in the senate. let's put the partisan bills aside. let's focus on bipartisan legislation instead. why don't we just shoot for

success. now, madam president, on another matter, last week the white house announced the prime minister of iraq will be meeting with the president here on december 12. this meeting comes at an important time, as our own military forces will be drawing down their presence within iraq and the future of our bilateral future relationship remains very unserchlt but our withdrawal from iraq raises another important matter that i hope the president will raise with the prime minister, which highlights some of the difficulties that will result from military drawdown there and eventually in afghanistan as well, both of these drawdowns the president has ordered. what i'm referring to is the law

of war detention. in july of this year, senate republicans wrote the secretary of defense panetta concerning the custody of almuso daduc, the senior hezbollah operative current any our custody in iraq. he is in custody in iraq between the u.s. and iraqi government. in 2005daduk was directed by senior hezbollah leaders to travel to iron where he trained -- to iran where he trained iraqi extremists in the use of mortars and other terrorist tactics. among other things, daduc is suspected of orchestrating a kidnapping four years ago that resulted in the murder of five u.s. military personnel and it is a safe bet that he is transferred to iraqi control that he will return to the fight against the united states.

president obama should insist in his meeting with prime minister malaki that the u.s. forces retain custody of daduc and transport him to the detention facility at guantanamo bay. the detention of daqduq touches on three important issues in the ongoing war on terror. first, with the withdrawal of our military presence from iraq, the u.s. will lose the ability to detain enemy combatants like daqduq in iraq. current plans are for the united states military to have completed our transition to the security forces of afghanistan which the end of 2014. and we should expect that we will lose the ability to detain enemy combatants there as well. our military commanders in afghanistan should therefore anticipate losing the ability to detain enemy combatants by that date.

as we saw in the capture of abdul arsami, the somali terrorist accused of providing material support to al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, and a and al-shabaab, there remains a strong likelihood that our military and intelligence community will need a secure detention facility to house these foreign fighters. the issue of what you are going to do with them? remember than being kept in military custody overseas, warsame was flown in this civilian system. but the logical place pour long-term or indefinite detention of foreign fighters like warsame is not on a ship at sea or in our private prison system but, rather, as i've said many times before, at the secure detention facility at guantana guantanamo. second, it is worth noting that

the obama administration has tied its own hands in the matter of indefinite detention of enemy combatants. the administration's plan to buy a prison in illinois for conversion to a military detention facility makes clear that the president does not oppose law of war detention. he is fine with bringing foreign fighters into the u.s. and indefinitely detaining them inside our borders and yet he opposing detank them indefinitely at a military facility at guantanamo where they will benefit from humane treatment but they won't enjoy the legal rights of detainees who are brought here, including the possibility of release into the united states. third, the executive order signed by the president in january 2009 were issued with an eye toward fulfilling candidate obama's campaign promises rather than after conducting a serious

review of sound counterterrorism policy. and now three years after tan tg office, the president has had enough experience dealing with terrorism to know that many of the terrorists can't be sent back to places like yemen where they're likely to return to the fight. but the president's own executive order have denied our military commanders and intelligence community the certainty they need when they capture, detain, and interrogate terrorist suspects. his early executive orders, for instance, ended the c.i.a.'s detention program and directed the closing of guantanamo. the order to close guantanamo makes little sense, so it's not republicans who are tying the president's hands on prosecuting the war on terror. did he that himself with a shortsighted executive orders he signed during his first days in office. as our country withdraws from

iraq and transitions further responsibilities to the afghanistan security forces in afghanistan, we will need a place -- a place to send foreign fighters like warsame and daqduq. that place is the military detention facility at guantanamo bay in cuba. in discussions with prime minister mall can i, the president should discuss the role that the u.s. military will play in iraq after the end of this year and how our two countries can work together to preserve the gains made through the sacrifice of so many brave americans. and to combat iranian influence. but in addition to these important matters, the president should also insist that the prime minister retain custody of daqduq and send him to guantanamo as soon as possible. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of

morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders h.r. other designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, i listened carefully to the statement made by the minority leader, senator mcconnell, the republican leader. his last statement was about the military drawdown in iraq. there are some of us on the senate floor who were here ten years ago when the vote was taken on the invasion of iraq. 23 of us voted "no." one republican and 22 democrats, because we felt the focus of american military power and energy should be to avenge what happened on 9/11 by focusing our resources and the great men and

women in uniform on afghanistan and al qaeda and osama bin laden. president bush and his supporters believed otherwise. they called for a war in another country, in iraq, a country which was not implicated in any way with what happened on 9/11. 23 of us thought that was a mistake. well, here we are almost ten years later. we have spent $1 trillion in iraq. we have lost over 4,400 of our brave men and women who served in uniform. and now we have a leadership in iraq which is suspect. mall a can i, the leader, has shown in the past to be close to the iranians, not our friends and not the friends of western values. i'm unhappy with that outcome, but when you deal with democracy -- or some form of it -- the people of a country choose their leaders. that's the reality. and so president bush, before he left office, negotiated a

timetable to bring american troops home from iraq and the timetable called for that to happen by the end of this year. and so what president bus presid when he came into office was to take this planned withdrawal of american troops by president bush and implement it. now, there came a question at the end whether all of the troops would leave or some would stay. what president obama tried to negotiate was a guarantee that if american troops stayed in iraq, they would not be charged and tried in iraqi courts, that they would be subject to punishment for wrongdoing, but it would be under the premise that it, as in most cases, it would be done under american military law. mr. malaki and the iraqis said "no" and the president said, we are not going to leave our men and women in uniform in iraq subject to a government and courts that may not treat them justly or fairly. i think the president made the

right decision. i think if he'd made the other decision and left them there and let the iraqi prosecutors do what they wish, we would have heard speeches from the other side what an outrage it is. the president said "n no, our troops will come home. now comes the criticism that we're leaving from the republican side of the aisle, leaving under a timetable established by president george w. bush, leaving because president obama could not get a guarantee of fair treatment of american soldiers if they stayed. what else would a president do? and then the argument is made, well, the problem we have is that it may reach a point where some of the people accused of terrorism now being held in iraq, we're not certain what's going to happen with them now. it's a good question. and i don't know the answer to it. but senator mcconnell -- he is

consistent -- believes that we should not ever consider bringing such a foreign person accused of terrorism into america's judicial and court system. he argues that since this is a war and these are terrorists involved in the war, these people should all be directed to military courts in the united states, military tribunals. we've had that argument on the floor. in fact we had the debate and we had the vote when senator ayotte offered it just a week or two ago, and the majority sentiment in the united states senate reflects a reality. and here les the reality, madam president: since 9/11/2001, more than 300 terrorists have been successfully prosecuted in the article 3 criminal courts of america. so, even those who are foreign-born, like the most recent one, the underwear bomber -- you remember the story? he was on a plane, headed to

detroit, tried to detonate a bomb. he pled guilty a few weeks ago in america's criminal courts. he was prosecuted by the department of justice, investigated by the f.b.i. few an--investigated by the f.b.i. more than 300 terrorists have been successfully prosecuted in our courts. the same courts that senator mcconnell questions whether they could ad adequately protect america. 300 times they have 3678900 times accused terrorists have gone to jail. how many have been prosecuted in military tribunals in that same period of time? three. three. 300:3, if you're keeping score. what i say is this president and any president should have the power to make the right decision as to where someone should be prosecuted. if it's in our court system, so be it.

and there's ample evidence that the f.b.i. and our prosecutors are up to that tafnlgt ifness a military tribunal, so be it. let the president make that decision. he believes it is a mistake to go to our criminal courts. i would just ask him if he believes that to explain the score, 300-3 over the last ten years. and one last point. this notion that we cannot safely incarcerate convicted terrorists in american prisons has been proven wrong 300 times since 9/11. these men have been sent to american prisons all around the united states, including marion, illinois, where we house convicted terrorists. and i will tell you, i've been down to southern illinois recently and people are not running screaming in the streets because four or five people convicted of terrorism are sitting in the marion federal penitentiary. our people who work there will

take care of those folks and the folks who live around that community have no fear. i might add, too, that senator mcconnell is mistaken in referring to the torch son prison. allow me to say a brief word about something that means a lot to meevment ten years ago my state built a prison in thompson, i will and then didn't have enough mean to open it. it's been sitting there empty for a decade. now the state of il -- illinois is prepared to sell it to the bureau of federal prisons. they negotiated a good price, good for the state of illinois and good for us. saves us about $35 million over building a new prison. we get a pretty good deal as federal taxpayers and illinois gets a ten-year-old prison it's not using sold. that's pretty good. it creates a lot of local jobs. this has the support not only of myself but the republican senator from illinois, senator mark kirk, and the republican congressmen who represent this area. we all support this. and the notion that guantanamo

detainees are coming to thompson is a dead issue. the president proposed it initially. i had no objection to it. but it was clear that the political sentiment on capitol hill opposed it. i accepted that. i accepted political defeat, if you will, on this issue and said so be it. no guantanamo detainees can ever go to the thompson prison if that's what it takes to close the deal. the president agreed to t. attorney general eric holder sent a letter confirming it. senator kirk acknowledged this letter made it clear this administration was not going to transfer those prisoners to thompson. and here it comes back on the floor today. well, i can just say to my friend, senator mcconnell, i hope he will sit down with senator kirk who will explain this is no longer an issue. i'm not fighting this issue. the president isn't fighting it. there will be no guantanamo detainees at thompson. let's do something right for our bureau of prisons and right i

hope for my state of illinois. the last point i'd like to make is on a separate issue. we're going to consider a veterans bill today on veterans unemployment. we'll vote on it soon, in the next day or two. it is a bipartisan bill, and it should be. it is a bill that's based on president obama's jobs bill which said that in addition to all the other unemployed in america, we should give special help to our returning veterans. i remember the president's speech at the joint session of congress. members on the republican side didn't jump up and applaud very often, but they sure did when the president said we ought to help our veterans. they fought for america. they shouldn't come back home and fight for a job. let's give them a helping hand. everybody stood up and applauded, as we should. so this bill provides incentives for people to hire unemployed veterans. we estimate there are about 240,000 of these veterans, and the tax credits that are being offered and all the other counseling and assistance is paid for in the bill. and it appears now that this bill, inspired by president

obama's jobs bill, and added to it, i might add the work of the senate veterans' committee under senator patty murray, is likely to pass on apbipartisan basis and it should in time for veterans day. let me add another point if i can. i want to help these 240,000 veterans and all veterans go work. that's something that we have a duty, a solemn moral duty to see happen. but don't forget there are 14 million unemployed americans. president obama's bill goes beyond veterans and says there are many other people needing a helping hand. help the veterans first. okay, i'm for that. i sign up. but keep on the topic, keep on the subject of putting america back to work. and, unfortunately tphourbgs on three separate -- now on three separate occasions we've called president obama's jobs bill on the floor and we couldn't get one single republican senator to vote for it. not one. and their reason is very clear and they're very explicit about

it. president obama pays for his jobs bill by imposing a surtax on those making over $1 million a year. in other words, if you're making more than $20,000 a week in income in america, you're going to pay a little more. it's about 5% for the money earned over $1 million. and the republicans have come to the floor and said clearly "no deal. we will not agree to any jobs bill that imposes any new tax burden on the wealthiest people in america." that's their position. they're very open about that position. who disagrees with that? virtually everyone in this country. overwhelming majority of democrats anded ins and a kwrort -- -- democrats and independents and tea partyers say it's not unfair to get kwraoelgt americans to --

wealthy americans to pay a little more in taxes. today as we pass this veterans -- or start to pass this week this veterans bill, remember it started in the president's jobs bill. it is now bipartisan, as it should be. and we shouldn't stop here. we need to continue the effort. last week we tried to put money into rebuilding america, infrastructure across america: roads, highways, airports, mass transit. couldn't get a single republican to support us. not one. the week before that we said let's try to focus on teachers, policemen and firefighters who are losing their jobs. let's try to make sure they don't lose as many as they might have if we didn't act. and we couldn't get a single republican to support that either. they will not support any provision in the president's jobs bill that adds one penny in new taxes to a millionaire in america. that's their standard. that's what they're using. the veterans bill doesn't do that. so they said they'll go along with it. but it really begs the question: if we are serious, serious about

dealing with this recession and putting people back to work, let's not stop with the veterans of america. let's start with the veterans of america, and let's do the right they think by them and the rest of this country. a payroll tax cut for working americans so they have more money struggling paycheck to paycheck, more money to get by makes sense. they'll spend that money. they'll need to on the necessities of life. secondly, tax credits to hire those who are unemployed. third making certain we invest in infrastructure, not only roads and highways but school buildings. also to make sure we do our best for policemen, firefighters and teachers who are facing layoffs all across america. those ought to be priorities. they are the president's priorities. they should be our priorities in the senate. the president has strong bipartisan support for what he is setting out to do. the sad reality is we have little or no support so far when it comes to votes in the united states senate.

madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, i thank the distinguished senator from illinois for his remarks on topics that are very dear to us. i commend him for his advocacy and passion in these important areas. i was here last week in this chamber to discuss a variety of areas in which the american people aren't getting a straight deal compared to special interests and folks who have a lot of power for themselves and their industries here in washington. in that speech, i proposed a number of concrete steps that we could take to help restore the balance of power in our nation

between ordinary american people, on the one hand, and the giant corporations and special interests that give themselves special deals and privileges that the american people don't share on the other hand. today i'm here to introduce legislation to take one of those steps. and that is to protect ordinary consumers from runaway interest rates on credit cards from wall street banks. this is something that has gone unchecked for far too long. in the last congress, we passed two pieces of banking legislation. we passed the credit card act which ended some of the worst tricks and traps hidden in credit card contracts. and we passed the dodd-frank act, which restructured or system of financial regulation

and created a new agency to protect consumers from hazardous mortgages and credit cards. regrettably, one particularly bad practice was not addressed in either of those two pieces of legislation, and that is the runaway credit card interest rates that families are too often burdened with. i'll add it's not just families. i went through olneyville in providence about two weeks ago and spoke to a small business owner who was having tough times. and his bank had pulled his line of credit, so he was having to fund his business off his credit card. and they had bumped his credit card rate up to, you guessed it.

30%. the empowering states' rights to protect consumers act, which i'm introducing today, would pick up where the credit card act and dodd-frank left off. by restoring to our 50 sovereign states the power which they have properly had through the vast bulk of the history of this republic to protect their home state consumers, with limits on credit card and other loan interest rates. this is not a new power to states. this is not a new principle or idea. this is the restoration of a historic states' right which was just eliminated a few decades ago. madam president, when you and i were growing up, a credit card offer with a 20% or 30% interest

rate might be something to bring to the attention of law enforcement. such interest rates were illegal under most states' laws. today in contrast, credit card companies routinely charge rates of 30% or more. you may not know it going in to your credit card agreement that that's where you're p going to end up. they may have a teaser rate up front that is a lower rate. but make one of those mistakes in that 20-page long contract that is full of tricks and traps and pow! there you are at 30%. so, what happened between our childhood, when a 30% interest rate was something to bring to the attention of law enforcement, and now when ordinary families are bedeviled with 30% interest rates on their

credit cards? well, before 1978, which is for the first 202 years of the american republic, each state had the ability to enforce usury laws, interest rate limits, to protect their citizens. our economy grew and flourished during those two centuries. and lenders profited while complying with the laws in effect while they operated. then came 1978, and a seemingly uneventful supreme court case. it was little noticed at the time it was decided. in marquette national bank of minneapolis versus first of omaha service corporation, the supreme court had to decide what states' law to apply when the bank was domiciled in one state but the customer lived in a

different state. and the court looked at the word "located" in the national bank act of 1863 and it decided that it meant the location of the bank and not the location of the customer. well, they didn't get it right away, but it did not take long before some big banks spotted the opportunity. they could avoid interest rate restrictions by reorganizing as national banks and moving to states that had weak interest rate protections and comparatively weak consumer protections. the proverbial race to the bottom followed as a small handful of states eliminated interest rate caps and degraded their consumer protections in order to attract lucrative credit card business and related

tax revenue to their states. that is why the credit card divisions of major banks are based in just a few states and why consumers in other states are often denied protection from outrageous interest rates and fees even though those outrageous interest rates and fees are against the law of the consumer's home state. so my bill would reinstate the historic, long-standing powers of states to set interest rate caps that protect their own citizens. let me be clear about what this bill would not do. it would not prescribe or recommend any interest rate caps. nor would it impose any other lending limitations. it is pure states' rights. it would restore to the states the power they enjoyed for over 200 years from the founding of the republic, the power to say enough, the power to say that

30% or 50% or whatever the state deems appropriate should be the limit on interest charged to their paoefplt -- to their people. madam president, the current system isn't only unfair to consumers. it's unfair to our local lenders and retailers that continue to be bound by the laws of the state in which they're located. this is a special privilege for big national banks that can move their offices to whatever state will give them the best deal in terms of lousy consumer protection and unlimited interest rates. a small local lender has to play by the rules of fair interest rates. but gigantic national credit card companies can avoid having any rules at all. we need to level the playing field to eliminate this unfair and lucrative advantage for wal street banks against our local credit unions and other small lenders. when we pass this bill, states can dust off or reenact their

usury statutes, most of which at least nominally limit interest rates to 18% or less. and once again begin protecting their consumers from excessive interest rates. this is the historic norm in our constitutional republic. it is the 30% and over interest rates that are the recent anomaly, that are the historic peculiarity. we should go back to the historic states' rights norm, the way the founding fathers saw things under the doctrine of filfederalism, and close this modern bureaucratic loophole that allows big wall street banks a special deal to gouge our constituents. as i close, i want to thank senators levin and durbin and

begich and franken and reed of rhode island most significantly, my senior senator, and sanders and merkley for their cosponsorship of this bill. in the past, similar legislation has garnered bipartisan support. it did so as an amendment to dodd-frank, indeed, and i hope my republican colleagues will consider giving this bill a close look and joining with us. this is purely an issue of restoring the balance of power to the states and to the people of those states as voters federalism, something i know many republicans support in other contexts. so i ask all of my colleagues for their consideration and support, and i thank the chair and yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: madam president, i ask that the proceedings under the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: madam president, i rise today in opposition to s.j. res. number 6. this is the resolution that has been put forward that would basically roll back the f.c.c.'s

compromise over what we all debated around, net neutrality. this is a subject area and interest area that i have more than a passing interest in. it is a subject that i had the good fortune and an area that i had the good fortune to be involved in business in for over 20 years before i got involved full time in politics and public service. i think i, and i know the presiding officer and probably most all of us in this body recognize that the power of telecommunications, the power of the internet to transform people's lives has been remarkable. demand for internet use is growing dramatically. today nearly two billion people use the internet. by the time -- by 2015, and that's a mere four years from now, that number is expected to

reach 2.7 billion. that's pretty significant. 2.7 billion people using the internet when out of a total worldwide population, as we saw earlier this week of seven billion folks. we're rapidly hitting the point where nearly half of the world will use the internet in one form or another in how they communicate, how we affect commerce, how we socially interact. this is a tool making sure this tool, this network, this technology, this transformative field remains open, free and available to all and isn't unduly hindered by government regulation, something that i know we all aspire to. yet, even as we see this interest growth in the internet, we see constraints. constraints put on by spectrum

resources and access to high-speed broadband. we see the spectrum constraint taking place at the same time as -- particularly mobile app providers seem to be multiplying day by day. there are already over 600,000 applications this you caapplican your apple phone. android now has over 500,000 apps. one of the most incredible things is the united states, which in many ways -- and while certain different figures lay claim to perhaps inventing the internet, the truth is the internet was developed by government research linking a whole series of computer networks back in the late-1980's and into the early 1990's while the united states has been at the forefront of internet development, unfortunately due to certain amounts of these

broadband constraints and spectrum constraints, the united states is no longer in that leadership role. for example, homes in south korea have greater access to greater, faster access to broadband than we do. so the question we have and the question that the senate in this resolution is debating is, how do we make sure that we continue to grow access to broadband, make sure that the internet, with all its wonderful, new ally cations, is available in the most -- wonderful, new, applications is available in the most tech million to technology. the f.c.c. is thate ppropriate place to be wrestling with this issue. they came out with an order that reached some level of compromise between a series of very strong competing interests.

by no means do i believe that the f.c.c. december order was perfect. but it does represent a dramatic step forward, and a step forward that the majority of players in the industry have reached some accommodation on. i don't believe this order in itself is a sufficient answer. i do believe we in congress are going to need at some point to come back and review rt telecommunication act of 1996, while that offered great promise and as somebody who was still at the private sector at the moment in time, someone who thought we were going to see true access at that time, that didn't come to pass. smack, i have got a number of -- as a matter of fact, i have the g.a.o. number of companies that went down the tubes assuming that 1996 act would pass. it didn't pass. but having congress revisit the

1996 telecommunications act is not what is debating today. what is being debating today is whether we go ahead and allow the f.c.c.'s compromise proposition put out in december to move forward or whether we kind of reintroduce further politics into this issue, then we ought to not be letting politics stand in the way of technology and innovation moving forward. i do know some of my colleagues who feel otherwise on the other side of the aisle are actually thinking that the f.c.c.'s compromise order puts too much government regulation of intervention -- of innovation. i must respectfully disagree. if we were talking about too much government regulation of innovation, i would be strongly stansaying that that's not whate

ought to be doing. but what we are doing as we debate this so-called net-neutrality issue is we're talking about the rights and the responsibilities of network owners and operators to manage the internet and quite honestly, to allow them tow run successful businesses but to run successful businesses in a free and open way. we're also talking about the rights of consumers to have access for lawful content on the internet without any prejudice, without having that network provider being able to choose one content provider over another in terms of who gets, in effect, first dibs, first access to their network. and again, the history -- the regulatory history on this issue -- and this issue has been debated on and off not just this queer but for a number of years -- not just this year but for a number of years -- in many ways the current issue in 2005 when both the federal communication

commission and the supreme court determined separately that broadband services should be reclassified as information services under the 1996 telecommunications act instead of, as telecommunications services. now for those who don't live within the rather esoteric world of telecom regulation what does this mean in english? well, information services have always had a lighter touch of regulation than have telecommunications services. you think about the originals regulation of telecommunications services going back lsh -- almost back to the 1934 act when we had in effect one tkdz provider. it was ma bell. you could pick your phone, as long as tbas black and as long as everybody paid the same exact access fee. and when we had that kind of

monopolistic situation, clearly telecommunications had to be regulated in a more appropriate way to make sure that consumers were protected. as we saw the evolution of telecom move and the breakup of ma bell and the movie to other providers, telecom services still has required -- i think most folks would agree -- a slightly heavier hand of regulation than information services. so the notion back in 2005 when the supreme court and the f.c.c. said, when we've got this brand-new area of broadband, and area that in 23005 we didn't fully realize the potential -- even in 2011 i'm not sure we realize the full potential of -- but when we view this as information services and consequently have less regulation that should be viewed as a good sign. now, contrary to some in this debate, there's never been a

time when the management of the internet or the telecommunication networks which make up in effect the backbone of our internet system, was not regulated. as again i mentioned earlier, networks, college they are passing voice, data, now video or others, all have had some form of regulation going back to the telecommunications act of 1934. so the question we've been -- we're asked here today is, what kind of rules do we want to have as an aside, to make sure that everyone can have free and unfettered access to the internet and set their lawful co shall -- and so that their lawful content can get onto the internet in a way that again isn't biased or prejudiced by the telecommunications provider in the background? to me, that means that internet

service providers have the right -- have to have the right to manage the networks the best they can. and that does mean that network providers have to have the ability to manage some level of content so they can generate enough revenue so they can continue to build out their networks so that particularly rural communities can have access to these services. i know the presiding officer in parts of northern new hampshire there are still areas that don't have full high-speed internet broadband access. i know in my area, there are still areas that don't have access to full, high-speed broadband connections. and while broadband connectivity doesn't guarantee you economic success, it pretty much is a prerequisite for any community if they're even going to get looked at as a possible new location for new jobs. so we've got to make sure that you will communities get access

to broadband and that means you've got to allow the network providers at least a rate of return to give them the incentives to continue to build out -- build out their networks. but will also means -- the flip side of this argument, while the networks have to be able to manage the telecom providers and continue to build them out, it also means that these i.s.p. -- internet service providers -- cannot discriminate against content providers access to net "w." it doesn't mean that a network provider ought to be able to say, i like this content more than that set of content, particularly if the network provider happens to own that content and somehow move it to the front of the line. that goes against the grain of everything that has been about providing telecommunications in this country, again since the 1934 act. and if it was -- if this was a

simple matter, the industry, the f.c.c., and others wouldn't have been wrestling with it as dramatically as they have over the last five or six years. the fact is that network management is increasingly complicated. so complicated that sometimes it's hard to tell exactly what's going on behind the scenes. as a former telecommunications executive and somebody who spent 20 years being involved in helping try to build out at least part of the wireless network in this country but as somebody who also is at this point falling behind on all the current technology innovations, i'd like to comment that i was very current circa 1999, which puts me in 2011 a bit behind, but while behind, i do recognize and understand that network

management in 2011 and going forward is extraordinarily challenging. new technologies that allow for prioritization of network traffic, dee deep-pact inspectin and the increasing use of metered service and usage-based pricing -- all these combining factors, combined with an effort to try to make sure that we are, in effect, technology-neutral in terms of how we get this high-speed broadband information, whether it's wired, wireless, satellite o otherwise, really makes these issues extraordinarily difficult for policy makers to wrestle with. so it was in that vein that the s.e.c. conducted -- the f.c.c. conducted a process to address concerns to main main neutral access to the internet. so in december 23010, the f.c.c. adopted an open internet order

which is expected to be implemented on november 20 of this year, 2011. again, as i said at the outset, the order that they put forward is not perfect. there are many in the industry who have a partial bone to pick with various technical components. but the fact is what the f.c.c.don -- and i give chairman genachowski credit -- is the ability to thread the need until a way that while no one is totally happy, no one is totally unhappy and this issue of net neutrality can now be in effect dealt with by the order and we can move on to the next step of the debate, which is how do we make sure that we actually complete the buildout of net "w" particularly to rural communities around america? what does the f.c.c. order do? it basically sets three basic rules for how network owners --

i.s.p.'s -- must handle internet traffic. first, it offers greater transparency about fixed and mobile network management practices to both consumers and content providers. this is terribly important. without that transparency, without that knowledge to kind of see what you're getting as a consumer or if you're a content provider making sure that your traffic is not being bumped out of line by some large network operator, is terribly important. second, it prevents fixed and mobile network providers from blocking traffic generated by competitors to varying degrees. again what does this mean? it means that if you are a network manager, if you are a network provider, and many network providers are now starting to also own content as well, you want to make sure that if you are a competitor in terms

of content provider, that your network -- the network that you may be putting your traffic on that has its own set of content isn't allowing its network-owned content to get priority, to get an unfair advantage. again, in terms of if the networks are going to be in effect the kind of open, accessible and neutral networks that we've all come to expect from our telecommunications networks in the past, you got to make sure there is no bias, the second part of what the f.c.c.'s order does is try to mik make se that these fixed network providers aren't able to block access. third it prohibits fixed broadband providers from unreasonable discriminatory practices. again, this is about both content but it also tries to get at that issue of what do you deal, how do you deal with those folks who have huge amounts of

content that in effect try to flood the network that can cause clogging of the network? you got to make sure that -- we want to have wop access. you can't have people so overwhelm the network with their particular content without some ablght to price that -- ability to price that in the network provider's basic service offerings. again, i know many of my colleagues may -- their eyes are starting to gel. i even see some of the pages' eyes are starting to gel as we dive into some of the candidate is is of tele-- intracacies of some of the telecommunication, f.c.c.'s practices here. but at the end of the day, unless the senate rejects it and throws all the work out the

window and says let's go back to square one, which i think would do great harm to the progress made and provide even greater uncertainty to one of the fastest-growing areas of our economy -- telecommunications and broadband -- if we reject this senate joint resolution 6, which i hope we will, allow this compromise that the f.c.c. worked out to move forward, i do believe it will allow the kind of broadband growth, the kind of internet growth that we've all come to want, expect, and that will help generate jobs in this country. again, the wireless issues, a couple of final points, the wireless issues in this area are particularly challenging. wireless, at least in terms of broadband is a newer technology. and, again, the f.c.c. in this area decided to adopt a lighter hand of regulation than the more

strict full telecommunications regulation of the 1996 act in terms of mobile. and we've seen this tremendous growth in mobile. as of december 2010, 26% of u.s. households were wireless only compared to about 8% of the households five years ago. the point here is a dramatic one. i think about my kids who, as they start to move to their own homes or even to college, don't even have a fixed wireless phone in their apartment in college. they will rely entirely on wireless. we've got to make sure that we can continue to build out these wireless networks in the most robust way possible. again, i think the f.c.c. basically pwot it right by -- basically got it right by not putting a more heavy hand of regulation on this wireless buildout but by putting the lighter hand of regulation.

in closing, to me the real issue is how do we assure consumers and content providers are treated fairly? the internet was designed as an open medium where every service and web site had an opportunity to gain a following and to be successful th-fplt floss -- this philosophy allows bloggers to compete with mainstream media and entrepreneurs across all sectors to compete globally. small and medium businesses that rely heavily on web technologies to grow and export two times as much businesses as those that don't according to mackenzie. some have argued that neither the congress nor the f.c.c. should do anything in this area because there isn't a widespread problem currently. it is important to remember that the reason that the internet has been successful, so successful has been the fact that no one has been able to control it. no network provider alone, no content provider alone. i hope that never changes.

and i do believe that the resolution that the f.c.c. reached in their order in december that, again, my hope is that the congress will move forward on and allow to go into action; again, help set those minimum rules of the road that will allow both internet growth, broadband growth, mobile growth, all areas where the united states can regain the lead and in regaining that lead continue to create jobs and advance prosperity. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: mr. president, i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. pryor: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we are considering some veterans legislation this week, and i rise today to recognize the men and women who have selfishly served our nation -- selflessly

served our nation. veterans day is approaching. it's one way to remind ourselves that the sacrifices so many have made and continue to make for our country. we pay tribute to individuals like specialist sarina butcher. for the past 18 months she served with valor and distinction in afghanistan as an automated logistical specialist with the army national guard. she earned awards including the national defense service medal, the army service ribbon, and the oklahoma good conduct medal. she dreamed of becoming a nurse, joining the guard to help her along that path to support her two-year-old daughter. last week at 19 years old, specialist butcher paid the ultimate sacrifice. specialist butcher was the first female oklahoma national guard soldier to be killed during wartime and the youngest guard member to die in combat in iraq

and afghanistan. i spoke to her mother, a resident of eldorado, arkansas, and she stressed how her daughter loved serving our nation. my prayers and all of our prayers are with her family. i would also like to recognize could remember david bixler of harrison, arkansas. i recently had a chance to meet david, one of five service members chosen by the u.s.o. for bravery and sacrifice. while on foot patrol in afghanistan, could remember bix -- corporal bixler served on an phroebgs seive life. the explosion resulted in the loss of both of his legs. i was moved by his unwavering strength and courage. i also spoke with his young daughter and it was easy to see the pride that she has for her father. these two heroes, sarina and david are part of a long list of

arkansans throughout our state's history that answered the call to serve. their resolve, like the same -- like that same dedication and love of country that brought down osama bin laden was passed down through generations before them. they joined the ranks the second lieutenant john alexander of helena, the second african-american graduate from west point. brigadier general william darby of fort smith, first commander of u.s. army rangers. and captain maurice footsee britt of carlisle, the first to receive the military's three highest medals for bravery. arkansans serving in the military have never wavered when their country called, whether active guard or reserve, they have participated in our current efforts abroad and countless previous ones. these efforts continue to this

day. for example, the arkansas national guard's agriculture development team worked with the farmers and herdsmen in south afghanistan. the 77th theatre aviation brigades were in iraq with command and control assets in the south. little rock air force base continues to support tactical molt operations -- military operations around the global while training future airlifters. today our country is facing many challenges from rising unemployment among our veterans to ever-tightening budgets. we should not let our current financial difficulties take away the support we owe the, those who served. when looking for d.o.d. savings, we must keep in mind that when these individuals joined the service, both sides made a commitment. we must honor these commitments. when looking for ways to save, we should put our focus on improving processes and

capitalize on efficiencies where we can. for example, i recently introduced the veterans relief act designed to reduce the backlog at the court of appeals for veterans claims. i will continue to work for similar ways to streamline processes, improve efficiencies and honor the obligations to those who served. today i look at our veterans and say thank you. thank you for your service. thank you for your sacrifice. and thank you for your dedication to our country. it is impossible for me to articulate the scale of my grad taoud and i will -- gratitude and i will continue to support measures that honor the veterans of yesterday, today and tomorrow. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. mccaskill: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 315, introduced he willier today. the presiding officer: there is a quorum call in progress. ms. mccaskill: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mccaskill: i ask that the senate proceed to s. res. 315 introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: commending the s. louis cardinals on their hard-fought world series victory. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will froatd measure. ms. mccaskill: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate and any related statements be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mccaskill: mr. president, in st. louis this fall, we had

many things that were special and different. we had the rally squirrel that ran through one of the playoff games. we had the happy flight. and happy flight became synonymous with a team that was chalking up improbable victories night after night, day after day. this speech is -- i'm going to term it a happy speech. i've had to give a number of speeches on the floor of the senate since he have a been bless the enough to be given this opportunity to serve my state. sometimes i come to the floor angry. sometimes i come to the floor frustrated or upset. sometimes i come with a passion for a piece of policy that i think is essential in terms of our government operating the way we would want it to operate. today i just come happy. i just come happy with the notion that our team provided the kind of thrills that baseball yearns for in this

country, especially at these moments when many families are faced with long days and tough decisions as they try to right the ship, as we've traveled through a very difficult economy. the 2011 world series was an unlikely one for our cardinals. it wasn't supposed to happen. bookies made a lot of money off the world series this year because the cardinals weren't supposed to be in it. the cardinals were 10.5 games out with 30 days to go. in fact, the cardinals secured their wildcard berth on the last day of the season, at the 11th hour. and as a wildcard team, they weren't supposed to do well. they weren't supposed to beat philadelphia. that wasn't going to happen. philadelphia is one of the top-three payrolls in baseball, right? that wasn't going to happen. well it did. and we won against philadelphia,

and then we took on the mighty brewers, the winner of our division, and of course we won that also. and then it was on to the texas rangers, who were supposed to win this year because they won it last year and we weren't supposed to be able to compete with the depth and breadth of the texas lineup and as everyone now knows, that's not how the story ended. it was special world series, a unique world series. it was competitive. it was fun. i was lucky enough to be able to be at some of the games. i was at game three when albert pujols put on a show for the road. he showed everyone why he is the best player in baseball. three towering home runs in one world series game and all of ad is his name was in the same sentence as lou gehrig. it was a special night to watch the cardinals pound the rangers in arlington, texas. but the rangers came back the

next night to win and the next night after that. and the cardinals returned to st. louis once again with their backs against the wall, once again everyone assuming it was over because all the rangers had to do was win one game. and that's when game six occurred. and i was lucky enough to be at game six, and i'm saving my ticket stub for generations to come. people in st. louis are going to claim they were at game six. i am going to save the proof because all of us will never forget game six. at our 11th hour, trying to win our 11th world championship in the year 2011, our hometown guy right from st. lou graduated from lafayette high school, walked to the plate in the 11th inning, after the cardinals twice with two outs

and two strikes saved the game by getting a hit -- twice. not once but twice. so there we were in the bottom of the 11th with the score tied. and our hometown guy at our 11th hour in the 11th inning in the year 2011 cracked the bat and that ball sailed out for a home run and we had won the most improbable and exciting victory in world series history. now, you know, maybe that's hyperbole. but honestly, i don't think so. find someone who watched that game who knows baseball, and they will tell you that that is among one of the very best world series games in the history of american baseball. and what a history that is. with that one crack of the bat, cardinal nation became cardinal

world. and all of the world stood in amazement as we cheered like crazy for our card nassments -- for our cardinals. what did this team do this year? we had a masterful manager who we'll miss very much. we had david freis, our hometown guy, we had albert pujol snchts we had carp, who is just amazing as a pitcher. we had a bullpen, that rose. we had yadi. we had craig. we had so many of our players that did what had to be done when it had to be done to deliver a world series championship to a city that loves them more than we love the

arch and more than we love our beer. for years now young people will be told over and over again that cliche, "you need to fries t reo quit. you can never give up." and i've got to he will thank you the truth. it's a cliche i've used with my own kids. they're moping around, oh, my life is howcial. say, you can't quit. you can't give up. this team going to allow parents and teens in st. lou toys say for many, many years, see ... see what happens when you don't give up? see what happens when you refuse to quit? you can win a championship if you just refuse to die. and that's exactly what our cardinals did. on behalf of cardinal nation and thousands and thousands of people around this country that were proud of what st. louis represented, a fall classic with our classic cardinals bringing

home the victory for a city that loves them. god bless them all and god bless the fans that understand that it's okay to cheer for a sack fly, that understand baseball better than most fans around the country, that will now wait anxiously for spring training so we can begin once again our love affair with the st. you louis cardinals. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i ask for a quarrel. -- and i ask for a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. *67 quorum call: